Compliance Just Got Easier: Stay ahead of regulatory changes with instant notifications on updates that matter.

FREE TRIAL UPGRADE!
Thank you for investing in EnvironmentalHazmatHuman ResourcesHuman Resources, Hazmat & Environmental related content. Click 'UPGRADE' to continue.
CANCEL
YOU'RE ALL SET!
Enjoy your limited-time access to the Compliance Network!
A confirmation welcome email has been sent to your email address from ComplianceNetwork@t.jjkellercompliancenetwork.com. Please check your spam/junk folder if you can't find it in your inbox.
YOU'RE ALL SET!
Thank you for your interest in EnvironmentalHazmatHuman ResourcesHuman Resources, Hazmat & Environmental related content.
WHOOPS!
You've reached your limit of free access, if you'd like more info, please contact us at 800-327-6868.
You'll also get exclusive access to:
Already have an account? .

As the unemployment rate hovers around 3.5 percent, and a significant worker shortage persists in some industries, employers may wonder if an employee’s off-duty marijuana use is worth worrying about.

More employers are foregoing pre-employment marijuana testing, which can show that a job candidate used marijuana sometime within the past 30 days or so.

Employers who test for marijuana may fear they’re losing too many good job candidates to a positive test, or feel that an employee’s use away from work won’t hurt their ability to do the job. In some cases, a state law prevents an employer from testing.

What should employers do? It depends on the situation:

Yes, test: Federal law requires it

Some employees, such as truck drivers or pipeline workers, may be covered by federal regulations that require them to take drug tests. When this is the case, federal regulations must be followed. These regulations require employees to be tested for marijuana and the workers face consequences when a test is positive.

Leaning toward yes: Safety-sensitive job duties

If employees might pose a danger to themselves or others while impaired, a pre-employment drug test for marijuana is recommended when it’s allowed by state law. Employees who operate heavy machinery, drive a forklift, or drive to customer locations fall into this category.

Leaning toward yes: Supervisors aren’t trained

Testing is designed to screen out marijuana users and discourage marijuana users from applying for a position. If pre-employment tests aren’t done, there’s a higher probability that a supervisor will have to deal with an issue relating to impairment. When an employer doesn’t do pre-employment testing for marijuana, supervisors should be trained to spot signs of impairment. They should also know what to do when they see an employee who may be impaired by marijuana, alcohol, or another drug.

Probably not: Safety isn’t an issue

Testing is designed to screen out marijuana users and discourage marijuana users from applying for a position. If pre-employment tests aren’t done, there’s a higher probability that a supervisor will have to deal with an issue relating to impairment. When an employer doesn’t do pre-employment testing for marijuana, supervisors should be trained to spot signs of impairment. They should also know what to do when they see an employee who may be impaired by marijuana, alcohol, or another drug.

Definitely not: State law prohibits it

In some states, such as New York, marijuana testing is prohibited. Other states, such as Nevada, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, have some restrictions. Unless they’re following federal regulations that require testing, employers always need to follow state drug testing and marijuana laws. When these laws prohibit testing, cannabis can’t be included on the drug testing panel.

Key to remember: The decision to do a pre-employment test for marijuana will depend on an employee’s job duties and the state and federal laws that apply.

Specialized Industries

Go beyond the regulations! Visit the Institute for in-depth guidance on a wide range of compliance subjects in safety and health, transportation, environment, and human resources.

J. J. Keller® COMPLIANCE NETWORK is a premier online safety and compliance community, offering members exclusive access to timely regulatory content in workplace safety (OSHA), transportation (DOT), environment (EPA), and human resources (DOL).

Interact With Our Compliance Experts

Puzzled by a regulatory question or issue? Let our renowned experts provide the answers and get your business on track to full compliance!

Upcoming Events

Reference the Compliance Network Safety Calendar to keep track of upcoming safety and compliance events. Browse by industry or search by keyword to see relevant dates and observances, including national safety months, compliance deadlines, and more.

SAFETY & COMPLIANCE NEWS

Keep up with the latest regulatory developments from OSHA, DOT, EPA, DOL, and more.

REGSENSE® REGULATORY REFERENCE

Explore a comprehensive database of word-for-word regulations on a wide range of compliance topics, with simplified explanations and best practices advice from our experts.

THE J. J. KELLER INSTITUTE

The Institute is your destination for in-depth content on 120+ compliance subjects. Discover articles, videos, and interactive exercises that will strengthen your understanding of regulatory concepts relevant to your business.

ADD HAZMAT, ENVIRONMENTAL, & HR RESOURCES

Unlock exclusive content offering expert insights into hazmat, environmental, and human resources compliance with a COMPLIANCE NETWORK EDGE membership.

DIRECT ACCESS TO COMPLIANCE EXPERTS

Struggling with a compliance challenge? Get the solution from our in-house team of experts! You can submit a question to our experts by email, set up a phone or video call, or request a detailed research report.

EVENTS

Register to attend live online events hosted by our experts. These webcasts and virtual conferences feature engaging discussions on important compliance topics in a casual, knowledge-sharing environment.

Most Recent Highlights In Environmental

Hazardous waste manifests: Hybrid vs. fully electronic
2026-04-28T05:00:00Z

Hazardous waste manifests: Hybrid vs. fully electronic

More industries are embracing the exclusive use of electronic platforms. For example, digital payments are replacing cash, news sites are going fully online, and cloud storage is eclipsing external computer storage. And, based on recent proposed rulemaking, hazardous waste manifests may join the list.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the Paper Manifest Sunset Rule in March 2026, planning to shift to electronic-only manifests for tracking hazardous waste that’s regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

If the proposed rule is finalized, regulated entities will have to track all hazardous waste shipments electronically. Specifically, generators, transporters, and receiving facilities could only use hybrid or fully electronic manifests on the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System (e-Manifest).

So, what are the differences between hybrid and fully electronic manifests? Let’s compare the distinctions and explore some of the benefits that electronic manifests can offer.

What’s a hybrid manifest?

EPA initially established the hybrid manifest for generators that couldn’t fully participate in electronic manifests when the e-Manifest launched in 2018. The hybrid manifest combines paper and electronic manifests, allowing generators that aren’t registered in e-Manifest or don’t have an EPA identification (ID) number to sign printed copies of electronic manifests.

Here’s the general hybrid manifest process:

  • The first transporter initiates an electronic manifest in e-Manifest. A hard copy of the electronic manifest is printed out, and the generator and initial transporter sign the paper copy.
  • The generator keeps a signed paper copy on-site. The transporter keeps a signed paper copy with the shipment until it’s delivered to the receiving facility.
  • From that point forward, the initial transporter and all subsequent waste handlers track the shipment in e-Manifest (using electronic signatures and electronic transmissions).
  • The manifest is complete when the receiving facility or exporter electronically signs it on e-Manifest.

What’s a fully electronic manifest?

The fully electronic manifest is tracked completely online. All handlers — generators, transporters, and receiving facilities or exporters — must have an EPA ID number and be registered in e-Manifest to use the fully electronic manifest.

The entire process is conducted on e-Manifest:

  • The manifest is created electronically in e-Manifest.
  • All handlers electronically sign the manifest in e-Manifest.
  • The manifest is complete when the receiving facility or exporter electronically signs it on e-Manifest.

What benefits do electronic manifests offer?

Regardless of whether EPA’s rule is finalized as is, electronic manifests offer hazardous waste handlers a range of benefits. Consider the following potential perks.

Compliance with existing regulations

Many handlers are already required to embrace electronic manifesting. In July 2024, EPA finalized the e-Manifest Third Rule, which requires:

  • Large quantity generators and small quantity generators to register for e-Manifest,
  • Exporters to submit manifests and continuation sheets to e-Manifest (and pay the associated fees), and
  • Waste handlers to submit manifest-related reports and data corrections to e-Manifest.

Streamlined recordkeeping for generators

Hazardous waste handlers using e-Manifest automatically meet the recordkeeping requirements to maintain records of manifests (paper or electronic) since the manifests are retained electronically in the system.

This eliminates the need to keep hard copies. It also provides a centralized place where handlers can access these documents at any time.

However, the provision doesn’t apply to generators using hybrid manifests; they must keep the initial paper copies of the electronic manifest for 3 years.

Reduced costs

Embracing electronic manifesting removes the costs associated with printing paper manifests from EPA-approved sources.

Keep in mind, there’s an unavoidable cost for receiving facilities and exporters. These entities have to pay user fees for each manifest they submit to e-Manifest.

Proactive preparation

EPA’s proposed Paper Manifest Sunset Rule would prohibit the use of paper manifests 2 years after the publication of a final rule. Hazardous waste handlers who transition to using only electronic manifests now will be better prepared to comply with future regulations. It gives businesses time to coordinate resources and address any unexpected issues.

Key to remember: Do you know the differences between hybrid and fully electronic hazardous waste manifests? The distinctions could be the difference between compliance and noncompliance.

EPA publishes first round of expiring TSCA CBI claims
2026-04-27T05:00:00Z

EPA publishes first round of expiring TSCA CBI claims

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the first list of expiring Confidential Business Information (CBI) claims for information submitted under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The list covers CBI claims that expire from June 22, 2026, to July 31, 2026.

What are expiring CBI claims?

The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (which became law in June 2016) set an automatic 10-year expiration for most CBI claims made under TSCA. The first round of claims submitted since the act took effect will expire in June 2026.

EPA allows businesses to request extensions of CBI protection for up to another 10 years.

How do I know if my CBI claims are expiring?

EPA will notify businesses of expiring CBI claims directly through the Central Data Exchange (CDX), the agency's electronic reporting platform.

The agency will also release public lists of upcoming expiring CBI claims monthly on the “CBI Claim Expiration” webpage. EPA encourages businesses to review the lists to verify whether any of their claims are included.

How do I request an extension of expiring CBI claims?

Businesses seeking to extend a CBI claim beyond its expiration date must submit an extension request at least 30 days before the claim expires using the newly launched TSCA Section 14(e) CBI Claim Extension Request application in EPA’s CDX.

Here’s the general process:

  • EPA notifies the business of an expiring CBI claim directly through CDX and via the public lists on the “CBI Claim Expiration” webpage.
  • The business submits a request for extension through EPA’s CDX at least 30 days before the CBI claim expires. Requests must comply with the substantiation requirements at 40 CFR 703.5(a) and (b).
  • EPA reviews the submission and either grants or denies the request.

What are the possible outcomes?

If EPA approves the extension request, the information in the CBI claim will remain protected for up to another 10 years.

If EPA denies the extension request, the agency can publicize the information in the claim 30 days after notifying the submitter in CDX. Additionally, if a business doesn’t submit an extension request at least 30 days before the expiration date, EPA may publicize the information without notifying the submitter.

Key to remember: EPA published the first round of expiring CBI claims for information submitted under TSCA. Businesses must submit extension requests to keep the information protected.

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

North Dakota establishes AST regulations

Effective date: April 1, 2026

This applies to: Owners and operators of aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) and liquid fuel storage tanks

Description of change: The Department of Environmental Quality adopted technical standards and corrective action requirements for ASTs. The department also approved amendments to the registration dates and fee categories of the Petroleum Tank Release Compensation Fund for liquid fuels storage tanks.

Related state info: Aboveground storage tanks (ASTs) state comparison — ASTs

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

Ohio finalizes sewage sludge amendments

Effective date: March 1, 2026

This applies to: Facilities regulated by the sewage sludge program

Description of change: The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency finalized changes to the sewage sludge program through its 5-year review of the regulations. The approved amendments:

  • Add professional operator of record requirements for privately owned treatment works;
  • Increase and add isolation distances for facilities;
  • Prohibit beneficial use of biosolids within a vulnerable hydrogeological setting;
  • Remove dioxin monitoring requirements; and
  • Add requirements for beneficial user certification (including the application and examination process, recordkeeping requirements, and reasons for suspending or revoking a certification).
2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

New Mexico adopts Clean Transportation Fuel Program rules

Effective date: April 1, 2026

This applies to: Transportation fuel produced in, imported into, or dispensed for use in New Mexico

Description of change: The New Mexico Environment Department finalized regulations to implement the Clean Transportation Fuel Program (CTFP) to reduce the carbon intensity of transportation fuel (including gasoline and diesel). The program covers transportation fuel producers, importers, and dispensers.

The CTFP:

  • Establishes annual statewide carbon intensity standards that apply to transportation fuel (e.g., gasoline and diesel) produced, imported, and dispensed for use in New Mexico;
  • Allocates credits and calculates deficits for regulated entities based on the fuel’s carbon intensity; and
  • Sets up a marketplace for selling and purchasing credits to comply with the carbon intensity standards.

The first compliance period runs from April 1, 2026, to December 31, 2027. The first compliance period report is due by April 30, 2028. Annual compliance reports will be due by April 30 for the previous calendar year.

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

Maine lists materials covered for packaging stewardship program

Effective date: March 3, 2026

This applies to: Entities subject to the Stewardship Program for Packaging Regulations

Description of change: The Maine Department of Environmental Protection’s amendments to the Stewardship Program for Packaging Regulations (06-096 C.M.R. Chapter 428) include:

  • Aligning the rules with changes made by An Act to Improve Recycling by Updating the Stewardship Program for Packaging (L.D. 1423), and
  • Adding Appendix A — The Packaging Material Types List to the Stewardship Program for Packaging Regulations.

L.D. 1423:

  • Excludes certain commercial, cosmetic, medical, environmental, dangerous, hazardous, and flammable product packaging from the program requirements;
  • Excludes packaging of products related to public health and water quality testing from the program requirements;
  • Requires the department to adopt a process for approving a producer payment system; and
  • Updates definitions for clarity.

Appendix A defines packaging material and designates the material types readily recyclable as applicable. It may also designate materials as compostable or reusable.

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

California adopts permanent illegal disposal rules

Effective date: March 4, 2026

This applies to: Entities that handle, transfer, compost, transform, or dispose of solid waste

Description of change: CalRecycle made permanent the current illegal disposal emergency regulations, allowing enforcement agencies to take action against any person who illegally disposes of solid waste.

The rule also:

  • Adds the land application activities to the regulations, making the activities subject to the permitting tier structure and associated requirements (i.e., operator filing requirements, state minimum standards, recordkeeping, and enforcement agency inspection requirements); and
  • Amends sampling and recordkeeping for solid waste facilities, operations, and activities.
2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

West Virginia establishes fee schedule for UIC Program

Effective date: March 4, 2026

This applies to: Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program permittees

Description of change: This rule establishes the schedules of fees for carbon dioxide capture and sequestration authorized by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection’s (WVDEP’s) Division of Water and Waste Management.

EPA granted primacy to the WVDEP to implement the UIC Program for Class VI wells in February 2025.

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

Colorado extends timeline to comply with GHG intensity targets

Effective date: April 14, 2026

This applies to: Small operators in the oil and gas sector

Description of change: The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission revised the intensity targets for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for small oil and gas operators (those with less than 45 thousand barrels of oil equivalent (kBOE) production in 2025). The commission extended the first deadline to 2030 for small operators to meet applicable intensity requirements.

However, small operators must still submit the intensity plan for the 2027 targets, which is due by June 30, 2026.

Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison — Clean air operating permits

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

Colorado finalizes state dredge and fill permit regulations

Effective date: March 30, 2026

This applies to: Projects that require preconstruction notification or compensatory mitigation

Description of change: The Colorado Water Quality Control Division finalized rules for implementing a state dredge and fill discharge authorization program established by HB24-1379. The program covers state waters that aren’t subject to federal dredge and fill permitting requirements under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

The division will continue issuing Temporary Authorizations until August 31, 2026. After that, applicants must apply for coverage under General Authorizations. The division already accepts applications for Individual Authorizations.

Related state info: Construction water permitting — Colorado

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

New York adds wastewater cybersecurity rules

Effective date: March 26, 2026

This applies to: Wastewater treatment facilities

Description of change: The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation added cybersecurity regulations for wastewater treatment facilities. The rules:

  • Require all State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permittees to report cybersecurity incidents,
  • Require publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) to establish, maintain, and implement an Emergency Response Plan and certify compliance with the provisions annually by March 28;
  • Establish baseline cybersecurity control requirements;
  • Add network monitoring and logging for certain POTWs with design flows of 10 million+ gallons per day; and
  • Require wastewater treatment plant operators to complete a minimum number of training hours within their existing required hours on cybersecurity to renew certification every 5 years.
2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

California permanently adopts EPA’s conditional exemption for airbag waste

Effective date: March 6, 2026

This applies to: Airbag waste handlers and transporters

Description of change: The California Department of Toxic Substances Control permanently adopted the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) interim final rule that allows airbag waste handlers and transporters to meet less stringent hazardous waste requirements (e.g., not manifesting the waste) if they meet certain conditions. Once the airbag waste is received at a collection facility or designated facility for proper disposal, it must be managed as hazardous waste.

The scope of the rule applies to all airbag waste, including recalled airbag inflators.

Related state info: Hazardous waste generators — California

2026-04-24T05:00:00Z

New Jersey extends polystyrene foam exemption

Effective date: March 12, 2026

This applies to: Certain polystyrene foam food service products

Description of change: The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection extended the exemption from the Single-Use Paper and Plastic Carryout Bags and Polystyrene Foam Food Service Products Rules for certain polystyrene foam products from May 4, 2026, to May 4, 2027. It applies to these polystyrene foam products:

  • Trays used for raw or butchered meat or fish that’s sold from a refrigerator or similar retail appliance;
  • Food products pre-packaged by the manufacturer in a polystyrene foam food service product;
  • Polystyrene foam food service products that are used for the health or safety of hospital, nursing home, or correctional facility patients or residents; and
  • Any other polystyrene foam food service product as determined needed by the department.
Effluent limitations: FAQs for direct dischargers of industrial wastewater
2026-04-16T05:00:00Z

Effluent limitations: FAQs for direct dischargers of industrial wastewater

Facilities across the country conduct industrial activities that generate wastewater containing pollutants and then release it directly into nearby surface waters, such as streams, rivers, or lakes. However, before any industrial wastewater can be discharged from a site, the facility must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses effluent limitations as the primary method to regulate direct discharges of industrial wastewater into waters of the United States. These restrictions are incorporated into NPDES permits.

Meeting effluent limitations is the key to compliance with NPDES permits. But like other environmental regulations, these standards can get complex quickly without a solid foundation of understanding. We’ve compiled common FAQs to help you become fluent in effluent limitations.

What’s effluent?

There’s no specific statutory or regulatory definition of “effluent.” Thankfully, a 1997 document from EPA entitled Terms of Environment: Glossary, Abbreviations, and Acronyms, Revised December 1997 (EPA 175-B-97-001) provides clarity, defining effluent as “wastewater — treated or untreated — that flows out of a treatment plant, sewer, or industrial outfall.”

What’s the difference between effluent guidelines and limitations?

There are subtle but important distinctions between these two terms.

Effluent guidelines (also known as effluent limitations guidelines and standards or ELGs) are the national industrial wastewater discharge standards established by EPA for all facilities in an industrial category.

The federal agency develops effluent guidelines based on the performance of the best available technology that’s economically achievable for an industry. Notably, effluent guidelines are technology-based; they’re not based on risk or impacts to receiving waters (i.e., water quality-based).

Federal effluent guidelines (40 CFR Subchapter N) for direct dischargers of industrial wastewater are implemented through the NPDES permitting program.

Effluent limitations are any restrictions imposed “on quantities, discharge rates, and concentrations of pollutants” from industrial wastewater discharges (122.2). Simply put, effluent limitations are the specific numeric and non-numeric requirements developed for facilities to comply with the effluent guidelines. Unlike effluent guidelines, effluent limitations may be both technology- and water quality-based.

Most states issue NPDES permits, except for the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico, where EPA serves as the permitting authority. The permit writer develops effluent limitations for NPDES permits and issues them to facilities. The permit may be general (covering multiple facilities with similar operations and discharges) or individual (customized with site-specific conditions).

What’s the bottom line? Effluent guidelines aren’t directly enforceable permit conditions, whereas effluent limitations are.

What are the types of effluent limitations?

Two categories of effluent limitations may appear in NPDES permits:

  • Technology-based effluent limitations (TBELs), and
  • Water quality-based effluent limitations (WQBELs).

TBELs are based on available treatment technologies and require facilities to meet a minimum level of treatment of pollutants in wastewater discharges.

WQBELs apply only when TBELs aren’t enough to achieve water quality standards. States develop total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). A TMDL is the maximum amount of a pollutant that can be discharged into a waterbody while still meeting the water quality standards. Specific portions of the TMDL are then allotted to permitted facilities (called wasteload allocation). Facilities can’t release more than their allocated amounts.

Any applicable wasteload allocations are incorporated into a facility’s NPDES permit.

Do facilities have to use specific control technologies?

Although EPA’s effluent guidelines are based on the use of a specific control technology, facilities aren’t required to install the same technology system. As long as they comply with the standards, facilities may implement other treatment technologies.

Key to remember: Understanding effluent limitations is key to complying with industrial wastewater discharge permits.

EPA proposes major changes to coal combustion residuals rules
2026-04-16T05:00:00Z

EPA proposes major changes to coal combustion residuals rules

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule on April 13, 2026, to revise the existing regulations governing the disposal of coal combustion residuals (CCR) in landfills and surface impoundments as well as the beneficial use of CCR.

Who’s impacted?

The proposed rule affects coal-fired electric utilities and independent power producers subject to the CCR disposal and beneficial use regulations at 40 CFR Part 257.

What are the changes?

Significant changes the EPA proposes include:

  • Adding an option for facilities to certify the closure of legacy CCR surface impoundments by CCR removal that were closed before November 8, 2024, under regulatory oversight;
  • Expanding the eligibility criteria for facilities to defer CCR closure requirements until site-specific determinations are made for legacy surface impoundments that were closed before November 8, 2024, under regulatory oversight;
  • Exempting CCR dewatering structures (used to dewater CCR waste for the disposal of CCR elsewhere) from federal CCR regulations (Part 257);
  • Rescinding all CCR management unit (CCRMU) requirements or revising the existing CCRMU regulations;
  • Allowing permit authorities to make site-specific determinations regarding certain requirements during permitting for CCR units complying with federal CCR groundwater monitoring, corrective action, and closure requirements under a federal or an approved-state CCR permit; and
  • Revising the beneficial use requirements by:
    • Removing the environmental demonstration requirement for non-roadway use of more than 12,400 tons of unencapsulated CCR; and
    • Excluding these beneficial uses from federal CCR regulations (Part 257):
      • CCR used in cement manufacturing at cement kilns,
      • Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum used in agriculture, and
      • FGD gypsum used in wallboard.

Key to remember: EPA plans to make significant amendments to the coal combustion residuals requirements.

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

What to know about the EPA’s proposed manifest sunset rule
2026-04-14T05:00:00Z

What to know about the EPA’s proposed manifest sunset rule

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking another major step toward modernizing hazardous waste tracking. The Agency’s proposed “manifest sunset rule” would officially phase out paper hazardous waste manifests and require the exclusive use of the e-Manifest system. For employers, especially those generating or managing hazardous waste, it’s a fundamental shift in how waste shipments are documented, tracked, and audited.

Since 2018, EPA’s e-Manifest system has been available as a digital alternative to paper manifests. Over the years, the agency has added requirements pushing the industry toward adoption, including mandatory registration and electronic data submission. But despite those efforts, many companies have continued to rely on paper manifests, either out of habit, convenience, or because parts of their waste chain weren’t ready to go digital. EPA even states in the proposed rule that less than one percent of all e-manifest users have completely switched to digital manifest. The proposed sunset rule is designed to close that gap. Once finalized, it would set a firm deadline (24 months) after which paper manifests would no longer be allowed.

Why EPA wants to eliminate paper manifests

EPA’s reasoning is pretty straightforward. Paper manifests are slower, easier to lose, and more prone to errors. They rely on manual handling and delayed processing, which can create gaps in tracking and compliance. A fully electronic system, on the other hand, allows for real-time visibility, standardized data entry, and faster correction of mistakes. It also gives regulators a clearer, more immediate picture of what’s happening across the entire waste life cycle.

Addressing one of the biggest digital barriers: signatures

One overlooked part of the proposed rule is how EPA is trying to solve one of the biggest barriers to going fully digital, which is signatures in the field. Anyone who has dealt with manifests knows that the weak point is often the hand-off between the generator and the transporter, especially when drivers don’t have system access or reliable connectivity. To address that, EPA is proposing new functionality that would allow users to sign manifests using quick response (QR) codes or even short message service (SMS). In practice, this could mean a driver scans a QR code or receives a text prompt, then completes the signature process directly from their phone. So, no login or full system access needed. EPA is also exploring the ability to use SMS and QR-based tools to make updates to manifest data without needing full system permissions. That’s a big deal operationally, because it removes one of the most common bottlenecks in needing a registered user at a specific site to make even minor corrections.

Operational challenges companies should expect

With that said, moving to a fully digital system still comes with potential issues. It requires coordination across your entire operation. Generators, transporters, and disposal facilities all have to be aligned and capable of using the system effectively. If one party in that chain struggles, it can create delays or compliance issues for everyone involved. There’s also an upfront investment to consider. Companies may need to upgrade internal systems, ensure reliable connectivity, and train employees in new work processes. For organizations with multiple sites or field operations, which can take some planning. But over time, many of those burdens are expected to decrease. Electronic signatures, reusable templates, and centralized record-keeping can significantly reduce administrative work.

One of the biggest shifts employers will notice is the level of visibility. With paper manifests, there’s often a lag between shipment and final documentation. In a digital system, that lag disappears. Information becomes available almost immediately, and regulators have access to the same data. That means errors or discrepancies are easier to find and harder to ignore.

The good news is that companies don’t have to wait for the final rule to start preparing. Taking a close look at your current manifest process is a good first step. If paper is still a major part of your workflow, that’s a clear signal that changes are coming. Making sure your e-Manifest account is fully set up and that employees understand how to use it, will go a long way in avoiding future disruptions.

Keys to remember: The EPA’s proposed Paper Manifest Sunset Rule would set a firm date to phase out paper hazardous waste manifests and require that all covered shipments be tracked through the agency’s electronic e‑Manifest system, in which the Agency says will improve hazardous‑waste tracking and transparency while reducing administrative burden and saving regulated entities roughly $28.5 million per year.

How incinerators are permitted: A look at the regulatory framework and EPA’s new streamlining proposal
2026-04-13T05:00:00Z

How incinerators are permitted: A look at the regulatory framework and EPA’s new streamlining proposal

Incinerators in the United States operate under a complex permitting framework designed to protect air quality, public health, and the environment. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), facilities that burn waste must meet strict emission standards, maintain operating controls, and follow extensive monitoring and reporting rules. These requirements ensure that incineration, while a valuable tool for waste management, wildfire mitigation, and disaster recovery, remains safe and consistent with federal air quality objectives. Against this backdrop, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed a rule to streamline permitting for specific types of incinerators used in wildfire prevention and disaster cleanup, a move that could reduce delays for state and local governments.

The regulatory basis for incinerator permitting

Most incinerators fall under Section 129 of the CAA, which mandates EPA to establish performance standards and emission guidelines for categories of solid waste combustion units. These standards govern pollutants such as particulate matter, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, lead, cadmium, mercury, hydrogen chloride, and dioxins/furans. Operators must also conduct emissions testing, maintain continuous monitoring equipment, track operational parameters, and submit regular compliance reports.

Permitting generally occurs through Title V operating permits, which consolidate all applicable air quality requirements into a single enforceable document. A Title V permit typically requires annual certifications, detailed recordkeeping, periodic emissions tests, and reporting of deviations. While the Title V program doesn't impose new standards, it ensures that incinerators comply with all existing federal and state air quality rules.

Different categories of incinerators, such as large municipal waste combustors (LMWC), small municipal waste combustors (SMWC), commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI), and other solid waste incinerators (OSWI), have distinct requirements. These subcategories reflect variations in unit size, waste composition, and operational design, and each has its own subpart under EPA’s air quality regulations.

Air curtain incinerators: A special case

Air curtain incinerators (ACIs), which burn wood waste, yard debris, and clean lumber, occupy a niche segment of the permitting landscape. They use a mechanized “curtain” of air to increase combustion efficiency and reduce particulate emissions compared to open burning. However, their regulatory treatment has historically been inconsistent.

Because ACIs fit partly within several existing subparts, operators often face confusion about which monitoring, opacity limits, and reporting duties apply. Overlap across four regulatory categories can create delays, particularly during emergencies when ACIs are deployed to remove vegetative fuels that increase wildfire risk or to process debris after storms.

EPA’s emergent focus on streamlining

In March 2026, EPA announced a proposal to consolidate the regulatory requirements for ACIs used solely to burn wood-derived materials into a single subpart under Section 129 of the CAA. The proposal would also allow these ACIs to operate without a Title V permit unless located at a facility that otherwise requires one.

EPA stated that the change would “cut red tape” and provide clarity for state, local, and Tribal governments, allowing them to respond more effectively to natural disasters and conduct wildfire mitigation activities without unnecessary administrative delays. The agency emphasized that unprocessed debris contributes to poor air and water quality and poses safety risks, particularly in post disaster environments.

Context: Broader federal actions on disaster-related incineration

The proposal follows earlier federal steps to ease the temporary use of incinerators during emergencies. In 2025, EPA issued an interim final rule permitting CISWI units to burn nonhazardous disaster debris for up to 8 weeks without prior EPA approval, a provision intended to accelerate cleanup after hurricanes, wildfires, and floods. These units must still operate their pollution control equipment, and extensions beyond 8 weeks require EPA authorization.

Such measures reflect the increasing volume of debris associated with severe weather events and the need for rapid, environmentally sound disposal mechanisms. The current proposal for ACIs builds on these efforts by targeting the specific regulatory bottlenecks associated with vegetative and wood waste disposal.

Looking ahead

EPA’s streamlined permitting proposal doesn't alter emission standards but rather clarifies and simplifies administrative pathways. If finalized, it may make ACIs more accessible during periods of heightened wildfire risk and in the critical early stages of disaster recovery.

Key to remember: At its core, the permitting system for incinerators aims to balance environmental protection with operational flexibility. The new proposal underscores EPA’s recognition that, in emergency contexts, speed matters but so does environmental stewardship.

EPA delays TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting timeline again
2026-04-13T05:00:00Z

EPA delays TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting timeline again

On April 13, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule that further delays the submission period for the one-time report required of manufacturers on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) by the PFAS Reporting and Recordkeeping Rule (PFAS Reporting Rule).

This final rule pushes the starting submission period to either 60 days after the effective date of a future final rule updating the PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027, whichever is earlier.

Who’s impacted?

Established under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Section 8(a)(7), the PFAS Reporting Rule (40 CFR Part 705) requires any business that manufactured (including imported) any PFAS or PFAS-containing article between 2011 and 2022 to report. Covered manufacturers and importers must submit information on:

  • Chemical identity, uses, and volumes made and processed;
  • Byproducts;
  • Environmental and health effects;
  • Worker exposure; and
  • Disposal.

What’s the new timeline?

The opening submission period was moved from April 13, 2026, to either 60 days after the effective date of a future final PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027, whichever is earlier.

Most manufacturers have 6 months to submit the report. Small manufacturers reporting only as importers of PFAS-containing articles have 1 year.

TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS Reporting Rule submission period
Start dateEnd date
Most manufacturers60 days from effective date of final PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027 (whichever is earlier)6 months from start date or July 31, 2027 (whichever is earlier)
Small manufacturers reporting solely as PFAS article importers60 days from effective date of final PFAS Reporting Rule or January 31, 2027 (whichever is earlier)1 year from start date or January 31, 2028 (whichever is earlier)

Why the delay?

In November 2025, the agency proposed updates to the PFAS Reporting Rule. EPA has delayed the reporting period to give the agency time to issue a final rule (expected later this year).

Key to remember: EPA has delayed the starting submission deadline for the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS Reporting Rule from April 2026 to no later than January 2027.

EPA amends specific oil and gas emission standards
2026-04-10T05:00:00Z

EPA amends specific oil and gas emission standards

On April 9, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule that makes technical changes to the emission standards established in March 2024 (2024 Final Rule) for crude oil and natural gas facilities. This rule (2026 Final Rule) amends the requirements for:

  • Temporary flaring of associated gas, and
  • Vent gas net heating value (NHV) monitoring provisions for flares and enclosed combustion devices (ECDs).

Who’s impacted?

The 2026 Final Rule affects new and existing oil and gas facilities. Specifically, it applies to the regulations for the Crude Oil and Natural Gas source category, including the:

  • New Source Performance Standards at 40 CFR 60 Subpart OOOOb, and
  • Emission guidelines at 60 Subpart OOOOc.

These emission standards are commonly referred to as OOOOb/c.

What are the changes?

The 2026 Final Rule implements technical changes to the temporary flaring and vent gas NHV monitoring requirements set by the 2024 Final Rule.

Temporary flaring

The rule extends the baseline time limit for temporary flaring of associated gas at well sites in certain situations (like conducting repairs or maintenance) from 24 to 72 hours. Owners and operators must stop temporary flaring as soon as the situation is resolved or the temporary flaring limit is reached (whichever happens first).

It also grants allowances beyond the 72-hour limit if exigent circumstances occur (such as severe weather that prevents safe access to a well site to address an emergency or maintenance issue) and there’s a need to extend duration for repairs, maintenance, or safety issues. Owners and operators must keep records of exigent circumstances and include the information in their annual reports.

NHV monitoring

For new and existing sources, the 2026 Final Rule exempts all flare types (unassisted and assisted) and ECDs from monitoring due to high NHV content, except when inert gases are added to the process streams or for other scenarios that decrease the NHV content of the inlet stream gas. In these cases, EPA requires NHV monitoring via continuous monitoring or the alternative performance test (sampling demonstration) option for all flares and ECDs.

Other significant changes include:

  • Replacing the general exemption from NHV monitoring for associated gas for any control device used at well site affected facilities with NHV monitoring requirements,
  • Granting operational pauses during weekends and holidays for the consecutive 14-day sampling demonstration requirements (limiting it to no more than 3 operating days from the previous sampling day), and
  • Permitting less than 1-hour sampling times for twice daily samples where low or intermittent flow makes it infeasible (as long as owners and operators report the sampling time used and the reason for the reduced time).

The 2026 Final Rule takes effect on June 8, 2026.

Key to remember: EPA’s technical changes to the emission standards for oil and gas facilities apply to temporary flaring provisions and vent gas NHV monitoring requirements.

EHS Monthly Round Up - March 2026

EHS Monthly Round Up - March 2026

In this March 2026 roundup video, we'll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news.

Hi everyone! Welcome to the monthly news roundup video, where we’ll review the most impactful environmental health and safety news. Let’s take a look at what happened over the past month.

OSHA released an updated Job Safety and Health poster. Employers can use either the revised version or the older one, but the poster must be displayed in a conspicuous place where workers can easily see it.

OSHA recently removed a link from its Data topic webpage that displayed a list of “high-penalty cases” at or over $40,000 since 2015. The agency says it discontinued and removed it in December. The data is frozen and archived elsewhere.

OSHA published two new resources as part of its newly launched Safety Champions Program. The fact sheet provides an overview of how the program works, eligibility criteria, and key benefits. The step-by-step guide helps businesses navigate the core elements of OSHA’s Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs.

Several forces are nudging OSHA to address a number of workplace hazards and high-hazard industries. This comes from other agencies, safety organizations, watchdogs, legislative proposals, and persistent injury/fatality data. Among the hazards are combustible dust; first aid; personal protective equipment; and workplace violence. How all this translates into new regulations, guidance, programmed inspections, or other initiatives remains to be seen.

Turning to environmental news, EPA issued a proposed rule to require waste handlers to use electronic manifests to track all RCRA hazardous waste shipments. Stakeholders have until May 4 to comment on the proposal.

On March 10, EPA finalized stronger emission limits for new and existing large municipal waste combustors and made other changes to related standards.

And finally, EPA temporarily extended coverage under the 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit for industrial stormwater discharges until the agency issues a new general permit. The permit expired February 28 and remains in effect for facilities previously covered. EPA won’t take enforcement action against new facilities for unpermitted stormwater discharges if the facilities meet specific conditions.

Thanks for tuning in to the monthly news roundup. We’ll see you next month!

See More
New Network Poll

§180.407 Requirements for test and inspection of specification cargo tanks.

(a) General. (1) A cargo tank constructed in accordance with a DOT specification for which a test or inspection specified in this section has become due, may not be filled and offered for transportation or transported until the test or inspection has been successfully completed. This paragraph does not apply to any cargo tank filled prior to the test or inspection due date.

(2) Except during a pressure test, a cargo tank may not be subjected to a pressure greater than its design pressure or MAWP.

(3) A person witnessing or performing a test or inspection specified in this section must meet the minimum qualifications prescribed in §180.409.

(4) Each cargo tank must be evaluated in accordance with the acceptable results of tests and inspections prescribed in §180.411.

(5) Each cargo tank which has successfully passed a test or inspection specified in this section must be marked in accordance with §180.415.

(6) A cargo tank which fails a prescribed test or inspection must:

(i) Be repaired and retested in accordance with §180.413; or

(ii) Be removed from hazardous materials service and the specification plate removed, obliterated or covered in a secure manner.

(7) The use of video cameras or fiber optic equipment is authorized for any test or inspection, or portion thereof, provided all the required areas and elements can be viewed and evaluated in accordance with this subpart.

(b) Conditions requiring test and inspection of cargo tanks. Without regard to any other test or inspection requirements, a specification cargo tank must be tested and inspected in accordance with this section prior to further use if:

(1) The cargo tank shows evidence of dents, cuts, gouges, corroded or abraded areas, leakage, or any other condition that might render it unsafe for hazardous materials service. At a minimum, any area of a cargo tank showing evidence of dents, cuts, digs, gouges, or corroded or abraded areas must be thickness tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraphs (i)(2), (i)(3), (i)(5), (i)(6), (i)(9), and (i)(10) of this section and evaluated in accordance with the criteria prescribed in §180.411. Any signs of leakage must be repaired in accordance with §180.413. The suitability of any repair affecting the structural integrity of the cargo tank must be determined either by the testing required in the applicable manufacturing specification or in paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section.

(2) The cargo tank has sustained damage to an extent that may adversely affect its lading retention capability. A damaged cargo tank must be pressure tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraph (g) of this section.

(3) The cargo tank has been out of hazardous materials transportation service for a period of one year or more. Each cargo tank that has been out of hazardous materials transportation service for a period of one year or more must be pressure tested in accordance with §180.407(g) prior to further use.

(4) [Reserved]

(5) The Department so requires based on the existence of probable cause that the cargo tank is in an unsafe operating condition.

(c) Periodic test and inspection. Each specification cargo tank must be tested and inspected as specified in the following table by an inspector meeting the qualifications in §180.409. The retest date shall be determined from the specified interval identified in the following table from the most recent inspection or the CTMV certification date.

COMPLIANCE DATES—INSPECTIONS AND TEST UNDER §180.407(c)
Test or Inspection (cargo tank specification, configuration, and service)Date by which first test must be completed (see Note 1)Interval period after first test
Note 1: If a cargo tank is subject to an applicable inspection or test requirement under the regulations in effect on December 30, 1990, and the due date (as specified by a requirement in effect on December 30, 1990) for completing the required inspection or test occurs before the compliance date listed in table I, the earlier date applies.
Note 2: Pressure testing is not required for MC 330 or MC 331 cargo tanks in dedicated sodium metal service.
Note 3: Pressure testing is not required for uninsulated lined cargo tanks, with a design pressure MAWP 15 psig or less, which receive an external visual inspection and lining inspection at least once each year.
Note 4: Insulated cargo tanks equipped with manholes or inspection openings may perform either an internal visual inspection in conjunction with the external visual inspection or a hydrostatic or pneumatic pressure-test of the cargo tank.
Note 5: A 10-year inspection interval period also applies to cargo tanks constructed of NQT SA-202 or NQT SA-455 steel provided the materials have full-size equivalent (FSE) Charpy vee notch (CVN) energy test data that demonstrated 75% shear-area ductility at 32°F with an average of 3 or more samples >15 ft-lb FSE with no sample <10 ft-lb FSE.
External Visual Inspection:
All cargo tanks designed to be loaded by vacuum with full opening rear headsSeptember 1, 19916 months.
All other cargo tanksSeptember 1, 19911 year.
Internal Visual Inspection:
All insulated cargo tanks, except MC 330, MC 331, MC 338 (see Note 4)September 1, 19911 year.
All cargo tanks transporting lading corrosive to the tankSeptember 1, 19911 year.
MC 331 cargo tanks less than 3,500 gallons water capacity in dedicated propane service constructed of nonquenched and tempered NQT SA-612 steel (see Note 5)10 years.
All other cargo tanks, except MC 338September 1, 19955 years.
Lining Inspection:
All lined cargo tanks transporting lading corrosive to the tankSeptember 1, 19911 year.
Leakage Test:
MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tanks in chlorine serviceSeptember 1, 19912 years.
All other cargo tanks except MC 338September 1, 19911 year.
Pressure Test:
(Hydrostatic or pneumatic) (See Notes 2 and 3)
All cargo tanks which are insulated with no manhole or insulated and lined, except MC 338September 1, 19911 year.
All cargo tanks designed to be loaded by vacuum with full opening rear headsSeptember 1, 19922 years.
MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tanks in chlorine serviceSeptember 1, 19922 years.
MC 331 cargo tanks less than 3,500 gallons water capacity in dedicated propane service constructed of nonquenched and tempered NQT SA-612 steel (See Note 5)10 years.
All other cargo tanksSeptember 1, 19955 years.
Thickness Test:
All unlined cargo tanks transporting material corrosive to the tank, except MC 338September 1, 19922 years.

(d) External visual inspection and testing. The following applies to the external visual inspection and testing of cargo tanks:

(1) Where insulation precludes a complete external visual inspection as required by paragraphs (d)(2) through (d)(6) of this section, the cargo tank also must be given an internal visual inspection in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section. If external visual inspection is precluded because any part of the cargo tank wall is externally lined, coated, or designed to prevent an external visual inspection, those areas of the cargo tank must be internally inspected. If internal visual inspection is precluded because the cargo tank is lined, coated, or designed so as to prevent access for internal inspection, the tank must be hydrostatically or pneumatically tested in accordance with paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section. Those items able to be externally inspected must be externally inspected and noted in the inspection report.

(2) The external visual inspection and testing must include as a minimum the following:

(i) The tank shell and heads must be inspected for corroded or abraded areas, dents, distortions, defects in welds and any other conditions, including leakage, that might render the tank unsafe for transportation service;

(ii) The piping, valves, and gaskets must be carefully inspected for corroded areas, defects in welds, and other conditions, including leakage, that might render the tank unsafe for transportation service;

(iii) All devices for tightening manhole covers must be operative and there must be no evidence of leakage at manhole covers or gaskets;

(iv) All emergency devices and valves including self-closing stop-valves, excess flow valves and remote closure devices must be free from corrosion, distortion, erosion and any external damage that will prevent safe operation. Remote closure devices and self-closing stop valves must be functioned to demonstrate proper operation;

(v) Missing bolts, nuts and fusible links or elements must be replaced, and loose bolts and nuts must be tightened;

(vi) All markings on the cargo tank required by parts 172, 178 and 180 of this subchapter must be legible;

(vii) [Reserved]

(viii) All major appurtenances and structural attachments on the cargo tank including, but not limited to, suspension system attachments, connecting structures, and those elements of the upper coupler (fifth wheel) assembly that can be inspected without dismantling the upper coupler (fifth wheel) assembly must be inspected for any corrosion or damage which might prevent safe operation;

(ix) For cargo tanks transporting lading corrosive to the tank, areas covered by the upper coupler (fifth wheel) assembly must be inspected at least once in each two year period for corroded and abraded areas, dents, distortions, defects in welds, and any other condition that might render the tank unsafe for transportation service. The upper coupler (fifth wheel) assembly must be removed from the cargo tank for this inspection.

(3) All reclosing pressure relief valves must be externally inspected for any corrosion or damage which might prevent safe operation. All reclosing pressure relief valves on cargo tanks carrying lading corrosive to the valve must be removed from the cargo tank for inspection and testing. Each reclosing pressure relief valve required to be removed and tested must be tested according to the requirements set forth in paragraph (j) of this section.

(4) Ring stiffeners or other appurtenances, installed on cargo tanks constructed of mild steel or high-strength, low-alloy steel, that create air cavities adjacent to the tank shell that do not allow for external visual inspection must be thickness tested in accordance with paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(3) of this section, at least once every 2 years. At least four symmetrically distributed readings must be taken to establish an average thickness for the ring stiffener or appurtenance. If any thickness reading is less than the average thickness by more than 10%, thickness testing in accordance with paragraphs (i)(2) and (i)(3) of this section must be conducted from the inside of the cargo tank on the area of the tank wall covered by the appurtenance or ring stiffener.

(5) Corroded or abraded areas of the cargo tank wall must be thickness tested in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraphs (i)(2), (i)(3), (i)(5), (i)(6), (i)(9), and (i)(10) of this section.

(6) The gaskets on any full opening rear head must be:

(i) Visually inspected for cracks or splits caused by weather or wear; and

(ii) Replaced if cuts or cracks which are likely to cause leakage, or are of a depth one-half inch or more, are found.

(7) The inspector must record the results of the external visual examination as specified in §180.417(b).

(e) Internal visual inspection. (1) When the cargo tank is not equipped with a manhole or inspection opening, or the cargo tank design precludes an internal inspection, the tank shall be hydrostatically or pneumatically tested in accordance with 180.407(c) and (g).

(2) The internal visual inspection must include as a minimum the following:

(i) The tank shell and heads must be inspected for corroded and abraded areas, dents, distortions, defects in welds, and any other condition that might render the tank unsafe for transportation service.

(ii) Tank liners must be inspected as specified in §180.407(f).

(3) Corroded or abraded areas of the cargo tank wall must be thickness tested in accordance with paragraphs (i)(2), (i)(3), (i)(5), (i)(6), (i)(9), and (i)(10) of this section.

(4) The inspector must record the results of the internal visual inspection as specified in §180.417(b).

(f) Lining inspection. The integrity of the lining on all lined cargo tanks, when lining is required by this sub-chapter, must be verified at least once each year as follows:

(1) Rubber (elastomeric) lining must be tested for holes as follows:

(i) Equipment shall consist of:

(A) A high frequency spark tester capable of producing sufficient voltage to ensure proper calibration;

(B) A probe with an “L” shaped 2.4 mm (0.09 inch) diameter wire with up to a 30.5 cm (12-inch) bottom leg (end bent to a 12.7 mm (0.5 inch) radius), or equally sensitive probe; and

(C) A steel calibration coupon 30.5 cm X 30.5 cm (12 inches X 12 inches) covered with the same material and thickness as that to be tested. The material on the coupon shall have a test hole to the metal substrate made by puncturing the material with a 22 gauge hypodermic needle or comparable piercing tool.

(ii) The probe must be passed over the surface of the calibration coupon in a constant uninterrupted manner until the hole is found. The hole is detected by the white or light blue spark formed. (A sound lining causes a dark blue or purple spark.) The voltage must be adjusted to the lowest setting that will produce a minimum 12.7 mm (0.5 inch) spark measured from the top of the lining to the probe. To assure that the setting on the probe has not changed, the spark tester must be calibrated periodically using the test calibration coupon, and the same power source, probe, and cable length.

(iii) After calibration, the probe must be passed over the lining in an uninterrupted stroke.

(iv) Holes that are found must be repaired using equipment and procedures prescribed by the lining manufacturer or lining installer.

(2) Linings made of other than rubber (elastomeric material) must be tested using equipment and procedures prescribed by the lining manufacturer or lining installer.

(3) Degraded or defective areas of the the cargo tank liner must be removed and the cargo tank wall below the defect must be inspected. Corroded areas of the tank wall must be thickness tested in accordance with paragraphs (i)(2), (i)(3), (i)(5) and (i)(6) of this section.

(4) The inspector must record the results of the lining inspection as specified in §180.417(b).

(g) Pressure test. All components of the cargo tank wall, as defined in §178.320(a) of this subchapter, must be pressure tested as prescribed by this paragraph.

(1) Test Procedure(i) As part of the pressure test, the inspector must perform an external and internal visual inspection, except that on an MC 338 cargo tank, or a cargo tank not equipped with a manhole or inspection opening, an internal inspection is not required.

(ii) All self-closing pressure relief valves, including emergency relief vents and normal vents, must be removed from the cargo tank for inspection and testing according to the requirements in paragraph (j) of this section.

(iii) Except for cargo tanks carrying lading corrosive to the tank, areas covered by the upper coupler (fifth wheel) assembly must be inspected for corroded and abraded areas, dents, distortions, defects in welds, and any other condition that might render the tank unsafe for transportation service. The upper coupler (fifth wheel) assembly must be removed from the cargo tank for this inspection.

(iv) Each cargo tank must be tested hydrostatically or pneumatically to the internal pressure specified in the following table. At no time during the pressure test may a cargo tank be subject to pressures that exceed those identified in the following table:

Table 1 to Paragraph (g)(1)(iv)
SpecificationTest pressure
MC 300, 301, 302, 303, 305, 306The test pressure on the name plate or specification plate, 20.7 kPa (3 psig) or design pressure, whichever is greater.
MC 304, 307The test pressure on the name plate or specification plate, 275.8 kPa (40 psig) or 1.5 times the design pressure, whichever is greater.
MC 310, 311, 312The test pressure on the name plate or specification plate, 20.7 kPa (3 psig) or 1.5 times the design pressure, whichever is greater.
MC 330, 331The test pressure on the name plate or specification plate, 1.5 times either the MAWP or the re-rated pressure, whichever is applicable.
MC 338The test pressure on the name plate or specification plate, 1.25 times either the MAWP or the re-rated pressure, whichever is applicable.
DOT 406The test pressure on the name plate or specification plate, 34.5 kPa (5 psig) or 1.5 times the MAWP, whichever is greater.
DOT 407The test pressure on the name plate or specification plate, 275.8 kPa (40 psig) or 1.5 times the MAWP, whichever is greater.
DOT 412The test pressure on the name plate or specification plate, or 1.5 times the MAWP, whichever is greater.

(v) [Reserved]

(vi) Each cargo tank of a multi-tank cargo tank motor vehicle must be tested with the adjacent cargo tanks empty and at atmospheric pressure.

(vii) All closures except pressure relief devices must be in place during the test. All prescribed loading and unloading venting devices rated at less than test pressure may be removed during the test. If retained, the devices must be rendered inoperative by clamps, plugs, or other equally effective restraining devices. Restraining devices may not prevent detection of leaks or damage the venting devices and must be removed immediately after the test is completed.

(viii) Hydrostatic test method. Each cargo tank, including its domes, must be filled with water or other liquid having similar viscosity, at a temperature not exceeding 100 °F. The cargo tank must then be pressurized to not less than the pressure specified in paragraph (g)(1)(iv) of this section. The cargo tank, including its closures, must hold the prescribed test pressure for at least 10 minutes during which time it shall be inspected for leakage, bulging or any other defect.

(ix) Pneumatic test method. Pneumatic testing may involve higher risk than hydrostatic testing. Therefore, suitable safeguards must be provided to protect personnel and facilities should failure occur during the test. The cargo tank must be pressurized with air or an insert gas. The pneumatic test pressure in the cargo tank must be reached by gradually increasing the pressure to one-half of the test pressure. Thereafter, the pressure must be increased in steps of approximately one-tenth of the test pressure until the required test pressure has been reached. The test pressure must be held for at least 5 minutes. The pressure must then be reduced to the MAWP, which must be maintained during the time the entire cargo tank surface is inspected. During the inspection, a suitable method must be used for detecting the existence of leaks. This method must consist either of coating the entire surface of all joints under pressure with a solution of soap and water, or using other equally sensitive methods.

(2) When testing an insulated cargo tank, the insulation and jacketing need not be removed unless it is otherwise impossible to reach test pressure and maintain a condition of pressure equilibrium after test pressure is reached, or the vacuum integrity cannot be maintained in the insulation space. If an MC 338 cargo tank used for the transportation of a flammable gas or oxygen, refrigerated liquid is opened for any reason, the cleanliness must be verified prior to closure using the procedures contained in §178.338-15 of this subchapter.

(3) Each MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tank constructed of quenched and tempered steel in accordance with Part UHT in Section VIII of the ASME Code (IBR, see §171.7 of this subchapter), or constructed of other than quenched and tempered steel but without postweld heat treatment, used for the transportation of anhydrous ammonia or any other hazardous materials that may cause corrosion stress cracking, must be internally inspected by the wet fluorescent magnetic particle method immediately prior to and in conjunction with the performance of the pressure test prescribed in this section. Each MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tank constructed of quenched and tempered steel in accordance with Part UHT in Section VIII of the ASME Code and used for the transportation of liquefied petroleum gas must be internally inspected by the wet fluorescent magnetic particle method immediately prior to and in conjunction with the performance of the pressure test prescribed in this section. The wet fluorescent magnetic particle inspection must be in accordance with Section V of the ASME Code and CGA Technical Bulletin TB-2 (IBR, see §171.7 of this subchapter). This paragraph does not apply to cargo tanks that do not have manholes. (See §180.417(c) for reporting requirements.)

(4) All pressure bearing portions of a cargo tank heating system employing a medium such as, but not limited to, steam or hot water for heating the lading must be hydrostatically pressure tested at least once every 5 years. The test pressure must be at least the maximum system design operating pressure and must be maintained for five minutes. A heating system employing flues for heating the lading must be tested to ensure against lading leakage into the flues or into the atmosphere.

(5) Exceptions. (i) Pressure testing is not required for MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tanks in dedicated sodium metal service.

(ii) Pressure testing is not required for uninsulated lined cargo tanks, with a design pressure or MAWP of 15 psig or less, which receive an external visual inspection and a lining inspection at least once each year.

(6) Acceptance criteria. A cargo tank that leaks, fails to retain test pressure or pneumatic inspection pressure, shows distortion, excessive permanent expansion, or other evidence of weakness that might render the cargo tank unsafe for transportation service, may not be returned to service, except as follows: A cargo tank with a heating system which does not hold pressure may remain in service as an unheated cargo tank if:

(i) The heating system remains in place and is structurally sound and no lading may leak into the heating system, and

(ii) The specification plate heating system information is changed to indicate that the cargo tank has no working heating system.

(7) The inspector must record the results of the pressure test as specified in §180.417(b).

(h) Leakage test. The following requirements apply to cargo tanks requiring a leakage test:

(1) Each cargo tank must be tested for leaks in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. The leakage test must include testing product piping with all valves and accessories in place and operative, except that any venting devices set to discharge at less than the leakage test pressure must be removed or rendered inoperative during the test. All internal or external self-closing stop valves must be tested for leak tightness. Each cargo tank of a multi-cargo tank motor vehicle must be tested with adjacent cargo tanks empty and at atmospheric pressure. Test pressure must be maintained for at least 5 minutes. Cargo tanks in liquefied compressed gas service must be externally inspected for leaks during the leakage test. Suitable safeguards must be provided to protect personnel should a failure occur. Cargo tanks may be leakage tested with hazardous materials contained in the cargo tank during the test. Leakage test pressure must be no less than 80% of MAWP marked on the specification plate except as follows:

(i) A cargo tank with an MAWP of 690 kPa (100 psig) or more may be leakage tested at its maximum normal operating pressure provided it is in dedicated service or services; or

(ii) An MC 330 or MC 331 cargo tank in dedicated liquefied petroleum gas service may be leakage tested at not less than 414 kPa (60 psig).

(iii) An operator of a specification MC 330 or MC 331 cargo tank, and a nonspecification cargo tank authorized under §173.315(k) of this subchapter, equipped with a meter may check leak tightness of the internal self-closing stop valve by conducting a meter creep test. (See Appendix B to this part.)

(iv) An MC 330 or MC 331 cargo tank in dedicated service for anhydrous ammonia may be leakage tested at not less than 414 kPa (60 psig).

(v) A non-specification cargo tank required by §173.8(d) of this subchapter to be leakage tested, must be leakage tested at not less than 16.6 kPa (2.4 psig), or as specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this section.

(2) Cargo tanks used to transport petroleum distillate fuels that are equipped with vapor collection equipment may be leak tested in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Method 27—Determination of Vapor Tightness of Gasoline Delivery Tank Using Pressure-Vacuum Test,” as set forth in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. Test methods and procedures and maximum allowable pressure and vacuum changes are in 40 CFR 63.425(e)(1). The hydrostatic test alternative, using liquid in Environmental Protection Agency’s “Method 27—Determination of Vapor Tightness of Gasoline Delivery Tank Using Pressure-Vacuum Test,” may not be used to satisfy the leak testing requirements of this paragraph. The test must be conducted using air.

(3) A cargo tank that fails to retain leakage test pressure may not be returned to service as a specification cargo tank, except under conditions specified in §180.411(d).

(4) After July 1, 2000, Registered Inspectors of specification MC 330 and MC 331 cargo tanks, and nonspecification cargo tanks authorized under §173.315(k) of this subchapter must visually inspect the delivery hose assembly and piping system while the assembly is under leakage test pressure utilizing the rejection criteria listed in §180.416(g). Delivery hose assemblies not permanently attached to the cargo tank motor vehicle may be inspected separately from the cargo tank motor vehicle. In addition to a written record of the inspection prepared in accordance with §180.417(b), the Registered Inspector conducting the test must note the hose identification number, the date of the test, and the condition of the hose assembly and piping system tested.

(5) The inspector must record the results of the leakage test as specified in §180.417(b).

(i) Thickness testing. (1) The shell and head thickness of all unlined cargo tanks used for the transportation of materials corrosive to the tank must be measured at least once every 2 years, except that cargo tanks measuring less than the sum of the minimum prescribed thickness, plus one-fifth of the original corrosion allowance, must be tested annually.

(2) Measurements must be made using a device capable of accurately measuring thickness to within +/– 0.002 of an inch.

(3) Any person performing thickness testing must be trained in the proper use of the thickness testing device used in accordance with the manufacturer’s instruction.

(4) Thickness testing must be performed in the following areas, as a minimum:

(i) Areas of the tank shell and heads and shell and head area around any piping that retains lading;

(ii) Areas of high shell stress such as the bottom center of the tank;

(iii) Areas near openings;

(iv) Areas around weld joints;

(v) Areas around shell reinforcements;

(vi) Areas around appurtenance attachments;

(vii) Areas near upper coupler (fifth wheel) assembly attachments;

(viii) Areas near suspension system attachments and connecting structures;

(ix) Known thin areas in the tank shell and nominal liquid level lines; and

(x) Connecting structures joining multiple cargo tanks of carbon steel in a self-supporting cargo tank motor vehicle.

(5) Minimum thicknesses for MC 300, MC 301, MC 302, MC 303, MC 304, MC 305, MC 306, MC 307, MC 310, MC 311, and MC 312 cargo tanks are determined based on the definition of minimum thickness found in §178.320(a) of this subchapter. The following Tables I and II identify the “In-Service Minimum Thickness” values to be used to determine the minimum thickness for the referenced cargo tanks. The column headed “Minimum Manufactured Thickness” indicates the minimum values required for new construction of DOT 400 series cargo tanks, found in Tables I and II of §§178.346–2, 178.347–2, and 178.348–2 of this subchapter. In-Service Minimum Thicknesses for MC 300, MC 301, MC 302, MC 303, MC 304, MC 305, MC 306, MC 307, MC 310, MC 311, and MC 312 cargo tanks are based on 90 percent of the manufactured thickness specified in the DOT specification, rounded to three places.

Table I—In service minimum thickness for MC 300, MC 303, MC 304, MC 306, MC 307, MC 310, MC 311, and MC 312 specification cargo tanks constructed of steel and steel alloys
Minimum manufactured thickness (US gauge or inches)Nominal decimal equivalent for (inches)In-service minimum thickness reference (inches)
190.04180.038
180.04780.043
170.05380.048
160.05980.054
150.06730.061
140.07470.067
130.08970.081
120.10460.094
110.11960.108
100.13450.121
90.14950.135
80.16440.148
70.17930.161
3/160.18750.169
1/40.25000.225
5/160.31250.281
3/80.37500.338
Table II—In service minimum thickness for MC 301, MC 302, MC 304, MC 305, MC 306, MC 307, MC 311, and MC 312 specification cargo tanks constructed of aluminum and aluminum alloys
Minimum manufactured thicknessIn-service minimum thickness (inches)
0.0780.070
0.0870.078
0.0960.086
0.1090.098
0.1300.117
0.1410.127
0.1510.136
0.1720.155
0.1730.156
0.1940.175
0.2160.194
0.2370.213
0.2700.243
0.3600.324
0.4500.405
0.5400.486

(6) An owner of a cargo tank that no longer conforms with the minimum thickness prescribed for the design as manufactured may use the cargo tank to transport authorized materials at reduced maximum weight of lading or reduced maximum working pressure, or combinations thereof, provided the following conditions are met:

(i) A Design Certifying Engineer must certify that the cargo tank design and thickness are appropriate for the reduced loading conditions by issuance of a revised manufacturer’s certificate, and

(ii) The cargo tank motor vehicle’s nameplate must reflect the revised service limits.

(7) An owner of a cargo tank that no longer conforms with the minimum thickness prescribed for the specification may not return the cargo tank to hazardous materials service. The tank’s specification plate must be removed, obliterated or covered in a secure manner.

(8) The inspector must record the results of the thickness test as specified in §180.417(b).

(9) For MC 331 cargo tanks constructed before October 1, 2003, minimum thickness shall be determined by the thickness indicated on the U1A form minus any corrosion allowance. For MC 331 cargo tanks constructed after October 1, 2003, the minimum thickness will be the value indicated on the specification plate. If no corrosion allowance is indicated on the U1A form then the thickness of the tank shall be the thickness of the material of construction indicated on the U1A form with no corrosion allowance.

(10) For 400-series cargo tanks, minimum thickness is calculated according to tables in each applicable section of this subchapter for that specification: §178.346–2 for DOT 406 cargo tanks, §178.347–2 for DOT 407 cargo tanks, and §178.348–2 for DOT 412 cargo tanks.

(j) Pressure vent bench test. When required by this section, pressure relief valves must be tested for proper function as follows:

(1) Each self-closing pressure relief valve must open and reseat to a leaktight condition at the pressures prescribed for the applicable cargo tank specification or at the following pressures:

(i) For MC 306 cargo tanks:

(A) With MC 306 reclosing pressure relief valves, it must open at not less than 3 psi and not more than 4.4 psi and must reseat to a leak tight-condition at no less than 2.7 psi.

(B) With reclosing pressure relief valves modified as provided in §180.405(c) to conform with DOT 406 specifications, according to the pressures set forth for a DOT 406 cargo tank in §178.346-3 of this subchapter.

(ii) For MC 307 cargo tanks:

(A) With MC 307 reclosing pressure relief valves, it must open at not less than the cargo tank MAWP and not more than 110% of the cargo tank MAWP and must reseat to a leak tight-condition at no less than 90% of the cargo tank MAWP.

(B) With reclosing pressure relief valves modified as provided in §180.405(c) to conform with DOT 407 specifications, according to the pressures set forth for a DOT 407 cargo tank in §178.347-4 of this subchapter.

(iii) For MC 312 cargo tanks:

(A) With MC 312 reclosing pressure relief valves, it must open at not less than the cargo tank MAWP and not more than 110% of the cargo tank MAWP and must reseat to a leak tight-condition at no less than 90% of the cargo tank MAWP.

(B) With reclosing pressure relief valves modified as provided in §180.405(c) to conform with DOT 412 specifications, according to the pressures set forth for a DOT 412 cargo tank in §178.348-4 of this subchapter.

(iv) For MC 330 or MC 331 cargo tanks, it must open at not less than the required set pressure and not more than 110% of the required set pressure and must reseat to a leak-tight condition at no less than 90% of the required set pressure.

(v) For DOT 400-series cargo tanks, according to the pressures set forth for the applicable cargo tank specification in §§178.346-3, 178.347-4, and 178.348-4, respectively, of this subchapter.

(vi) For cargo tanks not specified in this paragraph, it must open at not less than the required set pressure and not more than 110% of the required set pressure and must reseat to a leak-tight condition at no less than 90% of the required set pressure or the pressure prescribed for the applicable cargo tank specification.

(2) Normal vents (1 psig vents) must be tested according to the testing criteria established by the valve manufacturer.

(3) Self-closing pressure relief devices not tested or failing the tests in paragraph (j)(1) of this section must be repaired or replaced.

[Amdt. 180–2, 54 FR 25032, June 12, 1989; 81 FR 35545, June 2, 2016; 83 FR 28168, June 18, 2018; 83 FR 55810, Nov 7, 2018; 85 FR 83403, Dec. 21, 2020; 91 FR 1447, Jan.14, 2026]

No active poll
Please come back soon!
See More
See More
See More
See More
Saved to my EVENT CALENDAR!
View your saved links by clicking the arrow next to your profile picture located in the header. Then, click “My Activity” to view the Event Calendar on your Activity page.