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? .

Electric vehicles (EV) - Four areas to understand before a transition

2022-09-20T05:00:00Z

Many in transportation and government are touting battery-electric vehicles' (BEVs) environmental and cost-saving benefits. Before rushing toward the roar of the EV crowd and government incentives, carriers should understand the considerations and potential benefits of a more environmentally sustainable fleet.

Carriers want to know, "How could EVs affect my business?"

Four areas to better understand EV impacts and considerations include, but are not limited to:

  1. Environmental compliance incentives and mandates
  2. Vehicle purchase and charging infrastructure considerations
  3. Costs
  4. Benefits

The following is a high-level overview to familiarize carriers with the considerations before transitioning to EVs.

1. Environmental compliance incentives and mandates

The well-publicized state "greening initiatives" have come out of California, but every state has programs regulating or incentivizing alternatives to diesel fuel. Original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) favor BEV production over hybrids or alternative fuels because many require "zero-emission" vehicles.

Many states and provinces appear to follow California Air Resources Board (CARB) requirements, but carriers must understand the specifics of each mandate and incentive in their operating area. Below are examples of Federal incentives and state mandates.

A couple of Federal incentive programs impacting EVs include:

  1. Bipartisan Infrastructure Law – $7.5 billion to build a national network of 500,000 EV chargers so that charging EVs is predictable, reliable, and accessible.
  2. Inflation Reduction Act –Incentives for buyers of new and used EVs, credits to help retool existing facilities and build new manufacturing, and deploy zero-emission heavy-duty vehicles.

A couple of state mandates include:

  1. California - By 2035, the Advanced Clean Trucks (ACT) rule requires 40 percent of semi-truck tractors sold, and by 2045 all trucks sold must be zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs), not specifically electric. The ACT rule was enabled by an Environmental Protection Agency waiver granted March 31, 2023.
  2. New York - By 2035, all sales or leases of new light-duty passenger vehicles must be ZEVs, and all sales or leases of new medium- and heavy-duty vehicles must be ZEVs by 2045.
  3. Other states - The new standards will start to increase in 2024, and Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington and Vermont are also expected to adopt similar versions of the rule.

The U.S. Department of Energy has a summary table of state and federal laws and incentives covering alternative fuels in addition to EVs. Understanding alternatives before committing to a single fuel source is essential, as the transition can be costly and difficult to reverse.

If not already available, generate a vehicle inventory with information such as the make, model, year, vehicle identification number, and engine type. When multiple facilities are involved, the inventory is especially important to know which older vehicles may need to be scrapped to obtain the incentives, which are often substantial and time sensitive.

To learn more about incentives and mandates in your area of operation, consult the following state and federal matrix, which is part of the Alternative Fuels Data Center, at https://afdc.energy.gov/laws/matrix.

It is prudent to transition to zero-emission vehicles early to comply well before deadlines and before incentives are gone.

2. Charging infrastructure and vehicle purchase assessment

Working with utilities and local government

Contact the respective utility provider(s) early on because an inadequate supply of electricity at the times of day and locations can stop any well-intentioned transition. The first question to be asked when assessing charging infrastructure is:

  • Will power from the local utility support our planned charging needs?

The utility should have a near-term plan or current capability if you add charging infrastructure and incremental electricity demand. Existing electric utility infrastructure cannot meet surging demand in many areas.

Carriers also need to talk to the affected municipality to understand how they accommodate permits and a surge in businesses with higher electricity needs. Building infrastructure and permit acquisition may have significant lead times, so factoring in a realistic timeline is essential.

Operational assessment

Electric vehicle sizes and possible applications are rapidly increasing. To better outline vehicle specifications, purchase or lease decisions, and charging needs, an operational assessment should include but is not limited to these questions:

  • Which routes or work applications can be supported by the current vehicle range considering weather and weights hauled as well as features?
    • EVs can support 100 to 250-mile routes with reported ranges of 400 miles.
    • Battery chemistry matters when operating in extreme weather (hot or cold).
    • During testing, vehicle up-time and driver evaluations of vehicle performance are vital to factor into decisions.
    • An additional 2,000 pound weight allowance applies on U.S. Interstates, but does not automatically apply to U.S. or state highways, and secondary roads.
  • How many EVs will be implemented over what timeframe considering OEM delivery capability and reliable charging available?
    • Map a three to ten-year strategy of where your business is heading, acquisitions, and operating model changes (long to short-haul or vice versa).
    • Charging infrastructure must be right-sized to carrier needs or high costs, and a reduced return on investment (ROI) will result. The correct number of charging stations is needed at each location with the right power.
  • Where will charging occur, and at what times of the day?
    • At terminals, opportunity charging on the route, etc.
  • Will vehicle assignment and personal use of vehicle policies need to change?
    • The next vehicle charged may have to be used for the next route versus equipment assigned to specific drivers (slip-seat).
  • How will maintenance be supported?
    • Will you have technicians trained on EVs, or can the OEM support all warranty repairs?
  • Can emergency services providers that cover your operational area safely respond to an EV crash?
  • Is there charging compatibility between manufacturers' vehicles if testing more than one make and model of EV?
    • Currently, there are more vehicle-related issues causing charge problems versus plug incompatibility between manufacturers in fleets testing or running different makes and models of EVs.
    • Software updates can cause charging issues after over-air updates.
    • Do the truck charge connections match the charging plugs, charging rates, and plug-type compatibility if you have more than one make/model EV?

3. Costs

Without considering incentives, BEVs can cost as much as three times more than diesel vehicles. Also, the time and money it takes to build or lease charging infrastructure can be high.

Before any investment in charging stations or contract negotiation to purchase energy as a service from a charging infrastructure provider, create a map of the expected charging network and vehicle operating area based on the operational assessment.

The cost of installing charging infrastructure on the leased or owned property varies by area of operation, incentives available, and the willingness of a lessor to cost-share. Plan the charging location at terminals as close as possible to the power source to minimize cost. The age of existing transformers, switchgear, and services lines impacts cost as well.

Charging-as-a-service (CAAS) from providers with an existing network may be a quicker way to ramp up but may be costly on a per-mile or per-day basis. Charging as a service can integrate with your fuel card for energy purchases and provide software that integrates with your dispatch system to track the charge levels of each vehicle to assess readiness for the next dispatch.

4. Benefits

Carriers will want to keep a close eye on competing technologies as alternatives to diesel evolve. However, there are several benefits to converting all or a portion of your fleet to battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), which are:

  • Fuel savings - Create realistic estimates of fuel cost savings based on diesel and electricity costs in your operational areas.
  • Clean emissions - A reduced carbon footprint meets compliance requirements.
  • Driver acceptance - EVs are generally well-received because they are quiet, clean, and powerful.
  • Lower maintenance cost - EV drive trains have fewer components than diesel engines. There are no emissions systems to manage and one- or two-speed transmissions versus ten or more gears or complicated automatics.
  • Extended vehicle life cycles - Battery life can be as long as eight to ten years.
  • Meet customer demands - Many customers require carriers to utilize vehicles with zero or very low emissions to compete for new business.

Key to remember: The regulation deadlines seem far in the future. However, start the electric vehicle planning process early to meet regulatory deadlines, understand local utility capability, and take advantage of incentives.

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

Dust collector to disposal: Understanding dust as a waste stream
2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

Dust collector to disposal: Understanding dust as a waste stream

When the topic of dust is brought up, the conversation usually starts and ends with worker exposure. How much is in the air? Is ventilation adequate? Are employees protected? Once that dust has been captured and removed from the process, the critical question shifts: how should this material be classified and disposed of? That’s where many facilities run into trouble. Collected dust may no longer be floating in the air, but it hasn’t stopped being regulated. In fact, once it’s captured, dust often enters a much more complicated regulatory world.

When captured dust becomes a regulated waste

Under EPA regulations, most collected dust qualifies as a solid waste once it’s removed from a dust collector, hopper, or filter. And despite the name, “solid waste” doesn’t mean solid, benign, or harmless. It simply means a discarded material. At that point, facilities are expected to determine whether the dust is hazardous or non-hazardous under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This determination is based on what the dust contains, not how dusty it looks or how long it has been managed that way. Dust generated from metalworking, surface coatings, chemical processing, plastics, or specialty manufacturing can contain regulated constituents such as heavy metals or chemical residues. In these cases, facilities are required to make a waste determination using process knowledge, testing, or a combination of both. This step is often overlooked. Many companies assume that if dust has not caused problems in the past, it must be non-hazardous. Unfortunately, regulators do not accept assumptions as documentation. If there’s no clear waste determination on file, that alone can be cited during an inspection. Misclassifying dust can also have ripple effects. If collected dust is later found to be hazardous, the facility may face issues related to improper disposal, incorrect generator status, or even cleanup liability at the disposal site. What began as a routine housekeeping task can suddenly become a significant compliance issue.

Storage, Disposal, and the Risks of Getting It Wrong

Even when dust is correctly identified as non-hazardous, it still needs to be managed properly. Open containers, poor labeling, and inconsistent handling practices are common findings during inspections. These issues are often viewed as minor, but they can quickly escalate if dust is released, mixed with other waste streams, or stored improperly. Recycling adds another layer of complexity. Many facilities recycle metal dusts or other recoverable materials, which can be a smart environmental and economic decision. However, recyclable does not mean unregulated. Dust being recycled still needs to be stored safely, managed to prevent releases, and documented as legitimate recycling. Without proper controls, regulators may view the material as improperly managed waste. Outdoor storage creates additional risk. Dust stored outside, transferred outdoors, or tracked out of the building can easily become a stormwater concern. Even non-hazardous dust can be considered a pollutant if it migrates off-site during rain events. This is a frequent source of violations under stormwater permits and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP), especially when dust management isn’t addressed in the plan. Another common issue is mixing dust with general trash or other waste streams. Once mixed, otherwise manageable dust can become more difficult or impossible to classify correctly. This can complicate disposal, increase costs, and raise questions during audits or inspections. What makes dust especially challenging is that responsibility for it often falls into a gray area. Safety teams may assume environmental is managing disposal. Environmental teams may assume safety has already classified the material. When no one clearly owns the waste determination and disposal process, gaps are almost guaranteed. The most effective facilities treat dust as a waste stream that deserves the same attention as any other regulated material. They document waste determinations, define storage and labeling requirements, train employees on proper handling, and periodically revisit those determinations as processes change.

Keys to remember: Captured dust doesn’t stop being regulated once it leaves the air. Understanding whether collected dust is hazardous or non-hazardous, how it must be stored, and where it can legally go is essential to staying compliant.

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

Wisconsin raises, adds fees to NSR construction permit program

This applies to: Construction air permit applicants

Effective date: April 1, 2026

Description of change: The New Source Review (NSR) construction permit program requires applicants to obtain an NSR permit before constructing, reconstructing, replacing, relocating, or modifying stationary sources that emit air contaminants. The amendments:

  • Increase most construction permit fees by 20 percent,
  • Adjust certain fees to better align with actual workload, and
  • Add new fees for:
    • Permit revisions,
    • Public hearing requests from someone other than the applicant, and
    • Incorporating consent decree requirements into permits.

Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

California codifies requirements for pesticide applications near schools

Effective date: January 1, 2026

This applies to: Pesticide applications made for agricultural commodity production within ¼ mile of a school

Description of change: Assembly Bill 1864 (effective January 1, 2025) regulates pesticide applications for the production of agricultural commodities within ¼ mile of a school.

The amendments to the rule require applicants to:

  • Obtain a separate site identification number for the part of an agricultural field within ¼ mile of a “schoolsite," and
  • List the anticipated method of application for notices of intent and pesticide use reports.

Further, the amendments change the definition of “schoolsite” to include private schools that serve six or more students (kindergarten through grade 12), which will become effective on December 31, 2026.

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

Washington adopts regulations for battery collection program

Effective date: January 16, 2026

This applies to: Producers of batteries and battery-containing products

Description of change: The Washington Department of Ecology adopted a new rule for the Battery Stewardship Program, required by a law passed in 2023 to establish an extended producer responsibility program for battery collection. The regulations implement the law, requiring battery producers to fund a statewide recycling program with collection sites where people can drop off used or unwanted batteries.

Covered batteries include most rechargeable and single-use batteries that people use daily (e.g., AAs, AAAs, Cs, Ds, 9-Volts, and button batteries). The regulations also cover battery-containing products.

The new rule establishes program requirements (e.g., adding required information on batteries), applicable fees, and battery collection and handling standards. It requires battery producers to join and fully fund a nonprofit to serve as a Battery Stewardship Organization, which administers the program.

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

Tennessee extends UST fee suspension

Effective date: April 9, 2026

This applies to: Petroleum underground storage tank (UST) owners and operators

Description of change: The amendment extends the suspension of annual UST fees until June 30, 2031.

Related state info: Underground storage tanks (USTs) — Tennessee

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

New Jersey adopts REAL rule amendments

Effective date: January 20, 2026

This applies to: New development, redevelopment, and substantial improvements to buildings

Description of change: The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) adopted amendments to the Resilient Environments and Landscapes (REAL) regulation that add new rules, repeal some rules, and amend other rules for land-use regulations. It affects multiple regulations, such as the:

  • Coastal Zone Management Rules,
  • Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act Rules,
  • Stormwater Management rules, and
  • Flood Hazard Area Control Act Rules.

Examples of requirements include inundation risk assessments, on-site alternatives analyses, and risk acknowledgements.

The DEP allows certain applications to be reviewed under the previous regulations until July 20, 2026. The DEP website offers guidance to help regulated entities determine which rule version applies.

Related state info: Construction water permitting state comparison — New Jersey

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

California restricts 1,3-dichloropropene use

Effective date: January 1, 2026

This applies to: Uses of 1,3-dichloropropene for agricultural production

Description of change: The California Department of Pesticide Regulation restricts the use of 1,3-dichloropropene to minimize exposure for occupational bystanders. It establishes buffer zone distances (i.e., distances from the edge of a treated area where certain activities are restricted) and related requirements.

The rulemaking also updates the field fumigation requirements document (1,3-Dichloropropene Field Fumigation Requirements, Rev. January 1, 2026).

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

New Hampshire amends asbestos rule

Effective date: January 1, 2026

This applies to: Any person who renovates or demolishes an asbestos-containing building and any person involved in asbestos abatement activities

Description of change: The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services adopted and readopted with amendments rules for asbestos management and control. Changes include:

  • Adding new categories of major asbestos abatement,
  • Reducing the timeframe to submit a demolition notification for residential projects if it’s submitted online with supporting documentation,
  • Raising current notification and application fees, and
  • Removing a question from nine application forms.
2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

District of Columbia extends tuning combustion process deadline

Effective date: January 16, 2026

This applies to: Fuel-burning equipment with a heat input capacity of 5,000,000 British thermal units per hour or more

Description of change: The Department of Energy and Environment extended the annual deadline for tuning the combustion process for fuel-burning equipment from November 1 to December 31. It gives regulated sources more flexibility to complete combustion adjustments. The requirements are contained in 20 DCMR 805.5.

Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison

2026-01-28T06:00:00Z

California adds nail product chemical to priority list

Effective date: April 1, 2026

This applies to: Domestic and foreign manufacturers of nail coatings and artificial nails with more than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of methyl methacrylate (MMA) that sell their products in California

Description of change: The California Department of Toxic Substances Control added nail products with concentrations of 1,000 ppm or more of MMA to the Priority Product list, making the substance subject to regulation.

Covered manufacturers must submit a Priority Product Notification by June 1, 2026, that lists the covered products sold in California as either an intentionally added ingredient, a contaminant, or a residual.

Manufacturers will then have to submit by September 28, 2026, one of the following:

  • A Chemical Removal Intent/Confirmation Notification,
  • A Product Removal Intent/Confirmation Notification,
  • A Product-Chemical Replacement Intent/Confirmation Notification, or
  • A Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report or other alternate reporting options.
See More

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

Proposal expected: OSHA to step away from costly fixed-ladder deadline
2026-01-26T06:00:00Z

Proposal expected: OSHA to step away from costly fixed-ladder deadline

OSHA is fast-tracking a proposed rule to remove a 2036 mandate to upgrade fall protection systems on fixed ladders that extend over 24 feet. The agency says the change, sparked by an industry petition, would allow employers to update their ladders at the end of their service lives, rather than by a hard compliance date. OSHA frames the move as deregulatory.

The affected regulation, 29 CFR 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D), currently reads: “(i) For fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet (7.3 m) above a lower level, the employer must ensure: … (D) Final deadline. On and after November 18, 2036, all fixed ladders are equipped with a personal fall arrest system or a ladder safety system.”

What’s happened?

A quick look at the rule’s development shows:

  • 7/28/2025 — OSHA received a petition for rulemaking that covers obligations for ladder retrofits under 1910.28(b)(9).
  • 9/15/2025 — OSHA posted a memo confirming it intends to eliminate 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D).
  • 12/18/2025 — OSHA sent its Walking-Working Surfaces (WWS) - Fixed Ladders proposal to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA).
  • 1/13/2026 — OIRA and OSHA met with the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM).
  • 1/21/2026 — OIRA and OSHA met with the Employers OSHA Modernization Coalition.
  • 1/27/2026 — OIRA plans to meet with attorneys representing the American Petroleum Institute (API).

What did the petition request?

The seven-page petition, written by legal counsel on behalf of the AFPM, API, and American Chemistry Council (ACC), requests that OSHA:

  • Withdraw the provision under the WWS standard for fixed ladders that extend more than 24 feet to be equipped with personal fall arrest systems (allowing the continued use of ladder cages or wells); or
  • Grandfather fixed ladders installed before a particular date (authorizing the continued use of existing ladder cages or wells for those ladders).

Unjustified provision?

Petitioners argue that OSHA, in its 2010 proposed WWS rule, failed to:

  • Take comments on the effectiveness of cages in protecting workers from falls,
  • Disclose that the agency was evaluating whether to prohibit cages, and
  • Give stakeholders a chance to submit evidence regarding cages.

The petition outlines the differences between the earlier proposed and final rules, noting that the 2010 proposal gave employers the choice to use any of four fall-protection types — cages, wells, ladder safety systems, or personal fall protection systems. However, the 2016 final rule gave a 2036 phase-out date for cages and wells.

The petition goes on to contend that:

  • OSHA lacks sufficient evidence to justify prohibiting cages and wells;
  • Data collected during the rulemaking process leaned toward preserving employer choices for fall protection; and
  • Although the 2016 rulemaking preamble acknowledged the shift away from cages and wells, it did not fully discuss evidence in favor of cages and wells.

Other arguments in the petition

The petition raises several points questioning the benefits of paragraph (b)(9)(i)(D), stating that:

  • In the past decade, AFPM, API, and ACC facilities have suffered only a few injuries, with no fatalities involving cages and wells;
  • Cages offer passive protection, whereas ladder safety systems and personal fall arrest systems require workers to take action to comply;
  • Personal protective equipment (PPE) lies at the bottom of the hierarchy of controls;
  • Safety risks also exist for ladder safety systems and personal fall arrest systems; and
  • Installing new ladders or retrofitting existing ones introduces hazards to those performing that work.

Finally, the petition addresses significant compliance costs, estimating several billion dollars for tens of thousands of ladders at U.S. refineries alone. Petitioners also cited additional expenses for rerating pressure vessels and engineering any process equipment changes.

What does OSHA say?

OSHA officially announced in a September 2025 memo that it is proposing to remove 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). The agency calls it a deregulatory action in line with Executive Order 14192. The memo reasons, “OSHA anticipates this change will allow employers to update their ladders when the ladders reach the end of their service lives, accommodating the lengthy service life of fixed ladders, while significantly reducing costs and offering greater flexibility.”

The WWS - Fixed Ladders proposal reached OIRA on December 18. OIRA typically takes 90 to 120 days for review, but recently a maximum 28-day review period for deregulatory actions was implemented. That means we anticipate OIRA will rush this proposal, so that OSHA may publish it in the Federal Register.

Key to remember

An upcoming OSHA proposal would withdraw 1910.28(b)(9)(i)(D). The rule was spurred by a petition.

Wildfire air pollution is rising: What federal findings mean for industry compliance
2026-01-22T06:00:00Z

Wildfire air pollution is rising: What federal findings mean for industry compliance

Wildfires have become one of the largest drivers of elevated air pollution in the United States, and recent federal publications show that their impact is increasing in both scale and severity. EPA confirms that large and catastrophic wildfires now produce substantial increases in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) across broad regions of the country, including smoke transported from Canada and Mexico. These events are raising background PM2.5 levels and expanding the number of communities experiencing smoke each year. As these trends accelerate, industries face new challenges in compliance, permitting, and worker protection, especially as wildfire seasons grow longer and smoke events more frequent.

Federal research shows PM2.5 from wildfires increasing nationwide

EPA’s most recent wildfire smoke analysis shows clear year to year increases in PM2.5 concentrations attributed to wildfire smoke across the United States. Data from 2006–2020 demonstrate that smoke driven PM2.5 spikes are occurring more often and across a wider geographic footprint. The agency reports that national public health impacts are significant, with thousands of annual emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and deaths linked to wildfire smoke exposure.

The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) 2025 federal wildfire smoke review supports these findings. Using space-based instrumentation GOES 19, TEMPO, and other satellite scientific tools, NOAA shows that thick smoke plumes from Canadian and U.S. fires degraded air quality across the Upper Midwest and other regions, even hundreds of miles from the fires. These satellite observations are paired with EPA ground monitors to identify high pollution zones and support air quality alerts.

Together, EPA and NOAA findings confirm that wildfire smoke is a major and rising contributor to PM2.5 levels, which is important for industries located in or downwind of wildfire prone areas.

Exceptional events

A central compliance question for industry is whether wildfire related pollution counts toward National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) attainment. Under the Exceptional Events Rule, wildfire smoke can be excluded from NAAQS determinations if states demonstrate that exceedances were caused by an uncontrollable natural event. EPA’s wildfire smoke guidance highlights the increasing burden of documenting smoke impacts and shows how PM2.5 spikes related to fires have grown more common.

The agency acknowledges that wildfire smoke frequently pushes PM2.5 concentrations into unhealthy ranges. During the 2023 Canadian wildfire episode, for example, EPA referenced surveillance showed measurable increases in asthma related emergency room (ER) visits. Even when these pollution spikes qualify as exceptional events, they still influence public health, air quality planning, and operational decisions for industry.

At the same time, NOAA continues to refine federal smoke forecasting models used by the National Weather Service (NWS) and EPA. These models help states prepare exceptional event documentation and guide industrial contingency planning when wildfire smoke is anticipated.

Why industry EHS professionals should pay close attention

  • Compliance and attainment risk: Wildfire smoke may be excluded as an exceptional event, but elevated PM2.5 levels can still push a region toward nonattainment before exclusion is approved. This creates uncertainty for industries during permit renewals, emissions modeling, and long-term facility planning. EPA’s data clearly indicate that wildfire driven PM2.5 exceedances are rising nationwide.
  • Worker exposure and health risk: EPA and NOAA findings confirm that wildfire smoke carries fine particulate matter capable of worsening respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. Industries with outdoor workers must consider revised exposure protocols, respirators, and schedule adjustments during smoke episodes.
  • Operational and supply chain stability: NOAA’s wildfire smoke analysis shows that smoke can travel long distances, disrupt visibility, affect logistics, and degrade regional air quality for days or weeks. Companies dependent on transportation corridors or sensitive equipment should plan for smoke related delays and monitoring.
  • Community and stakeholder expectations: Even when deemed an exceptional event, wildfire smoke contributes to local risk perceptions. Facilities may face increased scrutiny, especially if their emissions interact with elevated regional PM2.5.

Bottom line for industry

Federal research shows that wildfire driven air pollution is increasing in both frequency and intensity, often raising PM2.5 concentrations across entire regions. EPA’s Exceptional Events Rule may exclude wildfire smoke from NAAQS compliance, but industries still face operational, health, and planning challenges as wildfire seasons intensify. NOAA’s satellite data confirms that smoke impacts will continue to widen under changing climate conditions.

Key to remember: For EHS professionals, wildfire smoke is no longer only a regional hazard. It is a strategic compliance and operational issue requiring enhanced monitoring, seasonal planning, and proactive communication.

Defining RCRA solid waste: Does your material qualify?
2026-01-15T06:00:00Z

Defining RCRA solid waste: Does your material qualify?

What’s a solid waste? It may seem obvious at first, but understanding the correct definition is essential for facilities to comply with the federal waste management program. If the question is answered incorrectly, there can be serious consequences. Mismanaged waste (especially when it’s hazardous) can endanger the health of people and the environment.

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates the entire lifecycle of waste, from creation to disposal. Only materials that qualify as “solid waste” — whether they’re nonhazardous or hazardous — are subject to RCRA requirements. That’s why all waste generators need to have an accurate understanding of how solid waste is defined.

Use this overview to help your facility determine if the waste it generates qualifies as solid waste.

What’s a RCRA solid waste?

The statutory definition (42 U.S.C. 6903(27)) and the regulatory definition (40 CFR 261.2) explain what’s considered a solid waste under RCRA.

Statutory definition

The act defines solid waste as:

  • Garbage;
  • Refuse;
  • Sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility; or
  • Any other discarded material from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural operations and from community activities.

It applies to physically solid, semisolid, liquid, and gaseous materials.

Regulatory definition

EPA (per 262.11) requires anyone who generates a solid waste to accurately determine whether the waste is hazardous. The first part of the hazardous waste identification process is to establish whether the material is a solid waste. EPA expanded the definition of solid waste for this purpose.

The regulation further defines solid waste as any material that’s discarded by being:

  • Abandoned (defined in 261.2(b)),
  • Recycled (defined in 261.2(c)),
  • Considered inherently waste-like (defined in 261.2(d)), or
  • A military munition (defined in 266.202).

If a material doesn’t meet these criteria, it’s not considered a solid waste and isn’t subject to RCRA regulations. If the criteria do apply, the material qualifies as a RCRA solid waste, and your facility must comply with EPA’s standards for managing either nonhazardous or hazardous RCRA waste.

What’s not a RCRA solid waste?

Many materials are excluded from the definition of solid waste. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that these wastes are unregulated; some are excluded because other regulations apply (for example, industrial wastewater point source discharges are subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System rules). Make sure to check if other requirements apply to excluded materials.

Statutory exclusions

RCRA’s definition of solid waste excludes:

  • Solid or dissolved material in domestic sewage;
  • Solid or dissolved materials in irrigation return flows;
  • Industrial wastewater discharges only at point sources (it doesn’t exclude industrial wastewaters collected, stored, or treated before discharge or sludges generated by industrial wastewater treatment); and
  • Source, special nuclear, or byproduct material defined by the Atomic Energy Act.

Regulatory exclusions

EPA lists the wastes that are exempt from the definition of solid waste at 261.4. It excludes all of the wastes that the statutory definition does. The agency also exempts other wastes under certain conditions (such as spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin sulfuric acid, reclaimed secondary materials reused in production, and recycled shredded circuit boards).

Why does this matter?

Knowing what’s considered solid waste is vital to compliance because it tells you if RCRA rules apply to your specific waste.

It’s also the first part of the hazardous waste identification process. Facilities use the process to determine how solid waste is regulated, either as nonhazardous waste subject to RCRA Subtitle D rules or as hazardous waste subject to RCRA Subtitle C standards.

Check state requirements

Most states implement the RCRA waste management regulations. State rules must be at least as strict as federal, and some states may have more stringent requirements. Check with your facility’s state environmental agency to confirm what standards apply.

Key to remember: Defining solid waste is the first step in determining whether RCRA rules apply to a material.

EPA scraps SDS/Tier II reporting rule tied to OSHA HazCom
2026-01-14T06:00:00Z

EPA scraps SDS/Tier II reporting rule tied to OSHA HazCom

After receiving an “adverse comment,” EPA withdrew its direct final rule to amend 40 CFR 370 before the rule had a chance to take effect. The direct final rule published back on November 17, 2025, was intended to relax the Tier II reporting and safety data sheet (SDS) reporting requirements and align with the OSHA Hazard Communication standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200.

In November, EPA said it considered the rule to be noncontroversial and anticipated no adverse comment. However, on January 9, 2026, EPA published its withdrawal of the direct final rule “because the EPA subsequently received adverse comment.” The agency did not disclose what the fatal comment was. However, docket EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-0299 shows nine comments, many of which express serious concerns with this rule related to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

What were the objections?

Examining the docket, we find several requests for withdrawal of the rule. Some of the concerns raised by commenters included:

  • Misalignment with OSHA compliance dates — Commenters remarked that the rule does not align with the phased-in compliance deadlines in the OSHA Hazard Communication (HazCom) standard at 29 CFR 1910.1200(j). In fact, EPA’s compliance date precedes OSHA’s dates, making it “impossible to implement the required changes … for the 2026 reporting cycle,” asserted one commenter. This will force facilities to engage in premature self-classification, argued the commenter. “This misalignment introduces a high risk of inconsistent hazard reporting, undermining both regulatory clarity and the reliability of emergency planning data,” warned another.
  • Unrealistic timeline — Commenters pointed out the fast-track schedule. “This timeline compresses the window for implementing critical updates to chemical management software systems [and] procedures [and] reconfiguring data collection processes,” explained a commenter who predicted that facilities will be unable to ensure compatibility between internal chemical management software systems and the new reporting structure, without timely access to updated EPA-provided Tier2Submit® software.
  • Implementation challenges — Facilities would be mandated to re-map each reported chemical (often before SDSs have been updated), claimed one commenter. State agencies would also have to incorporate the new hazard categories into their electronic reporting systems and revise guidance/training materials, according to another.
  • New burdens with little benefit — While EPA announced that the rule was deregulatory, one commenter contends that it would make reporting “MORE burdensome.” The commenter also stressed that the rule would “not improve emergency planning or response.” Others emphasized that it exceeds what is necessary for harmonization with the OSHA HazCom standard and that the expanded reporting system would offer “little value.” Yet another commenter noted that using 112 hazard categories instead of 24 would overwhelm the public who have a right to know about the hazards in their communities.
  • Rule characterization flaws — One commenter declared that “the rule’s characterization as ‘technical’ does not withstand scrutiny” because it substantively changes what information must be submitted; imposes non-trivial, potentially large costs on both the private sector and state/local programs; and conflicts with OSHA’s phased compliance framework.
  • EPA obligation failures — Commenters also observed that EPA failed to assess or recognize “potentially large aggregate costs to the private sector and to state/local [agencies].” They also suggest that the agency estimate paperwork costs, determine whether small entities are affected, and request the Office of Management and Budget to review the rule. Finally, EPA has not meaningfully looked at costs and least-cost alternatives, one commenter said. The commenter gave alternative examples — “phased implementation aligned to OSHA’s schedule, optional dual-category reporting for one cycle, or a later effective date.”

What’s next?

Now, EPA is proceeding with writing a new final rule addressing all public comments. The agency published a parallel proposed rule on the same November date as the direct final rule. That proposal took comments (through December 24, 2025) on the substance of the direct final rule.

That means the agency has all it needs to work on a final rule. EPA made clear that no second round of comments will be collected, but the agency gave no hints as to when it might publish a new final rule.

Until then, the existing CFRs remain in place. In other words, the changes in the November 17, 2025, direct final rule will not take effect on January 16, 2026, as planned because they are now withdrawn.

Note that the direct final rule, had it taken effect, would not have impacted the Tier II forms due on or before March 1, 2026. Rest assured that it is “business as usual” for Tier II reporting due by March 1, 2026. Similarly, SDS reporting requirements continue as is.

For background information, check out our November 25th article, “EPA’s SDS/Tier II reporting now in lockstep with OSHA HazCom.”

Key to remember

On January 9th, EPA withdrew the November 17th direct final rule that would have amended Part 370. The withdrawal is prompted by an adverse comment. A new final rule is in the works.

Understanding WOTUS and Navigable Waters in 2026
2026-01-12T06:00:00Z

Understanding WOTUS and Navigable Waters in 2026

Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) coverage is narrowing after the Supreme Court’s Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency (Sackett) decision (2023) and a 2025 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) proposal to align waters of the United States (WOTUS) with that ruling. Expect fewer federally regulated wetlands, more state-by-state differences, and continued uncertainty through 2026.

What counts as “navigable waters” today?

Post-Sackett, WOTUS includes traditional navigable waters, territorial seas, certain interstate waters, impoundments, tributaries that are relatively permanent, and adjacent wetlands that directly abut those waters through a continuous surface connection. Non-jurisdictional ditches do not create adjacency.

Recent changes

  • Supreme Court decision in Sackett (May 2023): The CWA covers only waters that are relatively permanent and wetlands with a continuous surface connection to those waters. The Supreme Court rejected the “significant nexus” test.
  • Conforming amendments (September 2023): EPA and the USACE removed the significant nexus standard, revised the definition of "adjacent," and clarified that interstate wetlands aren't automatically WOTUS.
  • Field guidance (March 2025): EPA and the USACE directed that non-jurisdictional ditches, swales, pipes, and culverts don't create a continuous surface connection. Wetlands must directly abut the water.
  • Proposed rule (November 2025): EPA and the USACE proposed definitions for “relatively permanent,” “tributary,” and “continuous surface connection.” If finalized, federal coverage will narrow further.

Where each rule applies

Implementation is split:

  • The 2023 amended rule is in effect in 24 states, D.C., and territories.
  • The pre-2015 regime and Sackett apply in 26 states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Kentucky now follows the 2023 amended rule except for certain litigants. Always check EPA’s “Current Implementation of Waters of the United States” page to check state status before filing permits.

Why it matters to industry and commerce

  • Permitting: WOTUS defines whether projects need Section 404 (dredge/fill) and Section 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permits. A narrower federal scope can reduce federal permitting, but state and tribal programs may still apply.
  • Design: Wetlands separated by berms or uplands and connected only by ditches or culverts likely do not qualify as WOTUS. Early jurisdictional determinations (JDs) and hydrologic documentation are critical.
  • Risk: Multistate portfolios face uneven rules due to individual states having their own regulatory framework. The 2025 proposal could further limit federal reach, shifting responsibility to states. Multistate industry and commerce should prepare for state variability and litigation-driven changes.

The legal and regulatory arc: Why definitions keep changing

  • Statute: The CWA regulates “navigable waters,” defined as “waters of the United States,” but doesn't define WOTUS.
  • Court history: Court decisions have repeatedly reshaped and narrowed the definition of WOTUS. United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. (1985) upheld adjacent wetlands; the scope narrowed when Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2001) limited isolated waters. Rapanos v. United States (2006) deepened uncertainty by introducing two competing tests, “relatively permanent” vs. “significant nexus,” leaving regulators and courts with ambiguity.
  • Rulemaking swings:
    • The 2015 Clean Water Rule broadened coverage.
    • The 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule narrowed it, but the rule was later vacated.
    • The 2023 WOTUS Rule was reshaped by Sackett and amended in August 2023.
  • Current alignment: The 2023 amendments and 2025 proposal aim to match the Supreme Court’s standards.

Pending actions to watch in 2026

  • Final rule: The 2025 proposal’s comment period closed on January 5, 2026. A final rule could standardize terms and further narrow jurisdiction.
  • Litigation: Courts may lift or expand injunctions, changing which states apply which regime.
  • Funding: Fiscal Year 2025 operations rely on continuing resolutions; WOTUS changes will come through rulemaking, not budget riders.

Practical steps for EHS and project teams

  • Confirm your state’s regime before scoping.
  • Request or update JDs early; document permanence and direct abutment.
  • Track the 2025 proposal and submit comments where unclear.

Key to Remember: WOTUS and “navigable waters” definitions are narrowing, reducing some federal burdens but increasing state variability. For industrial and commercial projects, early jurisdictional work and state-specific permitting plans are essential to protect schedules and budgets.

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

EHS Monthly Round Up - December 2025

EHS Monthly Round Up - December 2025

In this December 2025 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 last month.

In fiscal year 2025, the top three violations for non-construction small employers, those with under 100 employees, were hazard communication, respiratory protection, and powered industrial trucks. Three industries dominated these violations: fabricated metal product manufacturing, repair and maintenance, and non-metallic mineral product manufacturing.

OSHA issued several new letters of interpretation on a variety of workplace topics, including permit required confined spaces, recordkeeping, and powered industrial trucks. Letters of interpretation help ensure the consistent application of federal workplace safety and health standards, and provide regulatory clarification to employers, workers, and safety professionals.

California’s STOP Act took effect January 1. The law targets the state’s fabricated stone industry. It prohibits dry cutting of stone countertops, mandates employee training, and classifies silicosis and silica-related lung cancer from artificial stone as a serious injury or illness.

As of January 1, Washington state requires tower crane permits for all construction work involving tower crane operation, assembly, disassembly, and reconfiguration. Before issuing permits, Washington Department of Labor and Industries will conduct safety conferences to ensure all parties understand the safety requirements and related responsibilities.

Turning to environmental news, EPA issued compliance deadline extensions for certain emissions standards. The delays affect the New Source Performance Standards for crude oil and natural gas facilities and the emissions guidelines for such facilities. Compliance timelines have been pushed into mid- to late-2026 and early 2027.

And finally, although EPA has been deregulating or loosening some environmental requirements, there are still some standards being tightened. These include renewable fuel standards, stormwater management, and PFAS disclosure. Changes to these requirements will reshape compliance obligations for U.S. companies in 2026, and reflect a trend toward increased transparency and environmental accountability.

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

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2025

EHS Monthly Round Up - January 2025

In this January 2025 monthly 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. There’s a lot going on, so let’s get started!

As happens at the start of most incoming presidential administrations, a freeze has been placed on all regulatory activity at the federal level, giving the new administration time to review agencies’ plans. The Office of Management and Budget, which must approve most rulemaking activities, has sent numerous pending rules back to the agencies for review. In addition, OSHA withdrew its infectious diseases proposed rule and its COVID-19 in healthcare rule prior to the inauguration.

OSHA’s penalties increased on January 15. The maximum penalty amounts for serious and other-than-serious violations increased to $16,550. For willful or repeated violations, the maximum penalty increased to $165,514 per violation.

OSHA updated its directive on injury and illness recordkeeping policies and procedures. While it’s intended for OSHA compliance officers, employers can use the information to help with recordkeeping compliance.

Fewer workers died on the job in 2023, as fatal work injuries decreased 3.7 percent from 2022. Transportation incidents remained the most frequent type of fatal event, accounting for over 36 percent of all occupational fatalities.

California’s Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board voted to adopt a permanent silica standard. If approved, it would extend and strengthen the state’s emergency temporary standard, which was put in place in December 2023.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health updated its List of Hazardous Drugs in Healthcare Settings. This is a resource for employers and employees in identifying drugs that are hazardous to the health and safety of those who handle them.

Turning to environmental news, EPA released the biannual update of the nonconfidential TSCA inventory. The inventory helps facilities determine their regulatory requirements for the chemicals they use or plan to use.

And finally, EPA added new Management Method Codes to describe how hazardous waste will be managed after temporary storage and transfer. As of January 1st, hazardous waste handlers must use the codes on the Biennial Report Waste Generation and Management forms.

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

EPA extends wastewater compliance deadlines for coal-fired steam power plants
2026-01-05T06:00:00Z

EPA extends wastewater compliance deadlines for coal-fired steam power plants

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on December 31, 2025, that changes certain requirements for wastewater discharges from coal-fired steam electric power plants. It applies to regulations established by the preceding rule finalized in 2024.

The 2025 final rule:

  • Extends the submission deadline for the notice of planned participation (NOPP) required for the subcategory of electric generating units (EGUs) seeking to permanently stop coal combustion by December 31, 2034;
  • Extends compliance deadlines for zero-discharge limitations that apply to dischargers of flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater, bottom ash (BA) transport water, and combustion residual leachate (CRL);
  • Establishes tiered standards for indirect discharges of FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL; and
  • Adds provisions that allow facilities to transfer into and out of the subcategory of regulated EGUs that will permanently cease coal combustion by 2034 until December 31, 2034.

Who’s affected?

The final rule impacts EGUs subject to the effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating point source category (40 CFR Part 423).

What are the new deadlines?

The 2025 final rule delays the NOPP compliance date. It also extends the deadlines for zero-discharge limitations on FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL. The delays apply to the best available economically achievable (BAT) limitations for direct dischargers and the pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) for indirect dischargers.

Requirement(s)Previous deadlineNew deadline
  • NOPP for permanent cessation of coal combustion by 2034
December 31, 2025December 31, 2031
(Direct dischargers)
  • FGD wastewater BAT
  • BA transport water BAT
  • CRL BAT
No later than December 31, 2029No later than December 31, 2034
(Indirect dischargers)
  • FGD wastewater PSES
  • BA transport water PSES
  • CRL PSES
May 9, 2027January 1, 2029, or site-specific date for BAT

What are the other changes?

EPA’s 2025 final rule sets tiered standards for indirect dischargers of FGD wastewater, BA transport water, and CRL:

  • The first tier requires indirect dischargers to meet pre-2024 final rule standards by January 1, 2029.
  • The second tier:
    • Allows indirect dischargers to continue indirectly discharging up to December 31, 2024, if they certify that they’ll convert to become direct dischargers; or
    • Requires indirect dischargers to meet the zero-discharge requirements by January 1, 2029, if they choose not to become direct dischargers.

The final rule also adds provisions that enable facilities to transfer into and out of the subcategory of regulated EGUs that will permanently cease coal combustion by 2034 until December 31, 2034. It allows EGUs to switch between complying with the zero-discharge limitations and the requirements that apply to the subcategory.

Key to remember: EPA has delayed certain compliance requirements for coal-fired steam electric power plants that discharge three types of wastewaters.

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

New York establishes Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program

Effective date: December 10, 2025

This applies to: Certain GHG emission sources

Description of change: Entities subject to 6 NYCRR Part 253 must submit annual reports of greenhouse (GHG) emissions during the previous calendar year by June 1. Reporting facilities must keep records used for the reports, and larger sources have to obtain third-party verification of their reported emissions. The first report will cover 2026 GHG emissions data and will be due on June 1, 2027.

The regulation applies to emission sources that are in a listed category and operate in New York. The rule establishes three reporting threshold categories:

  • Suppliers of fuels, electricity, or fertilizer;
  • Facilities that emit more than 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent of GHGs annually; and
  • Sources with a specific operational activity.

Related state info: Clean air operating permit state comparison

2026-01-02T06:00:00Z

Washington restricts PFAS products

Effective date: December 21, 2025

This applies to: Manufacturers, sellers, and distributors of certain consumer products with intentionally added PFAS

Description of change: The Washington State Department of Ecology amended regulations to restrict the manufacture, sale, and distribution of consumer products with intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in these categories:

  • Apparel and accessories,
  • Automotive washes, and
  • Cleaning products.

The department also added requirements for manufacturers to report intentional use of PFAS for nine other consumer product categories, including:

  • Apparel intended for extreme and extended use,
  • Footwear,
  • Gear for recreation and travel,
  • Automotive waxes,
  • Cookware and kitchen supplies,
  • Firefighting personal protective equipment,
  • Floor waxes and polishes,
  • Hard surface sealers, and
  • Ski waxes.

New restrictions take effect on January 1, 2027, and initial reports are due by January 31, 2027 (and by January 31 annually thereafter).

Related state info: Hazardous waste generators — Washington

See More
New Network Poll
In what areas are you most concerned should you face a regulatory audit?

In what areas are you most concerned should you face a regulatory audit?

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.