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? .

In nearly all situations where employees must remove a machine guard to perform service or maintenance work, they should follow lockout/tagout procedures.

Although the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) provides an exception from lockout/tagout for minor service tasks, that exception does not apply if employees would have to place any body part into a machine’s hazard zone or point of operation.

For example, if a machine occasionally jams, a worker cannot reach an arm into the operating area (or stretch a foot down to kick an item loose) to clear the jam.

However, adopting protective measures or procedures could allow workers to clear the jam without risk of injury, and without going through a full lockout process. For example:

  • Employees might use a special tool designed to reach past the guard and clear the jam without reaching a body part into the hazard area.
  • A machine might have an interlocked guard that prevents the machine from operating while the guard is open or removed; the employee would then be protected when opening the guard to clear the jam.

Protecting workers

The minor service exception might apply to activities such as clearing jams, applying lubrication, or making tool changes, but only if those duties can be performed safely. These tasks are exempted from the lockout/tagout requirements only if:

  1. They are routine, repetitive, and integral to the use of the equipment; and
  2. The work is performed using alternative measures which provide effective protection.

On the first point, the task must be necessary for production to continue without interruption. Each of the following elements must be met. The work must be:

  • Routine: The activity must be performed as part of a regular procedure following an established practice,
  • Repetitive: The activity must be repeated during the production process, and
  • Integral: The activity must be inherent to (essential to) the production process, and performed as part of the production process.

Maintenance or adjustments that fail to meet any one of those criteria cannot qualify for the minor service exception.

The second item is equally critical, and often overlooked. The method or procedure for performing the task must effectively protect employees from injury.

As noted, if an employee must bypass a guard or reach into a point of operation (which would expose the worker to injury), then lockout/tagout must be used. However, using a “push stick” to reach past a guard (without placing a body part beyond the guard) could allow workers to clear a jam while protecting them from injury.

Review any routine maintenance work to verify that it meets all elements of the exception. Remember: If employees are exposed to hazardous energy, you either need to apply lockout procedures, or use other protections (such as special tools) that allow them to perform the task without exposing themselves to injury.

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

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 U.S. 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 Clean Air Act, 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 does not 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. 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 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 eight 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 eight 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 does not alter emissions 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

Most Recent Highlights In Transportation

EPA releases draft list of drinking water contaminants for possible regulation
2026-04-07T05:00:00Z

EPA releases draft list of drinking water contaminants for possible regulation

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6) for the next group of contaminants to be considered for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The agency’s proposed list designates microplastics and pharmaceuticals as priority contaminant groups for the first time.

What’s on the list?

The proposed CCL 6 contains:

  • 4 chemical groups, including:
    • Microplastics,
    • Pharmaceuticals,
    • Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and
    • Disinfection byproducts.
  • 75 chemicals; and
  • 9 microbes.

EPA may regulate the listed contaminants in the future.

What does the CCL do?

The drinking water CCL is the first part of the process to regulate contaminants in public water systems. The list identifies unregulated contaminants known or anticipated to be present in drinking water that pose the greatest health risk. It helps EPA prioritize which contaminants to evaluate for potential regulation.

The SDWA requires EPA to make regulatory determinations (i.e., whether to develop rules for a contaminant) for at least five contaminants listed on the CCL every 5 years. When the agency determines a contaminant needs to be regulated, it begins the rulemaking process to develop a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) for the contaminant. The NPDWRs apply to public water systems.

How can I participate?

EPA will receive public comments on the CCL 6 through June 5, 2026. You can send comments to EPA via regulations.gov or by mail. Make sure your submission includes the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2022-0946.

Key to remember: The draft list of the next round of drinking water contaminants to be considered for regulation adds priority groups for microplastics and pharmaceuticals.

EPA delivers 2026–2027 renewable fuel volumes
2026-04-03T05:00:00Z

EPA delivers 2026–2027 renewable fuel volumes

On April 1, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published the “Set 2” Rule, establishing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program’s 2026 and 2027 renewable fuel volumes and associated percentage standards for:

  • Cellulosic biofuel,
  • Biomass-based diesel (BBD),
  • Advanced biofuel, and
  • Total renewable fuel.

The final rule also implements other significant changes.

Who’s impacted?

The “Set 2” Rule affects:

  • Transportation fuel (i.e., gasoline and diesel) refiners, blenders, marketers, distributors, importers, and exporters; and
  • Renewable fuel producers and importers.

The volume and percentage requirements apply to obligated parties, which include transportation fuel refiners and importers.

What are the changes?

The final rule sets the renewable fuel volume requirements and associated percentage standards for 2026 and 2027. Volume requirements are measured in billion Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs). One RIN represents 1 gallon of ethanol-equivalent renewable fuel.

Renewable fuel categoryVolume requirements (in billion RINs)Percentage standards
2026202720262027
Cellulosic biofuel1.361.430.79%0.84%
BBD9.079.205.24%5.37%
Advanced biofuel11.1011.326.42%6.61%
Total renewable fuel26.8127.0215.50%15.78%

The “Set 2” Rule also:

  • Reallocates 70 percent of the exempted Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) for 2023–2025 to 2026 and 2027 (which are reflected in the above table’s volume requirements),
  • Partially waives the 2025 cellulosic biofuel volume requirement from 1.38 billion RINs to 1.21 billion RINs and adjusts the related percentage standard from 0.81 percent to 0.71 percent, and
  • Removes renewable electricity as a qualifying renewable fuel under the RFS program.

RFS program refresher

The RFS program requires transportation fuel sold in the United States to contain a minimum volume of renewable fuels. EPA sets the renewable fuel volume targets for each of the four renewable fuel categories.

To comply, obligated parties must:

  • Calculate their RVOs for each renewable fuel category, and
  • Obtain and retire enough RINs to meet their RVOs.

Regulations also apply to fuel blenders, marketers, and exporters.

Small refiners may petition EPA for a small refinery exemption (SRE), which allows refineries to produce gasoline and diesel without having to meet the RVOs required by the RFS program. EPA grants SREs annually, and they cover one specific compliance year.

Key to remember: EPA’s final “Set 2” rule establishes the renewable fuel volumes and percentage standards for 2026 and 2027 and drives other changes to the RFS program.

EPA releases final NESHAP for chemical manufacturing area sources
2026-04-02T05:00:00Z

EPA releases final NESHAP for chemical manufacturing area sources

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a final rule on April 1, 2026, amending the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources (CMAS). The NESHAP controls hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from facilities that manufacture a range of chemicals and products, such as inorganic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic rubber.

Who’s impacted?

The final rule applies to nine area source categories in the chemical manufacturing sector that are regulated by the CMAS NESHAP (40 CFR 63 Subpart VVVVVV).

What are the changes?

EPA’s final rule:

  • Establishes leak detection and repair requirements for equipment leaks and heat exchange systems in organic HAP service,
  • Adds detectable emissions monitoring standards for pressure vessels in organic HAP service and emission management practice standards for pressure relief devices (PRDs) in organic HAP service,
  • Prohibits closed vent systems in organic HAP service from bypassing an air pollution control device (APCD), and
  • Requires recurring performance testing of non-flare APCDs to demonstrate compliance with process vent and storage tank provisions.

The final rule also mandates electronic reporting for notifications of compliance status (NOCs), performance test reports, and periodic reports. Facilities must submit these reports through the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI) on EPA’s Central Data Exchange.

What didn’t change?

Significantly, the final rule doesn’t add previously proposed regulations for area sources that use ethylene oxide (EtO) to produce materials described by code 325 of the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).

EPA states that it intends to address the regulation of EtO from area sources and major sources in one final action.

What are the compliance timelines?

Existing facilities must comply with the amendments by April 1, 2029.

New facilities (those that begin construction or reconstruction after January 22, 2025) have to comply with the changes by April 1, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later.

Additionally, facilities must start electronically submitting:

  • Performance tests by June 1, 2026;
  • NOCs by August 31, 2026; and
  • Periodic reports by April 1, 2029.

Key to remember: EPA’s final HAP emissions rule for chemical manufacturing area sources adds new requirements for certain processing equipment and systems.

EPCRA inventory reports: A case study in federal, state, and local collaboration
2026-03-31T05:00:00Z

EPCRA inventory reports: A case study in federal, state, and local collaboration

Environmental regulations require many facilities to report annual inventories of the hazardous chemicals they use or store. Have you ever considered the impact that this information has beyond regulatory compliance? Reporting facilities, whether they realize it or not, serve an essential role in local emergency response planning.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Hazardous Chemical Inventory Reporting program under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) offers a prime example of how collaboration among the federal, state, local, and facility levels supports safer communities.

What’s EPCRA's inventory reporting program?

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires facilities to keep Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) for any hazardous chemical used or stored in the workplace. Facilities that use or store the chemicals on-site at or above certain thresholds at any one time are subject to EPCRA’s Hazardous Chemical Inventory Reporting program. Regulated facilities must report information about the hazardous chemicals to the:

  • State Emergency Response Commission (SERC),
  • Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), and
  • Local fire department.

What’s reported?

EPA’s EPCRA inventory program consists of two reporting requirements under Sections 311 and 312 of EPCRA.

SDSs/lists

Section 311 of EPCRA requires facilities to submit the SDSs for or a list of the hazardous chemicals used or stored on-site at or above the reporting thresholds to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department.

SDSs usually include comprehensive information, such as:

  • The composition of ingredients,
  • Physical and health hazard information, and
  • First aid and firefighting measures.

If a facility opts to list the chemicals, it must group them by hazard categories and include each chemical’s name and any hazardous components as identified by the SDS. This is generally a one-time submission for each hazardous chemical. However, if a facility submits an SDS for a hazardous chemical and later discovers significant new information about it, the facility has to send an updated SDS to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department.

Annual inventories

Under Section 312 of EPCRA, facilities must also submit an annual inventory (known as the Tier II inventory report) of the hazardous chemicals used or stored on-site at or above the reporting thresholds to the SERC, LEPC, and local fire department by March 1.

Facilities should check state regulations to confirm Tier II reporting thresholds, as they may be more stringent.

The Tier II inventory report requires information on the covered hazardous chemicals used or stored at the facility during the previous calendar year, including:

  • The locations of the chemicals,
  • The amounts of the chemicals, and
  • The potential hazards of the chemicals.

How do inventories support emergency planning?

Inventory reports provide information that’s vital to effective emergency response planning. Specifically, the inventories tell state and local officials about where hazardous chemical releases may occur and the risks that such releases may pose. Equipped with an accurate view of these hazards, officials can build and maintain effective emergency response plans for their communities.

Each participant in the emergency planning effort plays a distinct role:

  • Reporting facilities provide the SERCs, LEPCs, and local fire departments with the information they need to build effective response plans, such as the types of chemicals on-site and their quantities, locations, and possible hazards.
  • SERCs designate local emergency planning districts and appoint and supervise LEPCs. They also establish the inventory reporting procedures, review local emergency response plans, and process information requests from the public.
  • LEPCs use inventory reports to develop and update emergency response plans that address each community’s unique risks.
  • Local fire departments use the inventory reports to understand the potential chemical-related risks they may encounter at specific facilities. By knowing where the chemicals are and the potential hazards they pose, fire departments can improve personnel training and identify the most appropriate ways to respond to chemical emergencies.

Ultimately, reporting facilities aren’t just meeting a compliance requirement; they’re also supporting safer communities.

Key point: EPCRA’s hazardous chemical inventory requirements provide an example of effective collaboration between EPA, state and local officials, and facilities to prepare communities for chemical emergencies.

2026-03-27T05:00:00Z

Expert Insights: Four commonly overlooked categories in TRI reporting

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting can be tricky, even for seasoned EHS teams. Many facilities meet all the requirements but still miss chemicals that should be reported. Most oversights fall into four key categories. Here’s what they are and why they get missed, along with a few simple examples that show up in routine operations.

Newly added or updated TRI chemicals

The TRI list changes more often than many people realize. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regularly updates it and recently added new per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and even a full diisononyl phthalate (DINP) chemical category. When facilities don’t review these updates each year, they may keep using materials that now contain reportable chemicals without realizing it. For example, PFAS were expanded for Reporting Years 2024 and 2025, and the DINP category was added in 2023. These changes mean that everyday items like coatings, lubricants, and flexible plastics can suddenly trigger TRI thresholds.

“Otherwise used” chemicals

Not every reportable chemical is manufactured or processed. Many are simply “otherwise used,” including solvents, degreasers, cleaners, and maintenance chemicals. Facilities often overlook these because they aren’t part of the product mix, but they can add up fast. Even common shop chemicals, when used across a year, can exceed the 10,000-pound threshold and require reporting.

Coincidentally manufactured byproducts

Some chemicals are created unintentionally during normal operations. Ammonia may form during baking or heating steps, nitrates often appear in wastewater treatment, and metal compounds can be generated during welding, machining, or corrosion. These substances count as “manufactured” under TRI even if they weren’t intentionally manufactured. Examples like ammonia, nitrates, metal compounds, and diesel byproducts such as naphthalene and polycyclic aromatic compounds are regularly overlooked in TRI reporting because they’re easy to underestimate.

Impurities or additives in mixtures

Many reportable chemicals hide inside mixtures, oils, coatings, lubricants, and chemical blends. If a facility focuses only on the main ingredients, it may miss the smaller additive or impurity that’s actually subject to TRI reporting. These overlooked components can push a facility over a reporting threshold, even when the product is used in small amounts.

TRI oversights usually occur not because facilities ignore the rules but because chemicals show up in unexpected forms. Keeping an eye on updates, tracking cleaners and maintenance chemicals, monitoring byproducts, and checking mixtures closely can prevent the most common reporting mistakes.

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Safety & Health

The essential role of local governments in environmental regulation
2026-03-25T05:00:00Z

The essential role of local governments in environmental regulation

Counties and municipalities play a major role in protecting air, water, and land resources across the United States. Although federal and state agencies establish the overarching environmental framework, thousands of local agencies conduct the day to day permitting, inspections, and enforcement needed to make those rules work.

Local governments obtain regulatory authority largely through delegation. Federal environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) allow the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to authorize state agencies, which may then rely on local entities to administer components of these programs. In many states, local districts, counties, or municipalities operate significant environmental programs directly under state authority.

Common local level programs

A strong example of local involvement can be seen in air quality management. The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) reports that 117 local air agencies participate in implementing federal and state clean air programs, highlighting how implementation frequently happens at the local level.

EPA’s AirNow directory lists numerous local air quality agencies across the country; Examples include air pollution control districts in California (such as the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the South Coast Air Quality Management District) as well as local air programs in Maricopa County, Arizona; Jacksonville, Florida; and Omaha, Nebraska. These districts conduct inspections, issue permits, investigate complaints, and maintain air monitoring networks, all of which support state and federal clean air requirements.

Local authority is also central to solid waste management, where many states rely heavily on counties and municipalities to manage planning, facilities, and enforcement. For instance, Washington State requires local governments to develop comprehensive solid and hazardous waste management plans that guide all waste handling and recycling programs within each county or city. These plans determine facility needs, outline reduction and recycling strategies, and shape local ordinances designed to meet state goals.

Additional examples appear across the country. Maryland’s Montgomery County, California’s Alameda County, and the District of Columbia all implement ambitious local waste diversion plans that supplement or exceed state requirements, demonstrating how counties and cities directly shape waste reduction and recycling policy. Likewise, South Carolina places most solid waste management responsibility on county governments, which must develop local plans, designate recycling coordinators, and report progress toward statewide goals.

Why is local involvement critical?

Local environmental regulatory authority matters because conditions vary widely across the nation. Counties and municipalities better understand their own industries, land uses, and growth patterns, allowing them to respond quickly to complaints, target outreach effectively, and adopt ordinances that go beyond state or federal minimums when necessary. Their proximity to communities makes local agencies essential partners in achieving environmental compliance and advancing public health protections.

As federal and state programs evolve, the role of local agencies continues to expand. Air quality districts, solid waste authorities, and local environmental health departments all demonstrate how counties and municipalities contribute directly to national environmental objectives.

Key to remember: With thousands of local agencies responsible for on the ground regulatory tasks, the strength and responsiveness of the United States’ environmental protection system depend heavily on the active engagement of local governments.

Toxics Release Inventory: Are you ready to report?
2026-03-24T05:00:00Z

Toxics Release Inventory: Are you ready to report?

Every year at the beginning of July, industrial facilities across the nation can breathe a collective sigh of relief — their annual inventories of toxic chemicals are complete! To ensure that your facility can be part of that celebration (and avoid a chaotic rush to meet the deadline), now’s the perfect time to start preparing for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) TRI program requires industrial facilities to report waste management data on certain toxic chemicals they manufacture, process, and use by July 1 each year. Is your facility ready to report? Here’s an overview of the TRI program to help you answer this question.

Who’s covered by TRI reporting?

Generally, TRI reporting applies if the facility:

  • Is in a covered industry sector (40 CFR 372.23);
  • Employs 10 or more full-time-equivalent employees; and
  • Manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses a covered chemical or chemical category (372.65) in quantities above the threshold levels (372.25, .27, and .28) in a given year.

TRI tip: The TRI reporting year (RY) reflects the calendar year covered by the report, not the year in which you submit the report. For example, TRI reports for RY 2025 are due by July 1, 2026.

What’s covered by TRI reporting?

Facilities must submit the TRI Form R (or the streamlined Form A Certification Statement if eligible) for each TRI-listed chemical manufactured, processed, or used during the previous calendar year. The data covers chemical waste management activities (including releases to the environment) and any actions taken to reduce or prevent chemical waste.

Facilities usually report for each chemical:

  • The quantities of releases (routine and accidental),
  • Any releases caused by catastrophic or other one-time events,
  • The maximum amount on-site during the year, and
  • The amount contained in wastes managed on-site or transferred off-site.

What’s new for RY 2025?

The TRI reports for RY 2025 contain three differences from previous years:

  • The de minimis level for anthracene was lowered from 1.0 percent to 0.1 percent. Anthracene’s Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) is 120-12-7.
  • More activity sub-use codes were added to the sub-use codes for “processing” and “otherwise use” activities.
  • Nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were added to the TRI chemical list:
EPA registry nameCASRN
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate acid27619-97-2
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate ammonium salt59587-39-2
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate anion425670-75-3
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate potassium salt59587-38-1
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate sodium salt27619-94-9
Acetic acid, [(.gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro-C8-10-alkyl)thio] derivs., Bu esters3030471-22-5
Ammonium perfluorodecanoate3108-42-7
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid377-73-1
Sodium perfluorodecanoate3830-45-3

How are TRI reports submitted?

Facilities must submit TRI reports electronically to the TRI-MEweb application on EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Even if a facility uses its own software to prepare TRI forms, it must upload and submit the forms to TRI-MEweb.

TRI tip: To complete the submission process on TRI-MEweb, you need to assign one user the Preparer role and another user the Certifying Official role. Ensure both users have added TRI-MEweb to their CDX user accounts.

TRI reports must be submitted to both EPA and the state. If your facility’s state participates in the TRI Data Exchange (TDX), TRI-MEweb will automatically send your report to the state. If your facility’s state doesn’t participate, you must send a hard copy of the report to the TRI state contact.

TRI tip: Use EPA’s “TRI Data Exchange” webpage to determine whether your facility’s state participates in TDX. As of March 2026, all 50 states participate in TDX. The District of Columbia doesn’t participate.

More TRI tips

Keep these things in mind when preparing your TRI reports:

  • You must submit a Form R (or Form A if eligible) for each TRI-listed chemical your facility manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above the threshold quantity.
  • TRI data is publicized. If a chemical’s identity needs to be protected, you have to submit substantiation forms to claim the chemical identity as a trade secret. EPA must approve the claims. Further, for each chemical with a trade secret claim, you have to mail hard copies of the substantiation forms and the corresponding Form Rs (or Form As if eligible) to EPA and the state.
  • EPA’s online GuideME platform offers comprehensive guidance for TRI reporting, including reporting forms and instructions, the TRI chemical list, and Q&As.
  • Contact the state environmental agency directly to confirm the submission method. EPA’s “TRI State Contacts” webpage contains state contact information.
  • Register your facility on CDX or ensure your facility’s CDX account is updated as soon as possible to avoid delays caused by technical issues.

Start preparing for TRI reporting now to give your facility plenty of time to gather data, complete the forms, and respond to unexpected issues that could arise. That way, your facility can breathe easily throughout the whole reporting season.

Key to remember: The submission deadline for TRI reporting is July 1, 2026. Make sure your facility is ready to report.

Final rule adds EtO emission limits to polyether polyol production
2026-03-19T05:00:00Z

Final rule adds EtO emission limits to polyether polyol production

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized major changes to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) for Polyether Polyols (PEPO) Production (PEPO NESHAP).

Who’s impacted?

The final rule applies to facilities that produce polyether polyols and are subject to the regulations at 40 CFR 63 Subpart PPP.

What are the changes?

EPA’s final rule establishes ethylene oxide (EtO) standards, updates maximum achievable control technology (MACT) requirements, and revises other provisions for the PEPO NESHAP.

EtO standards

The final rule adds EtO emission standards for:

  • Equipment leaks,
  • Heat exchange systems,
  • Process vents,
  • Storage vessels, and
  • Wastewater.

The standards set emission limits and add requirements for monitoring and leak repairs.

MACT standards

Further, the final rule:

  • Requires heat exchange systems to use the more sensitive Modified El Paso Method (also known as the Air Stripping Method) for quarterly monitoring and a leak definition of 6.2 parts per million by volume of total strippable hydrocarbon concentration (as methane) in the stripping gas,
  • Lowers the MACT control thresholds for batch process vents and storage vessels,
  • Updates the requirements for internal floating roof storage vessels,
  • Lowers the threshold for equipment leaks for valves in gas/vapor service or light liquid service, and
  • Requires transfer operations with loading operations that exceed a certain threshold to use a vapor balance system or reduce emissions.

Other standards

EPA’s final rule also:

  • Requires 5-year performance testing for process vent control devices;
  • Revises flare monitoring and operational requirements to ensure they meet the MACT standards at all times when controlling hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions;
  • Adds new monitoring requirements for pressure vessels to verify that no detectable emissions exist;
  • Clarifies that any bypass of a pollution control device for closed vent systems is a violation;
  • Aligns the requirements for surge control vessels and bottoms receivers with the process vent standards;
  • Adds butylene oxide to the definition of “epoxide” and the HAPs list;
  • Expands “affected source” to cover specific post-reaction processes; and
  • Finalizes work practice standards for maintenance vents and equipment openings, storage vessel degassing, and routine storage vessel maintenance.

However, EPA didn’t finalize the 2024 proposed rule’s addition of a fenceline monitoring program for EtO or its changes to the continuous process vent standard.

What’s the compliance timeline?

Facilities subject to the PEPO NESHAP must comply with the changes by March 18, 2029, or upon startup, whichever is later.

Key to remember: EPA’s final rule for polyether polyol emissions makes significant changes, such as establishing EtO limits and revising MACT standards.

Key questions in industrial stormwater compliance
2026-03-16T05:00:00Z

Key questions in industrial stormwater compliance

Industrial stormwater compliance can feel complex for facilities balancing operations, employees, and shifting permit requirements. Many questions center on the federal general permit, pollution prevention plan expectations, monitoring, and what to do in everyday situations where stormwater risks arise. The following sections summarize core topics and practical concerns.

What is the current status of the federal 2021 Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP)?

EPA issued the current MSGP in 2021, and it remains in effect beyond its February 28, 2026 expiration until EPA finalizes the proposed 2026 MSGP. Because the proposed 2026 permit is still under review, the 2021 MSGP continues to govern covered facilities.

Why has the proposed 2026 MSGP not taken effect?

EPA released the proposed 2026 MSGP in December 2024. Public comments, including an extended comment period ending May 19, 2025, must be reviewed before finalizing the permit. Since the existing MSGP remains valid until replaced, the 2021 permit stays in force while EPA completes its process.

What is a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)?

A SWPPP outlines how a facility prevents pollutants from reaching stormwater. It identifies pollutant sources, control measures, inspection routines, monitoring steps, and staff training. A SWPPP must be written before submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) for permit coverage and updated when operations or stormwater risks change.

What are the requirements for authorized state stormwater permits?

Most states issue their own industrial stormwater permits modeled on the federal MSGP. These permits typically require:

  • Preparation and maintenance of a SWPPP;
  • Inspections and monitoring (such as benchmark, effluent, or visual monitoring);
  • Corrective actions when control measures fail; and
  • Reporting through state online systems.

States may add requirements based on local conditions. When EPA updates the MSGP, states often revise their permits to align with new federal standards.

Who needs coverage under the MSGP?

Industrial facilities that discharge stormwater to waters of the United States generally need permit coverage unless they qualify for a no‑exposure exclusion. The federal MSGP applies in areas where EPA, not the state, holds National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) authority.

How does a facility obtain coverage?

To obtain coverage, a facility must:

  • Prepare and implement a SWPPP;
  • Put pollution controls in place, such as good housekeeping and spill prevention;
  • Identify sector specific requirements based on the permit; and
  • Submit a Notice of Intent through EPA’s online system.

The proposed 2026 MSGP includes updated forms and appendices, but current requirements remain based on the 2021 version until a new permit is published.

What monitoring is required?

Under the 2021 MSGP, required monitoring may include:

  • Quarterly visual assessments,
  • Benchmark monitoring in designated years, and
  • Effluent limitations monitoring for specific regulated discharges.

The proposed 2026 MSGP would expand per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) sampling, increase benchmark monitoring frequency, and add requirements for impaired waters. These changes remain pending.

What happens if benchmark thresholds are exceeded?

A benchmark exceedance requires the facility to investigate causes, improve control measures, and document actions in the SWPPP. The proposed 2026 MSGP would formalize additional implementation measures and reporting steps, but these wouldn’t apply until the new permit takes effect.

What about common real world compliance scenarios?

Industrial stormwater issues often arise from everyday activities. Consider these examples:

Employees’ vehicles leaking oil in parking lots

Leaks from employee vehicles can contaminate stormwater. While the MSGP does not regulate personal vehicles directly, the facility is responsible for any pollutants that enter stormwater from its property. Good housekeeping practices include absorbent stations, spill kits, drip pans, and designated parking areas with routine inspection.

Nonroutine outdoor maintenance

Temporary outdoor activities such as conducting maintenance, unloading equipment, or staging materials, can introduce pollutants. The SWPPP should address nonroutine tasks by requiring temporary controls like tarps, containment pads, or scheduling activities during dry weather. Documentation of these activities is also part of good recordkeeping.

Outdoor waste storage or scrap piles

These materials should be covered or sheltered, kept away from storm drains, and inspected frequently. If runoff contacts industrial materials, the discharge becomes regulated and must be managed under the permit.

These scenarios reinforce the need for strong housekeeping practices, staff training, and prompt corrective actions.

What documentation must facilities keep?

Facilities must maintain monitoring records, inspection logs, SWPPP updates, and corrective action reports. EPA may request these documents at any time. Appendices in the proposed 2026 MSGP preview updated forms, but the 2021 requirements remain in place for now.

What should facilities do while waiting for the 2026 MSGP?

Facilities should continue full compliance with the 2021 MSGP, track regulatory updates, and prepare for more frequent monitoring and PFAS sampling likely included in the 2026 permit. Reviewing proposed changes now helps facilities plan needed SWPPP updates in advance.

Key to remember: Industrial facilities covered under the 2021 MSGP or a state equivalent must continue following that permit until EPA issues a new federal MSGP. Staying informed, maintaining strong housekeeping, and keeping SWPPP documentation current remain the most effective strategies for compliance.

Toxics Release Inventory: Are you ready to report?
2026-03-13T05:00:00Z

Toxics Release Inventory: Are you ready to report?

Every year at the beginning of July, industrial facilities across the nation can breathe a collective sigh of relief — their annual inventories of toxic chemicals are complete! To ensure that your facility can be part of that celebration (and avoid a chaotic rush to meet the deadline), now’s the perfect time to start preparing for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) TRI program requires industrial facilities to report waste management data on certain toxic chemicals they manufacture, process, and use by July 1 each year. Is your facility ready to report? Here’s an overview of the TRI program to help you answer this question.

Who’s covered by TRI reporting?

Generally, TRI reporting applies if the facility:

  • Is in a covered industry sector (40 CFR 372.23);
  • Employs 10 or more full-time-equivalent employees; and
  • Manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses a covered chemical or chemical category (372.65) in quantities above the threshold levels (372.25, .27, and .28) in a given year.

TRI tip: The TRI reporting year (RY) reflects the calendar year covered by the report, not the year in which you submit the report. For example, TRI reports for RY 2025 are due by July 1, 2026.

What’s covered by TRI reporting?

Facilities must submit the TRI Form R (or the streamlined Form A Certification Statement if eligible) for each TRI-listed chemical manufactured, processed, or used during the previous calendar year. The data covers chemical waste management activities (including releases to the environment) and any actions taken to reduce or prevent chemical waste.

Facilities usually report for each chemical:

  • The quantities of releases (routine and accidental),
  • Any releases caused by catastrophic or other one-time events,
  • The maximum amount on-site during the year, and
  • The amount contained in wastes managed on-site or transferred off-site.

What’s new for RY 2025?

The TRI reports for RY 2025 contain three differences from previous years:

  • The de minimis level for anthracene was lowered from 1.0 percent to 0.1 percent. Anthracene’s Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) is 120-12-7.
  • More activity sub-use codes were added to the sub-use codes for “processing” and “otherwise use” activities.
  • Nine per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) were added to the TRI chemical list:

EPA registry nameCASRN
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate acid27619-97-2
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate ammonium salt59587-39-2
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate anion425670-75-3
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate potassium salt59587-38-1
6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate sodium salt27619-94-9
Acetic acid, [(.gamma.-.omega.-perfluoro-C8-10-alkyl)thio] derivs., Bu esters3030471-22-5
Ammonium perfluorodecanoate3108-42-7
Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid377-73-1
Sodium perfluorodecanoate3830-45-3

How are TRI reports submitted?

Facilities must submit TRI reports electronically to the TRI-MEweb application on EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Even if a facility uses its own software to prepare TRI forms, it must upload and submit the forms to TRI-MEweb.

TRI tip: To complete the submission process on TRI-MEweb, you need to assign one user the Preparer role and another user the Certifying Official role. Ensure both users have added TRI-MEweb to their CDX user accounts.

TRI reports must be submitted to both EPA and the state. If your facility’s state participates in the TRI Data Exchange (TDX), TRI-MEweb will automatically send your report to the state. If your facility’s state doesn’t participate, you must send a hard copy of the report to the TRI state contact.

TRI tip: Use EPA’s “TRI Data Exchange” webpage to determine whether your facility’s state participates in TDX. As of March 2026, all 50 states participate in TDX. The District of Columbia doesn’t participate.

More TRI tips

Keep these things in mind when preparing your TRI reports:

  • You must submit a Form R (or Form A if eligible) for each TRI-listed chemical your facility manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above the threshold quantity.
  • TRI data is publicized. If a chemical’s identity needs to be protected, you have to submit substantiation forms to claim the chemical identity as a trade secret. EPA must approve the claims. Further, for each chemical with a trade secret claim, you have to mail hard copies of the substantiation forms and the corresponding Form R (or Form A if eligible) to EPA and the state.
  • EPA’s online GuideME platform offers comprehensive guidance for TRI reporting, including reporting forms and instructions, the TRI chemical list, and Q&As.
  • Contact the state environmental agency directly to confirm the submission method. EPA’s “TRI State Contacts” webpage contains state contact information.
  • Register your facility on CDX or ensure your facility’s CDX account is updated as soon as possible to avoid delays caused by technical issues.

Start preparing for TRI reporting now to give your facility plenty of time to gather data, complete the forms, and respond to unexpected issues that could arise. That way, your facility can breathe easily throughout the whole reporting season.

Key to remember: The submission deadline for TRI reporting is July 1, 2026. Make sure your facility is ready to report.

See More

Most Recent Highlights In Human Resources

EPA finalizes emission standards for large municipal waste combustors
2026-03-12T05:00:00Z

EPA finalizes emission standards for large municipal waste combustors

On March 10, 2026, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized emission regulations for large municipal waste combustors (LMWCs). The final rule revises nearly all emission limits for new and existing LMWCs.

Who’s impacted?

The final rule applies to LMWCs that combust more than 250 tons per day of municipal solid waste and are covered by the:

  • New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for new LMWCs, or
  • Emission Guidelines (EGs) for existing LMWCs.

EPA established new subparts for the amendments at 40 CFR Part 60, including:

  • Subpart VVVV for the NSPS, and
  • Subpart WWWW for the EGs.

What are the changes?

Generally, stricter emission limits apply. For all LMWCs (new and existing), the rule revises the emission limits for:

  • Cadmium,
  • Hydrogen chloride,
  • Lead,
  • Mercury,
  • Particulate matter,
  • Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans, and
  • Sulfur dioxide.

For all new LMWCs, the final rule revises the emission limits for carbon monoxide (CO) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). The final rule also amends the CO and NOx limits for all existing LMWCs, except for the CO limits for two subcategories of combustors and the NOx limits for two subcategories of combustors for new municipal solid waste incinerators.

Other major changes include:

  • Removing certain exclusions and exemptions for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions (requiring LMWCs to meet emission standards at all times);
  • Removing the NOx emissions averaging compliance alternative for existing LMWCs;
  • Amending recordkeeping and reporting requirements; and
  • Eliminating Title V operating air permit requirements for qualifying air curtain incinerators that burn only wood waste, yard waste, and clean lumber.

What’s the compliance timeline?

When EPA updates EGs, states must revise their State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to incorporate the changes. States have to submit revised SIPs by March 10, 2027. Once EPA approves the SIP, facilities with existing LMWCs must meet the new standards either within 3 years of the SIP’s approval date or by March 10, 2031, whichever is earlier.

New LMWCs must comply with the amended NSPS by September 10, 2026, or upon startup, whichever is later.

Key to remember: EPA finalized stronger emission limits for new and existing large municipal waste combustors and made other changes to the standards.

EHS Monthly Round Up - February 2026

EHS Monthly Round Up - February 2026

In this Februrary 2026 roundup video, we'll discuss 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.

Fatal work injuries fell 4 percent in 2024, largely due to a decline in workplace drug- and alcohol-related overdoses. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, overdose fatalities fell from 512 in 2023 to 410 in 2024. Across all types of workplace incidents, there were 5,070 fatal work injuries in 2024, compared to 5,283 in 2023. Transportation incidents continue to be the most frequent type of fatal event, accounting for over 38 percent of all occupational fatalities in 2024.

OSHA is fast-tracking a proposal to remove the 2036 obligation to upgrade fall protection systems on fixed ladders that extend over 24 feet. This follows an industry petition from major chemical and petroleum industry groups, which argue the provision is unjustified, costly, and not supported by the rulemaking record. OSHA frames the upcoming proposed action as deregulatory, allowing employers to update fixed ladders at the end of their service lives. We’ll provide updates as more information becomes available.

As OSHA leans into “deregulatory” actions, lawmakers are moving to pressure the agency to issue “regulatory” rulemaking to protect American workers. The latest legislative wave of bills aims to fill regulatory gaps, tackle emerging hazards, expand OSHA authority, and raise penalties. Topics addressed by these bills include musculoskeletal disorders, heat stress, infectious diseases, wildfire smoke, and workplace violence.

In a recently issued letter of interpretation, OSHA states that a burn injury caused by a personal lithium-ion battery fire is work related if it occurs in the workplace during assigned working hours. The letter details an incident where an employee was burned when their rechargeable lithium-ion batteries for e-cigarettes sparked a fire after coming into contact with a key used for work.

A new report from the Department of Labor Office of Inspector General concludes that OSHA struggles to meet its mission, particularly in high-risk industries like healthcare, construction, and manufacturing. Several pages point to OSHA’s difficulties in effectively enforcing annual injury and illness reporting requirements, reaching the nation’s high-risk worksites for inspection, and addressing workplace violence by regulatory or other action.

Turning to environmental news, EPA extended the deadlines for Facility Evaluation Reports and related requirements for coal combustion residuals facilities. In most instances, the deadlines have been moved one or two years out.

And finally, EPA announced a final rule eliminating the 2009 Endangerment Finding and related greenhouse gas emission requirements for on-highway vehicles and vehicle engines. When the final rule takes effect, manufacturers and importers of new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines will no longer have to measure, report, certify, or comply with federal greenhouse gas emission standards.

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

2026-03-06T06:00:00Z

Colorado adds landfill methane emission regulation

Effective date: February 14, 2026

This applies to: Open and closed municipal solid waste landfills

Description of change: The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission added Regulation 31, which establishes new emission control and monitoring requirements for municipal solid waste landfills. Applicability is based on the landfill’s amount of waste it holds and methane emissions.

Significant changes implemented by Regulation 31 include:

  • Establishing a stricter emission control threshold than federal standards so that more landfills must install gas collection and control systems,
  • Mandating closed landfills with emission combustion devices to install biofilters when the devices are removed,
  • Expanding the methane monitoring requirements (allowing additional monitoring tools for identifying large emission sources) and allowing alternative monitoring technologies for periodic monitoring, and
  • Phasing in a ban on open flares to replace them with enclosed flares.

Related state info: Clean air operating permits state comparison

2026-03-06T06:00:00Z

Louisiana amends Voluntary Environmental Self-Audit Program

Effective date: January 20, 2026

This applies to: Participating entities

Description of change: The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) revised the Voluntary Environmental Self-Audit Program rules in January 2026. Some of the changes include:

  • Adding definitions,
  • Changing the timeline to notify LDEQ of violations from 45 days within discovery to 30 days after the end of the audit, and
  • Requiring participants to submit monthly progress reports if corrective actions take longer than 90 days.
2026-03-06T06:00:00Z

Delaware revises 2026 NPDES general construction permit

Effective date: March 11, 2026

This applies to: Construction activities that discharge stormwater into Waters of the State

Description of change: The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) revised the Delaware National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (CGP), which implements the DNREC Sediment and Stormwater Management Program.

It applies to construction activities that plan to disturb 1 or more acres (or activities that plan to disturb less than 1 acre but are part of a larger common plan of development or sale that will disturb more than 1 acre) that discharge stormwater to Waters of the State.

The DNREC made minimal changes to the NPDES CGP. The 2026 NPDES CGP will provide coverage for 5 years.

Related state info: Construction water permitting — Delaware

See More
New Network Poll

Temporary workers

Temporary workers pose unique safety and compliance challenges for employers. Chief among them: determining who is responsible for the workers’ safety. In a typical work arrangement, it is clear to employers that they are responsible for the safety of their employees. However, with temporary workers, there are at least two employers involved, which can make it difficult to sort out responsibility. The result, unfortunately, is that too often no one assumes the responsibility. That failure exposes the temporary workers to serious dangers. It also exposes both employers to potential OSHA fines.

What are temporary workers?

Temporary workers (temp workers) are workers who are assigned to host employers through a staffing firm to perform work for the host employers on a temporary basis. They typically perform work for several employers throughout the year and are often utilized so the host employer does not have to bring on a permanent worker for a seasonal or occasional need, or, in some cases, to perform labor-intensive jobs.

Consider the following scenario. A temporary worker was hired to work in a manufacturing facility. He was assigned to run a machine. When he was asked if he knew how to run the machine, he replied that he did because he was afraid to admit that he did not know how to run the machine and thought that he would be let go. Thirty minutes later his arm was severed and was not able to be reattached.

When the compliance officers visited the injured temporary worker at his home to interview him about the incident, there were several guitars hung up on the wall. The compliance officer asked who played guitar and the victim replied that “he used to.” The scenario is just one of many real-life examples that OSHA’s leadership have pointed to with regard to temporary worker safety. It is a scenario that should be top of mind for all employers who utilize temporary workers.

Shared responsibility for safety/compliance

It is a fundamental principle that temporary workers are entitled to the same protections under the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act as all other covered workers. Yet, OSHA has found that these workers are not protected adequately in many cases. They are often placed in a variety of jobs, including the most hazardous jobs, without proper training. This has led to several fatalities and serious injuries—many on the temp worker’s first day on a job. Further, OSHA says its compliance officers regularly encounter worksites with temporary workers who have not been trained properly or given appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE).

Under an initiative launched in 2013, known as the Temporary Worker Initiative (TWI), OSHA directed its field personnel to place an increased focus on temporary worker safety during compliance inspections. Therefore, it is essential that both the host employer and the staffing agency comply with all relevant OSHA requirements. OSHA could hold both employers responsible for any violative condition(s). Temporary staffing agencies and host employers share control over the temporary worker, and, therefore, are jointly responsible for safety and health, OSHA says.

Who is in best position to protect?

The staffing agency and host employer must work together to ensure that OSH Act requirements are fully met and that the temporary worker is provided a safe workplace, according to OSHA. This requires effective initial and follow-up communication and a common understanding of the division of responsibilities for safety and health. OSHA has directed its compliance officers to review any written contract(s) between the staffing agency and the host employer during inspections and determine if the contract addresses responsibilities for employee safety and health. It is important to note, however, that the contract’s allocation of responsibilities may not discharge either party’s obligations under the OSH Act.

The extent of the obligations each employer has will vary depending on workplace conditions and may be clarified by their agreement or contract. Their duties will sometimes overlap. The staffing agency or the host may be particularly well suited to ensure compliance with a particular requirement, and may assume primary responsibility for it. For example, staffing agencies might provide general safety and health training applicable to many different occupational settings, while host employers provide specific training tailored to the particular hazards at their workplaces.

If the staffing agency has a long-term, continuing relationship with the temporary worker, it may be best positioned to comply with requirements such as audiometric testing or medical surveillance. The host employer, in turn, would be the primary party responsible for complying with workplace-specific standards relating to machine guarding, exposure to noise or toxic substances, and other workplace-specific safety and health requirements, OSHA says.

While each arrangement will be fact-specific, generally speaking OSHA expects that the staffing agency and the host employer should each assume responsibility for the compliance and safety issues they are in the best position to control and address.

Prior to accepting a new host employer as a client, or a new project from a current client, both parties should jointly review the task assignments and any job hazard analyses in order to identify and eliminate potential safety and health dangers and provide the necessary protections and training for workers.

Staffing agency responsibilities

Although the host employer typically has primary responsibility for determining the hazards in their workplace and complying with worksite-specific OSHA requirements, the staffing agency also has a duty. Staffing agencies must ensure they are not sending workers to workplaces with hazards from which they are not protected or on which they have not been trained. OSHA does not expect staffing agencies to become experts on all potential hazards at the host’s workplace, but nevertheless says they have a duty to diligently inquire and determine what, if any, safety and health hazards are present at their clients’ workplaces.

For example, if a staffing agency is supplying workers to a host where they will be working in a manufacturing setting using potentially hazardous equipment, the agency should take reasonable steps to identify any hazards present, to ensure that workers will receive the required training, protective equipment, and other safeguards, and then later verify that the protections are in place.

More information

To learn more about OSHA's TWI initiative, visit www.osha.gov/temporaryworkers. The webpage offers several bulletins that explore the responsibilities of the staffing agency and the host employer in regard to various hazards, including powered industrial trucks, noise exposure, hazardous energy, extreme heat, and others.

Injury/illness recordkeeping

Injury and illness recordkeeping responsibility under OSHA requirements is determined by supervision. Employers must record the injuries and illnesses of temporary workers if they supervise such workers on a day-to-day basis. Day-to-day supervision occurs when “in addition to specifying the output, product or result to be accomplished by the person’s work, the employer supervises the details, means, methods and processes by which the work is to be accomplished.” (Essentially, an employer is performing day-to-day supervision when that employer controls conditions presenting potential hazards and directs the worker’s activities around, and exposure to, those hazards.)

In most cases, the host employer provides this supervision.

While the staffing agency may have a representative at the host employer’s worksite, the presence of that representative does not necessarily transfer recordkeeping responsibilities to the staffing agency, OSHA says. As long as the host employer maintains day-to-day supervision over the worker, the host employer is responsible for recording injuries and illnesses.

The non-supervising employer (generally the staffing agency) still shares responsibility for its workers’ safety and health. The staffing agency, therefore, should maintain frequent communication with its workers and the host employer to ensure that any injuries and illnesses are properly reported and recorded. Such communication also alerts the staffing agency to existing workplace hazards and to any protective measures that need to be provided to its workers. Ongoing communication is also needed after an injury or illness so the recording employer can know the outcome of the case.

The staffing agency and host employer must set up a way for employees to report work-related injuries and illnesses promptly and tell each employee how to report work-related injuries and illnesses. In addition, employees, former employees, their personal representatives, and their authorized employee representatives have the right to access the injury and illness records.

In order to provide safe working conditions, information about injuries and illnesses should flow between the host employer and staffing agency. If a temporary worker sustains an injury or illness and the host employer knows about it, the staffing agency should be informed, so the staffing agency knows about the hazards facing their workers. Equally, if a staffing agency learns of an injury or illness, they should inform the host employer so that future injuries might be prevented, and the case is recorded. As a best practice, the staffing agency and host employer should establish notification procedures to ensure that when a worker informs one employer of an injury or illness, the other employer is apprised as well. The details of how this communication is to take place should be clearly established in contract language.

PPE

Host employers are generally responsible for providing PPE for site-specific hazards to which temporary employees may be exposed—largely because it is the host employer who has conducted the required hazards assessment of the workplace to determine the need for PPE.

However, the host may specify the services that it wants the staffing agency to supply, including provision of PPE for the placed employees. Though, ultimately, it becomes the host employer’s responsibility to ensure the PPE is adequate for the exposures in the workplace, and that workers wear the PPE where needed (assuming it is the host employer who is supervising the work).

Training

In general, it is the responsibility of the staffing agency to ensure that employees have received proper training. In practice, even when the staffing agency has provided basic training, the host employer provides the workplace-specific training appropriate to the employees’ particular tasks. For example, a staffing agency can provide general Hazard Communication (Hazcom) training, but only the host employer can train where the Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) are kept in the facility, the chemicals used, etc.

Both the temporary agency and the host employer are responsible for ensuring that employees are effectively informed and trained regarding exposure to hazardous chemicals. The directive titled Inspection Procedures for the Hazard Communication Standard, 29 CFR 1910.1200, CPL 02-02-038, specifically discusses this issue:

  • [Hazard Communication Standard] training of temporary employees is a responsibility that is shared between the temporary agency and the host employer. The host-employer holds the primary responsibility for training since the host employer uses or produces chemicals, creates and controls the hazards, and is, therefore, best suited to inform employees of the chemical hazards specific to the workplace environment. The temporary agency, in turn, maintains a continuing relationship with its employees, and would be, at a minimum, expected to inform employees of the requirements of the standard. (CPL 02-02-38, Appendix A, Section h, March 20, 1998)

Medical exposure records

When medical surveillance or monitoring is indicated (such as hearing exams, respiratory protection evaluations, or evaluation/treatment for exposure to toxic substances), the host employer must offer and perform the required medical surveillance or evaluations. The staffing agency must ensure that the records of the required medical surveillance or evaluations are maintained in accordance with the appropriate OSHA standards.

This means the temporary staffing agency is required to maintain cumulative exposure data (e.g., 30-day lead exposure, 6-month noise exposure, etc.), when the employee works for several different companies during the year. But, each of those host companies would have responsibilities for ensuring the workers were following proper procedures, wearing appropriate PPE, etc., and to communicate to the host employer (ideally before work begins) that workers will be exposed to such hazardous conditions.

Forklift training

In a 2016 bulletin, OSHA addresses the responsibility for training temporary workers to operate forklifts and other powered industrial trucks (PITs) safely at a host employer’s worksite. The OSHA standard requires employers to develop and implement a training program based on the general principles of safe-truck operation, the types of vehicle being used in the workplace, the hazards of the workplace created by the use of the vehicle, and general safety requirements.

To be effective, OSHA says training must address the unique characteristics of the type of vehicle the temporary worker is being trained to operate. In addition, employers must ensure that operators have successfully completed required training prior to operating PITs in the workplace.

How does this work when temp workers are involved?

Who has responsibility for training, evaluation, and certification?

The host employer and staffing agency share responsibility for training temporary workers in operating powered industrial trucks, according to OSHA. The training requirements for a powered industrial truck operator are performance-oriented. This permits employers to tailor a training program to the characteristics of the workplace and the specific types of powered industrial trucks operated.

Determining the best way to protect workers from injury largely depends on the type of truck operated and the hazards of the worksite. While both the host employer and the staffing agency are responsible for ensuring that the employee is properly trained in powered industrial truck operations, the employers may decide that a division of the responsibility is appropriate. As a recommended practice, OSHA says the staffing agency and host employer should jointly review the task assignments and job hazards that would include the type(s) of powered industrial trucks workers will operate to identify and eliminate potential safety and health hazards. The details of the training and protections each employer will provide can be clearly established in the language of the contract between the host employer and the staffing agency. However, OSHA cautions that neither employer may avoid its ultimate responsibilities under the OSH Act by requiring another party to perform them.

Generic versus site-specific

According to the OSHA bulletin, generally, the staffing agency is responsible for generic powered industrial truck training and the host employer is in the best position to provide the necessary site-specific powered industrial truck training and evaluation, as the host employer is most familiar with the equipment being used and controls the conditions of the worksite.

Further, OSHA says that such training and evaluation should be the same as that provided to the host employer’s own employees in the same jobs.

Both staffing agencies and host employers must ensure that temporary workers receive proper generic and site-specific training and evaluation. It is the staffing agencies’ obligation to take reasonable steps to inquire about the host employer’s training program and have a reasonable basis for believing that the host employer’s powered industrial truck training adequately addresses the potential hazards of operating powered industrial trucks to which its employees might be exposed at the host employer’s worksite.

Refresher training

Refresher training is required whenever an operator demonstrates a deficiency in the ability to safely operate the powered industrial truck or an incident involving a powered industrial truck has occurred. The need for refresher training may be recommended by the staffing agency if the temporary worker is involved in an incident, but the need for refresher training is usually best determined and provided by the host employer, OSHA says.

Compliance point - Evaluation always required by host

In a particularly important point, OSHA says that even if the staffing agency supplies trained powered industrial truck operators, the host employer must still verify that training and provide site-specific information and training on the particular types of powered industrial trucks and working conditions present at the worksite. The host employer must also conduct a workplace evaluation of each operator supplied by the staffing agency. The extent of the training and evaluation provided by the host is based upon the operators’ past experience and may not need to be duplicated or as extensive as the initial training and evaluation.

Records

Employers must certify that each operator receives the training and evaluation, and also re-evaluate each operator at least once every three years. If the staffing agency is providing trained powered industrial truck operators, it may be in the best position to keep training and evaluation records. In such cases, OSHA says the host employer may choose, but is not required, to maintain or store additional copies of the powered industrial truck training records of temporary workers. However, the host employer must know where the training and evaluation records are located and they must be accessible to an OSHA compliance officer during an inspection.

As a recommended practice, the host employer and staffing agency may agree to share training records to ensure both parties are able to verify that the training is completed. Communication between the staffing agency and host employer is essential to ensure that the worker is competent in the operation of the powered industrial trucks being used. In addition, communication between the staffing agency and the temporary worker is crucial to ensure that the worker is not being assigned to work with powered industrial trucks that he or she may not be competent to operate.

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.