New guidance clarifies when you can propose ELD edits

1. How do I test the equipment?

UST owners and operators may conduct release detection equipment testing according to:

• The manufacturer’s instructions,
• Industry codes and standards, or
• The implementing agency’s requirements.

Manufacturer’s instructions

Each piece of release detection equipment should have an associated manual or guide for owners to reference. The manual or guide will explain how to test the equipment.

Tip: Most equipment manufacturers provide online versions of their product manuals and guides, which you can likely find on the manufacturer’s website. If you can’t find guidance, contact the manufacturer directly.

Industry codes and standards

EPA’s regulations stipulate that UST owners and operators who follow industry codes and standards must choose ones developed by a nationally recognized association (like ASTM International or the Petroleum Equipment Institute (PEI)) or an independent testing laboratory.

For instance, the agency states at 280.40(a)(3) that UST owners and operators may use PEI/RP1200, Recommended Practices for the Testing and Verification of Spill, Overfill, Leak Detection and Secondary Containment Equipment at UST Facilities, to comply.

Implementing agency requirements

EPA’s rules for testing release detection equipment serve as the minimum standards. Most state regulatory agencies implement UST programs and may impose stricter or additional requirements. Plus, local regulations may apply.

Check state and local rules to ensure your UST complies with the right requirements.

2. What do I test?

At a minimum, UST owners and operators must test the following factors that apply to their release detection systems.

• Automatic tank gauges and other controllers: Test the alarms and battery backups. Verify the system’s configuration.
• Probes and sensors: Test alarm functionality and communication with the controller. Inspect the probes and sensors for residual buildup. Ensure that the floats move freely, the cables have no kinks or breaks, and the shaft isn’t damaged.
• Automatic line leak detectors: Simulate a leak to determine whether the detector meets the operation requirements of 280.44(a).
• Vacuum pumps and pressure gauges: Confirm correct communication with the sensors and controller.
• Handheld electronic groundwater and vapor sampling equipment: Ensure the monitoring equipment operates properly.

3. What records do I have to keep?

The regulation at 280.45(b)(1) mandates that UST owners and operators keep records of the annual release detection equipment testing results for at least three years.

For each annual testing record, list:

• Each device tested,
• If the devices operated according to 280.40(a)(3) or had issues that needed attention, and
• Any corrective actions applied.

Why is release detection equipment testing so important?

Petroleum and other hazardous substances that leak from USTs can endanger human and environmental health. A leaking UST’s primary threat is groundwater contamination. Groundwater supplies drinking water for almost half of Americans.

A release detection system enables a facility to respond sooner to accidental releases and, therefore, limit potential harmful impacts — only if the equipment used for the system operates properly.

Testing your UST’s release detection equipment is vital because it allows you to identify which components function accurately and which parts have problems that need correction. A well-functioning release detection system can help your facility:

• Maintain regulatory compliance (and avoid enforcement actions like penalties for noncompliance),
• Identify opportunities to upgrade existing equipment to improve operational efficiency, and
• Protect your employees and the community in which your facility operates.

Key to remember: EPA requires facilities to test the release detection equipment used on underground storage tanks each year to make sure it operates properly.

Pesticide registration tracking app

On April 18, EPA made enhancements to its MyPest app, which sources say was initially launched in mid-January. EPA is proud to say that MyPest already boasts over 1,200 registrants. The new app allows registrants of pesticide products to:

• Monitor the status of their registration submissions in real-time,
• Drill down to a detailed view of each application, and
• Communicate directly with EPA staff about registration packages in review.

Updates to MyPest include an enhanced dashboard page. The page offers information about the registrant’s cases and products. More updates are planned later this year.

Policy changes impacting two forms

On April 4, EPA announced in the Federal Register the issuance of Pesticide Registration (PR) Notice 2025-1. The notice itself is dated effective March 27, 2025. Its subject line reads, “Revised Procedures for Citing Data to Support Pesticide Registrations (EPA Forms No. 8570-34 and 8570-35).”

The latest PR notice supersedes PR Notice 98-5, dated June 12, 1998. While the revisions were proposed last June, the agency only finalized them now. According to PR Notice 2025-1:

• EPA Form 8570-34 — This is the Certification with Respect to Citation of Data. Pesticide registrants use this form to indicate how they will meet their data submission/citation obligations under the law. When a registrant refers to another company’s data, the registrant must certify that:
  • It offered compensation to the original data submitter, or
  • It has the original data submitter’s permission to cite the data.
• EPA Form 8570-35 — This is the Data Matrix. Pesticide registrants use this form to indicate to whom they made offers of compensation.

The two forms — EPA Forms 8570-34 and 8570-35 — have not been modified. Only policies regarding the submission of the two forms have changed. The agency:

• Eliminated the instruction to use “paper” submissions;
• Says registrants should complete and submit the two forms electronically through the Pesticide Submission Portal;
• Eliminated the instruction that registrants submit two versions of the Data Matrix, i.e., the ‘‘Internal Agency Use Copy’’ and the ‘‘Public File Copy’’; and
• Requires that registrants submit a single Data Matrix without redactions.

EPA contends that none of the information on Form 8570-35 is confidential. Put another way, none of the information on the Data Matrix is protected from public release. Therefore, the agency claims there is no reason to submit two versions of the form.

According to EPA, entities potentially affected by the policy changes include, but are not limited to:

• Crop production,
• Animal production,
• Food manufacturing, and
• Pesticide manufacturing.

Efficiencies and transparencies gained

Using electronic reporting for EPA Forms 8570-34 and 8570-35 brings efficient data transmittal, argues EPA. A bonus is that electronic reporting will also reduce errors. That’s because of automated validation tools in the portal. Submitters should experience lower costs and faster review and transmission of data, the agency adds.

In 2024, EPA received a total of 3,309 Data Matrices. Moving from two versions to just one for the Data Matrix form should save registrants and EPA time. Specifically, completing, submitting, and processing the Data Matrix should be quicker. EPA will also experience time savings when providing the public access to the information. Extra steps under the Freedom of Information Act would not be needed.

The MyPest app update is a step forward in efficiency and transparency, concludes EPA. The app enhancements are part of the agency’s overall move toward digital and streamlined processes. EPA projects that the app will improve the timeliness of pesticide registration decisions.

Key to remember

Recent actions streamline the pesticide registration process and make it more transparent. These actions relate to the MyPest app and EPA Forms 8570-34 and 8570-35.

1. Environmental responsibility impacts your brand reputation

Sustainability is no longer just a corporate social responsibility (CSR) talking point. It’s a core business differentiator. As a management or EHS leader, you’re often on the frontlines of implementing the visible changes that shape public perception. Recycling programs are a low-barrier, high-impact initiative that sends a clear message to customers, investors, and employees: We walk the talk.

Failing to prioritize environmental responsibility puts your company’s reputation at risk — especially in industries with public visibility or regulatory scrutiny. Forward-thinking competitors are already using circular economy models and zero-waste initiatives to win market share.

Champion a program that reflects your company’s values and positions you as a sustainability leader in your field.

2. Compliance with local, state, and federal regulations

Recycling is no longer a “nice-to-have.” Many jurisdictions now require commercial recycling, especially for packaging waste, e-waste, and food scraps. Increasingly, regulations also demand data transparency, such as tracking waste volumes, diversion rates, and sustainability goals.

Supervisors in environmental and safety roles are responsible for ensuring compliance and minimizing risk. Violations can result in hefty fines, bad press, or loss of contracts.

Stay ahead of compliance trends and implement a recycling program that satisfies current and future requirements while keeping auditreadiness top of mind.

3. Cost savings and operational efficiency

Landfill disposal is becoming more expensive due to tipping fees and transportation costs. By diverting materials through recycling or reuse programs, companies can reduce both their environmental footprint and their operational spend.

In addition, smart material handling and waste segregation can lead to process improvements — less clutter, fewer hauling pickups, and even opportunities to monetize recyclable materials like scrap metal, cardboard, or used electronics.

Use data from your waste audits and vendor reporting to identify high-volume waste streams and optimize for both cost reduction and resource efficiency.

4. Workforce engagement, retention, and culture

Today’s workforce, particularly younger employees, is drawn to employers who align with their values. A clean, green workplace that visibly supports recycling and sustainability reinforces a positive culture, boosts morale, and improves engagement — especially when employees feel like they’re contributing to something bigger.

Recycling initiatives are also an easy win for cross-departmental engagement. Whether through green teams, signage campaigns, or employee challenges, these programs offer hands-on ways to involve everyone.

Build internal buy-in by showing how your initiatives support company values, employee wellness, and sustainability goals through shared responsibility.

5. Alignment with data-driven ESG and sustainability goals

In 2025, companies are under increasing pressure from stakeholders to report measurable progress on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives. Waste reduction, recycling rates, and landfill diversion metrics are among the top data points requested in annual sustainability reports and RFPs.

Supervisors and EHS leaders are often the owners of the data. You're tasked with tracking, verifying, and reporting on these outcomes. Without a structured recycling program in place, those metrics are impossible to capture, and your ESG report falls flat.

Establish a system for measuring, improving, and communicating progress toward zero-waste or landfill diversion targets, and support leadership in meeting ESG benchmarks.

Key to remember: Embracing workplace recycling in 2025 isn’t just good for the planet — it’s a smart move that drives innovation, saves money, and positions your company as a leader in sustainability.

Who’s impacted?

The Third Rule impacts entities subject to RCRA’s manifest regulations. This article focuses on the manifest correction rules that apply to these waste handlers:

• Small and large quantity generators,
• Transporters, and
• TSDFs.

Note that the final rule amends post-manifest correction regulations for other entities, such as exporters, that are beyond the scope of this article.

What are the Third Rule changes?

EPA’s final rule maintains most of the post-receipt manifest data corrections process.

What’s the same?

Specifically:

• Any waste handler named on the manifest may voluntarily submit data corrections at any time,
• Waste handlers can make an unlimited number of voluntary corrections,
• Corrections may be applied to an individual record or batch of them, and
• Submissions must include a signature that's compliant with the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR).

What’s different?

Previously, when EPA or a state regulatory agency requested corrections to data on a manifest, waste handlers weren’t required to make them. The Third Rule now mandates that waste handlers:

• Correct errors on the manifest within 30 days of a corrections request from EPA or a state agency, and
• Make data correction submissions electronically for paper or electronic manifest records.

Post-receipt corrections are made via the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System (e-Manifest) on the RCRA Information (RCRAInfo) system.

The Third Rule also clarifies that receiving facilities (TSDFs) can make corrections only after the manifest is completed (i.e., signed and submitted to the e-Manifest system).

What’s the post-receipt manifest correction process?

Waste handlers submitting voluntary or mandatory post-receipt corrections to hazardous waste manifests must follow the process established at 40 CFR 264.71(l).

Follow this general process on the e-Manifest System:

• Certify that the manifest is complete. It must have the status “Signed-Completed."
• Determine how to submit the corrected data to the e-Manifest system. You can enter the data directly into e-Manifest or upload a file with data corrections to the system.
• Include for each correction submission:
  • The Manifest Tracking Number and date received by the facility associated with the data being corrected,
  • The Item Number(s) of the affected data fields on the manifest form (EPA Form 8700-22), and
  • The previously entered and corrected data.
• Save your corrections. The manifest’s status will change to “Under Correction."
• Re-sign the manifest to certify the corrections. The manifest’s status will change to “Corrected."

Manifest correction FAQs

Check out some top questions and answers about post-receipt manifest corrections.

What manifest information can I correct?

The type of waste handler your facility is considered determines which items on the manifest you can change for voluntary corrections or must change for mandatory corrections. Typically:

• Generators correct data in Items 1–15;
• Transporters correct data in Items 6–7, 14, and 17; and
• TSDFs correct data in Items 14 and 18–20.

What user role do I need on RCRAInfo to submit manifest corrections?

You must be registered in RCRAInfo as a user with the e-Manifest Certifier or Site Manager role for the facility’s site to submit manifest corrections.

What’s the CROMERR certification?

EPA requires manifest correction submitters to use a CROMERR-compliant electronic signature, which requires a higher level of identity proofing than the Quick Sign signature.

Can I revert to a previous manifest version?

Once the corrected manifest has been signed, you can’t revert it to a previous version. The e-Manifest system does, however, let you view all versions of the manifest.

Can brokers sign corrected manifests?

Although brokers can initiate a manifest correction for generators, they may not sign a corrected manifest unless they (a) operate at the generator’s facility and (b) can sign the manifest as an offeror of the waste shipment.

Key to remember: EPA’s Third Rule updates the process for making data corrections to RCRA hazardous waste manifests.

What happened?

Originally intended for construction waste disposal, the site eventually turned into a dumping ground for hazardous industrial materials. Investigations found plastics, asbestos, industrial chemicals, and carcinogenic substances illegally dumped, creating an environmental and public health hazard. These materials fuel fires, continuously releasing toxic smoke into the air. Residents have reported respiratory problems, skin irritation, and other health issues while authorities struggle to contain the situation. Even though this incident occurred in London, we can learn plenty of valuable lessons from it. Here’s how employers can take proactive measures to ensure compliance, protect workers, and prevent environmental harm.

1. Implement a robust hazardous waste management plan

A hazardous waste management plan should:

• Include waste classifications (reactive, corrosive, etc.) and an inventory of all hazardous materials used and generated;
• Ensure all storage and handling procedures, including labeling, segregation of incompatible waste, spill prevention, and containment measures, are followed;
• Document all waste accumulation and disposal methods, specifying the storage time limits for waste and the methods used for its disposal, such as incineration, recycling, or third-party handling; and
• Provide information on personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements, emergency contact information, reporting procedures, and an evacuation plan in case of a spill.

2. Train employees on hazardous waste handling

Train personnel on their roles and responsibilities when handling hazardous waste. Training should include:

• Initial and refresher training that complies with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and state laws,
• Identifying unsafe practices and reporting potential violations.

3. Conduct routine inspections and audits

• Perform internal audits to ensure compliance with RCRA regulations.
• Schedule third-party audits to identify risks and areas of improvement.
• Create a corrective action plan for any violations or inefficiencies discovered during audits.

4. Use licensed and certified waste disposal services

The primary reason behind illegal waste dumping is financial. We all know it is not cheap to dispose of hazardous waste, but waste generators are responsible for their waste from “cradle to grave.”

• Conduct due diligence to verify disposal methods to prevent third-party illegal dumping.
• Maintain records of manifest, disposal certificate, and compliance documentation.

5. Secure and label waste properly

• Labels should include “hazardous waste” clearly visible on the container, generator information, accumulation start date, proper shipping name, and waste identification.
• Store hazardous waste in compatible containers to prevent leaks or spills.

6. Reduce hazardous waste by using safer alternatives

One of the most effective ways to prevent hazardous waste incidents is to reduce reliance on them in the first place. By switching to safer alternatives, employers can lower their risk of exposure. Industries now offer eco-friendly coatings, adhesives, and cleaning agents that perform well without all the side effects. Safer alternatives also reduce compliance costs by lowering the burdens for hazardous waste disposal.

The disaster in London is a stark reminder of the consequences of negligent hazardous waste management. Businesses that cut corners on waste disposal risk legal penalties and contribute to long-term environmental and public health damage.  

Keys to remember: Employers can protect their workforce, comply with regulations, and prevent environmental disasters by adopting proactive waste management strategies.

Video supports investigative report

The 14-minute video, “No Detection: Explosion …,” follows a June 2023 investigation report. When the 56-page report came out, CSB Chairperson Steve Owens said, “Our investigation found that [the company] did not have an effective program in place to assess potential hazards in its propylene process and did not have a mechanical integrity program or written operating procedures.”

The incident was compounded by emergency planning failures, says CSB. Owens argued, “This tragic incident was made even worse due to the lack of emergency response training for employees at the facility.”

Deadly incident

CSB explains that a degraded and poorly crimped rubber welding hose disconnected from its fitting inside a coating booth. That prompted a release of propylene, a flammable vapor.

By the time workers arrived at the facility the early morning of January 24, 2020, an explosive concentration of propylene had formed inside the building. As workers entered and turned on the lights, the vapor ignited, triggering an explosion. It:

• Killed two workers,
• Injured two other workers,
• Fatally injured a nearby resident, and
• Damaged hundreds of structures.

The board’s investigation later found that the company had:

• Disconnected gas detectors from a computer control system. This meant the automatic gas detection shutoff system would not alert operators to a leak. It also would not start up exhaust fans or trigger two shutoff valves to stop the flow of propylene.
• Replaced a copper tubing connection with a rubber welding hose. Rubber hose is not recommended for propylene. Oils in the gas can cause a rubber hose to form cracks and lose pliability.

OSHA citations before/after the incident

OSHA cited the company 12 years earlier for failing to inspect gas system equipment for signs of deterioration or leaks. The 2008 OSHA visit was prompted by another explosion of propylene gas.

Following the later 2020 incident, OSHA issued citations for failing to:

• Provide effective training on chemical hazards,
• Prevent explosive concentrations from accumulating,
• Ensure coating equipment was maintained gas-tight, and
• Ensure the manual shutoff valve at the propylene storage tank was closed at the end of each workday.

Safety issues found by CSB

CSB explains that the shop’s propylene amount was below the threshold for OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard at 29 CFR 1910.119 or EPA’s Risk Management Plan (RMP) standard at 40 CFR 68. Still, the CSB investigation identified these safety issues:

• PSM — Had the company had an effective PSM program to identify and control hazards, it could have prevented the incident. Suggested PSM program elements included process safety information, process hazard analysis, management of change, mechanical integrity, and operating procedures.
• Emergency planning — The company’s emergency response plan did not address responding to a propylene gas leak. The company also failed to train its workers to recognize or respond to a propylene gas release. Hence, workers did not evacuate from the area after suspecting a propylene leak nor contact responders for help.

Owens concludes that the deadly incident could have been mitigated if the company had implemented an effective PSM system for the hazards of its coating operation. Even if a leak occurred, Owens believes an emergency response plan could have prevented the tragic loss of life.

OSHA chemical emergency preparedness may include an emergency action plan and/or an emergency response plan.

Lessons for industry

To prevent chemical incidents, CSB urges you to:

• Ensure the safety of workers who handle hazardous chemicals (and protect surrounding communities). This is regardless of whether or not the chemicals meet the threshold under PSM and RMP standards.
• Ensure gas detection, alarm, exhaust, and shutdown systems are adequately designed, maintained, inspected, and tested. The idea is to ensure reliability if your facility handles hazardous chemicals.
• Ensure a written emergency response plan is implemented. Also, ensure that it adequately addresses all actions to be taken in a release. Workers too need to be trained in the plan and participate in periodic drills.

CSB videos are recognized

The latest video comes after the board received a “Silver Play Button” award. The CSB’s video channel boasts 364K subscribers and nearly 100 safety videos. The channel has had over 65M combined views since 2007. What’s more, CSB claims that the chemical industry itself and engineering schools use the videos for chemical safety training.

Key to remember

A new CSB video covers the 2020 massive explosion at a Texas machine shop. The board urges you to implement PSM systems even if not required. CSB also presses you to ensure that workers are trained in emergency response plans.

Case details

An investigation identified the facility’s clinker cooler and raw mill operations as primary sources of excess PM. Monitoring data revealed the facility consistently exceeded permitted emission limits, suggesting systemic deficiencies in pollution control systems. Further inspection pointed to potential inadequate maintenance and operation of existing baghouse filters, a critical technology for capturing airborne particles. The facility also appeared to struggle with fugitive dust emissions from material handling and storage areas, indicating a need for improved dust suppression measures.

Proactive management

The case clarifies the importance of rigorous, proactive environmental management within heavy industrial operations. To prevent similar violations, facilities should prioritize comprehensive monitoring and reporting. Continuous emission monitoring systems provide real-time data, enabling early detection of deviations from permitted limits. Regular inspections and preventative maintenance of pollution control equipment are essential. This includes ensuring baghouse filters operate within their design parameters and promptly replacing damaged or worn components.

Additionally, robust fugitive dust control plans are vital. They should address all potential sources of fugitive dust, encompassing material handling, storage, and transport. Implementing strategies such as water spraying, enclosure of conveyors, and optimized material stockpiling can significantly reduce emissions.

Beyond technology

Beyond technology, a strong environmental compliance culture is crucial. It involves employee training on environmental regulations, operational procedures, and the importance of adhering to pollution control measures. Regular audits and internal assessments can help identify potential weaknesses and ensure ongoing compliance.

Industrial facilities can minimize their environmental impact and avoid costly enforcement actions by focusing on:

• Proactive monitoring,
• Rigorous maintenance, and
• A strong compliance culture.

Who must report?

The TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting requirements apply to any person who manufactured (including imported) a PFAS or PFAS-containing article between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2022, for commercial purposes.

EPA defines terms for this reporting requirement at 40 CFR 705.3.

One vital thing to note is that the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting requirement allows for no exemptions. The rule even covers PFAS manufactured as a byproduct, impurity, or non-isolated intermediate. The only activity that doesn’t require reporting is importing municipal solid waste streams to dispose of or destroy the waste.

What data does the report cover?

The information required depends on whether you use the standard or streamlined TSCA Section 8(a)(7) reporting form.

The standard form contains:

• Company and plant site information;
• Chemical-specific information (such as chemical identities);
• Categories of use;
• Total amounts manufactured in each year for each category of use;
• Byproducts from PFAS manufacturing, processing, use, or disposal;
• Existing environmental and health effect information;
• Worker exposure data (including duration); and
• Disposal methods or processes used (and any changes to them).

The streamlined form requires less information than the standard form. Two types of reporters qualify to use streamlined reporting:

• Importers of PFAS-containing articles, and
• Manufacturers of less than 10 kilograms of PFAS used solely for research and development (R&D).

Importers may choose to use the streamlined “PFAS in Imported Article” form. If you imported a PFAS-containing article and manufactured (including imported) the same PFAS (not in an article), you can either:

• Report the imported article on the streamlined form and manufactured PFAS on the standard form, or
• Report both the imported article and manufactured PFAS on the standard form.

Manufacturers of qualifying R&D PFAS can use the “Research & Development PFAS” form. However, you cannot use the streamlined form if you manufactured a PFAS in small quantities for R&D and otherwise manufactured (including imported) the same PFAS.

When is the report due?

For most manufacturers, the TSCA Section 8(a)(7) report submission period runs from July 11, 2025, to January 22, 2026. Small manufacturers who solely imported PFAS-containing articles have a longer submission period, from July 11, 2025, to July 11, 2026.

Where do I submit the report?

Reports must be submitted electronically through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). Go to the Chemical Information Submission System and choose the “TSCA Section 8(a)(7)” application.

Note that you must have a registered account on EPA’s CDX to submit the report, and the facility for which you’re submitting the report must also be registered on the platform.

Why is the Section 8(a)(7) report required?

TSCA Section 8(a)(7), as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020, required EPA to develop a rule to gather data about PFAS from entities that manufacture or have manufactured PFAS and PFAS-containing articles. The agency finalized the rule in October 2023 for this one-time reporting requirement.

The TSCA Section 8(a)(7) PFAS reports will give EPA a more complete picture of PFAS manufactured in the U.S. The agency will use the data to further its understanding of the forever chemicals and inform future regulatory actions.

Key to remember: The submission period for the one-time PFAS reporting requirement opens July 11, 2025. It applies to anyone who manufactured (including imported) PFAS or PFAS-containing articles between 2011 and 2022.

What is used oil?

The EPA defines used oil as any petroleum-based or synthetic oil that has been used and is contaminated by physical or chemical impurities. Common sources of used oil in industrial operations include:

• Motor oil and lubricants from vehicle maintenance
• Hydraulic fluids used in heavy machinery
• Metalworking fluids and coolants
• Compressor oils used in air compression systems

According to EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 279), used oil is presumed to be managed under the less stringent used oil management standards unless it meets hazardous waste criteria.

Used oil becomes hazardous waste if:

• It is mixed with hazardous waste (e.g., solvents or heavy metals)
• It contains more than 1,000 parts per million (ppm) of total halogens, unless proven otherwise, or
• It is disposed of improperly, leading to environmental contamination.

If used oil is classified as hazardous waste, it must be managed in accordance with the applicable solid and hazardous waste requirements.

EPA requirements for used oil disposal

The EPA requirements for used oil consist of three different aspects, as outlined below.

1. Storage Requirements

Use leak-proof tanks and containers made of durable, non-earthen materials (e.g., steel, plastic, or concrete). Label all used oil containers with the words "Used Oil" to prevent misidentification. Prevent leaks and spills by using secondary containment systems and regularly inspecting tanks. Never mix used oil with hazardous waste unless authorized.

2. Transportation and Disposal

Used oil generators may transport up to 55 gallons of used oil to a registered collection center without an EPA ID number. If contracting a used oil transporter, ensure they have an EPA Identification Number.

Used oil must be:

• Recycled or re-refined into new oil.
• Burned for energy recovery in approved furnaces or boilers.
• Disposed of at an authorized hazardous waste facility if deemed hazardous.

3. Spill Prevention and Cleanup

Facilities storing large amounts of used oil must have a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. SPCC plans establish procedures, methods, and equipment requirements to prevent oil from reaching waterways, and to contain discharges of oil.

Any spills must be cleaned up immediately, and absorbent materials must be disposed of properly. Rags and shop towels contaminated with hazardous materials may be classified as hazardous waste.

OSHA regulations for handling used oil

While the EPA focuses on environmental compliance, OSHA (29 CFR Part 1910) regulates worker safety when handling used oil. Key OSHA requirements include:

1. Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Workers handling used oil must wear gloves and protective clothing to prevent skin exposure. Safety goggles or face shields are also important to avoid eye contact.

2. Hazard communication (HazCom) program

Employers must label all used oil containers with appropriate hazard information and train employees on safe handling procedures and emergency response.

3. Fire and Explosion Safety

Always store used oil away from ignition sources to prevent fire hazards. Ensure storage areas are ventilated to avoid vapor buildup.

State-Specific used oil disposal regulations

Many states have stricter used oil regulations than federal laws. For example:

• California classifies used oil as hazardous waste unless it meets specific recycling criteria.
• Texas requires additional storage permits for large generators.
• New York mandates annual reporting on used oil disposal activities.

To ensure compliance, check with your state’s environmental agency for state-specific used oil disposal rules and whether used oil is considered hazardous. Additional permits for transporting or processing used oil may be necessary.

Staying compliant with used oil disposal requirements

Ensuring compliance with EPA, OSHA, and state laws is essential for safety managers and shop supervisors handling used oil. By following proper storage, transportation, and disposal practices, businesses can reduce environmental risks, improve workplace safety, and avoid costly fines.

Key to remember: By staying informed and proactive, your facility can maintain safe, sustainable, and compliant used oil management practices.

Big takeaway

Over 1,500 warehouse fires happen annually on average, NFPA estimates. That means warehouse fires are not rare. The first time that fire crews lay eyes on your warehouse should not be when there’s a roaring fire there in the middle of the night.

Ideally, fire service members should be involved before a warehouse is built. That way, things like water supplies and crew access can be part of the drawing board. If your warehouse is already in operation, it’s still critical for fire services to check out your warehouse. They can get familiar with your warehouse configuration, its fire suppression systems, and its stored commodities.

While the two reports detail challenges and trends for warehouse fires, one overarching takeaway prevails — pre-planning between the warehouse owner/operator and the fire service is a must. The concept is covered in the podcast too. Pre-incident planning inevitably helps fire crews to efficiently control and suppress an actual fire. It also informs the owner/operator about fire crew capabilities for the site.

OSHA’s Emergency Action Plan standard calls for covered employers to implement a plan to protect employees during fire emergencies. This requirement is found at 29 CFR 1910.38, 1915.502, 1917.30, 1918.100, and 1926.35, depending on your industry. However, the pre-incident planning that NFPA is talking about is pre-planning WITH the fire department so that there are better outcomes for people and property, in the event of a fire.

Identifying challenges

The 125-page NFPA report, “Identifying Challenges to Fire Service Response in Storage Facilities,” emphasizes that warehouses are evolving to meet greater demand. The report:

• Flags 16 challenges that dog fire services in warehouse fires,
• Lists almost 250 articles and publications on fighting warehouse fires,
• Identifies over 20 gaps in knowledge related to warehouse firefighting,
• Makes a nine-category research plan, and
• Offers 12 recommendations.

One recommendation suggests that future study needs to focus on ways fire departments can improve communication with warehouse owners/operators about pre-planning. The idea is that more communication should happen not only for existing warehouses but before constructing them. It’s also vital when warehouses are about to experience a change. Similarly, fire departments and warehouse owners/operators need to work out how employees will be head counted during a fire incident.

Five years of warehouse fires

Another NFPA report, “Warehouse Structure Fires,” chronicles thousands of warehouse fires that happened between 2018 to 2022. In some cases, the 8-page report reflects on fires going back to 1980. It offers 13 charts that cover the:

• Number of warehouse fires,
• Property damage from warehouse fires,
• Warehouse structure status,
• Day of the week the fire occurred,
• Month the fire occurred,
• Time of day the fire occurred,
• Equipment involved in the fire ignition,
• Cause of ignition,
• Contributing factor to ignition,
• Heat source,
• Origin of the fire,
• First item to be ignited, and
• First material to be ignited.

The report concludes that four components are essential to protecting warehouses from fire: proper sprinkler systems, automatic alarms, pre-fire inspections, and pre-planning.

Take it from the pros

Finally, NFPA sat down with two fire protection professionals for 42 minutes to talk about “Big Storage, Bigger Questions.” The podcast sunk its teeth into some of the deeper concepts found in the new “Identifying Challenges” report, including:

• Automatic storage and retrieval systems,
• Unlimited area buildings,
• Tall racking systems,
• Pre-incident planning,
• Firefighting in rural areas,
• Communications between fire departments and warehouse owners/operators,
• Management of change and changing commodities,
• In-rack sprinklers,
• Standpipe systems,
• Limited air supply for respirators, and
• Adopting fire standards.

Again, pre-planning was reiterated. The pros explained that warehouses have many variables, so getting crews into these facilities before any fire happens is important for better outcomes if a fire were to occur.

Key to remember

NFPA released two reports and a podcast related to the challenges of combating warehouse fires and the history of fires in U.S. warehouses. Pre-planning is an overarching theme in all three.

Does OSHA’s BBP standard cover law enforcement?

That's a trick question! The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) only covers the private sector. There’s a gap in coverage for the public sector workers like law enforcement officers employed by a municipality or state agency. That means federal OSHA does not regulate the Bloodborne Pathogens (BBP) standard at 29 CFR 1910.1030 for these officers.

However, many states have filled that gap in one of two ways:

• About half the states are considered OSHA “state-plan” states. That means they must be equivalent to or more stringent than federal OSHA for the public sector OR both the public and private sectors. These state-plan states have regulations identical to, similar to, or tougher than the federal Bloodborne Pathogens standard.
• Some of the remaining non-state-plan states proactively filled the gap for the public sector. They adopted OSHA regulations like 1910.1030 under state laws and regulations, or otherwise created their own worker safety and health laws and regulations related to hazards like bloodborne pathogens.

If your state has bloodborne pathogens laws and regulations, it’s important to meet them if you have officers (or any workers) with occupational exposure. Note that occupational exposure is not the same thing as an exposure incident. An exposure incident is actual contact with blood or OPIM. Whereas occupational exposure is reasonably anticipated contact as part of the job duties.

NIOSH offers guidance for law enforcement

Regardless whether your officers are protected by bloodborne pathogens laws and regulations, NIOSH’s fact sheet (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2025-101) provides tips and best practices specific to the risks to law enforcement. For example, NIOSH suggests that officers complete training on:

• Search techniques,
• Evidence collection methods,
• Use and removal of personal protective equipment (PPE), and
• Reporting work injuries and illnesses.

Some ways officers can keep safe include, but are not limited to:

• Getting HBV vaccination,
• Wearing gloves while performing searches, and considering gloves with puncture resistance (such as those that meet ASTM Standard F2878-19),
• Asking a suspect if they have any sharp objects BEFORE making a search,
• Using mirrors and flashlights to search under or in the crevices of furniture, and
• Reporting sharps hazards and near misses.

When handling sharps, NIOSH recommends:

• Not handing needles/sharps to other officers,
• Never recapping needles or taking syringes apart,
• Using FDA-cleared sharps containers that meet sharps container requirements at 1910.1030(d)(4),
• Replacing sharps containers when they reach the “full” line of the containers, and
• Disposing sharps containers per your state environmental waste laws and regulations.

If an officer suffers an exposure incident involving a contaminated needlestick/sharp, the fact sheet urges the officer to:

• Wash the injured area with soap and water, and
• Follow your law enforcement department’s plan for what to do (e.g., report injuries according to plan) and where to seek treatment.

Treatment should be sought from a healthcare provider immediately. That provider may offer medication or a vaccine to prevent infection.

Earlier NIOSH guidance

The latest fact sheet comes on the heels of an 8-page guidance document from NIOSH — DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2022-154. Learn more about that in our J. J. Keller® Compliance Network article, “NIOSH report points at sharps injuries in law enforcement,” from September 7, 2022.

Key to remember

A recent NIOSH fact sheet argues that law enforcement officers who do searches are at risk of needlestick/sharps incidents! The agency offers tips about how to stay safe and how to handle and dispose of sharps safely. It also explains what to do if there’s an exposure incident.

What are PFAS?

PFAS, called “forever chemicals,” are long-lasting manufactured chemicals that may pose risks to human and environmental health. With thousands of PFAS chemicals, however, controlling their use to reduce the risks is no easy task.

Additionally, PFAS appear in nearly every sector. They’re used in a wide range of products (like food packaging, cleaning products, and textiles) and for commercial and industrial applications.

Current state PFAS actions

Multiple states already have PFAS rules on the books. Check out these examples:

• California bans selling or distributing in commerce any new juvenile product that contains regulated PFAS chemicals (CA HSC Section 108946), such as changing pads, motor vehicle child restraint systems, playpens, and strollers.
• Colorado requires manufacturers of cookware with intentionally added PFAS in the handle or any product surface that contacts food to, among other things, list the presence of PFAS on the product label (House Bill 22-1345).
• Hawaii prohibits manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, and distributing for sale or use food packaging — wraps, liners, plates, food boats, and pizza boxes — with intentionally added PFAS (Act 152 Relating to environmental protection).
• Maryland bans manufacturing, selling, and delivering cosmetic products that contain any of 13 specified PFAS (Md. Code, Health-Gen. Section 21-259.2).
• New York forbids selling or offering for sale new apparel with intentionally added PFAS (N.Y. Consolidated Laws Section 37-0121).

Many states also have proposed PFAS rules under consideration.

Stay alert to state PFAS actions

If your facility uses PFAS, it’s essential to know whether the state has regulations that apply to your operations. Plus, knowing the state’s potential future PFAS rules coming down the pipeline can help you better prepare to comply.

Consider these general tips to support your facility’s efforts to track state PFAS actions:

• EPA provides an online list of the state environmental agencies with links to their websites. Check the state environmental agency’s online news and press releases for policy updates.
• Search for a dedicated rulemaking webpage, as many states maintain a list of proposed and recently adopted regulations. Note that some state sites may be easier to navigate than others, and some state sites may not have a dedicated rulemaking webpage.
• Establish a contact at the state environmental agency. Each agency should list contact information, so don’t hesitate to reach out. You may be able to find someone at the agency who can answer questions about the state’s current and future PFAS rules.

Staying alert to state PFAS regulations can help your organization maintain compliance.

Key to remember: States across the country continue to consider and implement regulations related to PFAS. Staying alert to state PFAS actions is key for businesses to stay compliant.

Stormwater discharges

Rain and snow that flow over land or impervious surfaces (like building rooftops and parking lots) and don’t soak into the ground generate stormwater runoff. The runoff can gather pollutants generated by industrial activities at a facility and transport them into nearby waterbodies. Your facility must have a permit to discharge stormwater associated with industrial activities to waters of the United States (40 CFR 122.26).

The NPDES program regulates stormwater discharges from 11 categories of industrial activities, listed at 122.26(b)(14). Examples of covered activities include:

• Heavy manufacturing at chemical plants;
• Treating, storing, and disposing of hazardous waste; and
• Processing industrial wastes at landfills.

Note, however, that construction sites that disturb 5 or more acres (the tenth category) are permitted individually.

The permit contains stormwater control measures (including “best management practices”) to limit pollutants that enter stormwater runoff. Containment systems, employee training, and infiltration devices are all ways to control runoff.

Most states issue industrial stormwater discharge permits. EPA issues individual permits and the Multi-Sector General Permits (MSGPs) to facilities where the agency is the permitting authority. The MSGP is EPA’s general permit for industrial stormwater discharges.

Wastewater discharges

Many industrial processes use or generate water that contains pollutants, referred to as industrial wastewater. There are two types of wastewater:

• Process wastewater (defined at 122.2) refers to water used in manufacturing or processing activities.
• Non-process wastewater refers to water used for activities other than processing products (e.g., sanitary wastewater).

Your facility must have a permit to discharge industrial wastewater to surface waters (122.21(a)).

The NPDES program regulates direct wastewater discharges from industrial sources through rules based on the type of facility and activity. The regulations also have industry-specific requirements for:

• Animal Feeding Operations,
• Mining,
• Oil and Gas,
• Pesticide Applications, and
• Vessels Incidental Discharges.

Effluent limitations are the primary control method for industrial wastewater discharges. EPA establishes Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) for industrial categories and subcategories. These pollution-reduction performance standards are based on the best available technology that’s economically achievable by facilities in the industry. The ELGs are then incorporated into the permits through effluent limitations.

Additionally, industrial facilities must meet water quality-based effluent limitations when the technology-based standards don’t achieve the required water quality standards. Both industrial stormwater and wastewater discharge permits may include technology- and water quality-based effluent limitations.

As with stormwater permits, most states issue industrial wastewater permits. Facilities in areas where EPA is the permitting authority must obtain either a general or individual NPDES permit.

Check your state requirements!

Because a majority of the states run stormwater and wastewater permitting programs, it’s crucial to check the state regulations. State permits must contain limits as stringent as EPA’s federal permits, and some states may impose stricter limits and/or additional requirements.

EPA’s website lists the states authorized to issue NPDES permits with links to the state agencies that run the NPDES program.

Key to remember: Industrial stormwater and wastewater discharges, and the permits that regulate them, are different.

Five-fold increase

The move aims to cut much more than a similar “two-for-one” order issued at the start of President Trump’s first stint in the White House in 2017. That order applied only to regulations that would cost $100 million or more.

The White House says the 2017 order was “the most aggressive and successful regulatory reduction effort in history” and eliminated five and one-half regulations for every new one issued.

The new order, according to a White House fact sheet, says that whenever an agency promulgates a new rule, regulation, or guidance, it must identify at least 10 existing rules, regulations, or guidance documents to be repealed.

It will be up to the head of the White House Office of Management and Budget to enforce the order and ensure agencies use a standard measuring stick to verify compliance.

The order also requires that for fiscal year 2025 (which ends September 30), “the total incremental cost of all new regulations, including repealed regulations, be significantly less than zero,” the fact sheet says. The order itself was not available on the White House website when this article was published.

The new executive order comes on the heels of another directive, issued January 20, 2025, that put a freeze on all pending regulations until the new administration has time to review them.

‘Fire from the Storm’ video

The CSB’s new 17-minute safety video, "Fire from the Storm," includes a riveting animation of the events leading to a fire and toxic gas release. The incident occurred when Hurricane Laura damaged a chemical storage facility in Louisiana.

Rainwater then reached the chemical storage. The chemical decomposed, producing toxic chlorine gas and a fire. A large plume of chlorine traveled over the community.

The CSB video calls on OSHA and EPA to amend regulations on Process Safety and Risk Management, respectively. Five key safety issues contributing to the incident are covered:

• Extreme weather preparation,
• Process hazard analyses,
• Emergency preparedness and response,
• Adherence to hazardous materials codes, and
• Gaps in regulatory coverage of reactive chemical hazards.

The latest video follows two others issued in October and July. It also aligns with an alert shared last July on hurricane preparedness.

Cold weather alert

Cold weather can crack or break pipes. It can also lead to ruptured or damaged process equipment and/or failing instruments. In December, CSB rang alarm bells over an uptick in chemical incidents during cold weather. The CSB alert listed over a dozen safety steps and links to guidance on cold weather operations.

Process safety management programs are regulated at 29 CFR 1910.119. Per the alert, these programs should consider how low temperatures may affect piping, equipment, and instruments. Equipment susceptible to ice or hydrate formation should also be identified and properly winterized.

Extreme weather dangers are a recurring theme for CSB. Last July, during hurricane season, Owens said, “When it comes to extreme weather, chemical companies should expect the unexpected and must always be prepared for the worst-case scenario.”

Event summaries issued

In a move toward transparency, CSB compiled summaries for 26 of the chemical incident reports it has received. These events summarized in Incident Reports Volume 1 resulted in five fatalities, 17 serious injuries, and about $697M in property damage in 15 states since April 2020.

For over two years the board has posted “overall” data about incidents reported under 40 CFR 1604. That’s the Reporting of Accidental Releases standard. CSB now calls this standard the “Accidental Release Reporting Rule (ARRR).”

For the record, CSB has received 460 reports in the last five years. The reports reveal 68 fatalities and 249 serious injuries/illnesses. Over 200 of these incidents involved property damage of $1M or more.

The overall data reports provide:

• The name and location of the chemical facility,
• The date of the incident, and
• Whether the incident involved a fatality, serious injury, or substantial property damage.

However, the latest Volume 1 also reveals:

• A summary of the event,
• Its probable cause, and
• Images of the involved facility or incident scene.

Owens argued, “The American people have a right to know about the kinds of dangerous chemical incidents that happen across this country every week.”

Reporting form change

It’s worth noting that CSB updated its Accidental Release Reporting Form and Instructions last June. The changes:

• Merge the form and instructions into a single document;
• Make minor formatting and grammar corrections;
• Indicate a fourth reporting method (to call CSB to relay the National Response Center ID number);
• Clarify that only “substantial” property damage information is required; and
• Add a confidential and disclosure statement.

Key to remember

CSB continues to deliver videos, weather-related alerts, and data. The agency has also updated its reporting form and launched an initiative to reveal more incident details on a regular basis. Expect more from the board in 2025, along with any number of investigative reports.