Audit, Compliance and Risk Blog

The 2016 amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) added procedures for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to evaluate risks presented by existing chemicals using the latest scientific information – including information developed after a chemical entered use in the US. Based on these reviews, EPA is to update its regulatory requirements, ranging from labeling-only through use restrictions up to and including bans from further distribution and use. (I summarized these review requirements HERE ).  Beginning in November 2019, EPA regularly announces new chemical reviews, and subsequently the results of these reviews. (I wrote about the first review announcement HERE ). On July 25, 2024 EPA published a formal proposal to review 5 additional chemicals for designation as High-Priority Substance subject to strict controls under TSCA. The rest of this note identifies these proposed chemicals.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) establishes Emergency Response planning, training, and procedure requirements for employers, as one self-contained part of its multi-pronged Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) Standard (29 CFR 1910.120). This note describes these requirements, and places them in the context of a variety of emergency response planning requirements.

Since the 1980s, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has required most employers to protect their workers from workplace chemical hazards, and to train workers to protect themselves.  Most employers are subject to OSHA’s Hazard Communication Standard (HCS; 29 CFR 1910.1200), or to variants imposed by states delegated OSHA’s authority. Many of the present requirements were established by massive revisions adopted in March 2012, when OSHA recast HCS to align it with the United Nations-sponsored Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS).  OSHA’s 2012 revisions conformed the US to GHS Revision 3, which was issued internationally in 2002.  The most obvious change was the adoption of Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) to replace longstanding Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), but employers faced a series of deadlines during 2013-2016. 

On May 20, 2024, OSHA significantly updated HCS requirements for the first time since 2012, primarily to reflect GHS changes through Revision 7 (which was published in 2017). OSHA’s revisions take effect on July 19. The remainder of this note summarizes these changes, based on the affected subsections or appendices.

On March 28, 2024, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted requirements that qualifying onshore non-transportation-related facilities prepare Facility Response Plans (FRPs) to address possible “worst case” discharges of hazardous substances into navigable waters or related areas. These new requirements fulfill a mandate imposed in 2020 after environmental groups successfully sued EPA for failing to issue such rules in the 30 years following 1990 amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) directed EPA to do so (Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform, et al. v. EPA). The rest of this note discusses these new requirements, in the context of CWA facility preparation requirements.

Federal laws (commonly referred to as RCRA, after the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) provide comprehensive management requirements for parties involved in hazardous waste management, from “cradle to grave” covering generators, transporters, and offsite management facilities. Among these many provisions are requirements that “large quantity generators (LQGs)” submit biennial reports to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or delegated states in March of every even-numbered year. March 2024 is the next such deadline, so now is a good time to review biennial report requirements to ensure compliance at qualifying facilities.

Several national laws empower the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set standards for the cleanup of contamination that resulted from accidental or deliberate releases of chemicals and other materials onto land or into water. EPA’s actions include direct requirements for cleanup by responsible parties, and also inform other parties’ evaluations of if and how to prepare contaminated areas for reuse – often referred to as “brownfields” since they’re assumed to be dirtier than never-used “greenfields.” The remainder of this note discusses EPA’s 73 page “Climate Smart Brownfields Manual,” issued by the agency in 2021

Lead and lead-containing materials are among the longest-used materials in construction and industry. Lead has been used in commercial, residential, and ceramic paint; in electric batteries and other devices; as a gasoline additive; for weighting; and other purposes. It also has been recognized as toxic to human health and the environment at least since the Romans, although understanding of the extent and severity of lead hazards has improved greatly in recent decades. Accordingly, environmental, occupational and public health agencies have progressively tightened standards to reduce lead exposures. On August 1, 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed to tighten post-remediation clearance levels as low as “non-detect.” The rest of this note discusses EPA’s latest proposal, and provides some context and background.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) applies its authority under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to set national requirements for containers – such as drums – that may be contaminated after use to accumulate hazardous chemicals and wastes. These rules include the “empty container rule” first promulgated in 1980. On August 11, 2023 EPA published in the Federal Register a “Used Drum Management and Reconditioning Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (ANPRM), setting forth the agency’s thinking about existing container management requirements and possible enhancements and regulatory and non-regulatory alternatives to its existing approaches. The rest of this note summarizes EPA’s ruminations, which may lead to a formal rulemaking.

On May 24, 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a memo (“Lithium Battery Recycling Regulatory Status and Frequently Asked Questions”) clarifying regulatory requirements for spent lithium-ion batteries, under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA’s memo acknowledges that lithium-ion batteries power our electronics, lawnmowers, e-scooters, electric bicycles, and rapidly increasing numbers of electric cars, so numbers of spent batteries are also growing rapidly. In this memo, EPA evaluates RCRA’s applicability to lithium-ion batteries, particularly:

• Universal waste handling provisions
• Hazardous waste recycling provisions
• Other RCRA requirements

Based on its analysis, EPA offers clarification that most waste lithium-ion batteries are “likely” hazardous waste, which can be managed under universal waste handling standards until they reach a destination facility for recycling or discard. The rest of this note summarizes information in EPA’s memo.

On October 19, 2022 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United Parcel Service (UPS) settled a massive enforcement case covering violations of hazardous waste management requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) at 1,160 UPS facilities across forty-five (45) states and the territory of Puerto Rico. Most of the identified violations resulted from UPS’ misclassification of the quantities of hazardous waste generated at its facilities, and resulting failures to meet the additional requirements actually applicable at the mis-classified facilities. The national prosecution followed an investigation and subsequent Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) in EPA’s Region 6 (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and 66 Tribal Nations), which developed after enforcement at a single UPS site in Arkansas. The new nationwide settlement also appears in a CAFO, in which UPS agrees to pay more than $5 million in fines and to undertake enhanced compliance programs. The settlement is a good reminder to all organizations generating hazardous waste, that failures to meet RCRA-related administrative requirements can create enforcement liability even if wastes are managed responsibly.