EPA enforcement chief Jeffrey Hall is developing a compliance-focused framework intended to improve clarity, consistency, efficiency, accountability, and federal-state coordination. Public reporting suggests the emerging framework may standardize inspections, enforcement procedures, penalty calculations, case tracking, and consent-decree reviews across EPA regions. [EPA] [InsideEPA]
Implications for the Waste Sector
Although the framework does not specifically address the waste management industry, particularly landfill owners and operators, regulated facilities could face more consistent inspections and penalty calculations, more predictable enforcement processes, and closer review of compliance obligations. [EPA] [EPA] [EPA]
Will States Cooperate?
State cooperation is likely to be conditional rather than uniform. States may support clearer expectations, shared tools, and improved coordination, but could resist changes that expand EPA headquarters’ control or reduce state discretion. The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) policy maintains that authorized states should remain the primary implementers of inspections and enforcement and that EPA should consult states before initiating federal action. Cooperation therefore appears more likely on consistency and coordination than on measures perceived to override state authority. [ECOS]
The EPA defers to authorized states and tribes as primary implementers of federal environmental laws (such as the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act), intervening directly only under specific criteria like emergencies, multi-state issues, or unaddressed significant violations. [EPA]
Consider getting ahead of EPA’s push for enforcement consistency expected in 2027 with a federal, state, local compliance audit. Continue following SCS Engineers blogs, articles, and social media channels. We’ll keep you advised!
On May 17, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expanded its Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) program to include seven additional per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), raising the total number of PFAS tracked under the TRI to 196 to report in 2025 for the year 2024—the PFAS to report on for 2023 on July 1, 2024 numbers 186.
This decision, mandated by the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which requires annual updates to the PFAS list in the TRI, reflects ongoing efforts to monitor and manage environmental exposure to these persistent chemicals.
The EPA removed the de minimis exemption for PFAS under the “chemicals of special concern” category as of October 2023. This elimination underscores the increased regulatory focus on these substances due to their environmental and health risks, thereby intensifying the demands on facilities to track and report PFAS handling accurately. This ongoing regulatory evolution highlights the increasing scrutiny and accountability for environmental stewardship concerning PFAS.
SCS’s educational video Toxics Release Inventory Reporting explains how to identify and quantify facilities subject to TRI reporting, including:
Facilities must start compiling historical and new information to meet compliance requirements. The educational video covers the reporting thresholds and tips for collecting the data, calculating usage, and determining which form to report to the EPA. Some facilities accidentally overreport, so our expert tells you how to avoid this mistake.
Including additional PFAS in the TRI places a greater compliance burden on many industries. Companies must adapt by implementing more rigorous tracking systems and investing in technologies to reduce PFAS emissions or discharges.
Tracking specific product formulations is more important than ever. Safety Data Sheets (SDS) and historical reporting are a good place to start. Still, our expert explains how to minimize your facility’s risk of non-compliance, fines, or legal actions by not relying on SDS. She provides many tips for increasing the accuracy and accountability of this public information.
Request Tools and Resources Slides or ask a Hazardous Waste Expert a question here.
Regulators are offering some regulatory flexibility on a case-by-case basis for special situations that are unavoidable and, most importantly, do not pose a risk to human health or the environment.
If you find that your business has been unable to remain in compliance, follow the four steps Cheryl Moran suggests in her most recent article. Cheryl provides examples from Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Remember, policies may be updated or terminated at any time; so, be sure to visit your appropriate state websites regularly or contact your SCS Project Manager for advice.
Read the article now, Four Steps to Managing Environmental Regulatory Compliance During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic
About the Author: Cheryl Moran is a Project Manager at SCS Engineers with more than 25 years of experience in the printing industry. She is a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager (CHMM) and develops air, water, and waste management solutions; EPCRA; environmental compliance audits and navigating discretionary enforcement; and sustainability programs. For any of our 50 states contact or our nearest office.
Corporate Headquarters
