KTL will be exhibiting at the American Correctional Association’s 156th Congress of Correction in Pittsburgh, PA, July 30 – August 2, 2026. The Congress features a wide array of workshops and sessions focused on cutting-edge topics for correctional facilities. The educational workshops feature the best in the business, passing on critical knowledge and engaging in important discussions, while the expansive exhibit allows attendees to interact with hundreds of companies serving the correctional industry.

Be sure to stop by and visit KTL at Booth #1106. We’ll be sharing more about our EHS, food safety, information Microsoft 365 solutions. We look forward to connecting with you in Pittsburgh!

Microplastics have been found in every ecosystem on the planet—in food, beverages, and human and animal tissue. While scientists still do not fully understand the impacts of microplastics on human health and aquatic life, federal attention to microplastics is increasing.

EPA and HHS: A Coordinated National Strategy

In April 2026, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made a joint announcement describing microplastics contamination as “one of the most urgent and growing public health challenges facing Americans.” The release announced major actions to study microplastics in drinking water and the human body, as described below. Together, these developments point to closer scrutiny, better testing methods, and possible future regulatory action affecting food companies, manufacturers, and other industrial sectors.

Historic Recognition as a Priority Contaminant. For the first time, EPA has included microplastics as a priority contaminant group in its Draft Sixth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 6). The CCL is published every five years and contains a list of substances designated by EPA as potentially warranting future regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). CCL 6 identifies contaminants not yet regulated but known or anticipated to occur in public water systems. The draft list includes four chemical groups, including microplastics, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), pharmaceuticals, and disinfection byproducts; nine microbes; and 75 chemicals.

The inclusion of microplastics in CCL 6 is historic. It signals that microplastics are no longer viewed solely as an environmental pollutant but as a potential human health threat requiring scientific scrutiny, regulatory planning, and industry accountability.

Systematic Targeting Of MicroPlastics (STOMP) Program. As part of the coordinated national strategy to address microplastics, HHS’s Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) has launched the STOMP program. This $144 million national initiative is intended to measure, map, and remove microplastics and nanoplastics from the human body.

The STOMP program is the first federal effort aimed not just at environmental monitoring but also at understanding microplastics inside human tissues. Researchers have already detected microplastics in lungs, arterial plaques, and even the brain, yet measurement methods remain inconsistent, making it difficult to assess risk or design interventions. STOMP aims to change that by:

• Identifying which microplastics are most harmful and how they move through the body.
• Developing gold-standard detection technologies for microplastics in water and human tissue.
• Creating safe, scalable removal methods, especially for vulnerable populations such as children, pregnant women, and high-exposure workers.

Focus on Food Safety

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to work on improving how microplastics and nanoplastics are detected and assessed in food. FDA has included microplastics as a priority deliverable under its Human Foods Program chemical food safety focus area, indicating that planned actions include research to improve the agency’s ability to accurately detect, quantify, and characterize microplastics in human food.

In light of this, food and beverage manufacturing, processing, and packaging companies should anticipate increased scrutiny of microplastic contamination across the food chain. Key implications include the following:

• Water used in food processing may face new regulatory limits for microplastics, requiring upgraded filtration or monitoring systems.
• Packaging materials, especially plastics that degrade into micro- and nanoplastics, may be reevaluated for shedding risk.
• Seafood, salt, bottled beverages, and processed foods that already known to contain microplastics may become targets for new testing requirements.
• Hazard analysis frameworks (e.g., Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)) may need to incorporate microplastics as an emerging contaminant category.

Implications for Industry

Manufacturers in every industry, but particularly those using plastics, solvents, or high-shear processes, should prepare for the following:

1. New Monitoring and Reporting Requirements. EPA’s CCL 6 designation signals that microplastics may become regulated contaminants. Industries that discharge wastewater or rely on plastic-intensive processes may face:
   • Mandatory microplastic monitoring.
   • Stricter discharge permits.
   • Requirements for new filtration or capture technologies.
2. Supply Chain and Material Redesign. As STOMP identifies the most harmful microplastics, regulators may target specific polymers or additives. Companies may need to:
   • Shift to alternative materials.
   • Redesign products to minimize shedding.
   • Improve durability to reduce particle generation.
3. Increased Need for Environmental Services. To meet potential regulatory changes, many companies may need to implement advanced environment solutions, including:
   • Microplastic sampling and analysis.
   • Remediation technologies.
   • Regulatory compliance strategies.
4. Worker Safety Considerations. Microplastics have been detected in human lungs and arterial plaques. Industrial environments with airborne plastic dust may face:
   • Updated Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidance.
   • New personal protective equipment (PPE) or ventilation requirements.
   • Exposure monitoring programs.

Proactively Adapting

Microplastics are likely to remain a growing focus for federal research and possible future regulation. As EPA, HHS, and FDA continue developing the science, companies should expect stronger scrutiny, better detection methods, and increasing pressure to understand where microplastics may enter operations, products, and supply chains. Organizations that proactively adapt by assessing potential exposure points, improving filtration, redesigning materials, and monitoring microplastic exposure will be better positioned if (or when) monitoring expectations, customer demands, or regulatory requirements expand.

ISO 14001 is the international standard for Environmental Management Systems (EMS). It serves as a management tool for voluntary use by organizations to help improve environmental performance and minimize environmental risks following a plan-do-check-act (PDCA) approach. ISO 14001 was first published in 1996 by the International Standard for Organization. It has since been updated with revised versions in 2004 and 2015. The recent ISO 14001:2026 revision—published in April 2026—marks the first major update to the ISO 14001 standard since 2015.

Impetus for Change

The global sustainability landscape has shifted significantly since ISO 14001:2015 was published, prompting the 2026 updates. Organizations face more stringent regulatory requirements; greater supply chain scrutiny; and heightened demand for environmental, social, and governance (ESG) transparency and accountability. The ISO 14001:2026 updates refine, strengthen, and modernize EMS requirements to align the standard with growing environmental and sustainability pressures and increasing stakeholder expectations.

In addition, ISO 14001:2026 implements the Harmonized Structure (Annex SL) to align with other ISO management system standards. This standard structure allows for easier integration between management systems and improved efficiencies due to familiar terminology and sections. The standard also now includes at what point in the PDCA cycle each clause lands. While this isn’t new for ISO, it is new for ISO 14001:2026.

Major Clause‑Level Changes

The ISO 14001:2026 revision incorporates changes to enhance climate awareness, lifecycle responsibility, supplier oversight, and leadership accountability. The table below outlines the major clause-level changes in the revised standard.

In addition to the major clause changes outlined above, the updated standard:

• Encourages the use of digital tools and data analytics to improve environmental performance and evidence‑based decision‑making.
• Introduces clearer, more accessible wording, as well as improved examples and explanations in Annex A.
• Embeds stronger expectations for integrity, transparency, and environmental governance at the leadership level.­

Transition Timeline: How to Prepare

Organizations will have a three‑year transition period to switch to the new standard. Taking the time to adapt and integrate the new provisions into their operations now will help ensure certification when the transition period is over:

• Get informed! Start reading up on ISO 14001:2026 to get familiar with how the new standard is structured and how the clause changes impact your organization.
• Conduct a gap assessment to identify gaps in your existing EMS that will need to be addressed to meet new requirements. If you don’t have an existing EMS, review the requirements and determine what pieces you may already have in place to pursue certification.
• Develop an implementation plan that integrates leadership accountability, new change management processes, expanded documentation expectations, and more rigorous climate and biodiversity integration. There is a three-year transition period. Plan according to this timeline.
• Provide training. It is vital to ensure that workers and management are engaged in the EMS and that they are competent in any new skills/responsibilities that may be required.
• Put your plan into action. Update/develop your EMS to meet the ISO 14001:2026 requirements and provide verification of its effectiveness to help ensure certification when the three-year transition period is over.

If you are in the Rockford area, you won’t want to miss KTL at the REMS Summit 2026, held at the NIU Rockford Campus on February 5, 2026. The REMS Summit offers Rockford-area leaders in manufacturing keynote sessions on legislative updates and strategic priorities, as well as interactive breakout sessions covering workforce development, automation/AI, supply chain strategy, HR modernization, Lean leadership, and environmental, health & safety compliance.

KTL’s April Greene, CSP, CHMM, will be presenting a breakout session on Environmental, Health & Safety: What You Need to Know. This session will:

• Provide an overview of applicable federal, state, and local occupational safety and environmental regulatory requirements.
• Explain what is required to comply with federal, state, and local environmental and occupational safety regulations (i.e., your obligations as an employer).
• Identify common compliance pitfalls and gaps in existing operations, processes, and practices.
• Outline best practices for developing practical systems to manage risk and stay compliant.

As we move into 2026, the environmental, health, and safety (EHS) landscape is entering a period of heightened complexity and contradiction. Significant federal budget cuts and deregulation are reducing oversight from agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), while state enforcement, investor expectations, global regulations, and public scrutiny continue to intensify. At the same time, emerging risks and opportunities (e.g., PFAS, water scarcity, AI-driven systems, data center projects) are reshaping how organizations must think about compliance, risk, and resilience. Here’s what KTL currently has on our radar for 2026.

EPA Budget Cuts

The EPA’s FY2026 budget is a 54% reduction from the FY2025 budget and its lowest in approximately 50 years. Not unexpectedly, this lack of funding is sharply reducing EPA’s planned enforcement capacity in 2026 across all major statutes, focusing enforcement efforts on “clear and substantial violations.” Major funding cuts include criminal enforcement (- 49%), civil enforcement (- 30%), compliance monitoring and inspections (- 35%), and Environmental Justice (EJ) enforcement (100% eliminated).

Despite federal inspections and enforcement sharply declining in 2026, organizations remain fully liable under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, RCRA, TSCA, EPCRA, and CERCLA, and major incidents will draw intense scrutiny. While it may be tempting to let internal environmental programs and systems slide due to less federal oversight, dismantling internal EHS and Environmental Social Governance (ESG) systems may create higher long‑term risks, particularly as many states expand enforcement to fill the federal gap.

Tip: Treat proactive environmental management as an asset protection tool, not a regulatory cost. Preserve internal audit, monitoring, and corrective action programs; keep permit tracking, compliance calendars, and incident response processes intact; and maintain clear records and documents.

EPA Deregulation

Consistent with its budget cuts, the EPA has significant deregulation planned for 2026 focused largely on rolling back key climate‑related rules, including Vehicle Emission Rules and the Clean Power Plan 2.0, which regulates fossil fuel-fired power plants. In addition, the following rules are all on the proverbial chopping block:

Federal Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting

The EPA is proposing to largely end mandatory federal GHG reporting beginning in 2026. If finalized as proposed, most industries would no longer be required to report GHG emissions under the GHG Reporting Program (GHGRP), and oil and gas industry reporting under Subpart W would be paused until 2034, with limited exceptions. Though federal reporting may disappear (unless tied to a clear statutory mandate), many state programs still rely on GHGRP‑style data; SEC, investor, and customer pressure for emissions disclosure is expected to continue; and lenders and insurers continue requiring verified emissions data.

Tip: Organizations that stop internal tracking may increase long‑term risk, particularly if future administrations reinstate reporting. Maintain internal GHG inventories and related transparency processes, and archive methodologies so reporting can restart without rebuilding systems.

Risk Management Program (RMP) Rule

Although the EPA has not yet issued a final rule, the Agency is reconsidering the Risk Management Program (RMP) requirements related to cross-agency coordination in the chemical transportation industry. This may include narrowing coordination requirements to onsite emergencies only, no longer requiring facilities to report accidents occurring off site during transport, eliminating mandatory sharing of RMP data with transportation regulators, and removing implied responsibility for transporter training verification, carrier safety management practices, and emergency preparedness beyond the facility.

Core RMP applicability remains and onsite transfer operations (loading/unloading) will still fall under RMP. Importantly, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) emergency planning obligations remain unchanged, state RMP programs are unaffected, and related OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) and Department of Transportation (DOT) HazMat rules still apply independently.

Tip: Refine your chemical transportation risk management approach, as necessary, by remapping regulatory responsibility to the correct agency. Maintain strong DOT, OSHA, EPCRA, and contractual controls; preserve emergency preparedness; and continue sharing site‑specific emergency data with responders. Track state rulemaking, especially if operating across multiple jurisdictions.

OSHA Budget Cuts

The FY 2026 Department of Labor budget reflects reduced funding for OSHA, with cuts affecting staffing and compliance assistance programs, while pushing the agency to streamline enforcement activities rather than expand them. The result is a leaner OSHA that is prioritizing high-impact enforcement for Severe Injuries and Fatalities (SIFs) vs. routine inspections and prevention-first support. With reduced OSHA staff who are focused largely on high-profile case work, day‑to‑day guidance from OSHA will become harder to obtain, and there will be less capacity for outreach, training, and informal guidance.

Budget cuts reduce OSHA capacity, but not an organization’s liability. Standards, citation authority, and penalty structures remain intact, and enforcement still applies after incidents. SIFs will require prompt response from companies and appropriate documentation and records.

Tip: Strengthen internal investigations, recordkeeping practices and systems, and incident response readiness. Leverage relationships with third parties to fill in the gaps for safety support, training, and guidance.

OSHA Streamlined Rulemaking

Despite budget pressure, OSHA will continue to work on streamlined rulemaking to promote the following:

Heat Illness Prevention

Heat Stress legislation is anticipated in 2026, which will require employers to develop and implement a formal, written program that explains how heat hazards are identified, controlled, and managed.

Tip: Develop or update a Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan (HIIPP) to meet proposed regulatory requirements, including hazard assessments, high exposure tasks/locations, controls, acclimatization procedures, roles and responsibilities, training, incident response, and recordkeeping.

Workplace Violence Prevention

While no federal legislation is anticipated, civil unrest in areas around the country is causing many states to consider creating their own requirements for employers to help prevent workplace violence and protect workers from inside or outside attackers.

Tip: Evaluate your Emergency Action Plan and update it to reflect expectations for workers when dealing with workplace violence incidents. Include leadership commitment, clear policies and procedures, training, and continuous improvement.

Recordkeeping and Transparency

There is talk of more stringent data collection and public availability of that data for incidents. This is currently a big unknown given OSHA’s limited resources; however, there are indications of AI-enabled systems being introduced to support incident reporting, data analysis, and public data availability. 

Tip: Data accuracy matters more than ever, as reporting errors themselves may become enforcement triggers. Implement and maintain systems to accurately collect, manage, and report incident data.

Others to Watch

PFAS “Forever Chemicals”. Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) remain a focal point, as does the uncertainty surrounding, their regulation. There is currently a patchwork of federal requirements and state-level regulations and product bans in the U.S. The Federal government is on the path to making U.S. rules less stringent, while global restrictions are accelerating. Currently, the reporting period for manufacturers and importers of PFAS under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) will begin on April 13, 2026, with a final deadline for most by October 13, 2026.  The EPA also has a pending rule to designate nine specific PFAS compounds as hazardous constituents under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), requiring corrective action for their release. Federal PFAS legislation is unlikely; however, keep an eye on state regulations and other bills for any provisions associated with PFAS, particularly in industries such as textiles, cleaning products, cosmetics, and cookware. 

Water Use. Water use is becoming a more significant EHS concern, particularly in western states, due to rising demand, increasing scarcity, and the environmental impacts associated with over-extraction (see Data Centers below). Desalinization plants and using non-potable water for industrial use, golf courses, etc. can create potentially very negative environmental impacts on entire ecosystems. Make sure your environmental audits every consider things like energy and water conservation. Monitor state regulations, particularly where scarcity is a concern. Incorporate water conservation into ESG strategies to elevate its importance.

Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI is everywhere, and EHS is not excluded. EPA and OSHA staffing shortages are accelerating interest in using AI for automation. And organizations are testing the limits on what AI can—and can’t—do effectively and correctly. The assumption that AI can be used to automate and manage EHS programs is a slippery slope. While AI can be leveraged as a tool for things like data aggregation and draft report development, using AI must be done thoughtfully, as it cannot replace EHS programs and human involvement. In fact, over‑automation without expert oversight can significantly increase error and legal exposure. Use caution exploring where you can use AI for more basic tasks that can be automated, as not all processes lend themselves to AI.

Data Centers. There has been an explosion of growth in data centers. This expansion is rapidly increasing demand for energy, driving more fossil fuel pollution, straining water resources, using agricultural land, creating noise pollution, and raising electricity prices across the country. This is of particular concern in parts of the Midwest, Texas, and Western states. At the federal level, there is currently limited direct regulation specific to data centers. Oversight typically occurs through state water withdrawal permits, air permits for generators, and local zoning and land‑use approvals. It is important to understand how the increase in data centers may impact ESG goals, particularly related to water, power, noise, and land use.

Looking Ahead

Organizations that treat 2026 as a moment to scale back EHS efforts risk being caught unprepared. Reduced federal activity does not equate to reduced liability. In fact, given the uncertainty, proactive, well-integrated EHS programs will be increasingly critical for protecting people, assets, and long-term enterprise value. Now is the time to:

• Reassess regulatory exposure, strengthen internal systems, and ensure EHS programs are resilient, auditable, and aligned with broader business and ESG objectives.
• Implement proactive planning, disciplined data management, and thoughtful use of technology to turn uncertainty into a competitive advantage.
• Leverage partnerships with consulting partners with deep regulatory insight and practical implementation experience to help navigate the evolving regulatory landscape, protect against emerging risks, and position your organization to sustain whatever the next regulatory cycle brings.

KTL will be joining the technical program of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) North America 46th Annual Meeting November 16-20, 2025 in Portland, Oregon. SETAC is dedicated to advancing environmental science and science-informed decision-making through collaboration, communication, eductaion, and leadership.

KTL Senior Associate Margaret Roy will be presenting Representation of the Homeless in Human Health Risk Assessment on Monday, November 17 at 10:00 am as part of Session 5.08: Beyond Direct Contact: Non-Traditional Exposure Scenarios in Human Health Risk Assessment.

Human Health Risk Assessments (HHRAs) are used to assess contaminant exposure and risk to defined populations, such as residents, commercial workers, and construction workers. HHRAs can also be used to assess risk for the homeless population. This presentation will discuss some of the challenges associated with developing an exposure model to represent the homeless sheltering and living on a contaminated site. For example, interviews with individuals may be necessary to develop an accurate exposure model. The presentation will also discuss the importance of the field sampling crew, from observing field conditions to safety concerns.

KTL is excited to be joining the 2025 Midwest Environmental Compliance Conference (MECC) in Overland Park, Kansas, September 15-16, 2025, as a sponsor, presenter, and exhibitor. MECC takes a fresh, regional approach to the increasingly difficult task of environmental compliance, permitting, enforcement, and other critical environmental issues that impact Midwest facilities and institutions.

KTL will be leading the following sessions as part of the workshop’s technical agenda:

OSHA Fundamentals for Advancing Environmental Professionals
September 15, 2025 | 8:45 am | Presenter: April Greene, CSP, CHMM, Senior Consultant

Moving from environmental specialist to EHS leader means you suddenly need to know about fall protection, lockout/tagout, confined spaces, and more. This session gives environmental professionals the strategic safety overview on critical safety programs.

IT Tools for EHS Compliance: Demo
September 15, 2025 | 11:15 am | Presenter: Joseph Kunes, Consultant

Building an EHS IT system doesn’t have to be complicated or expensive. Most companies already
have the software they need. Learn how to build data management tools to collect, track, & report EHS
compliance information using the latest Microsoft 365 and Power Platform apps. See examples and
hear from EHS/IT experts on how you can benefit from this approach.

Navigating EHS Challenges in the Food Industry: Panel
September 16, 2025 | 9:40 am | Moderator: Joe Tell, Principal

In the fast-paced and highly regulated world of food production, EHS professionals play a critical role in maintaining operational excellence while protecting workers, consumers, and the environment. This panel brings together experienced EHS managers from across the food industry to share real-world insights, lessons learned, and practical strategies for overcoming today’s pressing EHS challenges. The session will offer takeaways to strengthen your EHS programs and drive continuous improvement.

And be sure to stop by and visit our booth in the exhibit hall. We look forward to seeing you at MECC!

KTL will be exhibiting at the American Correctional Association’s 155th Congress of Correction in Denver, CO, August 21-26, 2025. The Congress features a wide array of workshops and sessions focused on cutting-edge topics for correctional facilities. The educational workshops feature the best in the business, passing on critical knowledge and engaging in important discussions, while the expansive exhibit allows attendees to interact with hundreds of companies serving the correctional industry.

Be sure to stop by and visit KTL at Booth #871. We look forward to seeing you at the Congress of Correction!

All types of organizations and operational processes demand a variety of audits and assessments to evaluate compliance with requirements—ranging from government regulations, to industry codes, to management system standards (e.g., ISO, GFSI), to internal obligations. Audits and assessments capture regulatory compliance status, management system conformance, supplier compliance, adequacy of internal controls, potential risks, and best practices.

Internal audits help identify problems so corrective/preventive actions can be put into place and then sustained and improved prior to third-party certification/compliance audits. Internal audits and assessments also help companies with continuous improvement initiatives.

Understanding the Internal Audit Process

Many organizations conduct internal audits with their own staff to assess conformance and identify opportunities for improvement. For companies large enough to have a dedicated internal audit team (with have no ties to the processes they audit), this may make perfect sense. However, it can take significant resources—time, personnel, money—to conduct all internal audits with internal resources.

It is easy to underestimate what goes into a successful audit and assume that it is more efficient and cost-effective to use internal resources. But that often isn’t the case. Let’s consider what an internal audit entails.

Pre-Audit Preparation

• Research: Auditors must understand the standard they are assessing against (i.e., regulatory, management systems, internal, industry). Effective auditors will also understand industry best practices; related local, state, and/or country-based requirements; processing norms for new product areas; etc. that can impact operational compliance and risks.
• Logistics: Logistics includes coordinating with the facility(ies) to schedule the audit and time with applicable personnel for interviews and, if travel is required, researching/booking flights, booking hotels, arranging for car transportation, etc.
• Document Review: Prior to the onsite audit, auditors should review available documentation (e.g., procedures, policies, programs). This will better inform and guide them on where they should dig more deeply during the audit, as well as help them create effective audit protocol (see below). Pre-audit document review also allows the onsite portion of the audit to remain focused on observing operations, interviewing workers, and verifying physical requirements are being met.
• Audit Protocol/Template: Auditors need to take the time to develop protocol/questions for conducting the audit, as well as standardized reporting templates, before the site visit. A standard protocol will make conducting multiple audits more efficient. Consistent protocols and templates also add value by allowing for direct year-over-year and site-to-site comparisons.

Onsite Audit

• Technical Knowledge: To efficiently conduct an audit, auditors must have a thorough understanding of the standard they are assessing against. In many cases, auditors are asked to juggle multiple areas of focus at once. For example, in a foods facility, the auditor may simultaneously evaluate Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), and facility-specific procedure requirements. For an environmental, health, and safety (EHS) audit, the auditor may simultaneously assess Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), state agency, and facility-specific requirements. Deep technical knowledge of all the related standards and codes helps to ensure a thorough audit.
• Audit Tools: Having the right tool for the job can make audits significantly more efficient. This includes the audit protocol and templates developed as part of pre-audit preparation, as well as audit tools that may be used to conduct and manage audits more efficiently and effectively.
• Audit Management: Auditors are responsible for building a relationship of trust and openness with the facility quickly, while still maintaining control of the audit. This can be a challenge for internal auditors when interviewing colleagues and assessing internal systems.

Post-Audit Follow-up

• Report: Auditors need to synthesize observations from the audit to create a report that concisely conveys all pertinent information, including nonconformances with the defined standard(s). Auditors provide additional value when they can leverage their industry experience to prioritize findings and identify opportunities for improvement and best practices. Reports are most valuable when finalized within a few weeks of the site visit when information is fresh to facility staff.
• Corrective Actions: After an internal audit, facility staff will inevitably have questions regarding findings and what to do next. Auditors can provide valuable support by offering recommendations, building corrective action plans, and supplying technical guidance.

Many organizations do not have dedicated internal auditors—rather, internal auditing is an “add-on” responsibility—so time spent completing these internal audit activities takes time away from other business responsibilities. This often results in a post-audit period where the internal auditor has significant catchup to complete other work that has been put on the backburner while conducting the internal audit.

Value of a Second-Party Auditor

A second-party auditor can provide an objective assessment of overall compliance status and, in many cases, do it more efficiently than organizations are able to do with their own resources. A second-party auditor has the time required to conduct the audit, travel, review documents, and create a report. Beyond that, a second-party auditor also has audit tools and templates to create efficiencies when conducting the audit and reporting, can consolidate audit trips, and can spend dedicated time completing all audit activities as efficiently as possible without needing to factor in other business responsibilities.

Beyond saving significant resources, using a second party to conduct audits provides significant business value and additional return on investment:

• Objectivity: Enlisting a qualified outside firm to conduct an audit provides a fresh set of unbiased eyes to assess aspects of your program internal staff may not consider or see. Second-party auditors offer broad perspective and knowledge of best management practices from conducting audits across industries and standards. They maintain ongoing, up-to-date awareness of current and pending regulatory requirements that the organization should consider.
• Customizable: The audits themselves can be customized to fit the needs and goals of the organization. A second-party auditor can provide more direct coverage to evaluate specific program effectiveness and allow for a more focused understanding of existing strengths and improvement areas. Whether there is a desire to prepare for unannounced regulatory agency visits, review plans and programs, assess supplier compliance, or even verify applicability, second-party audits can be built to address the organization’s identified concerns and help manage risks.
• Effective Tools: Second-party auditors often bring effective audit tools to help conduct and manage audits. These tools capture regulatory compliance status and certification system conformance more efficiently, track audit progress/completion status by subject, and generate reports that can be used by management to inform decision making. 
• Efficiency: Audits performed internally can take resources away from normal business operations not only when conducting the audit, but also when catching up on daily responsibilities and work that is set aside during the audit. Second-party auditors work with the resources allocated to them to conduct an audit in a timely manner that does not negatively impact business functions. These audits minimize the overall disruption in business compared to internal audits.
• Validation: Second-party auditors validate existing programs and identify areas where best practices can be implemented to further protect the company. They assist in identifying and prioritizing issues before they become violations—focusing on implementing and closing corrective actions. They also provide data and reports that can be shared internally with employees to improve performance or externally with communities or customers to bolster the company’s image.  
• Consistency: Using the same second-party auditor to conduct your audits creates consistency across locations and over time. This allows the organization to establish a benchmark for performance that can be used to help ensure continuous improvement throughout the organization and its supply chain.

Second-party audits are not just about checking boxes—they are about building stronger partnerships, spotting issues early, and keeping your business running smoothly. Don’t wait for nonconformances to catch you off guard. Implementing second-party audits isn’t just a compliance tool, it is a strategic advantage.

Virtually every regulatory agency has regulations that require companies to fulfill very specific compliance requirements. Sometimes, there is overlap and businesses may be required to comply with similar—yet different—regulations from two different agencies. Using containers to store hazardous waste products is one of those tricky situations.

Different Definitions

Containers used for hazardous materials or waste are regulated under the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) (49 CFR 173.29) and the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Hazardous Waste Requirements (40 CFR 261.7). The confusion between these rules comes in the definition of empty, which changes significantly from one agency to the next.

For both agencies, the definition of empty dictates how containers that once held hazardous waste and/or hazardous materials are managed (i.e., shipped and disposed of). However, a container can meet the criteria for emptiness according to EPA but still not be considered empty according to DOT for transportation purposes. It is important to understand the different definitions to be able to comply.

EPA RCRA-Empty

The EPA regulations regarding management of empty containers and residues establish procedures for determining if a container is empty (i.e., no longer contains hazardous waste) and defining when hazardous waste residue in an empty container is exempt from regulation. According to EPA, an empty chemical container has been removed of all materials or liquids via commonly employed practices (e.g., pumping, pouring, or aspirating). But what does this actually mean?

RCRA-empty conditions differ based on whether the container is holding non-acute hazardous waste, acute hazardous waste, or hazardous waste in compressed gas form, as shown in the table below.

Containers that meet the definition of RCRA-empty are exempt from requiring specialized management as a hazardous waste. RCRA-empty containers can be disposed of at an authorized municipal solid waste landfill, recycled through a legitimate recycler, or reused onsite. Reuse requires properly emptying the container to avoid mixing incompatible substances that may create human health or environmental concerns. If a container is not found to be RCRA-empty, any residues removed from the container must be managed as hazardous waste under Subtitle C.

DOT Empty

DOT is responsible for hazardous materials shipping regulations. Unlike RCRA, DOT hazards are not defined by the quantity of material in the container; rather, the properties of the material dictate hazards. Even when a container appears empty, the hazardous material residue may still pose a hazard under the HMR. Per 49 CFR 173.29(a), these containers must follow the same rules as full hazmat containers when it comes to shipment. This includes having shipping papers, placards, labels, and markings, as well as providing training for employees who prepare the containers (full or empty) for shipping.

A container that once held hazardous materials is only considered exempt from HMR under the following conditions:

• The container remains unused.
• The container has been thoroughly cleaned and sufficiently purged of vapors to eliminate potential hazards.
• The container has been refilled with non-hazardous material to neutralize any remaining hazards from residue.

In addition, if the material inside the container is a DOT Class 9 material and meets the definition of RCRA-empty, the container is exempt from both EPA hazardous waste and DOT hazardous material shipping requirements.

Containers that meet the DOT criteria for being truly empty must have any hazard labels, markings, or placards that would be visible in transportation removed, covered, or obliterated to ensure emergency responders can correctly identify that the package contains no regulated hazardous materials.

Empty, Full, or Both?

In short, it is possible to have a container that EPA considers empty, but DOT does not. In this case, if you plan to ship the container, you would not have to follow any EPA hazardous waste rules, but DOT HMR would still apply when shipped.

A regulatory applicability assessment is a good first step in determining which regulations apply if you store hazardous waste in containers and/or plan to ship hazardous materials. If DOT’s HMR and EPA’s RCRA Hazardous Waste Requirements, it is then important to understand the distinction between the rules regarding what is considered empty to comply with both agency’s requirements.