Compliance Briefing — February 15, 2024
EPA’s 2023 Toxics Release Inventory reporting cycle opened 15 February 2024, bringing new PFAS listings, eliminated de minimis exemptions, and tighter electronic verification that facilities must address ahead of the July 1 deadline.
Executive briefing: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened the 2023 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporting season on , reminding covered facilities that Form R and Form A submissions for calendar year 2023 releases and waste management activities are due by . This cycle introduces significant changes: twelve additional per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are now reportable; the de minimis exemption for all PFAS has been eliminated; supplier notification duties have expanded; and EPA has upgraded electronic reporting controls within the TRI-MEweb platform. Manufacturing, mining, utilities, hazardous waste treatment, and certain federal facilities must therefore refresh compliance programmes to capture the new chemical listings, adjust threshold calculations, and ensure data quality withstands potential inspections or enforcement.
TRI, established under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), requires facilities meeting both employee and NAICS code criteria to annually disclose releases, disposals, recycling, energy recovery, and treatment quantities for listed chemicals. For 2023 data, EPA’s list includes 198 persistent bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) chemicals and 189 PFAS. The agency has also implemented its October 2023 final rule removing the de minimis reporting exemption for all PFAS, meaning even minimal concentrations in mixtures must be counted toward reporting thresholds. Additionally, supplier notification now covers all PFAS, requiring facilities to inform downstream customers when shipped products contain reportable PFAS above de minimis levels.
Why it matters for governance teams
EPA has made TRI a cornerstone of its PFAS enforcement strategy and climate justice agenda. Facilities face heightened scrutiny from regulators, investors, and communities analyzing TRI data to assess environmental performance. Penalties for non-compliance can reach $59,973 per day per violation, and EPA has increased inspections targeting inaccurate PFAS reporting. Beyond legal risk, inaccurate TRI submissions can trigger reputational damage, shareholder pressure, and community opposition to permits or expansions. Boards must recognise TRI as an enterprise risk requiring cross-functional coordination among EHS, finance, legal, procurement, and IT.
The 2023 cycle also intersects with emerging disclosure regimes. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s climate disclosure rules (pending finalization) and state-level reporting (e.g., California’s SB 253) will expect alignment between environmental data sets. TRI inaccuracies could undermine ESG reports or sustainability claims. Moreover, EPA intends to integrate TRI data with its PFAS Analytical Tools and EJScreen, linking facility releases to environmental justice analyses. Companies should anticipate public data comparisons and demands for remediation or operational changes.
Governance checkpoints
- Chemical inventory reconciliation: Update chemical inventories, Safety Data Sheets, and purchasing records to capture the twelve PFAS newly added under the National Defense Authorization Act. Ensure procurement systems flag PFAS content even when concentrations fall below 1%, because the de minimis exemption no longer applies.
- Threshold and activity calculations: Recalculate manufacture, process, and otherwise-use thresholds (25,000 pounds or 10,000 pounds for most chemicals; 100 pounds for PBTs and 100 pounds for PFAS). Document assumptions, conversion factors, and data sources, especially for PFAS where measurement methods may be evolving.
- Supplier notification and customer communications: Implement procedures to receive and transmit supplier notifications for PFAS-containing mixtures. Maintain evidence of outgoing notices within 30 days of shipment and integrate requirements into procurement contracts.
- Data quality assurance: Establish QA/QC protocols for TRI-MEweb entries, including independent review, reconciliation with emissions inventories, and verification of unit conversions. Track data lineage in environmental management systems.
- Governance and escalation: Present progress to environmental or audit committees. Include TRI reporting in enterprise risk registers with defined metrics (e.g., percentage of data validated, number of supplier notifications issued, outstanding corrective actions).
These checkpoints should culminate in documented workpapers, management certifications, and evidence of training. EPA inspectors frequently request SOPs, calculation worksheets, and correspondence demonstrating compliance.
Implementation roadmap
February–March 2024: Mobilise a cross-functional TRI task force. Review applicability by confirming NAICS codes, headcount, and operational activities. Update chemical tracking software, capture 2023 production data, and assign responsible individuals for each Form R.
April 2024: Conduct preliminary calculations for all chemicals, paying special attention to PFAS releases from firefighting foams, plating operations, and fluoropolymer coatings. Engage laboratories early to secure analytical capacity for wastewater and sludge sampling. Validate waste management documentation from disposal vendors, including manifests and certificates of destruction.
May 2024: Execute internal audits of draft Form R submissions. Reconcile TRI figures with Title V air permits, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) reports, greenhouse gas inventories, and sustainability disclosures. Address discrepancies and obtain management sign-off.
June 2024: Finalise TRI-MEweb submissions, ensuring electronic signatures are assigned to certified officials. Retain copies of submitted forms and supporting documentation for at least three years (longer if state programmes require). Prepare community-facing summaries explaining changes in release profiles.
Training and communication
Train plant personnel, procurement teams, and suppliers on PFAS requirements, data collection, and notification obligations. Document attendance and comprehension. Engage community advisory panels or local governments early to discuss TRI results, mitigating reputational risk when data becomes public in October.
EPA highlighted common deficiencies during 2023 inspections: failure to count PFAS impurities, incomplete waste treatment efficiency calculations, inconsistent units between air permits and TRI filings, and lack of documentation supporting alternate threshold determinations. Facilities should conduct mock inspections to verify that binders or digital repositories include sampling plans, laboratory QA/QC reports, and correspondence with contract laboratories.
Companies with multi-facility footprints should centralise oversight via enterprise environmental management systems (EEMS). Aggregating TRI data across plants enables benchmarking of release intensities (pounds per unit of production) and identification of outliers requiring process improvements. Finance teams can connect TRI data to carbon accounting platforms to align environmental cost analyses.
Coordinate with sustainability and investor relations teams to prepare messaging on TRI trends, emphasising reduction projects, capital investments in pollution control, and community engagement. Transparent narratives can mitigate activist scrutiny once EPA publishes the dataset.
Risk watch
Monitor EPA rulemakings that could further expand TRI obligations, including potential additions of more PFAS, lead-acid battery chemicals, and microplastics. Track litigation outcomes as EPA defends its de minimis elimination rule—adverse decisions could alter reporting expectations mid-cycle. Stay alert to state-level TRI analogues (e.g., Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act) that may impose stricter thresholds or fees.
By treating the 2023 TRI cycle as a strategic compliance project—rather than a last-minute filing—organisations can reduce enforcement risk, demonstrate environmental stewardship, and build trust with regulators and communities.
Continue in the Compliance pillar
Return to the hub for curated research and deep-dive guides.
Latest guides
-
Third-Party Risk Oversight Playbook — Zeph Tech
Operationalize OCC, Federal Reserve, EBA, and MAS outsourcing expectations with lifecycle controls, continuous monitoring, and board reporting.
-
Compliance Operations Control Room — Zeph Tech
Implement cross-border compliance operations that satisfy Sarbanes-Oxley, DOJ guidance, EU DORA, and MAS TRM requirements with verifiable evidence flows.
-
SOX Modernization Control Playbook — Zeph Tech
Modernize Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) compliance by aligning PCAOB AS 2201, SEC management guidance, and COSO 2013 controls with data-driven testing, automation, and board reporting.