Read on for the news release from the USEPA, then read my articles that explain the reporting requirements that Amalgamated Sugar did not complete:

• Reporting Releases of Hazardous Substances and Extremely Hazardous Substances
• The Notification Requirements for Reporting a Release Under CERCLA & EPCRA

News Release: Amalgamated Sugar settles for failure to immediately report the release of chlorine gas into the environment

03/13/2013

 Contact Information: Hanady Kader, EPA Public Affairs, 206-553-0454

(Seattle—March 12, 2013)   The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reached a settlement with Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC (Amalgamated Sugar) for failing to properly report the release of dangerous chlorine gas at its Paul, Idaho facility.  Amalgamated Sugar, a sugar manufacturing facility that processes sugar beets, will pay $18,000 in penalties.

According to the settlement, plant operators did not immediately notify federal and state authorities about the chlorine gas release.

“Companies need to notify the appropriate agencies right away so emergency personnel can quickly respond to these hazardous chemical releases,” said Ed Kowalski, Director of EPA’s Office of Compliance & Enforcement in Seattle. “Failure to do this puts not only employees, but the community at risk.”

The release on February 7, 2012, was caused when a chemical truck driver mistakenly unloaded hydrochloric acid into the tank containing sodium hypochlorite. When mixed, the chemicals caused a violent reaction which blew the access lid off the tank, emitting 43 pounds of chlorine gas into the atmosphere.  According to Amalgamated Sugar, the driver was injured and evacuated by ambulance. The company’s notification to state and federal authorities was over 46 hours late.

Chlorine is a toxic gas that attacks skin, eyes, throat, and lungs and can cause serious injury or death in extreme cases.

The chlorine release and the failure to notify appropriate agencies are violations of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

For information on EPA’s Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, visit  http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/lcra.html

For more about toxic effects of Anhydrous Ammonia (NIOSH GUIDE): http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0115.html

QC Laboratories Inc. located in Orlando, FL has been assessed a fine of $7,950 for seven (7) violations of the hazardous material regulations of the USDOT/PHMSA.

Background

On May 25, 2011, investigators from PHMSA’s Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety Field Operations (OHMSFO) conducted a compliance inspection at
Respondent’s facility, in Orlando, Florida, pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 5121 and 49 C.F.R.
§ 107.305. PHMSA’s investigator reported eight (8) alleged violations of the HMR. On
or about May 23, 2011, after the conclusion of the compliance inspection, PHMSA’s
Investigator contacted and interviewed the Respondent, and then conducted an “exit
briefing” during which the investigator discussed the alleged violations and the required
corrective actions with Respondent’s representative.

Based on a preliminary assessment of the apparent nature, circumstances,
extent, and gravity of the probable as set forth in the inspector’s report, on
January 18, 2012, an attorney from PHMSA’s Hazardous Materials Safety issued a
Notice of Probable Violation (NOPV) alleging seven violations of the HMR and
proposing a $9,550 civil penalty.

Reply to Notice:

On February 16, 2012, the Respondent submitted a timely reply Notice.

Corrective Action:

In letters dated June 20, 2012, February 16, 2012, March 27,2012, September 18, 2012, and December 12,2012, Respondent submitted evidence of corrective actions it had taken in response to the exit briefing. The following
is a summary of all of Respondent’s documented corrective actions.
1. Respondent has registered as a party to the USNRC packaging approval.
2. Respondent has acquired a certificate of approval for the Type B package related to violation number 2.
3. Respondent has added a risk assessment for its security plan.
4. Respondent has provided in-depth security training to all employees.
5. Respondent is now using the correct USNRC package ID on its shipping papers and has identified monitoring times for all emergency response numbers.
6. Respondent is now listing correct activity and transport index on Yellow II labels.

HMR Violations:

• Offering and transporting in commerce a hazardous material in a Type B(U) package, RQ, UN2916, Radioactive Material, Type B(U) Package, 7, while failing to register with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC) as a party to the packaging approval in violation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 171.2(a, b, f, i)-and 173.471(a).
• Offering and transporting in commerce a hazardous material in a Type B(U) package, RQ, UN2916, Radioactive Material, Type B(U) Package, 7, Special Form, while failing to maintain a complete safety analysis or certificate of competent authority in violation of 49 C.F.R. §.§ 171.2(a, b, e, f and 173.476(a).
• Offering and transporting in commerce a known radionuclide listed by the USNRC as a quantity of concern while failing to develop a security plan with a written risk assessment in violation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 171.2(a, b, e, f), 172.800(b)(5), and 172.802(b, c).
• Offering and transporting in commerce a hazardous material in a Type B(U) package, RQ, UN2916, Radioactive material, Type B(U) Package, 7, while failing to provide in·depth security training to hazmat employees in violation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 171.2(b), 172.702(a), and 172.704(a)(5).
• Offering and transporting in commerce a hazardous material in a Type B(U) package, RQ, UN2916, Radioactive material, Type B(U) Package, 7, while failing to list the correct USNRC package identification number on the shipping paper in violation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 171.2(a, b, e, f) and 172.203(d)(l).
• Offering and transporting in commerce a hazardous material in a type B(U) package, RQ, UN2916, Radioactive Material, Type B(U) Package, 7, while listing multiple emergency response telephone numbers on a shipping paper, that are not monitored 24 hours a day, without specifying times for each in violation of 49 C.P.R. §§ 171.2(a. b e) and 172.604(a)(2).
• Offering and transporting in commerce a hazardous material in a Type B(U) package, RQ, UN2916, Radioactive Material, Type B(U) Package, 7, Special Form, Ir-192 777TBg, (21Ci) Transport Index 0.3, while failing to enter the correct activity and transport index on the Radioactive Yellow II labels in violation of 49 C.F.R. §§ 171.2(a. b, e, f) and 172.403(a)(2 3).

Read the full Compromise Order here.

No matter what hazardous materials you offer for transportation:  Radioactive, Explosive, Flammable and Combustible Liquids, or Miscellaneous; as a shipper of a HazMat you must comply with all the regulations of the USDOT/PHMSA known as the HMR.

EPA News Release (Region 7): Teva Pharmaceuticals USA to Pay $2.25M Civil Penalty for Air, Water, and Hazardous Waste Violations at Mexico, Mo., Facility
03/14/2013

(Lenexa, Kan., March 14, 2013) – Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. has agreed to pay a $2.25 million civil penalty to settle alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the State of Missouri’s Air Conservation Law, Clean Water Law, and Hazardous Waste Management Law at the company’s facility in Mexico, Mo., the Justice Department, EPA and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources announced today.

 A 2007 inspection of the Missouri facility revealed violations of the CAA. The violations included failure to control emissions of hazardous air pollutants from wastewater and failure to comply with regulations designed to prevent leaks of air pollutants from equipment at the facility.

 In 2007, an EPA inspection found the Teva facility was discharging pollutants above permitted levels established by the City of Mexico’s Pretreatment Program, in violation of the CWA. In some cases, these pollutants were causing interference with the city’s ability to treat its domestic sewage, leading to pollutant discharges into the Salt River. A 2008 inspection found that Teva was discharging a green effluent that ultimately discolored a portion of the Salt River in November and December 2008.

 In 2009, an inspection by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources uncovered various RCRA violations. These violations included failure to determine if waste was hazardous, illegal storage of hazardous waste, failure to comply with labeling requirements, and offering hazardous waste for transport without a manifest.

 “This settlement penalizes Teva for multiple violations of U.S. environmental laws when it allowed excess emissions of hazardous air pollutants from Teva’s wastewater treatment facility and excess discharges of pollutants into the City of Mexico, Missouri’s wastewater treatment facility,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The agreement is protective of human health and the environment because it requires Teva to offset its excess emissions, install modern equipment that will increase the recovery and reuse of hazardous pollutants and reduce air emissions, as well as enhance its leak prevention capability.”

 “With numerous violations over a period of years, Teva’s actions resulted in significant environmental damage to the air and water,” said EPA Region 7 Administrator Karl Brooks. “The penalty and injunctive relief required by this agreement send a strong message to Teva and others that businesses must comply with environmental laws.”

 As a result of this Consent Decree, Teva has certified that it is in full compliance with CAA, CWA and RCRA regulations.

On its website the US Government Printing Office makes a wealth of Federal publications available for review and download; one of these is the Federal Register.

Published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Federal Register is the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents.

See below for a brief summary of announcements in the Federal Register by the US EPA on the subject of Hazardous Waste and the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) of the US DOT on the subject of Transportation of Hazardous Materials. (more…)

The Hazardous Materials Regulations of the USDOT/PHMSA contain specific requirements for the description of a hazardous material on a shipping paper, known as the Proper shipping Description.  One component of the Proper Shipping Description is the Basic Description; the purpose of which is to – just like the name implies – provide a basic description of the potential hazards presented by a material in transportation.  This article will explain how a change to the order of the Basic Description (effective January 1st, 2013) affects other responsibilities of a HazMat shipper and a possible source of confusion when using the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest for the transportation of a hazardous waste. (more…)

The USEPA identifies two broad categories of hazardous waste, which in turn are each further divided into four sub-categories:

1.  Listed hazardous waste (40 CFR 261, Subpart D).

• Non-specific sources (F-codes).
• Specific sources (K-codes).
• Discarded commercial chemical products, off-specification species, container residues, and spill residues thereof (P-codes & U-codes).

2.  Characteristic hazardous waste (40 CFR 261, Subpart C).

• Ignitability (D001).
• Corrosivity (D002).
• Reactivity (D003).
• Toxicity (D004 – D043).

For the Federal regulations of the USEPA and those of most states with an authorized hazardous waste program, those identified above are the only hazardous waste subject to “cradle to grave” regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.  Some states, however, have exercised their authority to create their own state-specific hazardous waste; an example of this is Minnesota which created two additional characteristic hazardous wastes in addition to the four Federal characteristic hazardous wastes it also recognizes:

• Oxidizer (D001)
• Lethality (MN01)

This article will summarize the Minnesota-specific hazardous waste characteristic for Lethality.  Readers requiring more information than provided in this article should refer to a guidance document provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA):  The Lethality Characteristic – A Minnesota-specific hazardous waste characteristic. (more…)

The regulations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act applicable to generators of hazardous waste, codified at 40 CFR 262-268 mandate the creation of a variety of reports, inspection logs, notifications, certifications, manifest, records, etc.  In order to demonstrate compliance with these regulations a generator of hazardous waste must maintain a copy of the applicable document as a record.  These records must be provided to an agent of the US EPA or their designee upon request.  You can read more about your responsibility to make these records available to an inspector here:  Making RCRA Records Available for Federal and State Inspectors.

The purpose of this article is to look closely at a single recordkeeping requirement of the US EPA for a generator of hazardous waste.  Since these are the Federal regulations, you will need to check with your State environmental agency in order to confirm compliance.

Previous article:  Recordkeeping Requirements for RCRA Training

This article:  Land Disposal Restriction (LDR or LandBan) paperwork (more…)

In an earlier article I identified and explained the regulations of 40 CFR 265.30 for the applicability of the Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Regulations.  As determined by those regulations, only the following are subject to the regulations of 40 CFR 265, subpart C:

• Permitted treatment, storage, & disposal facilities (TSDFs).
• Large quantity generators of hazardous waste (LQG).
• Small quantity generators of hazardous waste (SQG).

This article is the second in a series that will look closely at each section of 40 CFR 265, Subpart C and explain its requirements, how they apply to generators of hazardous waste, and what is required for compliance.  Keep in mind that the regulations of your State may differ from these Federal regulations.

The purpose of this article:  identify and explain the requirements of 40 CFR 265.31 – Maintenance and operation of the facility under the emergency preparedness and prevention regulations of 40 CFR 265, subpart C.

Hold on a minute!  These regulations were revised and moved to a new location within Title 40 of the CFR by the Generator Improvements Rule.  If your state has not yet adopted the Generator Improvements Rule, then this article is still applicable to you (but it won’t be for much longer).  If your state has adopted and been authorized to enforce the Generator Improvements Rule, then these regulations no longer apply to you.  Read: What is the status of the Generator Improvements Rule in my state?

To see an explanation of these regulations as revised by the Generator Improvements Rule you must refer to the following:

• Large quantity generator of hazardous waste (LQG)
• Small quantity generator of hazardous waste (SQG)

To see an explanation of the regulations prior to the revisions of the Generator Improvements Rule, please continue reading this article.

(more…)

Perhaps you haven’t heard of the Hazardous Materials Safety Permit Program before, and there’s a good reason for that if you are a shipper of hazardous materials and not a carrier.  The HMSP program is found not in the Hazardous Material Regulations of the PHMSA, but instead in the Regulations of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) at 49 CFR 385, Subpart E and apply to carriers who transport certain quantities of specified hazardous materials.

Why should the regulations of the FMCSA applicable to a carrier be a concern to you as a shipper of HazMat?  Because 49 CFR 173.22(b) documents one of a HazMat Shipper’s responsibilities as:

No person may offer a motor carrier any hazardous material specified in 49 CFR 385.403 unless that motor carrier holds a safety permit issued by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

So, the PHMSA, in referring to these regulations of the FMCSA places the responsibility on the shipper to ensure the carrier is in compliance with the applicable regulations prior to offering them a hazardous material for transportation.  Read on to learn what types of hazardous materials are “specified in 49 CFR 385.403”.   (more…)