USEPA regulations at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(20) provide for a conditional exclusion from management as a solid waste – and therefore as a hazardous waste as well – for hazardous secondary materials used to make zinc fertilizers.  You can learn more about the full conditional exclusion here:  40 CFR 261.4(a)(20)  Hazardous Secondary Materials Used to Make Zinc Fertilizers.

The conditional exclusion identifies three entities:

• Generator of the hazardous secondary material subject to the exclusion.
• Intermediate handler of the excluded hazardous secondary material (may not be necessary).
• Manufacturer of zinc fertilizer or zinc fertilizer ingredients made from the excluded hazardous secondary material.

The purpose of this article is to detail one requirement of the conditional exclusion: the requirement at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(20)(iii)(D) for manufacturers that utilize a hazardous secondary material to make zinc fertilizers to submit an annual report to the USEPA or their state environmental regulatory agency. (more…)

USEPA regulations at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(20) provide for a conditional exclusion from management as a solid waste – and therefore as a hazardous waste – for zinc-bearing hazardous secondary materials used to make zinc fertilizers.  You can learn more about the full conditional exclusion here:  40 CFR 261.4(a)(20)  Hazardous Secondary Materials Used to Make Zinc Fertilizers.

The conditional exclusion identifies three entities:

• Generator of the hazardous secondary material subject to the exclusion.
• Intermediate handler of the excluded hazardous secondary material (may not be necessary).
• Manufacturer of zinc fertilizer or zinc fertilizer ingredients made from the excluded hazardous secondary material.

The purpose of this article is to detail one requirement of the conditional exclusion: the requirement at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(20)(iii)(C) for manufacturers of zinc fertilizers to maintain at their facility records of all shipments received of the excluded hazardous secondary materials. (more…)

The conditional exclusions at 40 CFR 261.4(a) exclude from regulation as a solid waste – and as a hazardous waste – certain materials as long as the conditions of the exclusion are complied with.  A conditional exclusion at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(20) applies to zinc-bearing hazardous secondary materials that are made into zinc fertilizers.  You can learn more about the full conditional exclusion here:  40 CFR 261.4(a)(20)  Hazardous Secondary Materials Used to Make Zinc Fertilizers.

The conditional exclusion identifies three entities:

• Generator of the hazardous secondary material subject to the exclusion.
• Intermediate handler of the excluded hazardous secondary material (may not be necessary).
• Manufacturer of zinc fertilizer or zinc fertilizer ingredients made from the excluded hazardous secondary material.

The purpose of this article is to describe the requirements at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(20)(iii)(B) for a manufacturer of a zinc fertilizer subject to this exclusion to submit a one-time notice to the USEPA or their state environmental agency. (more…)

USEPA regulations at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(20) provide for a conditional exclusion from management as a solid waste – and therefore as a hazardous waste as well – for hazardous secondary materials used to make zinc fertilizers.  You can learn more about the full conditional exclusion here:  40 CFR 261.4(a)(20)  Hazardous Secondary Materials Used to Make Zinc Fertilizers.

The purpose of this article is to detail one requirement of the conditional exclusion: the requirement at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(20)(ii)(D) for generators or intermediate handlers of a hazardous secondary material used to make zinc fertilizers to maintain at their facility records of all shipments of hazardous secondary materials.  Records must be kept for no less than three years. (more…)

USEPA regulations at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(20) provide for a conditional exclusion from management as a solid waste – and therefore as a hazardous waste as well – for hazardous secondary materials used to make zinc fertilizers.  You can learn more about the full conditional exclusion here:  40 CFR 261.4(a)(20)  Hazardous Secondary Materials Used to Make Zinc Fertilizers.

The conditional exclusion identifies three entities:

• Generator of the hazardous secondary material subject to the exclusion.
• Intermediate handler of the excluded hazardous secondary material (may not be necessary).
• Manufacturer of zinc fertilizer or zinc fertilizer ingredients made from the excluded hazardous secondary material.

The purpose of this article is to detail one requirement of the conditional exclusion: the requirement at 40 CFR 261.4(a)(20)(ii)(A) for generators and intermediate handlers of a hazardous secondary material used to make zinc fertilizers to submit a one-time notice to the USEPA or their state environmental regulatory agency. (more…)

The Bullet:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) alleges that Amazon, Inc. violated USDOT regulations for the transportation of hazardous materials by air on several occasions.  It has proposed fines as a civil penalty for those alleged violations.

The information for this article regarding the alleged violations is derived from three FAA press releases.  Links to these press releases are at the end of this article.

Who:

Amazon.com, Inc., often referred to as simply Amazon, is an American electronic commerce and cloud computing company with headquarters in Seattle, Washington. Wikipedia

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the national aviation authority of the United States, with powers to regulate all aspects of American civil aviation. These include the construction and operation of airports, the management of air traffic, the certification of personnel and aircraft, and the protection of US assets during the launch or reentry of commercial space vehicles.  Wikipedia

The FAA is one administration or bureau of many within the U.S. Department of Transportation.  Another USDOT administration, PHMSA or the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, is responsible for all regulations regarding the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce within the U.S.  In this situation the FAA is the investigation and enforcement agency for the PHMSA Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR).

Unmentioned in the press release is an international agency known as IATA, the International Air Transport Association, and its Dangerous Goods Regulations.  IATA is a creation of the airline industry – not of any government body – to set standards and regulate all transportation by air.  Its Dangerous Goods Regulations, though not officially adopted by PHMSA, is based on – and even a little more strict than – the Technical Instructions of the International Civil Aviation Administration (ICAO).  The ICAO Technical Instructions are adopted by PHMSA

What:

FAA alleges that in three separate incidents dating from 2014, Amazon did not comply with the HMR.  Though each incident involved different hazardous materials (from acid drain cleaners to a compressed gas) and different outcomes (injured UPS employees, leaking packages), the alleged violations were sadly similar.  They include:

• Not classifying the intended shipments to determine if they were a hazardous material as defined at 49 CFR 171.8.
• Not using the authorized packaging for the HazMat.  Authorized packaging is identified for each HazMat in part 173 of the HMR, referenced from column 8 of the Hazardous Materials Table at §172.101.
• Not using packaging designed, manufactured, tested, and marked to indicate it meets the United Nations packaging standards.
• Packages offered for transport were not marked or labeled to indicate the contents and its potential hazards.  The package marking and labeling requirements are at §172, subpart D and E, respectively.
• Not preparing and providing to the carrier (Fed Ex or UPS) two copies of the shipping paper which is meant to describe the entire hazardous materials shipment.  One of the press releases refers to the Shipper’s Declaration of Dangerous Goods, which is the name for a shipping paper used exclusively by IATA.
• Failing to provide emergency information.  Actually, a shipper of HazMat is required to provide two separate types of emergency information on or with the shipping paper.  Required emergency information includes:
  • Emergency Response Information that provides emergency responders and trained HazMat Employees critical information in the first few minutes of a spill, fire, or other HazMat incident.  Read:  The Shipper Must Provide Emergency Information.
  • Emergency Response Telephone is a phone number to call 24/7 whenever a HazMat is in transportation.  Its purpose is to provide emergency responders and trained HazMat Employees with immediate contact with a person who is knowledgeable about the hazards of the shipment and has basic emergency response awareness.  Read:  Providing the Emergency Response Phone Number.
  • “Amazon employees who handled the package had not received required hazardous materials training.”  You’ll forgive my bias but this is the big one.  Not providing initial and triennial HazMat Employee Training is bad enough.  But, if done right, training would have provided Amazon employees with the information and the tools necessary to properly classify and package the HazMat, apply the correct HazMat labels and markings, and complete the Shipper’s Declaration of Dangerous Goods – with the applicable emergency information.

The three proposed civil penalties are:

• $350,000 for alleged violations of October 15, 2014
• $78,000 for alleged violations of May 24, 2014
• $52,000 for alleged violations of June 2, 2014

Where/When:

• In a press release dated June 15, 2016, FAA alleged:  on October 15, 2014 Amazon offered to United Parcel Service (UPS) a package containg a one-gallon container of “Amazing! LIQUID FIRE,” a corrosive drain cleaner for transport from Louisville, KY to Boulder, CO.
• In a press release dated June 22, 2016, FAA alleged:  on June 2, 2014, Amazon offered UPS a non-specification cardboard box containing a flammable gas for air transportation from Whitestown, IN to Glendale, CA.
• In a press release also dated June 22, 2016, FAA alleged:  on May 24, 2014, Amazon offered Federal Express (FedEx) two cardboard boxes containing corrosive rust stain preventer for air transportation from Plainfield, IL to Davenport, FL.

Why:

The purpose of the HMR is to ensure the safe transportation in commerce of hazardous materials.  One of the responsibilities of the FAA is to ensure that HazMat transported by air within the U.S. is done in compliance with the HMR and the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations.

Amazon has a history of violating the Hazardous Materials Regulations.  From February 2013 to September 2014 alone, Amazon was found to have violated the Hazardous Materials Regulations 24 other times.  FAA press release of June 13, 2016

How:

The FAA has the authority to enforce the Hazardous Materials Regulations of PHMSA when the mode of transportation is by aircraft.  The FAA will, in addition, enforce the IATA DGR if it is used within the U.S. by a carrier or shipper.

In 2015, the FAA handed out more than $4.5 million in civil penalties for improper shipments of hazardous materials aboard airplanes, up from $3.4 million in 2014.  Dallas Morning News

Conclusion:

• Don’t assume that big companies have huge budgets to spend on regulatory compliance and therefore have all the answers when it comes to shipping HazMat.  Unless they have personnel dedicated to researching the regulations, and staying on top of new regulations – such as those for the transportation of lithium batteries – they can be just as in the dark as a small start-up.
• One mainstream news article on this issue quoted an expert who stated regarding Amazon, “Before, when they were smaller, they didn’t have to make as many distinctions between ground and air.”  In fact, the Hazardous Materials Regulations of PHMSA apply to these HazMat no matter how they are transported in commerce (air, rail, highway, or vessel).  It’s just that the regulations for transportation by air are more strict than those by highway and rail (the regulations for transportation of HazMat by vessel are also pretty strict, just not as strict as those by air).
• Another mainstream media article referred to these hazardous materials in these instances as “prohibited dangerous goods…”.  Without more information on the actual hazardous material and the volume of their packaging, it is impossible to know if it is “prohibited” for transportation by air or merely subject to the requirements of the HMR.  Many hazardous materials – including Class 1 explosives – may be transported by air if they are correctly classified, packaged, marked and labeled, and a shipping paper is prepared with the necessary emergency information.

More Information:

• FAA press release June 13, 2016 – FAA Proposes $350,000 Civil Penalty Against Amazon.com, Inc.
• FAA press release June 22, 2016 – FAA Proposes $52,000 Civil Penalty Against Amazon, Inc., for Alleged Hazardous Materials Violations
• FAA press release June 22, 2016 – FAA Proposes $78,000 Civil Penalty Against Amazon, Inc. for Alleged Hazardous Materials Violations

This question was posted on a Yahoo Group, of which I am a member, back on January 22, 2016:

A very happy Friday to all.

Here is an interesting one.

I have five used X-ray Lamps to dispose of.

Ohio makes this difficult.

The Ohio Department of Health claims that Ohio EPA has declared the lamps a Hazardous Waste.

They actually state that the lamps con only be disposed of by “approved Vendors”.

They have a web page with a list of these Vendors.

These vendors are running a scam by way overpricing the disposal citing ODH, Ohio EPA rules and requirements.

I have seen prices from $125.00-$425.00/lamp.

This is complete Client Abuse.

Ohio EPA has no idea what ODH is doing about this.

The lamps are not a Hazardous Waste. (Ohio EPA confirms this)

The lamps are X-ray emitters only if energized.

There is no lead.

We might have silver since the electrical contact need to be of a higher temperature material than lead.

We might have a beryllium ring as part of the structure.  This is not a hazardous waste nor is it dangerous unless we have the dust form.

The lamps have one of the noble gasses inside and they are under pressure.

Dropping or banging one can cause the lamp to shatter and explode.

I am looking for a vendor that can dispose of the used X-ray lamps in a safe and economical manor.

Any ideas would be useful.

I had five lamps, this is down to four lamps and a bunch of pieces.

These puppies are heavy and slippery.

I can legally destroy these items myself.  I would rather not do that.  But I can be persuaded.

HELP!!!

Normally many others reply to these questions before I get a chance but this time I was right there with an answer:

The lamps you describe may be a hazardous waste due to the presences of silver.  The presence of a concentration of silver in the leachate (aka: extract) created by the waste equal to or greater than 5 mg/L (same as parts per million) would require the D011 hazardous waste code for the characteristic of toxicity per 40 CFR 261.24.  40 CFR is the federal regulation and not the state of Ohio but Ohio EPA has incorporated this federal regulation into its own.

Here’s a question back on January 8, 2016 from a frequent customer of mine:

Hi Dan,

I have a hazardous material that doesn’t have a packing group in the hazardous materials table in §172.101, and I’m stuck. I need to ship this material (signals, distress, ship UN0506) soon and need some direction. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Here’s me With my Snappy Reply a few moments later:

I’m on it.

Give me a minute and I’ll get you a reply.

Dan

And the Final Answer Maybe an Hour Later:

OK.  Here we go:

A Question (way back on February 16th) requesting help with the annual hazardous waste report (Due March 1st!):

I am completing the annual hazardous waste report and am trying to determine whether the material is non-acute or acute. Hopefully you can answer my question and offer a bit more information.

Looking through the forms, I think we are P042.

This may be all I need, however; I would appreciate any articles you may share with me.

I also spoke with this person over the phone to gather additional information.  The inquisitor referred to “epi pins” that they discard as a waste.

My answer a few hours later that same day (I knew she was in a rush for the information):

I apologize for my delay, my return to the office took longer than I thought.  Your situation calls for more research but I will do my best to answer your question and direct you to additional information.

Persons involved in the transportation in commerce of lithium batteries are subject to the regulations of at least one – or perhaps all – of the following regulatory agencies:

• The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) for any transportation from, through, or to the United States.
• The International Air Transport Association (IATA) for any transportation by air – international or domestic – if the carrier airline is a member of IATA.
• The International Maritime Organization (IMO) for international transportation by vessel.

Each of these regulatory agencies have very similar regulations applicable to the transportation of lithium batteries.  They each, thankfully, also have very similar – but not the same – requirements for the classification of lithium batteries.  The classification of a lithium battery for transportation requires knowledge of four things:

1. Is it a cell or battery?
2. The type of lithium cell / battery.
3. Its packaging configuration.
4. The amount of lithium in the cell / battery.
5. Net weight of cell / battery in the package.
6. Number of cell / battery in the package.
7. Number of cell / battery in the consignment.
8. The condition of the cell / battery.
9. The mode of transport.
10. Applicable regulations.

The purpose of this article is to identify and explain the process of classifying lithium batteries for transportation by both domestic and international regulations. (more…)