A Large Quantity Generator of hazardous waste (LQG) and a Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility for hazardous waste (TSDF) are both subject to the USEPA regulations at 40 CFR 265, Subpart D and are required to have a contingency plan for their operations.  In a series of articles (The Requirements of 40 CFR 265, Subpart D – Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures) I explored in detail the requirements of each section of Subpart D.  Here I will address some of the frequently asked questions about these USEPA regulations and their application to a hazardous waste generator (LQG). (more…)

This article is the third in a series to address the requirements of 40 CFR 265, Subpart D – Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures as it applies to a large quantity generator of hazardous waste (LQG).  Each article will explain the requirements of a specific section of Subpart D.  Keep in mind the regulations of your state may differ from these Federal regulations.

The purpose of this article:  identify and explain the requirements (some of them) of 40 CFR 265.52 Content of Contingency Plan.

Section 265.52 identifies the five required components of the contingency plan (paragraphs a, & c – f).  An option to utilize the National Response Team’s Integrated Contingency Plan Guidance or “One Plan” is discussed in paragraph b of section 265.52.  This article will explain the required content of the contingency plan (paragraphs a, & c – f) and leave the One Plan (paragraph b) to a later article.

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…)

An update to this web-based tool provides increased functionality

The I-WASTE Tool was developed by USEPA’s Homeland Security Research Program to assist responsible parties with clean-up in the aftermath of a terrorist attack, natural disaster, or chemical, biological, or radiological incident.  The handling of large volumes of waste generated by attacks, disasters, and incidents poses a significant challenge to communities, and all levels of government already reeling from the cause of the waste.  The I-WASTE tool was designed by the USEPA to assist these persons by providing access to information in the form of databases and tools to use that information.  The USEPA I-WASTE Tool provides:

• Information on the types and volumes of waste materials and potential contaminants generated during an incident.
• Location and contact information for potential treatment/disposal facilities.
• Health and safety information to ensure public and worker safety during the removal, transport, treatment, and disposal of contaminated waste and debris.

Recently Added Features (Version 6.1):

1. A wide-area waste quantity estimator for use in calculating waste disposal amounts for events involving several structures.  Calculations may include building structural materials if it is necessary to demolish the entire building.
2. Updates to several databases of available treatment, storage, disposal, and recycling facilities for waste generated during an event.

Download and read the USEPA Technical Brief (pdf):  EPA’s Incident Waste Assessment & Tonnage Estimator (I-WASTE)

For more information, visit the NHSRC website:  www.epa.gov/nhsrc

The I-WASTE Tool is available at:  www2.ergweb.com/bdrtool/login.asp.  You will need to request a user ID name and password to log on.

Technical Contact:  Paul Lemieux, lemieux.paul@epa.gov

While this tool is meant for the aftermath of a terrorist attack, natural disaster, chemical, biological, or radiological incident, the regulatory requirement to conduct a hazardous waste determination and properly dispose of all waste you generate applies to everyone.  Contact me if you have any questions about the generation, management, and disposal of hazardous waste.

BOSTON – The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has assessed a $6,440 penalty against Radant Technologies, Inc. of Stow for violations of state Hazardous Waste regulations. The company manufactures composite radomes and reflectors at its 255 Hudson Road facility.

During a routine inspection conducted in March, MassDEP personnel found the company had accumulated hazardous waste for longer than is allowed by its registered status, failed to maintain a hazardous waste inspection log and failed to properly label its hazardous waste containers. In a consent order with MassDEP, the company is required to maintain compliance with applicable regulations and pay the penalty.

“Hazardous Waste regulations require proper management and disposal of wastes within specific time frames, which are dependent on the amount of waste generated,” said Lee Dillard Adams, director of MassDEP’s Central Regional Office in Worcester. “Once made aware of the violations, the company took immediate corrective actions.”

MassDEP is responsible for ensuring clean air and water, safe management and recycling of solid and hazardous wastes, timely cleanup of hazardous waste sites and spills and the preservation of wetlands and coastal resources.

For the full news release from MassDEP:  Radant Technologies of Stow Penalized $6,400 for Violating Hazardous Waste Requirements

As noted in the above news release, the on-site accumulation time limit for hazardous waste is determined by a facility’s hazardous waste generator status:  no more than 90 days for a large quantity generator or hazardous waste and no more than 180 days for a small quantity generator of hazardous waste.  There is no time limit for the on-site accumulation of hazardous waste in the following situations:

• A conditionally exempt small quantity generator of hazardous waste.
• A used oil.
• A non-hazardous waste.
• A universal waste (limited to one year).
• A waste that is excluded from definition as a hazardous waste due to a regulatory exclusion or recycling.

A large or small quantity generator of hazardous waste that exceeds the on-site accumulation time limit, even by just one day, can face severe penalties, as in this case.

In addition to an on-site accumulation time limit, and a host of other regulatory requirements, both a large and small quantity generator of hazardous waste must provide training for its facility personnel that handle hazardous waste or may respond to a hazardous waste emergency.  Contact me to provide the RCRA hazardous waste training that you need to comply with the regulations and to learn how to avoid penalties like this one.

BOSTON — A waste hauling firm based in Essex will pay more than $93,000 to settle claims that it illegally dumped multiple loads of construction and demolition waste at an unpermitted site in Methuen, Attorney General Martha Coakley announced today.

According to the complaint, entered Wednesday along with the consent judgment in Suffolk Superior Court, Dynamic Waste Systems, Inc. violated the state’s solid waste disposal laws by dumping more than 115 loads of construction and demolition waste, including concrete, brick, and stone, at the site over a period of 70 days.

“We will vigorously pursue those who fail to follow the Commonwealth’s solid waste laws and regulatory requirements,” AG Coakley said. “This settlement sends a strong message that haulers who improperly dispose of waste will be forced to clean up illegal dumping grounds.”

According to the complaint, Thomas Battye, the owner of the Methuen site, never applied for or received an assignment to operate a solid waste facility from the Methuen Board of Health or a solid waste management facility permit from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP).

“Illegal dumping of solid waste undermines the protection of the Commonwealth’s natural resources, and it won’t be tolerated,” said MassDEP Commissioner Kenneth Kimmell. “Disposal of materials must be done at properly approved or permitted facilities without exception.”

The consent judgment requires that Dynamic Waste Systems pay a total of $90,000 into a special fund established by the Commonwealth to help with the cost of site evaluation and subsequent cleanup work at the Battye site. Under the judgment, Dynamic will also pay a $3,750 civil penalty.

Battye is the subject of a separate, pending action brought by the Commonwealth related to solid waste violations at the Methuen site. The AG’s Office is also pursuing claims against additional waste haulers and demolition contractors who dumped or contracted for solid waste disposal at the Battye site.

Assistant Attorney General Matthew Ireland of AG Coakley’s Environmental Protection Division handled the case, with assistance from MassDEP Environmental Analysts Mark Fairbrother, John MacAuley and Karen Goldensmith, and MassDEP attorneys Jeanne Argento and Colleen McConnell, all from MassDEP’s Northeast Regional Office.

Even though the waste in question was not a hazardous waste, the potential remains for significant fines if the state’s regulations are violated.  The regulations of both the USEPA and MassDEP identify a solid waste as any discarded material that is not excluded from regulation (eg. due to recycling).  Some solid waste may also be a hazardous waste if they are either identified as a listed hazardous waste and/or exhibit a characteristic of a hazardous waste (ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity).  If not listed nor characteristic, or an exclusion applies, then the waste remains a non-hazardous solid waste.

Conducting a hazardous waste determination for all of your solid waste is one of your primary responsibilities.  If only a solid waste, you must still comply with the regulations of your State and the USEPA under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions about the management of solid waste, hazardous waste, used oil, or universal waste in Massachusetts or anywhere in the US.

By this Order I find Heritage-Crystal Clean, LLC committed two (2) violations of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), 49 C.F.R. Parts 171-180. Accordingly, I assess Respondent a $4,680 civil penalty for the violations.

I. Summary
Respondent: Heritage-Crystal Clean, LLC
950 Northland Boulevard
Cincinnati, OH 45240
ATTN: Ms. Catherine McCord, Vice President
No. of Violations: 2
Total Payment Due: $4,680

II. Finding
This matter comes before me after Respondent and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) agreed to a disposition of this case. I find Respondent committed the violations described in the Compromise Agreement (Agreement), which I have attached hereto. I have reviewed the Agreement and I find that the terms as outlined therein are in the best interest of justice. The Agreement, in its entirety, is incorporated in and attached to this Order. All of the terms and conditions of the Agreement shall be given the full force and effect of an Order issued pursuant to the Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. § 5101, et seq., or the Hazardous Materials Regulations, 49 C.P.R. Parts 171- 180.

Read the Final Order

A situation like this reinforces a point I made in an earlier article, Do Big Companies Know the Regulations?  That is, that big companies, even those with names you recognize, frequently violate the Hazardous Material Regulations  of the USDOT/PHMSA through ignorance of the regulation.  So don’t rely on a “Big Company” when your compliance with the regulations are at stake.  Make certain you have the training and the knowledge necessary to ensure compliance with the regulations.  Please contact me with any questions.

By this Order, I find that D & M Propane (Respondent) committed two (2) violations of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), 49 CFR Parts 171-180, and I assess Respondent a $6,000 civil penalty.
On July 29, 2013, the Office of Chief Counsel issued a Notice of Probable Violation (Notice) to Respondent proposing a $6,000 civil penalty for two (2) violations of the HMR. On August 27,2013, Respondent submitted a payment in the amount of $6,000. By paying the full amount ofthe civil penalty proposed in the Notice, Respondent admitted the violations as alleged in the Notice (49 CFR § 107 .315).
Therefore, I find that Respondent committed the violations as set forth in the Notice.
These violations shall constitute a prior violation under 49 U.S.C. § 5123 in the event Respondent commits any future violation of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq., or the HMR.
By paying the proposed civil penalty, Respondent waived all rights to further respond to the Notice and to appeal this Order. Accordingly, PHMSA accepts Respondent’s August 27,2013 payment in full satisfaction of the civil penalty proposed in the Notice and PHMSA shall close this case with prejudice.

Read the Final Order

As both a Shipper and Carrier of a hazardous material, D & M Propane is subject to more of the HMR than a company that operates solely as one or the other.  My Onsite Training can be directed toward a Shipper or Carrier, or a company that does both.

By this Order, I find that Hennepin County Medical Center (Respondent) committed four (4) violations of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), 49 CFR Parts 171-180, and I assess Respondent a $8,795 civil penalty.
On September 10,2013, the Office of Chief Counsel issued a Notice of Probable Violation (Notice) to Respondent proposing a $8,795 civil penalty for four (4) violations of the HMR. On September 24, 2013, Respondent submitted a payment in the amount of $8,975. By paying the full amount of the civil penalty proposed in the Notice, Respondent admitted the violations as alleged in the Notice (49 CFR § 107.315).
Therefore, I find Respondent committed the violations as set forth in the Notice.
These violations shall constitute a prior violation under 49 U.S.C. § 5123 in the event Respondent commits any future violation of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq., or the HMR.   By paying the proposed civil penalty, Respondent waived all rights to further respond to the Notice and to appeal this Order. Accordingly, PHMSA accepts Respondent’s September 24, 2013 payment in full satisfaction of the civil penalty proposed in the Notice and PHMSA shall close this case with prejudice.

Read the Final Order.

Even minor violations of the HMR can result in significant civil penalties, as in this case.  A good defense against violations, enforcement actions, and civil penalties is training.  HazMat Employee Training.  MY HazMat Employee Training, to be precise.  Contact me with questions about the HMR or to schedule your Onsite HazMat Employee Training.

By this Order, I find that Flow Chem Technologies, LLC (Respondent) committed five (5) violations of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), 49 CFR Parts 171-180, and I assess Respondent a $7,775 civil penalty.
On July 16, 2013, the Office of Chief Counsel issued a Notice of Probable Violation (Notice) to Respondent proposing a $7,775 civil penalty for five (5) violations of the HMR. On August 6, 20 13 Respondent submitted a payment in the amount of $7,775. By paying the full amount ofthe civil penalty proposed in the Notice, Respondent admitted the violations as alleged in the Notice (49 CFR § 107.315).
Therefore, I find Respondent committed the violations as set forth in the Notice. These violations shall constitute a prior violation under 49 U.S.C. § 5123 in the event Respondent commits any future violation of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq., or the HMR.
By paying the proposed civil penalty, Respondent waived all rights to further respond to the Notice and to appeal this Order. Accordingly, PHMSA accepts Respondent’s August 6, 2013 payment in full satisfaction of the civil penalty proposed in the Notice and PHMSA shall close this case with prejudice.

Read the Final Order.

HazMat Employee Training can help to prevent violations of the HMR and penalties such as these at a fraction of the cost.  Contact me to schedule training for your HazMat Employees to ensure compliance with the Hazardous Material Regulations of the USDOT/PHMSA.

By this Order, I find that Interstate Chemical Company, Inc. (Respondent) committed one (1) violation of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), 49 CFR Parts 171-180, and I assess Respondent a $2,531 civil penalty.

On September 3, 2013, the Office of Chief Counsel issued a Notice of Probable Violation (Notice) to Respondent proposing a $2,531 civil penalty for one (1) violation of the HMR. On September 27, 2013, Respondent submitted a payment in the amount of $2,531. By paying the full amount of the civil penalty proposed in the Notice, Respondent admitted the violation as alleged in the Notice (49 CFR § I 07.315).

Therefore, I find Respondent committed the violation as set forth in the Notice. This violation shall constitute a prior violation under 49 U.S.C. § 5123 in the event Respondent commits any future violation of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 U.S.C. § 5101 et seq., or the HMR.

By paying the proposed civil penalty, Respondent waived all rights to further respond to the Notice and to appeal this Order. Accordingly, PHMSA accepts Respondent’s September 27, 2013 payment in full satisfaction ofthe civil penalty proposed in the Notice and PHMSA shall close this case with prejudice.

Read the Final Order.

Though the violation of the HMR is not included in the final order, It is my opinion that proper HazMat Employee Training could have prevented this unfortunate incident.  Contact me with any questions you may have about the hazardous materials regulations of the PHMSA, including the requirement to provide triennial training for your HazMat Employees.