News Release:
06/05/2013

If you have doubts about your compliance with environmental regulations (Federal or State) then you may live in fear of an inspection by an inspector of those agencies.  In Michigan, however, a business has the option to take part in a voluntary program administered by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Office of Environmental Assistance.  Its purpose is to encourage  Michigan businesses and public entities to self-initiate and conduct audits of their compliance with state environmental laws.  Its name:  Michigan’s Environmental Audit Privilege & Immunity Law (Part 148, PA 451 of 1994). (more…)

Whether you are a consumer forced to return a lithium battery to the manufacturer due to a recall announcement or you are the manufacturer/distributor who is arranging for the recall, you should be aware of the regulations affecting the transportation in commerce of lithium batteries.  The PHMSA/USDOT has published a guidance document with precautions to be taken by anyone who offers for transportation or transports a recalled lithium battery.  It’s recommendations are summarized below. (more…)

49 CFR 173.29 contains the PHMSA/USDOT regulations for the transportation of empty packagings that last contained hazardous materials.  As a shipper of hazardous materials you must be aware of §173.29(a) which states that an empty packaging with the residue of a hazardous material will be regulated the same as a full container:

Except as otherwise provided in this section, an empty packaging containing only the residue of a hazardous material shall be offered for transportation and transported in the same manner as when it previously contained a greater quantity of that hazardous material.

There are several methods to avoid full regulation under the HMR when transporting an empty packaging, one of them is detailed in §173.29(b)(2)(ii).  It allows for the transportation of empty packagings not subject to the HMR if the packaging:

Is sufficiently cleaned of residue and purged of vapors to remove any potential hazard;

In addition to cleaning and purging vapors, any material remaining in the packaging can not meet the definitions in §171.8 for a:

• Hazardous substance,
• Hazardous waste, or;
• Marine pollutant.

If this is accomplished you still must comply with §173.29(b)(1) which requires you to complete one of the following:

• Any hazardous material shipping name and identification number markings, any hazard warning labels or placards, and any other markings indicating that the material is hazardous (e.g., RQ, INHALATION HAZARD) are removed, obliterated, or securely covered in transportation.
• The preceding hazard communication methods may remain if the packaging is not visible in transportation and the packaging is loaded by the shipper and unloaded by the shipper or consignee (ie. the receiver of the empty packagings).

So, if the packagings are truly empty to where none of the HazMat remains you are required to either remove all indications of a hazardous material or ensure that the hazard communication methods in use are visible to no one but the shipper and the receiver.

What if the hazard communication methods remain on an empty packaging (cleaned of residue and purged of vapors per §173.29(b)(2)(ii) and are visible in transportation to someone other than the shipper or receiver?

That would be a violation of  §173.29 & §171.2(k) which reads:

No person may, by marking or otherwise, represent that a hazardous material is present in a package, container, motor vehicle, rail car, aircraft, or vessel if the hazardous material is not present.

You know the regulations are complicated when even the shipment of an empty packaging has so many restrictions and requirements.  If you ship empty packagings of hazardous materials, then it is certain that at least some of your employees are HazMat Employees and require the triennial training that I provide.  Contact me for a free HazMat Employee or RCRA training consultation.

WASHINGTON – Wal-Mart Stores Inc. pleaded guilty today in cases filed by federal prosecutors in Los Angeles and San Francisco to six counts of violating the Clean Water Act by illegally handling and disposing of hazardous materials at its retail stores across the United States. The Bentonville, Ark.-based company also pleaded guilty today in Kansas City, Mo., to violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by failing to properly handle pesticides that had been returned by customers at its stores across the country.

As a result of the three criminal cases brought by the Justice Department, as well as a related civil case filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Wal-Mart will pay approximately $81.6 million for its unlawful conduct. Coupled with previous actions brought by the states of California and Missouri for the same conduct, Wal-Mart will pay a combined total of more than $110 million to resolve cases alleging violations of federal and state environmental laws.

According to documents filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, from a date unknown until January 2006, Wal-Mart did not have a program in place and failed to train its employees on proper hazardous waste management and disposal practices at the store level. As a result, hazardous wastes were either discarded improperly at the store level – including being put into municipal trash bins or, if a liquid, poured into the local sewer system – or they were improperly transported without proper safety documentation to one of six product return centers located throughout the United States. 

“By improperly handling hazardous waste, pesticides and other materials in violation of federal laws, Wal-Mart put the public and the environment at risk and gained an unfair economic advantage over other companies,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “Today, Wal-Mart acknowledged responsibility for violations of federal laws and will pay significant fines and penalties, which will, in part, fund important environmental projects in the communities impacted by the violations and help prevent future harm to the environment.”

“Federal laws that address the proper handling, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes exist to safeguard our environment and protect the public from harm,” said André Birotte Jr., the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. “Retailers like Wal-Mart that generate hazardous waste have a duty to legally and safely dispose of that hazardous waste, and dumping it down the sink was neither legal nor safe. The case against Wal-Mart is designed to ensure compliance with our nation’s environmental laws now and in the future.”

“As one of the largest retailers in the United States, Wal-Mart is responsible not only for the stock on its shelves, but also for the significant amount of hazardous materials that result from damaged products returned by customers,” said Melinda Haag, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California. “The crimes in these cases stem from Wal-Mart’s failure to comply with the regulations designed to ensure the proper handling, storage, and disposal of those hazardous materials and waste. With its guilty plea today, Wal-Mart is in a position to be an industry leader by ensuring that not only Wal-Mart, but all retail stores properly handle their waste.”

“This tough financial penalty holds Wal-Mart accountable for its reckless and illegal business practices that threatened both the public and the environment,” said Tammy Dickinson, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri. “Truckloads of hazardous products, including more than 2 million pounds of pesticides, were improperly handled under Wal-Mart’s contract. Today’s criminal fine should send a message to companies of all sizes that they will be held accountable to follow federal environmental laws. Additionally, Wal-Mart’s community service payment will fund important environmental projects in Missouri to help prevent such abuses in the future.”

“The FBI holds all companies, regardless of size, to the same standards,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge David J. Johnson of the San Francisco Field Office. “We will continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners to ensure there is a level playing field for all businesses and that everyone follows the rules.”

“Today Wal-Mart is taking responsibility for violating laws that protect people from hazardous wastes and chemicals,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Walmart is committing to safe handling of hazardous wastes at all of its facilities nationwide, and action that will benefit communities across the country.” 

Wal-Mart owns more than 4,000 stores nationwide that sell thousands of products which are flammable, corrosive, reactive, toxic or otherwise hazardous under federal law. The products that contain hazardous materials include pesticides, solvents, detergents, paints, aerosols and cleaners. Once discarded, these products are considered hazardous waste under federal law.

Wal-Mart pleaded guilty this morning in San Francisco to six misdemeanor counts of negligently violating the Clean Water Act. The six criminal charges were filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles and San Francisco (each office filed three charges), and the two cases were consolidated in the Northern District of California, where the guilty pleas were formally entered before U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. As part of a plea agreement filed in California, Wal-Mart was sentenced to pay a $40 million criminal fine and an additional $20 million that will fund various community service projects, including opening a $6 million Retail Compliance Assistance Center that will help retail stores across the nation learn how to properly handle hazardous waste.

In the third criminal case resolved today, Wal-Mart pleaded guilty in the Western District of Missouri to violating FIFRA. According to a plea agreement filed in Kansas City, beginning in 2006, Wal-Mart began sending certain damaged household products, including regulated solid and liquid pesticides, from its six return centers to Greenleaf LLC, a recycling facility located in Neosho, Mo., where the products were processed for reuse and resale. Because Wal-Mart employees failed to provide adequate oversight of the pesticides sent to Greenleaf, regulated pesticides were mixed together and offered for sale to customers without the required registration, ingredients, or use information, which constitutes a violation of FIFRA. Between July 2006 and February 2008, Wal-Mart trucked more than 2 million pounds of regulated pesticides and additional household products from its various return centers to Greenleaf. In November 2008, Greenleaf was also convicted of a FIFRA violation and paid a criminal penalty of $200,000 in 2009. 

Pursuant to the plea agreement filed in Missouri and accepted today by U.S. District Judge John T. Maughmer, Wal-Mart agreed to pay a criminal fine of $11 million and to pay another $3 million to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, which will go to that agency’s Hazardous Waste Program and will be used to fund further inspections and education on pesticide regulations for regulators, the regulated community and the public. In addition, Wal-Mart has already spent more than $3.4 million to properly remove and dispose of all hazardous material from Greenleaf’s facility.

In conjunction with today’s guilty pleas in the three criminal cases, Wal-Mart has agreed to pay a $7.628 million civil penalty that will resolve civil violations of FIFRA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In addition to the civil penalties, Wal-Mart is required to implement a comprehensive, nationwide environmental compliance agreement to manage hazardous waste generated at its stores. The agreement includes requirements to ensure adequate environmental personnel and training at all levels of the company, proper identification and management of hazardous wastes, and the development and implementation of Environmental Management Systems at its stores and return centers. Compliance with this agreement is a condition of probation imposed in the criminal cases.

The criminal cases announced today are a result of investigations conducted by the FBI and the EPA, which received substantial assistance from the California Department of Substance and Toxics Control, and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.

In Missouri, the case was prosecuted by Deputy U.S. Attorney Gene Porter and ENRD Senior Trial Attorney Jennifer Whitfield of the Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division. In California, the cases were prosecuted in Los Angeles by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph O. Johns and in San Francisco by Assistant U.S. Attorney Stacey Geis. 

Release Date: 05/28/2013

Contact Information: Dale Kemery (News media only) kemery.dale@epa.gov 202-564-7839 202-564-4355

More information about the case: URL http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/waste/cases/walmart.html

49 CFR 172.600 mandates the shipper of a hazardous material to provide emergency response information specific to each hazardous material that appears on the  shipping paper.  Emergency response information is not required in only two situations:

• If the shipment does not require a shipping paper, and;
• If the shipment is a properly classified ORM-D material.

A common method of compliance with this regulation is for the shipper to provide the carrier with the applicable page from the Emergency Response Guidebook (copied or printed) and document the Guide Number page near the description of the HazMat on the shipping paper.  However, this practice alone, without additional information provided by the shipper, is a violation of the Hazardous Material Regulations (HMR) of the PHMSA/USDOT. (more…)

Pursuant to 49 CFR 172.600 a shipper of a hazardous material is required to provide emergency response information to the carrier prior to the HazMat’s transportation.  The only exception to this regulation is for shipments of HazMat that do not require a shipping paper and for materials properly classified as an ORM-D.  In order to correctly provide this information you must know what emergency response information is required for a shipment of a hazardous material. (more…)

In addition to conducting a hazardous waste determination on your lamps which may exhibit the hazardous characteristic of Toxicity for either Lead (D008) or Mercury (D009), you must also determine the hazardous waste status of the lamp ballasts.  There are two possible constituents of a lighting fixture’s ballast that may affect its disposal:  Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Diethylhexyl Phthalate or Di (2-ethylhexyl) phathatlate (DEHP).
(more…)

It can be safely assumed that every residential, commercial, and residential structure in the US generates some kind of spent lamp or bulb during its operation.  Disposal of these lamps or bulbs is regulated by both Federal USEPA and state authority under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  Exactly how they are regulated depends on many factors and some options that are within your power to choose.  If you wish to crush lamps as a means to reduce volume and save off-site disposal costs, you must take into consideration all of the applicable regulations and select your management options with care.  This article will summarize the regulatory requirements and options for a facility that wishes to crush its spent or used lamps.

If your facility contains any of the following lamps you must take these RCRA regulations into consideration for their disposal:

• Fluorescent
• High Intensity Discharge (HID)
• Neon
• Sodium vapor
• Mercury vapor
• Metal halide
• Incandescent
• And more

Question #1:  Are you a large quantity generator or a small quantity generator of hazardous waste and will the lamp be managed as a hazardous waste?

Many of the lamps listed above may exhibit the hazardous characteristic of Toxicity for either Lead (D008) or Mercury (D009).  If this is the case you may choose to use the universal waste option (see #3) or you may manage them as a hazardous waste.  The crushing of hazardous waste lamps as an LQG or SQG is a form of hazardous waste treatment as defined at 40 CFR 260.10 that requires a permit unless an exclusion from regulation is available.  Two possible options for crushing hazardous waste lamps without a permit are:

• The use of a Drum-Top Crusher (DTC) if operated correctly on a container in a 90-day (if LQG) or 180-day (if SQG) accumulation area.
• Crushed lamps destined for recycling may – and that’s a big “may” – be eligible for the scrap metal exemption under RCRA.  If so, the crushing is viewed as just another step in the exempt recycling process.  Be sure to check with your lamp recycler to ensure they will accept them crushed.

Question #2:  Are you a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator of hazardous waste?

A CESQG is exempt from compliance with the majority of RCRA regulations with which an LQG or SQG must comply [40 CFR 215.5(b)].  Therefore, a CESQG may dispose of its spent lamps in a municipal solid waste landfill with its regular trash and the crushing of lamps will not be an issue.  This option will require further research since your state may not allow for disposal of hazardous lamps at a MSW landfill and the landfill may object for reasons of its own.

Question #3:  Is the lamp a hazardous waste and will it be managed as a universal waste per 40 CFR 273?  Hazardous waste generator status does not matter.

Since January of 2000 facilities have had the option to manage lamps that are a hazardous waste as a universal waste.  The crushing of universal waste lamps is not expressly forbidden nor allowed by Federal USEPA regulations.

Most states that I am familiar with however, forbid the crushing of universal waste lamps, or strongly discourage it.  Once, after a long discussion with an official of a not-to-be-named state she conceded that the state’s universal waste regulations did not forbid the crushing of lamps.  However, she followed up our conversation with an email which clearly stated that while not forbidden by regulation, the state, “strongly discouraged” the crushing of universal waste lamps.  I took that to mean, “Don’t do it!”

Refer to Table 1 for that status of lamp crushing in your state.

Table 1.  Does your state allow for the deliberate crushing of universal waste lamps by a small quantity handler or large quantity handler?

Be sure to check with your state to determine its position on the deliberate crushing of universal waste lamps.

Question #4:  Are the lamps a non-hazardous waste?  Hazardous waste generator status does not matter.

Manufacturers have been able to make lamps that when analyzed by TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure) they are not found to be a characteristic toxic hazardous waste.  If you are able to determine this is the case with your lamps, then they may be disposed of in a municipal solid waste landfill.  The problem is that though the lamps pass TCLP and are not a hazardous waste, they still may contain Mercury or Lead.  Disposal of these lamps in a MSW landfill instead of in a RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste landfill therefore, is not the “Green Choice”.

If you intend to crush your spent lamps, either as a hazardous waste or as a universal waste if allowed by your state, be sure to read this article about a study conducted on the mercury emissions from Drum Top Crushers.

Be certain to consider all the options before you decide on the best management option for your spent or used lamps.  At my Training Seminars I cover the universal waste regulations, hazardous waste generator status (LQG, SQG, or CESQG), generator treatment of hazardous waste, and a whole lot more.  I also cover the USDOT regulations for a HazMat Employee.