Compliance and Enforcement

Hospitals and Hazardous Waste Violations

Most of the attendees at my training events – check my Schedule of Events to see when I’ll be in your area – come from the manufacturing industry.  There are many other commercial activities that are subject to the US DOT regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials and the US EPA regulations governing the generation, handling, and disposal of hazardous waste; one of these is hospitals (SIC’s 8062 & 8069).  As a matter of fact, a hospital administrator recently pled guilty to criminal charges of willfully or knowingly disposing of hazardous waste (STERIS 20 in this case) in an improper manner (click here for the Agency press release).

In the eyes of the US EPA, a hospital is no different than any other industrial facility subject to its hazardous waste regulations found in 40 CFR 260-265.  Before you can comply with the regulations however, and avoid the violations listed below, you must be aware of the potential violations.

Below is a list of the 15 Most common Hazardous Waste Violations and Problems Found at Hospitals according to US EPA Region 2.  I included my own comments where I think they may be helpful.  You can see the original listhere.

1.  Improper or lack of hazardous waste labeling. To label a container is so easy, and so easily overlooked.
2.  No or infrequent weekly inspections of hazardous waste storage areas. For both Large Quantity Generators of hazardous waste andSmall Quantity Generators, “weekly” means “every 7 days”.
3.  Open containers of hazardous waste. Containers of hazardous waste must be kept closed at all times except when adding or removing waste.  See here for more information.
4.  Improper disposal of chemotherapy drugs. Like any waste, they are subject to the hazardous waste determination process.  See #5.
5.  Failure to perform or improper hazardous waste determinations. This is a critical fiirst step in the process of determining what regulations apply to you as a generator of hazardous waste.
6.  No or inadequate hazardous waste manifests. The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest must be used for all shipments of hazardous waste, unless you are a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator of hazardous waste.
7.  Throwing hazardous waste down the drain. A tempting, but illegal option.  See the news release referred to above.
8.  Improper management of mercury-containing wastes, including but not limited to:  fluroescent light bulbs, mercury vapor lights, thermometers, sphygmomanometer, gastric tubes, thermostats, etc. All of these items could be handeld as universal waste at a greatly reduced regulatory burden.
9.  Improper management of expired pharmaceuticals, paints, etc. Like any waste, they are subject to the hazardous waste determination process.  See #5.
10.  Lack of a contingency plan. Large Quantity Generators of hazardous waste must have a contingency plan.
11.  Lack of or inadequate training of employees in hazardous waste management. This is where it all starts!  Not only is a lack of training a violation in itself, but without training you miss an opportunity to teach your employees about the regulations and proper waste handling.  Note that “inadequate training” is also a violation.
12.  Failure to ensure that hazardous waste meets the Land Disposal Restrictions. Usually, your hazardous waste disposal vendor will help you with the completion of the LDR.  However, it is your responsibility as the generator to ensure compliance.
13.  Failure to upgrade/close underground storage tanks (UST’s).
14.  Malfunctioning leak detection systems.
15.  Improper consolidation of wastes from nearby facilities. Use caution when consolidating waste from another facility with your own.

All of the above violations, except for numbers 13 & 14 are covered extensively at my training events.  For as low as $475 you can attend an entire day of training that meets not only the US EPA hazardous waste regulations, but the US Department of Transportation regulations for the transportation of hazardous materials (HazMat).  Don’t forget that the off-site transportation of hazardous waste is regulated by the US DOT as is the receipt of the hazardous materials as product.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me with questions about my training services and how they might apply to your operations.  I can tailor the training to your needs, including conducting on-site training for all of you applicable employees in one day.

US EPA and US DOT Regulations for the Handling and Transportation of Samples of Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste

Q:  I need to ship a small amount of our product (let’s say <1 gallon of a flammable solvent blend) from our distribution facility in Des Moines, IA to our QC lab in Akron, OH.  Our salespeople travel this route regularly by company car, can I have one of them transport this hazardous material?  What US DOT regulations must I comply with?

A:  Transportation of product of this quantity by motor vehicle over public roadways is acceptable under the Materials of Trade Exception to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR).  You need only comply with the relatively simple requirements of 49 CFR 173.6.

Q:  OK, what about the same material shipped by a common carrier or UPS or the US Postal Service?

A:  You must follow all the requirements of the HMR for shipping papers, placards, labels, and markings.  The Materials of Trade Exception only applies if you are transporting your HazMat in your motor vehicle.  The Carrier or their industry group (the International Air Transport Association or IATA is a creation of the airline industry) may have additional requirements.

Q:  What if I need to ship the sample in order to determine its hazards, how do I select a proper shipping name, identification number, hazard class, packing group, etc?

A:  49 CFR 172.101(c)(11) states that except for certain materials, you as a Shipper may assign a tentative shipping name, hazard class, and ID # to a hazardous material (including a hazardous waste) based on your knowledge of its characteristics, the hazard precedence found in 49 CFR 173.2(a), and the hazard classes as defined in the HMR.  Some additional – relatively simple – compliance requirements are found at 172.101(c)(11)(iv), research these if you wish to use this exemption.

Q:  What if the material I want to ship for analysis is a waste and has the potential to be a hazardous waste?  What then?

A:  As noted above, 49 CFR 172.101(c)(11) includes hazardous waste.

Daniels Training Services, Inc.

815.821.1550

Info@DanielsTraining.com

https://www.danielstraining.com/

Q:  Yeah, but what about the US EPA regulations for hazardous waste?  Have you forgotten about them?

A:  There are two US EPA exclusions from the full regulation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for this type of material.  The first, found at 40 CFR 261.4(d) is for small (US EPA says <1 gallon) waste characterization samples collected and shipped solely to determine the hazardous waste characteristics or composition.  The exclusion applies to any stage of the process of sample collection, temporary storage, shipment, and analysis.  As long as you meet the requirements of the exclusion, the sample is not subject to the RCRA regulations for labeling, inspections, personnel training, on-site accumulation time limits, generator status determination, etc.  When shipping the sample you must either comply with the requirements of the US DOT or US Post Office (see above) or if there are none, the requirements of 40 CFR 261.4(d)(2)(ii).

The second exclusion, found at 40 CFR 261.4(e) is for treatability study samples as defined at 40 CFR 260.10.  Somewhat similar to the waste characterization sample exclusion already discussed, this exclusion is more narrow in its allowances and more strict in it requirements.  I suggest a close reading of this regulation if you wish to use this exclusion.  Like the waste characterization sample exclusion, the US EPA requires compliance with applicable US DOT and/or US Postal Service regulations, or compliance with the requirements of 40 CFR 261.4(e)(2)(iii)(B)(1-5) when it comes time for off-site shipment of the sample.  Anything else?

The USEPA Regulations for “Closed Containers” of Hazardous Waste

The USEPA Regulations for “Closed Containers” of Hazardous Waste

Generators of hazardous waste should be aware of the packaging requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) when shipping their hazardous waste off-site for final treatment and disposal:  the packaging must be in good condition, approved by the USDOT for the use of hazardous materials, it must be labeled per DOT requirements, and it must be closed and sealed to prevent a release during transportation.

What aren’t as clear are the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) requirements for a “closed container” while the waste is accumulated on-site.  In order to answer this question – which has come up many times during my training events – I relied heavily on a USEPA memorandum: Guidance on 40 CFR 264.173(a) and 265.173(a):  Closed Containers. (more…)

An Extension to the Hazardous Waste On-Site Accumulation Limits for Large Quantity Generators of Hazardous Waste that Generate F006 Wastewater Treatement Sludge from Electroplating Operations

As a Large Quantity Generator (LQG) of hazardous waste, you are aware that hazardous waste may not accumulate at your site for longer than 90 days unless it is managed in a satellite accumulation area pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(c)(1).  However, did you know that an extension of the on-site accumulation time limit from ≤90 days to≤180 days exists for a specific type of hazardous waste?   F006 electroplating wastewater treatment sludge destined for recycling may be accumulated on-site for up to 180 days without a permit or interim status pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(g-I).  This extension is not granted to any other hazardous waste the facility may generate.  Nor is the extension allowed if the F006 waste is destined for any disposal option other than “legitimately recycled through metals recovery” per 40 CFR 262.34(g)(2).

The one great restriction on the use of this extension is the requirement that the F006 hazardous waste be “legitimately recycled through metals recovery”.  If the wastewater treatment sludge from your electroplating operations is destined for landfill or other treatment instead of metals recovery recycling, you will not be able to take advantage of this extension.  The limiting factors in recycling this type of waste are the value of the metals to be recovered and their concentration in the sludge.  Sludge with low-value metals such as zinc or tin will have a harder time finding recycling options than a sludge containing higher concentrations of copper, nickel, or chrome.  This is something every generator must determine for itself.

If you are able to take advantage of the extension, the requirements of the US EPA are relatively simple; they include:

  1. Implement pollution prevention practices to reduce the hazards of the F006 waste [40 CFR 262.34(g)(1)].
  2. Ensure the F006 waste is legitimately recycled through metals recovery [40 CFR 262.34(g)(2)].
  3. Accumulate no more than 20,000 kg of F006 waste on-site at any one time [40 CFR 262.34(g)(3)].
  4. Comply with the regulations applicable to LQG’s who manage hazardous waste in containers, tanks, or containment buildings [40 CFR 262.34(g)(4)(i-v)].

If the recycling facility to which you ship the F006 waste is at a distance of ≥200 miles, then you may accumulate the waste on-site for up to 270 days without a permit and without special permission from US EPA [40 CFR 262.34(h)].

Unless an extension to the 180/270 day time limit or an exception to the 20,000 kg on-site accumulation limit has been granted by the Regional Administrator of the US EPA, an exceedence of either of these limits subjects the facility to the US EPA regulations of a storage facility and the requirements of 40 CFR 264,265, and 267 and the permit requirements of 40 CFR 270.

Unless you generate an F006 listed hazardous waste from the on-site treatment of electroplating wastewaters, this extension in on-site accumulation times will not be of any benefit to you.  Further, if you generate this type of waste but do not have a recycling disposal option available, you will not be able to avail yourself of the increased on-site accumulation time limits.  However, if you meet the required criteria, it may be of great benefit to you to take advantage of this limited extension of the on-site accumulation limits.

A Hazardous Waste Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) Faces Stiff Fines From the US EPA

When facing an inspection and possible enforcement actions from the US EPA or their state regulatory agency a hazardous waste generator may wonder, “Why me?  Why don’t they go after one of those big companies like BP, DuPont, or Goodyear Tire?   Better yet, why not go after the companies that I pay so dearly to dispose of my hazardous waste?”  You needn’t think the EPA has it out for the little guy.  They frequently inspect the larger hazardous waste generators and those disposal companies (known as Transfer Storage and Disposal Facilities, or TSDF’s).

One example is the recent settlement reached between Clean Harbors of Braintree, Inc. in Braintree, MA and the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP).  Announced on August 15th 2011, the settlement has its genesis in a site inspection conducted by both agencies in June of 2007.  In the settlement, Clean Harbors agreed to pay a $650,000 penalty, spend an additional $1,062,500 on a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP), comply with an enhanced waste analysis plan, and install and maintain a vapor collection system for its hazardous waste storage tanks to control the emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s).

The SEP requires Clean Harbors to plant 1,400 trees in low-income areas of the City of Boston over a two-year period.  I don’t think I’m being overly cynical to believe that Clean Harbors will make no mention of the settlement and the SEP when it begins planting the trees.  They will likely promote it as a “Green Initiative” on their part because they so love the environment and the people of Boston.  But hey, I digress.  Back to the settlement.

The enhanced waste analysis plan agreed to by Clean Harbors goes above and beyond what is required by the regulations and its existing permit.  This along with the vapor collection system for VOC’s referenced above will reduce the facility’s environmental impact relative to its competitors.  Here as well, watch for Clean Harbors to spin these actions as a reflection of its commitment as a “Green Company”.  No mention of the fact that these actions were mandated by a settlement that only exists because of its violation of the regulations.

US EPA identified close to thirty violations during its June 2007 inspection of both the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, the source of hazardous waste management regulations) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA).  Violations included:

  • Inadequate waste characterization.
  • Failure to properly maintain hazardous waste tanks.
  • Inadequate secondary containment.
  • Improper storage of incompatible wastes.

As noted earlier MassDEP took part in the initial inspection.  It also provided support to the US EPA during the settlement process.  Please note that the MassDEP issued a separate consent order which required Clean Harbors to replace all of its old storage tanks and implement other infrastructure upgrades at the facility.  I can only assume that the costs for these structural improvements are in addition to the $1.7 million spent on the fines and SEP imposed by the US EPA.

What lessons should a hazardous waste generator draw from an enforcement action of this type?

  1. All companies – big and small – involved in the generation or management of hazardous waste are subject to agency inspection and fines.
  2. The costs of non-compliance may advance well beyond monetary fines, and extend into SEP’s or other requirements (such as infrastructure improvements).
  3. State regulatory agencies (MassDEP in this case), may take the initiative on inspection and enforcement or work with the US EPA.

The first step in maintaining compliance is to know the state and federal regulations applicable to your facility.

USEPA Regulations for the Management of Medical Waste

USEPA Regulations for the Management of Medical Waste:

It was the summer between my freshman and sophomore years of college at the University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point when news broke in July of 1988 about needles and other medical waste washing up on public beaches on the eastern seaboard.  The national media performed admirably as a source of un-sensationalized and thoughtful information about this public health calamity (Note: irony).  By 1991 it became clear that the panic was overblown, as it was later reported that “At the end of the summer, the medical-type waste found on Long Island’s beaches would have barely filled a picnic basket.”Sharps Container

That didn’t stop the U.S. Congress from enacting the Medical Waste Tracking Act (MWTA) of 1988 to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA).  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulations for the act went into effect on June 24, 1989 and expired on June 21, 1991.  In that time they were effective in four states only: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico.  There were several purposes for this two year program:

  • Gather information related to medical waste management.
  • Focus attention on the medical waste issue.
  • Examine various treatment technologies for medical waste.
  • Provide a model for states and other federal agencies to develop their own medical waste programs.

USEPA concluded from the MWTA that the disease-causing potential of medical waste decreases naturally from its point of generation as it moves toward its final destination.  USEPA has not renewed the MWTA and has left regulation to the individual states or to other federal agencies.

Daniels Training Services, Inc.

815.821.1550

Info@DanielsTraining.com

https://www.danielstraining.com/
State Regulations for the Management of Medical Waste:

Most states have since further developed their own programs resulting in each state program differing significantly from each other.  One key difference between state regulations and the Federal MWTA is their application to industrial and commercial facilities and not just to medical facilities and hospitals.  Therefore, any medical waste generated at an industrial or commercial facility – even if generated by employees and not part of the business – cannot go to landfill, but must meet strict state requirements for on-site handling and off-site disposal.

Another difference is how the waste is named.  While identified as “Medical Waste” by the Federal act and regulations, it may go by several different names under state regulations:

Check with your state to determine your responsibility for management of Medical Waste

Like this article?

Subscribe to my Monthly Newsletter

No marketing emails!
Other Federal Agencies Management of Medical Waste:

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT/PHMSA) regulates the transportation of medical waste as a Division 6.2 Infectious Substance.  The definition of an infectious substance at 49 CFR 173.134(a)(6) reads:

Sharps means any object contaminated with a pathogen or that may become contaminated with a pathogen through handling or during transportation and also capable of cutting or penetrating skin or a packaging material. Sharps includes needles, syringes, scalpels, broken glass, culture slides, culture dishes, broken capillary tubes, broken rigid plastic, and exposed ends of dental wires.”

Regardless of Federal and state regulations, USDOT/PHMSA Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) will apply to the off-site transportation of a medical waste as a Division 6.2 Infectious Substance.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Bloodborne Pathogen Standard can be found at 29 CFR 1910.1030.  While aimed primarily at healthcare workers and others who deal with blood and body fluids on a regular basis, it also covers maintenance, custodial, laundry, and waste handlers that may be called upon to clean up body fluids after an accident.  OSHA website.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has guidance for persons working with infectious pathogens.  CDC website.

State regulations, whether for Medical Waste, Hazardous Waste, Universal Waste, Non-Hazardous Waste, or Used Oil present an additional level of regulations for any industrial, commercial, or government facility.  Please contact me with any questions you may have about the management of waste under Federal or State regulations.

Daniels Training Services, Inc.

815.821.1550

Info@DanielsTraining.com

https://www.danielstraining.com/

Stiff Fines From the US EPA for Hazardous Waste Generators are Easily Avoidable

No matter how many times I read about it, I never fail to be surprised by two things:

  1. The severity of penalties faced by regulated facilities that violate US EPA hazardous waste (RCRA) regulations; and,
  2. How easily avoidable those violations are.

Examples:

For hazardous waste violations noted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Metco Metal Finishing, Inc. in South Phoenix, AZ must pay a $75,000 penalty, spend $50,000 for a yet to be determined supplemental environmental project, institute an environmental management system, and contract with a third party to conduct regular audits at its facility for the next three years.  Its 26 violations include disposal of hazardous waste without a permit, failing to properly mark containers, and failing to determine if some stored materials were hazardous waste.

US EPA fined TMW Corporation in Van Nuys, CA $100,000 for its RCRA violations which included:

  • Storage of hazardous waste for over 90 days without a permit.
  • Failure to conduct required inspections.
  • Failure to train personnel or maintain training records.
  • Failure to maintain required emergency communications equipment.
  • Failure to make a hazardous waste determination.

The Robert J. Dole Veterans Administration Medical Center in Wichita, KS was fined $17,979 by US EPA for hazardous waste violations on its campus.  The Veterans Administration must also spend an estimated $61,900 on a supplemental environmental project to erect a hazardous waste accumulation building on-site.  The violations of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Kansas Administrative Regulations noted during the inspection included failures to make hazardous waste determinations, failures to inspect, label, date and close hazardous waste containers; failures to make arrangements with emergency responders, failures to label used oil containers, and disposal of hazardous waste through the biological waste system.  As part of the settlement, all facets of the facility’s hazardous waste management will be closely scrutinized by the US EPA.

All of the above violations are simple to avoid.  However, a facility cannot comply with a regulation that it is not aware of.  Awareness can begin with a training session that meets your regulatory requirements for training hazardous waste personnel and HazMat Employees and  explains in detail what you need to do to maintain compliance at your facility.  Your facility’s EHS Manager and your Shipping and Receiving Manager would benefit greatly from attending one of my nationwide public training events.  Or, even better, have me come to your site to provide on-site training to all of your applicable employees (Hazardous Waste Personnel and HazMat Employees) for one flat fee of $1,749.

EPA Finalizes Agreement to Begin First Phase of Newtown Creek Superfund Cleanup

Superfund is the common name for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980.  This law was designed to create a mechanism and funding source for the cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances.  In many cases, such as this one, the contaminated site was a landfill or some other waste disposal site.  Several importanthagnes were made to CERCLA with the passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.  These changes included an increase in funding and the use of new technologies for studies.

Five private firms and the City of New York were identified as PRP’s – that is Potentially Responsible Parties – for this site. They are responsible to conduct an investigation of the site under EPA’s oversight, pay EPA $750,000 for its previous work at the site, and reimburse the Agency for any oversight costs. A PRP is an entity that has been identified as a potential contributor to the contamination and may be held liable for the cleanup of a contaminated property. PRP’s may include:

  • The current owner or operator of the site.
  • The owner or operator of a site at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance.
  • A person who arranged for the disposal or treatment of a hazardous substance at the site. Or, arranged for transportation of a hazardous substance to the site.
  • A person who transported a hazardous substance to a site they selected.

While the first two bullet points may preclude you from ever buying a landfill or treatment facility, the last two should be a wake-up call to a facility that ships any waste, but especially hazardous waste, off-site for disposal. A generator of hazardous waste may be responsible under Superfund even if its disposal was in compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations at the time. Approximately 70% of Superfund cleanup activities have been funded by PRP’s.

I cover topics such as selection and auditing of a waste generator’s Transfer, Storage, and Disposal Facility (TSDF) in my public training events. I also include EPA guidance on auditing TSDF’s and a hardcopy of a TSDF audit form as part of the training materials provided to attendees. Much more information of a very practical and useful nature is provided as well as fulfilling the EPA training requirements found at 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4) and 40 CFR 265.16.

The second half of the day’s training fulfills the triennial training requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation for HazMat Employees. I guarantee you will find this day of training useful and informative.