The Bullet:

The owners and Chief Executive Officers of Total Reclaim, the Northwest’s largest recycler of electronic waste, were sentenced on April 23, 2019 in U.S. District Court in Seattle to 28 months in prison and three years of supervised release for conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

Who:

• U.S. District Judge Richard A. Jones.
• The case was investigated by the EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division and is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Seth Wilkinson.
• Total Reclaim. A company owned by:
  • Craig Lorch, 61, of Seattle, WA
  • Jeff Zirkle, 55, of Bonney Lake, WA
• The Basel Action Network (“BAN”) a non-governmental organization.

What:

• Total Reclaim was the biggest participant in “E-Cycle Washington,” a program created by the Washington legislature to provide for the safe recycling of hazardous electronic products.
• Under E-Cycle Washington, consumers drop off used electronics at stations such as Goodwill Industries free of charge. The program then paid Total Reclaim to recycle the electronics according to Washington Department of Ecology standards.
• Those standards bar recyclers from sending hazardous electronics products overseas.
• Total Reclaim signed a public pledge in which it promised not to “allow the export of hazardous E-waste we handle to be exported” to developing countries, where workers are known to disassemble electronics, which contain dangerous materials such as mercury, without safety precautions.
• Total Reclaim signed agreements with customers, such as the City of Seattle, in which the customers agreed to pay Total Reclaim to recycle electronics in accordance with these standards.
• The defendants secretly caused over 8 million pounds of mercury-containing flat screen monitors to be exported to Hong Kong.
• To prevent customers and auditors from learning of the practice, Lorch and Zirkle falsified documents, made false statements to customers, and stored the monitors at an undisclosed facility while they awaited shipping.
• Lorch and Zirkle have agreed to pay $945,663 in restitution.

Where:

• The program operated within Washington state.
• e-Waste was shipped to Hong Kong in China.

When:

• The defendants’ fraud was discovered in 2014.
• Lorch and Zirkle caused at least 8.3 million pounds of monitors to be shipped to Hong Kong between 2008 and 2015.
• “Your conduct spanned seven years and only stopped because you were caught. You had multiple opportunities to say enough is enough,” Judge Jones said.
• The pair were sentenced on April 23, 2019.

Why:

• Total Reclaim began secretly exporting flat screen monitors to Hong Kong to avoid the cost of safely recycling the monitors in the United States.
• According to court filings, it would have cost Total Reclaim about $2.6 million to appropriately dispose of the monitors.
• At the sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Richard A. Jones noted that with the men’s conduct could have impacted generations with mercury poisoning.

How:

• The defendants’ fraud was discovered in 2014 by a non-governmental organization known as the Basel Action Network (“BAN”).

Conclusion:

Read the full report from the USEPA Environmental Crimes Case Bulletin for March through April 2019.

Usually the violation of regulations and the improper management of waste results in fines alone. This case was different due to its scope and the level of deliberate deception involved.  Question: do you audit the companies that manage your waste (hazardous, non-hazardous, special, universal, used oil, recycled…whatever)?  If you don’t, you should.  The generator of a waste – any waste – has a cradle-to-grave responsibility for its management.

The Bullet:

A Houston chemical container company and two of its principals face felony environmental charges.  It is alleged the company used a hidden storm drain to dump benzene and other highly toxic liquids into waterways near homes and schools over a period of at least months, injuring its employees in the process.

Who:

• Wright Containers:
  • Opened facility in Houston, TX in 2017 and had plans for a second location in Sulphur, Louisiana.
  • It has customers from Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and other states.
• Both the owner of the company and the general manager were charged with a felony for the alleged environmental crimes.
• Investigated by:
  • Environmental Crimes Division of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office.
  • Houston Police Department’s Environmental Crimes Unit.
• Reported by:  Mark Collette and Brian Rogers of the Houston Chronicle.

What:

Wright Containers picked up dirty and empty intermediate bulk containers (IBCs) – commonly referred to as totes – from businesses.  (IBCs / totes are hefty industrial-strength containers, made of thick plastic, holding up to 330 gallons of liquid and encased in metal cages mounted on pallets.) Wright Containers advertised it used “a proprietary chemical treatment” to recondition the IBCs / totes for reuse as a packaging for hazardous materials.  Instead, according to the investigation, the company had its employees cut the plastic containers into pieces to be thrown away, then re-outfitted the metal cages with other inner plastic containers.

It is alleged any toxic chemicals remaining in the IBCs / totes were discharged down a storm drain which ultimately leads to Sims Bayou and then Galveston Bay.  The dumped chemicals included benzene, ethylbenzene, butylbenzene, dichloromethane, ethylbenzene and toluene, among others. Some are carcinogenic and highly flammable.  Workers stacked the IBCs / totes around the property’s central storm drain to block it from public view.

It is believed that Wright Containers did not have the required permits for handling hazardous waste. An online Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) database of regulated companies shows nothing under the company’s name when reviewed by the Houston Chronicle.

There is no evidence that companies sending totes to Wright Containers knew how the waste was being disposed.

The owner of the company and its general manager, each face two counts of intentional water pollution and one count of improper disposal and storage of hazardous materials. If convicted, they could face up to 10 years in prison and fines of up to $250,000 per violation. The company is also named as a defendant.

Where:

Wright Containers, in the 6600 block of Lindbergh Street in southeast Houston, is a few blocks away from Seguin Elementary School and hundreds of homes. Two other schools are nearby.

When:

• Prosecutors say Wright Containers opened for business early in 2017.
• January 8 2018, a Temporary Restraining Order was granted against Wright Containers, forbidding them from accepting or disposing any hazardous waste at their local site.
• Wright Containers was indicted on February 2, 2018.
• Updated 9:32 am CST, Monday, February 5, 2018

Why:

Prosecutors said they want this case to institute a new era of accountability for environmental crimes, relying on new lines of communication with the community to ferret out wrongdoers.

“If you’re operating without a license and handling hazardous waste, discharging hazardous waste, disposing of it, we’re going after you,” said Alex Forrest, chief of the environmental crimes division of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office.

How:

The alleged activity was brought to the attention of law enforcement by former employees acting as “whistle-blowers”.

Conclusion:

I find it very interesting that other than the reference to searching the TCEQ database above, there is no action of either the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality or the US Environmental Protection Agency reported in this case.  It appears to have been handled entirely as a criminal act by local authorities.

This should serve as a wake-up call to all within the regulated industry.  It is not just the state or federal agencies that may stop by for their regularly-scheduled inspections and issue you a notice of violation (NOV) and perhaps a small financial penalty.  Here we see local law enforcement pursuing criminal investigations against a business for violations of environmental regulations.

Something else I noted in this report is that no responsibility is assigned to the companies that sent their totes to Wright Containers, and they better hope it stays that way.  However, under the cradle-to-grave responsibility a company has for the waste it generates under RCRA, those companies could be held responsible for the mis-management of their waste.

And finally, keep your neighbors happy:

We depend on our law-enforcement agencies, concerned citizens and whistleblowers to develop and communicate the intelligence and information we need to shut down these hazardous operations.  The community truly is our eyes and ears, and we want the public to know we are here.

My training and consulting services can help you to avoid the NOVs, civil penalties, and criminal prosecution that can result from violation of the regulations.

The Bullet:

USEPA issued a civil penalty of $142,664 and other costs to a Shell Oil Company refinery in Martinez, CA.  USEPA took action against the company after its inspections identified multiple violations of the hazardous waste regulations.  As part of the settlement reached the refinery must also spend $220,300 to make improvements to its facility to further reduce its potential to pollute the environment and it must provide $38,000 to the county to support its emergency response efforts.

Who:

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Pacific Southwest Region (Region 9).
• Shell Oil Products, a subsidiary of Shell Oil Company is the owner of a refinery in Martinez, CA.  The facility processes about 165,000 barrels of crude oil per day. It also makes asphalt, diesel, jet turbine fuel, petroleum coke, propane, residential fuel oils, and sulfur.

What:

USEPA has reached a settlement with Shell Oil Products over hazardous waste and risk management plan compliance at its crude oil refinery in Martinez, CA.  The settlement requires Shell Oil Products to take the following actions:

• Pay a $142,664 civil penalty.
• Under the terms of the settlement, Shell Oil will spend an estimated $220,300 to upgrade the area where heat exchanger equipment is cleaned to ensure that resulting hazardous materials are properly managed. Shell Oil will also develop and implement a plan for sampling stormwater to ensure the water is managed appropriately. Finally, Shell Oil will analyze materials generated from its laboratory activities to ensure that they are managed correctly.
• Shell Oil has also agreed to spend about $38,000 to provide the Contra Costa Health Services Hazardous Materials Programs with equipment to stop leaks from sulfur dioxide containers, personal protective equipment, and handheld particulate meters (including backup batteries and chargers), which are used to monitor air quality.

Where:

The Shell Martinez Refinery, located on Pacheco Boulevard about 2 miles east of downtown Martinez, CA and south of the Carquinez Strait.  It is located in Contra Costa County.

When:

• USEPA news release is dated June 4, 2018.
• USEPA inspected the refinery in November 2014, March 2015, and again in November 2016.

Why:

Violations found during the inspections include:

• Failure to immediately notify the appropriate federal, state, and local emergency planning and response agencies immediately after an accidental release in December 2013.
• Failure to determine if waste generated at the refinery was hazardous.  Read: What is the hazardous waste determination?
• Failure to follow proper procedures for managing hazardous waste.
• Failure to comply with Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule requirements, such as using proper containers for fuel storage.
• Failure to comply with Risk Management Plan Rule requirements, such as accurately reporting an accidental release worst-case scenario. When properly implemented, risk management plans and their associated program elements help prevent and control chemical releases at facilities that store large amounts of hazardous substances or flammable chemicals. These plans are also used by EPA and other emergency responders to assess chemical risks to nearby communities and prepare for emergency responses.

This action by USEPA and Shell Oil Products will prevent an estimated 64 tons of hazardous waste from being released to the environment every year and reduce the risk of diesel fuel spills to San Francisco Bay.

“Today’s order requires Shell Oil to make necessary enhancements to comply with federal laws and protect public health and our natural resources,” said EPA Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator Mike Stoker.

How:

California has its own authorized hazardous waste program administered by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) within the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA).  In this case, however, the USEPA was the lead agency in conducting the inspection and assessing the penalties.  Though a state may have an authorized hazardous waste program, the Federal government may still exercise its authority within that state.

Conclusion:

Another example of how a big company, one with enough resources to be able to research the regulations and to comply with them, has failed to do so.  Don’t let your company make the same mistakes and pay similar fines.  My high quality Hazardous Waste Personnel Training, whether delivered Onsite or as a Webinar, will instruct you and your employees on what they need to know to comply with these regulations.  The cost of training is cheap compared to the cost of non-compliance.

More Information:

• Learn more about the terms of the settlement: https://www.epa.gov/ca/shell-martinez-refinery-martinez-ca-consent-agreement-and-final-order
• Learn more about EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement
• Learn more about EPA’s Pacific Southwest Region. Connect with us on Facebook and on Twitter.

The Bullet:

A major retailer reached a settlement with USEPA regarding violations of the Federal hazardous waste regulations.  In addition to correcting the violations the retailer must pay a civil penalty of $375,000.

Read the EPA news release:  EPA Announces Settlement with Macy’s over Hazardous Waste Violations 

Who:

The “major retail store chain” found in violation of the hazardous waste regulations is Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. (Macy’s).

Macy’s reached the settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 6 (South Central), which serves Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas and 66 Tribes with its main office in Dallas, TX.  Contact Information: Jennah Durant or Joe Hubbard / R6Press@epa.gov / 214 665-2200

Also involved was the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (OK DEQ).

What:

According to the terms of the settlement, Macy’s commits to the following:

• Correct all violations within one year
• Develop a program to train 400 retailers in Oklahoma and Texas.  Training content must be shared with Macy’s locations nationwide.
• Conduct third-party audits at eleven of its largest facilities in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and New Mexico.  Results of these audits will be shared with all other Macy’s facilities (more than 620 locations outside of EPA Region 6).
• Pay a $375,000 civil penalty within 30 days.

Where:

It is not clear from the news release but it seems likely that the initial violations were found in Macy’s locations in Oklahoma and Texas.  Corrective actions must be taken at all Macy’s locations nationwide.

When:

• News release dated 10.25.17.
• Period of violations extends from 2012 through 2015.
• Macy’s has 30 days to pay the civil penalty.
• Macy’s has one year to comply with all other requirements of the settlement.

Why:

Said EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt:

EPA takes hazardous waste regulations seriously, and we appreciate companies taking responsibility to correct violations. Appropriately managing hazardous waste from ‘cradle-to-grave’ is vital to protecting people’s health and the environment.”

Read:  What can a Hazardous Waste Generator do About Their ‘Cradle-to-Grave’ Responsibility?

EPA enforcement staff found Macy’s had violated the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the federal law that regulates hazardous and solid wastes, for several periods during 2012-2015. During these times, each Macy’s store identified in the settlement generated thousands of pounds of hazardous waste to qualify as a small-quantity generator but failed to notify EPA and state authorities. Macy’s also failed to meet the conditions for small-quantity generator status and did not complete appropriate manifests. Overall, Macy’s generated more than 269,168 pounds of hazardous waste from 2012-2015 for the 44 locations identified in the settlement.

How:

Even though Oklahoma has an authorized hazardous waste program administered by the OK DEQ, EPA took the lead on enforcement in this case likely due to the nationwide distribution of Macy’s facilities.  RCRA gave the EPA the authority to regulate hazardous waste from ‘cradle-to-grave’.  In this instance its agents found a hazardous waste generator (Macy’s) to be in violation of those regulations.

Conclusion:

From the news release:  Based on the average rate of hazardous-waste generation at the 44 stores involved in the settlement, EPA estimates that Macy’s may manage about 1.2 million pounds of hazardous waste nationwide per year.  You might not expect a retail store chain to generate such a significant amount of hazardous waste.  However, the fact of the matter is that many types of waste – hazardous, used oil, universal waste, and even non-hazardous waste in states such as Texas – are generated by businesses every day.  Maybe even your business.  If that’s so, you must identify the type and quantity of each wastestream, determine your hazardous waste status and then comply with the applicable regulations, both Federal and state.  I can help you with every step of this process.

The Bullet:

The Cherry Island Landfill, operated by the Delaware Solid Waste Authority was issued several Notice of Violations (NOVs) by the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) for several potential violations of the state’s Solid and Hazardous Waste Program.

Who:

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)

Delaware Solid Waste Authority – Cherry Island Landfill

What:

• Containers of hazardous waste were kept on-site past their accumulation time limit.
• Containers and above ground tanks holding used oil on site must be marked with the words Used Oil.
• A small quantity handler of universal waste must inform all employees who handle or have responsibility for managing universal waste. The information must describe proper handling and emergency procedures appropriate to the type(s) of universal waste handled at the facility.
• Universal waste container must be marked.
• A small quantity handler of universal waste must contain any lamps in containers or packages that are structurally sound, adequate to prevent breakage, and compatible with the contents of the lamps.
• Containers of hazardous waste must be marked with the words “Hazardous Waste” or with other words that identify the contents of the containers.

Where:

The Delaware Solid Waste Authority – Cherry Island Landfill is located at 1706 East 12th Street Wilmington, DE 19809

When:

• Date violations discovered:  September 21, 2015
• Date violations corrected:  Varies but no later than October 29, 2015
• Enforcement action served:  December 21, 2015

Why:

“It’s the mission of the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control to protect and manage the state’s vital natural resources, protect public health and safety, provide quality outdoor recreation and to serve and educate the citizens of the First State about the wise use, conservation and enhancement of Delaware’s Environment.”

Unfortunately education isn’t always enough and that’s why the DNREC issued NOVs in this case.  To the credit of the operators of the Cherry Island Landfill most of the violations were corrected in a matter of days and all of them within a little over a month.

How:

As a state with an authorized hazardous waste program, the DNREC has the authority to enforce state regulations for the management of hazardous waste, universal waste, and used oil.

Conclusion:

DNREC submits NOVs to the Delaware Solid Waste Authority for violations of state regulations that are, in turn, based on Federal regulations.  Whether your operations are private or public, you must comply with the hazardous waste regulations, state and Federal, created by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  One requirement of the hazardous waste regulations is that you provide training for those employees who work with or around hazardous waste.

The Bullet:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reached a settlement with the U.S. Army for alleged violations of its hazardous waste permit at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. As part of the settlement, the Army has agreed to pay $59,220 in penalties for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Who:

U.S Environmental Protection Agency Region 10.

Fort Wainwright, a U.S Army base.

What:

EPA alleges that the Army violated its RCRA permit by failing to notify the Agency when an old munitions and explosives dump was discovered within the Fort’s Small Arms Range Complex in June 2013.

The U.S Army paid $59,220 in penalties as part of the settlement.

Where:

The U.S Army base Fort Wainwright is located on the eastern border of Fairbanks, encompassing over 900,000 acres and includes a range complex, maneuver areas, missile sites, and a garrison.

When:

• EPA listed Fort Wainwright on the Superfund National Priorities List:  1990.
• Initial investigation of the site:  2013.
• Old munitions and explosives dump discovered within the Fort’s Small Arms Range Complex:  June 2013.
• Army required to notify EPA of its knowledge of the dump:  within 15 days.
• EPA learned of the dump in a technical memo from the Army’s contractor:  more than a year later.
• The Army conducted a partial cleanup at the site:  2015.
• Settlement announcement published by EPA: 12/08/2015
• The Army to conduct additional cleanup:  2016.

Why:

“Failure to notify EPA could have delayed and impeded our ability to ensure timely, appropriate actions were taken to protect people and the environment.” said Ed Kowalski, Directo of EPA’s Pacific Northwest Office of Compliance and Enforcement.

How:

Alaska does not have an authorized hazardous waste program under RCRA (neither does Iowa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, nor the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianna Islands), therefore the Federal regulations of the EPA are in effect and enforced by EPA.

Conclusion:

What I find interesting about this situation is that Fort Wainwright has a permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and does not operate as do most generators of hazardous waste: under the permit-by-rule regulations of 40 CFR 262 and elsewhere.  Their permit allows the base to do more with its hazardous waste, e.g. store it for greater than 90 days, perhaps but also comes with more strict responsibilities and is subject to more oversight by state and Federal agencies.

The other interesting aspect of this announcement is that the U.S. Army is subject to EPA regulations under RCRA.  Got that?  There is no exclusion from regulation under RCRA even for our armed forces.  (Last month I published an announcement of NASA’s alleged violations of RCRA).  If you’re curious about RCRA and its application to government agencies read this article:  Military Munitions, RCRA, and the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992.

Read the press release:  Army settles with EPA for hazardous waste violations at Fort Wainwright, Alaska

EPA Contact Information: Suzanne Skadowski, 206-553-2160, 206-900-3309

Learn more about EPA’s RCRA compliance and enforcement work at: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/waste-chemical-and-cleanup-enforcement.

The Bullet:

A hospital in Dover, DE was cited for multiple violations of state regulations by the DNREC.

Who:

Bayhealth Kent General Hospital.  A Large Quantity Generator of hazardous waste and a Small Quantity Handler of Universal Waste.

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)

DNREC Contact: Ferree, Melissa A

DNREC Contact Phone: (302) 739-9403

What:

A generator of hazardous waste and a handler of universal waste is subject to regulations (based on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or RCRA) for the cradle to grave management of that waste.

Where:

Bayhealth Kent General Hospital is located at 640 South State Street Dover, DE 19901

When:

Date discovered:  July 31, 2014

Enforcement Action served August 22, 2014

Why:

The hospital was cited for the following violations of state regulations based upon the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA):

• Containers of hazardous waste were not marked with accumulation start date.
• A list of personnel names and job titles was not maintained as part of the Facility Personnel training records.
• Copies of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest for off-site shipments of hazardous waste were not maintained for the required three years.
• Universal waste lamps were not contained in containers or packages that were structurally sound, adequate to prevent breakage, and compatible with the contents.
• Hazardous waste storage areas were not inspected at least weekly, and a written record of the inspections were not maintained for at least 3 years.
• Hazardous waste containers in a Satellite Accumulation Area were not marked either with the words “Hazardous Waste” or with the word “Waste” and a description to identify the contents of the container (e.g., Waste Acetone, Waste Solvent).
• Containers of universal waste batteries were not labeled/marked properly to identify the contents.
• A copy of all notices, certifications, waste analysis data and other documentation produced pursuant to the RCRA regulations were not retained on site for a minimum of three years.
• The exception report was not submitted to the DNREC as required when a signed copy of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest was not received by the generator within 45 days of it being shipped off-site.
• Hazardous waste (not in a Satellite Accumulation Area) was accumulated on-site for more than 90 days.  Accumulation of hazardous waste beyond 90 days requires a permit from DNREC.
• Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest was not prepared properly by the generator.
• Written job description not maintained as part of the training records for each employee handling hazardous waste.
• Waste containers and tanks were not labeled or clearly marked with the words “Hazardous Waste”.
• Hazardous waste in a Satellite Accumulation Area was not maintained properly.
• Containers of hazardous waste were not kept closed except for times when adding or removing waste.
• Generator did not have a RCRA Contingency Plan.
• Initial training not provided for all employees handling hazardous waste (ie. Facility Personnel).
• Annual hazardous waste report not completed and submitted.
• Hazardous waste determination not completed.
• Arrangements and agreements with local authorities for emergency services were not made.
• Hazardous waste generated on-site was offered for off-site transportation to transporters that had not received an EPA identification number and a Delaware hazardous waste transporter permit.
• Hazardous waste generated on-site was transported for disposal to treatment, storage, or disposal facilities (TSDFs) that have not received an EPA identification number.

How:

As a state with an authorized hazardous waste program the DNREC is the lead agency for the enforcement of state environmental regulations in Delaware.  Violations such as these can be discovered during periodic unannounced inspections of a hazardous waste generator.

Conclusion:

A long list of violations – and an unspecified amount of fines – were assessed for what are – for the most part – relatively simple violations of the regulations.  While only a few of the violations directly relate to the requirement to provide initial and annual training for all Facility Personnel, all of them are things that a generator of hazardous waste should know and are topics addressed in my Training Seminars.  Further, my Onsite Training includes a site inspection and informal consultation that would have revealed these deficiencies before the training even took place.  Consider a situation like this when you determine if Hazardous Waste Personnel Training costs too much.

Contact me for a free training consultation.

The Bullet:

US EPA announced the conclusions of enforcement actions against two hazardous waste generators in California’s San Joaquin Valley.  Fines paid by the two facilities total $75,200.  Read the US EPA press release:  U.S. EPA settles with two San Joaquin Valley companies to ensure safe handling of hazardous waste

Who:

WCR, Inc., a heat exchanger refurbishing facility.

B.C. Laboratories, Inc., a company that provides environmental testing services for commercial and government clients.

US Environmental Protection Agency – Region 9.  Media Contact: Nahal Mogharabi, 213-244-1815, mogharabi.nahal@epa.gov

What:

Alleged violations of WCR, Inc.:

• Failure to properly label and close hazardous waste containers.
• Failure to maintain a hazardous waste container in good condition, leading to minor leaks.
• Failure to minimize the possibility of unplanned releases by storing the leaking container in an outdoor, uncovered area.
• Failure to conduct required weekly inspections.

WCR has agreed to pay $34,600 to resolve these violations.

Alleged violations of B.C. Laboratories:

• Failure to properly label and close hazardous waste containers.
• Failure to provide adequate aisle space to allow unobstructed access by personnel and inspectors.
• Failure to submit a biennial hazardous waste report.
• Not following proper practices, posing a greater risk of hazardous waste releases into the environment.

B.C. Laboratories has agreed to pay $40,600 to resolve these violations.

Where:

WCR, Inc. is located in Fresno, CA

B.C. Laboratories, Inc. is located in Bakersfield, CA.

When:

WCR, Inc. was inspected by US EPA in March 2013.

B.C. Laboratories, Inc. was inspected by EPA in November 2012.

News release dated June 26, 2014

Why:

“Facilities that deal with hazardous waste are responsible for its safe storage and handling,” said Jared Blumenfeld, EPA’s Regional Administrator for the Pacific Southwest. “It’s vital to protect employees and nearby communities from the risks of accidental leaks and releases of harmful waste products.”

How:

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorizes EPA to oversee the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. Under RCRA, hazardous waste must be stored, handled and disposed of using measures that safeguard public health and the environment.

Conclusion:

In this situation the US EPA brought this enforcement action against the two California businesses and not the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA).  Whatever the enforcement agency (State or Federal), the RCRA regulations will be enforced.  I can provide the training you need to comply with both State (California’s hazardous waste regulations are more strict and more broad than those of the US EPA) and Federal regulations.

Contact me for a free training consultation.

For more information on the Region’s 2011-2014 Strategic Plan for the San Joaquin Valley, please visit: www.epa.gov/region9/strategicplan/sanjoaquin.html

The Bullet:

A chemical distribution facility in Roanoke, Va was ordered by an administrative law judge to pay a $612,339 penalty for multiple violations of federal and state hazardous waste storage regulations.

Who:

United States Environmental Agency (USEPA) issued the violations.

Chem-Solv, Inc. is the operator of the facility.

Austin Holdings-VA, L.L.C. is the facility owner.

What:

Alleged violations include:

• Storing hazardous waste in an open tank that did not have an engineering assessment or air emission controls.
• Storing hazardous waste for greater than 90 days without a permit.
• Failure to perform daily inspections of hazardous waste tanks.
• Failure to perform hazardous waste determinations on the wastes in the open tank, aerosol waste, and other wastes generated at the facility.
• Open hazardous waste tank had been improperly removed, without compliance with a RCRA closure plan.

The companies have a right to appeal the decision to EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board.

Where:

Chem-Solv, Inc. is located in Roanoke, VA

Austin Holdings-VA, L.L.C. is the facility owner.

When:

Judge’s opinion issued June 5, 2014

News release dated June 24, 2014

Why:

Violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), such as these are alleged, can threaten public health and the environment and require costly cleanups through improper storage and disposal of hazardous waste.  The enforcement of RCRA regulations by the USEPA can eliminate these threats.

How:

Despite the fact that Virginia has an authorized hazardous waste program (I find it interesting that there is no mention of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality in this release) and that the alleged violations include violations of State regulations, the USEPA is the primary investigation and enforcement agency for this case.

Conclusion:

Though not mentioned as an alleged violation, I would not be surprised to find that this facility has not completed the required training for Hazardous Waste Personnel.  High-quality Hazardous Waste Personnel training such as mine would have provided the information necessary to prevent the alleged violations. Contact me to provide this training or to answer any questions you may have about the RCRA regulations of the USEPA or your State.

View the press release:  Virginia Chemical Distributor to Pay $612,339 for Violations of Hazardous Waste Storage Regulations

Contact Information: Donna Heron 215-814-5113 / heron.donna@epa.gov

The Judge’s decision is available at: http://www.epa.gov/aljhomep/orders/2014/RCRA-03-2011-0068_Chemsolv_14-06-05_ID_Biro.pdf

The Bullet:

The DNREC issued an NOV (Notice of Violation) to a commercial composting company based on information it provided in its quarterly report and an inspection of the site.  Potential violations  include exceeding the facility’s limits for on-site storage of yard and wood waste and the presence of plastic bags at the site.

Who:

DNREC – Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (Delaware) – Solid & Hazardous Waste Program

Wilmington Organic Recycling Center is the location of alleged violations.

Peninsula Compost Company, LLC is the Owner/Operator of site.

What:

Alleged violations documented on the NOV:

1. Quarterly report showed that the storage limits for yard and wood waste overs exceeded the storage limits established in the BUD.  A Beneficial Use Project Determination, or BUD, establishes the limits within which a composting facility such as this must operate.
2. Acceptance of prohibited waste – non-compostable plastic bags.
3. Plastic continues to be abundant throughout Peninsula’s composting process with minimal effort to eliminate the contamination.
4. Prohibited waste, especially plastic residual waste from the screening process, was stored on the ground with no enclosure.

Where:

Peninsula Compost Company, LLC and the Wilmington Organic Recycling Center are both located in Wilmington, DE

When:

Violations were noted on May 5, 2014.

Enforcement action served June 26, 2014.

Why:

Though facilities such as this are not subject to the high level of regulation as a hazardous waste TSDF, they still must comply with State and Federal regulations designed to protect the environment.  It seems clear from the alleged violations of this NOV, that the presence of plastic in composted material is a concern of the DNREC.

How:

Under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) the management of solid waste that is not a hazardous waste is primarily the responsibility of the State and not the US EPA.  Delaware exercised this authority to ensure the protection of the environment and the related health and safety of its citizens.

Conclusion:

It’s not only violations of the hazardous waste regulations that can result in NOVs and fines.  If you ship your non-hazardous waste to a facility such as this, be sure to perform an audit of its operations to determine if it is compliance with State and/or Federal regulations.

Contact me if you have any questions about the management of hazardous or non-hazardous waste.