A Final Rule published in the Federal Register informs the regulated community that the USEPA will revise its regulations of the Hazardous Waste Management System under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to add a conditional exclusion from the definition of hazardous waste for carbon dioxide (CO2) streams that are hazardous.

Proposed Rule Published:  August 8, 2011

Final Rule Published:  January 3, 2014

Hazardous Waste Management System: Conditional Exclusion for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Pages 350 – 364 [FR DOC # 2013-31246] PDF | Text | More

Effective Date:  March 4, 2014 (more…)

On its website the US Government Printing Office makes a wealth of Federal publications available for review and download; one of these is the Federal Register.

Published by the Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the Federal Register is the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents.

See below for a brief summary of announcements in the Federal Register by the US EPA on the subject of Hazardous Waste and the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) of the US DOT on the subject of Transportation of Hazardous Materials.

The Federal Register is a great way to look down the road and see potential changes to the regulations long before they are put into effect (sometimes The Rulemaking Process takes years before a final rule is issued, if ever).  Knowledge of these potential changes provides you with several advantages:

• Additional time to modify your business operations to comply.
• Awareness of on what topics the regulatory agencies intend to focus their efforts.
• The ability to register your concerns, complaints, suggestions, etc. in order to modify the proposed rule before a final rule is issued.  It can be done, really!
• Make changes to your training program to account for changes that become effective before the next training cycle.
• Alert you to the need to re-train your employees prior to their next scheduled training cycle, if necessary.
• Keep you abreast of changes to the regulations that affect your business and/or your industry group.

Please note that this is my best effort to identify the relevant announcements in the Federal Register that may be of interest to generators of hazardous waste and shippers of hazardous materials.  I encourage you to review the list of Federal Register publications yourself to ensure regulatory compliance.

January 1 through February 7, 2014

PHMSA – Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR):

Rules and Regulations:

None

Proposed Rules:

None

Notices:

None

USEPA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA):

Rules and Regulations:

Hazardous Waste Management System: Conditional Exclusion for Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Pages 350 – 364 [FR DOC # 2013-31246] PDF | Text | More

Proposed Rules:

Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System; Electronic Manifests Pages 7517 – 7563 [FR DOC # 2014-01352]          PDF | Text | More

Notices:

Twenty-Sixth Update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Pages 654 – 658 [FR DOC # 2013-31568] PDF | Text | More

Information can be helpful but it’s useless if you are not able to make sense of it.  You must be able to determine how any changes to the rules and regulations (final or proposed) will affect your operations, and communicate the necessary information to your personnel.  I can help you to do that.

Please contact me for a free training consultation to determine your regulatory requirements and how training can help you to attain and maintain compliance with the regulations of the USEPA (and your state) and the PHMSA/USDOT.

Subpart D of 40 CFR 265 details the requirements for and the content of a Contingency Plan for a large quantity generator of hazardous waste (LQG) and for hazardous waste TSDFs.  In an earlier article I explained most of the requirements of Section 265.52 of Subpart D: Content of a Contingency Plan.  What I did not include in that article, and the subject of this one (the fourth in a series), are the options made available in §265.52(b) for the incorporation of the contingency plan into an existing plan, such as the SPCC, or the the development of a single plan (i.e., One Plan) to address all of a facility’s regulatory requirements.

The purpose of this article: identify and explain the requirements of 40 CFR 262.52(b) Options for Contingency Plan

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…)

The reporting season has begun for the 2013 Hazardous Waste Report, which this year is due on March 3, 2014.  You only have four weeks to finalize and submit your reports to the Ohio EPA detailing your 2013 hazardous waste activities.  Please consider submitting your report as soon as possible. High numbers of users can slow down the posting process online causing many delays during the last week prior to the due date.  This report is required of any facility that generated 2000 pounds or more of hazardous waste (or 2.2 pounds or more of acute hazardous waste) in any calendar month in 2013.

The only changes for the 2013 report are changes to some of the Management Method Codes and to the Waste Minimization Codes.  You can see a list of these changes on pages 2 to 3, 29 to 30 and 62 in the Hazardous Waste Report Instructions. If you are filing a paper report or importing data files make sure that you are using correct and up to date codes or your report will fail data validation.

If you are considering filing electronically for the first time please make sure that the facility’s Responsible Official has requested a PIN and then associated their account with the facility once that PIN has been activated.  These activities take time to complete and waiting until the last minute may result in a late submission.  The software has many features that help you prepare the report quickly and more accurately than on paper. The software allows the user to validate some of the information provided in the report which helps to reduce the possibility of violations. It also includes the ability to copy a previous year’s report as a starting point for a new report, even if you haven’t filed electronically in the past.

If your facility’s report was filed electronically for 2011 but there have been personnel changes, it’s time to have new users get eBiz accounts and/or PINs or terminate access rights for users no longer involved with the facility’s report.  For information on removing preparers or Responsible Officials, see “Changing Roles in eBiz” on the Report web page.

If you have any questions, including questions or concerns about getting started in eBiz, please contact:

Thomas Babb, Hazardous Waste Report Coordinator
thomas.babb@epa.ohio.gov

(614) 914-2527

View the 2013 Hazardous Waste Report Reminder from the Ohio EPA here.

If you are a Large Quantity Generator of hazardous waste you will be required to submit a hazardous waste report to your state or the USEPA either every other year (biennially) or annually.  In addition to submitting the hazardous waste report a Large Quantity Generator of hazardous waste must also complete initial and annual hazardous waste personnel training for all Facility Personnel involved in the generation, handling, management, disposal, treatment, or off-site shipment of hazardous waste.  Contact me for training or for a free consultation.

The primary exporter of certain wastes or materials outside of the US for disposal or recycling will require compliance with the applicable regulations in order to maintain a record of compliance.  Exported wastes/materials subject to these regulations are:

• Hazardous wastes
• Hazardous secondary materials
• Universal waste

Each has similar recordkeeping requirements that will be explained in this article.

(more…)

Just like every other state with an authorized hazardous waste program Kansas allows a generator to accumulate hazardous waste without a permit in what is known as a Satellite Accumulation Container.  Most states (Missouri and California being exceptions) will allow for the accumulation of hazardous waste in a Satellite Accumulation Container without being subject to the on-site accumulation time limits of a Large Quantity Generator (no more than 90 days) or a Small Quantity Generator (no more than 180 days).

However, Kansas also provides the option of managing your hazardous waste in what the Kansas Department of Environmental Health (KDHE) refers to as a Day Accumulation Container.

(more…)

Conducting a hazardous waste determination is a requirement for all persons that generate a solid waste, learn more:  The Hazardous Waste Determination.  The determination may be based on either or both of the following methods:  Process Knowledge or Analysis.  The regulations of the USEPA do not indicate which of these methods is preferred, however, many states with an authorized hazardous waste program will specify that they prefer (aka:  require) the hazardous waste determination to rely on the analysis of a representative sample of the waste whenever that is possible.  Some states will require that the lab used to conduct the analysis be a state approved or state certified lab in order for the results to be acceptable while others have no such requirement.

It is your responsibility as a generator of any waste, particularly a hazardous waste, to ensure the lab you use to determine the hazardous waste characteristics of your waste (eg. Ignitable, Corrosive, Reactive, or Toxic) complies with the following:

• Maintain its NVLAP accreditation.  Read here the difference between “certification” and “accreditation”.
• Use the USEPA approved test methods.
• Maintain its approval/certification with a state’s environmental regulatory agency (if applicable).

The following is an attempt to tabulate the lab certification or approval requirements of the 50 states and provide a link to each state’s list of approve labs, if applicable.  This list will be updated as the requirements of each state become known to me.  Please don’t hesitate to contact me with information about your state if you wish to see it added to this list.

And finally, this information is correct to the best of my ability and knowledge.  I make no guarantee of its correctness or completeness.  Be sure to check with the requirements of your state to ensure compliance. (more…)

So often the story I read from USEPA and state environmental agency press releases is one of greedy and careless business owners violating the environmental regulations in an attempt to make more money at the cost of the environment and public safety.  While I’m sure that image is sometimes correct it is also true that some business owners are simply unaware of the regulations they find themselves in violation of.  By the time they are made aware of the violations (let’s say they didn’t properly identify themselves as a hazardous waste generator, properly identify hazardous waste, and train employees on the company’s regulatory requirements), it may be too late.  Their awareness comes in the form of an agency inspection and a Notice of Violation.

Now of course we all know that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, but it is also hard to understand how a company and it’s owners can be punished for the violation of regulations of whose existence they were not aware.  That is frequently the case of those who attend my HazMat Employee and RCRA Training Seminars, they simply aren’t aware of the regulations and how they apply to them.

Also, while some actions are so egregious, eg. dumping hazardous waste out back or burning it, some seem relatively harmless and easy to fix without imposing a fine, eg. not labeling hazardous waste drums stored on-site.  Yet, in the eyes of the government (state and federal) these are both violations of the regulations subject to fines and penalties.

This appears to be the case with a New Haven, CT business owner that finds himself facing the closure of his business due to what seems to be innocent mistakes (Connecticut DEEP fines New Haven business for violations of RCRA regulations).  Now, I don’t pretend to know all the facts in this case, and it appears that the business owner may have shot himself in the foot by ceasing to cooperate with the CT DEEP (Read the State of Connecticut’s complaint).  Still, the question remains if this is an enforcement action that should have proceeded this far at all.  Perhaps a good-faith approach to resolve the issues by both the CT DEEP and the business owner could have protected the environment and saved this small business and its local jobs.

I don’t pretend to know all the facts in this case, but here is what I do know:  my high-quality training for Hazardous Waste Personnel could have prevented all of these violations.  My training, whether Seminar, Onsite, or Web-Based would have revealed to the business owner the regulations he is alleged to have violated and what he could have done to come into compliance quickly and inexpensively.

An added feature of my Onsite Training is that it includes a free walk-through of your site and a consultation on your regulatory compliance.  The information gathered during the walk-through is incorporated into the training materials along with options to attain compliance.  Often the fix to the problem, eg. labeling a hazardous waste container , is simple and easy.  Whereas the possible violations and fines can be devastating.

Contact me for the training you need, or for a free consultation.  I’m happy to answer your questions.

Release Date: 01/13/2014
Contact Information: Donna Heron 215-814-5113 / heron.donna@epa.gov

PHILADELPHIA ( Jan. 13, 2014) — Phoenix Color Corp. has agreed to pay a $45,000 penalty to settle alleged violations of hazardous waste regulations at its facility on Phoenix Drive in Hagerstown, Md., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today. 

EPA cited Phoenix Color for violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the federal law governing the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA is designed to protect public health and the environment, and avoid costly cleanups, by requiring the safe, environmentally sound storage and disposal of hazardous waste.

Following a November 12, 2012 inspection, EPA cited the company for RCRA violations involving hazardous waste stored at the facility, including spent non-halogenated solvents, corrosives and mercury-containing fluorescent bulbs.

The alleged violations included : 1) operating a hazardous waste storage facility without a RCRA permit or interim storage status; 2) failure to make a hazardous waste determination; 3) failure to keep hazardous waste containers closed; 4) failure to inspect containers in a 90-day storage area; 5) failure to provide annual hazardous waste management training; 6) failure to maintain hazardous waste management job descriptions; and 7) failure to prepare and implement a complete hazardous waste emergency plan. 

The settlement penalty reflects the company’s compliance efforts, and its cooperation with EPA in the resolution of this matter. As part of the settlement, Phoenix Color has neither admitted nor denied liability for the alleged violations, but has certified its compliance with applicable RCRA requirements. 

For more information about hazardous waste and RCRA, visit http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/index.htm

Read the press release here.

It’s no surprise to me that among the alleged violations this company faced is a failure to train its Facility Personnel per the requirements of 40 CFR 265.16.  Good training like mine will fulfill the regulatory requirements and give you and your employees the knowledge and the tools to prevent these kinds of violations while protecting the environment.

The cost of training and compliance is a fraction of alleged violations such as these.  Contact me now to discuss your RCRA training options.

Release Date: 01/13/2014
Contact Information: Donna Heron 215-814-5113 / heron.donna@epa.gov

PHILADELPHIA (Dec.. xx, 2013) — Warner Graham, LLP, has agreed to pay a $80,650 penalty to settle alleged violations of hazardous waste regulations at its industrial solvent repackaging facility in Cockeysville, Md., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today. 

EPA cited the company for violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the federal law governing the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA is designed to protect public health and the environment, and avoid costly cleanups, by requiring the safe, environmentally sound storage and disposal of hazardous waste.

Following an April 2012 EPA inspection, and follow-up investigations, EPA cited Warner Graham for RCRA violations involving solvent waste, which is a hazardous waste stored at the facility. The alleged violations involved several RCRA regulations, including requirements for hazardous waste monitoring and inspections, employee training, equipment and tank testing, equipment marking, secondary containment, contingency planning, recordkeeping and reporting. 

In addition to the $80,650 penalty, the company has agreed to perform a $24,550 project to install a less permeable floor beneath the product storage tank area. This project, which exceeds regulatory requirements, will help minimize the potential environmental risk in the event of any accidental releases from these tanks.

The settlement penalty reflects the company’s compliance efforts, and its cooperation with EPA in resolving this matter. As part of the settlement, the company has neither admitted nor denied liability for the alleged violations, but has certified its compliance with applicable RCRA requirements. 

For more information about hazardous waste and RCRA, visit http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/index.htm

Read the press release here.

Once again a facility faces significant fines and penalties for the violation (alleged) of the RCRA regulations.  It is not uncommon in a situation such as this where a list of violations is indicated, “…requirements for hazardous waste monitoring and inspections, employee training, equipment and tank testing, equipment marking, secondary containment, contingency planning, recordkeeping and reporting.” that one of the violations includes a failure to train Facility Personnel per the requirements of 40 CFR 265.16.  Initial and annual training of your employees will not only fulfill the requirements of 40 CFR 265.16, it will also teach them how to do their job in compliance with the regulations.  Thorough, high-quality training like mine will go even further, giving you and your employees the knowledge to find the potential violations of the RCRA regulations and the tools to fix them.  Good training saves you money and the head aches and bad press that goes along with violations.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me about the regulations of the USEPA or Maryland for the management of hazardous waste.