PO Box 1232 Freeport, IL 61032

A Different Kind Of Training

A Different Kind Of Training

A Different Kind Of Training

North Carolina Used Oil Recycling Business and Owner Plead Guilty to Unlawful Handling of PCB-Contaminated Used Oil and Other Crimes

Benjamin Franklin Pass, 60, and P&W Waste Oil Services Inc. of Wilmington, N.C., pleaded guilty today in federal court in the Eastern District of North Carolina for violations of the Toxic Substances Control Act, as well as for making false statements and failing to pay several years of taxes, announced the Department of Justice’s Environment and Natural Resources Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of North Carolina.  The defendants admitted to, among other things, the unlawful handling of a toxic substance that resulted in widespread contamination.
The P&W facility in Leland, N.C., included a tank farm consisting of multiple tanks ranging from 20,000 gallons to 500,000 gallons.  The facility is located approximately 500 feet to the east of the Cape Fear River and a federally recognized wetland.As part of its business operations, P&W transported, processed and marketed used oil contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).  P&W received the used oil from small and large companies, such as automotive service stations, transformer repair companies and marinas.  P&W also conducted tank cleaning and waste removal.According to the charges filed in federal court in Raleigh, N.C., and information stated in open court, the defendants knowingly failed to comply with regulations covering PCB-contaminated used oil by unlawfully transporting, storing and disposing of used oil contaminated with PCBs.  Specifically, in July 2009, an employee transported waste oil containing fluid from five PCB transformers from a site in Wallace, S.C., to the P&W facility.  The investigation revealed that the waste oil was contaminated with PCB concentrations in excess of 500 parts per million.

“Enforcing our environmental laws is essential to protecting the health of North Carolina’s residents and their natural resources,” said Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.  “PCBs are well known to pose substantial risks to human health and the environment and must be handled responsibly and lawfully.  We will continue to vigorously prosecute those who ignore the laws Congress enacted in order to protect the people and the environment from coming into contact with this toxic substance.”

“This disregard of environmental protections resulted in significant contamination,” said U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of North Carolina Thomas G. Walker.  “The defendant’s conduct placed an economic burden on the United States and an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the citizens of North Carolina.”

Despite knowledge of the investigation into the defendants’ illegal handling of PCB-contaminated used oil, Pass and an employee of P&W (at Pass’ direction) continued to unlawfully dilute the contaminated used oil.  The mishandling of the PCB-contaminated used oil resulted in the wide-spread contamination at the site and other sites, resulting in millions of dollars in cleanup costs.

PCBs pose such an unreasonable risk of injury to human health and the environment that effective Jan. 1, 1978, Congress banned the production of PCBs and mandated that no person may distribute in commerce, or use any PCBs other than in a totally enclosed manner, and directed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to promulgate rules phasing out the manufacture of PCBs and regulating their disposal.

As part of the plea agreements, Pass agreed to pay $538,587, plus interest, in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service.  P&W agreed to pay restitution in the amount of $19 million as compensation to Colonial Oil and International Paper for the costs associated with the storage and proper disposal of PCB-contaminated used oil as well as any monetary losses associated with the illegal handling, storage and transportation of toxic substances.  P&W also agreed to a five-year term of probation and to take remedial action to address the environmental contamination at its facility in eastern North Carolina and other leased property in eastern North Carolina, including but not limited to, the proper treatment and/or disposal of PCB-contaminated waste oil.

Currently, efforts are underway to clean up the contamination at P&W’s facility in Leland, N.C., which has been designated a Superfund site by the EPA.  Superfund is the name given to the federal environmental program established to clean up the nation’s uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.

“The license to run a business is not a license to avoid paying taxes,” said Richard Weber, Chief, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Criminal Investigation. “IRS Criminal Investigation provides financial investigative expertise in our work with our law enforcement partners.  As today’s announcement shows, our skills support a wide range of investigations.  Pass’ plea demonstrates the strength of our collective efforts to enforce the law and ensure public trust.”

“The defendant’s failure to notify EPA of the presence and intentional dilution of PCB-contaminated fuel oil not only posed a risk to public health and the environment, but also demonstrated the level of disregard for the laws that were designed to protect us.” said Maureen O’Mara, Special Agent in Charge of Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) criminal enforcement office in Atlanta.  “Today’s guilty plea sends a clear message that the government will prosecute those who recklessly endanger the health of our communities and environment by ignoring the law.”

The defendants entered their plea before U.S. District Judge James C. Dever III of the Eastern District of North Carolina.

U.S. Attorney Walker and Acting Assistant Attorney General Dreher praised the efforts of the EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division and the IRS’s Office of Criminal Investigations and the U.S. Coast Guard’s Criminal Investigative Services for their diligent work in the investigation of this matter.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Banumathi Rangarajan of the Eastern District of North Carolina and Trial Attorney Shennie Patel of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division are the prosecutors in charge of the case.

The Used Oil regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) allow generators of certain wastes to manage them under a set of standards that are more relaxed than those for hazardous waste, the Used Oil Standard at 40 CFR 279.  This is allowed even if the Used Oil exhibits the characteristics of a hazardous waste:  Ignitability, Corrosivity, Reactivity, & Toxicity.  However, per 40 CFR 279.10(i) the Used Oil Regulations are not applicable if the waste contains PCBs at concentrations of 50 ppm or greater.  Wastes with PCB concentrations above the 50 ppm threshold may not dilute the waste in order to lower its concentration (as in this case) unless the dilution is specifically allowed at 40 CFR 761.

Though not regulated as a hazardous waste, the Used Oil Standard is a part of the RCRA regulations and does contain its own specific requirements to ensure compliance.  It is just one of the topics I cover thoroughly at my Hazardous Waste Personnel Training Seminars, Onsite Training, and Web-Based Training.

Photo of hazardous waste containers in a trailer

Missouri Man Sentenced for Abandoning Hazardous Waste – EPA Bulletin June 2013

On June 4, 2013, MICHAEL J. REDDING, JR., was sentenced to complete a three-year term of probation with a special condition of six months’ home detention. He also was ordered to pay $9,000 in restitution for clean-up costs.  Redding previously pleaded guilty to two RCRA violations stemming from the transportation and abandonment of hazardous waste. In early 2010, the defendant acquired equipment and assets from a bankrupt printing business.  In April, he directed a five-man crew to remove items from the buildings, including drums containing hazardous waste.  Those drums were then transported, without manifests, to another facility that was not permitted to store hazardous waste.  This case was investigated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division.  It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Dianna Collins.

Photo of hazardous waste containers in a trailer
Containers of hazardous wastes stored in this trailer prior to being abandoned by Redding
It is interesting to note that this activity as described above is a violation not only of the USEPA’s hazardous waste regulations, but also the Hazardous Materials Regulations of the PHMSA/USDOT.  The transportation of a hazardous waste without a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (or some other shipping paper in the case of a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator) is itself a violation of the HMR.  It is not mentioned in the article, but is safe to assume that the transportation of the hazardous waste included other violations of the HMR as well, such as:
  • No HazMat Labels or required markings on the containers identifying them as a hazardous material and a hazardous waste.
  • No placards on the truck though the quantity in the image makes it likely they were required.
  • No emergency response information or phone number provided to the carrier.
  • Incorrect segregation and securement of hazardous materials in the vehicle (just look at that picture!)
  • No HazMat Employee training for anyone involved in the transportation of the hazardous material/hazardous waste.  HazMat Employee training for the driver of the vehicle would also require Driver Training.
  • It is possible that a HazMat Safety Permit may be required (take this survey to see if it applies to you).
  • It is likely that registration as a shipper and a carrier of HazMat would be required (take this survey to see if it applies to you).

The transportation of a hazardous waste is subject to the regulations of both the USEPA (and your state) and the PHMSA/USDOT.  Violations of one Agency’s regulations could result in the violation of another’s, quickly compounding your violations, fines, and headaches.  Be sure you are in compliance with the regulations of both agencies, attend one of my Training Seminars, schedule Onsite Training, or register for my Web-Based Training.  No matter what you choose you will meet the training requirements of the respective agencies and you will learn what you need to maintain compliance at your facility year-round.

Energy Department settles with EPA for waste management violations at Hanford

Release Date: 07/01/2013

Contact Information: Mark MacIntyre, EPA/Seattle 206-553-7302/206-369-7999(cell) macintyre.mark@epa.gov

(Seattle – July 1, 2013) The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has agreed to improve waste handling practices and pay $136,000 in a settlement announced today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. According to the agreement, DOE allegedly operated several dangerous waste storage units without proper permit authorization and placed waste in a landfill before treating it. Instead, DOE treated the waste after placement, a violation of existing dangerous waste regulations

“Today’s agreement includes commitments by DOE to address these allegations and ensure that these units are properly managed,” said Ed Kowalski, director of EPA’s Office of Compliance and Enforcement in Seattle. “When handling mixed (nuclear and hazardous) waste, there’s no such thing as being ‘too careful’. Strict compliance with all dangerous waste requirements is the only acceptable path here.”

Inspections were conducted by the EPA National Enforcement Investigations Center in 2011, where inspectors focused on the facility’s Solid Waste Operational Complex. At this facility, radioactive and dangerous wastes are stored and processed prior to shipment to other locations for treatment and disposal.

Under today’s agreement, DOE will:

· Close eight dangerous waste storage units that EPA contends had not received proper authorization under the state dangerous waste permit.
· Submit closure plans for the eight units through a state dangerous waste permit modification request.
· Close, or request an extension to the time allowed to close, an additional two inactive dangerous waste storage units.
· Treat dangerous waste before disposal as required by state & federal regulations.
· Pay a penalty of $136,000, payable to the U.S. Treasury.

As a state with an authorized hazardous waste program under RCRA, Washington is able to create and enforce its own regulations in lieu of those of the USEPA.  A state’s program will be authorized as long as it is at least as stringent and as broad as that of the USEPA.  In this case the state of Washington refers to “Hazardous Waste” as “Dangerous Waste” which you will notice in the above news release.  Washington has other state-specific regulations that you must comply with if you wish to avoid fines and penalties paid by the DOE.

At my Seminar Training I will point out the differences between the USEPA and your state when possible.  For Onsite Training I will research your state’s regulations and provide an in-depth explanation of what is required for compliance.  Please contact me for a free training consultation.

Do Big Companies Know the Regulations?

Time and again when I’m assisting a company with regulatory compliance – either the Hazardous Material Regulations of the PHMSA/USDOT or the RCRA Hazardous Waste Regulations of the USEPA (or their state) – I’ll hear something like the following:

Company X shipped the hazardous material to us this way, so it must be OK for us to ship it out the same way.

or…

Company X always takes our hazardous waste/universal waste/used oil this way and they’ve never mentioned a problem.

or…

Company X is in the business of transporting this hazardous material/hazardous waste, they must be doing it right.

or…

Company X told me they’ve been doing it this way for years and they’ve never been fined or had a violation.

Sound familiar?

And as often as I hear comments like the above I’ll discover some egregious error made by a “Company X”, such as:

  • Incorrect sequence of the elements of a hazardous material basic description on a shipping paper.
  • Improperly placard vehicles.
  • Not providing annual training for Hazardous Waste Personnel.
  • Mistaken belief that the Hazardous Material Regulations of the PHMSA/USDOT don’t apply to their operations.
  • Improper or no labeling of hazardous waste containers.
  • Not providing triennial training for HazMat Employees.
  • Incorrect or no indication of a Reportable Quantity of a Hazardous Substance on a shipping paper.

I won’t name here the Company X’s I’ve come across, but believe me, they are common names that you would recognize.  They make mistakes just like smaller companies do.  And don’t expect your corporate-level EHS to always be correct either; another all-to-common statement I hear:

Corporate never told us anything about that!

The fact of the matter is that as a shipper of a hazardous material and/or a generator of a hazardous waste, the responsibility to comply with the regulations is yours alone.  The regulatory agencies – state or Federal – will hold you responsible for a violation of the regulations regardless of who may have told you to do it that way.  Make sure that your EHS programs (including hazardous material transportation) are based on the regulations and not what you were told by someone else or assumed to be true.

That is where my training comes in.  Not only do I tell you what is required to comply with regulations of the PHMSA/USDOT and the USEPA (or your state) but I also inform you of the source of that information, ie. the regulations themselves.  My training and all that tools and tips that come with it is a good start to ensuring compliance.  Please contact me to schedule HazMat Employee Training and Hazardous Waste Personnel/RCRA Training.

 

Environmental Enterprises cited for 22 violations after worker dies from burns suffered at Cincinnati hazardous waste treatment facility

US Labor Department’s OSHA places company in severe violator enforcement program

CINCINNATI – Environmental Enterprises Inc. has been cited by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration with 22 safety and health violations after a fire and explosion occurred at the Cincinnati waste treatment facility on Dec. 28. Two employees were severely burned by the fire, one fatally.

“Environmental Enterprises demonstrated a complete disregard for employee’s safety and health by failing to recognize and train employees on potentially dangerous interactions between materials being handled and tools in use,” said Bill Wilkerson, OSHA’s area director for its Cincinnati office. “Even after this tragic explosion, the company failed to immediately address procedures and ensure employees knew how to use appropriate personal protective equipment and properly handle hazardous waste such as sodium chlorate. OSHA is committed to protecting workers on the job, and educating employers about safety and health regulations.” (more…)

June 2013 – Announcements of Proposed Rules, Changes to the Rules, and Final Rules for RCRA & the HMR

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.

May 29 through June 26, 2013

PHMSA – Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR):

Rules and Regulations:

None

Proposed Rules:

None

Notices:

Safety Advisory: Compressed Gas Cylinders That Have Not Been Tested Properly

Pages 33891 – 33891 [FR DOC # 2013-13222]         PDF | Text | More

Hazardous Materials: Emergency Recall Order

Pages 34156 – 34160 [FR DOC # 2013-13354]         PDF | Text | More

USEPA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA):

Rules and Regulations:

Oklahoma: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revision

Pages 32161 – 32165 [FR DOC # 2013-12712]        PDF | Text | More

North Carolina: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions

Pages 35766 – 35769 [FR DOC # 2013-13850]         PDF | Text | More

Proposed Rules:

Oklahoma: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions

Pages 32223 – 32224 [FR DOC # 2013-12711]         PDF | Text | More

North Carolina: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions

Pages 35837 – 35837 [FR DOC # 2013-13847]         PDF | Text | More

Notices:

None

Information can be helpful but it’s useless if you are not able to make sense of it, 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 do that.  Please contact me for a free consultation to determine your regulatory requirements and how training can help you to attain and maintain compliance.

RCRA Exclusions from the Definition of Solid Waste @ 40 CFR 261.4(a)

The regulations of the USEPA include exclusions from the definition of solid waste for certain discarded materials.  This exclusion is limited to specific industries, processes, and chemicals identified by regulation.  This exclusion is important since if a discarded material is not a solid waste, then it can’t be regulated as a hazardous waste, even if it matches the description of a listed hazardous waste or exhibited the characteristics of a hazardous waste.

This article is meant to serve as an introduction and a starting point for all of the exclusions of §261.4(a).  Below are links to articles which themselves are Power Point presentation previously uploaded to SlideShare and later posted on my blog.  As of May 2013 I am still a long way from completion, but be patient, I’ll eventually get to them all. If you are not patient, then contact me with a request, I’ll do my best to accommodate your wishes as soon as I can by posting another blog post/SlideShare Upload.

40 CFR 261.4(a)…

(1) Domestic sewage.  Or, view with narration and animation as an Office Mix

(2) Industrial wastewater discharges.

(4) Source, special nuclear or by-product material as defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.

(5) Materials subjected to in-situ mining techniques which are not removed from the ground as part of the extraction process.

(6) Pulping liquors ( i.e., black liquor) that are reclaimed in a pulping liquor recovery furnace and then reused in the pulping process.

(7) Spent sulfuric acid used to produce virgin sulfuric acid.

(8) Secondary materials that are reclaimed and returned to the original process or processes in which they were generated where they are reused in the production process.

(9) Spent wood preserving solutions that have been reclaimed and are reused for their original intended purpose.

(10) Coke by-product waste.

(11) Non-wastewater splash condenser dross residue.

(12) Hazardous oil-bearing secondary materials and recovered oil from petroleum refining operations.

(13) Excluded scrap metal being recycled.

(14) Shredded circuit boards being recycled.

(15) Condensates from Kraft Mill steam strippers.

(16) Comparable fuels or comparable syngas fuels.

(17) Mineral processing spent materials.

(18) Petrochemical recovered oil.

(19) Spent caustic solutions from petroleum refining.

(20) Zinc fertilizers made from recycled hazardous secondary materials.

(21) Zinc fertilizers made from recycled hazardous secondary materials excluded under 261.4(a)(20).

(22) Used cathode ray tubes.

(23) The Generator-Controlled Exclusion. (revised by the 2015 Definition of Solid Waste Rule)

(24) The Verified Recycler Exclusion. (revised by the 2015 Definition of Solid Waste Rule). Or, view with narration and animation as an Office Mix.

(25) Reclamation of hazardous secondary material outside the US.

(26) Solvent-contaminated wipes sent for laundering and reuse.

(27) Remanufacturing Exclusion for Spent Solvents.  (revised by the 2015 Definition of Solid Waste Rule)

RCRA Exclusions From the Definition of Hazardous Waste @ 40 CFR 261.4(b)

The regulations of the USEPA include exclusions from the definition of hazardous waste for certain discarded materials.  This exclusion is limited to specific industries, processes, and chemicals identified by regulation.  This exclusion is important since if a discarded material is not a hazardous waste it is not subject to complicated and expensive regulation under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

This article is meant to serve as an introduction and a starting point for all of the exclusions of §261.4(b).  Below are links to articles which themselves are Power Point presentation previously uploaded to SlideShare and later posted on my blog.  As of June 2013 I am still a long way from completion, but be patient, I’ll eventually get to them all. If you are not patient, then contact me with a request, I’ll do my best to accommodate your wishes as soon as I can by posting another blog post/SlideShare Upload.

40 CFR 261.4(b)…

(1) Household waste.

(2) Agricultural waste.

(3) Mining overburden.

(4) Fossil fuel combustion waste.

(5) Oil, gas, or geothermal exploration & production wastes.

(6) Trivalent chromium wastes.

(7) Mining and mineral processing waste.

(8) Cement kiln dust.

(9) Arsenic-treated wood.

(10) Petroleum-contaminated waste from underground storage tanks.

(11) Petroleum-contaminated injected groundwater.

(12) Used chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants.

(13) Non-terne plated used oil filters.

(14) Used oil re-refining distillation bottoms that are used as feedstock to manufacture asphalt products.

(15) Leachate or gas condensate collected from landfills where certain solid wastes have been disposed.

(16) [Reserved]

(17) Solid waste that would otherwise meet the definition of low-level mixed wastes (LLMW) pursuant to §266.210 of this chapter that is generated at the Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. (OMP Spring House) research and development facility in Spring House, Pennsylvania and treated on-site using a bench-scale high temperature catalytic oxidation unit [expired June 27, 2010].

(18) Solvent-contaminated wipes, except for wipes that are hazardous waste due to the presence of trichloroethylene, that are sent for disposal.

The Used Oil Filter Exclusion from Regulation as a Hazardous Waste @ 40 CFR 261.4(b)(13)

40 CFR 261.4(b)(13) excludes non-terne plated used oil filters, a solid waste, from regulation as a hazardous waste if the requirements of the regulations are met. This presentation briefly summarizes the requirements of this RCRA exclusion from regulation.

[slideshare id=23436403&doc=40cfr261-4b13-130624212730-phpapp01]

The Hazardous Waste Determination for a Waste that Changes from Non-Hazardous to Hazardous

A generator of any solid waste is required to complete a hazardous waste determination according to the procedure at 40 CFR 262.11.  This determination is typically made at the point of generation, ie., at the moment the solid waste is first generated.  However, a generator’s responsibility to complete the hazardous waste determination may continue beyond the initial point of generation if the solid waste may later undergo a chemical or physical change. (more…)