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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you generate used or spent lamps at your facility and wish to crush them as a means to reduce the volume and related transportation and disposal costs, you must consider the applicable regulations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act as enforced by both the USEPA and your state.  In an earlier article I summarize the options available to a facility that generates spent or used lamps and wishes to consider crushing them prior to off-site disposal.

If you intend to crush lamps with a Drum Top Crusher (DTC), either as a form of hazardous waste treatment or as a universal waste management activity allowed by your state, you must also consider OSHA’s regulations regarding employee exposure to airborne mercury.  A study published by USEPA in August of 2006 reported on the mercury emissions from four different DTC’s, the study’s conclusions:

• Measurable concentrations of mercury were detected in the air, but all three of the devices usually maintained mercury levels below the OSHA permissible exposure level (PEL) within the structure and in the operator breathing zone.
• DTC devices must be operated optimally to achieve low exposures.  Emissions were higher with even minor mistakes in DTC assembly or operation.  An external mercury monitor and alarm were usually needed to determine when mercury was not being contained.
• The risk of mercury exposure is increased when full drums are being replaced with empty ones and the full drums are being fitted with shipping lids.
• Performance of DTC’s may change over the lifetime of the device.

If crushing your lamps makes financial sense for you and you wish to pursue it further, I recommend you review the USEPA guidance document:  Fluorescent Lamp Recycling (EPA530-R-09-001) as it contains helpful information regarding the use of DTC’s.

While initially attractive, in my opinion the crushing of lamps by most facilities in most states is not worth the added regulatory burden.  However, this is something you must decide for yourself.  I hope the information presented in this article will assist you in your decision.  Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions about Universal Waste, hazardous waste, or the transportation of hazardous materials.

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.

April 31 through May 28, 2013

PHMSA – Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR):

Rules and Regulations:

None

Proposed Rules:

5.9.13  Regulatory Flexibility Act Review Pages 27169 – 27171 [FR DOC # 2013-10897] PDF | Text | More

5.22.13  Hazardous Materials: Enhanced Enforcement Procedures-Resumption of Transportation Pages 30258 – 30266 [FR DOC # 2013-12123] PDF | Text | More

Notices:

None

USEPA – Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA):

Rules and Regulations:

5.2.13  Georgia: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions Pages 25579 – 25582 [FR DOC # 2013-10408] PDF | Text | More

Proposed Rules:

5.2.13  Georgia: Final Authorization of State Hazardous Waste Management Program Revisions Pages 25678 – 25679 [FR DOC # 2013-10406 ] 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.

The Universal Waste regulations of the USEPA (40 CFR 273) identify the following as potential hazardous wastes that may be managed as a Universal Waste:

• Batteries
• Lamps
• Mercury-containing devices
• Recalled or cancelled pesticides
• Aerosol cans (as of February 07, 2020)

As authorized under Subchapter G of Part 273, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has successfully petitioned the USEPA to add the category of Paint and Paint-Related Waste (PPRW) to the four Federal Universal Waste already recognized in Texas.  The regulations explaining TCEQ’s Universal Waste Rule may be found at 30 TAC 335.261 & 335.262. (more…)

40 CFR 262.20(a)(1) mandates the use of a manifest (EPA form 8700-22) for a generator who transports or offers for transport a hazardous waste for offsite treatment, storage, or disposal.  §262.40(a) requires a generator to keep a copy of the signed manifest as a record for three (3) years. (more…)

On March 12, 2013, NORMAN TELTOW, owner of Gold Metal Paint Co. LLC (GMP), pleaded guilty in federal district court in Denver to a criminal information charging him with illegally treating hazardous waste at the company’s facility.  Teltow, who will be sentenced on June 10, 2013, faces a maximum sentence of five years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and three years of supervised release.

Teltow operated GMP out of a hangar near the Front Range Airport in Watkins, Colo. GMP was primarily in the business of painting small aircraft.  During the course of its business, GMP created hazardous waste in the form of spent methylene chloride-based solvents mixed with paint waste.  Methylene chloride, a listed hazardous waste, is both ignitable and toxic. Moreover, exposure to methylene chloride can cause skin irritation, headache, dizziness, nausea, and vomiting.  Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, GMP was required to use a licensed waste management company to transport the hazardous waste to a licensed facility for disposal.  To avoid the costs associated with proper disposal, Teltow directed GMP employees to store the spent solvents in an underground tank below the facility, knowing that it was illegal to store the waste in that manner.

When the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) became aware that Teltow and GMP were storing hazardous waste in an underground tank, the agency conducted an inspection and ordered Teltow to hire a licensed waste management company to pump the waste out of the tank and dispose of it properly. CDPHE further ordered that the tank be cleaned, that the trench drain leading to the underground tank be sealed, and that GMP use a licensed waste management company to transport all hazardous waste in the future.  In response to CDPHE’s orders, Teltow hired a licensed waste management company to pump out the tank, and sealed off the trench drain to the underground tank. However, rather than hire a licensed waste management company to clean out the tank, Teltow ordered subordinate employees to clean out the tank without the benefit of any personal protective equipment.  The employees were exposed to hazardous waste containing methylene chloride, and suffered from headaches, dizziness, and nausea.

Teltow then devised a new plan for treating GMP’s hazardous waste by “evaporating” it into the atmosphere.  Teltow ordered subordinate GMP employees to pour the hazardous waste onto the floor of the hangar at the end of the work day.  Workers would then leave the hangar doors ajar and allow the methylene-chloride waste to  evaporate.  Teltow knew that it was illegal to treat the hazardous waste in this manner.  When Teltow’s “evaporation” method was unsuccessful at treating all of the waste that GMP accumulated, Teltow drilled open the trench drain so that the waste could again flow into the underground tank.

The investigation was conducted by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division, with assistance from inspectors at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and CDPHE.  The case was prosecuted by James B. Nelson of the Department of Justice’s Environmental Crimes Section.

A generator of any waste is required to determine if it is a hazardous waste by conducting a Hazardous Waste Determination.  Hazardous waste must then be managed and disposed of according to the RCRA regulations based on your hazardous waste generator status.  The on-site treatment of hazardous waste, even a listed hazardous waste, is allowed, as long as it is done properly and in compliance with the regulations.  Four hours of hazardous waste training along with four more hours of HazMat Employee training required by the USDOT will give you the knowledge and the tools to ensure compliance at your facility.

In the previous article of this series I described the requirements of 40 CFR 265.33 – Testing & Maintenance of Equipment.  That section of Part 265 specified what was required of a large quantity generator (LQG) or a small quantity generator (SQG) of hazardous waste to assure the proper operation of its required emergency equipment.

The purpose of this article: identify and explain the requirements of 40 CFR 265.34 – Access to communications or alarm systems for generators of hazardous waste under the emergency preparedness and prevention regulations of 40 CFR 265, subpart C.  This article is the fifth in a series that will look closely at each section of 40 CFR 265, Subpart C and explain its requirements, how they apply to generators of hazardous waste, and what is required for compliance.  Keep in mind that the regulations of your State may differ from these Federal regulations.

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…)

From the USEPA Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training

Environmental Crimes Case Bulletin for March 2013

On March 25, 2013, MARK JEFFREY GLOVER was sentenced in federal district court for the Eastern District of Michigan to 30 months in prison and a $10,000 fine.  His company, DISCOUNT COMPUTERS, INC. (DCI), was fined 2 million dollars, including $10,839 in restitution to Michigan landlord, for trafficking in counterfeit goods and services.  DCI was also sentenced for storing and disposing of hazardous waste without a permit.  Glover pleaded guilty to the charges on his behalf and that of his company in October 2012.
DCI, headquartered in Canton, Michigan, with warehouses in Maryland Heights, Mo., and Dayton, N.J., operated as a broker of used electronic components, including computers and televisions.  DCI resold working and disassembled broken items, selling them for scrap. A large part of DCI’s business involved exporting used cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors to countries in the Middle East and Asia.  Egypt prohibits the importation of computer equipment more than five years old.  To evade this, all three DCI locations replaced the original factory labels on used CRT monitors with counterfeit labels, which reflected a more recent manufacture date.  Over a five-year period, DCI sent at least 300 shipments to Egypt, with a total shipment value of at least $2.1 million, constituting more than 100,000 used CRTs monitors.  Under federal law it is illegal to knowingly use a counterfeit mark on or in connection with goods and services for the purpose of deceit or confusion.

It is also illegal to store and dispose of hazardous waste, which includes certain electronic waste, or e-waste, without a permit.  Glass from older CRT monitors is known to contain levels of lead, a known toxic hazardous waste. When deposited in landfills, the lead can leach out and contaminate drinking water supplies.  These CRT monitors are required to be disposed of as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  By exporting older CRTs with fraudulent manufacture dates, Mark Jeffrey Glover sent a large quantity of older e-waste overseas, thus subjecting it to improper recycling, increasing the potential for environmental and human exposure to hazardous materials.

E-waste disposal is a global concern.  Used electronic equipment contains more than 1,000 different substances, including toxic heavy metals and organics that, if disposed of improperly, can cause significant pollution problems.  Improper e-waste disposal is common in third world and developing countries because they are ill equipped to conduct safe, appropriate recycling, refurbishing, and disposal.  It is also common in these countries to find black-market recycling groups that extract valuable metals from e-waste without regard for the safety of their impoverished employees who are exposed directly to toxic materials.

This case was investigated by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division and U.S. Department of Homeland Security–Homeland Security Investigations, Detroit. It was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Michigan by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Blackwell.

Is your e-waste and e-scrap being handled and disposed of properly?  Have you performed an audit of your e-waste recycling company?  Do you know their status?  It is important to be aware that even commonplace items like a computer can be a hazardous waste if not recycled properly.  Proper training for you and your employees will help to raise awareness of this and other regulatory concerns of hazardous waste generators.

From the USEPA Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training

Environmental Crimes Case Bulletin for March 2013

On March 28, 2013, TONAWANDA COKE CORPORATION (TCC) was convicted by a federal jury in federal district court for the Western District of New York of 11 counts of violating the Clean Air Act and three counts of violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  In addition, Tonawanda Coke Environmental Control Manager, MARK L. KAMHOLZ, of West Seneca, N.Y., was found guilty of 11 counts of violating the Clean Air Act, one count of obstruction of justice and three counts of violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  The charges carry a maximum combined penalty up to 75 years in prison and fines in excess of $200 million.  Sentencing is scheduled for July 15, 2013.

The offenses related to the release of coke oven gas containing benzene into the air through an unreported pressure relief valve. In addition, a coke-quenching tower was operated without baffles, a pollution control device required by TCC’s Title V Clean Air Act permit designed to reduce the particulate matter that is released into the air during coke quenches.  In addition, prior to an inspection conducted by EPA in April of 2009, Kamholz told another TCC employee to conceal the fact that the unreported pressure relief valve, during normal operations, emitted coke oven gas directly into the air, in violation of the TCC’s operating permit. The defendants also stored, treated and disposed of hazardous waste without a permit to do so, in violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. These offenses related to TCC’s practice of mixing its coal tar sludge, a listed hazardous waste that is toxic for benzene, on the ground in violation of hazardous waste regulations.  The case was investigated by EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division and investigators of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Police.

[slideshare id=20771793&doc=idmanagementofuniversalwaste-130507234815-phpapp01]