In the previous article of this series I described the requirements of 40 CFR 265.31 – Maintenance and operation of facility.  That section was not filled with a lot of specific requirements but instead set a general performance standard to prevent a release of hazardous waste.

This article is the third 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.

The purpose of this article: identify and explain the requirements of 40 CFR 265.32 – Required equipment for generators of hazardous waste under the emergency preparedness and prevention regulations of 40 CFR 265, subpart C.

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…)

Unless exempted by regulation, in order to store hazardous waste onsite a generator of hazardous waste must either be a permitted Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility (TSDF) or comply with the Hazardous Waste Generator Standards of 40 CFR 262.  40 CFR 262.34 identifies the four Hazardous Waste Accumulation Units allowed a non-permitted generator  and the compliance requirements of each.  The purpose of this article is to describe the four Hazardous Waste Accumulation Units and summarize their regulatory requirements.

(more…)

Release Date: 04/08/2013

Contact Information: David Deegan, (617) 918-1017

(Boston, Mass. – April 8, 2013) – A packaging company has agreed to pay $484,900 in penalties to settle EPA claims that it violated numerous federal and state environmental regulations at its liquid and aerosol packaging facility in Dudley, Mass.

According to EPA’s complaint, filed in Sept. 2012, Shield Packaging Company, Inc. violated rules regarding hazardous waste management, chemical accident prevention, hazardous chemical inventory reporting, and oil pollution prevention contained in the Clean Air Act, the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Mass. Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.

EPA had alleged that Shield Packaging violated requirements in the Clean Air Act’s chemical accident prevention provisions by not fully developing and putting in place a risk management plan that adequately addressed processes that used extremely hazardous substances at the facility. The company also failed to submit a required inventory of all hazardous materials on site to emergency responders, and failed to fully implement an oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure plan, as required by federal law. Further, the company violated the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Management Regulations by failing to conduct hazardous waste determinations on wastes at the facility, failing to manage hazardous wastes in accordance with required federal and state management practices, and failing to implement an adequate hazardous waste management training program at the facility.

“Failing to carefully follow hazardous waste management, chemical accident prevention, and oil spill prevention requirements poses increased risks of exposure to dangerous substances for both humans and the environment,” said Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office. “Hazardous substances must be properly handled, stored and disposed of to ensure that the local community and first responders are not subject to unacceptable risks.”

Risk Management Plans help prevent accidental releases of substances that can seriously harm the public and the environment from short-term exposures. The plans also reduce the severity of releases that do occur. A company that fails to create and put in place this type of plan for an extremely hazardous substance can leave the public and environment at risk from accidental releases.

Hazardous chemical inventory reports required under the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act help protect emergency personnel and the community by making them aware of which hazardous chemicals are present at a local facility.

Oil spill prevention plans required under the Clean Water Act help prevent accidental releases of oil from reaching nearby waters, by requiring facilities that store significant quantities of oil to adopt certain measures and controls that reduce the risks associated with releases.

The company cooperated with EPA throughout its investigation, and since EPA’s inspections, the company has completed some work and pledged to complete additional work to fix the problems identified at the facility.

Note the absence of a Hazardous Waste Training Program.  I can’t say that my training services would have prevented all of these violations, but when you choose my Onsite Training Services, you get more than just training.  The day prior to the training I will walk the site with you to gather information for the next day’s training, but I also will share with you my 20+ years of experience with the regulations of the USEPA, OSHA, and the PHMSA/USDOT.

A small investment in training can help to prevent huge fines like these.  Contact me to arrange for the training you need.

PRESS NOTICE

BILL NETTLES
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
1441 Main Street, Suite 500 * Columbia, SC 29201 * (803) 929-3000
March 26, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT PERSON: James Leventis, AUSA
  James.Leventis@usdoj.gov                                    
  (803) 929-3172

  Dawn Harris-Young
Harris-Young.Dawn@epa.gov
(404) 562-8421

COLUMBIA – U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today that United States District Court Judge Cameron Currie approved a consent decree with Weylchem US, Inc. to resolve alleged violations of federal and state air, water, and solid waste pollution laws at Weylchem’s specialty chemical manufacturing facility in Elgin and its wastewater treatment plant in Lugoff.  Under the consent decree, Weylchem agreed to perform corrective action measures and to pay a civil penalty of $500,000, of which $175,000 will be paid to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. (more…)

Release Date: 04/02/2013

Contact Information: Ben Washburn, 913-551-7364, washburn.ben@epa.gov

(Lenexa, Kan., April 2, 2013) – Collis Inc, a manufacturer of metal racks and shelving brackets for refrigerators, has agreed to pay a $31,379 administrative civil penalty to settle several Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) violations in Clinton, Iowa.

In addition to paying the civil penalty, the company will spend a minimum of $91,809 to replace high-mercury fluorescent fixtures with low-mercury fixtures and bulbs, and complete a project to reduce the generation of hazardous solvent waste as part of a Supplemental Environmental Project.

According to an administrative complaint filed by EPA Region 7 in Lenexa, Kan., EPA representatives conducted a compliance evaluation inspection at the company’s Clinton, Iowa, facility in June 2010, and noted several RCRA violations. RCRA regulates the storage, handling, and labeling of hazardous waste.

“The penalty and injunctive relief required by this agreement remind not just Collis, but all businesses subject to RCRA, that fulfilling environmental-protection duties is part of their job,” EPA Region 7 Administrator Karl Brooks said. “The Supplemental Environmental Project is another element of the case that will help to further protect human health and the environment for the people of Clinton.”

The violations at Collis included failure to perform a hazardous waste determination, storage of hazardous waste without a RCRA permit, and failure to manage used oil and universal waste in accordance with applicable regulations. Collis is still addressing requirements from a RCRA Corrective Action Order filed by EPA in 1993.

By agreeing to the settlement with EPA, Collis Inc has certified that it is now in compliance with all requirements of the RCRA regulations.

RCRA training is a good way to ensure that these types of violations don’t happen to you.  Contact me to schedule the training you need in the format (Public Seminar, Onsite, Web-Based, or Self-Guided) of your choice.

EPA News Release (Region 7): Teva Pharmaceuticals USA to Pay $2.25M Civil Penalty for Air, Water, and Hazardous Waste Violations at Mexico, Mo., Facility
03/14/2013

(Lenexa, Kan., March 14, 2013) – Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. has agreed to pay a $2.25 million civil penalty to settle alleged violations of the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and the State of Missouri’s Air Conservation Law, Clean Water Law, and Hazardous Waste Management Law at the company’s facility in Mexico, Mo., the Justice Department, EPA and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources announced today.

 A 2007 inspection of the Missouri facility revealed violations of the CAA. The violations included failure to control emissions of hazardous air pollutants from wastewater and failure to comply with regulations designed to prevent leaks of air pollutants from equipment at the facility.

 In 2007, an EPA inspection found the Teva facility was discharging pollutants above permitted levels established by the City of Mexico’s Pretreatment Program, in violation of the CWA. In some cases, these pollutants were causing interference with the city’s ability to treat its domestic sewage, leading to pollutant discharges into the Salt River. A 2008 inspection found that Teva was discharging a green effluent that ultimately discolored a portion of the Salt River in November and December 2008.

 In 2009, an inspection by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources uncovered various RCRA violations. These violations included failure to determine if waste was hazardous, illegal storage of hazardous waste, failure to comply with labeling requirements, and offering hazardous waste for transport without a manifest.

 “This settlement penalizes Teva for multiple violations of U.S. environmental laws when it allowed excess emissions of hazardous air pollutants from Teva’s wastewater treatment facility and excess discharges of pollutants into the City of Mexico, Missouri’s wastewater treatment facility,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, the Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division. “The agreement is protective of human health and the environment because it requires Teva to offset its excess emissions, install modern equipment that will increase the recovery and reuse of hazardous pollutants and reduce air emissions, as well as enhance its leak prevention capability.”

 “With numerous violations over a period of years, Teva’s actions resulted in significant environmental damage to the air and water,” said EPA Region 7 Administrator Karl Brooks. “The penalty and injunctive relief required by this agreement send a strong message to Teva and others that businesses must comply with environmental laws.”

 As a result of this Consent Decree, Teva has certified that it is in full compliance with CAA, CWA and RCRA regulations.

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. (more…)

The Hazardous Materials Regulations of the USDOT/PHMSA contain specific requirements for the description of a hazardous material on a shipping paper, known as the Proper shipping Description.  One component of the Proper Shipping Description is the Basic Description; the purpose of which is to – just like the name implies – provide a basic description of the potential hazards presented by a material in transportation.  This article will explain how a change to the order of the Basic Description (effective January 1st, 2013) affects other responsibilities of a HazMat shipper and a possible source of confusion when using the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest for the transportation of a hazardous waste. (more…)

The USEPA identifies two broad categories of hazardous waste, which in turn are each further divided into four sub-categories:

1.  Listed hazardous waste (40 CFR 261, Subpart D).

• Non-specific sources (F-codes).
• Specific sources (K-codes).
• Discarded commercial chemical products, off-specification species, container residues, and spill residues thereof (P-codes & U-codes).

2.  Characteristic hazardous waste (40 CFR 261, Subpart C).

• Ignitability (D001).
• Corrosivity (D002).
• Reactivity (D003).
• Toxicity (D004 – D043).

For the Federal regulations of the USEPA and those of most states with an authorized hazardous waste program, those identified above are the only hazardous waste subject to “cradle to grave” regulation under Subtitle C of RCRA.  Some states, however, have exercised their authority to create their own state-specific hazardous waste; an example of this is Minnesota which created two additional characteristic hazardous wastes in addition to the four Federal characteristic hazardous wastes it also recognizes:

• Oxidizer (D001)
• Lethality (MN01)

This article will summarize the Minnesota-specific hazardous waste characteristic for Lethality.  Readers requiring more information than provided in this article should refer to a guidance document provided by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA):  The Lethality Characteristic – A Minnesota-specific hazardous waste characteristic. (more…)