Please view this short Power Point presentation to learn why nuclear waste is not regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of the US EPA.

[slideshare id=14209025&doc=40cfr261-4a4-120907195211-phpapp01]

Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions.

The regulations of the US EPA include an exclusion from definition as a Solid Waste of Scrap Metal (as defined) being recycled.

[slideshare id=14407550&doc=40cfr261-4a13-120922224359-phpapp01]

Sometimes a PowerPoint presentation is the best way to communicate a specific aspect of the regulations.  Please don’t hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Pursuant to USEPA regulations in affect prior to May 30, 2017, at 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4) a large quantity generator of Hazardous Waste (LQG) must, among other things, comply with the training requirements of §265.16.  §265.16 is meant for permitted hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs), but the direct reference to it from §262.34(a)(4) makes it applicable to an LQG as well.

As of May 30, 2017 and the Generator Improvements Rule, the training requirement for facility personnel of an LQG are now found at 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7).

Therefore, an LQG must train and document the training per the requirements of this section for each of its Facility Personnel.  Training documentation must include:

1. Job title and name.
2. A written job description.
3. A written description of the type and amount of training provided; both introductory and annual refresher.
4. Certification that the training has been given to, and completed by, facility personnel.

Of the above, it’s the written job description that I will seek to clarify here.  I’ve been asked, “What does US EPA want for a job description?”  In reference to the job description, §265.16(d)(2) – now 40 CFR 262.17(a)(7)(iv)(B) – reads:

This description may be consistent in its degree of specificity with descriptions of other similar positions in the same company location or bargaining unit, but must include the requisite skill, education, or other qualification, and duties of facility personnel assigned to each position;

The Agency initially provides you with some freedom in determining what you will use to meet this requirement, “…may be consistent in its degree of specificity with descriptions of other similar positions in the same company location or bargaining unit…”  In other words, you don’t have to invent a Job Description from scratch, but instead can use a description similar to one already in use.

However, the next moment USEPA turns around and requires that your Job Description, “…must include the requisite skill, education, or other qualifications….” of your trained Facility Personnel, meaning:  the skill, education, or qualifications that are required for them to do their job.  Your Job Description must also include the, “…duties of facility personnel assigned to each position;”

And this from the preamble to the regulations when published in the Federal Register on May 19, 1980 (45 FR 33066):

…the only interest in the job descriptions of a facility personnel is to enable the Agency to determine if each person is receiving a level of training that is commensurate with the person’s duties and responsibilities.

In other words the role of the job description in the RCRA training record is to demonstrate to an Agency inspector that the training received is applicable to what the employee needs to know in order to do their job in compliance with the regulations.

Is USEPA going to bite your head off if your training documentation doesn’t exactly meet the above description?  I don’t think so.  I think the most important thing is to get the training done.  And then, ensure the training record includes some form of a Job Description that reflects the employees responsibility for handling hazardous waste.  I provide attendees of all of my training with a form to document its proper completion.  Contact me to discuss the training required for Facility Personnel and for HazMat Employees.

In a previous article I discussed the Used Oil Management Standard of the US EPA found at 40 CFR 279.  It allows you to manage a Used Oil according to a reduced regulatory burden even if it has the characteristics of a hazardous waste:

Characteristic Hazardous Waste:

• D001 for Ignitability
• D002 for Corrosivity
• D003 for Reactivity
• D004 – D043 for Toxicity

WITH ONE EXCEPTION you may not manage your waste according to the Used Oil Standard if any of the following are true:

1. The Used Oil is determined to be a listed hazardous waste per 40 CFR 261, Subpart D.  See below for guidance on how you may rebut the presumption of your Used Oil being a listed hazardous waste.
2. The Used Oil has been mixed with a Listed Waste.
3. The Used Oil has been mixed with a characteristic hazardous waste and the resulting mixture exhibits any of the characteristics of a hazardous waste.  However, if a D001 Ignitable hazardous waste is mixed with a Used Oil it may still be managed as a Used Oil even if the resulting mixture exhibits the characteristic of Ignitability.

Read more about Mixtures of Used Oil and Hazardous Waste.

The exception referred to above applies to a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) of hazardous waste.  What this means is that a CESQG may mix any hazardous waste (listed or characteristic) with a Used Oil and manage the resulting mixture as a Used Oil (fb 14627).  This exception is not available to Large Quantity Generators and Small Quantity Generators of hazardous waste.

If the mixture contains >1,000 ppm total halogens, then it is subject to the Rebuttable Presumption regulations of the Used Oil Standard.  In this case the Presumption may be rebutted by the demonstration that the mixture is an excluded CESQG Used Oil mixture subject to §261.5(j) and §279.10(b)(3).

So, can a CESQG combine all of its hazardous waste (listed and characteristic) with its Used Oil and manage the resulting mixture according to the reduced regulatory requirements of the Used Oil Standard?  Yes.  Do I recommend this practice?  No.  Your State Agency and your Used Oil recycler may not be too crazy about it either.  In the final, it is your decision and responsibility as the generator of the waste to determine the applicable regulations and to comply with them.  My training, both US EPA Hazardous Waste Personnel and US DOT HazMat Employee, will help you to identify the applicable regulations and what you must do to maintain compliance.

The RCRA regulations identify three status of hazardous waste generators determined by the amount of hazardous waste generated in a calendar month:

1. Large Quantity Generator (LQG) – Generates ≥1,000 kg of hazardous waste or >1 kg of acute hazardous waste per calendar month.
2. Small Quantity Generator (SQG) – Generates >100 kg but <1,000 kg of hazardous waste per calendar month.
3. Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) – Generates ≤100 kg of hazardous waste and ≤1 kg of acute hazardous waste per calendar month.

For many facilities their hazardous waste generation is routine enough that they are able to determine their hazardous waste generator status and then comply with the regulations of that status year after year.  For some facilities however, it’s not so easy; their rate of hazardous waste generation may vary from  month to month, as in the following example:  During a once every two years clean out of a storage tank, a CESQG that routinely generates < 50 kg/mo of spent acid generates 2,000 kg of a hazardous waste paint sludge all at once.  The US EPA foresaw this situation and describes such facilities as Episodic Generators of Hazardous Waste.  In the example the facility has two options:

1. Comply with the regulations applicable to an LQG for the tank clean out waste for as long as it remains on-site, but continue to manage the spent acid according to the regulations of a CESQG; assuming of course that the generator is able to keep the two wastes distinct and separate (RO 12602).
2. Manage all waste it generates in that month according to the regulations applicable to an LQG.

The management of hazardous waste at one facility according to two different standards may seem confusing, and may be more trouble than its worth however, it makes sense when you consider the spirit of the rule these regulations are based on:  The US EPA believes that an LQG should be held to a higher standard than a generator of less hazardous waste due to its higher potential for a significant environmental impact in the event of a release.  A distinct waste, generated at a lower rate, and kept separate from the higher-volume, higher-risk waste can be managed according to a less strict standard.  If, however, you are not able to keep the waste separate, then all of the waste must be managed pursuant to the regulations of the higher hazardous waste generator status.

In the preamble to the regulations that created the SQG status in 1986, the US EPA addressed this issue:

The Agency has always taken the position that a generator may be subjected to different standards at different times, depending upon his generation rate in a given calendar month (51 FR 10146, 10153 March 24, 1986).

The Agency goes on to state:

Thus, any non-exempt waste (referring to hazardous waste generated above the LQG threshold) that is generated during a calendar month in which the 1,000 kg/mo cutoff is exceeded is subject to full regulation until it is removed from the generator’s site.  If such fully regulated waste is mixed or combined with waste exempt or excluded from regulation or waste that is subject to reduced regulation under today’s final rule (the rule creating the SQG status), then all of the waste is subject to full regulation.

I added text in (parenthesis) in the above quote for clarification.

In addition, the RCRA Orientation Maual (EPA530-R-98-004) reads:

If a generator’s status does in fact change, the generator is required to comply with the respective regulatory requirements for that class of generators for the waste generated in that particular month.

I read it this way, If a generator’s status changes, the generator is required to comply with the respective regulatory requirements…

• for the applicable generator status,
• only for the distinct waste generated above the generator status threshold,
• in the calendar month the waste was generated and for as long as it remains on-site.

Of course, once the waste generated above the threshold is shipped off site for treatment, storage, or disposal, the facility may resort to compliance with its routine generator status.

Be sure to check with your State before you take advantage of this Federal interpretation of the regulations.  It is quite possible that your State takes a more strict approach to this aspect of the regulations.

Compliance with the regulations is tricky, this particular article was written to answer a question I received at training a while back.  It took me far longer to answer the question than I prefer, but I now feel confident that I understand this particular aspect of the regulations and will be better able to field related questions in the future.  At my training, both On-Site or Public Seminars, I pride myself on answering the questions of my clients.  Contact me and give me a chance to answer your questions too.

(Lenexa, Kan., Nov. 5, 2012) – Behlen Manufacturing Company, an agricultural and industrial product manufacturer, has agreed to pay a $59,996 administrative civil penalty to settle a series of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) violations in Columbus, Neb.

In addition to paying the civil penalty, the company will spend a minimum of $75,578 to install pollution reducing equipment as part of a supplemental environmental project.

According to an administrative consent agreement filed by EPA Region 7 in Kansas City, Kan., EPA representatives conducted a compliance evaluation inspection at the company’s Columbus facility in October 2009, and noted several RCRA violations. RCRA regulates the storage, handling, and labeling of hazardous waste.

“Behlen Manufacturing was cooperative throughout the negotiation process,” EPA Region 7 Administrator Karl Brooks said. “The innovative environmental project that Behlen will complete will turn wastes into a useful product and is an example of environmental stewardship for similar companies to follow.”

The violations at Behlen Manufacturing included failure to perform a hazardous waste determination, operating a hazardous waste storage facility without a RCRA permit, and failure to comply with universal waste requirements.

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

This article documents the fines paid by Behlen, but it can’t account for the loss to its good name by publicity of this sort.  Nor does it account for lawyer fees (you know lawyers were involved).  And yet, the cost for compliance is so low.  What would it take to prevent these violations from occurring?  Using the above news release as a guide, I say a few hours of documenting a hazardous waste determination, staying on top of hazardous waste accumulation dates through weekly inspections, and proper labeling and handling of universal waste.  I cover all of these topics, and a lot more, in my RCRA training (on-site or public workshops).  Contact me for a free consultation on your training needs and don’t let the next news release be about your company.

PHILADELPHIA (Oct. 18, 2012) — In a consent agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Maryland Air National Guard (MDANG), 175^th Wing, has agreed to pay a $75,000 penalty to settle alleged violations of hazardous waste regulations at its facility at 2701 Eastern Blvd., Baltimore, Md.

EPA cited MDANG 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.

The consent agreement resolves alleged violations discovered in an April 2011 inspection of the facility. According to EPA, MDANG stored hazardous waste for more than 90 days without a RCRA hazardous waste permit or interim status, failed to provide annual hazardous waste training to some of its employees for a three-year period, and violated RCRA rules on labeling and recordkeeping. The wastes involved in these alleged violations include lubricants, paints, sealants, cleaning solutions and adhesive wastes. These wastes are hazardous because they exhibited the characteristics of being ignitable, corrosive or toxic due to chromium, methyl ethyl ketone or other compounds.

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

Compliance with the RCRA regulations begins with training.  Contact me to learn just what training you need to ensure this doesn’t happen to you.

PHILADELPHIA (Oct. 25, 2012) — Sunoco, Inc. (R&M) has agreed to pay a $117,000 penalty to settle alleged violations of hazardous waste regulations at its former facility located at 4701 Margaret St., Philadelphia, Pa., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today. 

EPA cited Sunoco 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.

According to EPA, Sunoco violated RCRA requirements involving hazardous waste storage. The alleged violations related to storage of a hazardous waste (phenol sludge) without a RCRA hazardous waste permit; storage of a leaking spent lead-acid battery; and failure to keep universal waste lamps in a closed container.

The violations were discovered in an EPA inspection in September 2010. Sunoco subsequently sold this facility in July 2011. 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, Sunoco has neither admitted nor denied liability for the alleged violations, but has certified its compliance with applicable RCRA requirements.

Compliance begins with training.  Contact me for a free consultation of your training requirements for both hazardous waste and the transportation of hazardous materials.

PHILADELPHIA (Oct. 23, 2012) — The U.S. Navy has agreed to pay a $38,500 penalty to settle alleged hazardous waste violations at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, located at 22268 Cedar Point Road in Patuxent River, Md.

This settlement resolves alleged violations alleged by EPA of 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 EPA inspection, the U.S. Navy was cited for allegedly failing to determine whether waste was hazardous, failing to maintain aisle space to allow for the movement of personnel and fire protection equipment, failing to conduct weekly inspections of waste containers for leaks and deterioration, failing to mark each container with a date and whether it contained hazardous waste, failing to keep hazardous waste containers closed during storage, and failing to properly maintain leak detection and spill prevention equipment on underground storage tanks.

The violations were found in 11 buildings including: the public works transportation, the hazmat warehouse, the Webster field annex, hangar, fleet readiness center, and the materials lab.

The $38,500 settlement penalty reflects the Navy’s cooperation in resolving this matter. The Navy has certified its compliance with applicable hazardous waste requirements.

Compliance with the regulations begins with training.  Contact me for a free training consultation.

Are the military installations of the US Government subject to the US EPA regulations for hazardous waste derived from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)?  Read on…

Maryland Air National Guard Settles Hazardous Waste Violations at Baltimore Facility

PHILADELPHIA (Oct. 18, 2012) — In a consent agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Maryland Air National Guard (MDANG), 175^th Wing, has agreed to pay a $75,000 penalty to settle alleged violations of hazardous waste regulations at its facility at 2701 Eastern Blvd., Baltimore, Md.

EPA cited MDANG 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.

The consent agreement resolves alleged violations discovered in an April 2011 inspection of the facility. According to EPA, MDANG stored hazardous waste for more than 90 days without a RCRA hazardous waste permit or interim status, failed to provide annual hazardous waste training to some of its employees for a three-year period, and violated RCRA rules on labeling and recordkeeping. The wastes involved in these alleged violations include lubricants, paints, sealants, cleaning solutions and adhesive wastes. These wastes are hazardous because they exhibited the characteristics of being ignitable, corrosive or toxic due to chromium, methyl ethyl ketone or other compounds. (more…)

U.S. Navy Settles Hazardous Waste Violations at its Patuxent River Naval Air Station

PHILADELPHIA (Oct. 23, 2012) — The U.S. Navy has agreed to pay a $38,500 penalty to settle alleged hazardous waste violations at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, located at 22268 Cedar Point Road in Patuxent River, Md.

This settlement resolves alleged violations alleged by EPA of 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 EPA inspection, the U.S. Navy was cited for allegedly failing to determine whether waste was hazardous, failing to maintain aisle space to allow for the movement of personnel and fire protection equipment, failing to conduct weekly inspections of waste containers for leaks and deterioration, failing to mark each container with a date and whether it contained hazardous waste, failing to keep hazardous waste containers closed during storage, and failing to properly maintain leak detection and spill prevention equipment on underground storage tanks.

The violations were found in 11 buildings including: the public works transportation, the hazmat warehouse, the Webster field annex, hangar, fleet readiness center, and the materials lab.  (more…).

Many people are unaware that the US EPA’s hazardous waste regulations under RCRA apply to military installations of the US Government the same way they apply to any other business in the US.  The US EPA is serious about its mandate to protect the environment and will not hesitate to inspect, cite, and fine a military installation if it finds violations of the RCRA regulations.  The basis for US EPA ‘s authority over military installations is derived from the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992.  Read my article for a more thorough understanding of Military Munitions, RCRA, and the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992.

Whether you are a business or a government agency (Federal, State, County, or Municipal) you are subject to the hazardous waste regulations of the US EPA.  Compliance requires knowledge and the right tools to do the job.  Both of these, and a lot more, you can get from my training services.  Either in Public Workshops or On-Site.  Contact me for  your free training consultation.