Release Date: 09/24/2012

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

(Kansas City, Kan., Sept. 24, 2012) – Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc., a veterinary health products company, has agreed to pay a $68,475 civil penalty to the United States to settle a series of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act violations based on its mishandling of mercury waste in St. Joseph, Mo.

In addition to paying the civil penalty, the company will spend a minimum of $300,000 to build a state-of-the art hazardous waste storage facility at the site as part of a supplemental environmental project.

According to an administrative consent agreement and final order filed by EPA Region 7 in Kansas City, Kan., EPA representatives inspected the company’s St. Joseph facilities in May 2010, and noted several violations of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which regulates hazardous waste. Boehringer generates mercury as part of its vaccine production process.

“The proper handling and management of hazardous waste is an integral part of protecting human health and the environment,” EPA Region 7 Administrator Karl Brooks said. “In the event of an accidental release on site or while in transport, proper labeling, storing, and management practices can help reduce the risk of exposure to hazardous material by response personnel as well as reduce risk to public health by identifying the necessary and proper cleanup methods.”

The violations included failure to perform hazardous waste determinations on multiple waste streams, storing hazardous wastes without a RCRA permit, failing to comply with generator requirements, sending hazardous waste containing mercury to a non-authorized facility, transporting hazardous waste without a hazardous waste transporter license or manifest, failure to comply with universal waste lamp requirements, and failure to comply with recycled used oil management standards.

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

Proper training is the answer to the question, “How can I avoid these violations?”  Contact me to receive the training you need to learn what you need to know to maintain compliance.

Contact Information: Hanady Kader, EPA Public Affairs, 206-553-0454, kader.hanady@epa.gov Jack Boller, EPA RCRA Unit, 206-553-2953, boller.jack@epa.gov

(Seattle—Sept. 14, 2012) The Kenai Peninsula Borough has agreed to construct a building to store hazardous waste following violations of federal waste management rules at its maintenance facility in Soldotna, Alaska, according to a settlement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

“Proper hazardous waste management prevents costly, dangerous spills and keeps communities safe,” said Scott Downey, Manager of the Hazardous Waste Compliance Unit in EPA’s Seattle office. “We’re glad that the shop will soon have a building where it can manage hazardous waste more effectively.”

An EPA inspection in 2009 identified hazardous waste violations. The facility failed to determine if waste it was managing was hazardous waste, and failed to label containers of hazardous waste and used oil waste. The substances included paint thinners, kerosene and a mix of solvent and anti-freeze. The improperly labeled containers ranged in size from two-gallon containers to a 300-gallon tank.

The borough offered to construct the building to store hazardous waste as a way to mitigate the penalty EPA sought to address the violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Under the settlement, the borough will construct and operate the building and pay a penalty of nearly $12,800.

Good training, my training, serves several purposes.  It will fulfill the training requirements of the US EPA for large quantity generators of hazardous waste and it will inform you of the applicable regulations and what you must do to maintain compliance.  Good training, my training, will reduce or eliminate the potential for this type of violations and fines.  Contact me to determine the kind of training that is right for you.

Flash Point is a term used by the US EPA when characterizing an Ignitable Hazardous Waste and the US DOT when classifying a Flammable or Combustible Liquid.  Though similar, there are differences in how these two Federal agencies define and describe this term.  If you work with solvent, inks, paints, resins, fuels, or many other organic hydrocarbons it is necessary for you to be familiar with how both the US DOT and the US EPA identify this term and its role in identifying a hazardous material or a hazardous waste.  The purpose of this article is to describe the use of the Flash Point for determining an Ignitable Liquid Characteristic Hazardous Waste per the regulations of the US EPA.  You may also be interested in the US DOT’s use of Flash Point for the Classification of a Class 3 Flammable or Combustible Liquid.

Unlike the DOT’s definition of Flash Point and its precise instructions about which method to use to determine it depending on the conditions of the sample (see link above), the US EPA offers no definition of what is meant by Flash Point and takes little time in 40 CFR 261.21 to list the test methods for determining Flash Point, they are…

1. Pensky-Martens Closed Cup Tester using the test method specified in ASTM Standard D-93-79 or D-93-80 (incorporated by reference, see Section 260.11).
2. Seta flash Closed Cup Tester, using the test method specified in ASTM Standard D-3278-78 (incorporated by reference, see Section 260.11).
3. An equivalent test method approved by the US EPA under procedures set forth in Section 260.20 and 260.21.

These are just the regulations of the US EPA pertaining to the determination of one type of hazardous waste:  Ignitable Liquids.  There are many more, and you must be familiar with all of them if you generate hazardous waste.  My one day of training addresses the regulations of both the US DOT and the US EPA, it will help you to properly classify your hazardous materials and identify your hazardous waste.  Contact me to schedule the right kind of training for you.

(New York, N.Y.) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Health violated federal law governing the handling and storage of hazardous waste at two of its facilities and has fined the agency $68,000 for the violations. EPA inspections at the facilities, the Old Municipal Facility in Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas and 3500 Estate Richmond, Christiansted in St. Croix, found unlabeled and decaying containers of chemicals and pesticides on the properties. Many of the containers spilled and the USVI Department of Health failed to properly identify what types of waste were being stored. In some instances, the hazardous chemicals had been kept on-site for over ten years in a state of neglect and decay. Among the hundreds of hazardous chemicals on-site were pyrethrin (a neurotoxin), chlorpyrifos (an insecticide) and calcium hypochlorite (a bleach) – all of which are toxic. Federal environmental law requires hazardous chemicals to be stored, handled and disposed of properly to safeguard public health and the environment.

Pesticides and insecticides are intended to harm or kill pests and are toxic by design. They can be very harmful to people’s health depending on the toxicity of the pesticide and the level of exposure. Pesticides have been linked to various forms of illnesses in humans, ranging from skin and eye irritation to cancer. Some pesticides may also affect the hormone or endocrine systems. All chemicals should be handled properly to protect people’s health. 

“Pesticides are chemicals that must be handled and stored carefully and properly to protect the health of workers and the people who live near the facilities,” said Judith A. Enck, EPA Regional Administrator. “In this case, the U.S. Virgin Islands Department of Health repeatedly violated federal hazardous waste laws. Government, especially a health agency, should lead by example and ensure that pesticides and chemicals are properly handled.”

The Department of Health stores pesticide products to be used in the event of an outbreak of infectious disease. Among the violations, the Department of Health failed to determine which substances should be considered hazardous waste, as required by law, to ensure that they are managed properly. Correctly determining whether a waste meets the definition of hazardous waste is essential to determining how the waste must be managed. The Department of Health also failed to maintain and operate its facilities in a manner that minimized the possibility of a fire, explosion or accidental release of chemicals. 

In 1998, the Department of Health asked the EPA for help in removing and properly disposing of outdated chemical products stored in one of its chemical storage buildings at the Old Municipal Facility in Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas. The EPA responded, removed and properly disposed of the outdated chemicals and pesticides. Over 850 gallons of liquid pesticides and over 1,700 pounds of solid pesticides were removed by the EPA. Subsequently, the EPA strongly recommended that the Department of Health develop and follow pesticide storage and handling regulations to avoid a repeat of the environmental hazard.

In 2008, the EPA conducted an inspection of the St. Thomas facility and also visited 3500 Estate Richmond in St. Croix. Once again, the EPA observed conditions of neglect and sloppy practices. Pesticide products were abandoned and had spilled throughout the facilities. The EPA reiterated the need for the development of and adherence to a pesticide storage and handling program. 

On September 30, 2010, the EPA ordered the Department of Health to institute a program to properly manage and dispose of pesticide products. Since the initial order, the department has properly removed all outdated chemicals, conducted an inventory of the remaining chemicals, properly stored them and created a pesticide storage and handling program. The EPA conducted follow-up inspections in 2011 and confirmed that the remaining chemicals were properly stored. In March 2012, the EPA issued its final order in this case, requiring the Department of Health to pay a $68,000 penalty.

(Kansas City, Kan., July 26, 2012) – Electro-Coatings of Iowa, Inc., a chrome, nickel, and zinc plating operation, has agreed to pay a $19,171 civil penalty to the United States to settle a series of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) violations in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. In addition to paying the civil penalty, the company will spend a minimum of $110,000 to install technology that will reduce the amount of hazardous chrome waste generated at the facility as a supplemental environmental project.

According to an administrative consent agreement and final order filed by EPA Region 7 in Kansas City, Kan., an EPA inspector conducted an inspection at the company’s Cedar Rapids facility in May 2011, and noted several violations of the federal act which regulates hazardous waste.

“Facilities that generate hazardous waste must ensure that the proper procedures are followed in the handling, storage, and management of the waste stream,” EPA Region 7 Administrator Karl Brooks said. “Proper management practices reduce the risk of harm to human health and the environment in the event of an accidental release.”

Electro-Coatings of Iowa, Inc., generates a large quantity of hazardous waste, over 1,000 kilograms per month. The violations included storage of hazardous waste for longer than 90 days without a RCRA permit, hazardous waste container management violations, emergency equipment violations, training violations, RCRA contingency plan violations, universal waste management violations, operation of a hazardous waste facility without a RCRA permit, and failing to comply with hazardous waste generator requirements, including failure to label waste containers, failure to date waste containers, and failure to keep waste containers closed.

By agreeing to the settlement with EPA, Electro-Coatings of Iowa, Inc., has certified that it is now in compliance with the RCRA regulations.

Release Date: 04/17/2012

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

(Boston, Mass. – April 17, 2012) – The owner and operator of a hazardous waste management facility in Providence, R.I. face an EPA penalty for violating federal and state hazardous waste laws.

According to the recent complaint filed by EPA’s New England office, Northland Environmental and PSC Environmental Services (operator and owner of the facility, respectively) violated state and federal hazardous waste laws, as well as their state issued permit to operate a commercial hazardous waste and non-hazardous waste treatment, storage and transfer facility located on Allens Avenue in Providence.

The facility is located in a densely populated Environmental Justice (EJ) area of Providence.  EPA considers it an EJ area due to the high proportion of minority and low-income population, which historically has had higher exposure to pollutants than other segments of the population.

In its complaint, EPA details 16 counts of hazardous waste management violations at the facility.  The most significant violations were that the companies failed to properly determine that some of the wastes managed and shipped off site as non-hazardous wastes, were in fact, hazardous. This resulted in hazardous wastes being disposed of at facilities not designed or permitted to handle hazardous wastes. In addition, Northland Environmental and PSC Environmental Services failed to properly list all hazardous waste constituents on required notification and shipping documents. These violations could result in hazardous wastes not being properly managed and treated by the final disposal facilities. Moreover, many incompatible hazardous wastes were stored next to one another without adequate means of separation or protection, potentially resulting in fires or explosions.

PSC Environmental Services owns and Northland Environmental operates the facility, which accepts and handles a variety of wastes, including acids, alkalis, flammable wastes, water reactive wastes, cyanides, sulfides, oxidizers, toxic wastes, oily wastes, photochemical wastes and laboratory packs. Hazardous and non-hazardous wastes are received at the facility, stored and or consolidated and then shipped off site for treatment and/or disposal. The affiliated companies face a penalty of up to $37,500 per violation per day.

You may already be aware of the requirement for large quantity generators of hazardous waste to train their facility personnel annually.  And you may be aware of the responsibility of small quantity generators of hazardous waste to ensure that all employees are thoroughly familiar with proper waste handling and emergency procedures [40 CFR 262.34(d)(5)(iii)].  You may not know that if you generate a universal waste, you have an additional responsibility to train/inform your employees depending on your handler status.

Universal wastes are hazardous wastes that have the option to be managed under the less restrictive universal waste regulations of 40 CFR 273.  Federal universal wastes include those listed below.  Check with your state to determine if they have added any state-specific universal wastes to this list.

• Batteries
• Mercury-containing devices
• Lamps
• Recalled or canceled pesticides

There are two levels of universal waste handler status determined by the amount of universal waste accumulated at any one time in the calendar year, they are:

1. Small Quantity Handler accumulates <5,000 kg of universal waste.
2. Large Quantity Handler accumulates ≥5,000 kg of universal waste.

Note that your universal waste handler status is distinct and separate from your hazardous waste generator status.  Also, the employee training requirements for universal waste are separate and distinct from those for hazardous waste.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 273.16 a small quantity handler of universal waste must inform all employees who handle or have responsibility for managing universal waste. The information must describe proper handling and emergency procedures appropriate to the type(s) of universal waste handled at the facility.  Though entitled”Employee Training” the regulation only requires you to “inform” applicable employees, this could be done through instructions, signs, etc.  You may not, however, assume they have the necessary knowledge due to experience since the regulations requires you to actively “inform” them of what they need to know.

Pursuant to 40 CFR 273.36 a large quantity handler of universal waste must ensure that all employees are thoroughly familiar with proper waste handling and emergency procedures, relative to their responsibilities during normal facility operations and emergencies.  Note the – deliberate – similarity between the training requirements for a large quantity handler of universal waste and a small quantity generator of hazardous waste.  They both must ensure their employees are thoroughly familiar with their job duties and know what to do in an emergency, but they have no direction on how this is to be done or are required to document the process or maintain records.  How you comply with this regulation is up to you, it could be signs, labels, on-the-job training, or other.

The regulations of the USEPA (and authorized states) are deliberately vague on the subject of training for employees who work with universal waste.  It is the responsibility of the handler to determine if its training is adequate.  However, I have been advised of a good way to ensure compliance.  I was told by an authority of a state environmental regulatory agency that compliance with OSHA’s regulations at 29 CFR Part 1910 for worker protection will ensure compliance with the universal waste training requirements.  Indeed, such an achievement was referred to as the “Gold Standard” for compliance.

The training requirements for handlers of universal waste must be completed in addition to the required training for generators of hazardous waste.  My training, either at public workshops or at your facility, addresses the both of these regulations and much more.

Likely you’ve heard mention of a hazardous waste sample “passing/failing paint filter”, but what exactly is paint filter and what role does it play in a hazardous waste determination?  Paint filter is the US EPA approved test method (EPA 9095B) to determine the presence of free liquids in a representative sample of waste.  It is referenced in the regulations pertaining to hazardous waste landfills (40 CFR 264.314 & 40 CFR 265.314) since free liquids are forbidden from landfill disposal, unless exempted.  The paint filter test method is also used to identify the presence of free liquids in the determination of the hazardous characteristics of Ignitability (D001) and Corrosivity (D002).

How the method works is pretty simple:  A pre-determined amount of material is placed in a paint filter.  If any portion of the sample passes through and drops from the filter in a five (5) minute period, then the material is deemed to contain free liquids.  That’s it.  No fancy lab equipment is required, the paint filter is a standard conical paint filter [60 +/- 5% (fine meshed size)] available at local paint stores like Sherwin-Williams or Glidden.

Simple, and yet very important.  The presence of free liquids indicated by the paint filter test may affect your hazardous waste generator status and whether or not your hazardous waste can go to landfill for disposal.  If misunderstood, it could lead to violations and fines.  If understood and used properly it is a useful tool to assist you in maintaining your compliance with the regulations.  My training is a way for you to expand your understanding and knowledge of the regulations that affect your business.

The last few weeks have been busy, and the next few look to be busy as well (no complaints).  Besides my Public Training Workshops held weekly throughout the year, I have had to provide on-site training, sometimes on short notice.  What is on-site training?  And why does it consume so much of my time?  The answer to the first question is simple:  For one low flat fee, I will bring my high-quality training (DOT HazMat Employee and EPA Hazardous Waste Personnel) to your company or to another location if more convenient for you.  The answer to the second question is due to the extra work that goes into creating on-site training for a facility.  My list of  On-Site Training Benefits below will make this clear.

 On-Site Training Benefits:

• Eliminate time lost traveling to distant training.  No matter the length of off-site training, you have to assume you will lose an entire day’s productivity if employees must travel.  There is no loss of time when I bring the training to you.
• Save money on travel, food, and lodging costs.  By having the training at your site, using your existing resources, your ancillary costs are virtually nil.  Having some sandwiches delivered would be nice, though.
• Flexibility in scheduling.  Need the training to start at 5am and go until 7pm in order to catch all the shifts?  No problem.  Need training on a Saturday?  No problem.  Need more than one day of training?  Again, no problem.  I’ve conducted training in all sorts of circumstances and times.  I understand the needs of production and the difficulty in taking people away from work to attend training.  Let me work with you to ensure you get the training you need without sacrificing production.
• Site specific training.  I will work with you to construct a training presentation that focuses on the regulations that affect your facility (Federal, State, and local) and ignores those that don’t.  If possible, I tour the site with you the day before the training taking pictures (if allowed) that I incorporate into the training.  The training will inform your employees of the regulations and then reveal how they are (or are not) in practice at your facility.  Both HazMat Employee training and Hazardous Waste Personnel training requires site-specific information in order to be complete, a general overview of the regulations will not do.
• Employee interaction.  One thing I enjoy about on-site training is when an issue I have brought up spurs discussion among trainees.  If the right mix of managers and shop-floor employees are present a resolution of an issue may result.  Those times I like to stand back and let the discussion proceed, providing direction from the regulations if necessary, the training can wait.
• Coordination of information.  Nothing is more frustrating than arguments over the regulations due to different trainers providing different opinions.  With on-site training everyone hears the same information from the same source.
• Answers to your questions.  I won’t pretend I know the answer if I don’t.  Instead I’ll write your question down and get you an answer at a later date.
  

  The Downside to On-Site Training:

  Well, you don’t have that nice long drive through traffic.  And no overnight stay in a luxury hotel…
  So, with all those benefits and no discernible downside, why not consider on-site training?  Cost for on-site training is low and when you figure in the benefits listed above, you’ll come out way ahead.  Contact me for a free consultation to determine your training needs.

It might seem simple, but then again, nothing is simple with the Feds (US EPA and US DOT).  Consequently their definition – yes, it’s defined in the regulations – of a “person” doesn’t align with the standard English definition.  It’s important to know the regulatory definition, however, since it’s used to determine responsibility for compliance with the respective regulations.

The US Department of Transportation definition at at 49 CFR 171.8:

Person means an individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company; or a government, Indian Tribe, or authority of a government or Tribe, that offers a hazardous material for transportation in commerce, transports a hazardous material to support a commercial enterprise, or designs, manufactures, fabricates, inspects, marks, maintains, reconditions, repairs, or tests a package, container, or packaging component that is represented, marked, certified, or sold as qualified for use in transporting hazardous material in commerce. This term does not include the United States Postal Service or, for purposes of 49 U.S.C. 5123 and 5124, a Department, agency, or instrumentality of the government.

The US Environmental Protection Agency definition at 40 CFR 260.10:

Person means an individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, Federal Agency, corporation (including a government corporation), partnership, association, State, municipality, commission, political subdivision of a State, or any interstate body.

In both cases the word may refer to an individual or to a business or government entity that person represents.  Unless you’re the United States Postal Service and engaged in the transportation of hazardous materials the definition of a “person” according to the US DOT or the US EPA will apply to you.

So, you and the company/government that employs you are a “person”.  Your next step is to determine your regulatory responsibility:  Are you a HazMat Employer?  Do you generate a hazardous waste?  What is your hazardous waste generator status?  Have you trained your HazMat Employees and your Facility Personnel?  I can assist you with the training which in turn will help all the rest to become clear.  Please contact me for a free training consultation.