As a Large Quantity Generator (LQG) of hazardous waste, you are aware that hazardous waste may not accumulate at your site for longer than 90 days unless it is managed in a satellite accumulation area pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(c)(1).  However, did you know that an extension of the on-site accumulation time limit from ≤90 days to≤180 days exists for a specific type of hazardous waste?   F006 electroplating wastewater treatment sludge destined for recycling may be accumulated on-site for up to 180 days without a permit or interim status pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(g-I).  This extension is not granted to any other hazardous waste the facility may generate.  Nor is the extension allowed if the F006 waste is destined for any disposal option other than “legitimately recycled through metals recovery” per 40 CFR 262.34(g)(2).

The one great restriction on the use of this extension is the requirement that the F006 hazardous waste be “legitimately recycled through metals recovery”.  If the wastewater treatment sludge from your electroplating operations is destined for landfill or other treatment instead of metals recovery recycling, you will not be able to take advantage of this extension.  The limiting factors in recycling this type of waste are the value of the metals to be recovered and their concentration in the sludge.  Sludge with low-value metals such as zinc or tin will have a harder time finding recycling options than a sludge containing higher concentrations of copper, nickel, or chrome.  This is something every generator must determine for itself.

If you are able to take advantage of the extension, the requirements of the US EPA are relatively simple; they include:

1. Implement pollution prevention practices to reduce the hazards of the F006 waste [40 CFR 262.34(g)(1)].
2. Ensure the F006 waste is legitimately recycled through metals recovery [40 CFR 262.34(g)(2)].
3. Accumulate no more than 20,000 kg of F006 waste on-site at any one time [40 CFR 262.34(g)(3)].
4. Comply with the regulations applicable to LQG’s who manage hazardous waste in containers, tanks, or containment buildings [40 CFR 262.34(g)(4)(i-v)].

If the recycling facility to which you ship the F006 waste is at a distance of ≥200 miles, then you may accumulate the waste on-site for up to 270 days without a permit and without special permission from US EPA [40 CFR 262.34(h)].

Unless an extension to the 180/270 day time limit or an exception to the 20,000 kg on-site accumulation limit has been granted by the Regional Administrator of the US EPA, an exceedence of either of these limits subjects the facility to the US EPA regulations of a storage facility and the requirements of 40 CFR 264,265, and 267 and the permit requirements of 40 CFR 270.

Unless you generate an F006 listed hazardous waste from the on-site treatment of electroplating wastewaters, this extension in on-site accumulation times will not be of any benefit to you.  Further, if you generate this type of waste but do not have a recycling disposal option available, you will not be able to avail yourself of the increased on-site accumulation time limits.  However, if you meet the required criteria, it may be of great benefit to you to take advantage of this limited extension of the on-site accumulation limits.

When facing an inspection and possible enforcement actions from the US EPA or their state regulatory agency a hazardous waste generator may wonder, “Why me?  Why don’t they go after one of those big companies like BP, DuPont, or Goodyear Tire?   Better yet, why not go after the companies that I pay so dearly to dispose of my hazardous waste?”  You needn’t think the EPA has it out for the little guy.  They frequently inspect the larger hazardous waste generators and those disposal companies (known as Transfer Storage and Disposal Facilities, or TSDF’s).

One example is the recent settlement reached between Clean Harbors of Braintree, Inc. in Braintree, MA and the US Environmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP).  Announced on August 15^th 2011, the settlement has its genesis in a site inspection conducted by both agencies in June of 2007.  In the settlement, Clean Harbors agreed to pay a $650,000 penalty, spend an additional $1,062,500 on a Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP), comply with an enhanced waste analysis plan, and install and maintain a vapor collection system for its hazardous waste storage tanks to control the emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s).

The SEP requires Clean Harbors to plant 1,400 trees in low-income areas of the City of Boston over a two-year period.  I don’t think I’m being overly cynical to believe that Clean Harbors will make no mention of the settlement and the SEP when it begins planting the trees.  They will likely promote it as a “Green Initiative” on their part because they so love the environment and the people of Boston.  But hey, I digress.  Back to the settlement.

The enhanced waste analysis plan agreed to by Clean Harbors goes above and beyond what is required by the regulations and its existing permit.  This along with the vapor collection system for VOC’s referenced above will reduce the facility’s environmental impact relative to its competitors.  Here as well, watch for Clean Harbors to spin these actions as a reflection of its commitment as a “Green Company”.  No mention of the fact that these actions were mandated by a settlement that only exists because of its violation of the regulations.

US EPA identified close to thirty violations during its June 2007 inspection of both the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA, the source of hazardous waste management regulations) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA).  Violations included:

• Inadequate waste characterization.
• Failure to properly maintain hazardous waste tanks.
• Inadequate secondary containment.
• Improper storage of incompatible wastes.

As noted earlier MassDEP took part in the initial inspection.  It also provided support to the US EPA during the settlement process.  Please note that the MassDEP issued a separate consent order which required Clean Harbors to replace all of its old storage tanks and implement other infrastructure upgrades at the facility.  I can only assume that the costs for these structural improvements are in addition to the $1.7 million spent on the fines and SEP imposed by the US EPA.

What lessons should a hazardous waste generator draw from an enforcement action of this type?

1. All companies – big and small – involved in the generation or management of hazardous waste are subject to agency inspection and fines.
2. The costs of non-compliance may advance well beyond monetary fines, and extend into SEP’s or other requirements (such as infrastructure improvements).
3. State regulatory agencies (MassDEP in this case), may take the initiative on inspection and enforcement or work with the US EPA.

The first step in maintaining compliance is to know the state and federal regulations applicable to your facility.

USEPA Regulations for the Management of Medical Waste:

It was the summer between my freshman and sophomore years of college at the University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point when news broke in July of 1988 about needles and other medical waste washing up on public beaches on the eastern seaboard.  The national media performed admirably as a source of un-sensationalized and thoughtful information about this public health calamity (Note: irony).  By 1991 it became clear that the panic was overblown, as it was later reported that “At the end of the summer, the medical-type waste found on Long Island’s beaches would have barely filled a picnic basket.”

That didn’t stop the U.S. Congress from enacting the Medical Waste Tracking Act (MWTA) of 1988 to amend the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA).  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulations for the act went into effect on June 24, 1989 and expired on June 21, 1991.  In that time they were effective in four states only: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico.  There were several purposes for this two year program:

• Gather information related to medical waste management.
• Focus attention on the medical waste issue.
• Examine various treatment technologies for medical waste.
• Provide a model for states and other federal agencies to develop their own medical waste programs.

USEPA concluded from the MWTA that the disease-causing potential of medical waste decreases naturally from its point of generation as it moves toward its final destination.  USEPA has not renewed the MWTA and has left regulation to the individual states or to other federal agencies.

State Regulations for the Management of Medical Waste:

Most states have since further developed their own programs resulting in each state program differing significantly from each other.  One key difference between state regulations and the Federal MWTA is their application to industrial and commercial facilities and not just to medical facilities and hospitals.  Therefore, any medical waste generated at an industrial or commercial facility – even if generated by employees and not part of the business – cannot go to landfill, but must meet strict state requirements for on-site handling and off-site disposal.

Another difference is how the waste is named.  While identified as “Medical Waste” by the Federal act and regulations, it may go by several different names under state regulations:

• Usually “Medical Waste”, but also;
• Regulated Medical Waste
• Biomedical Waste
• Biohazardous Waste
• Potentially Infectious Medical Waste in Illinois
• Others…

Check with your state to determine your responsibility for management of Medical Waste

Other Federal Agencies Management of Medical Waste:

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT/PHMSA) regulates the transportation of medical waste as a Division 6.2 Infectious Substance.  The definition of an infectious substance at 49 CFR 173.134(a)(6) reads:

Sharps means any object contaminated with a pathogen or that may become contaminated with a pathogen through handling or during transportation and also capable of cutting or penetrating skin or a packaging material. Sharps includes needles, syringes, scalpels, broken glass, culture slides, culture dishes, broken capillary tubes, broken rigid plastic, and exposed ends of dental wires.”

Regardless of Federal and state regulations, USDOT/PHMSA Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) will apply to the off-site transportation of a medical waste as a Division 6.2 Infectious Substance.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Bloodborne Pathogen Standard can be found at 29 CFR 1910.1030.  While aimed primarily at healthcare workers and others who deal with blood and body fluids on a regular basis, it also covers maintenance, custodial, laundry, and waste handlers that may be called upon to clean up body fluids after an accident.  OSHA website.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has guidance for persons working with infectious pathogens.  CDC website.

State regulations, whether for Medical Waste, Hazardous Waste, Universal Waste, Non-Hazardous Waste, or Used Oil present an additional level of regulations for any industrial, commercial, or government facility.  Please contact me with any questions you may have about the management of waste under Federal or State regulations.

One of the things I enjoy about providing training to so many people are the questions I receive from participants that force me to think more deeply about the regulations than I would otherwise.  For example, at my training event in Piscataway, NJ I was asked where in the regulations is the requirement to add the word “waste” to the beginning of the proper shipping name when offering a hazardous waste for shipment.  I had never thought deeply about the matter or researched it enough to find the requirement in the regulations.  The answer, though, was quite easily found and understood.  49 CFR 172.101 explains the purpose and use of the Hazardous Materials Table.  172.101(c) allows for the modification of a proper shipping name as required or authorized.  And 172.101(c)(9) reads, “If the word ‘waste’ is not included in the hazardous material description in Column 2 of the Table, the proper shipping name for a hazardous waste (as defined in §171.8 of this subchapter), shall include the word ‘Waste’ preceding the proper shipping name of the material. For example: Waste acetone.”

So, if a waste meets the DOT definition of a hazardous waste – that is, the US EPA requires the use of a hazardous waste manifest – then the word “waste” must precede the proper shipping name wherever it is used to comply with the Hazardous Materials Regulations.

A proper shipping name modified in this way will appear in two forms of hazardous material communication:  (1) the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest (Manifest) and (2) on the container itself as a marking.

• Referring to the manifest, 49 CFR 172.205(i) reads, “The shipping description for a hazardous waste must be modified as required by §172.101(c)(9).”  So, for the purpose of completing the manifest it refers one back to the requirement to place the word “waste” prior to the proper shipping name in 49 CFR 172.101(c)(9).
• Regarding the marking requirement for the container, 49 CFR 172.301(a)(2) reads, “The proper shipping name for a hazardous waste (as defined in §171.8 of this subchapter) is not required to include the word ‘waste’ if the package bears the EPA marking prescribed by 40 CFR 262.32.”  In other words, as long as one meets the EPA requirements for marking a hazardous waste container for shipment – typically by using a pre-printed hazardous waste label – the word “waste” may be dropped from the proper shipping name marking on the container.  If no such label is used, then the word “waste” must precede the proper shipping name.

Every time I research the answer to a question in this way my understanding of the regulations grows.  I look forward to my next training event and the questions I will face there.

No matter how many times I read about it, I never fail to be surprised by two things:

1. The severity of penalties faced by regulated facilities that violate US EPA hazardous waste (RCRA) regulations; and,
2. How easily avoidable those violations are.

Examples:

For hazardous waste violations noted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Metco Metal Finishing, Inc. in South Phoenix, AZ must pay a $75,000 penalty, spend $50,000 for a yet to be determined supplemental environmental project, institute an environmental management system, and contract with a third party to conduct regular audits at its facility for the next three years.  Its 26 violations include disposal of hazardous waste without a permit, failing to properly mark containers, and failing to determine if some stored materials were hazardous waste.

US EPA fined TMW Corporation in Van Nuys, CA $100,000 for its RCRA violations which included:

• Storage of hazardous waste for over 90 days without a permit.
• Failure to conduct required inspections.
• Failure to train personnel or maintain training records.
• Failure to maintain required emergency communications equipment.
• Failure to make a hazardous waste determination.

The Robert J. Dole Veterans Administration Medical Center in Wichita, KS was fined $17,979 by US EPA for hazardous waste violations on its campus.  The Veterans Administration must also spend an estimated $61,900 on a supplemental environmental project to erect a hazardous waste accumulation building on-site.  The violations of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Kansas Administrative Regulations noted during the inspection included failures to make hazardous waste determinations, failures to inspect, label, date and close hazardous waste containers; failures to make arrangements with emergency responders, failures to label used oil containers, and disposal of hazardous waste through the biological waste system.  As part of the settlement, all facets of the facility’s hazardous waste management will be closely scrutinized by the US EPA.

All of the above violations are simple to avoid.  However, a facility cannot comply with a regulation that it is not aware of.  Awareness can begin with a training session that meets your regulatory requirements for training hazardous waste personnel and HazMat Employees and  explains in detail what you need to do to maintain compliance at your facility.  Your facility’s EHS Manager and your Shipping and Receiving Manager would benefit greatly from attending one of my nationwide public training events.  Or, even better, have me come to your site to provide on-site training to all of your applicable employees (Hazardous Waste Personnel and HazMat Employees) for one flat fee of $1,749.

Superfund is the common name for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980.  This law was designed to create a mechanism and funding source for the cleanup of sites contaminated with hazardous substances.  In many cases, such as this one, the contaminated site was a landfill or some other waste disposal site.  Several importanthagnes were made to CERCLA with the passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.  These changes included an increase in funding and the use of new technologies for studies.

Five private firms and the City of New York were identified as PRP’s – that is Potentially Responsible Parties – for this site. They are responsible to conduct an investigation of the site under EPA’s oversight, pay EPA $750,000 for its previous work at the site, and reimburse the Agency for any oversight costs. A PRP is an entity that has been identified as a potential contributor to the contamination and may be held liable for the cleanup of a contaminated property. PRP’s may include:

• The current owner or operator of the site.
• The owner or operator of a site at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance.
• A person who arranged for the disposal or treatment of a hazardous substance at the site. Or, arranged for transportation of a hazardous substance to the site.
• A person who transported a hazardous substance to a site they selected.

While the first two bullet points may preclude you from ever buying a landfill or treatment facility, the last two should be a wake-up call to a facility that ships any waste, but especially hazardous waste, off-site for disposal. A generator of hazardous waste may be responsible under Superfund even if its disposal was in compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations at the time. Approximately 70% of Superfund cleanup activities have been funded by PRP’s.

I cover topics such as selection and auditing of a waste generator’s Transfer, Storage, and Disposal Facility (TSDF) in my public training events. I also include EPA guidance on auditing TSDF’s and a hardcopy of a TSDF audit form as part of the training materials provided to attendees. Much more information of a very practical and useful nature is provided as well as fulfilling the EPA training requirements found at 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4) and 40 CFR 265.16.

The second half of the day’s training fulfills the triennial training requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation for HazMat Employees. I guarantee you will find this day of training useful and informative.

In 1984 US EPA created the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest. An improvement on its predecessor, it nonetheless allowed States to customize the forms to meet their state-specific needs. Twenty three states adapted the Federal form to include a state letterhead and additional data requirements. Thus variation remained between these twenty three state forms and the Federal form, even though the need to use multiple manifests for interstate shipments had ended.

Fast forward to September 6, 2005 and the creation of a nationwide standardized Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest system. The Final Rule published on March 4, 2005 gave States and hazardous waste handlers eighteen months to use up their stocks of the old forms and to prepare their regulations for the new ones. After September 6, 2005 only the new form could be used for transportation of hazardous waste. Besides creating uniformity in the appearance and content of hazardous waste manifests, US EPA also made revisions to the form to simplify the tracking of “difficult” shipments of rejected waste, or containers with residue remaining. It also created a registry of companies that were approved to print the manifest to the US EPA specifications. These and other revisions enacted at that time can be reviewed further on the US EPA website.

As of August 22, 2011 US EPA will authorize changes to the current printing specification regulation if no adverse comments are received prior to July 22, 2011. These changes were announced in a Proposed Rule and a Direct Final Rule, both published in the Federal Register on June 22, 2011. This time the changes are much less sweeping than previously. US EPA will allow the approved printers of Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifests to use distinct colors or other methods to differentiate the copy distribution instructions on the form from the remainder of the print. This is intended to cut down on the number of mistakes made in distribution and allow those approved printers greater flexibility in complying with the manifest printing specifications.

These changes should not affect hazardous waste generators other than the possibility of a slight change in the appearance of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest sometime after August 22, 2011. All other requirements, including some state specific requirements remain.

Annual training is required by the US EPA for any personnel that handle hazardous waste or sign the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest. Triennial training is required by the US Department of Transportation for any HazMat Employee who prepares hazardous waste for off-site transportation, loads it onto a transportation vehicle, or signs the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest.