State RCRA Regulations

Notice of Violation Issued to Dover Air Force Base for RCRA Violations

The Bullet:

The Dover Air Force Base was issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) for multiple violations of the RCRA regulations by the Delaware DNREC.

Notice of Violation Number: 2014-11918

Who:Air Force Jet

Violator: Dover Air Force Base

Agency issuing NOV:  Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)

DNREC Contact: Ferree, Melissa A / (302) 739-9403

What:

The Notice of Violation included the following:

  • Improper, incorrect, or no preparation of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest when hazardous waste is offered for off-site treatment, storage or disposal.
  • Design standards for waste piles were not met.
  • Hazardous waste offered for transportation to transporters that have not received an EPA identification number or a Delaware hazardous waste transporter permit.
  • Hazardous waste offered for transportation to treatment, storage, or disposal facilities that have not received an EPA identification number.
  • Actions of a treatment, storage, or disposal facility by a generator for which DNREC requires a permit.
  • Failure to complete and document a hazardous waste determination.
Where:

Location Address: 600 Chevron Avenue  Dover AFB, DE 199025600

When:

Date Discovered: December 4, 2013

Enforcement Action Served: July 11, 2014

Why:

Violations of RCRA Regulations can jeopardize the environment and the health and safety of employees and the general public who live in that environment.  It is the responsibility of all hazardous waste generators to know and comply with the regulations – both State and Federal – to which they are subject.

How:

The DNREC has the authority granted it by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to operate the hazardous waste program within the state of Delaware.  The Dover Air Force Base is subject to RCRA regulations – both State and Federal.US Air Force Logo

Conclusion:

DE DNREC LogoYou may be surprised that property owned and operated by a branch of the US Armed Forces could be cited for violations of State environmental regulations, but they can.  An Air Force base no less than your company must comply with the RCRA regulations that apply to a hazardous waste from cradle-to-grave (ie. from its point of generation, through its transportation in commerce, to its final disposal).  A good first step to compliance is Facility Personnel Training required by 40 CFR 265.16.  Contact me to discuss how the RCRA regulations apply to you and what training you must provide.

Contact me with any questions you may have about the transportation of hazardous materials

 Daniels Training Services

815.821.1550

Info@DanielsTraining.com

https://www.danielstraining.com/

Delaware Hospital Cited for Multiple RCRA Violations

The Bullet:

A hospital in Dover, DE was cited for multiple violations of state regulations by the DNREC.

Who:
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control Logo

The DNREC enforces RCRA regulations in Delaware

Bayhealth Kent General Hospital.  A Large Quantity Generator of hazardous waste and a Small Quantity Handler of Universal Waste.

Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC)

DNREC Contact: Ferree, Melissa A

DNREC Contact Phone: (302) 739-9403

What:

A generator of hazardous waste and a handler of universal waste is subject to regulations (based on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or RCRA) for the cradle to grave management of that waste.

Where:

Bayhealth Kent General Hospital is located at 640 South State Street Dover, DE 19901

When:

Date discovered:  July 31, 2014

Enforcement Action served August 22, 2014

Why:

The hospital was cited for the following violations of state regulations based upon the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA):

  • Containers of hazardous waste were not marked with accumulation start date.
  • A list of personnel names and job titles was not maintained as part of the Facility Personnel training records.
  • Copies of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest for off-site shipments of hazardous waste were not maintained for the required three years.
  • Universal waste lamps were not contained in containers or packages that were structurally sound, adequate to prevent breakage, and compatible with the contents.
  • Hazardous waste storage areas were not inspected at least weekly, and a written record of the inspections were not maintained for at least 3 years.
  • Hazardous waste containers in a Satellite Accumulation Area were not marked either with the words “Hazardous Waste” or with the word “Waste” and a description to identify the contents of the container (e.g., Waste Acetone, Waste Solvent).
  • Containers of universal waste batteries were not labeled/marked properly to identify the contents.
  • A copy of all notices, certifications, waste analysis data and other documentation produced pursuant to the RCRA regulations were not retained on site for a minimum of three years.
  • The exception report was not submitted to the DNREC as required when a signed copy of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest was not received by the generator within 45 days of it being shipped off-site.
  • Hazardous waste (not in a Satellite Accumulation Area) was accumulated on-site for more than 90 days.  Accumulation of hazardous waste beyond 90 days requires a permit from DNREC.
  • Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest was not prepared properly by the generator.
  • Written job description not maintained as part of the training records for each employee handling hazardous waste.
  • Waste containers and tanks were not labeled or clearly marked with the words “Hazardous Waste”.
  • Hazardous waste in a Satellite Accumulation Area was not maintained properly.
  • Containers of hazardous waste were not kept closed except for times when adding or removing waste.
  • Generator did not have a RCRA Contingency Plan.
  • Initial training not provided for all employees handling hazardous waste (ie. Facility Personnel).
  • Annual hazardous waste report not completed and submitted.
  • Hazardous waste determination not completed.
  • Arrangements and agreements with local authorities for emergency services were not made.
  • Hazardous waste generated on-site was offered for off-site transportation to transporters that had not received an EPA identification number and a Delaware hazardous waste transporter permit.
  • Hazardous waste generated on-site was transported for disposal to treatment, storage, or disposal facilities (TSDFs) that have not received an EPA identification number.
How:

As a state with an authorized hazardous waste program the DNREC is the lead agency for the enforcement of state environmental regulations in Delaware.  Violations such as these can be discovered during periodic unannounced inspections of a hazardous waste generator.

DNREC Inspector

The Delaware DNREC conducts unannounced RCRA inspections of regulated businesses

Conclusion:

A long list of violations – and an unspecified amount of fines – were assessed for what are – for the most part – relatively simple violations of the regulations.  While only a few of the violations directly relate to the requirement to provide initial and annual training for all Facility Personnel, all of them are things that a generator of hazardous waste should know and are topics addressed in my Training Seminars.  Further, my Onsite Training includes a site inspection and informal consultation that would have revealed these deficiencies before the training even took place.  Consider a situation like this when you determine if Hazardous Waste Personnel Training costs too much.

Contact me for a free training consultation.

Contact me with any questions you may have about the transportation of hazardous materials

 Daniels Training Services

815.821.1550

Info@DanielsTraining.com

https://www.danielstraining.com/

The Identification of Solid Waste in Texas

TCEQ training for hazardous waste personnel

TCEQ regulates hazardous and non-hazardous waste from both industrial and non-industrial facilities.

Though very similar to those of the USEPA, as a state with an authorized hazardous waste program under RCRA, Texas waste regulations – created and enforced by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) – have their own state-specific nuances.  For a person in Texas subject to these regulations, slight differences between state and Federal regulations can make a big difference.  This article will look at one aspect of the waste regulations of the TCEQ in Texas:  What is, and isn’t, a Solid Waste. (more…)

Industrial Finishing Services investigated by MPCA for air quality, hazardous waste violations

The Bullet:

Industrial Finishing Services, a metal coating company, has been cited for air quality and hazardous waste violations at its facility in Perham. The company had been emitting hazardous air pollutants in quantities larger than allowed by its permit and had also begun construction on a new expansion before receiving a required MPCA permit. IFS has agreed to changes that will bring the facility into compliance with regulations and will pay a $60,000 civil penalty.  View the MPCA News Release.MPCA

Who:

Industrial Finishing Services (IFS), a metal coating company.

MPCA, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is authorized to manage the hazardous waste program of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in the State of Minnesota.

St. Paul • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Duluth • Mankato • Marshall • Rochester • Willmar
www.pca.state.mn.us

Toll-free and TDD 800-657-3864
What:

Alleged violations include:

  • Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in excess of the facility’s permit thresholds.
  • Failure to install and operate a thermal oxidizer to control the emissions of hazardous air pollutants associated with the company’s coatings.
  • Failure to apply in a timely manner for a different category of air permit due to increasing levels of air emissions; should have applied in 2009 but did not do so until 2014.
  • Begun construction on a new expansion before receiving a required MPCA permit.
  • Issues with the RCRA Contingency Plan and emergency response planning.
  • Initial (within 6 months) and annual training of Facility Personnel.
  • Use of a non-licensed site for hazardous waste disposal.
  • Pollution risks posed by hazardous waste at the facility.

The company has agreed to changes that will bring the facility into compliance with air pollution and hazardous waste regulations. Many of the corrective actions have been completed. The company has also agreed to pay a $60,000 civil penalty.

Where:

Industrial Finishing Services (IFS) facility subject to these violations is located in Perham, MN.

When:

Initial MPCA inspection conducted Fall of 2013.  News release dated July 3, 2014.

Why:

The mission of the MPCA is to protect and improve the environment and enhance human health

How:

In Minnesota, the MPCA has the authority to create and enforce its own state-specific hazardous waste regulations as long as they are at least as strict and as broad as those of the USEPA.

Conclusion:

The proper management of hazardous waste requires awareness of both Federal and State regulations.  Failure to comply can result in significant fines and penalties.  Consider the cost of my Onsite Training versus a civil penalty such as this.  Once you do, please contact me for a free training consultation.

Daniels Training Services

815.821.1550

Info@DanielsTraining.com

https://www.danielstraining.com/

Virginia Chemical Distributor to Pay $612,339 for Violations of Hazardous Waste Storage Regulations

The Bullet:

A chemical distribution facility in Roanoke, Va was ordered by an administrative law judge to pay a $612,339 penalty for multiple violations of federal and state hazardous waste storage regulations.

Who:

United States Environmental Agency (USEPA) issued the violations.

Chem-Solv, Inc. is the operator of the facility.

Austin Holdings-VA, L.L.C. is the facility owner.

What:

Alleged violations include:

  • Storing hazardous waste in an open tank that did not have an engineering assessment or air emission controls.
  • Storing hazardous waste for greater than 90 days without a permit.
  • Failure to perform daily inspections of hazardous waste tanks.
  • Failure to perform hazardous waste determinations on the wastes in the open tank, aerosol waste, and other wastes generated at the facility.
  • Open hazardous waste tank had been improperly removed, without compliance with a RCRA closure plan.

The companies have a right to appeal the decision to EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board.

Where:

Chem-Solv, Inc. is located in Roanoke, VA

Austin Holdings-VA, L.L.C. is the facility owner.

When:

Judge’s opinion issued June 5, 2014

News release dated June 24, 2014

Why:

Violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), such as these are alleged, can threaten public health and the environment and require costly cleanups through improper storage and disposal of hazardous waste.  The enforcement of RCRA regulations by the USEPA can eliminate these threats.

How:

Despite the fact that Virginia has an authorized hazardous waste program (I find it interesting that there is no mention of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality in this release) and that the alleged violations include violations of State regulations, the USEPA is the primary investigation and enforcement agency for this case.

Conclusion:

Though not mentioned as an alleged violation, I would not be surprised to find that this facility has not completed the required training for Hazardous Waste Personnel.  High-quality Hazardous Waste Personnel training such as mine would have provided the information necessary to prevent the alleged violations. Contact me to provide this training or to answer any questions you may have about the RCRA regulations of the USEPA or your State.

Daniels Training Services

815.821.1550

Info@DanielsTraining.com

https://www.danielstraining.com/

View the press release:  Virginia Chemical Distributor to Pay $612,339 for Violations of Hazardous Waste Storage Regulations

Contact Information: Donna Heron 215-814-5113 / heron.donna@epa.gov

The Judge’s decision is available at: http://www.epa.gov/aljhomep/orders/2014/RCRA-03-2011-0068_Chemsolv_14-06-05_ID_Biro.pdf

 

Delaware Composting Facility Issued NOV by DNREC

The Bullet:

The DNREC issued an NOV (Notice of Violation) to a commercial composting company based on information it provided in its quarterly report and an inspection of the site.  Potential violations  include exceeding the facility’s limits for on-site storage of yard and wood waste and the presence of plastic bags at the site.

Who:

DNREC – Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (Delaware) – Solid & Hazardous Waste Program

Wilmington Organic Recycling Center is the location of alleged violations.

Peninsula Compost Company, LLC is the Owner/Operator of site.

What:

Alleged violations documented on the NOV:

  1. Quarterly report showed that the storage limits for yard and wood waste overs exceeded the storage limits established in the BUD.  A Beneficial Use Project Determination, or BUD, establishes the limits within which a composting facility such as this must operate.
  2. Acceptance of prohibited waste – non-compostable plastic bags.
  3. Plastic continues to be abundant throughout Peninsula’s composting process with minimal effort to eliminate the contamination.
  4. Prohibited waste, especially plastic residual waste from the screening process, was stored on the ground with no enclosure.
Where:

Peninsula Compost Company, LLC and the Wilmington Organic Recycling Center are both located in Wilmington, DE

When:

Violations were noted on May 5, 2014.

Enforcement action served June 26, 2014.

Why:

Though facilities such as this are not subject to the high level of regulation as a hazardous waste TSDF, they still must comply with State and Federal regulations designed to protect the environment.  It seems clear from the alleged violations of this NOV, that the presence of plastic in composted material is a concern of the DNREC.

How:

Under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) the management of solid waste that is not a hazardous waste is primarily the responsibility of the State and not the US EPA.  Delaware exercised this authority to ensure the protection of the environment and the related health and safety of its citizens.

Conclusion:

It’s not only violations of the hazardous waste regulations that can result in NOVs and fines.  If you ship your non-hazardous waste to a facility such as this, be sure to perform an audit of its operations to determine if it is compliance with State and/or Federal regulations.

Contact me if you have any questions about the management of hazardous or non-hazardous waste.

Daniels Training Services

815.821.1550

Info@DanielsTraining.com

https://www.danielstraining.com/

MN Pollution Control Agency Completes 68 Enforcement Cases in Second Quarter of 2014

The MPCA completed 68 enforcement cases in 41 Minnesota counties during just the second quarter of 2014 (April-June).  The civil penalties collected due to these violations exceed $735,000.  The MPCA has 107 environmental enforcement investigations that are ongoing and may yet lead to additional civil penalties.

A complete list of all enforcement actions can be found on the agency’s web site at www.pca.state.mn.us.

The following is a brief summary of all 68 cases completed during the second quarter of 2014:

  •  Greenheck Fan Corp., dba Innovent Air Handling Equipment LLC, Minneapolis, for air quality violations, $365,000 (this includes $315,000 toward a supplemental environmental project)
  • Industrial Finishing Services, Perham, for air quality violations, $60,000
  • Twin Ports Excavating LP, Duluth, for stormwater violations, $53,000 (all to be spent on a supplemental environmental project)
  • Two Harbors WWTP, Two Harbors, for water quality violations, $19,000
  • La Roche’s, Inc., Faribault, for subsurface sewage treatment systems violations, $14,000
  • Gold’n Plum Farms LLC, Sauk Rapids, for air quality violations, $10,000
  • Whistling Valley Development WWTP, Lake Elmo, for water quality violations, $10,000
  • Norway Beach, Cass Lake, for water quality violations, $8,413
  • Schriever Farm LLC, Harmony, for feedlot violations, $6,500
  • Vincent & Nancy Hajek property, Glenville, for solid and hazardous waste violations, $6,500
  • Stussy Construction, Inc., Mantorville, for stormwater violations, $5,795
  • A&F Consulting Group, Winona, for asbestos violations, $5,775
  • Sleep Inn Marshall LLC, Marshall, for stormwater violations, $5,700
  • Geo’s Paint & Finish LLC, Brainerd, for hazardous waste violations, $5,688
  • 528 Partnership LLP, St. Paul, for stormwater violations, $5,600
  • Aaron Carlson Corporation, Minneapolis, for hazardous waste violations, $5,500
  • Steven Mogard, dba Royal Flush Sanitation S&P, Ortonville, for subsurface sewage treatment systems violations, $5,400
  • Hedstrom Lumber Co., Inc., Grand Marais, for air quality violations, $5,050
  • Burns Excavating, Inc., Medina, for stormwater violations, $4,850
  • Rich Demeules, Medina, for stormwater violations, $4,850
  • Albany Recycling Center LLC, Albany, for stormwater violations, $4,700
  • Clearwater Paving, Bemidji, for stormwater violations, $4,700
  • NuCrane Manufacturing, Hutchinson, for stormwater violations, $4,700
  • Consolidated Construction Co., Inc., Marshall, for stormwater violations, $4,300
  • Westman Freightliner, Mankato, for stormwater violations, $4,200
  • Arrowhead Recycling Center, Two Harbors, for stormwater violations, $4,150
  • Castle Danger Demolition Landfill, Two Harbors, for stormwater violations, $4,150
  • AW Kuettel and Sons, Inc., Duluth, for stormwater violations, $4,083.75
  • Fosston WWTP, Fosston, for water quality violations, $4,019
  • Sam’s Well Drilling, Inc., Kevin Sorge property, Austin, for water quality violations, $4,000
  • BH Heselton Demolition Landfill, Faribault, for stormwater violations, $3,900
  • Cedar Lake Engineering, Inc., Maple Lake, for stormwater violations, $3,900
  • Concast, Inc., Zumbrota, for stormwater violations, $3,900
  • Innova Industries, Inc., Fergus Falls, for stormwater violations, $3,900
  • PaR Nuclear, Shoreview, for stormwater violations, $3,900
  • Pepsi Beverages Co., Burnsville, for stormwater violations, $3,900
  • Scott Equipment Co., New Prague, for stormwater violations, $3,900
  • Silgan Containers Mfg. Corp., Savage, for stormwater violations, $3,900
  • Viracon, Inc., Owatonna, for air quality violations, $3,700
  • Otter Tail Power Co., Hoot Lake Plant, Fergus Falls, for water quality violations, $3,550
  • Gerdau Ameristeel US, Inc., St. Paul, for air quality violations, $3,500
  • Prinsco, Inc., Prinsburg, for stormwater violations, $3,400
  • L&S Construction, Springfield, for stormwater violations, $3,000
  • Zufall Pit, Owatonna, for stormwater violations, $2,854
  • Allen & Joey Greibrok, Austin, for asbestos violations, $2,750
  • Automotive Concepts, New Hope, for air quality violations, $2,700
  • Avon Body Shop, Avon, for air quality violations, $2,500
  • Red Wing Cabinetry, Red Wing, for air quality violations, $2,025
  • Brad Moe, Chanhassen, for stormwater violations, 1,900
  • Cans R Us, Inc., Little Falls, for subsurface sewage treatment system violations, $1,800
  • Lake City WWTP, Lake City, for water quality violations, $1,775
  • St. Francis Medical Center, Breckenridge, for air quality violations, $1,688
  • ISD 676-Badger Public Schools, Badger, for air quality violations, $1,688
  • Lundin Construction-NM, Cromwell, for air quality violations, $1,688
  • Marcom Service, Inc., New Hope, for air quality violations, $1,688
  • Rajala Mill Company, Bigfork, for air quality violations, $1,688
  • Spring Prairie Hutterite Colony WWTP, Hawley, for water quality violations, $1,625
  • Kaufman Container, Minneapolis, for air quality violations, $1,563
  • Eugene Holst, Austin, for water quality violations, $1,500
  • Judy Marshal & Susan Kehret, c/o Patricia Woodfill, Brownsdale, for water quality violations, $1,500
  • Daniel Weaver, dba Earth Science Soil Testing, North Branch, for subsurface sewage treatment system violations, $1,150
  • Vreeman Construction, Raymond, for solid and hazardous waste violations, $1,150
  • Gaines Auto Salvage, dba Bridley’s Auto Salvage, Glenville, for stormwater violations, $1,150
  • Superior Truck Auto & Marine, Minnesota City, for air quality violations, $810
  • Ripley’s Inc., Erhard, for subsurface sewage treatment system violations, $660
  • Nick Schmitz, North Branch, for subsurface sewage treatment system violations, $625
  • State Bank of Easton, Wells, for asbestos violations, $500
  • Judy Machining, Inc., Goodview, for air quality violations, $500

Don’t despair businesses of the Gopher State!  Imposing monetary penalties is only part of the MPCA’s enforcement process.  Agency staff will provide assistance, support, and information on the steps and tools necessary to achieve compliance for any company or local government that requests it.

A complete summary of environmental enforcement actions and news releases can be found on the MPCA’s News Media Center Web page.  For questions on specific enforcement cases, please contact Stephen Mikkelson, Information Officer at (218) 316-3887, or toll free at (800) 657-3864.

St. Paul • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Duluth • Mankato • Marshall • Rochester • Willmar
www.pca.state.mn.us

Toll-free and TDD 800-657-3864

Department of Toxic Substances Control (California) Files Complaint Against FedEx Ground

The Bullet:

DTSC alleges that FedEx Ground committed more than 1,500 acts resulting in multiple violations of California hazardous waste regulations.  These acts took place at each of FedEx’s thirty-one terminals throughout California.  Alleged violations stem from improper management of broken or leaking packages that contained hazardous materials.  If proven, the violations subject FedEx to civil penalties of up to $25,000/violation.

View the DTSC news release:  DTSC files complaint against FedEx Ground:  Company allegedly mishandled hazardous materials shipped in California

Who:

The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is one Department within the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA).  The DTSC manages the hazardous waste program within the state of California.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (FedEx Ground) is a nationwide Carrier of materials & articles (hazardous & non-hazardous).  In this instance, it is also the Generator of a solid waste.

 What:

Alleged violations include:

  • Improper – or absent – hazardous waste determination.
  • Unlawful transportation of hazardous waste.
  • Transportation of hazardous waste without the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest.
  • Failure to obtain hazardous waste generator identification numbers.
  • Did not send hazardous waste to authorized hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities.
  • Did not use proper hazardous waste labels and markings on the container.
Where:

Civil complaint filed in Sacramento County.  Violations are alleged to have taken place at FedEx’s thirty-one (31) terminals within California.

When:

News release:  June 26, 2014.

According to the news release, the alleged violations have occurred, “since at least November 2008”.

Why:

The improper management of hazardous waste can lead to the pollution of the environment and jeopardize human health and safety.  DTSC regulates hazardous waste within California to ensure it is managed in a way to minimize its impact on the environment.

How:

As a state with an authorized hazardous waste program, Cal EPA – and DTSC – can create and enforce its own regulations as long as they are at least as strict and broad as those of the USEPA.

Conclusion:

What conclusions can be drawn from this?  Number one, that significant fines and violations can accumulate from a relatively simple lack of awareness of being subject to the regulations.  Pursuant to 40 CFR 262.11 (Federal regulations but adopted by all the states) a generator of any solid waste must determine if it is a hazardous waste.  This is known as the Hazardous Waste Determination.  Simply being aware of this requirement as a starting point could have avoided a significant problem for FedEx Ground in California.

Secondly, despite popular misconceptions, big well-known companies make simple – and costly – mistakes like this all the time.  You as the Generator of a hazardous waste and/or the Shipper of a hazardous material cannot rely on other big-name companies to ensure your compliance.  Their mistakes could cost you!

So what’s the answer?  Training.

If you generate – or even have the potential to generate – any hazardous waste, then someone at your facility must be aware of the applicable regulations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  But more than that, someone must be familiar with the regulations of your state, since, as in this case, the regulations of a state (California) can be much more strict and more broad than those of the USEPA.

I provide that training.  Whether you choose to attend one of my nationwide & year-round Training Seminars, schedule a site-specific Onsite Training, participate in a convenient and inexpensive Webinar Training, or a combination of all three; I’ve can provide you with the training you need to avoid costly fines and penalties.

Please contact me for a free training consultation.

Daniels Training Services

815.821.1550

Info@DanielsTraining.com

https://www.danielstraining.com/

Requirements of a CESQG in Colorado

As a state with its own hazardous waste program, authorized by the US EPA under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Colorado may make its hazardous waste regulations more strict and more broad than the Federal rule.  Colorado has done this in regards to its regulation of the Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator (CESQG) status for hazardous waste.  The purpose of this article is to explain the state-specific regulations of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) applicable to a CESQG.

Colorado has state specific regulations for the management of hazardous waste

Are you in compliance with the regulations of the CDPHE?

(more…)