Regulated Industry General Interest

Laboratory Operator Sentenced to 40 Months for Fabricating Industrial Wastewater Results

Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Tennie White, the owner and operator of an environmental laboratory located in Jackson, Miss., was sentenced in federal court late yesterday to 40 months in prison in connection with her conviction for faking laboratory testing results and lying to federal investigators, announced Gregory K. Davis, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, and Robert G. Dreher, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.

White also was sentenced to three years of supervised release to follow her prison sentence and was ordered to pay a $1,000 fine and a $100 special assessment.  White was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Henry T. Wingate at the federal courthouse in Jackson, where he also presided over the May 2013 trial of the case.

“Independent laboratories play a critical role in assisting businesses to accurately monitor and report discharges of industrial pollutants that may adversely affect the environment,” said Acting Assistant Attorney General Dreher.  “Businesses cannot fulfill this important responsibility if these laboratories are not honest brokers and falsify test results and monitoring reports.  This prosecution shows that fraudulent testing and reporting by laboratories will not be tolerated.”

“Americans expect their public water supply to be clean and safe to use,” said Maureen O’Mara, Special Agent in Charge of the Environmental Protection Agency’s criminal enforcement program in Mississippi.  “In order to safeguard public health it is absolutely essential that governments receive accurate test results and measurements.  This case demonstrates that individuals who falsify environmental records and try to mislead the government will be prosecuted and held accountable.”

White, owner, operator and manager of Mississippi Environmental Analytical Laboratories Inc., was found guilty in May 2013 of two false statement counts and one count of obstructing proceedings.  Evidence at trial established that White was hired to perform laboratory testing of a manufacturer’s industrial process waste water samples and then to use those results to complete monthly discharge monitoring reports for submission to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality.  However, for the months October  to December 2008, White created discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) that falsely represented that laboratory testing had been performed on samples when, in fact, such testing had not been done.  White further created a fictitious laboratory report and presented it to her client for use in preparing another DMR for January 2009.  White made false statements to a federal agent during a subsequent criminal investigation.

The case was prosecuted by Trial Attorney Richard J. Powers of the Environmental Crimes Section of the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Gaines Cleveland of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Mississippi.

Though this case dealt solely with the analysis of wastewater samples collected to demonstrate compliance with the Clean Water Act, it should serve as a cautionary tale for any company that relies on an independent lab for analysis as part of its hazardous waste determination.  Make certain that the lab you are using is reputable, is using the prescribed USEPA test methods, has the required independent certifications, and (in some states) is on the state environmental agencies approved lab list.

Contact me with any questions you may have about the hazardous waste determination or the regulations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Lac-Mégantic, Quebec Train Derailment of July 6, 2013

According to Rail Safety Advisory Letters issued by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada on July 19, 2013, the incident is summarized as follows.

At approximately 10:45 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on July 5, 2013, MMA train 2 was proceeding eastward from Montreal, Quebec, to St. John, New Brunswick.  The train was approximately 4,700 feet long and weighed over 10,000 tons.  It consisted of five locomotives, a loaded box car, and 72 loaded tank cars containing petroleum crude oil (U.S. DOT Hazard Class 3, UN 1267).  At approximately 11:00 p.m. the train stopped near milepost 7.40 near Nantes, Quebec.  At that location the operator of the train secured it and departed, leaving the train unattended on mainline track with a descending grade of approximately 1.2 percent.  At around 11:50 p.m. a local resident reported a fire on the controlling locomotive (MMA 5017) of the train.  The local fire department was called and responded with another MMA employee.  At approximately midnight, the controlling locomotive was shut down and the fire extinguished. After the fire was extinguished, the fire department and the MMA employee left the site.  At approximately 1:00 a.m. the next day (the early morning of July 6th) it appears that the train began rolling and picking up speed down the descending grade toward the town of Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, which sits approximately 30 miles from the United States-Canada border.  Near the center of town, the box car and 63 of the loaded tank cars derailed.  The locomotives, which separated from the train, traveled an additional 1/2 mile before coming to a stop.  A number of derailed tank cars released product resulting in multiple explosions and subsequent fires.  At this time, it is estimated that there were 42 fatalities and that 5 persons are still missing.  There was also extensive damage to the town, and approximately 2,000 people were evacuated from the surrounding area.  While the investigation is ongoing and the Transportation Safety Board of Canada has not reached any final conclusions, it has made a determination that the braking force applied to the train was insufficient to hold it on the 1.2-percent descending slope between Nantes and Lac-Mégantic.

Free Energy & Waste Assessments for Small Businesses in Michigan

The Retired Engineer Technical Assistance Program (RETAP) provides in-depth pollution prevention (P2) and energy conservation assessments to businesses with 500 or fewer employees in Michigan. RETAP assessments are performed by teams of retired engineers and are always free, confidential, non-regulatory, and objective. For each assessment, RETAP provides a written report containing specific recommendations to save money, reduce energy usage, conserve water, and eliminate waste generation. To date, RETAP has conducted over 1,800 assessments with
a demonstrated record of averaging over $40,000 in potential cost savings per assessment.

RETAP maintains over fifty (50) retired engineers, scientists, and other professionals active in the program. Each RETAP engineer has thirty to forty years of experience in industry giving RETAP the unique ability to offer over 2,000 years of combined professional experience to help businesses improve their operations and save money, free of charge.

Any business interested in requesting a RETAP assessment or additional information should contact David Herb at 517-241-8175 or herbd@michigan.gov or through the DEQ’s Environmental Assistance Center at 800-662-9278.

It can’t hurt to have another set of eyes take a look at your facility and operations in order to assist you with saving money.  If the assessment determines that you need assistance complying with the hazardous waste regulations of the Michigan DEQ, don’t hesitate to contact me.

Do Big Companies Know the Regulations?

Time and again when I’m assisting a company with regulatory compliance – either the Hazardous Material Regulations of the PHMSA/USDOT or the RCRA Hazardous Waste Regulations of the USEPA (or their state) – I’ll hear something like the following:

Company X shipped the hazardous material to us this way, so it must be OK for us to ship it out the same way.

or…

Company X always takes our hazardous waste/universal waste/used oil this way and they’ve never mentioned a problem.

or…

Company X is in the business of transporting this hazardous material/hazardous waste, they must be doing it right.

or…

Company X told me they’ve been doing it this way for years and they’ve never been fined or had a violation.

Sound familiar?

And as often as I hear comments like the above I’ll discover some egregious error made by a “Company X”, such as:

  • Incorrect sequence of the elements of a hazardous material basic description on a shipping paper.
  • Improperly placard vehicles.
  • Not providing annual training for Hazardous Waste Personnel.
  • Mistaken belief that the Hazardous Material Regulations of the PHMSA/USDOT don’t apply to their operations.
  • Improper or no labeling of hazardous waste containers.
  • Not providing triennial training for HazMat Employees.
  • Incorrect or no indication of a Reportable Quantity of a Hazardous Substance on a shipping paper.

I won’t name here the Company X’s I’ve come across, but believe me, they are common names that you would recognize.  They make mistakes just like smaller companies do.  And don’t expect your corporate-level EHS to always be correct either; another all-to-common statement I hear:

Corporate never told us anything about that!

The fact of the matter is that as a shipper of a hazardous material and/or a generator of a hazardous waste, the responsibility to comply with the regulations is yours alone.  The regulatory agencies – state or Federal – will hold you responsible for a violation of the regulations regardless of who may have told you to do it that way.  Make sure that your EHS programs (including hazardous material transportation) are based on the regulations and not what you were told by someone else or assumed to be true.

That is where my training comes in.  Not only do I tell you what is required to comply with regulations of the PHMSA/USDOT and the USEPA (or your state) but I also inform you of the source of that information, ie. the regulations themselves.  My training and all that tools and tips that come with it is a good start to ensuring compliance.  Please contact me to schedule HazMat Employee Training and Hazardous Waste Personnel/RCRA Training.

 

Environmental Enterprises cited for 22 violations after worker dies from burns suffered at Cincinnati hazardous waste treatment facility

US Labor Department’s OSHA places company in severe violator enforcement program

CINCINNATI – Environmental Enterprises Inc. has been cited by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration with 22 safety and health violations after a fire and explosion occurred at the Cincinnati waste treatment facility on Dec. 28. Two employees were severely burned by the fire, one fatally.

“Environmental Enterprises demonstrated a complete disregard for employee’s safety and health by failing to recognize and train employees on potentially dangerous interactions between materials being handled and tools in use,” said Bill Wilkerson, OSHA’s area director for its Cincinnati office. “Even after this tragic explosion, the company failed to immediately address procedures and ensure employees knew how to use appropriate personal protective equipment and properly handle hazardous waste such as sodium chlorate. OSHA is committed to protecting workers on the job, and educating employers about safety and health regulations.” (more…)

Disposal of Lighting Ballast: Consideration of PCBs or DEHP

In addition to conducting a hazardous waste determination on your lamps which may exhibit the hazardous characteristic of Toxicity for either Lead (D008) or Mercury (D009), you must also determine the hazardous waste status of the lamp ballasts.  There are two possible constituents of a lighting fixture’s ballast that may affect its disposal:  Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and Diethylhexyl Phthalate or Di (2-ethylhexyl) phathatlate (DEHP).
(more…)

FAQ’s About GHS, OSHA’s HazCom Standard, and its Impact on the Hazardous Material Regulations of the PHMSA/USDOT

By now everyone in the industry has heard about GHS and how it will affect the management of hazardous chemicals in the US.  Since my training and expertise is currently limited to the regulations of the USEPA (and authorized States) and the PHMSA of the USDOT, I have strived to stay away from this revision to OSHA’s regulations.  However, too many questions from too many people has convinced me that I can ignore it no longer.  Also, though currently minor, GHS has affected the Hazardous Materials Regulations of the PHMSA/USDOT.  And though not likely to become significant in the near future, there is the distinct possibility that future updates to the HMR will be affected by the current GHS.  While not an expert in GHS and HazCom, the purpose of this article is to assemble in one place a variety of questions and answers those in the regulated industry are likely to have. (more…)

Amalgamated Sugar settles for failure to immediately report the release of chlorine gas into the environment

Read on for the news release from the USEPA, then read my articles that explain the reporting requirements that Amalgamated Sugar did not complete:

News Release: Amalgamated Sugar settles for failure to immediately report the release of chlorine gas into the environment

03/13/2013

 Contact Information: Hanady Kader, EPA Public Affairs, 206-553-0454

(Seattle—March 12, 2013)   The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reached a settlement with Amalgamated Sugar Company LLC (Amalgamated Sugar) for failing to properly report the release of dangerous chlorine gas at its Paul, Idaho facility.  Amalgamated Sugar, a sugar manufacturing facility that processes sugar beets, will pay $18,000 in penalties.

According to the settlement, plant operators did not immediately notify federal and state authorities about the chlorine gas release.

“Companies need to notify the appropriate agencies right away so emergency personnel can quickly respond to these hazardous chemical releases,” said Ed Kowalski, Director of EPA’s Office of Compliance & Enforcement in Seattle. “Failure to do this puts not only employees, but the community at risk.”

The release on February 7, 2012, was caused when a chemical truck driver mistakenly unloaded hydrochloric acid into the tank containing sodium hypochlorite. When mixed, the chemicals caused a violent reaction which blew the access lid off the tank, emitting 43 pounds of chlorine gas into the atmosphere.  According to Amalgamated Sugar, the driver was injured and evacuated by ambulance. The company’s notification to state and federal authorities was over 46 hours late.

Chlorine is a toxic gas that attacks skin, eyes, throat, and lungs and can cause serious injury or death in extreme cases.

The chlorine release and the failure to notify appropriate agencies are violations of the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).

For information on EPA’s Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, visit  http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/lcra.html

For more about toxic effects of Anhydrous Ammonia (NIOSH GUIDE): http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0115.html

Free Access to the Code of Federal Regulations

Compliance with the regulations of the US EPA and the US DOT – not to mention the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) – requires knowledge of those regulations.  Knowledge of the regulations can only come after you  have familiarized yourself with their structure and content.  And familiarity requires access.  The objective of this article is to inform you of a free source of the regulations of the US DOT, US EPA, and other Federal agencies.

The general and permanent rules of all Federal Agencies are first printed in the Federal Register and then codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).  It is the responsibility of the Government Printing Office (GPO) – an agency of the legislative branch of the Federal Government that provides printing and binding services for congress – to make the CFR available to interested parties.  In the old days (remember the 90’s?) this would have meant printing and distributing a hardcopy on the printed page.  But in this modern age of the internet the CFR is available to you on-line:  free, easily accessible, and with tools to help make sense of it.

The CFR is available from the GPO in two formats both of which are available through the GPO’s Federal Digit System (FDsys):

The annual edition of the CFR is available online for calendar years 1996 through 2012.  It contains the 50 titles of the CFR which are updated once each calendar year on a staggered basis. The annual update cycle is as follows:

  • Titles 1-16 are revised as of January 1
  • Titles 17-27 are revised as of April 1
  • Titles 28-41 are revised as of July 1
  • Titles 42-50 are revised as of October 1

This version of the CFR can be downloaded in several formats:  pdf, text, & XML.  Of the three, only pdf and text have legal status as parts of the official online format of the Code of Federal Regulations (User Guide Document – CFR XML Rendition).  In addition to its legal status, pay attention to the annual updates to the CFR based on the title:

  • OSHA regulations are in Title 29 – Annual update on July 1.
  • US EPA are in Title 40 – Annual update on July 1.
  • US DOT are in Title 49 – Annual update on October 1.

Also available is an electronic version of the CFR known as the e-CFR.  This version includes all 50 titles of the CFR but has the advantage of more frequent updates (daily) than the annual edition of the CFR.  In addition to the daily updates its advantages include user-friendly tools for searching the regulations.  You may also use standard web-browser tools such as search, print, bookmark, or hyperlinks to make the e-CFR more useful to you.

Unfortunately the e-CFR is an editorial compilation of the CFR and Federal Register amendments, “It is not an official legal edition of the CFR”.  In other words its a great source of information but before you make any difficult regulatory decisions, be sure you have researched the official legal edition of the annual edition of the CFR.

 Access to the Federal regulations is a good first step, now you have to understand them.  One thing I do in my Public Training Seminars is to cite the applicable Federal regulations to aid in understanding the connection between your operations and the regulations.
You must also consider the regulations of your state which will take precedence over those of the US EPA if your state has an authorized hazardous waste program.  That is why in my Onsite Training I design my training presentation based on the applicable state regulations.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you have questions about the regulations or your training options.

 

The Honorable Judge Kenneth F. Reilly – A Remembrance

I first met the Judge when I attended one of his live training seminars in Chicago, IL in August of 2009.  It was well attended and the Judge went through his prepared material like the professional that he was.  As I left with my two training completion certificates – one for the four hours of RCRA training and another for the four hours of HazMat Employee training – and a head full of information, I couldn’t help but think that I could conduct a training session like his.  Unlike the Judge, I didn’t intend to go it alone; instead I thought of it as a project for me with my employer at that time, Fehr-Graham and Associates.  Looking back, it was the Judge’s confidence and knowledgeable presentation of the material that made it look so easy, like it was something I could do.

I later had the privilege to have a short conversation with the Judge prior to his preparation for the next day’s training.  During our short time together he was polite, open, and engaging.  Keep in mind that he knew he was speaking with someone that wanted to enter the same market as his and could become a competitor.  The fact that he shared anything with me at all speaks to his generosity and kindness.  The conversation further reinforced my belief that a training service was something that Fehr-Graham could accomplish, with me as the training provider.  To this day, I still use some of the tips and techniques I learned from the Judge during our meeting.

Fast forward a few months to November 2010, and my plans had changed; I intended to leave Fehr-Graham and start my own training business:  Daniels Training Services.  Once again, the Judge was my inspiration.  I don’t know how he ran his business, but it appeared to be largely a one-man operation; which is what I intended for myself.  The fact that he had gone up against some of the big corporations that provide training and had carved out a niche resonated with me; I thought with hard work and time I could do the same.  I had – and have – however the advantage of the internet with all its free or inexpensive resources to assist a regulatory compliance business like mine.  It is notable that none of these things were available when the Judge started in the late 1980’s.

In the one and a half years since I started this business, the Judge has been the yardstick to which I measure my success and my guide to how I operate.  “Is my website ranked as high as his?”  “What cities is he scheduled to visit?  And when?”  “What would the Judge do?”

Like anyone who ever strove to accomplish something, I’m sure the Judge had his critics – I was one of them at times – but those criticisms, and any remaining critics, fade to irrelevance when compared to his creation of a business that was recognized nation wide.

I had hoped to meet the Judge again and, if possible, have another conversation.  My questions would have been different, reflecting my hard-won experience over the intervening years, but I suspect he would have been the same:  polite, affable, professional.  The truest statement I can make and, I think, the best compliment I can give to his memory is that I wish I could talk to Judge Ken Reilly just one more time.

The Honorable Kenneth F. Reilly passed away on June 23, 2012 in Conroe, TX from heart failure.