fines

Pennsylvania Company Guilty Plea and $1.2 Million Fine for Improper Storage of Explosive Hazardous Waste

The Bullet:

The generator of a hazardous waste violated basic requirements of the hazardous waste regulations.  And, as a consequence, also violated the Hazardous Material Regulations of the PHMSA/USDOT.  These avoidable violations have resulted in significant criminal violations for this company and its officers.

Who:

Action Manufacturing Company in Atglen, PA.

The initial inspection was conducted by the USEPA’s Land and Chemical Division and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP).

The case was investigated by the EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division and the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U. S. Attorney Elizabeth Abrams.

What:

Action Manufacturing Company’s production process generates an explosive hazardous waste.  State and Federal regulations codified under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) require hazardous wastes to be managed according to the applicable generator regulations while accumulated on-site and sent off-site for disposal only to permitted hazardous waste Treatment, Storage, & Disposal Facilities (TSDFs).  Instead of complying with these regulations, the company stockpiled hazardous wastes on-site for – in some cases – several years in gross violation of the generator on-site accumulation time limits.

Not sure of your hazardous waste generator status?

Take this short survey
Where:

Action Manufacturing Company is headquartered in Bristol, Bucks County, PA.

The hazardous waste in question was stored at its facility in Atglen, Chester County, PA

When:

Initial inspection was completed by the USEPA’s Land and Chemical Division and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) in November 2011.

Action Manufacturing entered the guilty plea on May 21, 2014.

A sentencing hearing is scheduled for August 27, 2014.

Why:

Federal and state hazardous waste regulations require a generator of hazardous waste to comply with applicable regulations in lieu of obtaining a permit for the storage of a hazardous waste.  Indefinite, long-term storage of this type without a permit is not allowed.  Further, evidence of a knowing violation of the regulations can lead to criminal prosecution, as in this case.  Also, as is often the case, violations of the USEPA hazardous waste regulations results in violations of the PHMSA/USDOT regulations for the transportation of a hazardous material (in this case a hazardous waste).

How:

Both Federal and state regulations allow authorities of the USEPA or your state, if it has an authorized hazardous waste program, to enter the property of a hazardous waste generator at any reasonable time and go anyplace hazardous waste are or have been.

Conclusion:

I don’t pretend to know all the facts of this case.  I am relying solely on the news release of the USEPA:  Pennsylvania Company Pleads Guilty to Improper Storage of Explosive Hazardous Waste and Agrees to $1.2 Million Fine.  However, it appears to me that compliance with the regulations of the USEPA and the PA DEP would not have been that difficult and certainly are preferable over this outcome.

Don’t wait!  Contact me for a free consultation regarding your compliance with the regulations of the USEPA, your state, and the PHMSA/USDOT.

Daniels Training Services

815.821.1550

Info@DanielsTraining.com

https://www.danielstraining.com/

 

Dudley, Mass. Packaging Plant to Pay Nearly $485K Penalty for Environmental Violations

Release Date: 04/08/2013

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

(Boston, Mass. – April 8, 2013) – A packaging company has agreed to pay $484,900 in penalties to settle EPA claims that it violated numerous federal and state environmental regulations at its liquid and aerosol packaging facility in Dudley, Mass.

According to EPA’s complaint, filed in Sept. 2012, Shield Packaging Company, Inc. violated rules regarding hazardous waste management, chemical accident prevention, hazardous chemical inventory reporting, and oil pollution prevention contained in the Clean Air Act, the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Mass. Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.

EPA had alleged that Shield Packaging violated requirements in the Clean Air Act’s chemical accident prevention provisions by not fully developing and putting in place a risk management plan that adequately addressed processes that used extremely hazardous substances at the facility. The company also failed to submit a required inventory of all hazardous materials on site to emergency responders, and failed to fully implement an oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure plan, as required by federal law. Further, the company violated the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Management Regulations by failing to conduct hazardous waste determinations on wastes at the facility, failing to manage hazardous wastes in accordance with required federal and state management practices, and failing to implement an adequate hazardous waste management training program at the facility.

“Failing to carefully follow hazardous waste management, chemical accident prevention, and oil spill prevention requirements poses increased risks of exposure to dangerous substances for both humans and the environment,” said Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office. “Hazardous substances must be properly handled, stored and disposed of to ensure that the local community and first responders are not subject to unacceptable risks.”

Risk Management Plans help prevent accidental releases of substances that can seriously harm the public and the environment from short-term exposures. The plans also reduce the severity of releases that do occur. A company that fails to create and put in place this type of plan for an extremely hazardous substance can leave the public and environment at risk from accidental releases.

Hazardous chemical inventory reports required under the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act help protect emergency personnel and the community by making them aware of which hazardous chemicals are present at a local facility.

Oil spill prevention plans required under the Clean Water Act help prevent accidental releases of oil from reaching nearby waters, by requiring facilities that store significant quantities of oil to adopt certain measures and controls that reduce the risks associated with releases.

The company cooperated with EPA throughout its investigation, and since EPA’s inspections, the company has completed some work and pledged to complete additional work to fix the problems identified at the facility.

Note the absence of a Hazardous Waste Training Program.  I can’t say that my training services would have prevented all of these violations, but when you choose my Onsite Training Services, you get more than just training.  The day prior to the training I will walk the site with you to gather information for the next day’s training, but I also will share with you my 20+ years of experience with the regulations of the USEPA, OSHA, and the PHMSA/USDOT.

A small investment in training can help to prevent huge fines like these.  Contact me to arrange for the training you need.

New Haven Company Will Pay Penalty for Hazardous Waste Violations

Release Date: 11/26/2012

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

(Boston, Mass. – Nov. 26, 2012) – A New Haven, Conn. company that makes door hardware has agreed to pay $39,705 to settle EPA’s claims that it violated state and federal hazardous waste laws.

The Sargent Manufacturing Company violated state hazardous waste laws as well as the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  These laws are designed to help protect public health and the environment by promoting the proper management of hazardous wastes.

The complaint grew out of an inspection of the facility in March 2011 by EPA. Sargent violated RCRA by failing to: have an adequate hazardous waste training program, close containers of hazardous waste, maintain adequate aisle space between containers of hazardous waste, mark containers with the date that accumulation of hazardous waste began, update and submit a revised contingency plan to local authorities, and otherwise manage hazardous waste in accordance with the requirements.

Sargent’s failure to have an adequate hazardous waste training program increased the likelihood that wastes generated may not be properly managed and that Sargent personnel may not be able to adequately coordinate all emergency response measures in the event of emergency.

After the inspection, Sargent brought its facility into compliance with state and federal waste management laws. 

More information:  Enforcing hazardous waste laws in New England(http://www.epa.gov/region1/enforcement/waste/index.html)

EBV Explosives Environmental Company to Pay $580,135 Penalty for Air, Hazardous Waste Violations at Carthage, Mo.

Release Date: 12/19/2012

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

Environmental News

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Lenexa, Kan., Dec. 19, 2012) – EBV Explosives Environmental Company, doing business as General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems – Munitions Services, has agreed to pay a $580,135 civil penalty to settle alleged violations of the Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) at its facility in Carthage, Mo.

In February 2011, EBV sent a letter to EPA that informed the Agency that stack tests conducted in October 2010 indicated that the hydrogen chloride emission rate at the facility was above permitted levels.

Alleged violations at the facility include operation of a thermal treatment unit without obtaining a valid permit, in violation of the Missouri State Implementation Plan and the Clean Air Act; operating in noncompliance with its Hazardous Waste Management Facility permit from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources on several occasions by exceeding its permitted emission limits for dioxins and furans, hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas, and particulate matter and its permitted operating parameters for stack flow rate; and failure to operate monitors that record the operating parameters and conditions used to verify compliance with the permit.

EPA and EBV entered into an Administrative Order on Consent under the Clean Air Act in January 2012, which required EBV to install equipment to reduce the facility’s hydrogen chloride emissions below permitted levels. Since the order was issued, EBV installed a scrubber, made associated changes to the Propellant Thermal Treatment Unit, and completed stack testing to demonstrate that the facility’s emissions are below permitted levels.

“EPA’s enforcement of these important environmental laws has caused EBV to cut particulate emissions by approximately 1,240 pounds per year and hydrogen chloride and chlorine gas emissions by 200,000 pounds per year,” said EPA Region 7 Administrator Karl Brooks. “EBV’s commendable step to install and operate new technology to prevent excess emissions of these chemicals will mean cleaner air and better health for Carthage area residents.”

As a result of the settlement, EBV has agreed to provide EPA with documentation on a monthly basis that demonstrates it is in full compliance with its RCRA permit.

US EPA Compliance and Enforcement Annual Report for 2011

You are no doubt aware that the US Environmental Protection Agency is serious about enforcing its regulations in order to live up to its mandate to protect the environment.  The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) within the US EPA is tasked with carrying out this enforcement through a variety of measures.  From its website, the OECA…  “aggressively goes after pollution problems that make a difference in communities through vigorous civil and criminal enforcement that targets the most serious water, air and chemical hazards. OECA also advances environmental justice by protecting vulnerable communities.”

How do they do this?  Again, from its website:  “Through improved transparency and community participation, we are enlisting the public’s assistance to ensure compliance nationwide, and that no entity enjoys an unfair economic advantage from noncompliance with the nation’s environmental laws.” It’s the reference to “…improved transparency and community participation…” that should be of concern to the regulated community.  I am in favor of transparency.  I think our businesses, government, and communities function better when we have equal access to public information.  As a business, however, you should be aware that to a greater degree than ever before, information about your company – especially the results of inspections, investigations, and enforcement actions – are made available to the public.

One example of this is the US EPA Compliance and Enforcement Annual Results for 2011 Fiscal Year.  This website contains a wealth of information about US EPA’s enforcement and compliance activities for the year just past.  It includes a lot of bare statistics of interest that you may wish to peruse, but of more interest to the regulated community is the Enforcement Cases Map.  Once opened, you may select or unselect the type of enforcement activities you are interested in, in my case “Waste”.  The map will then reveal the location of all US EPA investigations that resulted in enforcement for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  Click on a location and you may read information about the site.  Select “More Information” and you are taken to the US EPA’s website:  Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO).  Here you find a “Detailed Facility Report” which contains a snapshot of the facility’s compliance history with the US EPA, not just waste, but air, water, emergency reporting, and more.

It has been – and will continue to be – a priority of the Obama administration to make public information easily available to the public.  As a business, you need to be aware of this reality and be prepared to take the following steps:

  1. Review any information about your company that is made public to ensure it is accurate.  Make corrections if it is not.
  2. Communicate proactively with your neighbors, community, state, region, etc. to inform them of what you are doing to maintain your business within the limits of the regulations.  Also inform them of any efforts beyond the regulations to reduce, reuse, and recycle.
  3. Avoid violations in the first place by ensuring compliance with the regulations.

For this last point, I suggest you attend one of my EPA & PHMSA/DOT open enrollment training events.  There, in one day, you will get a good understanding of the US EPA regulations for the management of hazardous waste and the PHMSA/DOT regulations for the transportation of hazardous materials.

If you have many employees to train, contact me for on-site training where for one flat fee of $1,749 for one day I can train as many as you need.

Stiff Fines From the US EPA for Hazardous Waste Generators are Easily Avoidable

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.