RCRA Violations

Five RCRA Hazardous Waste Violations You’re Probably Making Right Now — and can fix today!

Five RCRA Hazardous Waste Violations You’re Probably Making Right Now — and can fix today!

I don’t mean to scare you, but this is important and I had to get your attention with the title.  I’ve provided training and seen businesses all over this country in the past few  years and I’ve observed these same violations time and again.

The bad news?  An agency inspection – State or Federal – that results in the discovery of these violations could result in serious fines, even if no one was hurt or the environment damaged.

The good news?  These violations – if you have them – are so easy to fix!  Just an hour or two of time dedicated to them and you can be back in compliance before you go home today.

Disclaimer and Limitations:

I haven’t seen your facility (though I’d love to!  Contact me for a free consultation and site visit that accompanies your Onsite Training) so I don’t know for sure what your status is with the environmental regulations.  Also, I can only address the regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in this article.  You may have more strict – or at least different – regulations of your state of which I am not aware.  Once again, my Onsite Training is a great way to be trained on, and receive help coming into compliance with, state regulations if you do business in a state with an authorized hazardous waste program.

Contact me with any questions you may have about the generation, identification, management, and disposal of hazardous waste

Daniels Training Services

815.821.1550

Info@DanielsTraining.com

https://www.danielstraining.com/

So, in no particular order, those violations and the simple fixes:

Violation #1:

Identifying a used oil tank or container as anything other than “Used Oil”.  Unless you do business in Pennsylvania where it is identified as “Waste Oil” or California where it is “Hazardous Waste Used Oil”, the Federal regulations, and every state I am aware of, require a used oil generator to label containers, tanks and fill pipes for used oil as “Used Oil”.  40 CFR 279.22(c) couldn’t be more clear:

(c) Labels. (1) Containers and aboveground tanks used to store used oil at generator facilities must be labeled or marked clearly with the words “Used Oil.”

(2) Fill pipes used to transfer used oil into underground storage tanks at generator facilities must be labeled or marked clearly with the words “Used Oil.”

The Fix for Violation #1:Used oil tank

Print out “Used Oil” labels and affix them to every container or tank that contains used oil.  That will do for today.  Tomorrow, have someone create a stencil for “Used Oil” or devise some more durable form of identification.

Learn more!

Violation #2:

Not marking hazardous waste containers with the date of initial hazardous waste accumulation; i.e. the calendar date that the “first drop” of hazardous waste was placed in the container and the words “Hazardous Waste”.  It’s simple really, the day that hazardous waste is first placed in a container it must be marked with the words “Hazardous Waste” and the date.  This requirement applies to a large quantity generator of hazardous waste (LQG) per 40 CFR 262.34(a)(2 & 3):

(2) The date upon which each period of accumulation begins is clearly marked and visible for inspection on each container;

(3) While being accumulated on-site, each container and tank is labeled or marked clearly with the words, “Hazardous Waste”; and

It also applies to a small quantity generator of hazardous waste (SQG) per 40 CFR 262.34(d)(4), which refers back to the LQG responsibility at §262.34(a)(2 & 3):

(4) The generator complies with the requirements of paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) of this section, the requirements of subpart C of part 265, with all applicable requirements under 40 CFR part 268; and

The following are not subject to these regulations:

  • A conditionally exempt small quantity generator of hazardous waste (CESQG).
  • An LQG or SQG that accumulates hazardous waste in a what’s commonly known as a “satellite accumulation area” pursuant to 40 CFR 262.34(c).

The Fix for Violation #2:

If you’re and LQG or SQG, take a walk around and make sure that every hazardous waste container – unless in a satellite accumulation area – is marked with the accumulation start date and “Hazardous Waste”.  It doesn’t have to be fancy, it doesn’t have to be a pre-printed label, it doesn’t have to have any information other than what is indicated here (check with your state to be sure).  Just make sure it is visible to your Hazardous Waste Personnel and to an inspector.

Violation #3:

Hazardous waste containers at an LQG or SQG that are not closed as required by 40 CFR 265.173(a), a section within 40 CFR 265, subpart I which is referred to as a requirement for both an LQG and an SQG.

(a) A container holding hazardous waste must always be closed during storage, except when it is necessary to add or remove waste.

“Closed” sounds like it should be easy to describe, but it’s not.  It can be summarized as a performance standard that requires the container to be vapor-tight so there is no detectable release of vapors without the use of instruments and to be spill-proof so there will be no release of a hazardous waste even when the container is knocked over.  That’s a pretty high standard and requires more than just a container’s lid held snugly in place.

The Fix to Violation #3:

If a container uses bungs or bolts for its closure, ensure they are in use at all times.  Long-term training employees and providing them with the right tools will help ensure you stay in compliance.  These latching lids from New Pig are one way to ensure compliance without hindering your employees access to the containers.

Learn more!

Violation #4:

A small quantity generator of hazardous waste that has not posted emergency contact information near its external communication devices.  While a good idea for all hazardous waste generators – and indeed, all businesses regardless of the hazardous waste generated – EPA regulations at 40 CFR 262.34(d)(5)(ii) mandate this simple measure only for the SQG:

(ii) The generator must post the following information next to the telephone:

(A) The name and telephone number of the emergency coordinator;

(B) Location of fire extinguishers and spill control material, and, if present, fire alarm; and

(C) The telephone number of the fire department, unless the facility has a direct alarm.

Like this article?

Subscribe to my Monthly Newsletter

No marketing emails!

The Fix for Violation #4:

You may want to check with your state environmental agency, but below I’ve provided a document from the Michigan DEQ website that meets the EPA requirements and likely that of your state as well.  Just be sure to remove the reference to the “Michigan Pollution Emergency” phone number at the bottom of the page.

You must post this information near any communication device that would be used in an emergency to contact emergency response personnel outside of the facility.

Violation #5:

Universal waste containers not identified with one of the following options:

  • “Universal Waste xxxxx”
  • “Waste xxxxx”
  • “Used xxxxx”

“xxxxx” in the above could be: “Battery(ies)”, “Lamp(s)”, “Mercury-Containing Device(s)”, or “Pesticides”.  Or it could be a universal waste specific to your state.  Both a small quantity handler and a large quantity handler of universal waste must comply with this simple requirement per 40 CFR 173.14(a) or §173.34(a):

(a) Universal waste batteries (i.e., each battery), or a container in which the batteries are contained, must be labeled or marked clearly with any one of the following phrases: “Universal Waste—Battery(ies),” or “Waste Battery(ies),” or “Used Battery(ies);”

The Fix for Violation #5:

“Simple” and yet so often done incorrectly.  Don’t label your universal waste containers as “Bad lamps” or “Batteries to Recycle”, or “spent batteries”, or whatever else you can think of that is not one of the three available options.

No fancy labels are required.  Just print them and slap them on the container, or nearby if you have a distinct storage area.

That’s enough for now!

Sure there are more, for starters:

  • Not managing your hazardous waste container at or near the point of generation when in a satellite accumulation area per 40 CFR 262.34(c).
  • Not including the home address and phone numbers of the emergency coordinators identified in your contingency plan.
  • Accumulating hazardous waste on-site in excess of the time and/or volume limits of your hazardous waste generator status.
  • Not completing a documented hazardous waste determination for all waste generated.
  • More…

Contact me with any questions you may have about the generation, identification, management, and disposal of hazardous waste

Daniels Training Services

815.821.1550

Info@DanielsTraining.com

https://www.danielstraining.com/

Those violations are more complicated to explain and the solutions will take more of your time.  The five I’ve identified here are common occurrences with simple fixes.  If you have any other questions regarding your compliance with the hazardous waste regulations of the USEPA or of your state, please don’t hesitate to contact me.  I’ll help you with the easy stuff and the hard stuff.

Army Settles With EPA for Hazardous Waste Violations at Fort Wainwright, AK – Pays $59,220 in Penalties

The Bullet:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reached a settlement with the U.S. Army for alleged violations of its hazardous waste permit at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. As part of the settlement, the Army has agreed to pay $59,220 in penalties for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Who:

Logo for US Environmental Protection AgencyU.S Environmental Protection Agency Region 10.

Fort Wainwright, a U.S Army base.

What:

EPA alleges that the Army violated its RCRA permit by failing to notify the Agency when an old munitions and explosives dump was discovered within the Fort’s Small Arms Range Complex in June 2013.

The U.S Army paid $59,220 in penalties as part of the settlement.

Where:

The U.S Army base Fort Wainwright is located on the eastern border of Fairbanks, encompassing over 900,000 acres and includes a range complex, maneuver areas, missile sites, and a garrison.

When:
  • EPA listed Fort Wainwright on the Superfund National Priorities List:  1990.
  • Initial investigation of the site:  2013.
  • Old munitions and explosives dump discovered within the Fort’s Small Arms Range Complex:  June 2013.
  • Army required to notify EPA of its knowledge of the dump:  within 15 days.
  • EPA learned of the dump in a technical memo from the Army’s contractor:  more than a year later.
  • The Army conducted a partial cleanup at the site:  2015.
  • Settlement announcement published by EPA: 12/08/2015
  • The Army to conduct additional cleanup:  2016.
Why:

“Failure to notify EPA could have delayed and impeded our ability to ensure timely, appropriate actions were taken to protect people and the environment.” said Ed Kowalski, Directo of EPA’s Pacific Northwest Office of Compliance and Enforcement.

Contact me with any questions you may have about the generation, identification, management, and disposal of hazardous waste

Daniels Training Services

815.821.1550

Info@DanielsTraining.com

https://www.danielstraining.com/

How:

Alaska does not have an authorized hazardous waste program under RCRA (neither does Iowa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, nor the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianna Islands), therefore the Federal regulations of the EPA are in effect and enforced by EPA.

Conclusion:

What I find interesting about this situation is that Fort Wainwright has a permit under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and does not operate as do most generators of hazardous waste: under the permit-by-rule regulations of 40 CFR 262 and elsewhere.  Their permit allows the base to do more with its hazardous waste, e.g. store it for greater than 90 days, perhaps but also comes with more strict responsibilities and is subject to more oversight by state and Federal agencies.

No Trespassing Sign on Army BaseThe other interesting aspect of this announcement is that the U.S. Army is subject to EPA regulations under RCRA.  Got that?  There is no exclusion from regulation under RCRA even for our armed forces.  (Last month I published an announcement of NASA’s alleged violations of RCRA).  If you’re curious about RCRA and its application to government agencies read this article:  Military Munitions, RCRA, and the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of 1992.

Interested in a Webinar that covers this topic, and more!

My Webinar Training Schedule

Read the press release:  Army settles with EPA for hazardous waste violations at Fort Wainwright, Alaska

EPA Contact Information: Suzanne Skadowski, 206-553-2160, 206-900-3309

Learn more about EPA’s RCRA compliance and enforcement work at: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/waste-chemical-and-cleanup-enforcement.

NASA Pays $50,660 Penalty to Settle Alleged Violations of the Clean Air Act and RCRA

The Bullet:

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has agreed to pay a $50,660 penalty to settle alleged violations of federal environmental regulations of the USEPA at the Goddard Space Flight Center, Wallops Island, VA.

Who:

United State Environmental Protection Agency – Region 3

Contact: Roy Seneca, seneca.roy@epa.gov 215-814-5567

What:

EPA cited NASA for violations of the Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

As part of the settlement, NASA has neither admitted nor denied liability for the alleged violations, but has certified its compliance with applicable RCRA and Clean Air Act requirements

Where:

The alleged violations occurred at the Goddard Space Flight Center, Wallops Island, VA.

When:

Published by EPA on November 10, 2015.

No indication in the article of when the alleged violations took place or when enforcement actions began.

Why:

Violations of RCRA hazardous waste regulations cited by EPA include:

  • Requirements for labeling and dating hazardous waste containers used for waste lead solder and alcohol rags.  Hazardous waste containers must be marked with the words “Hazardous Waste” and the date of initial accumulation.
  • Inadequate packaging and labeling of universal wastes (e.g., discarded lamps that may contain mercury or other hazardous substances).  Read my article about universal waste.

NASA also allegedly did not comply with a Clean Air Act permit requirement to obtain a certification from its fuel supplier on the sulfur content and compliance with industry standards for fuel oil used at the facility.

How:

The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) is authorized by the USEPA to administer the hazardous waste program under RCRA in Virginia.  However, in this situation the regulations were enforced by the USEPA and not VDEQ.  Whichever Agency pursued the enforcement and whatever regulations – state or Federal – they enforced, what cannot be missed here is that a unit of the Federal government – and NASA, no less! – is subject to the same regulations, and the same penalties, as a private business.Logo for the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality

Conclusion:

The take-away from this whole matter is that a government agency – state or Federal – is subject to the regulations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act enforced by the USEPA or a state with an authorized hazardous waste program.

Read this article I wrote on the USEPA and USDOT definition of a “Person” or refer to the definition of a person in the Federal USEPA regulations 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.

Contact me with any questions you may have about the generation, identification, management, and disposal of hazardous waste

Daniels Training Services

815.821.1550

Info@DanielsTraining.com

https://www.danielstraining.com/

Common RCRA Violations From the USEPA

Common RCRA Violations From the USEPA

You hear from guys like me all the time that the regulations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) – both State and Federal – are important. Logo for US Environmental Protection Agency But which ones are the most important?  Which of all of the regulations are the ones most likely to result in you receiving a Notice of Violation?  While I can’t answer that, I can provide you with a list of what the USEPA – Region 1 considers to be the most common RCRA violations and the citations of the Code of Federal Regulations where the regulation appears. (more…)

Metal Finisher in Seattle pays $24,000 to Settle Hazardous Waste Violations After Corrections are Made

The Bullet:

A firm that applies rust-resistant coating to iron and steel has corrected past environmental violations, but will pay a $24,000 fine for having allowed the non-compliance to occur.  More…

Who:WA Dept of Ecology

Washington State Department of Ecology

  • Larry Altose, communications, 425-649-7009, @ecySeattle
  • Daylin Davidson, regional hazardous waste compliance unit leader, 426-649-7090

Ace Galvanizing Inc.

What:

Repeated violations included:

  • Not properly labeling dangerous waste containers.
  • Not keeping the containers closed.
  • Not dating containers to ensure disposal within a required 90-day limit for a Large Quantity Generator of dangerous waste.

Not sure of your hazardous waste generator status?

Take this short survey

Ace Galvanizing has since cooperated with Ecology and come into compliance with the regulations.
Where:

Facility is located at:  429 South 96th St. Seattle, WA 98108

When:

Violations were found by Department of Ecology inspectors during four site visits in 2012, 2013, and 2014.

News Release – September 30, 2014

Why:

“Improper handling of dangerous wastes can expose workers, the public and the environment to safety and health hazards.”

How:

It appears that State of Washington Department of Ecology inspectors were patient with this facility and its past ownership.  But it finally determined that the threat to human health and the environment was not going to be addressed without a formal enforcement action.

Daniels Training Services

815.821.1550

Info@DanielsTraining.com

https://www.danielstraining.com/

Conclusion:
HazMat Employee & RCRA Training

Good training can prevent fines and ensure compliance with all Federal and State regulations.

My RCRA training does more than just meet the regulatory requirements at 40 CFR 265.16.  It will also answer your questions and shed a lot of light on the hazardous waste regulations of your state.  At the conclusion of my Onsite Training, all of your facility personnel will know what compliance means and will have the tools to obtain and maintain it.  Contact me for a free training consultation.

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/

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

 

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