The Bullet:

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes a $120,000 civil penalty against UPS, Inc., of Atlanta, GA, for allegedly violating the Hazardous Materials Regulations.

The FAA alleges that UPS, performing a shipper function, knowingly offered a shipment containing lithium batteries to the company’s UPS Airlines for transportation by air from Ontario, CA, to Louisville, KY, on Nov. 15, 2018.

Read the FAA press release of January 24, 2020

Who:

• The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is one of thirteen (13) administrations and bureaus within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT).
  • FAA contact: Allen Kenitzer / 206-231-2035 / allen.kenitzer@faa.gov
• United Parcel Service (UPS) is an American multinational package delivery and supply chain management company.  Its headquarters are in Atlanta, GA

What:

• The FAA alleges the shipment of lithium batteries violated the following regulations of the HMR:
  • Shipment of lithium batteries was not properly packaged.
  • Shipment was not accompanied by a Shipper’s Declaration for Dangerous Goods, and was not properly described, marked or labeled to indicate the hazardous nature of its contents.
  • The FAA also alleges UPS failed to include emergency response information with the shipment.
• Employees at the UPS facility in Louisville examined the contents of the shipment and discovered that it contained multiple loosely packed lithium batteries which had no protection from short circuit, were damaged, and several of which were in a reactive state, the FAA alleges.

Where:

• Consignment was offered for transport in Ontario, CA.  For delivery to the UPS facility in Louisville, KY.

When:

• Consignment of lithium batteries was offered for transport on November 15, 2018.
• FAA press release: January 24, 2020
• UPS has 30 days after receiving the FAA’s enforcement letter to respond to the agency.

Why:

Lithium ion (and lithium metal) batteries that are damaged, defective and likely to generate a dangerous evolution of heat are forbidden for air transportation on cargo and passenger carrying aircraft.

How:

The FAA does not create the Hazardous Materials Regulations – that’s the job of another administration within the USDOT: the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) – but it does enforce the HMR when a hazardous material is transported by air.

Conclusion:

Even big companies make mistakes.  Another reason why the person who offers a HazMat for transportation (the shipper) should not rely on the carrier to ensure compliance with the regulations.  Only knowledge of the regulations and the biennial training required by IATA (USDOT/PHMSA requires training every three years) can keep your company from facing civil penalties like the one now faced by UPS.

Like any decent regulatory agency the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT/PHMSA) issues monetary penalties for violations of its Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR). And wouldn’t you know it, USDOT/PHMSA adjusts those penalties to keep pace with inflation. Below are the increased penalty amounts for 2019:

Note: all penalties are assessed per violation, per day.

• Maximum civil penalty for a violation of the HMR: $78,976. An increase from $78,376 in 2018.
• If the violation results in death, serious illness, severe injury, or substantial property damage:  $186,610.  An increase from $182,887 in 2018.
• The minimum penalty for a violation related to HazMat Employee training:  $481.  An increase for $10 from $471 in 2018.

Remember, those amounts can be assessed separately for each day that each violation exists.

I’m sure you’ve been in a situation where someone has told you that the company can’t afford HazMat Employee training.  Looking at the above amounts I’d say it’s more correct to say the company can’t afford not to have HazMat Employee training.

The Bullet:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the North Slope Borough, Alaska have reached a settlement that resolves alleged violations of hazardous waste requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

North Slope Borough Settles With EPA for Hazardous Waste Violations

Who:

The North Slope Borough – the equivalent of most other state’s “county” – in the U.S. state of Alaska.

USEPA Region 10 with its headquarters in Seattle, WA.

USEPA contact: Judy Smith, 503-326-6994, smith.judy@epa.gov

What:

USEPA alleges the following violations by the North Slope Borough:

• Failure to complete the hazardous waste determination on at least five separate wastestreams.
• Stored more than 45,000 pounds of hazardous waste for greater than 90 days without the required permit.

EPA and the North Slope Borough have signed a Consent Agreement and Final Order.  As part of this agreement, the North Slope Borough will pay a $445,336 penalty.

The drums and containers of hazardous waste have been removed from the site.

When:

Violations occurred from 2012 – 2014

Announced by USEPA July 30, 2015

Where:

North Slope Borough is located largely in the North Slope region of Alaska.  The subject hazardous waste was generated at the South Pad facility located on Nunavaaq Street in Barrow, Alaska.

Why:

Ed Kowalski, Director of EPA Region 10’s Office of Compliance and Enforcement:

Performing timely and accurate hazardous waste determinations is a keystone of the RCRA program.  Waste must be evaluated by the generator so that it can be safely managed and to prevent releases that endanger human health and the environment.

Obtaining a RCRA permit prior to operating a storage facility is a critical requirement of the RCRA program. The permitting process insures that hazardous waste storage facilities are operated to prevent harm to the environment or human health. Circumventing that process can lead to dangerously poor waste management.

How:

Since Alaska lacks an authorized hazardous waste program, the Federal hazardous waste regulations apply in that state as they do in Iowa and Puerto Rico.

A Borough, just like a county, city, state, or even Federal government or division of government is subject to the hazardous waste regulations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and to the fines or penalties that may be imposed if violations of the regulations are found or alleged.

Summary:

A huge penalty – not a fine – was paid by this relatively small local government.  I can only imagine that this represented a significant hit to their budget, perhaps for years to come.  Though lack of Hazardous Waste Personnel Training was not cited as an issue here, I can’t help but believe that good training – my training – would have identified these issues and given the administrators of the North Slope Borough the information and the tools they would need to fix the problem.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me, whatever your question, regarding the cradle-to-grave management of hazardous waste.  I’ll travel anywhere in the country to provide Onsite Training or we can make it easy with a Webinar.

The Bullet:

It does not appear that any fines were issued, but a simple violation of the state hazardous waste regulations could have been avoided with a little knowledge.

Who:

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

DNREC Contact: Davis, William B

Violator: Brandywine Body Shop

What:

Enforcement Number: 2014-11975 Program: Solid & Hazardous Waste

Where:

When:

Date violation discovered: 08/19/2014

Date corrected: 08/19/2014

Date notice of violation served: 11/28/2014

Why:

Containers of hazardous waste were not marked with the words “Hazardous Waste” or with other words that identify the contents of the containers.

How:

As a state with an authorized hazardous waste program, Delaware may conduct RCRA compliance inspections of businesses within its borders and issue violations and fines for non-compliance.

Conclusion:

Something as simple as failing to label a hazardous waste container resulted in a violation for this business.  If you don’t have the time or resources for my Onsite Training or for one of my Training Seminars, consider the low-cost and quick alternative to formal training that will bring you into compliance:  Webinar Training.

Even those states without authorized hazardous waste programs under RCRA (Iowa, Alaska, & Puerto Rico) are responsible for the management of non-hazardous solid waste within their state.  While regulations for hazardous waste find their authority in Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, non-hazardous wastes are addressed in Subtitle D of RCRA.  It’s in Subtitle D that the USEPA delegates the management of non-hazardous waste to each state.  I have found that the states take a myriad of approaches to the management of non-hazardous waste and in this article we will read of how Massachusetts is enforcing its ban from landfill disposal for certain recyclable materials. (more…)