violations

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.

Bayer CropScience LP to Pay $13,900 Penalty for Distribution of Misbranded Pesticides in Missouri

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

(Kansas City, Kan., Oct. 1, 2012) – Bayer CropScience LP has agreed to pay a $13,900 civil penalty to the United States to settle a series of environmental violations related to the distribution of mis-branded pesticides through its facility in Kansas City, Mo.

According to an administrative consent agreement and final order filed by EPA Region 7 in Kansas City, Kan., an inspection of Bayer’s Kansas City facility in November 2011 found that on November 28, 2011, Bayer CropScience shipped a quantity of the pesticide Ethosumesate, without a product label, an EPA registration number, or an EPA producing establishment number.

In December 2011, EPA Region 7 received two Notices of Arrival from Bayer for the importation of two separate shipments due that month of quantities of unregistered Methomyl insecticide for the purpose of producing the product into the registered product Larvin Technical. The label provided by Bayer for the two shipments of the unregistered pesticide contained a false or misleading statement in its “Directions for Use” section.

The labeling deficiencies related to the two pesticides were in violation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), according to the settlement.

The sale or distribution of misbranded or mislabeled pesticides can pose serious risks to human health, plant and animal life, and the environment. Without proper labeling or safety instructions on packaging, users can unintentionally misapply pesticides and may not have adequate information to address needs for first aid in the event of emergency.

As a result of EPA’s enforcement action, Bayer CropScience LP was required to relabel all of the shipments in question. The company has also instituted changes in its practices to prevent similar violations.

Read this article to learn if your pesticide could be managed as a Universal Waste at a greatly reduced regulatory burden.  Or contact me to discuss your obligation to train your HazMat Employees and Hazardous Waste Personnel.

RCRA Training is the Solution for South Carolina Company Facing EPA Fines for Hazardous Waste Violations

Sumter Coatings, Inc. (SCI) in Sumter, SC must pay a $55,000 civil penalty as part of a settlement with the US Environmental Protection Agency for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations discovered at its facility during a joint US EPA & SC Department of Health and Environment inspection (press release).  Alleged violations of the hazardous waste regulations include:

  • Improper management of hazardous waste containers on site;
  • Failure to provide a sufficient base beneath containers which held hazardous waste;
  • Failure to make a hazardous waste determination;
  • Failure to inspect all areas where hazardous waste containers are stored weekly;
  • Failure to develop personnel training program to ensure compliance with hazardous waste regulations;
  • Failure to update information contained in the contingency plan, along with failing to make arrangements with local police and hospital authorities regarding the contingency plan and submitting copies of the contingency plan to first responders.
Along with the civil penalty noted above, the EPA also required the company to develop a personnel training program, develop a schedule for implementation of the training program, and identify facility employees that require training.

It is sadly ironic that yet another company is developing a training program under the shadow of an enforcement action when proactive implementation of RCRA training could have precluded the violations from occurring in the first place.  Hazardous waste training is required for all personnel of a large quantity generator who handle, manage, generate, work around, treat, recycle, etc. hazardous waste and is highly recommended for similar employees of small quantity generators.  In addition to being a regulatory requirement, it is also a good way for you and your personnel to maintain compliance with the full array of hazardous waste regulations applicable to your operations.

I can provide RCRA Training and DOT HazMat Employee training in a variety of formats and locations; either at my open enrollment events held nationwide and year round, or right at your facility with on-site training tailored to your site-specific needs.  Please review my training schedule to find a date and location convenient to you, or contact me for a free training consultation.

EPA Mapping Tool Improves Public Access to Enforcement Actions Under RCRA, CWA, CAA, & Others

Last year EPA announced the launch of a new mapping feature within its Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) database.  Updated monthly, it includes information on enforcement actions – undertaken by EPA at the Federal level or by authorized State environmental agencies – against businesses like yours.  This new feature is part of the EPA’s ongoing effort to improve transparency and include more parties in maintaining regulatory compliance and protecting the environment.

The result of this “transparency” is that businesses such as yours must prepare to address – and be addressed by – a general public and other interested parties who now have ready access to critical information about your facility’s compliance status.  All enforcement actions undertaken by State and Federal agencies are included.  The data may be searched by year, media (air, water, waste, or multiple), by State, or other criteria.  The mapping tool also allows users to focus on specific facilities and view:

  • Facility name.
  • Applicable environmental statute with potential violation.
  • Link to detailed information about the facility’s compliance status on the ECHO database.

What does this mean for you?  Now more than ever, enforcement actions against your company are “Public Knowledge”.  Once an applicable action is taken by a State or Federal agency, there is no way to prevent it quickly becoming available to neighbors, concerned citizens, media, environmental groups, and your competitors.  The best way to prevent this kind of stain on your company image is to preclude the necessity for an enforcement action in the first place.

Maintain compliance with all State and Federal regulations.  Begin by ensuring any employees who generate, manage, or handle hazardous waste receive annual RCRA (aka: Hazardous Waste Personnel) Training.  It is also likely that you have employees that require the DOT’s HazMat Employee training.  I can provide both of those trainings at a reasonable price and at a location convenient for you.  Review my open enrollment training schedule, and my prices, or contact me about on-site training.

Hazardous Waste Violations Could Result in HazMat Transportation Violations

Hazardous Waste Label(Boston, Mass. – Feb. 17, 2012) – A Rhode Island company that conducts printing, coating and finishing of specialty fabrics has been ordered by EPA to come into compliance with federal hazardous waste management regulations.

Its violations include a failure to:

  • Complete a hazardous waste determination for the waste it generates.
  • Separate incompatible hazardous wastes.
  • Provide adequate RCRA Training for its employees.
  • Maintain a hazardous waste contingency plan.
  • Properly manage and label its universal waste.

Usually I would harp on the failure to provide adequate RCRA Training since this sort of training is just what I do, actually it’s only part of what I do, but read on.  However, I’m going to conjecture that violations of the EPA regulations will inevitably result in violations of the Department of Transportation (DOT) hazardous material transportation regulations and possibly cause a hazardous materials incident; here’s how.

I’ll assume that as a printer, the Rhode Island company uses flammable liquids as solvents, thinners, cleaners, in its inks, etc.  It is quite possible that the hazardous waste determination failure was for materials such as these.  If so, what should be an ignitable hazardous waste with the characteristic waste code of D001, might be identified as a non-hazardous material.  This kind of mistake will then lead to the other hazardous waste violations noted in the press release.  But what about when the hazardous waste is shipped off-site for disposal or treatment, what then?

I’ll assume that this company is a Large Quantity Generator (LQG) of hazardous waste and therefore must use a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest for its off-site shipments of hazardous waste.  The use and proper completion of the manifest is a requirement of both the EPA and the DOT.  Therefore, an incomplete or missing hazardous waste determination may result in the improper completion of the manifest.  It may also result in the incorrect use of the remaining three hazard communication methods required by DOT for shipments of hazardous waste.  Along with the manifest as a shipping paper, they are:

  1. Placards
  2. Labels
  3. Markings

Clearly, a violation of the EPA regulations to conduct a hazardous waste determination (40 CFR 262.11) can result in a violation of the DOT regulations when shipping hazardous waste.  And not just a violation of the regulations.  According to the DOT ~80% of hazardous material incidents in transportation are due to human error; another ~15% are due to package failure.  Errors may result not only in violations and fines, but serious personal injury or damage to property.

The solution?  One word:  Training.

I provide the training that addresses all of these issues and more; conducted either as open enrollment training held nationwide and year-round or as on-site training tailored to your site specific needs.  At my training you will learn the regulations of the EPA for facility personnel found at 40 CFR 265.16 and those of the DOT for HazMat Employees found at 49 CFR 172, Subpart H.

Contact me to arrange for training to bring you back into compliance and avoid these costly and dangerous violations.

Significant Hazardous Waste Penalties and Fines for Another Company

“PHILADELPHIA (March 8, 2012) — Ellwood Quality Steels Company has agreed to pay a $150,000 penalty to settle alleged violations of hazardous waste regulations at its manufacturing facility in New Castle, Pa., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today.”  Based on the information contained in the full US EPA news release, let’s determine the cost for Ellwood Quality Steels Company to comply with the regulations and avoid this fine.

 

  1. 1.       “…a variety of hazardous waste including electric and ladle arc furnace dust, which was contained in two tractor trailers without being marked as hazardous waste;” – Since no mention is made to the contrary, I’ll assume the two tractor trailers meet the US EPA definition of a container found at 40 CFR 260.10:  Container means any portable device in which a material is stored, transported, treated, disposed of, or otherwise handled.  A roll of 500 labels bearing the words “Hazardous Waste” = $65.  Add the date of accumulation, ie. the date hazardous waste first was placed in the container, and your back in compliance.
  2. 2.       “…improperly disposing of mercury-containing universal waste lamps in its arc furnace without a hazardous waste permit.” – Cost for disposing of 500 x 4’ fluorescent lamps with Lamptracker = $450.
  3. 3.       “… stored hazardous waste for more than 90 days without a storage permit;” – This one’s a wash since it doesn’t cost anything extra to ship hazardous waste off-site prior to 90 days.  There are some instances when a Large Quantity Generator of hazardous waste may legally exceed the 90 day on-site accumulation limit without a permit, read more about it here.  Compliance with the regulations, in this case however, is free.
  4. 4.       “failed to keep hazardous waste containers closed;”  – Hazardous waste containers must be kept closed except when adding or removing waste, read more here.  New Pig Latching Drum Lid = $275.
  5. 5.       “failed to minimize the possibility of releases of hazardous wastes;” – I’m unsure what is meant by this, but since Pennsylvania is one of the few States that requires a containment system for the storage area of a hazardous waste generator [the others are: AL, CA, CT, MA, MN, SC (if LQG), WA, & MO (if >1,000 kg)], I’ll assume they didn’t provide proper containment.  I’m no contractor, so let’s assume the total cost to construct a storage area with containment = $25,000.
  6. 6.       “failed to conduct weekly inspections;” – Large and Small Quantity Generators of hazardous waste must weekly inspect their hazardous waste accumulation and storage areas, read more here.  The inspections can be completed by any employee trained sufficiently to perform their duties in compliance with the regulations.  Cost in lost time spent performing the inspection = $50/week = $2,600/year.
  7. 7.       “failed to provide hazardous waste training;” – I provide on-site training that meets the requirements of the US EPA for Hazardous Waste Personnel and the US DOT for HazMat Employees for $1,749.
  8. 8.       “failed to prepare and maintain hazardous training records;” – I provide these records as part of my on-site training; cost = $0.
  9. 9.       “failed to properly fill out hazardous waste manifests;” – I address the proper completion of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest at my on-site training and at my open-enrollment training at no additional cost.
  10. 10.   “and failed to comply with universal waste labeling/marking requirements.” – Though provided relief from full regulation under RCRA, universal waste still has specific labeling and marking requirements.  Learn how to comply with the regulations at one of my training events.  Purchase 100 universal waste labels from Labelmaster for $44.

Total cost to comply with regulations = $27,583 + $2,600/year for inspections.  Consider that the cost of the fines doesn’t begin to cover the total costs to the company in lost time, headaches, lawyer and consultant fees, etc.  No matter what math you use, it’s always less expensive to comply with the regulations than it is to pay the fines.

Please contact me for a free consultation; I can help you decide if you’d be better attending one of my open enrollment training events or having me conduct on-site training at your facility.

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.

Working Relationship Between OSHA & EPA

Some companies, some industries, some locations just seem to be of greater interest to  one or more of the regulatory agencies:  the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) of the US Department of Labor, the Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), or the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) of the US Department of Transportation.  It may be that one of these agencies is a common visitor to your property, but others you see less frequent or not at all.  While being inspected by one agency – let’s say OSHA – you may think you need not worry about compliance with the hazardous waste regulations enforced by the US EPA;  this is not so.  In this US EPA press release, the owner of a New Hampshire foundry faces criminal charges for the storage of hazardous waste for greater than 90 days without a permit.  There is nothing significant about the violation or the charge, what is significant is the fact that the chain of events was started when the violation was noted during OSHA inspections in April and August of 2009.  This is no accident, since 1991 the US EPA and OSHA have assisted each other in identifying and reporting potential violations of their respective regulations under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

The purpose of the MOU is to establish and improve the working relationship between the US EPA & OSHA in order to improve their ability to detect potential violations and enforce their respective regulations.  The agencies agree to the fullest possible coordination between them at all levels which includes “referrals of alleged violations, and related matters concerning compliance and law enforcement…”  To do this US EPA and OSHA will exchange names and phone numbers of appropriate offices and personnel and keep such information up to date.  They will also conduct periodic training programs for each other’s personnel on the requirements of their respective regulations.  In short, US EPA will train OSHA personnel on what potential environmental violations they should look for when inspecting your company.  OSHA will do the same for US EPA personnel.

Under the MOU, an OSHA inspector must inform the US EPA if a potential environmental violation comes to their attention.  In turn, the US EPA must respond to such referrals:  “EPA shall respond to referrals from OSHA, and OSHA shall respond to referrals from EPA…” The agencies will have periodic meetings to track the progress of actions taken on these referrals.  You can expect US EPA to follow-up if OSHA informs them of a potential violation.

The MOU goes on to indicate that US EPA and OSHA may conduct joint inspections or separate.  If an alleged violation is found during a separate inspection, a referral shall be made.  Inspections may be part of an annual workplan developed by the agencies or ad hoc following an accident, injury, or reported violation.

No one wants a regulatory violation found during an inspection.  Even less do we want an unsafe or unwise situation to result in someone getting hurt or damaging the environment.  Better to know the regulations, comply with them, and keep everyone safe and the grass green.  My open enrollment training events will help you to do just that.  If you prefer, I can come to your site and train all of your employees in one day for a flat fee of $1,749.  Please contact me to discuss your training options further.

Hospitals and Hazardous Waste Violations

Most of the attendees at my training events – check my Schedule of Events to see when I’ll be in your area – come from the manufacturing industry.  There are many other commercial activities that are subject to the US DOT regulations governing the transportation of hazardous materials and the US EPA regulations governing the generation, handling, and disposal of hazardous waste; one of these is hospitals (SIC’s 8062 & 8069).  As a matter of fact, a hospital administrator recently pled guilty to criminal charges of willfully or knowingly disposing of hazardous waste (STERIS 20 in this case) in an improper manner (click here for the Agency press release).

In the eyes of the US EPA, a hospital is no different than any other industrial facility subject to its hazardous waste regulations found in 40 CFR 260-265.  Before you can comply with the regulations however, and avoid the violations listed below, you must be aware of the potential violations.

Below is a list of the 15 Most common Hazardous Waste Violations and Problems Found at Hospitals according to US EPA Region 2.  I included my own comments where I think they may be helpful.  You can see the original listhere.

1.  Improper or lack of hazardous waste labeling. To label a container is so easy, and so easily overlooked.
2.  No or infrequent weekly inspections of hazardous waste storage areas. For both Large Quantity Generators of hazardous waste andSmall Quantity Generators, “weekly” means “every 7 days”.
3.  Open containers of hazardous waste. Containers of hazardous waste must be kept closed at all times except when adding or removing waste.  See here for more information.
4.  Improper disposal of chemotherapy drugs. Like any waste, they are subject to the hazardous waste determination process.  See #5.
5.  Failure to perform or improper hazardous waste determinations. This is a critical fiirst step in the process of determining what regulations apply to you as a generator of hazardous waste.
6.  No or inadequate hazardous waste manifests. The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest must be used for all shipments of hazardous waste, unless you are a Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator of hazardous waste.
7.  Throwing hazardous waste down the drain. A tempting, but illegal option.  See the news release referred to above.
8.  Improper management of mercury-containing wastes, including but not limited to:  fluroescent light bulbs, mercury vapor lights, thermometers, sphygmomanometer, gastric tubes, thermostats, etc. All of these items could be handeld as universal waste at a greatly reduced regulatory burden.
9.  Improper management of expired pharmaceuticals, paints, etc. Like any waste, they are subject to the hazardous waste determination process.  See #5.
10.  Lack of a contingency plan. Large Quantity Generators of hazardous waste must have a contingency plan.
11.  Lack of or inadequate training of employees in hazardous waste management. This is where it all starts!  Not only is a lack of training a violation in itself, but without training you miss an opportunity to teach your employees about the regulations and proper waste handling.  Note that “inadequate training” is also a violation.
12.  Failure to ensure that hazardous waste meets the Land Disposal Restrictions. Usually, your hazardous waste disposal vendor will help you with the completion of the LDR.  However, it is your responsibility as the generator to ensure compliance.
13.  Failure to upgrade/close underground storage tanks (UST’s).
14.  Malfunctioning leak detection systems.
15.  Improper consolidation of wastes from nearby facilities. Use caution when consolidating waste from another facility with your own.

All of the above violations, except for numbers 13 & 14 are covered extensively at my training events.  For as low as $475 you can attend an entire day of training that meets not only the US EPA hazardous waste regulations, but the US Department of Transportation regulations for the transportation of hazardous materials (HazMat).  Don’t forget that the off-site transportation of hazardous waste is regulated by the US DOT as is the receipt of the hazardous materials as product.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me with questions about my training services and how they might apply to your operations.  I can tailor the training to your needs, including conducting on-site training for all of you applicable employees in one day.