 |
Through a series of inspections beginning in 1999, a Roanoke, Virginia chemical distribution facility revealed a long history of problems regarding the safe and legal management of hazardous wastes. In June 2014, following a five-day hearing that laid bare that long history, a U.S. EPA Administrative Law Judge issued a 125-page compliance order that requires the owner and operator of the facility to pay $612,339 in penalties for multiple violations of RCRA and state hazardous waste regulations.
The company handles and distributes a variety of chemicals including alcohols, acids, caustics, mineral oils, surfactants, glycols, and solvents. The violations found during the inspections run the gamut of possible TSDF RCRA violations including:
Count I – Storage of hazardous waste without a permit or interim status. From at least May 23, 2007 until February 20, 2008, the facility stored hazardous wastes consisting of a 55-gallon drum of waste sodium hydrosulfide the exhibited the characteristics of corrosivity and reactivity, and pit sludge containing trichloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene and pit water containing chloroform in amounts that exceeded the regulatory limits.
Forget expensive calls to lawyers and consultants. With Enviro.BLR.com, you get instant access, 24/7. Try it out today and get the 2014 EHS Salary Guide, absolutely free. Download Now.
Count II – Failure to make hazardous waste determinations. From May 23, 2007 until February 1, 2008, the facility failed to perform required hazardous waste determinations on pit water, pit sludge and discarded aerosol cans generated, treated, stored or disposed of at the facility.
Count III – Failure to provide secondary containment. From May 23, 2007 through approximately February 1, 2008, failed to provide appropriate secondary containment for a pit that was part of a system subject to the design and performance standards in 40 CFR 264.193 for tank systems that are 15 years of age or older and for new tank systems.
Count IV – Failure to have and maintain a tank assessment. From May 23, 2007 until February 1, 2008 the company did not obtain and/or keep on file on site the required written pit design and certification in accordance with 40 CFR 264.192(b) – (f).
Count V – Failure to conduct or document operating inspections. From at least May 23, 2007 until February 1,2008, the company did not conduct and document inspections of the pit and surrounding areas including secondary containment structures in compliance with requirements of 40 CFR 264.195.
Count VI – Failure to comply with air emissions controls. The pit used by the company to store hazardous waste exceeded volatile organic concentrations at its point of origin and was not in compliance with requirements of 40 CFR 264.1084 for Tank Level 1 or Tank Level 2 air emissions controls.
Count VII – Failure to comply with tank closure requirements. The hazardous waste pit was closed and removed without a RCRA closure plan that would have been part of the TSDF permit application. Lacking the permit and the subsequent closure plan, the company violated regulations at 40 CFR 264.197 that included soil sampling and analysis requirements necessary to determine if any cleanup of contaminated soils was necessary.
Everything You Need for Environmental Compliance
Enviro.BLR.com puts everything you need at your fingertips, including practical RCRA, CAA, CWA, hazardous waste regulatory analysis and activity, news, and compliance tools. Try it at no cost or risk and get a FREE report.
Each of the violations was assessed penalties based on the “RCRA Civil Penalty Policy” that uses four steps:
1) Gravity –the violation’s potential for harm and the extent of deviation from the statutory or regulatory requirement are rated as major, moderate or minor,
2) Multi-day component – to account for duration of the violation,
3) Sum of the gravity-based and multi-day components – to account for case-specific circumstances such as good faith efforts to comply with applicable requirements, degree of willfulness or negligence, non-compliance history, or ability to pay, and
4) Calculation of economic benefit – added to the gravity component when a violation results in a “significant” economic benefit to the violator.
In particular, the company’s “absence of good faith” and “history of noncompliance” were noted in all but two of the counts and in Count II specifically, “a gravity-based penalty of $12,250.00, increased by 10% for the “history of noncompliance” adjustment factor, 10% for the “lack of good faith” adjustment factor, and 5% for “other unique factors,” for a total increase of 25%…” was assessed.