Workshop H Best Practices in Waste Management … Implementation of New Federal & State Rules and Management of 3rd Party Waste Handlers & Receptors Tuesday, March 24, 2020 11:15 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
Biographical Information Terri Sexton, CHMM, Manager Environmental and Energy Affairs Navistar, Inc., 6125 Urbana Rd., Springfield, OH 45502 terri.sexton@navistar.com 937-390-4011 Terri is a corporate Manager of Environmental and Energy Affairs for Navistar, Inc. She manages various environmental and energy projects and programs across the corporation, most recently focused on significant energy conservation, GHG and waste reductions, leading to cost savings and greater sustainability. Terri has a master’s degree in environmental management systems from Southern Methodist University and a bachelor’s degree in biology and environmental sciences from Wright State University. She holds professional certifications as a Certified Hazardous Materials Manger (CHMM), and an OEPA and IDEM Class I Wastewater licenses. She has worked in the EHS field for over 25 years including employment at corporate, manufacturing/industrial facilities, wastewater treatment operations, and EPA (RAPCA). Mark T. Vagasky, Principal The Redstone Group, a Trinity Consultants Company Westerville, Ohio 614-296-5754 mvagasky@redstonegrp.com Mark Vagasky was employed by Fortune 500 firms, including Eastman Kodak, British Petroleum, Union Oil and Ashland Inc. prior to founding The Redstone Group in 2004. He has over forty years management experience in the areas of Engineering, Manufacturing, Plant, Multi-Site Operations and Corporate Regulatory with technologies including chemical processes, pulp & paper, plastics and glass. His regulatory experience includes areas of Environmental, Health, Safety, Security, Transportation, Product Safety, and related product areas such as DEA, FDA, FIFRA, Hazardous Communication as well as Import / Export. He has extensive experience in the EU REACH initiative. Prior to founding Redstone Mr. Vagasky was President of a property investment company. In 2019, Trinity Consultants acquired The Redstone Group. Mark holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering from Michigan State University and an MBA from Rochester Institute of Technology.
Evaluating Risk of Your Waste Receptors Mark Vagasky March 24,2020 1
Today’s Discussion Evaluating Risk of Your Waste Receptors RCRA Background Cradle to Grave Types of Waste Types of Disposal Sites Areas of Review Compliance Risks Common Issues Best Practices Impacts to the Generator
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) ˃ 40 CFR Parts 239 through 282 Non-hazardous waste Hazardous waste including universal waste Used Oil Other ˃ RCRA gives EPA the authority to regulate hazardous waste from the "cradle-to-grave." This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste. 3
RCRA Generator requirements 262.10: … shall not transport , offer its hazardous waste for transport, ˃ or otherwise cause its hazardous waste to be sent to a facility that is not a designated facility 262.11: … accurate determination as to whether that waste is a ˃ hazardous waste 262.20: …prepare a Manifest ˃ 262.30: …must package the waste in accordance with the applicable ˃ Department of Transportation regulations 262.33: … placard or offer the initial transporter the appropriate ˃ placards according to Department of Transportation regulations 262.35: …placement of bulk or non-containerized liquid hazardous ˃ waste or hazardous waste containing free liquids (whether or not sorbents have been added) in any landfill is prohibited 4
Reasons for Vendor Auditing Introduction ‘Cradle to Grave’ Responsibility Liability Strict Joint and Several Liability under CERCLA 5
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Superfund) ˃ 42 U.S.C § 9601; 40 CFR Subchapter J- Superfund, Emergency Planning and community Right to know programs The objective of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, ˃ Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) is to reduce or eliminate threats to human health and the environment posed by uncontrolled contaminated sites . 6
CERCLA CERCLA provides the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with three basic options for cleaning up a hazardous waste site : EPA can perform a response action at the site using Superfund ˃ money and recover response costs from potentially responsible pa rties (PRPs) EPA can order, or ask a court to order, PRPs to clean up the ˃ site . EPA can enter into settlement agreements with PRPs that ˃ require them to clean up sites or reimburse the United States for doing so under CERCLA § 107. 7
CERCLA Categories of Potentially Responsible Parties ˃ CERCLA imposes liability on four classes of person: current owners and operators of a facility; former owners and operators of a facility at the time of disposal; persons who arranged for treatment or disposal of hazardous substances; and transporters of hazardous substances who selected the disposal site. 8
CERCLA Arrangers ˃ CERCLA imposes liability on a person who arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances at any facility owned or operated by another party and containing such hazardous substances. ˃ The term “generator” is often used interchangeably with “arranger.” 9
CERCLA Strict Liability ˃ Strict liability means that PRPs are liable even if: the problems caused by the hazardous substance release were unforeseeable; the PRPs actions were legal at the time they occurred; and state-of-the-art waste management practices were used at the time the materials were disposed of. 10
CERCLA Joint and Several Liability ˃ CERCLA liability is usually joint and several. any one PRP can be held liable for the entire cost of site cleanup, regardless of the share of the waste contributed by that PRP . The PRP who pays the costs can then seek to recover costs from the non-paying PRPs. EPA attempts to identify and notify the universe of PRPs at a site and negotiate with the largest manageable number of parties 11
Conclusion ˃ It is important to monitor the performance of your waste receptors. ˃ Do you understand the risk of sending materials to your waste receptor? ˃ Manage the level of risk associated with the company using a waste receptor 12
Types of Waste ˃ Hazardous Listed (F , K, P and U) Characteristic (D) Acute Non-Acute Residuals from clean-up Universal Waste (including E-waste) ˃ Non-Hazardous ˃ Used Oil ˃ Waste waters ˃ Containers, including drums, bulk and transport 13
Type of Treatment / Disposal Site Landfill: Hazardous / Non-Hazardous ˃ Surface impoundments ˃ Injection wells ˃ Incinerators ˃ Beneficial reuse ˃ Waste water treatment ˃ Land Treatment facilities ˃ Salt Dome or salt bed formations ˃ Underground mines or caves ˃ Concrete vaults ˃ Disposal bunkers ˃ Container re-conditioners / washes ˃ Universal waste processing ˃ Solvent recyclers ˃ 14
Areas of Review ˃ General Information ˃ Summary of Permits ˃ Operations Review ˃ Residuals Management (including containers) ˃ Regulatory Compliance Status ˃ Site Inspection ˃ Supporting Data 15
General Information Subject Example Areas of Concern Company Profile Lack of waste industry experience; history of incidents at other locations (fire/explosion) Site Profile Scope of operation: lack of concentration Facility Staffing Lack of experience, industry knowledge, regulatory knowledge; Poor operator skills; excessive turnover ; too much dependence on Corporate staff ; little support from Corporate staff; Adequate staffing levels Site History Past use of site ; Past contamination ; Past violations/consent orders ; abandoned/closed areas i.e. pre-RCRA landfill cells. Facility Setting / Placement near sensitive elements ; urban v rural; environmental Surrounding Land Use justice; neighbors w/areas of concern i.e. Superfund site Security Lack of fencing, gates, entry control ; no plan; no guards Emergency Response No solid plan; past experiences w/issues i.e. explosions; lack of response to issues e.g. fatality 16
Summary of Permits Subject Example Areas of Concern Permits /Registrations Poor permit execution ; Cannot provide permit information ; cannot define the permit requirements ; permit not current ; permits do not address all current activities and/or equipment; construction of site; process or storage volume limitations Authorized / Cannot provide a detailed description. Ill defined; not consistent with Prohibited Wastes permit 17
Recommend
More recommend
