Newsletter – Volume 4 Issue 1

Case Study

A central Ohio chemical manufacturer was inspected by Ohio EPA in early 2007 for purposes of the Agency determining compliance with hazardous waste regulations for LQGs. The company did possess a valid I.D. number. The set of the company’s violations were as follows:

1. Unlawfully storing hazardous waste without a permit for greater than 90 days in the hazardous waste accumulation area;
2. Failed to submit annual hazardous waste reports for 2004 and 2006;
3. Failed to list a 2006 shipment of hazardous waste on a uniform hazardous waste manifest;
4. Failed to accurately complete various sections on several hazardous waste manifests;
5. Failed to retain copies of hazardous waste manifests for at least three (3) years;
6. Failed to have a hazardous waste personnel training program directed by a person trained in hazardous waste management procedures and failed to have a personnel training program that teaches facility personnel hazardous waste management procedures;
7. Failed to file exception reports for 2006 shipments of corrosive hazardous waste and hazardous lab wastes;
8. Failed to have a complete contingency plan and provide copies to emergency authorities;
9. Failed to close totes of hazardous waste;
10. Failed to date containers of waste with the accumulation start date and to label them as hazardous waste;
11. Failed to complete weekly inspections of the hazardous waste accumulation areas;
12. Failed to label “Used Oil” on containers of used oil;
13. Failed to clean up a release of used oil in the vicinity of a used oil storage tank;
14. Failed to evaluate waste fluorescent lamps to determine is they were hazardous waste;
15. Failed to comply with land disposal requirements; and;
16. Failed to produce documentation to show the EPA waste numbers associated with corrosive waste and lab waste.

The chemical company endured two more Ohio EPA inspections over the following four months, during which time it had to address all of the violations in order to return to compliance status. One fortunate outcome was that the company ultimately was excused from bearing the penalties involved with being an unlicensed storage facility (storage over 90 days), because no releases of hazardous waste were found within the accumulation areas. Had this penalty occurred, the company would have been liable for all of the standards related to storage facility closure (cleanup), an extremely expensive and long-term involvement with the Agency.

The total penalty paid to Ohio EPA for the above violations was $34,160., not including the additional costs of personnel time to address the issues over the long-term return to compliance.


Published by Stephen Kovatch

Senior Client Manager  Stephen J. Kovatch focuses on assisting clients in establishing corporate regulatory compliance programs in the areas of air, water, and waste management. Mr. Kovatch also provides direction to industrial facility owners who are active in the transaction of contaminated property by defining objectives, coordinating soil and water sampling protocols, risk assessment, and remedial / cleanup activities. He frequently represents clients in property sales negotiations and regulatory agency and insurance proceedings.

Notice Image

Compliance Technologies has joined the August Mack Family. We will redirect this website to the new URL in 10 seconds.