Challenges to Environmental Investigations and Cleanups During the COVID-19 Crisis

Written by John McGahren, Stephanie R. Feingold, Ariel Kapoano, and Jenna Ferraro, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

Business closures and remote work requirements, work stoppages, travel restrictions, state and federal government slowdowns, and supply-chain disruptions are impacting parties’ abilities to satisfy obligations pursuant to environmental settlements, including administrative consent orders or judicial consent decrees with the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and administrative orders with various state environmental agencies as well as compliance obligations under federal environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).

State Guidance

Although the CDC has released guidelines recommending work from home and social distancing, there are currently no federal mandates or executive orders requiring business shutdowns or mandatory quarantine. Instead, many states, counties, and municipalities are releasing executive orders as well as nonbinding policies ranging from shelter-in-place to closing nonessential businesses and limiting gatherings of people.

These state and local mandates uniformly exempt “essential businesses” from such directives. The “essential business” exemption includes services and sectors that promote public safety, health, and welfare, although exactly what constitutes an “essential business” can vary. For example:

New York: Executive Order 202.6 exempts “essential businesses” to include healthcare operations (including research and laboratory services); essential infrastructure (including utilities); telecommunication; airports and transportation infrastructure; essential manufacturing (including food processing and pharmaceuticals); essential retail (including grocery stores and pharmacies); essential services (including trash collection, mail, and shipping services; news media; banks and related financial institutions); providers of basic necessities to economically disadvantaged populations; construction; vendors of essential services to maintain the safety, sanitation and essential operations of residences or other essential businesses; and vendors that provide essential services or products (including logistics and technology support, child care, and services needed to ensure the continuing operation of government agencies and provide for the health, safety, and welfare of the public).

New Jersey: Executive Order No. 104 exempts “essential businesses,” defined to include “grocery/food stores, pharmacies, medical supply stores, gas stations, healthcare facilities and ancillary stores within healthcare facilities.” All gatherings within the state are limited to 50 persons or fewer, except for “normal operations at airports, bus and train stations, medical facilities, office environments, factories, assemblages for the purpose of industrial or manufacturing work, construction sites, mass transit, or the purchase of groceries or consumer goods.”

It is less clear, however, whether environmental cleanups and investigations would constitute “essential businesses” subject to these exemptions. Furthermore, some states have expanded their initial executive orders, and others may follow suit. For example, while Pennsylvania initially recommended the closure of nonessential businesses, on March 19 Governor Tom Wolf signed an executive order forcing the closure of all but “life-sustaining” businesses. The state will begin enforcement actions against noncompliant businesses on March 21 under the terms of this order. Construction activities, for example, are no longer permitted to operate in Pennsylvania.  Additionally, on March 19, Governor Gavin Newsom of California signed an executive order requiring all residents to stay home, except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the 16 “federal critical infrastructure sectors” including critical manufacturing, chemical, emergency services, energy, healthcare and public health, financial services, food and agriculture, and water and wastewater. And on March 20, just one day after having directed 75% of all nonessential employees to stay home, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that he would be putting out an executive order mandating that 100% of employees in “nonessential” businesses in the state stay home.

Many state environmental agencies have not yet released guidance on the impacts of COVID-19. Moreover, even if environmental cleanups are permitted to proceed, maintaining the recommended “social distancing” in site investigation or remediation activities presents a challenge. Further challenges to ongoing site investigations and cleanups may also arise due to workforce absenteeism due to illness or caring for an ill family member.

EPA Guidance

EPA has not yet released guidance on the impact to agency operations due to COVID-19. Moreover, each site is differently situated, so there may be no one-size-fits-all solution. Parties currently remediating sites pursuant to settlements with EPA should carefully scrutinize their respective agreements and orders, including the force majeure clauses, to determine whether current circumstances may constitute such an event, and how and when to notify the agency. Most such provisions require notification within days, or even hours, of the discovery of the force majeure event, prompting yet more uncertainty as to whether there has been a trigger based on the novel pandemic response gripping the nation.

For example, EPA’s Model Consent Decree Language and Model Administrative Consent Order Language both define force majeure events as any event arising from “causes beyond the control” of respondents that “delays or prevents the performance of any obligation” under the order despite respondents’ “best efforts to fulfill the obligation.”

Each ongoing cleanup faces unique challenges depending on locality and nature of the cleanup. Responsible parties should consider outreach to EPA requesting the following actions:

  • Recognize the rapidly changing circumstances at the local, state, and federal level caused by COVID-19
  • Temporarily suspend notice deadlines for force majeure events caused by the COVID-19 crisis, as well as waive penalties for failure to timely notice or meet a deadline where the implications of COVID-19 have made it impracticable or impossible
  • Work with responsible parties on an individualized basis to determine whether ongoing work can continue and the extent to which deadlines should be extended, and follow a dispute process in the event of disagreement
  • Acknowledge that there may not be a one-size-fits-all approach for sites that are at different stages of remedial progress and subject to varying state restrictions

Until state and federal environmental authorities take affirmative action, responsible parties should consider proactive outreach to their EPA and state agency contacts for their specific cleanup sites for further guidance in this unprecedented situation, and stay tuned for further announcements on the status of environmental cleanups in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Copyright 2020.  Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.  All Rights Reserved. 

 This article is provided as a general informational service and it should not be construed as imparting legal advice on any specific matter.


About the Authors

John McGahren is the Princeton litigation practice leader and deputy chair of the firm’s global environmental practice. John counsels clients on litigation, enforcement, and transactional matters. He prosecutes and defends citizen suits, Superfund and RCRA disputes, Clean Water and Air Act litigation, state law actions, and natural resource damage claims.

Stephanie R. Feingold represents clients in litigation and dispute resolution and provides environmental and regulatory counseling. Her work spans investigations, cost recovery and contribution actions, and enforcement actions brought by and against environmental agencies and government authorities, as well as private party actions.

Ariel Kapoano represents clients in complex environmental, toxic tort, contract, and consumer fraud litigation matters. She has experience in all aspects of litigation including factual investigation, discovery management, motions practice, and trial.

Jenna C. Ferraro is a part of the firm’s litigation team, which counsels clients and provides legal services in a wide range of areas, including general civil and commercial litigation, environmental law and toxic torts. Jenna’s experience includes many aspects of litigation, including discovery matters and motion practice.

PFAS Could Contaminate More Than 600 Military Installations, U.S. DOD Says

Written by The Environmental Working Group

The United States Department of Defense recently released new data showing that more than 600 military sites and surrounding communities could be contaminated with perfluorinated chemicals, or PFAS – far more installations than have been previously disclosed by Pentagon officials.

Details about the new facilities likely contaminated with PFAS leaked last week, a day after a House appropriations subcommittee hearing during which members heard heart-wrenching testimony from retired Army pilot Jim Holmes, who believes his 17-year-old daughter’s death from brain cancer could have been caused by exposure to PFAS-contaminated water on the base where he was stationed.

Holmes was joined at the hearing by EWG’s Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Scott Faber, who urged Congress and the Pentagon to accelerate efforts to clean up legacy PFAS pollution at military installations around the country.

Previously, DOD testified that 401 of its installations could be contaminated with PFAS, which have been linked to cancer, liver damage and harm to the reproductive and immune systems.

The updated list of installations identified by DOD can be found here.

The DOD’s use of firefighting foam made with PFAS, also known as aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF, is the primary source of PFAS pollution at military installations.

(Note: Several of the installations where PFAS contamination is suspected include more than one military operation on the site, which is why some reports list the number of facilities at 651. When those locations with duplicate installations are considered, the actual number is just over 600 bases.)

EWG has so far confirmed PFAS in the tap water or groundwater at 328 military sites. Until recently, PFAS contaminated the drinking water of dozens of bases, and many communities near these installations continue to drink contaminated water.

Through Freedom of Information Act requests, EWG also discovered that many of the highest PFAS detections in the nation have been found on or near DOD installations.

In particular, within DOD documents, EWG found evidence of PFAS detections in groundwater at 14 installations that were above 1 million parts per trillion, or ppt, far above the 70 ppt drinking water advisory level recommended by the Environmental Protection Agency.

“DOD has failed to treat PFAS pollution with the urgency service members and their families rightly deserve,” said EWG’s Scott Faber. “We’ve all known for decades that PFAS are toxic, but DOD is still trying to understand the scope of the problem.”

DOD officials have understood the risks of AFFF since the early 1970s, when Navy and Air Force studies first showed the firefighting foam was toxic to fish; since the early 1980s, when the Air Force conducted its own animal studies on AFFF; and since the early 2000s, when the maker of PFOS, the main ingredient in AFFF, exited the market. In 2001, a DOD memo concluded that the main ingredient in AFFF was “persistent, bioaccumulating and toxic.”

“DOD waited a decade to warn service members and has been slow to switch to PFAS-free alternatives to AFFF or clean up legacy PFAS pollution,” Faber said. “What’s more, some DOD officials have argued for cleanup and screening levels that are less protective of our service members and their families than those proposed by EPA.”

The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2020 included important bipartisan PFAS reforms, including a provision to phase out AFFF by 2024. But the NDAA fell short of what’s needed to address the serious public health risks posed by PFAS, especially PFOA and PFOS.

“In light of these new revelations, Congress should do much more to accelerate the cleanup of legacy PFAS contamination,” said Faber. “To do so, Congress should increase funding for programs like the Defense Environmental Restoration Program and designate PFAS as hazardous substances under EPA’s Superfund program, which will ensure that PFAS manufacturers pay their fair share of cleanup costs.”


The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization that empowers people to live healthier lives in a healthier environment. Through research, advocacy and unique education tools, EWG drives consumer choice and civic action.

How Virtual Reality and real-world tech can aid CBRNe training

Written by Steven Pike, Argon Electronics

Hands-on training in realistic environments is a cornerstone of CBRNe disaster preparedness, whether for the purpose of military exercises, first response or civilian operations.

The quality, frequency and consistency of CBRNe training has a substantial part to play in how easily personnel are able to acquire both the theory and the practice – and in how effectively they are able to continue to apply that knowledge in the long-term.

The impact and the authenticity of CBRNe training relies on three fundamental principles.

First is the importance of providing trainees with the opportunity to use actual equipment.

Second is enabling those personnel to apply their understanding of this equipment through exposure to realistic scenarios.

And thirdly is ensuring that the scenarios that are provided are conducted in relevant environments or locations.

Time restrictions, cost implications and safety considerations however, can all too often limit the opportunities for responders to practice, test and hone their crucial skills.

Training for radiation incidents

When an incident involves the presence of a high-radiation source or radioactive contamination, it can present some additional challenges.

At the same time, the equipment that radiological responders are required to use is also becoming increasingly sophisticated – and in particular when it comes to effective search and radionuclide identification (spectrometry.)

Many traditional radiation safety training methods can struggle to credibly recreate the complexities of real-life radiological events.

Field exercises can offer the promise of a high fidelity training experience, but sometimes fall short due to the minimal quantity of radiation source that can be safely used.

In the process, an understanding of essential physics can all too easily be diluted, misinterpreted or omitted altogether.

To ensure best preparedness, it is vital that emergency responders are provided with the opportunity to train against robust scenarios that take place in their home locations, that utilise their actual operating equipment and that enable them to put their protocols to the test.

Is virtual reality immersion the key?

Over the couple of decades there has been an increased interest in the potential applications of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) in the enhancement of CBRN disaster preparedness.

In contrast to traditional user desktop interfaces, such as viewing a scenario on a computer screen, VR harnesses the power of computer technology to create a simulated environment that aims to recreate as many of the senses as possible.

Virtual reality enables the user to be placed directly “inside” the training experience, and once they are immersed in this artificial world, to be able to interact with a hyper realistic 3D environment.

Immersive multi-user VR training systems can be used to enhance situational awareness, to aid in the operation of equipment or to improve reaction times.

Some systems are designed to provide a pre-defined scenario (or scenarios) in order to train multiple users – for example when a large number of simulators are used in order to train military personnel for specific land, air or naval operations. Others allow the creation of self-defined scenarios that can be applied in multi-user training exercises.

Whilst VR creates an artificial environment in which the user can “inhabit”, augmented reality can be used to enhance live exercises in a real environment by superimposing computer-generated images over the user’s view of the real world.

But while virtual reality or augmented reality immersion exercises can offer many advantages, it is still extremely difficult to replicate the logistical, physiological and sensory realities of a taking part in a live incident.

In many cases too, virtual reality training must be restricted to specialised facilities. And perhaps most crucially, trainees miss the opportunity to practice with the actual detector equipment that they will be required to use in real incidents.

Maintaining operational readiness is vital, however it can often be difficult to provide personnel with access to the hands-on radiological training that they need.

Emergency training requires the mastery of a variety of skills and abilities – but placing trainees in real emergency situations, especially during the initial stages of training, is something that is best avoided.

What is of greater benefit is being able to provide personnel with expert guidance that takes place in a setting that mimics, as closely as possible, the challenges of real-life events.

What is required is a paradigm shift in the approach to radiological preparedness training.

If, for example, the potential applications of virtual technology can be merged with the hands-on application of real-world capabilities, then the possibilities could well be limitless.

With this goal in mind, Argon Electronics is excited to have joined forces with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) to explore the potential of the LLNL’s Radiation Field Training Simulator (RaFTS).


About the Author

Steven Pike is the Founder and Managing Director of Argon Electronics, a leader in the development and manufacture of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) and hazardous material (HazMat) detector simulators. He is interested in liaising with CBRN professionals and detector manufacturers to develop training simulators as well as CBRN trainers and exercise planners to enhance their capability and improve the quality of CBRN and Hazmat training.

The Five Things you need to know about Incident Management and Reporting

Intelex, a company specializing in the development of EHS and quality software, recently published an insight report entitled “The Five Things you Need to Know about Incident Management and Reporting“.  The report provides information on the legal obligations to report serious injuries and fatalities, best practices for incident reporting and management, and how incident reporting and management can be linked to operational excellence.

In the introduction of the report, the cause of the Titanic disaster is discussed.  It report states that the average person would cite an iceberg as the cause of the ship’s sinking.  In contrast, a risk or safety manager would respond that the tragedy was caused by a series of events – management failures, poor-quality construction, employee errors/lack of training, poor planning, and either the failure to track incidents or the inability to analyze incident data in a meaningful way – that ended with the sinking of the ship.

EHS incidents can be painful for injured employees, the environment, and an organization’s bottom line, but incident management and reporting doesn’t have to be a pain point if done correctly.

Ontario: Waste Processing Company Fines Increased to $170,000 for Environmental Protection Act Violations

The Ontario Environment Ministry recently announced that an appeal court varied the sentence of an Ontario waste processing company and increased the fine from $140,000 to $170,000. The $30,000 fine increase reflected the anticipated cost of an embedded audit. The victim fine surcharge also increased from $35,000 to $42,500. The sentencing court also vacated the Order requirement that the company conduct the embedded audit.

The appeal court ruling stems from two separate matters in which an Ontario waste processing company, Quantex, was convicted of violations related to permitting waste to pass from its control without accurately completing a manifest, for transferring waste subject to land disposal restrictions without giving notice to the receiver, and for permitting the emission of an air contaminant to an extent that it may cause personal discomfort.  The offences occurred in 2016.

The company was originally convicted in 2018.  The Ontario Court of Justice granted the Crown’s appeal of the sentence that had been imposed on June 26, 2018 after a guilty plea, and increased the fine from $140,000 to $170,000, plus victim fine surcharge.

On June 26, 2018, Quantex was convicted of three violations and was fined a total of $140,000 plus a victim fine surcharge of $35,000 with 2 years to pay. The court also issued a probation order requiring the company to retain an independent auditor to conduct an embedded audit of some of the company’s waste management practices.

In December 2018, when the embedded audit was to begin, Quantex advised the Crown that it had sold the facility. It subsequently became apparent that the company had sold the facility prior to being sentenced in June 2018 and that Quantex had provided inaccurate information to the sentencing court. Therefore, the earlier sentencing had been conducted on the basis of inaccurate information.

At the time of the violations, Quantex Technologies Inc. operated a hazardous and liquid industrial waste transferring/processing site in Kitchener under ministry approval.  In the first matter, between November 2015 and January 2016, Quantex accepted hazardous wastes which were bulked together and shipped to another waste processing/transfer facility. Ministry inspection indicated that the waste manifest did not accurately reflect the waste classifications and that Quantex had not notified the receiver that some of the waste was subject to land disposal restrictions. As a consequence, the receiving facility was not aware that some of the waste had classifications that were not approved under the company’s ministry approval.

In the second matter, in August 2016, Quantex employees were transferring liquid industrial and/or hazardous wastes from storage totes into a tanker trailer on-site, and the truck’s vacuum pump and exhaust was being discharged into the air. During the transfer period, neighbours experienced burning and irritated eyes, a chlorine-like odour and difficulty breathing. The occurrence was reported to Quantex, which ceased the operation immediately.

The Environment ministry’s Investigations and Enforcement Branch investigated and laid charges resulting in three convictions.

$1.2 million Fine for Solvent Spill in Alberta

Drever Agencies Inc. was recently fined $1,250,000 in Wetaskiwin Provincial Court for an offence under the Canadian Fisheries Act. The company pleaded guilty to a charge of depositing a deleterious substance into water frequented by fish. The fine will be directed to the Government of Canada’s Environmental Damages Fund.

The incident which led to the fine occurred in August 2017. Environment and Climate Change Canada enforcement officers responded to a report of a solvent spill on a commercial property in Wetaskiwin. A number of dead fish were observed in an unnamed creek that flows into the Battle River. An investigation determined that approximately 1800 litres of Petrosol solvent leaked from a storage tank owned by Drever Agencies Inc. and entered the creek. Through laboratory analysis, it was confirmed that the solvent was deleterious (harmful to fish).

Wetaskiwin is a city of 12,000, approximately 70 kilometres south of Edmonton. The city name comes from the Cree word wītaskiwinihk, meaning “the hills where peace was made”

As a result of the conviction, the company’s name will be added to the Environmental Offenders Registry.

Undated Photo of Drever Agencies Facility (Source: Drever Agencies Web Site)

 

Crystal Geyser Gushes $5 Million in Hazardous Waste Fines

Written by Dawn DeVroom, IDR Environmental Services

The recent federal case against the company that bottles Crystal Geyser Natural Alpine Spring Water proves that the improper handling of hazardous waste can be costly.

Recently, CG Roxane pled guilty in U.S. District Court to unlawful storage of hazardous waste and unlawful transportation of hazardous material. The plea agreement to the two counts came with a $5 million criminal fine.

The charges stemmed from allegations that over the last 15 years, CG Roxane has dumped wastewater contaminated with arsenic into a man-made pond at the company’s Olancha, California, facility. Samples taken by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board revealed arsenic levels were eight times higher than legally allowed.

This case underscores the importance of proper identification, transportation and disposal of hazardous waste. It also stresses the consequences of not working with the right certified company to ensure your business is meeting all state and federal regulations. Not doing so can result in substantial fines and negative publicity that can have a disastrous effect on your business.

Improper Waste Disposal Can Be Costly

hazardous wasteFailure to manage hazardous waste streams according to state and federal guidelines can bring unwanted consequences for both the environment and your company.

As CG Roxane discovered, costly criminal fines often accompany cases in which companies are found guilty of improper hazardous waste management. Two other companies may find themselves in trouble from this case as well. CG Roxane hired United Pumping Services Inc. and United Storm Water Inc. to transport and treat the wastewater. Both could face fines of up to $8 million if found guilty for their role in the case.

Other multimillion-dollar companies have faced similar consequences. Companies like FedEx, Rite Aid and Walmart have been fined millions of dollars over the past few years for improper waste management practices. Walmart, in particular, agreed to pay more than $81 million after pleading guilty in 2013 to six counts of violating the Clean Water Act.

In addition to fines, improper waste disposal can be a nightmare for a company’s public image, and worse, become a risk to public safety. Spills, fires, explosions and exposure to toxic chemicals can stem from the mishandling of hazardous waste.

How To Ensure Proper Waste Management

It is critical for hazardous waste generators to ensure compliance with regulations by providing ongoing training opportunities for employees and by working with an experienced hazardous waste disposal company.

The onus falls on you to ensure any hazardous waste you generate is disposed of properly. That responsibility does not end once your waste is removed from company property. Under the Resource and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), you are legally and financially responsible for the appropriate treatment and proper disposal of that waste … from cradle to grave.

Choosing the wrong vendor can prove costly, too.

So, how do you properly vet a company for the best business practices and avoid the nightmare scenarios described above?

1. Begin with a thorough background check of a vendor.

In addition to checking state and federal licenses, set up an interview with the vendor. Ask questions such as:

  • Do you have a Dun & Bradstreet report or a bank letter of credit?
  • Do you meet minimum insurance requirements and have coverage for accidents?
  • Do you have adequate personnel that are properly trained and certified?
  • Can you provide a statement of qualifications (SOQ)?
  • How do you deal with unknown chemicals?
  • Are you legally permitted for the transportation, storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste materials?
  • Can you provide a list of references on past related projects?

More ideas for questions to ask a vendor can be found in our article, What Manufacturers Must Know About Hazardous Waste Disposal.

2. Confirm the experience of any vendor being considered.

A hazardous waste generalist, for example, is used to working in different environments and has a broad base of experience working with different toxic chemicals.

Check to make sure the vendor includes these services:

  • Identification of waste streams by profiling and testing them
  • Development of site-specific plans, including training and emergency preparation
  • Transportation to recycling and disposal sites
  • Manifest preparation and any other paperwork that must be completed

3. Look for a certified hazardous waste disposal company that is consultative.

In other words, look for a company that offers a hazardous waste walk-through program.

Areas of focus should include:

  • Waste manifesting
  • Hazardous waste procedures
  • Waste storage evaluation
  • Emergency readiness
  • Hazardous waste evaluation
  • Employee training procedures

A waste walk-through program will help you stay atop any regulatory changes at the local, state and federal levels.

Better Safe Than Sorry

The improper handling of hazardous waste can have devastating effects on the environment, community and your business.

Many companies that do not take the proper precautions to ensure the waste they generate is properly disposed of find themselves tangled up in a legal mess for years. At the end of that mess is rarely a positive outcome for the company.

Working with a certified hazardous waste disposal service will help you avoid costly fines and a tarnished public image, as well as allow you to be assured that the hazardous waste your company generates is being transported and disposed of safely and legally.


About the Author

Dawn DeVroom is the CFO at IDR Environmental Services based in California. The company specializes in hazardous waste disposal.

Hazardous Waste Enforcement: U.S. EPA and Electronics Recycling Facility Enter into Consent Agreement

Written by Walter Wright Jr.Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and AERC Acquisition Corporation dba AERC Recycling Solutions (“AERC”) entered into a February 25th Consent Agreement (“CA”) addressing alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) regulations (which the State of Virginia has adopted). See Docket No. RCRA-03-2020-0070.

The CA provides that AERC performs electronics and universal recycling at a facility (“Facility”) in Richmond, Virginia.

The Facility is described as consisting of 40,000 square feet of building space that has been in operation as an electronics recycler since 2013. The Facility is stated to have begun recycling waste lamps in 2014.

AERC is stated to have submitted to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (“VDEQ”) May 6, 2014, and May 30, 2017, notifications indicating the Facility is a small quantity generator of hazardous waste at the Facility. Such notices are also stated to have indicated the Facility was a large quantity handler of universal waste along with being a transporter and a transfer facility.

The Facility is stated to not have a permit for the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste.

An inspector from EPA is stated to have undertaken a Compliance Evaluation Inspection (“CEI”) of the Facility on August 22, 2017. The purpose of the CEI was stated to be the examination of the Facility’s compliance with Subtitle C of RCRA and associated Virginia regulations.

EPA is stated to have sent an information request letter to AERC to acquire additional information. AERC responded to the request in a letter dated September 16, 2019.

A Request to Show Cause was also provided to AERC to which EPA and AERC met to discuss alleged violations.

The CA alleges the following violations have occurred at the Facility:

  • Operating a treatment, storage, and disposal facility without a permit or interim status
  • Failure to label or mark clearly a number of containers of hazardous waste lamps with the prescribed words
  • Boxes stored in a manner that prevented the inspector from observing whether they were properly labeled and dated
  • Failure to mark containers of waste lamps with the date upon which each period of accumulation began
  • Failure to mark with the date upon which accumulation began, or otherwise track accumulation start date for certain containers of hazardous waste lamps
  • Failure to maintain a tracking system documenting the length of time the containers are accumulated on site
  • Failure to meet certain requirements of the Generator Accumulation Exemption
  • Failure to keep containers storing waste lamps closed except when it is necessary to add or remove waste
  • Failure to minimize risk of release, and failure to immediately contain all releases of waste lamps

The CA assesses a civil penalty of $10,000.

The CA also provides that AERC will within 90 days of the effective date of the document conduct an electronics recycling event within and in coordination with the City of Richmond, Virginia. The cost of such event will be no less than $40,000.

A copy of the CA can be downloaded here.


About the Author

Walter Wright has more than 30 years of experience in environmental, energy (petroleum marketing), and water law.  His expertise includes counseling clients on issues involving environmental permits, compliance strategies, enforcement defense, property redevelopment issues, environmental impact statements, and procurement/management of water rights. He routinely advises developers, lenders, petroleum marketers, and others about effective strategies for structuring real estate and corporate transactions to address environmental financial risks.