JOINT TASK FORCE REPORT
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Solid Waste and
Occupational Safety and
Health Administration
Washington. D.C. 20210
Emergency Response
Washington. D.C. 20460
The Joint Task Force presents this copy of the Task Force
Report on Compliance with On-site Health and Safety Requirements
at Hazardous Waste Incinerators. The Joint Task Force consisted
of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, the
Environmental Protection Agency, State OSHA, and State
environmental representatives. This report was prepared to present
the objectives, findings, conclusions, and followup activities of
the Fall, 1990, investigation of selected hazardous waste
incinerators in the United States.
The Joint Task Force evaluated compliance with worker health
and safety training requirements; the facility's ability to prevent
and respond to emergencies; and potential worker exposure routes
from equipment and areas relating to the hazardous waste
incinerator operations.
The report includes an executive summary and a main body which
summarizes both the OSHA and EPA findings in a narrative and
tabulated form. A map is included that plots the location of the
hazardous waste incinerators inspected as part of the
investigation^.
The investigation also demonstrates that two separate federal
agencies, with varying responsibilities for protection of the
public, can effectively work together to address a potential health
problem.
Sincerely,
Occupational Safety and
Health Administration
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
REPORT ON
EVALUATION OP COMPLIANCE WITH ON-SITE HEALTH AND SAFETY
REQUIREMENTS AT HAZARDOUS HASTE INCINERATORS
MAY 23, 1991
U.S. EPA - OSHA Joint Task Force
-------
Task Forca Report on Compliance with On-site Health and Safety
Requirements at Hazardous Waste Incinerators
Executive Summary
Background
EPA and OSHA jointly established the Task Force to evaluate
compliance with on-site health and safety requirements at selected
hazardous waste incinerators. Unannounced inspections were
conducted at 29 of the approximately 140 operating hazardous waste
incinerators. These inspections focused on determining compliance
with worker health and safety training requirements, and
preparedness prevention and emergency response requirements.
Potential worker exposure routes from equipment and areas relating
directly to incinerator operations were also evaluated.
Findings
1. OSHA identified a total of 320 violations in five major areas of
its regulations. These violations include 111 in the health and
safety training area; 22 in facility contingency plans; 19 in
workplace surveillance and monitoring; 20 in potential chemical
exposure to workers during incinerator and waste handling
operations; and 148 in general health and safety (e.g. lighting,
fall protection, materials storage, electrical, etc.) violations.
2. EPA identified a total of 75 violations of its standards at the
29 facilities inspected. These violations include 14 for failure
to provide adequate information and/or training to employees; 16
for non-compliance with the contingency plans and emergency
response requirements; 29 for non-compliance with general
inspections and preparedness and prevention requirements; and 16
for failure to comply-with^operational procedures requirements.
Of these 16 violations, only 5 related specifically to
incinerator operations.
EPA also noted a significant number of waste feed cut-offs and
emergency by-pass openings. The waste feed cut-off system is
intended to stop waste entering ttte~~incinerator combustion unit when
certain operating conditions are exceeded. Emergency by-passes are
intended to prevent ground level fugitive emissions and possible
explosions from excessive pressure in the combustion unit. While
both devices are designed for safety purposes, the frequent use of
these devices at some facilities may indicate a need to improve
operating practices.
i
-------
Conclusions
OSHA did not observe evidence of worker overexposure to
chemicals that could cause serious harm. However, EPA and OSHA are
concerned with the widespread deficiencies in the area of worker
health and safety training, which could potentially lead to
operational and exposure problems. EPA is also concerned about the
apparent overuse of waste feed cut-offs and emergency by-passes at
some facilities.
Follow-up Actions
enforcement follow-up on the violations found
improving inspection procedures and expertise in the area of
incineration as well as more broadly throughout the waste
management industry
additional assessment of the cause and impact of waste feed
cut-off and by-pass opening events
re-opening permits, where necessary, to address these events
review of the quality of existing permits
industry outreach
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. Introduction 1
II. Task Force Objectives 2
III. Task Force Investigation Universe 2
IV. OSHA Findings 4
V. EPA Findings 6
VI. Conclusions 7
VII. Followup Activities 8
A. Activities Conducted To-Date 8
OSHA Enforcement Actions 8
OSHA Training Accreditation Standard .. 9
EPA Enforcement Actions 9
EPA Inspections 10
EPA Permits 10
Outreach 10
B. Future Actions 10
OSHA Enforcement Actions 10
OSHA Future Inspections 11
OSHA Compliance Assistance 11
EPA Enforcement Actions • • • • 11
EPA Future Inspections 11
EPA Permits 12
EPA Reopening/Issuing Permits 12
C. Joint EPA/OSHA Efforts 13
Appendix A
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES'
Table 1 Violations in Health and Safety Training
Table 2 Violations in Facility Contingency Plans
Table 3 Violations in Workplace Surveillance and Monitoring
Table 4 Violations in Potential Chemical Exposure to
Workers During Incinerator and Waste Handling
Operations
Table 5 Violations in General Health and Safety
Table 6 Violations in Personnel Training Programs
Table 7 Violations in Contingency Plans and Emergency
Response
Table 8 Violations in General Inspections Requirements and
Preparedness and Prevention
Table 9 Violations in Operational Procedures
IV
-------
APPENDIX
Appendix A - Frequency of Automatic Waste Feed Cutoffs and
Emergency By-Pass Openings
v
-------
I. Introduction
. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) jointly established a Task Force to
evaluate compliance with on-site health and safety
requirements at selected hazardous waste incinerators across
the country. The Task Force, created in July 1990, inspected
29 of the approximately 140 hazardous waste incinerators then
operating in the United States. The incinerators evaluated by
the Task Force included all commercial hazardous waste
incinerators that have either permits or "interim status"
(i.e., without a final permit), all other hazardous waste
incinerators operating under interim status, and all
incinerators burning waste at Superfund sites at the time of
investigation.
OSHA and EPA have different, though related, responsi-
bilities with respect to the regulation of hazardous waste
incinerators. The Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act of
1970 authorizes the Department of Labor to require employers
to assure safe and healthful working conditions for the
nation's workforce. Specifically, OSHA is authorized to: set
mandatory occupational safety and health standards? provide
an effective enforcement program (including investigations and
inspections to determine the status of compliance with safety
and health standards and regulations, as well as the issuance
of citations for non-compliance); and provide consultation,
training, education, and other technical assistance to
employers and employees. The OSH Act encourages States to
develop and operate their own safety and health programs, or
"plans," providing at least as effective protection as the
Federal program. Two OSHA State-plan States were involved in
this effort-.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) enforced
by EPA and the States also sets out specific requirements
affecting workers at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities, including hazardous waste incinerators.
These requirements cover" personnel training, contingency
planning and emergency response, emergency preparedness and
prevention, and operational procedures. . With respect to the
safety and health of workers inside the facilities, EPA is
required under RCRA to provide information to OSHA and the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
concerning the location of hazardous waste sites and the nature
of the hazards at such sites in order to assist OSHA and NIOSH
in carrying out their duties. EPA also establishes and
enforces comprehensive hazardous waste incinerator design and
performance standards under RCRA, but compliance with these
requirements was not evaluated as part of this study.
1
-------
OSHA and EPA conducted concurrent unannounced compliance
inspections of each facility. The inspection teams consisted
of OSHA Federal or State compliance officers, EPA inspectors,
and in some cases, State compliance inspectors. Both agencies
had access to the same information and conducted employee
interviews to determine the degree of compliance with existing
health and safety regulations.
II. Task Force Objectives
The Task Force's objectives included determining
compliance with and evaluating the effectiveness of:
Worker health and safety training requirements. To
ensure that workers are trained in hazardous waste
management procedures, the Task Force evaluated the
facilities' compliance with training requirements in
OSHA and RCRA. The Task Force, recognizing that
meeting the regulatory requirements of a training
program does not by itself ensure program
effectiveness, also set out to determine the
adequacy of personnel training program implementation
through interviews with employees.
The facility's ability to prevent and respond to
emergencies. The inspectors reviewed the degree to
which each facility had designed systems to prevent
emergencies, and evaluated the procedures and
policies of each facility to effectively respond to
an emergency situation.
Potential worker exposure routes from equipment/areas
relating directly to the hazardous waste incinerator
operations-f By-visually"' inspecting operations and
reviewing operating records, the agencies sought to
identify potential exposure routes associated with
each hazardous waste incinerator.
III. The Task Force Investigation Universe
The 29 selected facilities fall under the jurisdiction of
EPA and OSHA Regions I, II, IV, V, VI, VIII, IX, and X. At two
of the facilities, (the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory in
California and the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory) the
Department of Energy instead of OSHA has jurisdiction \for
worker health and safety. Consequently, OSHA conducted
inspections in 27 of the 29 selected facilities, and OSHA's
findings presented in Chapter IV are related only to those 27
facilities. The following map details', the number and
distribution of facilities that were inspected. The 29
facilities inspected by OSHA and/or EPA include the following:
2
-------
U.S. EPA AND OSHA REGIONS
Task Force Universe
-------
Facility Kama State Region
Pfizer, Inc. CT I
Polaroid Corporation MA I
Rollins Environmental NJ II
BASF Corporation NJ II
Occidental Chemical NY II
Corporation
General Electric NY II
Silicones
Schenectady Chemicals, NY II
Inc.
Allied Signal, Inc. AL IV
S&S Flying FIi IV
Services Project
01in Chemical Corp. KY IV
Atochem North America, Inc. KY IV
LWD, Inc. KY IV
ThermalKEM, Inc. SC IV
Thermal Oxidation Corp. SC IV
CWM Chemical Services, Inc. IL V
Chicago Incinerator Facility
CWM Trade Waste Incineration IL V
Paxton Ave. Lagoons IL V
Site
The Upjohn Company MI V
Ross Incineration OH V
Services, Inc.
ENSCO, Inc. AR VI
DuPont Company LA VI
3
-------
Facility Name
State
Region
Rhone.Poulenc LA
Rollins Environmental LA
Services
Chemical Waste TX
Management
Rhone Poulenc TX
Rollins Environmental TX
Services
Blackfoot Post & Pole mt
Site
Lawrence Livermore CA
National Laboratory
Idaho National Eng. Lab. ID
IV. osha Findings
General Findings
A total of 62 inspections were conducted at 27 hazardous
waste incinerator sites in six regions by Federal OSHA and two
states operating OSHA-approved State plans. A comprehensive
worker health inspection was conducted of the.incinerator-and
incinerator-related- operations at each facility; when
conditions warranted, a specialized safety inspection was also
conducted. Twenty three of these inspections were of
contractor operations at the sites visited. Nineteen of the
62 .inspections resulted in no citations. Forty-three of the
inspections resulted in citations for alleged violations which
are summarized below in Tables 1-4. While the scope of the
OSHA inspections was limited as much as possible to incinerator
and incinerator-related operations, the operations were
evaluated to determine compliance with all applicable OSHA
safety and health standards. Inspections were expanded in
scope wherever necessary to address apparent hazards noted
outside of the incinerator operations. The findings have been
classified into five separate program aspects: health and
safety training, facility contingency plans, workplace
surveillance and monitoring, chemical exposure to workers
during incinerator and waste handling operations, and general
health and safety findings. The following is an overview of
the violations noted.
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VIII
IX
X
4
-------
OSHA noted a total of 320 violations of its standards at
the 27 inspected sites. One hundred and eleven (111)
violations were identified for failure to provide adequate
health and safety information and/or training to employees.
(See Table 1). Twenty-two (22) violations were identified for
failure to adequately develop emergency site contingency plans
(see Table 2). Nineteen (19) violations were identified for
failure to perform reasonable surveillance of workplace
operations or activities (see Table 3) . Twenty (20) violations
were identified for failure to control exposure to hazardous
chemicals through exposure monitoring, provision of personal
protective equipment, and appropriate work practices. No
airborne exposures excursions of OSHA Permissible Exposure
Limits were documented in these inspections (see Table 4). One
hundred and forty-eight (148) violations were identified for
general worker safety and health conditions in the facilities
which were not directly related to the incinerator operations
of the facility (see Table 5).
Of the violations cited, 214 were serious and 106, other-
than-serious. The violation rate was 5.1 total violations and
3.4 serious violations per inspection. To put this in context,
OSHA's violation rate for all industries is 3.8 total
violations and 2.5 serious violations per inspection.
The most frequently cited violations (which account for
approximately one-third of the violations OSHA observed at the
27 inspected hazardous waste incinerator facilities) were
related to deficiencies in communicating to workers the hazards
of the chemical substances present at their worksites- -and
providing-adequate health" and safety information to minimize
those hazards. OSHA believes that remedying the training and
education problems at these facilities would heighten safety
and health awareness and could help significantly in resolving
many of the other worker safety and health problems that were
found in the course of the ^inspections.
The problems observed by OSHA were not equally
distributed among the 27 operators. Three of the incinerator
facility operators received no citations. Two other operators
were found to be in compliance with health regulations, but
received citations for alleged violations of safety standards.
One operator was in compliance with safety regulations but
received a citation for alleged health violations.
5
-------
Table 1:
VIOLATIONS IN HEALTH AND SAFETY TRAINING
Standard Cited
Total Violations
Descrlntlon of Violation
29 CFR 1910.1200
28 violations
Failure to provide
training on chemical hazards in the workplace.
29 CFR 1910.134
25 violations
Failure to train
employees in procedures for the selection, fit,
use, and maintenance of respirators and per-
sonal protective equipment.
29 CFR 1910.120
20 violations
Failure to provide
adequate training to workers assigned to
hazardous waste operations.
29 CFR 1910.147
15 violations
Failure to document
training on lockout/tagout procedures.
29 CFR 1910.20
9 violations
Failure to train
employees on access to employed me
-------
Table 2:
VIOLATIONS IN FACILITY CONTINGENCY PLANS
Standard Cited
Total Violations
Descrfotton of Violation
29CFR 1910.120
22 violations
Emergency action
plans were deficient.
Table 3:
VIOLATIONS IN WORKPLACE SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING
Standard Cited
Total Violations
Description of violation
29 CFR 1910.120
9 violations
Surveillance of respirator usage not performed.
29CFR 1910.120
5. violations
Surveillance^ site*
safety and health plan was not conducted to
ensure decontamination/spill containment/air
monitoring.
29 CFR 1910.120
3 violations
Me
-------
Table 4:
VIOLATIONS IN POTENTIAL CHEMICAL EXPOSURE TO
WORKERS DURING INCINERATOR AND
WASTE HANDLING OPERATIONS
Standard Cited
Total Violations
Descriotion of Violation
29CFR 1910.132
29CFR 1910.133
13 violations
Failure to use proper
personal protective equipment for eyes, face,
and head when employees were exposed to
hazards capable of causing injury and impair-
ment.
29 CFR 1910.1001
29 CFR 1910.1025
29 CFR 1910.1028
29 CFR 1910.1045
6 violations
Failure to perform initial 8-hour, time
-weighted average
exposure monitoring
(for lead/asbestos/benzene/ acrylonitrile).
29 CFR 1910.141
1 violation
Food and beverage was consumed in an area
with potential exposure to toxic materials.
-------
Table 5:
VIOLATIONS IN GENERAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
GENERALCATEGORY
# VIOLATIONS
Fall Protection
26
Materials Storage
25
Electrical
24
Life Safety Codes
16
Machine Guarding
9
Fire Protection
9
Noise
9
Standards for Asbestos, Lead, Benzene, and Acrylonitrile
7
Welding
7
Recordkeeping
6
Vehicle/Equipment
4
Confined Space
3
Crane
2
Elevator Safety
1
-------
V. EPA Findings
EPA Regional inspectors conducted inspections at all 29
targeted facilities. These inspections covered: personnel
training programs; contingency plans and emergency response;
general inspection requirements and preparedness and
prevention; and operational procedures for both the incinerator
and storage and handling of hazardous waste prior to
incineration. In addition, historical compliance information
specifically on the incinerator operations was collected and
analyzed from past inspections conducted at the targeted
facilities in FY90.
EPA identified a total of 75 violations of its standards
at the 29 facilities inspected. Fourteen (14) violations were
identified for failure to provide adequate information and/or
training to employees (see Table 6). Sixteen (16) violations
were identified for non-compliance with the contingency plan
and emergency response requirements (see Table 7). Twenty-nine
(29) violations were noted for non-compliance with general
inspections and preparedness and prevention requirements (see
Table 8) . Sixteen (16) violations were identified for failure
to comply with operating procedures requirements. Of these 16
violations, five (5) are related specifically to incinerator
operations, whereas the remainder are associated with other
hazardous waste handling at the facilities (see Table 9).
Approximately 80% of the 75 violations EPA found were
related to deficiencies in complying with general inspection
requirements, personnel training, and contingency plan
requirements that are directed at safe operation of the
facility. As with OSHA's findings, the problems found by EPA
were not evenly-^distributed ^among facilities. EPA found no
violations in the areas examined by the Task Force in eight
(8) facilities. Among the 21 facilities with violations, 16
had less than three violations each. Also, of the 21
facilities with violations, only four (4) facilities had
violations relating to the incinerator operations.
As EPA tried to determine potential emissions other than
those mentioned above, it also noted a significant number of
automatic waste feed cut-offs at about half of the hazardous
waste incinerators inspected. The automatic waste feed cut-
off system is required by the regulation-and is intended to
stop hazardous waste entering the incinerator combustion unit
when certain operating conditions as specified in the permit
are exceeded. It is not intended to be used as a routine
measure to control operation of a hazardous waste incinerator.
EPA does not currently have data indicating that these cut-offs
affect hazardous waste incinerator emissions, however, the
Agency prefers steady uninterrupted operations, as good
6
-------
Table 6:
VIOLATIONS IN PERSONNEL TRAINING PROGRAMS
Regulatory Citation
Total Violations
Description of Violation
40 CFR 270.14
1 violation
Failure to prepare an outline of training
program for instructing personnel to
operate and maintain facility in safe
manner.
40 CFR 264/265.16(d)(3)
5 violations
Inadequate content of training program.
40 CFR 264/265.16(a)(1)
1 violation
Training received by employee not
relevant to job function.
40 CFR 264/265.16(a)(3)
3 violations
Failure to ensure that facility personnel
are familiar with emergency procedures,
emergency equipment and emergency
systems.
40 CFR 264/265.16(b) & (c)
-
4 violations
Failure lo provide annual refresher
training course on time. Failure to provide
training within 6 months of employment.
Failure to ensure employees worked
under supervision until property trained.
-------
Table 7:
VIOLATIONS IN CONTINGENCY PLANS
AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
'W-J ' 1 11 K","..*: * Lull . ljl' S'.HUPs. . an, r f :> 8a'. gnd.i ,l. S»'J - «Ji
Repulatorv Citation
Total Violations
Description of Violation
40 CFR 264/265.52
8 violations
Inadequate content of plan.
40 CFR 264/265.54
4 violations
Failure to amend plan with current
information.
40 CFR 264/265.56
4 violations
Inadequate emergency procedures.
-------
Table 8:
VIOLATIONS IN GENERAL INSPECTIONS REQUIREMENTS
AND PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION
Repulatorv Citation
Total Violations
DescriDtion of Violation
40 CFR 264/265.15
12 violations
Failure to maintain a schedule for
inspection ot equipment. Failure to keep
a complete inspection log.
40 CFR 264/265.17
2 violations
Failure to take adequate precautions
to prevent accidental ignition or
reaction of wastes.
40 CFR 264/265.31
2 violations
Failure to maintain and operate facility to
minimize the possibilities of releasing
hazardous waste that would threaten
human health and the environment.
40 CFR 264/265.32
1 violation
Failure to provide minimum equipment for
preparedness and prevention.
40 CFR 264/265.33
4 violations
Failure to test and maintain equipment
to ensure operation in emergencies.
40 CFR 264/265.35
6 violations
Failure to maintain adequate aisle space
to allow unobstructed movement of
personnel, fire protection equipment,
spill control equipment, and decon-
tamination equipment.
40 CFR 264/265.37
2 violations
Failure to make appropriate arrangements
with local authorities to familiarize them
with the facility.
-------
Table 9:
VIOLATIONS IN OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES
Reaulatorv Citation
Total Violations
Description of Violation
40 CFR 264/265.170-.174
10 violations
Failure to comply with container
management requirements.
40 CFR 264/265.177
1 violation
Failure to separate incompatible wastes
in containers.
40 CFR 264/265.347(b)
1 violation
Failure to conduct daily inspections of
incinerator and associated equipment.
40 CFR 264/265.347(c)
2 violations
Failure to test waste feed cutoff system.
40 CFR 264/265.345
2 violations
Failure to operate under acceptable
operating limits (i.e., temperature,
waste feed rate, CO levels, etc.)
-------
operating practice", for minimizing the potential for harmful
emissions. EPA believes facilities where overly-frequent
automatic waste feed cut-offs were identified can readily bring
down the frequency of cut-offs by improving operating
practices.
In addition, EPA identified the use of emergency by-pass
openings at nine (9) of the facilities. The emergency by-pass
is intended to prevent ground level fugitive emissions when
pressure in the combustion unit builds up too high, and it also
is intended to protect the air pollution control equipment when
the exit gas temperature is too hot. The use of emergency by-
passes is of more serious concern to EPA because it results in
direct venting to the air of emissions that normally are
subject to air pollution control devices. At a few facilities
the number of emergency by-passes was excessive, in the
Agency's judgment. Though often caused by actions outside the
incinerator operator's control, such as local power
interruptions, the Agency believes by-passes can be minimized
by installation of back-up equipment and quick replacement of
faulty equipment.
The use of both devices merits further investigation by
EPA as specified in Section VII below. Appendix A summarizes
the number of automatic waste feed cut-offs and emergency by-
pass openings identified during the Task Force investigation.
VI. Conclusions
OSHA did not observe evidence of worker overexposure to
chemicals that could cause serious harm. However, EPA and OSHA
are concerned with the widespread deficiencies in worker
training, which could potentially lead to operational as well
as exposure ^problems. OSHA~has~ addressed these problems with
enforcement actions, and EPA is also taking appropriate
enforcement actions. Both agencies will pursue the other
follow-up activities identified in Section VII.
Since the Task Force found worker training is inadequate
in many of the facilities inspected, the two Agencies strongly
believe that the hazardous waste incinerator industry must do
more in the area of personnel training to prevent potential
operational and exposure problems.
Lastly, the EPA found that only four (4) facilities had
specific incinerator operations violations. The apparent
overuse of the automatic waste feed cut-offs and emergency by-
pass openings at some of the facilities merit further
attention. The causes and implications of 'these incinerator
violations and high occurrences of automatic waste feed cut-
offs and emergency by-pass openings will be further examined
by EPA.
7
-------
VII. Foliowup Activities
A. Activities Conducted To-Date
OSHA Enforcement Actions
Citations were issued by OSHA and the two OSHA State-plan
States that participated in the joint effort (Kentucky and
South Carolina), with total proposed penalties of §92,220
for 320 alleged violations identified during the
incinerator inspections. Two-thirds of these violations
were deemed to be serious. Problems were observed
throughout the facilities and were not limited to the
incinerator operations. The most significant of the
problems noted by OSHA were in the area of worker
training.
The total violation count with proposed penalties is
broken down into the following:
Violation type Number of Violations Proposed Penalties
Cited
Serious 214 $ 91,690
Repeated 1 $ 90
Other-than-serious 105 $ 440
(Penalties were proposed for other-than-serious violations
in only three instances. One of the other-than-serious
items was cited as a repeated violation.)
OSHA enforcement activity is guided by policy and
procedures specified in the OSHA Field Operations Manual.
Citations are issued specifying the following: 1)
violation classification, 2) the standard violated, 3)
a description of the violation identified, 4) the type(s)
of abatement methods an employer may use to eliminate the
hazard, 5) a reasonable abatement date (this is the time
an employer is given to correct the hazard) , and 6)
proposed penalties.
The violations cited by OSHA during the Task Force
inspections included "Serious," "Repeated," and "Other-
than-serious" violations, but no "willful" violations.
Serious violations are those for which there is a
substantial probability that death or serious physical
harm could result from the existing condition. Repeated
violations are those for which the employer has been
previously cited; they may involve serious or other-than-
serious conditions. Other-than-serious violations include
those situations where the accident or illness that would
8
-------
be most likely to result from the hazardous condition
would probably not cause death or serious^physical harm,
but would have a direct and immediate relationship to the
safety and health of employees.
All hazardous conditions cited are required to be
corrected by the employer. The cited employer is
requested to submit evidence of abatement to OSHA in the
form of a detailed abatement report specifying the actions
taken to correct the hazardous condition. In some cases
a followup inspection may be conducted to verify abatement
of the hazard. In general, the Regions and States
participating in the program will take appropriate actions
to ensure that the hazardous conditions documented by OSHA
during the incinerator inspections are corrected in a
timely manner. To date, 35 of the 43 employers cited for
violations have agreed to correct the hazards within the
specified deadlines, and all but 4 of the 35 have done so
to the satisfaction of the OSHA Area Office.
OSHA Training Accreditation Standard
OSHA is about to close the public record on a draft final
standard for accreditation of training to workers engaged
in hazardous waste cleanup operations. This standard, by
requiring employers to provide accredited training
programs to their employees, should significantly improve
the caliber of worker health and safety training at
hazardous waste incinerator sites.
EPA Enforcement Actions
Of the 75 violations EPA identified, 52 of them were Class
I violations and 23 were Class II violations. Class I
violations are defined by EPA as those that could result
in failure to any of the following: 1) assure appropriate
destination and delivery of hazardous waste; 2) prevent
releases; 3) assure early detection of releases; or 4)
perform corrective action for releases. The Class I
violations are considered by EPA as potential targets for
formal action accompanied by penalties. The class II
violations are all other violations that are not Class I,
and are considered by EPA as potential targets for
informal actions.
As a result of the Task Force investigation, the EPA and
the States had conducted comprehensive follow-up
inspections at three of the facilities. At the time of
this report, of the 21 facilities with violations, seven
Notice of Violations (informal actions) and one Consent
Order (formal action) had been issued. EPA and. the States
are continuing to process the other" ten formal and
9
-------
informal actions to address the violations found. The
remaining three facilities consist of two Superfund
facilities and a facility that had been closed, therefore,
no formal enforcement action was taken. However, the
Regions had formally instituted internal inspection
policies and review procedures to ensure Superfund
incinerators are in compliance with the appropriate RCRA
regulations.
EPA Inspections
To improve EPA's scrutiny of RCRA's worker training
requirements, EPA Headquarters has directed its Regions
and the authorized States to incorporate elements of the
health and safety checklist used by the Task Force into
all RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
inspections. This will focus increased scrutiny on this
important area during our routine compliance inspections.
EPA is also in the process of revising its routine
inspection training to place additional emphasis in this
area.
EPA Permits
EPA has advised States of concerns about certain
facilities* over-reliance on safety mechanisms, especially
emergency by-passes, and of the need to re-open permits
to impose additional requirements that will minimize their
occurrence.
At EPA urging, some facilities have instituted
improvements so that the frequency of emergency by-pass
openings and automatic waste feed cut-offs has signifi-
cantly decreased. Additional reporting, also agreed to
by these facilities, has enabled the Agency to track these
changes in frequency.
Outreach
EPA and OSHA have met with representatives of the
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Industry to explain the
incinerator operations and worker health and safety
requirements and strongly encourage, actions to improve
compliance with the regulations.
B. Future Actions
OSHA Enforcement Actions
OSHA and the involved OSHA-approved State Plans will
conduct follow-up inspections at sites where the gravity
of the serious violations warrants on-site follow-up.
10
-------
OSHA also will conduct follow-up inspections if the
employer does not provide an abatement report, if the
report is inadequate, or if the employees indicate there
are continuing problems onsite.
OSHA Future Inspections
OSHA will make sure that hazardous waste incinerator
facilities are included on its future targeting lists for
randomly-selected program inspections in non-manufacturing
establishments. Further, OSHA will send a letter to each
hazardous waste incinerator facility informing the
employer of the possibility of a programmed inspection and
enclosing a copy of the Task Force report. The OSHA-
approved State Plans will be encouraged to take similar
action.
OSHA Compliance Assistance
OSHA also will inform employers at hazardous waste
incinerators of the OSHA-funded on-site consultation
services available free of charge in all 50 states to
employers upon request. This on-site consultation program
is intended to assist small businesses in improving their
overall safety and health programs, solving specific
safety and health problems, and complying with OSHA
standards. Technical assistance is also available to the
hazardous waste incinerator industry from OSHA personnel
at the more than 80 OSHA field offices maintained
throughout the country.
EPA Enforcement Actions
EPA, with the authorized States, will continue to take
necessary enforcement actions to correct the 75 violations
found at 21 of these facilities.
EPA Future Inspections
EPA will designate specialized Regional incinerator
inspectors to conduct the frequent1* routine inspections
that are part of our on-going compliance and enforcement
program at hazardous waste incinerators and other
hazardous waste thermal combustion devices. Currently,
the hazardous waste incinerators are being inspected, at
a minimum, annually.
In addition, EPA will continue to refer to OSHA any
findings of non-compliance with worker health and safety
regulations.
11
-------
EPA Permits
EPA will work with the states to expedite final permit
decisions for the remaining interim status hazardous waste
incinerators and to ensure that worker training
requirements, limitations on use of safety devices, and
responsibilities for minimizing releases are fully
incorporated into permit conditions for these hazardous
waste incinerators.
EPA will also conduct an evaluation of hazardous waste
incinerator permits' quality. This effort is part of
planned Agency follow-up for the initial hazardous waste
incinerator permits.
EPA Reopening/Issuing Permits
At those hazardous waste incinerators where a significant
number of waste feed cut-offs and emergency by-passes
occurred, EPA will work with the States to re-open the
permits to impose requirements to restrict use of these
safety features.
EPA is already assessing why numerous automatic waste feed
cut-offs and emergency by-passes occurred at some of the
facilities inspected. To support this assessment, and
better understand the actual circumstances and impact of
activating waste feed cutoffs, the Agency will incorporate
this issue into its continuing research program for
hazardous waste combustion. This research will include
carrying out tests at one of EPA's own research
incinerators to confirm whether the nature of emissions
is affected by automatic waste feed cut-offs. In the case
of emergency vent stacks, emissions are clearly affected
because the combustion gases bypass the air pollution
control device. However, EPA will be working to develop
a better understanding of the risks posed by bypass stack
releases, as well as to continue to learn more about the
situations which necessitate their use and ways to reduce
their frequency and impact.
EPA is continuing work on a permit writer guidance manual
which will include a section on evaluating and addressing
proposals for emergency by-pass openings in hazardous
waste incinerator permit applications. EPA is conducting
two hazardous waste incineration permitting workshops this
year, which State permit writers will be encouraged to
attend. The Agency will place special emphasis on the
emergency by-pass opening and automatic waste feed cut-
off issues during these training sessions.
12
-------
At those facilities where the frequency of automatic waste
feed cut-offs and emergency by-pass openings was consider-
ed high, a variety of actions are either underway or
planned.
To support the EPA Regions and States in modifying the
hazardous waste incinerator permits for facilities of
concern, EPA Headquarters is preparing a policy guidance.
This guidance re-affirms previous Agency statements on the
basis and authority for imposing restrictions on automatic
waste feed cut-offs and emergency by-pass openings.
Technical assistance from knowledgeable Agency staff will
also be provided.
C. Joint EPA/OSHA Efforts
Both EPA and OSHA urge the hazardous waste incinerator
industry to place a stronger emphasis on employee
training. A joint EPA and OSHA letter will be sent to
hazardous waste trade associations alerting the industry
to the need to provide better training programs to their
employees. OSHA will assist the industry in developing
adequate training programs in the areas of emergency
response/hazardous waste operations and chemical hazard
communication.
The EPA and OSHA recognize the need for greater coordi-
nation within the federal sector in the exchange of
technical information, inspection targeting data, and
notification of specific hazardous sites. EPA and OSHA
are both committed to improving working relationships at
the national office and regional and local levels under
the terms of the broad Memorandum of Understanding
executed on November 23, 1990, between Secretary of Labor
Elizabeth Dole and EPA Administrator William Reilly. The
two agencies will be considering the possibility of future
joint enforcement activity at hazardous waste management
sites as part of the annual work plans to be developed
under the agreement each year.
13
-------
Appendix A
FREQUENCY OF WASTEFEED CUTOFF AND
EMERGENCY BY-PASS OPENINGS
WASTEFEED CUTOFFS*
I EMERGENCY BY-PASS
FACILITY
(30 DAY PERIOD) 1
\ \
1 OPENINGS
(6 MONTH PERIOD)
-¦:A
'¦ . -V. -J;- ¦" " '¦ « .. ¦¦ ¦ |
, . ' **
B
* 1
C
D
1,800
0
E
268
F
? 350
-
..... "• Q .
v."-:.:'" i" ''¦ * -;i 42 U
1 ' •
H
103
0
S.:-y A ¦ y ¦ v
|
J
> 1,386 (Projected)"*
0
K
24
L
0
0
m •
. 146 • ¦
: 47
N
13.325 (4 Units)
867
O ' '
.. -v' 605
6
p
63
18 (Projected)
* EPA and the authorized States are in the process of determining
whether these automatic wastefeed cutoffs are associated with
permit-specific violations at individual facilities.
" Acould mean that the facility does not have the emergency
by-pass equipment or that it has no by-passes.
*" A number of these findings are projected based on values
observed for a shorter period of time.
Note:
The Facilities Are Listed In An Arbitrary Order
-------
Appendix A
FREQUENCY OF WASTEFEED CUTOFF AND
EMERGENCY BY-PASS OPENINGS
(continued)
FACILITY
WASTEFEED CUTOFFS
>(30 DAY PERIOD)
EMERGENCY BY-PASS
OPENINGS
(6 MONTH PERIOD)
Q - '
24^^.
91 (Projected)
R
1 o
-
'• f • 900
1
T \
m
.
. r..: ~ . ..-1
'"y 150 (Protected)
V
I 0
I
W
|' - .
X
6
J.
Y
¦¦ 465 ¦' ¦¦¦¦
2
Z
943
|
¦ AA
0
2
BB
J
|
CC
I 0 _
Note:
The Facilities Are Listed In An Arbitrary Order
------- |