DSHW-1991-001648 - 0901a0688013cebd

RECEIVED ^
U»\ HERCULES Hercules Aerospace Company
Missiles, Ordnance and Space Group
Bacchus Works
UU^"" Magna, Utah 84044-0098
[phone]
FEB 1 1 1991
, ^ 77'TY^c.\ky. DSHWTN February ll, 1991
Utah Dept. of Health ^
,.. «4 cnii.-i 8. Hft7arrtnii<; Waste I»» I. .5U;JJ^ Bureau of Solid & Hazardous Waste
Mr. Dennis Downs
Director
RECEIVED
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste C^Q <• « «QQ«
Division of Environmental Health rr rj i i \y^\
P.O. Box 16690' UtahO--t ofMpgi'^h
288 North 1460 West _ ^'^J",^ /^ "^-^ "^
Salt Lake City, Utah 84116-0690 -''"-'^^ ^' ^"•''••' '- '"'«^'^''-i'"'-'- ^^ Re: NOV 90100006
Dear Mr. Downs:
Notice of Violation (NOV) 90100006, dated December 10, 1990,
requested that Hercules provide specific information by
January 11, 1991. While the specific information was provided as
requested, time did not allow for a complete response to all the
issues raised by the NOV. Hercules' position on the violations
alleged in the Notice of Violation is more fully explained in the
attachment.
As the Bureau evaluates the seriousness of the situations
described in the Notice of Violation, Hercules would request that
several factors be taken into consideration in light of the
penalty policy of the Solid and Hazardous Wastes Committee.
The first of these is that compared to the magnitude and
diversity of Hercules' hazardous waste program, the magnitude of
the violations was small. Hercules handles approximately six
million pounds of hazardous waste annually divided between 80 wast:e
streams, and the vast majority of wastes observed during the
inspection were managed properly. Hercules' situation is also
complicated in that our operations are covered by a variety of
regulatory requirements: 90-day rule, satellite accumulation, waste
treatment by open burning, emergency permits, and, for the first
time in 1990, interim status for storage. Although we strive for
complete compliance with environmental regulations, we feel that
overall we do a very good job of meeting our requirements.
We would also ask the Bureau to consider that the actual or
potential environmental harm resulting from the situations
described in the Notice of Violation was small. All wastes
BW-1000/689 (Rev 2-881
NOV 90100006 Page 2
mentioned in the NOV were properly disposed, so there was no actual
environmental harm. Furthermore, the total quantity of hazardous
constituents involved was less than 100 pounds, representing only
a very small potential for harm to the environment.
Hercules gained no economic advantage through the actions
described in the NOV. All materials were properly disposed, and
cleanup of the paint spray residue described in the first violation
cost the Company more than disposal of the solvent alone would have
cost.
Please also remember that Hercules is dedicated to complying
with environmental regulations and has demonstrated vast
improvements in waste management in recent years. Many of the
violations were a result of unusual operations that would have been
difficult to plan for, rather than failures of our routine
practices. Although we disagree that many of the situations
described in the NOV are in fact violations of the regulations, we
have corrected the situations and taken measures to prevent their
recurrence. These measures include the assignment of Environmental
Operations staff to every operating building to improve waste
handling procedures and to be available for advising operating
groups in waste management when the unusual situations arise. We
have also provided additional training to the Paint Shop personnel
and supervision to heighten their awareness of environmental issues
related to their work and to provide specific instructions for
disposal of their waste streams. Other specific corrective and
preventative measures are described in the attachment.
Nothing in this letter or the attachment constitutes an
admission of violations or liability of Hercules as to the
allegations in the NOV.
NOV 90100006 Page 3
If additional information or discussion about this matter
would be useful, please call me at 251-3574.
Sincerely,
E. Richard Anderson, Manager
Environmental Planning
and Operations
ERA/SEJew/alc
cc; N.
C.
G.
S.
J.
G.
D.
R.
A.
R.
E.
E.
L.
R.
K.
G.
Alberts
Eubanks
Gooch
Jew
McCord
Muir
Peay
Peterson
2422
EUW3
X1P2
X1P2
EUSl
A3
X1P2
EUSl
R.
S.
B.
K.
J.
R.
T.
E.
E.
H.
M.
L.
M.
J.
Pritt
Russell
Shimada
Tomsic
Waugaman
Weir
Winder
PC2A6
2422U
DU200
X1P2
X1P2
X6F1
5111 NW
NOV 90100006 Page 1
Violation #1
It has been alleged that Hercules violated 26-14-8(3) of the Act and
R450-3-l.l(a) of the Code by operating a facility for the purpose of
disposing of hazardous waste without first submitting, and receiving approval
of the Executive Secretary for, a hazardous waste operation plan for that
facility.
Response
The situation of the painter spraying the cleaning solvent on the ground
was a one time release caused by human error. The painter was upset because
she had accidentally gotten paint on her equipment. This is not a common
situation; this is the only time it has ever happened to this painter.
Because she was upset, she made a judgement error and allowed the rinseate to
run onto the ground.
This practice is not standard operating procedure. At no time was it
Hercules' intention to dispose of the lacquer thinner on the ground. The
material that was released was immediately cleaned up. Therefore, this
incident is properly considered a spill, rather than the operation of a
facility for the purpose of disposing of hazardous waste, and Hercules is not
in violation of 26-14-8(3) of the Act or R450-3-l.l(a) of the Code.
The potential for environmental harm by this incident was small. The
paint that was being used was latex paint. It was first cleaned off the
equipment by spraying with water. A small amount of solvent was then used to
flush the water out of the equipment. The solvent that was being used was
lacquer thinner. This is hazardous solely because it exhibits the
characteristic of ignitability. The amount released was less than one
gallon.
To date several corrective actions have been implemented to ensure that
there are no future problems at the Paint Shop. A meeting to cover the
regulations and appropriate disposal of material from the painting operations
was held with the Paint Shop personnel on October 17, 1990. To prevent
reoccurrence, we are currently working with the procedure writers and paint
shop personnel to expand the scope of their procedures. We are also
confident that our new program to improve coordination between operating
groups and Environmental Operations personnel will be a strong measure to
prevent future problems.
Violation #2
It has been alleged that Hercules violated R450-5-1 of the Code, which
incorporated 40 CFR 262.11 by reference, by failing to determine if a solid
waste is a hazardous waste.
Response
It is Hercules' understanding that our letter of November 8, 1990
satisfied your concern that Hercules had failed to determine whether the
materials below are hazardous wastes. For completeness, the determinations
on each material are discussed below.
NOV 90100006 Page 2
Deposit Drum Yard
Hercules' position is that the drums in the deposit drum yard did not
contain hazardous waste based on the following. The drums were originally
used for storage of commercial products methylene chloride and
1,1,1-trichloroethane. After the products were used, the drums contained less
than 3% of their original product and met the definition of empty containers
under R450-2-1.6(b). Neither the drums nor the residues are subject to
regulation as hazardous wastes (see R450-8-9.1). The use of the drums for
storage of solid waste does not change this conclusion.
Hercules believes that the materials found in the drums were mixtures of
non-hazardous wastes with residues of chemicals remaining in empty
containers. Even though such material is not hazarous waste, our normal
practice is to dispose of these materials as hazardous waste. To prevent
future problems of this nature. Environmental Operations has taken
responsibility for the operation of the deposit drum yard.
Red Spot
The red unidentified material on the ground west of the service garage was
cleaned up. A FTIR scan of the material indicates that it is primarily a
carbonate (probably CaC03) with a red iron oxide pigment. Analysis for
hazardous constituents showed no solvents and some total metals but no TCLP
extractable metals. The spot is considered a non-hazardous material and was
sent to the county landfill.
Two Rusted Drums
The building east of the service garage had two drums near its northwest
corner. One of the drums was intact and with bungs on and contained a small
quantity of water in the bottom. The other drum was collapsed and only about
one third of the structure of the drum remained.
The contents of the collapsed drum was a blackish sludge. The quantity of
material in the drum was so small that once a sample was collected, there was
no material left. The now empty, collapsed drum was taken to the crusher pad
for disposal. An FTIR scan shows the drum held a mixture of ethylene glycol,
oxidized oil, hydrocarbon oil, ester, freon, and water in the collapsed drum.
This material is not a hazardous waste.
The contents of the intact drum were sampled and were determined to be a
hazardous waste. Remaining contents were collected and disposed of as
hazardous waste. The empty drum was then taken to the crusher pad for
disposal. Analysis of the intact drum shows barely detectable amounts of
chlorobenzene and methylene chloride.
Violation #3
It has been alleged that Hercules violated R450-5-9 of the Code, which
incorporates 40 CFR 262.34 by reference, by failing to label or mark each
container accumulating hazardous waste with the words "Hazardous Waste" or
other words that identify the contents of the container. Also, by failing to
mark each container with the date upon which each period of accumulation
began. Also by failing to maintain containers holding hazardous waste closed
except when it is necessary to add or remove waste.
NOV 90100006 Page 3
Response
The paint cans that were observed in the dumpster were emptied into the
hazardous waste collection drums located at the Paint Shop. All liquids were
poured into the drum for collecting waste paint and solvents. The sludge at
the bottom of the five gallon traffic-yellow paint cans was wiped out with
rags. The rags were put in the collection drum for paint rags and the empty
containers were put in the dumpster.
This problem was an unusual occurrence rather than a common practice at
Hercules. The cans of traffic-yellow paint contained more pigment than they
should have, so it was not possible to use the entire contents as is normally
done. The smaller cans in the dumpster were the result of the Paint Shop's
cleaning"out a storage area where paint had accumulated for a long time. On
the day that this incident occurred, the inspectors questioned a painter and
the Paint Shop foreman, both of whom stated that waste oil-based paint should
be and normally is disposed by pouring it into the hazardous waste collection
drum.
The measures described in our response to violation #1 to heighten
environmental awareness among Paint Shop personnel and clarify the procedures
will also ensure that the situation observed during the inspection does not
happen in the future.
Violation # 4
It has been alleged that Hercules violated R450-7-9.6(b) of the Code by
failing to develop and follow a written schedule for inspecting groundwater
monitoring equipment.
Response
It is Hercules' position that R450-7-9.6(b) was not violated because
this regulation does not require an inspection schedule for groundwater
monitoring equipment. However, even assuming that a written schedule is
required, Hercules has developed and does follow a written schedule for
inspecting groundwater monitoring equipment that was provided during the
inspection.
During the inspection, Hercules did not identify an inspection schedule
for monitoring equipment because it was and is, our belief that "monitoring
equipment" as referenced in R450-7-9.6(b) means equipment for monitoring waste
storage and treatment processes, (liquid level indicators, emissions monitors,
etc.) rather than groundwater monitoring equipment. R450-7-9.6(b)
specifically references inspections for containers, tanks, surface
impoundments, incinerators, thermal treatment, and chemical, physical, and
biological treatment, most of which normally have process monitoring
equipment, but does not specifically reference groundwater monitoring
equipment. Additionally, R450-7-13 (Groundwater Monitoring) does not
specifically require an inspection schedule for monitoring equipment.
NOV 90100006 Page 4
Even so, Hercules does have an inspection schedule in the Quality
Assurance/Quality Control Protocol for the collection of groundwater samples.
This document describes the frequency for calibrating pH and conductivity
meters used in groundwater sampling. These calibrations are documented on the
field log. During the inspections, copies of the QA/QC Protocol and the field
log were provided to the Bureau.
As a result of the Bureau's concem, Hercules has formalized a well
inspection procedure that has been performed informally in the past. Once
each quarter, samplers will inspect wells to ensure that the cement apron,
well cover, inner cap, well number and lock at each well are present and in
good condition. The inspection will be documented in the field log.
Violation # 5
It has been alleged that Hercules violated R450-7-9.7(c) of the Code by
failing to ensure that facility personnel take part in an annual review of
their initial training.
Response
All Hercules personnel involved in hazardous waste management are
thoroughly trained to perform their duties, both through formal training
procedures and classes, and through regular supervised performance of these
functions.
Hercules' training plan exceeds the minimum requirements of the
regulations. The deficiencies noted during the inspection reflect a failure
to document completion of this ambitious schedule rather than any actual
unpreparedness of our workers to perform their duties.
Our current training documentation system is being revised to include the
assigning of one person to be the training coordinator. The duties of that
person are to maintain a documentation system, to aggressively require our
personnel to complete and document their training, and to update the training
plan as required. Training modules committed to in the plan will also be
reduced to the minimum required by regulation to make the training program
more manageable.
Violation i^ 6
It has been alleged that Hercules violated Module II.G.3. of the Emergency
Permit by failing to review and immediately amend the contingency plan, as
required by R450-8-4.5. Also by failing to submit a copy of the revised
contingency plan to the Executive Secretary within thirty days of permit
issuance.
Response
Module H.G.3 of the Emergency Permit and R450-8-4.5 require amendment of
the Contingency Plan only if necessary. It is Hercules' position that all
necessary changes were made to the Contingency Plan and that these
requirements of the Emergency Permit and the regulation were not violated.
NOV 90100006 Page 5
Hercules' Contingency Plan was revised as soon as the emergency permit was
obtained. The necessary revisions indicated that procedures outlined in the
plan applied to Building 2495. An evacuation plan for Building 2495 was also
included. The revised Contingency Plan was examined during the inspection.
Revision of the list of emergency equipment was not necessary. The only
emergency equipment at Building 2495 is common to all explosives buildings at
Bacchus. This equipment was not specially provided just because hazardous
waste was being stored there. Furthermore, the nature of the waste precludes
the possibility of emergency response activity: as a solid, it could not
spill or leak; as a reactive material, fires would not be fought. There was
therefore no point to revising the Contingency Plan to include emergency
equipment at Building 2495.
Although Hercules believes that revising the list of emergency equipment
was not required, the Contingency Plan was changed to bring it into compliance
with the Bureau's position. This revision was submitted to the Bureau with
our January 11, 1991 response to the Notice of Violation.
Violation // 7
It has been alleged that Hercules violated paragraph 19 of the Consent
Order by failing to submit to the Executive Secretary for approval closure
plans for all regulated units at the Bacchus Works facility within ninety days
after issuance by the Executive Secretary of the RFA.
Response
Hercules has made its best efforts to carry out all of its duties under
the Consent Order. When the Consent Order was negotiated, the parties did not
realize that preparation of the closure plans should logically follow, rather
than precede, the RFI and CMS. This problem was discussed in a meeting
between Hercules and the Bureau on October 22, 1990 and the parties agreed to
revise the Consent Order to correct the problem. Since the parties originally
made a mistake in the Consent Order and have now agreed to correct the
mistake, Hercules does not feel that it should be cited for a violation of the
original deadlines.
Response to Notice ^rViolation 90100006 Page 2
J./*
Hercules does not agree with the Bureau's interpretation that all of the
items listed as violations are in fact violations of the regulations. In the
near future, Hercules will submit a supplemental response explaining this
position in detail.
Nothing in this letter or the attachments constitutes an admission of
violations or liability by Hercules as to any allegation in the NOV.
At this time we would also like to note that although we are optimistic
that we can resolve the issues raised by this notice with your staff, we would
still like to reserve the right to a hearing before the Solid and Hazardous
Waste Committee if necessary.
If you have any further questions please don't hesitate to call me at
251-3574,
Sincerely,
E. Richard Anderson, Manager
Environmental Planning
and Operations
ERA/KMTomsic/alc/7 773s
Attachments
cc: N.
C.
G.
S.
S.
J.
G.
D.
R.
S.
J.
R.
A.
R.
G.
D.
E
L.
R.
K.
G.
E.
L.
E.
Alberts
Eubanks
Gooch
Hirschi
Jew
McCord
Muir
Peay
Peterson
Russell
Waugaman
Weir
T. J. Winder
Response to Notice of Violation Page 1
Violation if/_l
It has been alleged that Hercules violated 26-14-8(3) of the (=lct and
R450-3-1,1(a) of the Code by operating a facility for the purpose of
disposing of hazardous waste without first submitting, and receiving approval
of the ExGcutivG Secretary for, a hazardous waste operation plan for that
facility.
Response
As soon as the condition was noted it was promptly handled as an
accidental release and the contaminated soil was promptly cleaned up by
Environmental Operations. To date several corrective actions have been
implemented to ensure that there are no future problems at the Paint Shop. A
meeting to cover the regulations and appropriate disposal of material from
the painting operations was held with the Paint Shop personnel on October 17,
1990. To prevent reoccurrence, we are currently working with the procedure
writers and paint shop personnel to expand the scope of their procedures.
The procedural revisions should be complete by the end of January. We are
also confident that the coordination between operating groups and
Environmental Operations personnel described in the cover letter will be a
strong measure to prevent future problems,
Violation #2
It has been alleged that Hercules violated R4.50-5-1 of the Code, which
incorporated 40 CFR 2.62,11 by reference, by failing to determine if a solid
waste is a hazardous waste.
Response
It is Hercules' understanding that our letter of Wovember 8, 1990
satisfied your concern that Hercules had failed to determine whether the
materials below are hazardous wastes. For completeness, the determinations
on each material are discussed below.
Deposit Drum Yard
Hercules has determined that the materials found in the drums were
mixtures of non-hazardous wastes with trace residues of chemicals remaining
in empty containers. Even though Hercules believes that the material in the
drums is not a hazardous waste, for the convenience, the disposal of the
drums will be handled with a currently profiled waste stream and are to be
disposed of as hazardous waste. To prevent future problems of this nature.
Environmental Operations has taken responsibility for the operation of the
deposit drum yard.
Red Spot
The red unidentified material on the ground west of the service garage
was cleaned up. The spot is considered a non-hazardous material and was sent
to the county landfill.
Response to Motice of Violation Page 2
Corroded Drums
The building east of the service garage had two drums near its northwest
corner. One of the drums was intact and with bungs on and contained a small
quantity of water in the bottom. The other drum was collapsed and only about
one third of the structure of the drum remained.
The contents of the collapsed drum was a blackish sludge. The entire
contents of the collapsed drum were used as a sample. The now empty,
collapsed drum was taken to the crusher pad for disposal. An FTIR scan shows
the drum held a mixture of ethylene glycol, oxidized oil, hydrocarbon oil,
ester, freon, and water in the collapsed drum. This material is not a
hazardous waste.
The contents of the intact drum were sampled and were determined to be a
hazardous waste. Remaining contents were collected and disposed of as
hazardous waste. The empty drum was then taken to the crusher pad for
disposal. Analysis of the intact drum shows barely detectable amounts of
Chlorobenzene and MeCl.
Violation #3
It has been alleged that Hercules violated R4.50-5~9 of the Code, which
incorporates 40 CFR 262,34 by reference, by failing to label or mark each
container accumulating hazardous waste with the words "Hazardous Waste" or
other words that identify the contents of the container. Also, by failing to
mark each container with the date upon which each period of accumulation
began. Also by failing to maintain containers holding hazardous waste closed
except when it is necessary to add or remove waste.
Resp_gr\se__
The paint cans that were observed in the dumpster were emptied into the
hazardous waste collection drums located at the Paint Shop. All liquids were
poured into the drum for collecting waste paint and solvents. The sludge at
the bottom of the five gallon traffic-yellow paint cans was wiped out with
rags. The rags were put in the collection drum for paint rags and the empty
containers were put in the dumpster.
The measures described in our response to violation #1 to heighten
environmental awareness among Paint Shop personnel and clarify the procedures
will also ensure that the situation observed during the inspection does not
happen in the future.
Violation ff 4
It has been alleged that Hercules violated R4.50-7~9.6(b) of the Code by
failing to develop and follow a written schedule for inspecting groundwater
monitoring equipment.
Response to Notice of Violation Page 3
Response
As a result of the Bureau's concern, Hercules has formalized a well
inspection procedure that has been performed informally in the past. Once
each quarter, samplers will inspect wells to ensure that the cement apron,
well cover, inner cap, well number and lock at each well are present and in
good condition. The inspection will be documented in the field log.
The Quality Assurance/Quality Control Protocol for the collection of
groundwater samples describes the frequency for calibrating pH and
conductivity meters used in groundwater sampling. These calibrations are
documented on the field log, During the inspections, copies of the QA/QC
Protocol and the field log were provided to the Bureau.
Violation ff b
It has been alleged that Hercules violated R4.50-7-9.7(c) of the Code by
failing to ensure that facility personnel take part in an annual review of
their initial training.
Response
Our current training documentation system is being revised to include the
assigning of one person to be the training coordinator. The duties of that
person are to maintain a documentation system, to aggressively require our
personnel to complete and document their training, and to update the training
plan as required. Training modules committed to in the plan will also be
reduced to the minimum required by regulation to make the training program
more manageable.
Violation ff 6
It has been alleged that Hercules violated Module II,G,3. of the Emergency
Permit by failing to review and immediately amend the contingency plan, as
required by R4.50-8-4.5. Also by failing to submit a copy of the revised
contingency plan to the Executive Secretary within thirty days of permit
issuance.
Response
A list of emergency equipment at building 249.5 has been added to the
contingency plan that was presented during the August, 1990 inspection. A
copy is enclosed. Because the revisions were only effective for the period of
time covered by the emergency permit, the changes have been made in
handwriting.
Violation tf 7
It has been alleged that Hercules violated paragraph 19 of the Consent
Order by failing to submit to the Executive Secretary for approval closure
plans for all regulated units at the Bacchus Works facility within ninety days
after issuance by the Executive Secretary of the RFA.
•
Response to Notice of Violation Page 4
Response
At a meeting on October 22, 1990 between Hercules and Bureau personnel, it
was agreed that closure plans would rely heavily on information obtained
during our RFI and CMS and that it would be best to prepare them after
completion of these phases of the corrective action process. It is Hercules'
understanding that the Bureau is revising the Consent Order accordingly.
Information requested by the cover letter is provided as follows:
1. The basis of estimate for closure and post-closure cost estimates
included closure of both active and inactive hazardous waste management units,
and their post-closure care. This estimate is being revised to reflect
interim corrective measures at BW-2, BW-3 and the burning grounds, and to
include the change from burning on the ground to burning in steel pans. The
new cost estimates will also include two new explosive storage areas for which
interim status is sought. The revised closure plans and cost estimates will
be included as part of a revised Part B permit application and response to a
Notice of Deficiency that will be submitted to the Bureau during the month of
February.
2. Cracks in the concrete aprons of groundwater monitoring wells GW 3,
GW--8, and GW-25 were repaired on November 21, 1990 by Chris Brown. The cracks
were caulked with GE Silicone II Concrete and Masonry Sealant which the
manufacturer says has a 50-year durability,
3, To more effectively maintain the groundwater samples at 4 degrees C,
wet ice is used rather than blue ice. Samples are labeled and placed in the
cooler as soon as the individual bottle is filled rather than waiting until
after all the bottles are filled. These changes (along with the inclusion of
dedicated pumps) are being incorporated in the QA/QC Protocol, which will be
provided once it is completed.
77/5 s