Hazardous Waste Enforcement: Alabama Department of Environmental Management Proposed Order Addressing Montgomery Automotive Part Manufacturing Facility – JD Supra

Report on Hazardous Waste Management Deficiencies and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

This report details an order issued by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) on September 28th to Gerhardi, Inc. (“GI”), an automotive part manufacturing facility in Montgomery, Alabama. An inspection revealed significant violations of hazardous waste regulations, highlighting a failure to adhere to practices essential for achieving key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The identified deficiencies in waste management, documentation, and emergency preparedness directly contravene the principles of responsible production, environmental protection, and public health central to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Regulatory Action and Findings

Following a compliance evaluation inspection on January 28th, ADEM identified multiple failures by GI, a large quantity generator of hazardous waste, to comply with ADEM Admin. Code Div. 14. These actions undermine corporate responsibility and the institutional frameworks designed to protect environmental and community health.

Summary of Non-Compliance Issues

The inspection and subsequent review revealed systemic failures across several operational areas:

1. Waste Identification and Management:
   • Failure to conduct waste determinations on fifteen 250-gallon totes of unidentified waste.
   • Improper management and labeling of satellite accumulation containers, including failure to keep them closed and mark them with “Hazardous Waste” and hazard indicators.
2. Storage and Transportation:
   • Storage of hazardous waste for more than 90 days without a permit or an extension.
   • Offering hazardous waste for transport to a company lacking an EPA Identification Number and an Alabama Hazardous Waste Transport Permit.
   • Improperly storing hazardous waste in a secondary containment pit, thereby creating an unpermitted hazardous waste tank.
3. Documentation and Reporting:
   • Failure to maintain required documentation, including weekly inspection logs, personnel training records, job descriptions, and hazardous waste manifests.
   • Failure to submit an ADEM Form 8700-12 annually.
4. Emergency Preparedness and Notification:
   • Failure to notify ADEM of the cessation of operations in a hazardous waste central accumulation area.
   • Maintaining an incomplete contingency plan, lacking a full list and description of emergency equipment.
   • No documentation proving the contingency plan was shared with local emergency responders.

Analysis of Violations in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals

The violations committed by Gerhardi, Inc. represent significant setbacks to the advancement of several SDGs.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  The core of the violations directly conflicts with Target 12.4, which calls for the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes. The failure to identify, properly store, and track hazardous materials demonstrates a lack of responsible production and waste management, increasing the risk of environmental contamination.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being & SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  Improperly stored and unidentified hazardous waste poses a direct threat to human health (SDG 3) and can lead to the contamination of local soil and water sources (SDG 6). The lack of proper labeling and an incomplete emergency plan exacerbates risks for both employees and the surrounding community.

• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

  The failure to provide documented annual training for personnel handling hazardous materials undermines the principles of decent work by creating unsafe working conditions. Sustainable economic growth is predicated on business practices that protect, rather than endanger, the workforce.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  ADEM’s enforcement action exemplifies the role of strong institutions in upholding environmental law and ensuring corporate accountability. The proposed civil penalty of $18,550.00 serves as a mechanism to enforce compliance and reinforce the regulatory frameworks that are essential for achieving sustainable development.

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on Gerhardi, Inc.’s (GI) hazardous waste violations connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that focus on environmental protection, public health, responsible industrial practices, and institutional governance.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  This is the most directly relevant SDG, as the article’s core subject is the mismanagement of hazardous waste generated by an industrial facility. The violations detailed, such as failure to make waste determinations and improper storage, are direct failures in responsible production and waste management practices.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The improper handling of hazardous materials poses significant risks to human health. The failure to label containers, keep them closed, and manage them properly increases the likelihood of spills and exposure, which can contaminate the environment and harm both facility workers and the surrounding community in Montgomery, Alabama.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  The article mentions the “storage of hazardous waste in the secondary containment pit for more than 90 days.” Such improper storage creates a high risk of leaks and spills, which can contaminate soil and groundwater, thereby threatening the quality of local water resources.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  The case involves an industrial facility operating within a city (Montgomery, Alabama). The mismanagement of industrial hazardous waste has a direct adverse environmental impact on the urban area, affecting the safety and sustainability of the community.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This SDG is addressed through the actions of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). The article describes how a state institution conducted a “compliance evaluation inspection,” identified numerous violations, and issued an “Order” with a “civil penalty of $18,550.00.” This demonstrates the function of a strong institution in enforcing environmental laws and holding entities accountable.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues described, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 12.4: Environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes

   This target aims to “achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil.” The entire list of violations cited against GI—from failing to make waste determinations on “Three 250-gallon totes of unidentified waste” to offering waste to an unpermitted transporter and improper storage—represents a failure to achieve this target.

2. Target 12.5: Substantially reduce waste generation

   While the article focuses on mismanagement, it identifies GI as a “large quantity generator of hazardous waste.” This fact highlights the importance of this target, which aims to reduce waste generation. The numerous management failures suggest a lack of a comprehensive waste strategy, which is a prerequisite for effective waste reduction.

3. Target 3.9: Substantially reduce deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and pollution

   This target focuses on reducing illnesses from “hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.” The regulations GI violated are designed to prevent such outcomes. Failures like not keeping containers closed or not labeling them with “an indication of the hazards of the contents” directly increase the risk of chemical exposure and contamination that can lead to illness.

4. Target 6.3: Improve water quality by reducing pollution

   This target calls for “improving water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials.” The storage of unidentified hazardous waste in totes and a containment pit for over 90 days presents a direct threat of release, which could contaminate local water sources, contrary to the goal of this target.

5. Target 11.6: Reduce the adverse environmental impact of cities

   This target aims to “reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to… waste management.” The case of GI in Montgomery is a specific example of industrial waste mismanagement within a city, which contributes to the city’s adverse environmental impact.

6. Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions

   The article is a testament to the functioning of this target. ADEM, as a state environmental agency, is shown to be an effective institution by conducting inspections, documenting violations, and enforcing regulations through legal orders and financial penalties, thus ensuring accountability.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article does not cite official SDG indicators, but it contains specific data and events that can serve as practical, implied indicators for measuring progress or non-compliance.

• Indicators for Target 12.4 (Sound waste management)

  • Number of regulatory violations: The article lists 16 distinct violations, such as “Failure to keep closed certain satellite accumulation containers” and “Failure to properly manage satellite accumulation containers.” This count serves as a direct indicator of non-compliance.
  • Volume of unmanaged hazardous waste: The article specifies “Three 250-gallon totes” and “Twelve 250-gallon totes” of unidentified waste, quantifying the scale of the mismanagement.
  • Financial penalties for non-compliance: The proposed “civil penalty of $18,550.00” is a quantifiable indicator of the severity of the violations and the enforcement action taken.

• Indicators for Target 3.9 and 6.3 (Reducing pollution)

  • Incidents of improper hazardous waste storage: The “Storage of hazardous waste for more than 90 days without a permit” and using a “secondary containment pit” as a long-term storage tank are indicators of high-risk situations that could lead to pollution and contamination.

• Indicators for Target 16.6 (Effective institutions)

  • Number of compliance inspections conducted: The article is based on a “compliance evaluation inspection” conducted by ADEM on January 28th, indicating institutional activity.
  • Number of enforcement actions issued: The issuance of the “September 28th Order” is a clear indicator of institutional enforcement.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: jdsupra.com