Waste Tire Processing/Storage Facilities Inspection Program
Tom Daugherty
April 20, 2005
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
In September 2002, management of the Office of Land Quality concluded that it was necessary to begin an evaluation of the registered waste tire processors and storage facilities. Regular inspections of the processors had been taken place since the inception of 328 IAC 15 (effective November 2000), but higher compliance priorities precluded more frequent inspections. There was a perception that many of the facilities were out of compliance with 329 IAC 15, the Waste Tire Management Rule that governs the operation of these facilities. Subsequently, an evaluation program was begun in October 2002 and concluded in May 2003. A report was issued by Ken McDaniel in August of 2003 (an executive summary of the report is attached). The issuance of this report coincided by chance with a major tire fire at CR3 in Muncie.
The report and the CR3 fire brought into high profile the registered tire processors and IDEM's inspection program. The August 2003 report concluded that there were existing and long-standing violations at almost all of the thirty-two facilities that were subjected to an inspection by the OLQ Compliance Branch. Thus, it was deemed necessary to begin an accelerated program to bring these facilities into compliance. A paper issued by Bruce Kizer titled "Waste Tire Processor Compliance Strategy" and dated August 5, 2003, (copy attached) set out the guidelines for the program.
In August 2003, two inspectors were dedicated to begin educating and inspecting all of the registered facilities on an expedited schedule, visiting each facility at least three times, with the goal of either bringing them into compliance or referring the facility to the Office of Enforcement. The regular ASWCS inspectors were relieved of responsibility to inspect the facilities until the two dedicated inspectors had achieved the goal. It was believed that having only two inspectors involved would bring uniformity to the inspection program.
The following chart shows the results of the dedicated inspection program after nineteen months. There were thirty-six sites registered when the accelerated inspection program began. The inspectors performed 127 site inspections during the nineteen months. As a result of the expedited inspection program, thirteen of the sites ceased operations, either voluntarily or through efforts of the Office of Enforcement.
| Number of Registered Processors | |
|---|---|
| August 2003 | 36 |
| Went out of business | 13 |
| New processors approved | 3 |
| As of February 28, 2005 | 26 |
| Compliance Status as of February 28, 2005 | |
| February 28, 2005 - Registered Processors | 26 |
| Registered Processors Referred to OE | -7 |
| Processors in 100% Compliance | 19 |
| Processor compliance rate | 73% |
Of the remaining twenty-three operating sites, sixteen sites were in full compliance by March 1, 2005, and seven sites unable to achieve compliance were under pending action by the Office of Enforcement. Three new processors have been added to the registration list, bring the total operating processors to twenty-six.
Using the lessons learned, a training program for the AWCS inspectors was developed and presented in February 2005. Subsequently, responsibility for inspecting the remaining sites has been returned the ASWCS inspectors. In addition, communications between OLQ's Compliance Branch and Permits Branch has been improved, ensuring that the regulated facilities will receive better registration, inspection and education services in the future.
Conclusion
It is clear that the dedicated program of inspections met the goal set by OLQ at the beginning of the project; namely, to bring the operating facilities into full compliance with waste tire management regulations. While it was not expected that thirteen of the processors would go out of business, it is also clear that those facilities that are no longer in business make it easier for the compliant operators to stay in business. This leaves Indiana with a viable group of processors able to keep our waste tire disposal problems to a minimum. Following is a map showing the location of the processors still operating.
Detailed Report
Project Team
Beginning in August 2003, Ken McDaniel and Anne Weinkauf were the inspectors. In March 2004, Tom Daugherty was requested by the ASWCS Chief to coordinate the inspectors and review reports generated by the inspections. These three individuals comprised the team devoted to the project. Debby Baker, OLQ Permitting, served as a source of information and was invaluable in providing support to the inspection team.
Project Action Plan Timetable
An Action Plan Timetable was developed by the inspection team. The Timetable was approved by Bruce Kizer, Compliance Branch Chief and Angie Lee, ASWCS Section Chief. The timetable called for all of the thirty-six registered processing sites to be fully compliant or referred to the Office of Enforcement. At that time, responsibility for the inspection was to be turned over to the ASWCS inspectors for continued monitoring - that goal was met. A copy of the Action Plan Timetable is attached.
The action plan called for nine activities to run in sequence with some activities running concurrently.
- Inspect all facilities a minimum of three times. This commenced in August 2003. By December 2004, all the sites had been inspected three times. Several sites needed more than three inspections to achieve full compliance, several achieved compliance with only two visits. The following chart summarizes this first activity. Also attached is a spreadsheet showing when each inspection took place and the status of the processor as of February 28, 2005.
- Develop new inspection forms and field test. The team has developed new inspection forms and inspection reports. These were field tested for some months and finalized by November 2004. These documents are now in place and being used regularly by the ASWCS inspectors. Copies of the new inspection forms are attached.
- Begin coordination meetings with Permitting. It was clear early on in the project that a lack of communications with the registration personnel in Permitting was causing problems for the inspectors in the field. Prior to beginning the accelerated inspection program, the registration personnel had, by default, become the main point of contact for the regulated community. Because the registration personnel lacked site-specific information, guidance to the facilities was not uniform. Beginning In March 2004, regular meetings were scheduled with registration personnel and the inspection team to better coordinate activities. The meetings covered site-specific concerns, development of forms, procedures and methods of keeping each group informed. The result was that the registered sites were ensured of uniform guidance from IDEM. Also, these meetings led to a procedure of pre-approval inspections prior to approval of new or renewal applications. A copy of the pre-approval inspection checklist for use by the ASWCS inspectors is attached.
- Develop inspection procedures manual. This manual was finalized in February 2005. A copy of the procedures is attached.
- Train ASWCS Inspectors. The action plan specified that, before returning inspection responsibility back to the ASWCS inspectors, a training program was to be developed and presented to ASWCS. A four-hour program was completed and presented to all ASWCS inspectors, including the regional offices, in February 2005.
- Return inspection responsibility to ASWCS. This step of the action plan called for responsibility to be turned back to the ASWCS inspectors and was accomplished after each inspector completed the training program. Files maintained by the inspection team were furnished to the inspectors to ensure that the history of each site would be available to the ASWCS inspectors.
- E-7 to accompany ASWCS inspector to a facility. To ensure that a smooth transition from the inspection team to the ASWCS inspector, Tom Daugherty will accompany each ASWCS inspector to at least one facility. The new inspection forms and procedures will be covered during the first inspection. Ten of the transition inspections have already taken place as of the date of this report.
- Continue quarterly inspections. The ASWCS inspectors are expected to conduct quarterly inspections to ensure that the registered sites do not slip backwards in compliance. Tom Daugherty will continue monitoring inspection reports to ensure that quarterly inspections occur.
- E-7 monitor reports and correspondence. For some time in the future, all tire processing inspection reports will be reviewed by Tom Daugherty. This will ensure uniformity in the inspection and reporting process. All violation/summary letters will also be reviewed for uniformity.
High and Low Priority Observations
High Priority Observations
- Is access secured?
- Is a sign posted at each entrance?
- Has processor copies of manifest forms for one year?
- Are tires drained of water accumulation?
- No more than 1000 waste tires outside without registration?
- No more than 2000 waste tires inside structure without registration?
- Transformed tire waste stored over limits has documented market?
The newly-developed inspection checklist contains thirty-nine observations to be performed by the inspector. Seven of these are considered high priority observations - see the box at right. These observations, if in violation, are considered to be important enough to constitute an immediate threat to human health and the environment and received special attention during the inspections. All except the first, secure access, were simple "yes" or "no" and required follow up by the inspector, e.g., checking manifests for inbound-outbound tires, counting tires stored outside or inside.
The secured access question, because access to the stored tires by the public is a major safety and health issue, received additional attention by the inspector and operators to ensure that a reasonable solution to a "no" answer could be implemented by the operator. This approach was successful at all the processors except those now under pending action by the Office of Enforcement.
Tire Program Compliance Rates - Beginning & End of Project
Each facility was inspected numerous times during the project, with two inspections being the minimum and fourteen being the maximum. Most were inspected 3-5 times. Each facility inspection report was analyzed to determine compliance with high and low priority observations. There are a total of 39 possible observations for an inspection. Non-compliance with an observation was considered to be either high-priority violation (HPV) or a low-priority violation (LPV). The following table summarizes the results of the first inspection (beginning August 2003) and the last inspection (ending February 28, 2005). It should be noted that the both the first and last inspections were spread over time from June 2003 to February 2005. And, though the vast majority of the inspection reports listed both high and low priority violations, several reports did not, but not enough to skew the numbers.
| # Registered Processors | % of Processors Inspected | Processors w/ Violations | Total Violations High + Low | Observations Non-Compliance Rate | Processors with High Priority Violations | Processor HPV Non-Compliance Rate*** | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First Inspection | 36 | 100 | 36 | 656 | 47%* | 33 | 92% |
| Last Inspection | 26 | 100 | 7 | 75 | 7%** | 7 | 27% |
* Total violations (both low and high priority) divided by total possible violations (36 x 39 = 1,404)
** Total violations (both low and high priority) divided by total possible violations (26 x 39 = 1,014)
*** Number of processors with high priority violations divided by number of processors still in business
Cleanup Costs - Processors With High Priority Violations
Eleven processors have been referred by the Compliance Branch to the Office of Enforcement. If those processors are not able financially to clean up their own excess tires, IDEM will have to begin removal and disposal of the tires. Following is an estimate of the cleanup costs associated with each site.
| Processor | Number of Tires | Estimated Cost For Cleanup | Current Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bailey's | 796,500 | $1,000,000 | Operating |
| Bupp's Tire Service | 12,900 | $13,000 | Operating |
| City Tire & Salvage | 32,900 | $53,000 | Operating |
| J & B Recycling | 30,000 | $32,000 | Operating |
| Paul's Auto Yard | 94,000 | $94,000 | Operating |
| Stewart's | 260,000 | $500,000 | Operating |
| White Oak Disposal | 4,000 | $4,000 | Operating |
| 1,230,300 | $1,696,000 | ||
| CR3 | 4,642,000 | $4,642,000 | Out of business - scene of fire - investigation ongoing |
| Hoggatt | 412,500 | 0 | Out of business - cleanup almost complete |
| KMC Waste Tires | 239,000 | $290,000 | Out of business |
| Mullen | 300,000 | 0 | Out of business - CSX is responsible for cleanup |
| 5,593,500 | $4,932,000 | ||
| Total | 6,823,800 | $6,628,000 |
Action Plan Timetable [JPG]
Worksheet - Tire Processor/Storage Facilities - Current 2.28.05 [PDF]
![Action Plan Timetable [JPG]](/idem/images/action_plan_timetable.gif){kind=link}