|
|
 |
Manufacturing & Industry
News & Information
An Ounce Of Prevention Is Worth A Pound Of Cure
Some clichés ring more true than others and the one above resonates pretty loudly in these troubled times. We are all paying closer attention to the things we can do to protect our employees, our facilities, and our communities. Any type of facility that handles and uses chemicals has seen the need to be more vigilant and more cautious regarding those chemicals. Whether or not you were subject to the EPA’s Risk Management Program (RMP) and/or OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM), or were below threshold quantities or changed chemicals and processes, you still need to follow the basic precepts of the RMP General Duty Clause to provide that “ounce of protection.” The security of your facility and its processes has become an important additional element of chemical safety and handling.
Gordon Brookman, President of ERL, has just completed the EPA-approved training in the Sandia Laboratory-developed “Risk Assessment Methodology for Water” (RAM-WSM). He was a participant in the first class of 16 to be trained in this methodology (outside of the “train the trainer” group of specialists) and received intensive instruction in this specific approach to vulnerability assessments developed by Sandia Labs and funded by the EPA for water utilities. While this methodology was developed specifically for water utilities, the approach is easily adapted to most industries that use chemicals and also to wastewater treatment plants.
Environmental Risk Limited (ERL) has assembled a team of experts to perform the diverse elements of an effective vulnerability assessment. ERL’s expertise is in process technology, chemical/hazardous materials control, and emergency response planning; we have extensive experience as consultants to water treatment plants, industrial facilities, and wastewater treatment plants. Our second team member is Interfor, Inc., a world leader in physical security assessment and antiterrorism strategies for business and government agencies. The third member of the team is CACI International, a world leader in information technology security. Together, we can provide the full range of services required to perform a vulnerability assessment. Our plan would be to work with you as a team. Our group of process, environmental, security, and IT specialists perform the actual vulnerability assessment, but for the endeavor to be most successful, it is vital that your core team have significant input.
Important Information to Safeguard Your Facility -
Be Prepared in this Changing World
ERL published this alert November 2001
Like many firms, you may be searching for responsible but reasonable steps that you can take to help safeguard your facility, your employees, and your surrounding community. We can help with several of these.
Do you have an old emergency response plan (ERP) gathering dust on a shelf. Are you now in the process of updating it? If you haven't started yet, get going. If your facility was not required to prepare an ERP, you may want to consider developing one now. We can assist you to make sure all necessary emergency steps are correct - particularly with regard to avoiding an unplanned release of chemicals.
Do you have evacuation routes planned? Practiced? Evaluated? We can assist you with this critical procedure. Different events may dictate different procedures.
Have you always thought your SARA Title III, Tier II filings were just a pain? Your local emergency responders rely on that information to be accurate and up to date. Is it current, or have you just duplicated previous year's filings every year? We can help ensure the accuracy of that information, including your site diagrams.
Have your staff received HazCom training? Or Hazardous Materials Awareness Level Training if you have hazardous materials on-site? We can provide that training so your employees recognize what to do and when to do it.
Do you have the proper personal protective equipment (PPE) on site for emergency situations? Have all appropriate staff received the required training in order to use that equipment properly? We can provide training to ensure the safe and correct use of PPE.
How Can You Get Started? Have you looked at your facility with the scrutiny of an outsider's eye to identify possible vulnerable areas regarding machinery, chemicals, equipment, and procedures? An unbiased perspective is key to ensuring that all priority systems are failsafe. We can perform a third party audit of your facility to address these concerns and make appropriate recommendations.
You can request information or a quote by emailing us at
info@erl.com
RMP - Keeping and Using Your Chemicals Safely
In an October 2001 letter, ERL wrote the following:
In 1996, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted its Risk Management Program to improve public safety surrounding facilities with significant volumes of dangerous chemicals. It is important to remember the basic intent of this program - to prevent accidental chemical releases.
EPA's first step was to require facilities meeting certain chemical storage thresholds to evaluate the chemical storage and handling practices at the facility and to develop a written plan to help ensure best practices were being followed. A submittal which indicated a written plan had been developed, along with required site-specific information, was due to the EPA by June 21, 1999.
During the time that has passed since that submittal deadline, facilities have been obligated to implement the promises written into their plans - including for training, equipment upgrades, incident investigation, routine preventative maintenance and the like. EPA has been relatively quiet in its "enforcement" of those facilities that have submitted plans - often choosing to instead spend its efforts seeking out facilities that have done nothing in the way of developing an RMP.
An important milestone occurs in the year 2002 - three years following a facility's original RMP submittal date. All facilities that filed an RMP Submit* are obligated to conduct an audit of their present Risk Management Plan - to review whether it is being properly maintained and implemented, update staff and facility information, and most importantly to assess its actual value in maintaining safe handling of chemicals.
Environmental Risk Limited has significant experience in developing Risk Management Plans and has begun to work with facilities that are conducting these mandated audits. We encourage you to call to discuss your obligations, your options, and the fees associated with completing an RMP Audit.
Budget Time? Start Planning for Key EH&S Items AND Your "Wish List"
In a September 2001 letter, ERL wrote the following:
In addition to the Environmental Policy, you may recognize the four concepts [Planning, Implementation, Corrective Action, and Management Review] as the key elements of an effective Environmental Management System (EMS). As a former Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Manager I also learned to utilize these same concepts in my budgeting process throughout the year, long before EMS became popular. In September, I would plan my budget for the following year. After management reviewed and reduced my requests for capital equipment and routine expenses, I began implementing the budget in January of the following year, watching my cost and variance reports carefully. Finally, there was the typical corrective action required during the following year to adjust for swings in the economy, external customer demands, regulatory issues, and other miscellaneous items one just could never predict. But, then again, budgeting is just like an EMS, and requires you to commit to continual improvement and periodic audits.
Since it is now September, I strongly urge you to prepare for 2002 by making your wish list of capital equipment and estimating EHS costs for the upcoming year.
Take a look at your wastewater discharges and air emission sources. Do you have any permits? Are they expiring? Do they require periodic monitoring or annual submittals to a regulatory agency? Do they require annual fees? Do you have any questions as to whether you need a permit? Will you need any additional equipment next year to meet regulatory requirements or voluntary reductions in emissions?
Take a look at EPCRA reporting. Do you understand persistent, bioaccumulative toxic (PBT) reporting? Remember, lead is a reporting chemical if you exceed the 10 pound threshold in 2001.
Take a look at all of your plans and training programs, such as RMP, Process Safety Management, SPCC, SWPPP, Hazard Communication, Emergency Response, Hazardous Waste Management, Forklift training, Lockout/Tagout, Respirators, and the like. Do they need revisions, audits, or reviews due to process changes or regulatory requirements? Do you need employee training classes in 2002?
Take a look at your storage tanks. Do you have an AST or UST? Does it meet all your state's reporting requirements?
Finally, take a look at what you would like to do in 2002 that may not be a requirement, but may contribute to the growth of your company. Is there a waste minimization project, safety program, or a cost reduction project that you would like to see implemented next year?
Our advise would be to call Environmental Risk Limited so together we can plan and budget for a facility wide EHS audit in 2002 or other regulatory compliance activity.
General Permits for Emergency Engines - Notify CTDEP If You Intend to Renew
In an August 2001 letter, sent to Manufacturing Firms in Connecticut, ERL wrote the following:
Do you have an emergency generator or other type of emergency engine? Is it presently covered under the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's (CTDEP) General Permit to Construct and/or Operate a New or Existing Emergency Engine (GPEE)? If so, did you know that you were supposed to renew your GPEE coverage before July 27, 2001?
Surprised? Well, you are probably not alone. The GPEE was originally issued by the CTDEP in 1996 with a five-year term that expires for everyone on November 27, 2001. No matter when you registered your emergency engine for the GPEE - even if it was just last week - that same expiration date applies. However, in the Approval of Registration that you received from the CTDEP, it was stipulated that the registration had to be renewed at least 120 days prior to the GPEE's expiration date.
If you missed the July 27, 2001 renewal deadline, don't panic! The CTDEP missed it too! As of this writing, the CTDEP has yet to reissue the GPEE or to develop the registration forms necessary to enable current registrants to renew the permit coverage on their emergency generators and engines. So, what should you do? Well, as the CTDEP continues to work on reissuing the GPEE for another five-year term, they have asked that current registrants notify them of their intent to renew permit coverage. Therefore, if you intend to renew, you should send a letter to the CTDEP.
Here's another wrinkle to consider. The CTDEP is also in the midst of revising their air permitting regulations (RCSA Section 22a-174-3) such that many emergency engines may become exempt from obtaining air permits. Under the proposed revisions, owners of emergency engines would still be required to keep records and to limit operations below certain thresholds, but would not have to obtain a written permit or certificate of GPEE coverage. That's the good news. The bad news is the timing. The new regulations may not become final until early in 2002. Therefore, even if your emergency engine qualifies for the proposed permitting exemption, you will still have to renew your General Permit coverage in order to remain in compliance between the time when your current coverage expires and the time that the new permitting regulations go into effect.
Are You Prepared To Let OSHA Into Your Facility?
The following letter, dated August 2001, was sent to a number of manufacturing and industrial facilities located in New England and New Jersey
By now your facility should have received a letter from OSHA (the Occupational Health & Safety Administration) because the injury and illness rate of your facility exceeds the national average. The letter's intention is to encourage facilities such as yours to take steps to reduce hazards and protect your workers. OSHA plans to inspect a selected number of these facilities but all facilities are "on notice that they need to improve."*
So, are you prepared to have an OSHA compliance officer arrive at your facility? You might be thinking that your chances of being one of the facilities inspected on the list of 14,000 is pretty slim, but we have some news that might change your mind. Of the 14,000 companies nationwide to receive the same letter you did, over 2000 of those companies are located in New England and New Jersey. That sends out the message that not only is OSHA focusing on the region, but that many companies have potentially serious health and safety concerns that need to be resolved. Given all of these factors, the odds of OSHA coming into your facility may be greater than you first might have anticipated.
The Health and Safety Services department at Environmental Risk Limited can help you prepare for a possible inspection and assist you with your facility's issues. Our health and safety team has considerable experience performing confidential OSHA audits in companies similar to yours using the same criteria that OSHA will use when they inspect your facility. We come into your facility and begin with an opening conference in order to review your existing health and safety program and procedures, and then perform an inspection of your entire facility. Once the inspection is completed, we conduct a closing conference where we can address questions you may have. Later you receive a report explaining what you need to do to improve your safety conditions and help avoid major citations from OSHA, should they inspect your facility.
In the letter you received from OSHA, they suggested that you seek the assistance of an outside health and safety consultant. Call on our OSHA-compliance trained staff to help you.
* Quote source: Elaine L. Chao, Labor Secretary, OSHA News Release, Aug. 3, 2001
HOW MUCH CAN YOU AFFORD?
The following letter, dated August 2001, was sent to manufacturing and industrial facilities
Recently, a retail heating oil company came under the scrutiny of the EPA and was fined over $90,000 in penalties for violating underground storage tank ("UST") regulations and the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure ("SPCC") provisions of the Clean Water Act. SPCC plans are required by all covered facilities in the US to prevent or mitigate the accidental discharge of oil into waterways.
This facility left three unused USTs in place for eight months after they were required to be removed. In 1988, the EPA initiated a December 1998 deadline that required facilities to address older USTs in order to prevent the potential for leakage into the soils of the U.S and to motivate owners to close, remove, or upgrade substandard tanks. Significantly, although this facility had an SPCC plan, and had tested its underground tanks, the EPA cited them for not fully implementing their plan, not reviewing it every 3 years, and not testing their tanks adequately.
This recent action should bring several questions to mind. You may be asking yourself, "Does our facility need an SPCC plan?" or "What can we do if we missed the UST deadline?" or "We have an SPCC plan, but no one has looked at in over 5 years" or "I wonder if our SPCC plan is compliant with all the CTDEP regulations?" or "Could this happen to us?"
The EPA is enforcing these provisions in order to send a message to all covered facilities that it is better to be proactive than reactive. As a result of an investigation of this type, a company can lose customers, can incur further enforcement fines, can incur significant testing and cleanup costs, might receive damaging press, and, potentially, could even be shut down. All of these potential consequences are preventable if a facility reviews its SPCC plans and performs an audit to evaluate compliance, and takes the necessary steps to achieve compliance. Becoming proactive to comply with state and federal regulations after their expiration dates can save businesses thousands of dollars.
ERL has extensive experience in providing professional environmental services to its industrial clients throughout the northeast. Our dedicated team of professionals understand the intricacies of the AST, UST, and SPCC regulations. If you need assistance with your SPCC plan or are concerned that you may be out of compliance, ERL can help.
POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN SUBMITTAL DEADLINE EXTENDED
The following letter, dated July 2001, was sent to manufacturing and industrial facilities in New Jersey:
Have you submitted your Pollution Prevention Plan Summary (commonly referred to as DEQ 114s) on time this year? As you might know, hard copies were due on July 1, 2001 for reporting year 2000. For those facilities who desired to submit electronically, the deadline was extended to November 1, 2001, provided that they alerted NJDEP in writing prior to the July 1 deadline.
Briefly, a Pollution Prevention Plan (PPP) is a detailed report used to determine where operational changes might be made in order to minimize pollution. These changes may include source reduction, process improvements, raw material substitution, etc. The plan itself is also an excellent tool for determining the true costs of hazardous materials use and the potential savings in reducing the waste that your facility generates.
If your facility was required to submit an annual Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) report for year 2000, you must also submit a PPP for those chemicals used or manufactured in amounts greater than 10,000 pounds per year. EPA's website
www.epa.gov/tri
has a complete list of these reportable chemicals. This equates to a minimum use of only 1,500 gallons for most flammable solvents. Additionally, facilities that maintain an inventory of chemicals that include Persistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic materials, as defined by the EPA, are required to submit PPP's. These include Polycyclic Aromatic compounds, present in #6 fuel oil.
The PPP allows you to take credit for waste reduction methods already self-imposed on your operations. It is also an opportunity to describe all recycling and waste-minimization programs, and the five-year summary details the progress that your facility has made towards reaching its self imposed goals, both in non product output and material use.
Compiling information and submitting these forms can be a daunting task. Most facilities that generate RCRA hazardous waste or are TRI facilities know that these reports can take up valuable hours in reporting the necessary data. The NJDEP is very serious about enforcing these requirements and failure to return the DEQ 114s and PPP may result in enforcement actions against your facility. If you have missed the deadline or are submitting electronically and need assistance in preparing your plan, call ERL to discuss appropriate actions.
ERL has significant experience in assisting facilities with submitting New Jersey DEP PPPs. Our clients include metal coaters, fabricators, paint and coatings manufacturers, tanneries, and specialty chemical users. If you have questions about how we may assist you in your PPP please contact Syed Pasha at 973-773-8322.
Wastewater Discharge General Permits - Printing and Publishing CTDEP's Next Target
The following letter, dated July 2001, was sent to manufacturing and industrial facilities in Connecticut:
The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) issues individual and general permits to regulate the discharge of water from manufacturing and industrial facilities. Last month Environmental Risk Limited (ERL) alerted you that a new General Permit for Miscellaneous Discharges of Sewer Compatible (MISC) Wastewater was issued by the CTDEP. General permits are issued to cover minor activities by one or more applicants. Authorization of an activity covered by a general permit is usually quicker and less costly than an individual permit. Typically, the process includes a determination of whether any of your activities may be eligible for authorization under a general permit, submitting a permit registration along with a fee, complying with some basic best management practices and performing periodic chemical analyses to ensure compliance with permit parameters.
Last year CTDEP audited all 159 facilities in the state that registered under the General Permit for the Discharge of Minor Tumbling or Cleaning of Parts Wastewater and concluded that only 11 facilities were in total compliance. Forty of the facilities were no longer discharging, while the remaining facilities ranged from partial compliance to total disregard of the law. At a recent CTDEP Bureau of Water Management Advisory Committee Meeting, Paul Balavender of the CTDEP commented that consent orders would be issued to five of these facilities. Paul also alerted those in attendance that the next group to be targeted would be those facilities with General Permits for the Discharge of Minor Printing and Publishing Wastewater and those who should have permits for the discharge of wastewater from these activities.
At ERL, wastewater permitting and compliance is one of our specialties. ERL advises you to obtain a copy of the General Permit for the Discharge of Minor Printing and Publishing Wastewater and review its applicability at your facility. If your operations include letterpress, flexography, screen and/or lithography printing, photo processing, nonmetallic plate making, and printing operations with water-based and non-water based inks, you may be covered under this permit. If you have already submitted a registration form and are covered under the permit, ERL advises you to review the permit terms and conditions under Section 5 that include items such as treatment and control requirements, best management practices, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Will you be one of the few facilities in total compliance? The CTDEP is serious about enforcing this permit.
Proposed Revisions to Hazardous Waste Management Regulations
The following letter, dated July 2001, was sent to manufacturing and industrial facilities in Connecticut:
Two changes have been proposed that may affect the way your facility manages hazardous waste. Having reviewed both proposed changes, one on the state level and one on the federal level, we at ERL suggest you review these proposed changes that the regulated agencies believe will reduce the burden of hazardous waste management at your facility.
In Connecticut, the Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) has recently proposed to incorporate by reference the federal hazardous waste management requirements as of July 1, 1995. Currently the state's regulations only incorporate the federal regulations as of July 1, 1989. The two key changes proposed will be:
The adoption of the federal universal waste rule that established management requirements for batteries, thermostats, pesticides, and lamps, and
The adoption of the federal used oil standards.
A complete summary of all changes can be found at:
http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wst/hw/-hwregs.htm. The CTDEP had scheduled a public hearing on July 19, 2001 at their offices to hear comments from the general public. Written comments were being accepted until July 24, 2001.
Nationwide, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed changes to the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest regulations that ultimately will improve the "cradle-to-grave" hazardous waste tracking system. The three key changes proposed will be:
The further standardizing of the content and appearance of the manifest form,
The new manifest tracking procedures for the follow-up manifesting of TSDF-rejected waste shipments, and
Giving waste handlers the option to complete, send, and store manifest information electronically.
A complete summary of all changes can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/2001/May/Day-22/f11909.htm. EPA is accepting comments on the proposed manifest rule change until August 20, 2001.
If you need any help in understanding these regulations, or would like to discuss any other pertinent environmental issues please call us at (860) 242-9933.
OSHA Inspections Are On The Rise
The following letter, dated June 2001, was sent to manufacturing and industry facilities:
The Occupational Safety and Health Act grants representatives of the Department of Labor the right to inspect any place of employment in order to determine whether an employer is in compliance with the act's safety and health standards. During fiscal year 1999, OSHA conducted 34,403 job site safety inspections. Fiscal year 2000 saw roughly the same number ("mid 30s"). The number of inspections is on the rise for this year, in line with OSHA's goal to increase the number of inspections by 20%!
Following is a list of the top 10 most frequently cited OSHA standards for industrial/manufacturing facilities. (Source: www.tagout.com/osha.htm)
 |
OSHA's maximum penalties range from $7,000 per violation for "serious" and "other than serious" classifications to $70,000 for the "willful and repeat" classification. Clearly, it is in your interest to ready your facility to face a possible inspection by OSHA!
ERL's Industrial Hygiene Specialists can provide health and safety audits and can assist in developing compliance strategies and solutions for OSHA standards applicable to your facility. As part of our audit services, we can review written health and safety programs, training records, inspection records, and injury logs to identify which aspects may be missing, deficient or out of date.
Ergonomics - Still an Important Concern
The following letter, dated May 2001, was sent to manufacturing and industry facilities:
Every day in America 16 workers lose their lives on the job. Every hour 650 workers experience an injury or illness on the job. Over 1/3 of these injuries result in musculoskeletal disorders. The relationship of ergonomic factors to human injury is undeniable and the cost of ergonomic related injury is astounding in both human suffering as well as dollars spent for injury management and lost productivity.
Those who thought that the recent demise of the previous ergonomic standard (29 CFR 1910.900) would eliminate your responsibility dealing with this workplace issue would be wrong. Even though the previously proposed standard was overturned, the new Labor Secretary, Elaine Chao, is pursuing improvements to the complicated issue of workplace ergonomics.
Ms. Chao testified before the U.S. Senate on April 26 and announced principles for a new approach to this issue that emphasized injury reduction, injury prevention, and clarity. The "clarity" refers to the focus that any approach must include short, simple, and common sense instructions. She stated, "Ergonomics injuries are real, and defining the best, comprehensive approach for ergonomic injuries is not a simple process." She also said, after noting the great improvements in worker safety which have been made over the last 100 years, that the new century and the new workforce need a new approach to safety needs, "an approach based on cooperation and prevention, rather than the antiquated, adversarial approach of years past."
Prevention is at the top of the Labor Secretary's list - reminding all of us that the cliché "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" still rings true. While stressing cooperation between employers and OSHA, other key principles are sound science, flexibility, and feasibility. This appears to be a "carrot" and not a "stick" approach. Artificial deadlines were cautioned against by Ms. Chao - but that doesn't mean actions to protect workers should be delayed. Injury prevention leads to injury reduction.
Are you taking active steps to make improvements or just processing mountains of ergonomics claims paperwork? Are you discouraged with investigating those claims and coming up empty? We understand ergonomics issues and claims, and have worked to help industry contain the costs of compliance while facilitating contributions from all stakeholders in strategizing work system improvements. If you have questions regarding your ergonomic or other workplace safety issues, please contact ERL at 800-883-1568.
TRI Reporting Deadline - Closer Than You Think!
The following letter, dated May 2001, was sent to manufacturing and industry facilities:
Having recently attended an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sponsored two-day training course which covered reporting obligations under Section 313 of the Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), I have one suggestion for you. If you have not started gathering information for this annual reporting requirement, GET STARTED and get started NOW.
Previously, facilities covered by certain SIC Codes (and those with 10 or more employees) that exceeded the "manufacturing, processing, or otherwise use" threshold for any of the EPA listed chemicals were required to submit a form by July 1 of the following year. This form summarizes the release of these chemicals to air, water, or land. It became a routine reporting requirement for those with environmental compliance at a facility with only minor changes in volumes and an occasional addition or subtraction of a form. Beware, this has changed. EPA has added a new chemical category called persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBT) composed of eighteen chemicals. The reporting thresholds for these chemicals are extremely low (10-100 pounds) due to their high toxicity. Examples of the chemicals that may be found at your facility include mercury, fuel oil constituents, and pesticides.
At the seminar, the instructors continually emphasized that some of these PBTs may be coincidentally manufactured at your facility, without your knowledge, but still require you to report these chemicals and their emissions. For example, the combustion of 5,600 gallons of No. 6 fuel oil requires the filing of a form. Due to the extreme complexity of these regulations, EPA has developed several guidance documents on the reporting requirements of these chemicals that may be accessed through their web site at
www.epa.gov/tri.
At Environmental Risk Limited, using the most recent data available, we have already performed threshold determinations and completed several forms for our clients.
METAL PRODUCTS AND MACHINERY PROPOSED RULE (MP&M). USEPA Proposes Stringent Wastewater Regulations
The following letter, dated March 2001, was sent to manufacturing and industry facilities in New England and New York metro areas:
As you may be aware, the USEPA is proposing new Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Metal Products & Machinery (MP&M) Point Source Category. This new regulation will impact facilities that generate wastewater as a result of processing metal parts, metal products, and machinery. As of this writing, the EPA has identified 18 industrial sectors that manufacture, maintain and rebuild metal products under more than 200 SIC codes. These sectors will be subject to the new technology-based effluent limits (effective December 31, 2002) in accord with draft regulations adopted by the EPA and published in the Federal Register on January 3, 2001. Compliance dates with the regulation will vary depending on the actual start-up date of your facility.
This rule proposes to replace the existing 40 CFR Part 413 and 40 CFR Part 433 guidelines for electroplating and metal finishing facilities regardless of whether they are direct or indirect dischargers, job shops or captive shops. The proposed rule will require the use of Best Available Technology and quite possibly the implementation of pollution prevention technologies at the source.
ERL suggests that you review these proposed regulations at 40 CFR Part 438 to determine if your facility will be in compliance with all the parameters. For example, EPA has proposed lowering zinc limits to 0.17 mg/l and total cyanide to 0.13 mg/l for existing discharges. New sources may require even lower permit limits.
NOTE: These regulations are widely viewed as impractical and due to costs of implementation may pose a threat to the continued existence of many facilities. The EPA is accepting comments until May 3, 2001.
DO I NEED A WASTEWATER PERMIT?
The following letter, dated January 2001, went out to Connecticut based manufacturing and industry facilities:
Do I really need a permit?
It's just plain water - I can drink it. There's nothing else in it.
We never had to get a permit before.
The stuff going out is better than the stuff coming in.
It's only a minor discharge. The flow is minimal.
It only occurs one day a month for a few hours.
It's just rainwater.
Have you heard these or similar discussions at your facility lately? We at ERL have, and we think this letter will clarify some common errors and omissions concerning the permitting of wastewater discharges in the State of Connecticut.
Who Needs a Permit?
The answer to this question is any person, facility, or municipality that plans on, or currently is discharging water or any other substance to the waters of the state. The waters of the state include surface waters, storm drains, ground waters or even the town sewage treatment plant.
What Types of Discharges Need Permits?
A list of common discharges that may be applicable to your facility are listed below.
How Do I Get a Permit?
You must complete the required permit application and send it to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP). Some permits require a processing fee while others do not. The fee will vary depending on the type of discharge you are applying for. Additionally, CTDEP offers automatic coverage for some permits where no formal registration is required if certain conditions are met.
Need Help?
Since 1985, ERL has been providing expert environmental consulting to numerous clients throughout Connecticut and the rest of the country. Wastewater permitting is one of our specialties. We know the needs of you, our client, and what permits you may require. We have also worked closely with the CTDEP in expediting and negotiating the permit process.
COMMON DISCHARGES REQUIRING WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS ARE:
Agricultural Activities
Air Compressor Blowdown
Air Compressor Condensate
Air Conditioner Condensate
Backflow Preventer Test Water
Battery Wash Wastewaters
Boiler Blowdown/Cleaning Wastewaters
Building Maintenance Wastewater
Concentrate Bath Regeneration Wastewater
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Facilities
Contact Cooling & Heating Water
Cooling System Blowdown & Maintenance
Cutting & Grinding Wastewater
Dewatering Wastewaters
Domestic Sewage Treatment Facilities
Drum/Container Washout
Equipment/Parts Quenching Waters
Filter Backwashes
Fire Sprinkler System Test Water
Floor Drain Wastewaters
Food Processing Wastewater
Groundwater Remediation Wastewater
Hydrostatic Testing Water
Industrial Laundry Wastewaters
Laboratory Wastewaters
Land Treatment Non-point Source Systems
Manufacturing, Commercial, Mining Wastewaters
Minor Tumbling or Parts Wastewater
Non-Contact Cooling Wastewaters
Non-Destructive Test Wastewaters
Parts Stripping Wastewaters
Photo Processing Wastewaters
Printing and Publishing Wastewater
Privately Owned Treatment Works
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Pump Seal Water
Radiator Flush Wastewaters
Solid Waste Disposal Areas/Landfills
Spill Containment Storm Water
Steam Cleaning/Power Washing Wastewaters
Steam Condensate
Stormwater
Swimming Pool Wastewater
Vehicle Maintenance Wastewater
Water Softener Backwashes
Source: Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Management
"Heads Up" on New EPA TRI Reporting Requirements for PBT
This letter, dated December 2000, was sent to manufacturing and industry facilities:
In our business, the new year usually means preparing a list of important site-specific health, safety, and environmental reporting deadlines to get you through 2001. We would like to remind you of a new one. Beginning in 2000, with a reporting deadline of July 1, 2001, EPA has added several new chemicals requiring reporting under Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act - your annual Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
Prior to 2000, the EPA required the reporting of certain hazardous chemicals if they exceeded the minimum threshold reporting quantity of 25,000 pounds for the manufacture or processing of the listed chemical or 10,000 pounds if the listed chemical was otherwise used at the facility. With the addition of chemical categories called persistent bioaccumulative toxics (PBT), EPA has lowered the threshold reporting quantities to 10 or 100 pounds for most of these chemicals and even to 0.1 gram for dioxins.
Throughout 2000, EPA held numerous seminars informing the public and industry of these changes. These seminars will continue throughout 2001. At these seminars, EPA officials discussed the enforcement proceedings brought up against numerous facilities that failed to report a Section 313 chemical (Water Dissociable Nitrate Compounds) that was "coincidentally manufactured" during the wastewater treatment process. EPA has suggested that some of these PBTs now requiring reporting in 2001 may also be coincidentally manufactured (such as dioxin) or otherwise used (polycyclic aromatic compounds) during the burning of fuels. Due to the complexity of these regulations, EPA has begun to develop guidance documents that can be accessed through their web site at www.epa.gov/tri. The draft dioxin and polycyclic aromatic compounds documents are now available with others to follow soon. ERL suggests that you review these guidance documents as they become available in 2001 to determine if any PBT is present at your facility.
Now is the time to begin gathering year end information. If you need any help in understanding these regulations or would like to further discuss your site specific obligations, please call ERL at 800-883-1568.
USEPA Enforcement to Focus on Air Quality Issues
This letter, dated November 2000, was sent to manufacturing and industry facilities:
At a recent Air & Waste Management Association (A&WMA) regional meeting, Ms. Denny Dart of USEPA Region I discussed various USEPA enforcement priorities that will affect the manufacturing sector in the near future. According to Ms. Dart, two key areas that USEPA (all regions) will focus on are Air Toxics Rules and New Source Reviews in 2001.
Air Toxics: Off-site waste processors and ethylene oxide sterilizers are expected to be target. Additionally, USEPA will continue to enforce the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standards for metal finishers including chrome electroplaters and degreasing operations. These two operations have been scrutinized heavily by USEPA recently with numerous notices of violation, consent orders, and fines levied against smaller operations as a part of urban Air Toxics initiatives. ERL anticipates that this will continue throughout 2001.
New Source Review: USEPA plans on focusing on coal-fired power plants, pulp and paper operations, landfills, and other sources in 2001. USEPA has already requested formal pre-inspection information from some facilities including fuel use, permit history, emission data, repairs and maintenance records, and a history of construction and modifications. You should be aware that even if you are not within the "target" group, the increased scrutiny by USEPA raises the stakes for all.
The USEPA continues to encourage facilities to conduct self audits and promptly disclose and correct environmental violations in exchange for reduced enforcement penalties.
NPDES Permits
The following letter, dated May 2000, was sent to Connecticut manufacturing & industry facilities:
An ERL staff member recently attended a NPDES Permit/TMDL Negotiation and Compliance Strategies conference in Washington, D.C. and wanted to pass on one key point that was stressed over and over by the instructors. If you have an exceedance of your wastewater discharge permit terms, you have to notify the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP) Water Management Unit and the local sewer authority (if applicable) within two hours of becoming aware of the situation. The following events trigger this obligation:
- A non-compliance event occurs that endangers health, the environment or the operation of the sewage treatment plant
- Any unanticipated bypass of any or all of the waste treatment system
- An exceedance of any Maximum Daily Limit if you have a NPDES permit (discharge to waterbody) and
- An exceedance of two times the Maximum Daily Limit if you have a SPDES permit (discharge to sewer)
If the bypass occurred outside of normal business hours, you must notify the CTDEP Emergency Response Unit immediately (860-424-3338). For all other violations, you have to call the Water Management Unit at the start of the next business day (860-424-3018). A written report must be submitted to CTDEP within five days for all violations.
This points out why it is critical to review your analytical data as soon as it is received at your facility. Make sure your laboratory testing results are reported to you on a timely basis and do not let your laboratory data sit in your in-box until it is time to prepare the DMR. Compare the results to your permit limits and determine if any exceedances occurred. This is critical because not only do you have the reporting obligations, but you may also need to investigate what caused the problem and fix it before you collect your next set of samples.
And finally, do not forget about pH monitoring - if you exceed the pH range by more than one standard unit, you must notify the CTDEP. This is one reason why it is critical to review and sign your pH charts on a daily basis.
For those of you with General Permits, please be aware that most General Permits also contain requirements for recording and reporting violations.
|
 |
|
