REGULATORY COMPLIANCE TRENDS... ENFORCEMENT HOT SPOTS

As if 60+ EPA, OSHA, DOT laws aren’t enough to keep a compliance officer on his due diligence toes, Industry is about to feel additional EPA regulations. 
 

Top priorities include reducing toxic air releases from facilities yet to be regulated, writing new rules for major source air permitting facilities, and limiting toxic ingredients sold to consumers. When it comes to enforcement, the regulated community has paid dearly for compliance violations.  The EPA posted another record-breaking enforcement year in 2006 in forcing Industry to pay out $4.8 billion in fines and pollution control equipment.  For more serious violations, jail time also increased to a total of 154 years.  Last year, 23,000 facilities were inspected, an increase of 39% over the previous year.  Midway through 2007, EPA inspectors have targeted 8 trouble spots in Industry.  By the end of 2008, EPA will revise the Clean Water Act industrial wastewater rules, develop new air quality standards for lead, and revise waste codes to encourage recycling.  While many people think that enforcement penalties come from crimes like chemical dumping, it is important to know that 76% of all EPA and OSHA penalties are paperwork violations, failure to file mandated compliance reports, permits, documentation, and training.  Key areas where companies are exposed to enforcement risks in 2007 include failing to:

  • Obtain construction air permits when modifying or moving operations;
  • Meeting air emissions limitations through emissions inventory tracking;
  • Obtain a Stormwater Runoff Permit inclusive of a Pollution Prevention Plan;
  • Follow standard reporting rules since 1987 on hazardous chemical storage;
  • Develop Spill Prevention Control & Countermeasure Plans (SPCC) when the storage of oil products and hazardous chemicals exceed specified thresholds;
  • Follow hazardous waste rules (targeting colleges, plating facilities, marinas);
  • Update Risk Management Plans targeting ammonia refrigeration plants).

Here is EPA’s enforcement priority list for common violations in Industry.

    1. Filing annual reports on the use, storage and production of hazardous substances above household quantity, or in concentrate form, as reflected in Material Safety Data Sheets descriptive of such products;
    2. Failure to comply with  the Stormwater Runoff Permitting law of 1990, requiring Pollution Prevention Plans and annual updates since 1993 (written penalty policy is $32,500 per day);
    3. Air Emissions violations in California, Texas and Louisiana;
    4. Improper or no labeling of drums containing hazardous waste;

 

Next Issue’s Lead Article:

Over 60 EPA, OSHA, DOT Laws Coming Down on Industry…How do I sort it all out to safeguard my company’s assets?

 

STORM WATER RUNOFF: SMALL COMMUNITIES PRESSURED BY U.S. EPA TO ENFORCE

 

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regional districts have begun cracking down on municipal separate storm water systems (MS4) owners/operators for not receiving permits and not implementing Phase II storm water programs. All eligible MS4s were required to have their permits/storm water management programs in place by March 2003. Many are not aware of this requirement, however ignorance of the law is no excuse and will not save you from being penalized.

 

Within the U.S. over 40 percent of surveyed water bodies are polluted to the point that they do not meet U.S. water quality standards. One of the main reasons for this is polluted storm water runoff. Some of the main culprits in this runoff are pesticides, fertilizers, oils, salt, litter, and sediment.

 

The (EPA) promulgated the storm water program in 1990 in response to the Clean Water Act (CWA). This initial storm water program was called Phase I of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water program and addressed:

  •  “medium” and “large” MS4s serving populations of 100,000 or more

  • Construction activities that disturbed more than five (5) acres of land

  • Ten (10) categories of industrial activities

The definition of an MS4 is often misunderstood. An MS4 is not solely a system of many underground pipes. An MS4 can also be a road with drainage systems, gutters, and ditches. MS4s can also be State departments of transportation, hospitals, prisons, and military bases.

 

The Storm water Phase II final rule was published in the Federal Register December 8, 1999, and expands the success of the Phase I program. The Phase II storm water program focuses on construction sites disturbing one to five (1-5) acres of land and regulated “small” (any MS4 that is not covered by the existing Phase I) MS4s. Not all small MS4s are regulated MS4s. There three (3) ways that an MS4 is designated as regulated.

  1. If it is located in an "urbanized area."  An urbanized area is defined by the Bureau of the Census as:

    A land area comprising one or more places – central place(s) – and the adjacent densely settled surrounding area – urban fringe – that together have a residential population of at least 50,000 and an overall population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile.
     

  2. If a MS4 located outside of an urbanized area serves a population of 10,000 and has a population density of 1,000 people per square mile.
     

  3. Any MS4 out side of an urbanized area that substantially contributes to pollutant loadings of a “physically interconnected” MS4 already regulated by the NPDES storm water program. Physically interconnected is defined as:

    One MS4 which is connected to a second MS4 in such a way that it allows for direct discharges into the second system.

What exactly is required by the Phase II storm water program?

 

Small MS4s:

  • A regulated small MS4 operator must develop, implement, and enforce a storm water management program designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants from their MS4 to the “maximum extent practicable,” to protect water quality, and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the CWA. The rule assumes the use of narrative, rather than numeric, effluent limitations requiring implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs).

  • The small MS4 storm water management program must include the following six minimum control measures: public education and outreach; public participation/involvement; illicit discharge detection and elimination; construction site runoff control; post-construction runoff control; and pollution prevention/good housekeeping.

  • A regulated small MS4 operator must identify its selection of BMPs and measurable goals for each minimum measure in the permit application. The evaluation and assessment of those chosen BMPs and measurable goals must be included in periodic reports to the NPDES permitting authority.

Small Construction Activity:

  •  The specific requirements for storm water controls on small construction activity will be defined by the NPDES permitting authority on a State-by-State basis.

  •  EPA expects that the NPDES permitting authorities will use their existing Phase I general permits for large construction activity as a guide for their Phase II permits for
     small construction activity. If this occurs a storm water pollution prevention plan will likely be required for small construction activity.

The EPA is confident that the implementation of Phase II storm water programs will dramatically reduce pollution in our rivers and streams so that we may conserve these waters for the protection and propagation of aquatic wildlife, agricultural and recreational purposes, and for the withdrawal of water for public water supply.

 

YOUR POSTING REQUIREMENTS HAVE CHANGED!  ARE YOU IN COMPLIANCE?

 

On May 25, President Bush signed a spending bill that, among other things, amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to increase the federal minimum wage in three steps: to $5.85 per hour effective July 24, 2007; to $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008; and to $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.

OSHA Recordkeeping regulations require every employer maintain certain posters in each physically separate location. 

“Each employer shall post and keep posted a notice or notices, to be furnished by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, informing employees of the protections and obligations provided for in the Act, and that for assistance and information, including copies of the Act and of specific safety and health standards, employees should contact the employer or the nearest office of the Department of Labor.  Such notice or notices shall be posted by the employer in each establishment in a conspicuous place or places where notices to employees are customarily posted.  Each employer shall take steps to insure that such notices are not altered, defaced, or covered by other material”  REF: §1903.2(a)(1)

Every employer of employees subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act's minimum wage provisions must post, and keep posted, a notice explaining the Act in a conspicuous place in all of their establishments so as to permit employees to readily read it. The content of the notice is prescribed by the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor.

Because of the recent change in the FLSA, the minimum wage poster must be updated to reflect the new information. Failure to do so could result in a fine of $1,000.00. A revised Federal minimum wage poster, reflecting the recently enacted minimum wage increases, is now available for viewing, downloading, and posting by clicking here: www.vanguardenvl.com/osha/minwage.pdf.

Every employer of employees subject to the Fair Labor Standard Act’s minimum wage provisions must post, and keep posted, a notice explaining the Act in a conspicuous place in all of their establishments so as to permit employees to readily read it.

Posting requirements can vary widely from state to state, therefore posting requirements for your facility should be checked against your state’s requirements. Please contact your local Regulatory Specialist or call Vanguard’s OSHA Department at (918) 641-5588 for further information.

 

ONE EYE ON ENFORCEMENT

Salmon, ID / Hazardous Waste Treatment: $750K
Company owner indicted by a federal grand jury of criminal violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Violations:
  • Storing incompatible wastes together, risking an explosion
  • Shipping hazardous wastes without a RCRA manifest
  • Failing to take preventative measures to reduce risks that incompatible wastes would react and explode during transport, and
  • Storing hazardous wastes at an unpermitted facility
Rensselear, IN / Agricultural product supplies: $37K
Company cited for violating hazardous chemical release reporting requirements.  Company failed to immediately report a 4,220 pound release of anhydrous ammonia to the National Response Center.  Violated the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
Violations:
  • File a timely follow-up report on the release, and
  • Address all 10 reporting elements required in EPCRA follow-up reports.
Winchester, KY / Power generation: $750K
Utility was cited for violating Clean Air Act requirements to obtain new source review (NSR) permits before modifying three power plants.
Violations:
  • Obtain pre-construction permits before launching major modifications, and
  • Install modern pollution controls.
Westminster, MA / Metal Fabrication Facility: $255K
Cited for exceeding stormwater discharge limits because they had failed to implement best management practices to control runoff.  The companies also failed to conduct required stormwater monitoring and report data to EPA.  The company is also facing fines for failing to file Toxic Release Inventory reports for chromium, nickel and manganese
 
Milwaukee, WI / Yeast Manufacturing: $202K
Failed to obtain NSR permits before making major changes to its now-closed plan in 1996 and 2000.  The changes increased volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions.  Also cited for operating without adding new emission controls and for exceeding VOC limits several times between March 2002 and December 2003.
 
Beaumont, TX / Rubber Plant: $284K
Cited for 33 air permitting violations, including improperly operating several flare units.
Violations:
  • Failure to keep hourly thermocouple monitoring records
  • Failure to measure and record a pilot flame on a control device, and
  • Failure to recheck a repaired leaking fugitive emissions component in a timely manner