Sunday, February 25, 2018

Who Needs An Air Permit? Why Would I Need An Emission Control Permit?

This is a frequent question Caltha receives, often because determining if your whole facility, a single piece of equipment, or your process change requires an air emission permit requires a technical evaluation and relies on calculations which, to many, defy logic at first.

There are two primary reasons a facility or process requires an air permit:
  1. It falls into a listed category of manufacturing processes which always requires a permit, usually referred to as NSPS or NESHAP standards; or
  2. Potential air emissions exceed specific thresholds.
In most cases, facilities subject to NSPS or NESHAP standards are well acquainted with air permitting requirements; therefore this summary focuses on #2.

How Do I Determine If I Will Exceed Permit Thresholds?

The permit thresholds for regulated air pollutants are listed in federal and State regulations. Facilities must determine their Potential To Emit, or PTE, in order to determine if they exceed these thresholds.


VOC emissions Often Require Spray Booths To Included In Facility Wide Air Emission Permit
Spray Booth Included In Facility Wide Air Emission Permit

How Do I Determine My Potential To Emit?

Determining the PTE for a facility or process requires a technical evaluation of the process, including maximum throughput, process chemistry, and production bottlenecks, to estimate the maximum hourly emission rates for all regulated air pollutants. This maximum hourly rate does not include the removal efficiency of any pollution control equipment (such as baghouses, thermal oxidizer) being used.

Once the maximum hourly rate is determined, it is multiplied by 8,760 to estimate the maximum annual potential emissions. This value assumes the maximum emission rates are achieved 24 hours per day, 7 days per week for a full year.

But I Don't Operate 24/7...

Few facilities actually operate for 8,760 hours per year. However, the Potential To Emit calculation uses this value only to compare to the permit thresholds. Your actual emissions will likely be much lower.

Due to particulate emissions, Dust Control Cyclone Systems often require a state air emission control permit
Permitted Dust Control Cyclone System

Why Can't I Take Credit For Pollution Control Equipment?

If a facility needs an air emission control permit, many of the permit requirements will involve how the pollution control equipment is operated and maintained to ensure effective control. The benefits of the pollution control equipment will be measured in actual emission estimates.




 
Caltha LLP | Your Air Permit, Wastewater Permit, 
Storm Water Permit Partner

Saturday, February 24, 2018

Total Toxic Organics Management Plan For Metal Finisher

Caltha LLP Project Summary

Project: Total Toxic Organics Management Plan For Metal Finisher
Client: Metal Finishing Company
Location(s): Minnesota

Key Elements: Total Toxic Organics Management Plan, SPCC Plan

Overview: This metal finishing was subject to Categorical Effluent Guidelines. In lieu of monitoring wastewater discharges for the full list of “Total Toxic Organics” the facility opted to prepare and implement a Total Toxic Organic Management Plan (TTOMP) for the site. Caltha was contracted to prepare the TTOMP for the facility. The TTOMP included:
• Inventory and description of TTO compounds used in the electroplating or finishing processes, and degreasing processes;
• Inventory and description of regulated processes where TTO compounds are used;
• Description of disposal methods for materials and wastes that contain TTO compounds;
• Description of controls used to limit or eliminate the discharge of TTO compounds to the sanitary sewer.


Spilled Corrosive Liquid From Aboveground Tank
Spilled Corrosive Liquid From Aboveground Tank


The TTOMP was combined with a Facility Spill Plan which included processes and containers not specifically addressed under the Effluent Guidelines. Caltha prepared a spill control plan for the site to minimize and control spills from areas where liquids are stored, transferred and used. The spill plan included:
1. Inventory and description of chemical storage and process tanks;
2. Description of batch discharges to sanitary sewer;
3. Description of controls and procedures to prevent entry of chemicals and other restricted materials and wastes from entering the sanitary sewer;
4. Emergency notification procedures;

For more information on Caltha LLP services, go to the Caltha Contact Page


 
Caltha LLP | Your EH&S Compliance, Auditing 
and EMS/SMS Partner

Thursday, February 22, 2018

Most Common Mistakes In Tank Secondary Containment

Common Problems With Secondary Containment

Missing Secondary Containment

Fuel Tank Without Containment Or Proper Support

Fuel Tank Without Containment Or Proper Support



Fuel Loading Area Without Drainage Control

Fuel Loading Area Without Secondary Containment



Leaking Used Oil Storage tank Observed During Phase I Facility Inspection

Leaking Used Oil Storage AST Observed During

Facility Inspection



Inadequate Volume Containment

Phase I Environmental Inspection Finds Leaking Tanks And Pumps In Refueling Area

Environmental Inspection Finds Leaking Tanks

And Pumps In Refueling Area



Wrong Material

Bulk Fuel Storage With Hay Bale Secondary Containment Observed During SPCC Audit

Bulk Fuel Storage With Hay Bale

Secondary Containment



Missing or Inadequate Maintenance

Broken Secondary Containment Wall Identified During SWPPP inspection

Cracked Secondary Containment Wall Identified

During SPCC Inspection





Damaged Oil Storage Containment



This photo shows an example of a Leaking Waste Solvent Hazardous Waste Tank identified during a hazardous waste inspection

Leaking Waste Solvent Hazardous Waste Tank





 


Caltha LLP | Your Stormwater Permit, 
SWPPP and Spill Plan Partner

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

New Hazardous Waste Rule Effective In North Carolina

The Hazardous Waste Generator Improvement Rule amended the Federal RCRA rules and enacted several important changes in how hazardous waste is managed. The Federal Rule was finalized in November 26, 2016 and became effective in a few States (Iowa, Alaska) on May 30, 2017. For all other States where implementation of RCRA had been delegated to State agencies, the Hazardous Waste Generator Improvement Rule did not become effective until States formally amended State rules to include these new provisions. Because some elements of the Hazardous Waste Generator Improvement Rule were less stringent that the existing RCRA rules, States had the option to include or exclude those portions when adopting their own State laws. For those portions of the Hazardous Waste Generator Improvement Rule that were more stringent than the existing RCRA rules, States were required to accept Federal rules in order to maintain an approved RCRA program.

Click here for a summary of the Hazardous Waste Generator Improvement Rule.


This photo shows an example of a Leaking Waste Solvent Hazardous Waste Tank identified during a hazardous waste inspection
Leaking Waste Solvent Hazardous Waste Tank



In 2017, The North Carolina  Department of Environmental Quality put a hold on all State rulemaking in order to go through a formal rulemaking process to incorporate the Hazardous Waste Generator Improvement Rule. That process was concluded in 2017. The State of North Carolina has finalized the updated hazardous waste rules which become effective on March 1, 2018.

Click here for more North Carolina regulatory updates and Caltha project examples from North Carolina.


 
Caltha LLP | Your EH&S Compliance, Auditing 
and EMS/SMS Partner

Tuesday, February 20, 2018

Five Avoidable Hazardous Waste Compliance Violations

EPA, State and local agencies regularly inspect hazardous waste generators to determine compliance with the hazardous waste regulations and laws. Listed below are some of the most common hazardous waste rule violations observed by inspectors during compliance inspections along with some tips for how to avoid those violations.


1. Waste Evaluation

Violation: Disposing of unevaluated or inadequately evaluated products or materials used at your site as nonhazardous waste.

You can use generator knowledge to assume your waste is hazardous, but you may need to test your waste for certain characteristics or properties such as heavy metals, flashpoint, pH and VOCs, to show it is nonhazardous.

Industrial Waste Disposal Burn Pit Observed During RCRA Audit Inspection
Industrial Waste Disposal Burn Pit Observed During Inspection



Abandoned Chemical Products Stored In Lieu Of Disposal
Abandoned Chemical Products Stored In Lieu Of Disposal


2. Labeling

Violation: Missing or illegible waste description, generator information, accumulation start dates and other required information.

Hazardous waste containers must be labeled with the words “Hazardous Waste,” a description of the waste and the accumulation start date.

Mislabeled Mercury Waste Drum Identified During waste Audit
Mislabeled Mercury Waste Drum Identified During RCRA Audit

3. Open Container

Violation: Though funnel is covered, it is not designed with a closure device to withhold contents if overturned.

Container must be closed and have a closure device that is designed to withhold contents if container is overturned.


RCRA Audit Finds Improper Flammable Hazardous Waste Storage And Labeling
Waste Audit Finds Improper Flammable Waste Storage And Labeling


4. Universal Waste Lamp and Battery Management

Violation: Lamps (intact or broken) and regulated batteries are not stored in appropriate containers.


5. Record keeping

Violation: Evaluation records not kept at the licensed site or made easily available for inspection.

Violation: Missing or incomplete SQG or LQG training records for hazardous waste personnel.

Leaking Hazardous Waste Drums Discovered During Facility Phase 1 Environmental Inspection
Leaking Waste Drums Discovered During Facility Inspection

Rule On Reporting Mercury And Mercury Added Products

The Lautenberg Act TSCA amendments established reporting deadline(s) and information requirements periodic update and publication of the inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States. As required under TSCA, the reporting requirements would apply to any person who manufactures mercury or mercury-added products, or otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process.

Mislabeled Mercury Waste Drum Identified During waste Audit
Mislabeled Mercury Waste Drum
Identified During RCRA Audit


On October 26, 2017, EPA issued a proposed rule to implement TSCA section 8(b)(10)(D), which requires EPA to issue a final rule no later than 2 years after the enactment of the Lautenberg Act TSCA amendments that establishes reporting deadline(s) and information requirements. As required under TSCA, the reporting requirements would apply to any person who manufactures mercury or mercury-added products, or otherwise intentionally uses mercury in a manufacturing process.EPA published the first inventory in March 2017. Based on the information collected, TSCA further directs EPA to identify any manufacturing processes or products that intentionally add mercury and recommend actions to achieve further reductions in mercury use.

EPA proposed reporting requirements in the Federal Register of October 26, 2017  to assist in the preparation of an “inventory of mercury supply, use, and trade in the United States.” Subsequently the deadline for the comment period was extended  to January 11, 2018. The final rule is anticipated to be published by July 1, 2018.



 
Caltha LLP | Your EH&S Compliance, 
Auditing and EMS/SMS Partner

Monday, February 19, 2018

Compliance Audit For Atlanta Chemical Packaging Plant

Caltha LLP Project Summary

Project: Multi-media Environmental Compliance Audit
Client: Chemical Repackaging Plant
Location(s): Georgia

Key Elements: Compliance audit

Overview: Caltha preformed a multimedia compliance audits for this chemical mixing and repackaging operation located near Atlanta, Georgia. The scope of the audit included Federal, State, County and City requirements in addition to company policies and industry standards applicable to the operations environmental aspects. Regulatory programs addressed in the audit included:

OSHA
Hazard Communication

EPCRA
EPCRA 311-312,
EPCRA 313

Hazardous and Solid Waste Management
Federal RCRA rules
State waste rules
Universal waste rules

Clean Air Act
Federal air emission rules
Federal NESHAP standards
Federal RMP rule
Site air emission permit
State air emission rules

Clean Water Act
Authorized/Unauthorized Discharges
Stormwater Discharge NEC compliance
SPCC Rule Compliance
Spill Notification and Reporting
Federal Industrial pretreatment rules
Industrial discharger permit

TSCA
Current registration
Inventory Update Rule IUR Reporting
Chemical Data Rule CDR Reporting

Tanks
Aboveground tank rules
Underground tank rules

Aboveground Product Vessels
Aboveground Product Vessels


For more information on Caltha LLP services, go to the Caltha Contact Page


 
Caltha LLP | Your EHS Compliance, Auditing 
and EMS/SMS Partner

Risk Management Plan Requirements Delayed

In January 2017, EPA published amendments to the Risk Management Program (RMP) Rule 40 CFR Part 68. The amendments included requirements for:
  • Root cause analysis as part of an incident investigation;
  • Independent third-party compliance audits following a release event reportable under RMP or when an agency requires it based on site conditions;
  • Inclusion of a safer technology and alternatives analysis as part of the process hazard analysis for processes in North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes 322, 324, and 325 (manufacturing of Paper, Petroleum and Coal Products, and Chemicals);
  • Emergency response enhancements such as annual coordination with local emergency response agencies, annual testing of emergency notification procedures, and full field exercises at least every 10 years for responding facilities; and
  • Measures to increase availability of chemical hazard information to the public.

Aboveground Product Vessels
Aboveground Product Vessels



Following publication of the amendments, EPA received several petitions for reconsideration and request for stay of the amendments. On June 9, 2017, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule to delay the effective date of the RMP rule amendments until February 19, 2019.





Caltha LLP | Your Safety and Health Compliance
Management Partner

Thursday, February 15, 2018

New EPA Hazardous Waste Form 8700

US EPA has updated the standard form waste generators use to obtain a facility EPA ID number and provide notification and updates to regulated waste activities at their location.

Mislabeled Mercury Waste Drum Identified During waste Audit
Mislabeled Mercury Waste Drum Identified
During RCRA Audit

What Is Waste Notification Form Used For?

EPA Form 8700-12 is the document used to obtain an EPA ID number, which is a 12-character number used by states and EPA to track hazardous waste activities. This form is also used to update changes in site information (e.g., changes in site contact information, types of hazardous waste managed, cessation of regulated activity at a site, etc.). With the exception of very small quantity generators (VSQGs), a generator of hazardous waste must obtain an EPA ID number before it can manage (i.e., treat, store, dispose, transport, or offer for transportation) hazardous waste, and generators (other than VSQGs) must use hazardous waste transporters and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities with EPA ID numbers.


Abandoned Chemical Products Stored In Lieu Of Disposal
Abandoned Chemical Products Stored
In Lieu Of Disposal

What Is Required In New Waste Notification Form?

The Notification of RCRA Subtitle C Activities, EPA Form 8700-12 (i.e., the Site ID form) has been modified. Several additional data fields that support the various new notifications required by the November 28, 2016, hazardous waste generator improvements rule  and the import-export rule.



Caltha LLP | Your EH&S Compliance, 
Auditing and EMS/SMS Partner

Tuesday, February 13, 2018

State Reapplication For Underground Tank Program Approval

In July 2015 EPA published the 2015 underground storage tank regulation and the 2015 state program approval regulation. This was the first major revision to the federal UST regulations since 1988. The revisions were intended to strengthen the 1988 federal underground storage tank (UST) regulations by increasing emphasis on properly operating and maintaining UST equipment. The revisions included provisions to prevent and detect UST releases, which are a leading source of groundwater contamination, and to ensure all USTs in the United States, including those in Indian country, meet the same minimum standards.

Abandoned Underground Tanks Marked During 
Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) Survey

The 2015 UST regulation changed certain portions of the 1988 underground storage tank technical regulation, added new operation and maintenance requirements, and addressed UST systems deferred in the 1988 UST regulation. The changes:
  • Added secondary containment requirements for new and replaced tanks and piping
  • Added operator training requirements
  • Added periodic operation and maintenance requirements for UST systems
  • Added requirements to ensure UST system compatibility before storing certain biofuel blends
  • Removed past deferrals for emergency generator tanks, field constructed tanks, and airport hydrant systems
  • Updated codes of practice
  • Made editorial and technical corrections
The 2015 state program approval (SPA) regulation also updated SPA requirements  and incorporated the changes to the UST technical regulation listed above.

Currently 38 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have SPA and have three years to reapply in order to retain their SPA status. UST system owners and operators in these states must continue to follow their state requirements until the state changes its requirements or until the state’s SPA status changes. Under the 2015 state program approval regulation, the 38 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which currently have SPA must reapply by October 13, 2018 in order to retain their SPA status. The remaining 16 non-SPA states and territories may apply for SPA at any time.

Owners and operators in 16 non-SPA states and territories must meet the federal requirements according to the schedule in the 2015 UST regulation. In addition, owners and operators will need to follow their state requirements.




Caltha LLP | Your EH&S Compliance, Auditing
and EMS/SMS Partner

General Permits For Wastewater Proposed By IDNR

The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has proposed two general discharge permits to cover two types of common and generally low risk discharges.

DNR plans to issue two new National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general permits known as General Permit #8 (GP8) and General Permit #9 (GP9). GP8 allows for discharges of hydrostatic test water (water used to test the integrity of a pipe or tank), underground storage tank ballast water (water used to weight a tank to facilitate underground installation), and water associated with installation, repair, and replacement of potable water lines. GP9 allows for discharges from dewatering associated with construction and small residential geothermal heating and cooling systems.

IDNR is proposing to include eligibility criteria and Best Management Practices. These will ensure that discharges will comply with water quality standards. Most permittees will be automatically authorized to discharge. Only a few higher-risk dischargers will need to submit a Notice of Intent. There is no fee for either permit.

DNR is seeking public comment on proposed rules that will create two new general permits. DNR will hold three public hearings across the state in March:
  • Wednesday, Mar. 7, 4 p.m. at the Coralville, IA Public Library
  • Thursday, Mar. 8, 4 p.m. at the Harlan, IA Public Library
  • Wednesday, Mar. 14, 4 p.m. at the Urbandale, IA Public Library



Caltha LLP | Your Air Permit, Wastewater Permit, 
Storm Water Permit Partner

Monday, February 12, 2018

Commercial Chemical Product or Waste? Commercial Chemical Product Checklist

In  2017, EPA provided additional guidance to differentiate between commercial chemical products (CCPs) and manufactured articles in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Online Document #14887. In the guidance, EPA noted that manufactured articles, such as batteries, fluorescent lamps, and thermometers, are devices designed for a purpose other than to access the device’s internal chemicals. Specifically, batteries, lamps, and thermometers are used for electrical energy, for light, or to measure temperature, respectively, and not to access the mercury, lead, or other chemicals contained in them. Therefore, batteries, fluorescent lamps, and thermometers are not CCPs.

Abandoned Chemical Products Stored In Lieu Of Disposal
Abandoned Chemical Products Stored
In Lieu Of Disposal

To assist manufacturers in determining if their waste is regulated as a CCP, EPA offered the following checklist:


Commercial Chemical Product Checklist

Does the facility appear to be managing the material being evaluated in 

a manner that suggests it is a product 

(as opposed to being abandoned or stored in lieu of abandonment)?

1 Are the containers used to store the material in good condition (vs. crushed, bulging, 
corroded, dusty, leaking, incompatible with the contents, open, or overpacked)?


2
Are the containers of concern stored in a manner that suggests the material has value? 
(For example, is the material protected from precipitation, locked-up when the facility is not
 operating, or stored in a fenced/secure area?)
3 Does the management of the containers appear to preserve the material's integrity and serve to 
prevent the material from becoming unstable, unusable or contaminated?
4 Do the containers have labels that identify the contents as product?


5
Do the container labels have information, such as lot number, manufacture date, or 
expiration date, to help determine the age/viability of the material, particularly if a recommended 
expiration date has been exceeded?




6
If a container is not labeled, can the facility support a claim that the contents is a product
 (e.g., provide analytical testing results to verify that the material meets specifications for use, 
or explain that it recently had to transfer contents to a new container due to damage to the 
original container and can provide record of purchase)?


7
Does the condition of the material suggest it is a valuable product? (For example, no crystals
 have formed inside or outside the container, the material is not discolored, there is no phase 
separation evident)


8
Does the facility manage the material as a valuable commodity by limiting access to the material 
and having security procedures in place to prevent unauthorized removal of the material?
Does the facility appear to be using the material being evaluated in the production 
of its products or in support of production operations (as opposed to being abandoned
 or stored in lieu of abandonment)?
1 Can the facility describe how the material is used or show where the material is used in the facility?






2
Do the containers storing the material in question appear to be stored in an appropriate location
 Is the material stored according to manufacturer recommendations (e.g., recommended
 temperatures, light)? Are the containers accessible? Are the materials being stored in the same
 location as other similar product materials?


3
Do product specifications exist for the material or process in which it is to be used (e.g., minimum 
concentration of an active ingredient, maximum concentrations of contaminants, or dates beyond 
which the material should not be used)?


4
Is there a process in place for the facility to compare the properties of the material in question to 
specifications that must be met in order for the material to be used for the claimed purpose, or is
 documentation available to support a facility claim that the material meets such specifications?
5 Does it appear that the facility has purchased new material that will be used for the same purpose 
as the material in question?


6
Are records available to demonstrate that the facility has NOT written off the material as a loss 
(indicating that the facility still believes that the material has a use)?

Does the facility appear to be selling into commerce the material being evaluated 

(as opposed to being abandoned or stored in lieu of abandonment)?

1 Does the facility have “active” customers or a market for the material?


2
If yes, can the facility provide a list of such customers and document recent shipments 
of the material for subsequent distribution in commerce, or provide copies of contracts 
from past or future sales?
3 Can the facility identify any competitors for the sale of the material to support a claim that there 
is an existing or potential market for the material?
4 Can the facility provide a list of inactive or past customers that purchased the material?
5 Can the facility provide any information about a future market for the material?

6
Is a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) or SDS under OSHA’s new Globally Harmonized System 
available for the material (supporting a claim that the material has been in, or will enter, commerce)?

7
Does the facility have a system for accepting/managing returned or off-specification products it 
produced and utilizing that material to produce a new product? If so, is this system documented?
8 Has the material been recalled or returned from a customer? If so, can the facility explain how it 
intends to use the material? Is there a market for the returned material?


Caltha LLP | Your EH&S Compliance, Auditing 
and EMS/SMS Partner

Wednesday, February 7, 2018

Is Scrap Metal Hazardous?

On February 24, 2017, EPA issued a response to an inquiry about what does and does not meet EPA’s definitions of “scrap metal” and “processed scrap metal,” as they relate to scrap tantalum anodes, wire, pellets, pins, and powders. RCRA defines scrap metal as "bits and pieces of metal parts (e.g., bars, turnings, rods, sheets, wire) or metal pieces that may be combined together with bolts or soldering (e.g., radiators, scrap automobiles, railroad box cars), which when worn or superfluous can be recycled."

RCRA also recognizes different classes of scrap metal under “Excluded scrap metal”:

  • Processed scrap metal is scrap metal which has been manually or physically altered to either separate it into distinct materials to enhance economic value or to improve the handling of materials. Processed scrap metal includes, but is not limited to scrap metal which has been baled, shredded, sheared, chopped, crushed, flattened, cut, melted, or separated by metal type (i.e., sorted), and, fines, drosses and related materials which have been agglomerated. (Note: shredded circuit boards being sent for recycling are not considered processed scrap metal. They are covered under the exclusion from the definition of solid waste for shredded circuit boards being recycled ( § 261.4(a)(14)).

  • Home scrap metal is scrap metal as generated by steel mills, foundries, and refineries such as turnings, cuttings, punchings, and borings.

  • Prompt scrap metal is scrap metal as generated by the metal working/fabrication industries and includes such scrap metal as turnings, cuttings, punchings, and borings. Prompt scrap is also known as industrial or new scrap metal.

Along with confirming scrap tantalum anodes, wire, pellets, and pins as scrap metal, more generally, EPA’s response highlights that metal powders only meet the definition of scrap metal if they are agglomerated in such a way that the agglomerated material physically resembles other types of scrap metal (i.e., bits and pieces of metal parts).

In the response, EPA noted:
 

  • Scrap tantalum anodes, wire, pellets, and pins meet the definition of “scrap metal” found at §261.1(c)(6). (Tantalum is a highly corrosion-resistant transition metal that is widely used as a component in metal alloys.) Thus, if these materials are legitimately recycled (i.e., meeting the factors in §260.43), they are exempt from RCRA hazardous waste regulation under §261.6(a)(3)(ii), even if they exhibit a characteristic or have become contaminated with a listed waste.

  • Tantalum powders would meet the definition of scrap metal in §261.1(c)(6) only if they are agglomerated in such a way that the agglomerated material physically resembles other types of scrap metal. For example, tantalum powder that has been mixed with a binder and then sintered at high temperature to cause the particles to form a structure of high mechanical strength and density would meet the definition of “fines, drosses and related materials which have been agglomerated” and would therefore be considered “processed scrap metal” per §261.1(c)(10). Per §261.4(a)(13), “processed scrap metal” is excluded from the definition of solid waste if legitimately recycled (i.e., meeting the factors in §260.43).

  • Non-agglomerated tantalum powders would not meet the definition of scrap metal in §261.1(c)(6). Thus, non-agglomerated tantalum powders that exhibit a hazardous waste characteristic per Part 261, Subpart C would be considered a hazardous waste, even when sent for recycling.





Caltha LLP | Your EHS Compliance, Auditing and EMS/SMS Partner

Revised 2018 Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code Released

The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) has released a revised 2018 edition of NFPA 30 Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code. This version replaces the prior edition published in 2015. NFPA 30 is referenced in numerous OSHA, emergency prevention and pollution prevention regulatory programs and becomes enforceable under OSHA and many state and local regulations, NFPA 30 provides safeguards to reduce the hazards associated with the storage, handling, and use of flammable and combustible liquids.

The NFPA 30 code applies to the storage, handling, and use of flammable and combustible liquids, including waste liquids. It is intended to "reduce the hazard to a degree consistent with reasonable public safety, without undue interference with public convenience and necessity, of operations that require the use of flammable and combustible liquids." Compliance with the code does not eliminate all hazards in the use of flammable and combustible liquids.

Improper Storage And Labeling of Flammable 
Waste Observed During Audit

The NFPA 30 code does not apply to:
  • Any liquid that has a melting point of 100°F (37.8°C) or greater
  •  Any cryogenic fluid or liquefied gas
  • Any liquid that does not have a flash point, but which is capable of burning under certain conditions
  • Mixtures of flammable or combustible liquids and halogenated hydrocarbons either do not exhibit a flash point using the standard closed-cup test methods or will exhibit elevated flash points.
  • Any aerosol product, which are addressed in NFPA 30B, Code for the Manufacture and Storage of Aerosol Products.
  • Any mist, spray, or foam
  • Transportation of flammable and combustible liquids as governed by the U.S. Department of Transportation, which are addressed in NFPA 385, Standard for Tank Vehicles for Flammable and Combustible Liquids, and in the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Hazardous Materials Regulations, Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 100–199.
  • Storage, handling, and use of fuel oil tanks and containers connected with oil-burning equipment, which are addressed in NFPA 31, Standard for the Installation of Oil- Burning Equipment.
  • Use and installation of alcohol-based hand rub (ABHR) Dispensers, which are addressed in NFPA1, Fire Code, and NFPA101, Life Safety Code.



Caltha LLP | Your Safety and Health Compliance Management Partner

Monday, February 5, 2018

Do I Need Permit For Oil Water Separator?

What Is A Flammable Waste Trap?

A flammable waste trap is sometimes called an oil-water separator. It is typically located underground, often under the floor of a building. It is intended to retain low density liquids (usually oils and fuel) from wastewater so that they do not discharge to the sewer. Most often oil-water separators are connected to floor drains inside a building. Oil water separately must have oil removed periodically to remain operational.


Flammable Waste Trap / Oil Water Separator

Do Flammable Waste Traps, Oil Water Separators Need a Permit?

In most cases no. However, most sewer agencies require installation of oil water separators at higher risk businesses to prevent significant quantities of oil being discharged to the sewer. Therefore they are included in facility designs which are approved by local permitting authorities for sewer connection permits, but are not permitted separately.




Caltha LLP | Your Air Permit, Wastewater Permit, Storm Water Permit Partner



Friday, February 2, 2018

Deadline For Report Air Releases From Farms Extended

In April 2017, the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that farms were required to report air releases of hazardous substances above certain thresholds under the Clean Air Act and EPCRA. EPA released guidance on those reporting obligations in November 2017. EPA requested a stay of 90 days to provide the agency additional time to prepare for any reporting obligations, cited a need for more time to refine guidance to industry on meeting the reporting obligations and to finalize agriculture-specific forms that would be used to report emissions from animal wastes to EPA.

Click here for summary of EPA and Court actions on EPCRA reporting for farms.

On February 1, 2108 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit extended a stay of air emissions reporting from livestock wastes through at least May 1, 2018.



Thursday, February 1, 2018

Sanitation Certification Self Audit Checklist

Many business sectors require assurance of sanitary conditions, either to meet regulatory or industry standards, or to manage the risks of negative outcomes from not meeting minimum sanitation goals. These include health care sectors, medical device sector, food sectors, hospitality sectors or any other facility where employees or customers could come in contact with microbes on clothing, linen, equipment, work surfaces and other media.

Defining Underlying Business Risk

Some businesses rely on an external or internal certification to demonstrate they have adequately controlled risks associated with sanitation. Internal or external auditors will often review these certifications, noting the presence or absence of a current certificate. However, the business risk to be controlled is not simply the absence of a certificate, but the presence of less than sanitary conditions (i.e., not meeting the objective of maintaining sanitation above established criteria).

Sanitation Certification Self-Audit Checklist

To evaluate the underlying business risk and controls, the review of a certificate should be followed up with a review of the underlying data and control systems. Below are some suggested self-audit questions which could be used to assist in evaluating the business control systems in place related to sanitation certifications:
  • Is a formal certification document required by either regulation or company policy? Does the certificate contain all required elements? Is it current?
  • Is the entity issuing the certification independent of the process? i.e, is the certificate issued by the same company or department performing the sanitation?
  • Have quantifiable criteria been established?
  • Are underlying data available for review and do they support the certification?
  • How were samples collected? Does sample collection procedure ensure representative sampling of the materials or media being certified?
  • How are samples tested? Has an accepted laboratory method been used? Has appropriate chain of custody been documented?
  • Is the testing entity independent of the sanitation process? i.e, is testing done by the same company performing the sanitation or providing sanitation chemicals being evaluated?
By evaluating the overall system in place to ensure sanitation, rather than just the presence of a certificate, the internal auditor can provide much better insights on the reliability of the system to ensure that sanitation goals are being achieved consistently.


Caltha LLP provides certified auditors to conduct third party audits, including vendor/contractor audits. Click here to review examples of past auditing projects.