- Email: [email protected]
Top-10 environmental regulatory issues facing printed wiring board manufacturers
Top-10 Environmental Regulatory Issues Facing Printed Wiring Board Manufacturers by Lucille C. Servidio and Linda Swift, Capaccio Environmental Engineering Inc., Sudbury, Mass.
A
s an environmental consultant to the printed wiring board (PWB) manufacturing industry for many years, I am very familiar with the industry and the regulatory challenges you face. To guide your quest for compliance, the top-10 environmental compliance issues that may affect PWB operations have been prioritized. Progressing from the bottom up, the most prevalent issues seen while working with PWB manufacturing facilities are presented. This is not to say that these are the only challenges to be faced, but working on these issues will set a sound base for compliance. Let me begin by introducing you to some of the acronyms that I will use during our ascent through the hierarchy of compliance issues. BMP-Best Management Practice DOT-U.S. Department of Transportation EHS-Extremely Hazardous Substance EPA-Environmental Protection Agency IPC-Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits LEPCLocal Emergency Planning Committee LFD-Local Fire Department MP&M-Metal Products & Machinery POTW-Publicly Owned Treatment Works PRP-Potentially Responsible Party SARA-Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SERC-State Emergency Response Commission SWP3-Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan NO. 10: BACKFLOW PREVENTION In the climb to the top, backflow prevention is the no. 10 concern on our agenda. Many states require the installation of approved backflow prevention devices (BFPD) at cross connec12
tions (where city potable and nonpotable or industrial process water meet) in order to prevent your process chemistry from backing up into the potable water supply should there be a negative pressure surge on the supply side. The BFPD is typically installed on the main water supply line to protect the city’s supply from backflow from your entire facility and another BFPD (or more) is installed within your facility to protect all internal sanitary (potable) uses from being cross contaminated by process sources. In addition, some states require that you first apply for a permit for each proposed BFPD prior to the actual installation. These permits are renewable (typically annually). Since the potential for contamination of the potable water supply is serious business, testing of the BFPD by a certified tester is also commonly required. For instance, Massachusetts requires that BFPDs be tested semiannually by the water supplier and annually by the owner of the facility. NO. 9: DOT REGISTRATION AND TRAINING The no. 9 concern is the registration and training requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials (haz mats). Very often, facilities that produce articles as products (e.g., printed wiring boards) don’t consider themselves a shipper of haz mats (as defined by the DOT). Often, the product you sell is not a haz mat by DOT definition, but your “hazardous waste” shipped off-site for disposal is a haz mat and is, therefore, subject to DOT requirements. Two of the most common requirements affecting shippers of haz mats are training of personnel responsible for haz mat shipments, and registration as a shipper of certain types of haz mats. Training is required every 3 years for “Haz Mat” employees (personnel responsible in one way or another for the proper packaging, label0 Copyright Elsevier Science Inc.
ing, etc. of a haz mat). Registration is required if a shipper will at any point in time offer 3,500 gallons or more (in a bulk package) or 5,000 lb or more (in a nonbulk package) of any haz mat for shipment. A bulk package is a package with a capacity greater than 119 gallons. So, for example, if you ship your spent etch off-site in a bulk package, you would be a shipper subject to registration requirements. Registration, for a fee of $300, is required annually. NO. 8: MSDS/TIER REPORTING
II
The SARA, Title III, Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act, Sections 311 MSDS and 3 12 Chemical Inventory Reporting requirements taken together are our no. 8 concern. For the purposes of community response planning, storage at any one time of OSHA chemicals (e.g., etchant) in excess of 10,000 lb or EHSs (e.g., nitric acid, sulfuric acid, or cyanide) in excess of the threshold planning quantity (TPQ) (500 lb or less depending on the chemical) requires submittal of either a list of chemicals stored in excess of these thresholds or copies of the MSDSs to the LEPC, LFD, and SERC. In addition, facilities storing chemicals in excess of these thresholds must also report storage on a Tier II reporting form on an annual basis. Tier II reports are due by March 1st and are sent to the LEPC, LFD, and SERC. Don’t forget fuel oil is an OSHA chemical; 1,300-l ,355 gallons (approximately 10,000 pounds) of fuel oil stored on-site for heating purposes can trip the reporting threshold. Some states have their own Tier II formats. Check with your SERC to be sure you have the correct forms. NO. 7: SUPERFUND Number 7 is the environmental issue that has the potential to “resurface” and come from the past to the present METAL FINISHING
l
JANUARY
1997
and bite you at any moment. Sort of like your own Nightmare on Elm Street. The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) is the one law that ensures that there is a vehicle (the “Superfund”) for the clean up of sites where mismanagement and release of hazardous substances have occurred. It identifies PRP who will be responsible monetarily and legally for the clean up of contaminated site. Even if you can prove that you had no part in the contamination of a listed site (clean up costs can run five and six figures); the legal fees you pay for your defense will be substantial. Your best defense, therefore, is to minimize use of hazardous substances; minimize the amount of waste generated in your operation; know that the facilities handling your waste are transporting, storing, treating, and disposing of your waste properly; and, if possible, inspect the facilities at least once, if not annually.
NO. 6: RISK MANAGEMENT PLANNING The up-and-coming issue of Risk Management Planning (RMP) required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 falls as no. 6 on our list. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA stresses that all facilities have a “general duty” to identify and assess hazards that may result from an accidental release, to prevent accidental releases, and to minimize the consequences of an accidental release. At a minimum, a facility should review large quantity chemical handling, storage, use, and management policies. EPA has now promulgated regulations that ensure that certain facilities follow through with this planning and prevention effort. Although similar to the OSHA Process Safety Management requirements, RMP takes planning for releases a step further. Once you trip the threshold for any of the 140 chemicals in “process” (manufacturing, storing, distributing, handling, or otherwise using), you must register with the EPA, evaluate the facility’s accident history, institute a risk management program, and develop plans for a range of release scenarios including worst-case scenarios. Plans must be submitted to EPA by 1999. This program is meant to reduce the 14
probability of a release that may cause immediate harm to public health and the environment. Through this program, EPA is encouraging relations with the public at large. Be prepared to deal with your local community’s desire to be aware and be involved in your risk assessment and planning efforts. Examples of chemicals and thresholds applicable to the PWB manufacturing industry include hydrochloric acid 15,000 lb, and nitric acid 15,000 lb. Although your facility might not trip a threshold, beware of the “general duty” clause and be prepared.
tions imposed by the POTW. The EPA has extended its original proposal due date from September 1996 to March 1997. The proposal will include decisions as to which operations will be subject to a new MP&M categorical standard as well as to the local limits. This standard is expected to be performance based, dependent on the industry sector served, and flexible in the approach used to meet standards. Our web site (www.capaccio.com), as well as the EPA home page, will keep you up to date on these changes.
NO. 5: STORM WATER PERMITS
NO. 3: HAZARDOUS MANAGEMENT
The rain brings storm water permitting up to the forefront as no. 5 on our list. EPA requires that facilities with storm water discharges that have the potential contact with industrial activity and are also point sources to waters of the United States obtain a permit for that discharge. There are three types of permits for which a facility can apply: a general baseline permit, a general multisector permit, or an individual permit. The type of permit best suited for your facility depends on whether your state has authorization to implement the storm water program and which industry sector your operations represent. Once a facility is subject to permitting, it must develop a SWP3 conduct monitoring (as required by permit approvals), report releases, perform inspections of prevention and response systems, and institute BMPs that ensure prevention of contamination of the waters of the United States. All PWB manufacturing facilities subject to storm water permitting should file for a multisector permit if available in their state, as cost for laboratory analysis for an individual permit is significant. NO. 4: INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGE PERMIT One of your top priorities remains the treatment of your wastewater prior to discharge to your local POTW. Ranked fourth on the list there are changes looming for the PWB manufacturing industry. PWB manufacturing facilities are currently subject to electroplating categorical effluent standards as well as any additional restric-
WASTE
New and pending regulations keep hazardous waste management at the top of the list. Recently, EPA promulgated regulations that minimize some of the past requirements for certain hazardous wastes (thermostats and thermometers, pesticides, and batteries) and have provisions for recycling of these wastes. The Universal Waste Rule classifies generators as smallquantity handler of universal waste (accumulates less than 11,000 lb) and large-quantity handler of universal waste (accumulates greater than 11,000 lb). The handler must notify EPA, manage and label the waste properly, provide employee training, be prepared to respond to releases, and track off-site shipments. The Organic Air Emissions standard in Subpart “CC” of the hazardous waste regulations requires that owners/ operators control volatile organic compound (VOC) air emissions from hazardous waste containers and tanks. The rule establishes controls and management standards for waste with VOCs 2100 parts per million by weight. Although previously not thought to affect generators, it is possible that a facility storing wastes in tanks may be subject to full requirements, whereas facilities storing wastes in drums may not be subject to leak detection or recordkeeping requirements. Last, there is a proposed rule (Hazardous Waste Identification Rule) on the table that will allow for the deregulation of hazardous wastes that fall below exit levels set by the standard. This means that wastes previously considered hazardous because they contained a “listed material” (no matter METAL FINISHING
. JANUARY
1997
porting Year (RY) 19951. EPA introduced a Small Quantity Release Exemption starting in RY 1995 for filers who tripped usage thresholds but whose total quantity of releases does not exceed 500 lb. Filers who qualify have only to complete and submit a certification statement to EPA. NO. 1: ON-SITE CONTAMINATION The no. 1 environmental concern is any contamination or potential for contamination of your facility’s site. This item on our list can significantly impact your retirement-we’ve seen it happen in New York City to electroplating shop owners. Lending institutions now require site assessments for property transfers. Before anyone purchases your property, they will want a good look underground. Although site assessments are an added expense, buyers will require them because if contamination is found, more serious site investigations and costly clean-up actions can be prohibitive. In addition, the process can become lengthy. Taking preventive actions as soon as possible is the key to avoiding site contamination. Know the history of your site and the potential for past contamination. Take actions to ensure that releases on-site don’t happen (e.g., line sumps, repair leaks, clean up minor spillage, and train employees in preventive measures).
Circle
091 on reader
what the concentration of that material) may be considered nonhazardous in the future. The new rule has its share of critics who feel that the exit levels have been set so low that not many wastes will fall out of regulation. For example, the exit levels for metal hydroxide sludge (FO06 sludge), which is generated by wastewater pretreatment systems, have been reviewed by the IPC. In the IPC’s opinion, most sludges will continue to be considered hazardous wastes because the exit thresholds are impossible for facilities to meet. 16
information
card
NO. 2: SARA 313 REPORTING PWB manufacturing companies use a number of SARA 313 listed chemicals and chemical compounds and may use them in excess of the reporting thresholds (e.g., processing greater than 25,000 lb of copper, copper compounds, lead, or otherwise using greater than 10,000 lb of nitric acid). PWB manufacturing facilities may, therefore, be subject to annual Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting (Form R), which are due annually by each July 1 [August 1, 1996 for Re-
This piece was coauthored by Lucille C. Servidio, an Associate and Senior Environmental Scientist, and Linda Swift, a Senior Environmental Scientist, both with Capaccio Environmental Engineering. Servidio has been assisting printed wiring board manufacturers with environmental compliance issues for over 10 years. She is a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager, a Certified Toxics Use Reduction Planner, and a Certified Grade IV Industrial Wastewater Treatment Operator. Linda Swift is a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager and a Certified Environmental Trainer.
MF
For a Free Book List Circle 5 6 0 on Reader Service Card / METAL
FINISHING
.
JANUARY
1997
A
s an environmental consultant to the printed wiring board (PWB) manufacturing industry for many years, I am very familiar with the industry and the regulatory challenges you face. To guide your quest for compliance, the top-10 environmental compliance issues that may affect PWB operations have been prioritized. Progressing from the bottom up, the most prevalent issues seen while working with PWB manufacturing facilities are presented. This is not to say that these are the only challenges to be faced, but working on these issues will set a sound base for compliance. Let me begin by introducing you to some of the acronyms that I will use during our ascent through the hierarchy of compliance issues. BMP-Best Management Practice DOT-U.S. Department of Transportation EHS-Extremely Hazardous Substance EPA-Environmental Protection Agency IPC-Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Circuits LEPCLocal Emergency Planning Committee LFD-Local Fire Department MP&M-Metal Products & Machinery POTW-Publicly Owned Treatment Works PRP-Potentially Responsible Party SARA-Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act SERC-State Emergency Response Commission SWP3-Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan NO. 10: BACKFLOW PREVENTION In the climb to the top, backflow prevention is the no. 10 concern on our agenda. Many states require the installation of approved backflow prevention devices (BFPD) at cross connec12
tions (where city potable and nonpotable or industrial process water meet) in order to prevent your process chemistry from backing up into the potable water supply should there be a negative pressure surge on the supply side. The BFPD is typically installed on the main water supply line to protect the city’s supply from backflow from your entire facility and another BFPD (or more) is installed within your facility to protect all internal sanitary (potable) uses from being cross contaminated by process sources. In addition, some states require that you first apply for a permit for each proposed BFPD prior to the actual installation. These permits are renewable (typically annually). Since the potential for contamination of the potable water supply is serious business, testing of the BFPD by a certified tester is also commonly required. For instance, Massachusetts requires that BFPDs be tested semiannually by the water supplier and annually by the owner of the facility. NO. 9: DOT REGISTRATION AND TRAINING The no. 9 concern is the registration and training requirements for the transportation of hazardous materials (haz mats). Very often, facilities that produce articles as products (e.g., printed wiring boards) don’t consider themselves a shipper of haz mats (as defined by the DOT). Often, the product you sell is not a haz mat by DOT definition, but your “hazardous waste” shipped off-site for disposal is a haz mat and is, therefore, subject to DOT requirements. Two of the most common requirements affecting shippers of haz mats are training of personnel responsible for haz mat shipments, and registration as a shipper of certain types of haz mats. Training is required every 3 years for “Haz Mat” employees (personnel responsible in one way or another for the proper packaging, label0 Copyright Elsevier Science Inc.
ing, etc. of a haz mat). Registration is required if a shipper will at any point in time offer 3,500 gallons or more (in a bulk package) or 5,000 lb or more (in a nonbulk package) of any haz mat for shipment. A bulk package is a package with a capacity greater than 119 gallons. So, for example, if you ship your spent etch off-site in a bulk package, you would be a shipper subject to registration requirements. Registration, for a fee of $300, is required annually. NO. 8: MSDS/TIER REPORTING
II
The SARA, Title III, Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act, Sections 311 MSDS and 3 12 Chemical Inventory Reporting requirements taken together are our no. 8 concern. For the purposes of community response planning, storage at any one time of OSHA chemicals (e.g., etchant) in excess of 10,000 lb or EHSs (e.g., nitric acid, sulfuric acid, or cyanide) in excess of the threshold planning quantity (TPQ) (500 lb or less depending on the chemical) requires submittal of either a list of chemicals stored in excess of these thresholds or copies of the MSDSs to the LEPC, LFD, and SERC. In addition, facilities storing chemicals in excess of these thresholds must also report storage on a Tier II reporting form on an annual basis. Tier II reports are due by March 1st and are sent to the LEPC, LFD, and SERC. Don’t forget fuel oil is an OSHA chemical; 1,300-l ,355 gallons (approximately 10,000 pounds) of fuel oil stored on-site for heating purposes can trip the reporting threshold. Some states have their own Tier II formats. Check with your SERC to be sure you have the correct forms. NO. 7: SUPERFUND Number 7 is the environmental issue that has the potential to “resurface” and come from the past to the present METAL FINISHING
l
JANUARY
1997
and bite you at any moment. Sort of like your own Nightmare on Elm Street. The Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) is the one law that ensures that there is a vehicle (the “Superfund”) for the clean up of sites where mismanagement and release of hazardous substances have occurred. It identifies PRP who will be responsible monetarily and legally for the clean up of contaminated site. Even if you can prove that you had no part in the contamination of a listed site (clean up costs can run five and six figures); the legal fees you pay for your defense will be substantial. Your best defense, therefore, is to minimize use of hazardous substances; minimize the amount of waste generated in your operation; know that the facilities handling your waste are transporting, storing, treating, and disposing of your waste properly; and, if possible, inspect the facilities at least once, if not annually.
NO. 6: RISK MANAGEMENT PLANNING The up-and-coming issue of Risk Management Planning (RMP) required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 falls as no. 6 on our list. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA stresses that all facilities have a “general duty” to identify and assess hazards that may result from an accidental release, to prevent accidental releases, and to minimize the consequences of an accidental release. At a minimum, a facility should review large quantity chemical handling, storage, use, and management policies. EPA has now promulgated regulations that ensure that certain facilities follow through with this planning and prevention effort. Although similar to the OSHA Process Safety Management requirements, RMP takes planning for releases a step further. Once you trip the threshold for any of the 140 chemicals in “process” (manufacturing, storing, distributing, handling, or otherwise using), you must register with the EPA, evaluate the facility’s accident history, institute a risk management program, and develop plans for a range of release scenarios including worst-case scenarios. Plans must be submitted to EPA by 1999. This program is meant to reduce the 14
probability of a release that may cause immediate harm to public health and the environment. Through this program, EPA is encouraging relations with the public at large. Be prepared to deal with your local community’s desire to be aware and be involved in your risk assessment and planning efforts. Examples of chemicals and thresholds applicable to the PWB manufacturing industry include hydrochloric acid 15,000 lb, and nitric acid 15,000 lb. Although your facility might not trip a threshold, beware of the “general duty” clause and be prepared.
tions imposed by the POTW. The EPA has extended its original proposal due date from September 1996 to March 1997. The proposal will include decisions as to which operations will be subject to a new MP&M categorical standard as well as to the local limits. This standard is expected to be performance based, dependent on the industry sector served, and flexible in the approach used to meet standards. Our web site (www.capaccio.com), as well as the EPA home page, will keep you up to date on these changes.
NO. 5: STORM WATER PERMITS
NO. 3: HAZARDOUS MANAGEMENT
The rain brings storm water permitting up to the forefront as no. 5 on our list. EPA requires that facilities with storm water discharges that have the potential contact with industrial activity and are also point sources to waters of the United States obtain a permit for that discharge. There are three types of permits for which a facility can apply: a general baseline permit, a general multisector permit, or an individual permit. The type of permit best suited for your facility depends on whether your state has authorization to implement the storm water program and which industry sector your operations represent. Once a facility is subject to permitting, it must develop a SWP3 conduct monitoring (as required by permit approvals), report releases, perform inspections of prevention and response systems, and institute BMPs that ensure prevention of contamination of the waters of the United States. All PWB manufacturing facilities subject to storm water permitting should file for a multisector permit if available in their state, as cost for laboratory analysis for an individual permit is significant. NO. 4: INDUSTRIAL USER DISCHARGE PERMIT One of your top priorities remains the treatment of your wastewater prior to discharge to your local POTW. Ranked fourth on the list there are changes looming for the PWB manufacturing industry. PWB manufacturing facilities are currently subject to electroplating categorical effluent standards as well as any additional restric-
WASTE
New and pending regulations keep hazardous waste management at the top of the list. Recently, EPA promulgated regulations that minimize some of the past requirements for certain hazardous wastes (thermostats and thermometers, pesticides, and batteries) and have provisions for recycling of these wastes. The Universal Waste Rule classifies generators as smallquantity handler of universal waste (accumulates less than 11,000 lb) and large-quantity handler of universal waste (accumulates greater than 11,000 lb). The handler must notify EPA, manage and label the waste properly, provide employee training, be prepared to respond to releases, and track off-site shipments. The Organic Air Emissions standard in Subpart “CC” of the hazardous waste regulations requires that owners/ operators control volatile organic compound (VOC) air emissions from hazardous waste containers and tanks. The rule establishes controls and management standards for waste with VOCs 2100 parts per million by weight. Although previously not thought to affect generators, it is possible that a facility storing wastes in tanks may be subject to full requirements, whereas facilities storing wastes in drums may not be subject to leak detection or recordkeeping requirements. Last, there is a proposed rule (Hazardous Waste Identification Rule) on the table that will allow for the deregulation of hazardous wastes that fall below exit levels set by the standard. This means that wastes previously considered hazardous because they contained a “listed material” (no matter METAL FINISHING
. JANUARY
1997
porting Year (RY) 19951. EPA introduced a Small Quantity Release Exemption starting in RY 1995 for filers who tripped usage thresholds but whose total quantity of releases does not exceed 500 lb. Filers who qualify have only to complete and submit a certification statement to EPA. NO. 1: ON-SITE CONTAMINATION The no. 1 environmental concern is any contamination or potential for contamination of your facility’s site. This item on our list can significantly impact your retirement-we’ve seen it happen in New York City to electroplating shop owners. Lending institutions now require site assessments for property transfers. Before anyone purchases your property, they will want a good look underground. Although site assessments are an added expense, buyers will require them because if contamination is found, more serious site investigations and costly clean-up actions can be prohibitive. In addition, the process can become lengthy. Taking preventive actions as soon as possible is the key to avoiding site contamination. Know the history of your site and the potential for past contamination. Take actions to ensure that releases on-site don’t happen (e.g., line sumps, repair leaks, clean up minor spillage, and train employees in preventive measures).
Circle
091 on reader
what the concentration of that material) may be considered nonhazardous in the future. The new rule has its share of critics who feel that the exit levels have been set so low that not many wastes will fall out of regulation. For example, the exit levels for metal hydroxide sludge (FO06 sludge), which is generated by wastewater pretreatment systems, have been reviewed by the IPC. In the IPC’s opinion, most sludges will continue to be considered hazardous wastes because the exit thresholds are impossible for facilities to meet. 16
information
card
NO. 2: SARA 313 REPORTING PWB manufacturing companies use a number of SARA 313 listed chemicals and chemical compounds and may use them in excess of the reporting thresholds (e.g., processing greater than 25,000 lb of copper, copper compounds, lead, or otherwise using greater than 10,000 lb of nitric acid). PWB manufacturing facilities may, therefore, be subject to annual Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting (Form R), which are due annually by each July 1 [August 1, 1996 for Re-
This piece was coauthored by Lucille C. Servidio, an Associate and Senior Environmental Scientist, and Linda Swift, a Senior Environmental Scientist, both with Capaccio Environmental Engineering. Servidio has been assisting printed wiring board manufacturers with environmental compliance issues for over 10 years. She is a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager, a Certified Toxics Use Reduction Planner, and a Certified Grade IV Industrial Wastewater Treatment Operator. Linda Swift is a Certified Hazardous Materials Manager and a Certified Environmental Trainer.
MF
For a Free Book List Circle 5 6 0 on Reader Service Card / METAL
FINISHING
.
JANUARY
1997