By Lucy Servidio and Linda Swift

As an environmental consultant to the Printed Wiring Board (PWB) manufacturing industry for many years, Capaccio Environmental Engineering Inc. (Capaccio) is very familiar with the industry and the regulatory challenges you face. To guide you in your quest for compliance, Capaccio has prioritized the top ten environmental compliance issues that may affect your operations. Starting from the bottom up, we will present the most prevalent issues we have seen when working with PWB manufacturing facilities. This is not to say that these are the only challenges you may face, but working on these issues will set a sound base for compliance.

Let’s first start by introducing you to some of the acronyms that we will use during our assent 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

LEPC: Local 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

In the climb to the top, "backflow prevention" is the number ten concern on our agenda. Many states require the installation of approved backflow prevention devices (BFPD) at cross connections (where city potable and non-potable 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 backflow supply from your entire facility. 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 semi-annually by the water supplier and annually by the owner of the facility.

The number nine 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., PWBs) don’t consider themselves shippers of hazardous materials (as defined by the U.S. Department of Transportation). Often times, the product you sell is not a hazardous material by DOT definition, but your "hazardous waste" shipped off-site for disposal is a hazardous material and is therefore subject to DOT requirements.

Two of the most common requirements affecting shippers of hazardous materials are training of personnel responsible for haz mat shipments and registration as a shipper of certain types of haz mats. Training is required every three years for "Haz Mat" employees (personnel responsible in one way or another for the proper packaging, labeling, etc., of a haz mat). Registration is required if a shipper offers, at any point in time, 3,500 gallons or more (in a bulk package) or 5,000 pounds or more (in a non-bulk 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 is required annually for a fee of $300.

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), Title III, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, Sections 311 Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) and 312 Chemical Inventory Reporting requirements taken together are our number eight concern. For the purposes of community response planning, storage at any one time of OSHA chemicals (e.g., etchant) in excess of 10,000 pounds or extremely hazardous substances (EHSs—e.g., nitric acid, sulfuric acid, or cyanide) in excess of the threshold planning quantity (TPQ—500 pounds or less depending on the chemical) requires submittal of either a list of chemicals stored in excess of these thresholds or copies of the Material Safety Data Sheets (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 1 March and are sent to the LEPC, LFD, and SERC. Don’t forget fuel oil is an OSHA chemical—1,300–1,355 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.

Number seven is an environmental issue that has the potential to "resurface" and come from the past to the present and bite you at any moment—sort of like your own Nightmare on Elm Street! The Comprehensive Environmental 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 Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP) who will be responsible monetarily and legally for the clean up of a 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. Therefore, your best defense 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.

Risk Management Planning (RMP) as required by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 ranks sixth on our list. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA stresses that all facilities have a "general duty" to identify and assess hazards which may result from an accidental release, 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. The EPA has now promulgated regulations which 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 the EPA by 1999. This program is meant to reduce the 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 a local community’s desire to be aware—and involved—in your risk assessment and planning efforts. Examples of chemicals and thresholds applicable to the PWB manufacturing industry include hydrochloric acid/15,000 lbs. and nitric acid/15,000 lbs. While your facility might not trip a threshold, beware of the "general duty" clause and be prepared.

The rain brings storm water permitting towards the forefront as number five on our list. The EPA requires that facilities with storm water discharges which have the potential for 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 multi-sector 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 storm water pollution prevention plan, conduct monitoring (as required by permit approvals), report releases, perform inspections of prevention and response systems, and institute best management practices that ensure prevention of contamination of the waters in the U.S. All PWB manufacturing facilities subject to storm water permitting should file for a multi-sector permit if available in their state since cost for lab analysis for an individual permit is significant.

One of your top priorities remains the treatment of wastewater prior to discharge to your local publicly owned treatment works (POTW). Ranking fourth on the list of top ten environmental concerns, there are changes looming for the PWB manufacturing industry in terms of wastewater treatment. PWB manufacturing facilities are currently subject to electroplating categorical effluent standards as well as any additional restrictions imposed by the POTW. The EPA’s original finalization date for Phase I of the new Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) categorical standard has been extended from September 1996 to March 1997 as a result of negotiations which may combine Phase I and Phase II of the regulations. If the two phases are combined, it is likely that the regulations will not be finalized until 2001. Negotiations will include discussion on which operations will be subject to a new MP&M categorical standard as well as 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. For updates on these changes, visit the Capaccio Environmental Engineering web site (www.capaccio.com) or the EPA home page.

New and pending regulations keep hazardous waste management near the top of the list! Recently, the EPA promulgated regulations that minimize some of the past requirements for certain hazardous wastes called "Universal Wastes" (thermostats and thermometers, pesticides, and batteries) and has provisions for recycling these wastes. The Universal Waste Rule classifies generators as small quantity handler of universal waste (accumulates less than 11,000 lbs.) and large quantity handlers of universal waste (accumulates greater than 11,000 lbs.). 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 hazardous waste with VOCs > 500 parts per million by weight (ppmw). Although previously not thought to affect generators, it is possible that a facility storing hazardous wastes in tanks may be subject to full requirements, while facilities storing hazardous wastes in tightly sealed, DOT-approved drums, may not be subject to leak detection or record keeping requirements.

Lastly, 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 what the concentration of that material) may be considered non-hazardous 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 (F006 sludge) which is generated by wastewater pre-treatment 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! Most recently, the EPA has stated that it will revise the latest Hazardous Waste Identification Rule proposal and the re-proposal will take "a matter of years."

Since 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 lbs. of copper, copper compounds, lead or otherwise using greater than 10,000 lbs. of nitric acid), PWB Manufacturing facilities may be subject to annual Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting (Form R). Form R reports are due by 1 July every year. The EPA introduced a Small Quantity Release Exemption starting in 1995 for filers who tripped usage thresholds but whose total quantity of releases does not exceed 500 lbs. Filers who qualify have only to complete and submit a certification statement to the EPA. The EPA is planning on proposing a new rule which will require industry to report chemical use data by December 1997.

The number one environmental concern is any contamination or potential for contamination of your facility’s site. This one 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 preventative 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 of minor spillage, and training employees in preventative measures).

This article was co-authored by Associate and Senior Environmental Scientist Lucy Servidio and Senior Environmental Scientist Linda Swift, both of whom work for Capaccio Environmental Engineering, Inc., a member of the IPC. Servidio has been assisting IPC member companies with environmental compliance issues for over ten years. She is a certified Hazardous Materials Manager, a certified Toxics Use Reduction Planner, and a certified Grade IV Industrial Wastewater Treatment Operator. Swift is a certified Hazardous Materials Manager and a certified Environmental Trainer.