|
Project
|
Client
|
Date
|
|
Applied Environmental Management Systems in Agriculture
Conference
|
EPA Region 7
|
September 2003 – May 2004
|
|
SES was hired by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 (EPA) to organize
and conduct the first ever EPA conference on application of environmental
management systems (EMS) in agriculture. SES found the
leading EMS practitioners in North America and brought them to Kansas
City, Missouri for two days to present on and discuss fundamental issues
relative to applying EMS in agriculture.
|
|
Regulatory
Compliance Audit
|
HBD Industries
|
September 2001
|
|
In response to regulator inspections
and noted environmental deficiencies, SES conducted a
regulatory compliance audit of a manufacturing facility located in
Kansas. The objective of the audit
was to assure compliance with applicable state and federal environmental
regulations and permits.
Completion of the audit required a field visit that included
thorough interviews with facility management and staff to assess
environmental management practices, knowledge of environmental
regulations, and how operations could affect environmental concerns. Following completion of the field visit
SES completed a comprehensive report.
The final report was delivered within two weeks following
completion of the field visit.
|
|
Environmental
Management System Development
|
Environmental Management Solutions, LLC.
|
2002
|
|
Working
with the client, the US EPA, and industry experts, SES
developed a template for livestock producers to use to complete
individual environmental management systems (EMS). SES
continued to work with the client to acquire funding from the US EPA to
allow pilot testing of the program at 10 locations in two states.
|
|
Regulatory
Compliance Audit
|
MFA, Inc.
|
August 2001
|
|
SES conducted a regulatory compliance audit of a feed mill located in
Missouri. The audit required a
review of facility operations to assure compliance with all applicable
state and federal environmental regulations and permits, including the
Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, and Community Right-to-Know Requirements. The audit consisted of a field visit
including interviews with facility management and staff. Following completion of the field visit
SES completed a comprehensive report.
The final report was delivered within two weeks following
completion of the field visit.
|
|
Environmental Management Support
|
Confidential Client
|
September 1998 to October 2000
|
|
SES has provided key technical assistance in response to an
enforcement action by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
against the client regarding a hazardous waste issue. SES conducted file
reviews and provided other technical support including calculation of
alternate penalty amounts and project values for supplemental
environmental projects. As a
result of SES’s effort, the penalty against the client was reduced.
Part of the settlement included
provisions for improved environmental management for the facility. This included hazardous waste training
for the staff, and development of a hazardous waste contingency
plan. SES prepared and
presented hazardous waste training that fulfilled all requirements of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Topics included an overview of RCRA
hazardous waste management, container accumulation issues, and
manifesting. Concurrent with the
training, SES developed a hazardous waste contingency plan that met all of the
requirements of RCRA. SES documented
arrangements made with all required local authorities. The contingency plan identified
emergency coordinators and their responsibilities. All appropriate emergency procedures
were included in the plan.
|
|
Risk Management Program Support
|
NPPC
|
July 1998 to June 1999
|
|
The NPPC was examining ways to
assist its members in complying with the Clean Air Act regulations (112
(r)) regarding risk management relative to the storage and use of toxic,
flammable and explosive chemicals. SES developed a
compliance program and workbook for NPPC’s use to help pork producers
comply with EPA's risk management program. SES worked closely
with NPPC to develop an outreach program to ensure that all pork
producers are aware of the requirements of this program.
|
|
Identification of Surface and Groundwater
Risk Areas
|
Great American Insurance Company
|
June 2000 to September 2000
|
|
SES collected information related to surface and groundwater for locations
where the client was underwriting pollution coverage. For surface water risks, SES considered
Clean Water Act 305(b) and 303(d) reports dealing with water quality and
impaired waters. SES also collected
numerous published geological reports to identify groundwater risks.
|
|
Clean Water Act Section 303 (d) Support
|
Private Confidential Client
|
July 1999 to July 2000
|
|
SES investigated the basis for listing waterbodies on the 1998 303(d)
lists (water quality impaired waterbodies) for three states. SES examined the
criteria that the states and EPA used to list these waters including
failure to meet numeric versus narrative criteria and designated use
criteria. SES also examined
the states’ lists to determine if the waterbody was listed based on
evaluated versus monitored data and if the source of impairment for the
waterbody was attributed to point or nonpoint source pollution.
Ultimately, SES assessed and compared the overall data quality and methods used by
the three states and different EPA Regions to create the 1998 303(d)
lists.
|
|
Water Quality Permit Support
|
Premium Standard Farms
|
January 2000 to Present
|
|
SES produced a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the required surface
water and other monitoring in Premium Standard Farms’ (PSF) water quality
permits. In addition, SES developed
protocols and provided training for new sampling and analysis
requirements in these permits.
|
|
Multi-State Pork Production Environmental
Regulations Database
|
NPPC
|
2000 to 2002
|
|
SES compiled environmental regulations for all pork producing
states. SES complied the
regulations by searching the internet and by directly contacting the
state agencies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
