Connecticut Hospitality E-News, Special Alert, December 16, 2004

CT DEP Determined To Enact Fats, Oils & Grease Permit

Special Alert to all CRA Members:

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection has completed its public comment period and despite strong opposition is moving forward with plans to enact a statewide General Permit which will effect over 10,000 Class III & IV food service establishments, costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

Virtually every facility in Connecticut will be affected by this permit.  Even if the facility currently has a grease interceptor or trap, unless it was recently installed it probably will not meet the standards being proposed and will require upgrading of equipment and/or plumbing.  After the upgrade and those few that do meet the new requirements will be required to ship all waste to one of only two facilities in Connecticut which can accept this waste.  This will increase the cost of the annual maintenance by thousands of dollars each year.  This permit will apply to all food preparation facilities – restaurants, hotels, bars, schools, heath care, churches & clubs – any facility that prepares foods for the public.

To stop this harmful regulation we must get the message out to those impacted and let the Governor and Legislators know that while we support the goal of reducing the amount of fats, oil & grease (FOG) in the public sewer system this proposal is going too far, too fast.  The Legislatures Committee’s on Environment and Regulatory Review can intervene but they need to hear from restaurateurs.  The only other course to halting the General Permit from being issued is for the Governor to get involved and for the new DEP Commissioner to withdraw it.  The Governor’s Office has not heard enough from industry in its opposition. we need everyone’s voice to be heard.

Members must be encouraged to contact:

Governor’s Chief of Staff,  Lisa Moody,  860-566-4840,  lisa.moody@po.state.ct.us

Chair Environment Cmte.,  Sen. Andrea Stillman,  860-240-0460,  andrea.stillman@cga.ct.us

Vice Chair Envir. Cmte.,  Sen. Edward Meyer,  860-240-8585,  meyer@senatedems.state.ct.us

Chair Regulatory Review,  Sen. Jonathan Harris, 860-240-0447,  harris@senatedems.state.ct.us

Mbr. Envir. Cmte.,  Sen. Christopher Murphy,  860-240-0567,  Murphy@senatedems.state.ct.us

All local Legislators

General Permit Information & Talking Points

• Requires that all food service facilities rated as Class III and IV by the Dept. of Public Health install an Outdoor In-Ground Grease Trap/Interceptor (Passive Interceptor) of at least 1,000 gallons or an in-door electrically operated Active Grease Recovery Unit (AGRU) by January 1, 2008 (3 Years).  The Permit further requires that waste be hauled to one of two regional disposal sites for refining and eventual use as a fuel at solid waste incinerators.

• This proposal is the most far reaching of any FOG program in the United States, it is even more onerous than any of California’s various County programs.  Most of the FOG programs around the U.S. are regional and focus first on education, most localities require the installation of grease traps or interceptors for new businesses or those identified as problem operations.  No localities could be found that require the installation of the more expensive AGRU (Active Grease Recovery Units) in place of interior grease traps where in-ground interceptors are not feasible.  No municipalities were found that required long distance hauling of waste to regional facilities.

• Compliance date too short – for many facilities the 3 year compliance date will pose an insurmountable hardship.  The anticipated cost of $8,000 for an AGRU with plumbing to upwards of $15,000- $25,000 for a passive trap will put a major burden on an industry with an average profit margin of less than 4% of sales.  A more workable solution would be to require installation for new businesses or those that undertake a major renovation.

• It is critical that a cost vs. benefit study be undertaken to determine whether the extreme approach of this general permit is truly necessary to achieve the stated goals.  At the very least the Administrative Procedures, Act Sec. 4-168a. Regulations Affecting Small Businesses, would require that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared and the impact on Connecticut’s small business community be considered.

• The General Permit relies on old technology and in fact would not allow any of the new products which are not only proving to benefit the elimination of FOG but also improve treatment plant operations.  Currently, Orange County CA and North Carolina have studies underway ($700K & $400K respectively) which are studying FOG and the effectiveness of various products to reduce it.  One of the leading products is a biological organic additive – for more info visit www.bio-organic.com/technology.htm.

• Many waste treatment facilities have come out in support of the permit (for obvious reasons), however most local Health Departments are against it.  The Sanitarians concerns are twofold; first they will have an unfunded mandate to do the enforcement and secondly they feel that new cooling requirements being adopted by the Dept. of Public Health that will force many restaurants to replace older refrigerators within five years are a more immediate public health issue and they understand the financial impact that both requirements would have on small businesses.

• Currently there are only two regional disposal sites with facilities approved to take this waste.  This lack of facilities will significantly drive up the cost of disposal and eliminate any fuel use reduction enjoyed by incinerator operators.  The ongoing cost of disposal even if additional sites do come on-line as promised will be major and do not justify the requiring of disposal at regional sites versus at local waste treatment facilities.  If the fractionalization of this waste into an energy source is beneficial local treatment plants will install the equipment and sell the resulting product to the incinerator operators.

• The permittee is responsible for ascertaining that the haulers meet certain criteria including: a) vehicle used is watertight and clean; b) that no defective or leaking equipment is used; c) that the water used to rinse out the vehicle is properly disposed of.  There is no way for the restaurant operator to verify this information and the certification of haulers should be the role of the State.

• The permittee is responsible for all inspections and recordkeeping – restaurant operators have neither the expertise nor the time to devote to inspecting and maintaining logs as called for in the General Permit.  This task should fall on the haulers and be a required part of the service that they provide.

• The General Permit requires that 5 years of records on inspections, cleanings and maintenance be maintained on site at the permit facility.  In many cases that will be a burden as these records would normally be stored at a regional office or other convenient facility due to the lack of office and storage space in the typical restaurant.  Two years of records should be sufficient and the location should not be an issue as long as they are made reasonably available to inspection.

• The cost to be born by the 10,000 restaurants, food stores, educational, non-profit and other businesses will be over $100 million for equipment and installation, with an additional $75 million for maintenance over the first three years of the program.  That’s more than $175 million dollars removed from the small business community that will not go toward wages and benefits, capitol improvements or business expansion here in Connecticut.

  CLICK HERE to download a printable PDF of this alert.

This information has been prepared and distributed by the Connecticut Restaurant Association.

To view the draft permit visit: http://www.dep.state.ct.us/wtr/generalpermits/fogindex.htm

For more information contact the CRA at 860-635-3334 or jim@ctrestaurant.org.

___________________________________________________________________________

To add additional people in your company to the CRA email list, CLICK HERE.