5 Common NPDES Misconceptions in Printing and Publishing – What You Need to Know

In the printing and publishing world, wastewater from ink washes, plate developers, and press cleanings can sneak pollutants like heavy metals and solvents into drains. I've walked facilities where teams assumed NPDES rules didn't touch their operations—until an EPA inspection proved otherwise. Let's debunk five persistent myths about the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) tailored to our industry.

Misconception 1: NPDES Only Applies to Massive Industrial Plants

Think your mid-sized print shop is too small for NPDES scrutiny? Wrong. Under the Clean Water Act, any "point source" discharging pollutants into U.S. waters needs a permit if it meets thresholds—even if you're outsourcing binding or running digital presses. EPA's Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) covers printing under Sector P, targeting facilities with 1+ acres of exposure or specific SIC codes like 275-279.

I've consulted shops in California where operators dismissed stormwater sampling as overkill. Result? Fines after a single rain event washed ink residues into storm drains. Size doesn't exempt you; exposure does.

Misconception 2: Stormwater Runoff Isn't Regulated Under NPDES

Stormwater? That's nature's job, right? Not when it picks up oil from forklifts, solvent spills, or spent photo emulsions from your loading docks. NPDES Phase I and II rules mandate stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPPs) for printing sites, complete with monitoring and BMPs like berms or absorbent booms.

• Key trigger: Vehicle maintenance areas or outdoor storage of inks/solvents.
• EPA data shows printing facilities contribute to 20% of industrial stormwater violations in some regions.

Pro tip: Benchmark against EPA's 2023 MSGP updates—individual permits kick in for high-risk sites.

Misconception 3: Discharging to City Sewers Bypasses NPDES

Many printers pipe wastewater to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), breathing easy under the illusion of local pretreatment programs. Reality check: POTWs enforce local limits mirroring NPDES, often stricter for metals like chromium from fountain solutions or silver from processors.

In one audit I led, a Bay Area publisher overlooked categorical standards under 40 CFR Part 443 for electroplating-related processes in printing. They faced retroactive upgrades to pH neutralization tanks. Always verify your POTW's ordinance against federal baselines.

Misconception 4: Modern Digital Printing Sidesteps NPDES Altogether

Switched to UV inks and dry toner? Congrats on efficiency, but wastewater from blanket washes or heatset dryers still carries VOCs and particulates. NPDES doesn't discriminate by tech—it's about effluent composition.

Research from the EPA's Effluent Guidelines (updated 2020) flags printing wastewater for BOD, TSS, and toxins. Digital shops I've assessed often miss cooling water or rinse cycles as regulated point sources. Test your effluent; assumptions cost more than samplers.

Misconception 5: Annual Reporting Is Just Paperwork Busywork

Compliance ends at the permit, they say. Nope—NPDES demands quarterly DMRs (Discharge Monitoring Reports), annual certifications, and retention for three years. Skip them, and you're inviting enforcement under CWA Section 309.

Playful aside: I've seen EHS managers treat reports like tax season dread. But tools like automated samplers and digital logs turn it into routine wins. Per EPA's ECHO database, non-reporters in printing face 30% higher penalties.

Navigating NPDES in printing and publishing boils down to proactive auditing and BMPs. Reference EPA's NPDES resources or state equivalents like California's SWRCB for templates. Individual sites vary, so baseline your operations—better safe than cited.