Update from Commissioner Suuberg and the …...•1 LF project currently under construction (6 MW,...

transcript

EBC Program Series with MassDEP Leadership:

Update from Commissioner Suuberg and

the Western Regional Leadership Team

Welcome

Daniel K. Moon

Executive Director & President

Environmental Business Council of New England

Energy Environment Economy

Keynote

Martin Suuberg

Commissioner

Department of Environmental Protection

Commonwealth of Massachusetts

EBC Program Series with

MassDEP Regional Offices

Commissioner Suuberg and the

MassDEP Western Regional Office Leadership

November 8, 2017

Commissioner’s Overview -

• MassDEP Generally • FY 18

• Climate • “3(d)” Rules; new stakeholder processes

underway • RGGI • Going Forward

• NPDES • Delegation • MS4

Commissioner’s Overview

• Lead in Drinking Water

• FY 17 and FY 18 Schools Initiative

• IT Improvements – EIPAS!!!

• Some permits on line; data sharing portal

• More to follow

Commissioner’s Overview

• Outreach

• Ombudsman

• Municipal Partnerships

• MS4 – Stormwater Coalitions

• Urban Compliance Initiatives

• Better Use of Technology/Web

• An Open Invitation

Update from MassDEP

Western Leadership Team

• Michael Gorski, Regional Director

• Eva Tor, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup

• Brian Harrington, Bureau of Water Resources

• Steve Ellis, Bureau of Air and Waste

Michael Gorski

Regional Director

Michael.Gorski@state.ma.us

413-755-2213

WERO Regional Priorities

• Municipal Outreach and Assistance

• Technical Assistance

• Enforcement

• Permit Timelines

Initiatives

• Urban Initiatives

• STEP – Small Town Environmental Partnership

• Wetlands Off-site Mitigation Opportunity List

• Wetlands Certificates of Compliance

Urban Initiatives

• Springfield

– Ward 1

– “Quality of life initiative”

• Chicopee

– Willamansett section

• Holyoke

– Brownfields component only

• Small Towns only

• Voluntary

• Agreement to come into compliance

• Comprehensive inspection

• Department action on egregious violations only

• True partnership benefiting the Town and the environment

Off-site Wetlands Mitigation List

• Experimental Pilot – WERO only

• Many wetlands projects require mitigation

• On-site favored but not always feasible

• Off-site possible but hard to find

• Started with DCR, expanding to Con Coms then DPWs

• Potential Projects catalogued by Town

Off-site Wetlands Mitigation List

• Easy to locate within watershed of impacts

• Owner support – easy to gain access agreements

• Eliminates search and cold calls

• Taxpayer benefit as it fixes a public problem

• Permittee provides free public benefit and gets build project

Wetlands Certificates of Compliance Initiative

• COC close out Superseding Orders of Conditions

• Once all requirements are met…

• Should be requested by project proponent

• If not - remains open

• Recorded in Reg. of Deeds or Land Court

• Clears title

• COC were issued as part of initiative

• Allows DEP to dispose of records

Preparedness

• Preplanning – All Hazards Approach

• Internal Special and on-going trainings

• External training offerings – Such as FD boom training

• Table Top Exercises

• Full scale exercises

• Incident Command Opportunities – Ex.: Big E Command Post Staffing

Enforcement

• Inspections – 1815 primary inspections • Report Reviews – 17,200 • RERC cases - 40 • LLE - 363 • HLE - 134 • Avg. Penalty – $7,720 • Total Penalty - $502,000 • AG referrals - 1

5 Common Violations and how to prevent them

• Exceeding emission limits of a plan approval – Accountability to track & maintain adequate records

• Failure to conduct monthly inspections of USTs – Accountability to perform and document

• Exceeding HW storage limits – Accountability to record and track

• Failure to document weekly inspections HWA – Accountability of assigned staff

• Failure to notify a release or threat of release – Training and after hours protocol

Prevention Theme

• Training of responsible assigned staff

• Accountability to policy and procedures

• Environmental Impacts & legal requirements

• Establishing Programs

• Monitor and measure progress

• Ensure employees’ environmental awareness

• Review progress and make improvements

• Frequently update procedures, call lists, staff assignments

Thank you

• Thank you for your attention

• Know that we are only a phone call away

• Call us with questions

• We’ll willingly give technical assistance and pre-permitting assistance

• Thank you for your efforts to protect the environment here in Massachusetts

Bureau of Air & Waste (BAW) Steve Ellis, Deputy Regional Director

• BAW Compliance & Enforcement

• Air Monitoring Network

• Materials Recycling Facility (MRF)

• Solar on Landfills & Brownfields

BAW Compliance Inspections

• 3200 regulated facilities • 5000+ regulated objects (most HW; USTs, Air, SW) • FY2017: 520 inspections • Planned (45% of inspections)

– PPA: Type/amount of HW generation, air emissions, type of facility – Active solid waste disposal facilities – Initiatives

• Complaints/Referrals • Stack Tests • Construction/Installation Notification

BAW Enforcement

LLE HLE

5 YR AVE

• 17% inspections resulted in enforcement

• Common Violations

– Report submittals

– Waste Ban

– HW management • Lines

• Lids

• Labels

Western Mass. Air Monitoring Locations

Pittsfield (2)

Greenfield

Springfield

Chicopee

Measured Parameters

Monitoring Sites Ozone CO SO2 NOx NOy Pb Met PM10 PM2.5 BAM PAMS BC SPEC

Chicopee - Westover AFB ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Greenfield - Veterans

Field ♦ ♦ ♦

Pittsfield - Center Street ♦

Pittsfield - South Street ♦

Springfield - Liberty

Street ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Ware - Quabbin Summit ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

Air Monitoring Station- Greenfield

Air Monitoring Station- Pittsfield

8-hr Ground Level Ozone Exceedance Days and

Exceedance Totals: 1987-2015

PM 2.5 Annual Arithmetic Mean (ug/m3)- Springfield

2016201520142013201220112010200920082007

annual arithmetic mean

Additional Air Monitoring Information

• http://www.mass.gov/eea/agencies/massdep/air/quality/air-monitoring-reports-and-

studies.html

• http://public.dep.state.ma.us/MassAir/Pages/MapForecast

• http://public.dep.state.ma.us/MassAir/Pages/ChartByPollutant.aspx

Materials Recycling Facility (MRF) Birnie Avenue, Springfield

MRF Program Summary

• 74 participating communities • Partnership between local/

state government and private operator (WM Recycle America)

• Over 1 million tons processed and marketed (40,000+ tons/year)

• Over $15 million paid to communities

• Over $60 million saved in avoided disposal costs

• Current operator contract expires June 2020

• Tours/Info: SpringfieldMRF.org

Recycling Trends & Challenges • Shift towards single stream and PAYT;

MRFs getting larger; Tip fees common • Newspaper circulation halved since

1990 – 2000: 70% of household recyclables by

weight were paper/cardboard items. – 2017: 56% of household recyclables by

weight were paper/cardboard items.

• Lightweighting of containers; new packaging

• Processing technology evolving; optical sensors and robotics

• Global commodity markets changing: recyclables 6th largest US export with 1/3 shipped overseas, mostly to China

Solar Facilities on Landfills and Brownfields

Landfills and Brownfields Solar Projects

• 20 LF projects currently operational (45.5 MW, approximately 7,300 households). 11 operational in 2016.

• 1 LF project currently under construction (6 MW, approximately 850 households).

• 13 Brownfields projects operational (48.9 MW approximately 7,800 households).

• Former uses as foundry, airport, gravel pit, power plant, paper mill, landfill, chemical plant, and other commercial and industrial uses.

Eva Tor

Deputy Regional Director

Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup

Eva.Tor@state.ma.us

413-755-2295

WERO Waste Site Cleanup

Three Major Groups: • Emergency Response

• Audits

• Brownfields and Risk Reduction

WERO Universe of 21E Sites

• Open sites in FY17: 347 • Sites closed in FY17: 217 • Total closed sites: 6,157

Sites 5%

Closed Sites 95%

Emergency Response – FY17

• 270 Notifications

• 186 Reportable Notifications

• Percentage historically closed in the first year: 90%+

• 179 Complaints

Emergency Response – Asbestos

• 507 Primary Inspections • 55 Non-Traditional Work Practices Permits

Issued • 4,582 Asbestos Notifications Received

Common asbestos violations: • Glove bags • Dry rips • Cleaning/post-clearance • Containment failures • Work practices (e.g. siding)

Emergency Response Example

• January 3, 2017

• Peter Pan bus collision with parked home heating oil delivery truck N 116 South Hadley/Granby line

• Up to 2,800 gallons released

• Roadway, residential lawns, storm drains impacted

Response Actions/Cleanup

• FD – Placement of garbage receptacles under truck, blocked storm drains

• MassDEP – Placement of drums under truck and worked with Town to deploy sand to block flow

• Tow truck lifted truck to slow release • Establishment of a collection point • Placement of boom • Vactor used to remove oil from ponded area

and clean storm drains • Removal of oil impacted soil and snow

Audits – FY17

• 421 Audits • 314 Level 1, Technical Screening Audits

• 60 Level 2 Audits (AULs and Remedial

Systems)

• 32 Level 3, Comprehensive Audits • 9 random • 23 targeted based on screening

Audits – Non-Compliance

• Level 1 Audits: • 1% • 10% targeted for Level 3

• Level 2 Audits: • AULs: 10% • Remedial Systems: 33%

• Level 3 Audits: • Random: 25% • Targeted: 50%

Audits – AULs

• Activity and Use Limitations – cleanup to current site uses. Less than “unrestricted” use

• Common violations that often lead to enforcement: • Person who signed didn’t have proper

authority or documentation of their signatory authority

• Unclear language of permitted or restricted activities or obligations and conditions

Audits – AULs, common issues/viol.

• Include reasonable language for obligations and conditions that will be followed

• Failure to reference the AUL in Deeds or other instruments of transfer document (necessary to ensure new property owner is aware of AUL requirements)

Brownfields

• 275 - Number of Brownfields in WERO • Approximately 25% are in Springfield

Brownfields – EPA Funding

• $4.6 MM Assessment and Cleanup to Mass • $2.1 MM to WERO Projects

Entity Type of Grant Award Amount, $

Berkshire Regional Planning Commission Assessment $300,000

City of North Adams Assessment $300,000

Town of Williamstown Cleanup $200,000

Town of Great Barrington Assessment $300,000

Belchertown EDIC Cleanup $400,000

City of Chicopee Cleanup $600,000

Former Standard Uniform/Games & Lanes

• 2.3 acre lot, Walnut Street Extension, Agawam • Mixed commercial/residential area • Former Standard Uniform – industrial

laundry/dry cleaning in the 1960s • PCE – perchloroethylene • Offsite groundwater migration, soil

contamination • Bowling alley, game arcade – fire 2001

Former Standard Uniform/Games & Lanes

• Town of Agawam - $50,000 MassDevelopment Brownfield Grant

• Assessment off-site GW migration, indoor air • Purchased by Site Redevelopment

Technologies – 2016 • Completed the cleanup and demolished the

building

MassDEP WERO Bureau of Water Resources

EBC – 2017

Brian Harrington Deputy Regional Director

Bureau of Water Resources (Drinking Water, Wastewater, Wetlands, Municipal Services)

MassDEP Western Regional Office

Inspections (Why are you picking on me?)

• Performance Partnership Agreement

• Complaints/Referrals

• Compliance – permitting, permitted/regulated

• Technical Assistance

• Incidents/Violations

• SRF Projects

Performance Partnership Agreement

• How are facilities chosen – Drinking Water –

• Sanitary Surveys – Community Systems every 3 years, others every 5 years,

• Miscellaneous

– Wastewater – (Modified) Basin Cycle, 5-year cycle • NPDES Majors and Minors • Miscellaneous – Groundwater, other NPDES including IWW

– Wetlands (Chapter 91)

• 286 Required PPA inspections in FY-2016 • 464 Actual PPA inspections in FY- 2016

Complaint Referrals

• Most Complaints referred to local authority

– Conservation Commission / Board of Health

• Best opportunity for easy resolution

– Most have limited penalty authority

– MassDEP provides technical assistance to locals

– Generally no DEP action if resolved locally

• DEP may step in if unresolved or noncompliant

• More significant violation may warrant DEP involvement

Wetlands Permitting and Appeals (Perception vs. Reality)

• 428 Notices of Intent Jan. – Oct. 2017 – >50% of NOIs filed electronically (233)

• 11 Water Quality Certifications (larger projects) • 2017 WERO Notice of Intent Permit Appeals

3 - Con Comm orders appealed to DEP 0 - Superseding Orders appealed to Office of Appeals and Dispute Resolution (OADR) 0 - Interventions (DEP appeal of Com Comm Order)

• 11 Water Quality Certifications (larger projects) – 1 appealed to OADR (Affirmed) – TGP Pipeline – 6/29/16 Permit, 3/27/17 Final Decision,

Also FERC, Superior Court, 1st Circuit, Fed. Ct. of Appeals

How does WERO keep those numbers low?

• Conscious decision on allocation of resources • Attention to files from the start

– Pre-permitting meetings – Identify concerns early – Opportunity for Applicant/Consultant to resolve

• Focus on “Environmental Protection” – What is the Environmental Benefit?

• Supervisory Involvement – Ensure Environmental Benefit warrant requirements

• Appeal Process – Timelines and Standards – Appeal is not a “Black Hole” – Short Timelines & Burden of Proof

Notice of Intent Review

• Each Notice of Intent filing is reviewed – File Number if administratively complete – File Number Comments – http://public.dep.state.ma.us/wetland/wetland.aspx

• Be sure filing fee is correct – Additional Revenue to communities from review

• $8,628.00 state share, same amount town share

– Correct fee has been recent focus by project opponents

• Projects with larger impacts warrant more review • File Number comments critical to success

– Obtain Permit – avoid Appeal / win if an Appeal

Wetlands Circuit Rider

• Integral part of Success • Primary Point of Contact for Conservation

Commissions – Mark Stinson – 413-755-2257

• Commissions vary in need/willingness to work with DEP

• Attends Con Comm meetings regularly - 44 • Field visits to assist commissions – 80 • Trainings – Groups (DCR, Trail groups, Lake and

Pond Associations, DPW Associations, etc..)

Circuit Rider Hotline

• Established a Circuit Rider Hotline in July 2016 – 34 Hotline Nights since July 2016

• Circuit Rider available by phone in evenings – Most conservation commission meet at night – Most are volunteers and more available at night

• Selected popular meeting nights – Real time assistance – Pre-Meeting assistance – General call in as well

• Liked by commissions using it – Usually <10 calls per night – Would like to see more calls

Long Island Sound Nitrogen Reduction Strategy

• TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) for Long Island Sound (LIS) to achieve water quality standards

• Unfinished work from 2001 TMDL (CTDEEP & NYSDEC ) – Hit numeric reduction goals (including Mass reduction)

– Did not see sufficient improvements (minimal eel grass improvement, low dissolved oxygen, eutrophication, etc..)

• New Round of Reductions to address

unresolved impacts – Embayments / near shore area

Long Island Sound Nitrogen Reduction Strategy

• Complement LIS TMDL Nitrogen management initiatives by addressing other eutrophication-related impacts – Look at measures/processes other than TMDL to

support initiative

• Develop numeric Nitrogen thresholds that are protective of designated uses

• Set Nitrogen reduction targets and allocations where necessary to meet the Nitrogen thresholds

• Continue efforts to increase oxygen in Western LIS

Any guesses on how EPA proposed to reduce Nitrogen in Long Island Sound?

• Reduce the Nitrogen from Point Sources in Rivers Discharging to Long Island Sound

• Point Sources = Wastewater Treatment Plants

• Easy to find, measure and regulate

How does this Affect Massachusetts? • Housatonic River and Connecticut River

– 35 WWTPs discharge to Ct River or its tributaries

– 6 WWTPs discharge to Housatonic or its tributaries

– Nitrogen is a key component in wastewater

– Little to no Nitrogen attenuation in Rivers, it falls out in once it hits salt water

• EPA Proposed Nitrogen Limits in NPDES permits

Limit Nitrogen from Mass WWTPs

• Individual WWTP Permit Limits for Nitrogen – Some WWTPs can make operational changes – Limited reduction possible – Many Plants require physical changes to reduce Nitrogen

• Need tanks/space to create zones to nitrify and de-nitrify • Need oxygen, other parameters

• Moving Targets & Uncertainty – Progressive ratcheting down of limits – Municipalities cannot reasonably plan

• Requirements not TMDL based • Competing Needs

– CSO projects – Other upgrades/maintenance at WWTP – Other municipal costs – MS4, Inflow/Infiltration, Drinking Water

Unified Response

• MassDEP, many affected communities, planning agencies and watershed groups working together

• “Show me” …. Want to see the science, process and have opportunity for comment/participation

• Determine Massachusetts (CT River) Nitrogen Contribution – Add a USGS Water Quality Gaging Station in

Northfield

– One exists in Northern CT

• Avoid Individual WWTP Nitrogen Limits

Avoid Individual WWTP Nitrogen Limits

• State Permit Limit – Allocate the reduction to the state

• Allow the state to determine how to allocate reductions

• Point Sources vs Non-point sources

• Trading Program

– Allow most cost effective reduction

– Plants can “buy” credits from others

Where do we stand now?

• State Working Group – Meets regularly at PVPC

– Grant to look at trading program options • Conclude by end of year / review options

– Meetings with EPA • EPA seems inclined to issue a state permit in lieu of

individual WWTP limits

– Commenting on Nitrogen Strategy and methodologies to establish and measure success

– Northfield USGS Gaging station being installed

Lead and Copper in Schools • Initiative launched by Governor Baker and Treasurer Goldberg

– $2 million from the Massachusetts Clean Water Trust (MCWT)

• Assist Public Schools, child care, similar facilities (“schools”)

• Schools served by Public Water Systems • Schools that are a Public Water System regulated by DEP • Have done own Lead and Copper for many years

• Non-PWS Schools • Generally, limited sampling - 2 random school samples by Water Supplier as part

of Water Supplier lead and copper sampling

• Implemented by MassDEP / Umass-Amherst • TA & Lab Services

Lead and Copper in Schools • Maintenance Checklists

• Training for sampling staff

• Process, labeling, chain of custody, forms

• Systematic Sampling Plan Developed • Map of Taps – location codes • Start at Entry point • Sample following flow

• Multiple samples at each location

• First Draw • Flushed sample

Lead and Copper in School Results • 153 municipalities had signed up

• 55,000 samples from 818 school buildings

• Elevated lead and copper was detected in less than 10 percent of the drinking water taps and water fountains tested last year

• Schools shut off, replaced, or otherwise address affected fixtures

• Schools communicated results to families, staff and students

• Results available on DEP website

• Funds available for additional work in 2018

Hampden -Wilbraham School District

• System is representative of many schools systems

• Results from our database – available on line • http://www.mass.gov/eea/docs/dep/water/drinking/lcca-schools-

list.pdf Wilbraham Mile Tree Elementary Lead and Copper Below Action Level Wilbraham Soule Road Both Lead and Copper Above Action Level Wilbraham Stony Hill School Both Lead and Copper Above Action Level Wilbraham Wilbraham Middle Only Lead Above Action Level Wilbraham Minnechaug Regional High Only Lead Above Action Level Hampden Green Meadows Elementary Lead and Copper Below Action Level Hampden Thornton Burgess Only Lead Above Action Level

What is behind the reported results? 311 Sample Locations in 7 schools 36 samples exceeded the Lead Action Level 17 samples exceeded the Copper Action Level 2 samples at each location – 1st draw & flushed sample 2 of 7 schools had no lead or copper above the action level • Wilbraham Mile Tree Elementary Lead and Copper Below Action Level • Hampden Green Meadows Elementary Lead and Copper Below Action Level 2 of 7 schools exceeded the action level for Both Lead and Copper • Wilbraham Soule Road Both Lead and Copper Above Action Level • Wilbraham Stony Hill School Both Lead and Copper Above Action Level 3 of 7 schools exceeded the action level for Lead (only) • Wilbraham Wilbraham Middle Only Lead Above Action Level • Wilbraham Minnechaug Regional High Only Lead Above Action Level • Hampden Thornton Burgess Only Lead Above Action Level

Often low use fixtures – steam kettles, pot fillers, janitors sinks Even new schools can have exceedances (High School)

How Did a Typical School System React?

Communicate - Many use schools website http://www.hwrsd.org/pages/Hampden-Wilbraham_RSD/Departments/Maintenance/District_Water_Testing_Info_an

Notify students/families – DEP provided templates

Begin Flushing – Daily flushing regimen

• Many sites failed 1st draw but passed on repeat samples

Retest failed sites

Investigate Longterm Options

• Replace fixtures at failed sites, Remove fixtures

Commit to continued testing with posted results

Share results

Provide links to educational materials

What if my School is a Public Water System?

• Schools in many small communities are their own water system – Not eligible under Lead in Schools program

– Already Required to test as a Public Water System • Minimum - 5 samples/3 years

• 90th Percentile Contamination Level

• Lead Action Level exceeded if >10% of samples exceeds action level

• Required to notify “consumers” of results

– Failed Systems – Water Quality Parameters, Public Education if Lead, Additional testing (more sites, more frequent)

– Change Sources or Change Treatment – Increased testing

Moderated Discussion

Moderator: Fran Hoey, Senior Vice President, Tighe & Bond

Panelists:

• Martin Suuberg, Commissioner