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
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
Keynote
Martin Suuberg
Commissioner
Department of Environmental Protection
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
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
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
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
STEP
• 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
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
LLE HLE
SFY16
SFY17
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
Ware
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
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
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.
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
Open
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?
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
• Michael Gorski, Regional Director
• Eva Tor, Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup
• Brian Harrington, Bureau of Water Resources
• Steve Ellis, Bureau of Air and Waste
Environmental Business Council of New England
Energy Environment Economy
EBC Program Series with MassDEP Leadership:
Update from Commissioner Suuberg and
the Western Regional Leadership Team