You are on page 1of 87

EBC Program Series with MassDEP Leadership:

Update from Commissioner Suuberg and

the Western Regional Leadership Team

Daniel K. Moon
Executive Director & President
Environmental Business Council of New England

Environmental Business Council of New England

Energy Environment Economy

Martin Suuberg
Department of Environmental Protection
Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Environmental Business Council of New England

Energy Environment Economy
EBC Program Series
MassDEP Regional Offices

Commissioner Suuberg
and the
MassDEP Western Regional Office

November 8, 2017
Commissioners Overview -

MassDEP Generally
FY 18
3(d) Rules; new stakeholder processes
Going Forward
Commissioners 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
Commissioners Overview

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
Michael Gorski
Regional Director
WERO Regional Priorities
Municipal Outreach and Assistance
Technical Assistance
Permit Timelines
Urban Initiatives
STEP Small Town Environmental Partnership
Wetlands Off-site Mitigation Opportunity List
Wetlands Certificates of Compliance
Urban Initiatives
Ward 1
Quality of life initiative
Willamansett section
Brownfields component only
Small Towns only
Agreement to come into compliance
Comprehensive inspection
Department action on egregious violations
True partnership benefiting the Town and the
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
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
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
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

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
Thank you
Thank you for your attention
Know that we are only a phone call away
Call us with questions
Well 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
Stack Tests
Construction/Installation Notification
BAW Enforcement

80 17% inspections resulted

70 in enforcement
60 Common Violations
SFY16 Report submittals
SFY17 Waste Ban
30 5 YR AVE HW management
LLE HLE Labels
Western Mass. Air Monitoring

Pittsfield (2)

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

Chicopee - Westover AFB

Greenfield - Veterans


Pittsfield - Center Street

Pittsfield - South Street

Springfield - Liberty


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



annual arithmetic mean


2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Additional Air Monitoring Information
Materials Recycling Facility (MRF)
Birnie Avenue, Springfield
MRF Program Summary
74 participating communities
Partnership between local/
state government and private
operator (WM Recycle
Over 1 million tons processed
and marketed (40,000+
Over $15 million paid to
Over $60 million saved in
avoided disposal costs
Current operator contract
expires June 2020
Recycling Trends & Challenges
Shift towards single stream and PAYT;
MRFs getting larger; Tip fees common
Newspaper circulation halved since
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
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
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
WERO Waste Site Cleanup
Three Major Groups:

Emergency Response
Brownfields and Risk Reduction
WERO Universe of 21E Sites
Open sites in FY17: 347
Sites closed in FY17: 217
Total closed sites: 6,157


Emergency Response FY17
270 Notifications

186 Reportable Notifications

Percentage historically closed in the first year:


179 Complaints
Emergency Response Asbestos
507 Primary Inspections
55 Non-Traditional Work Practices Permits
4,582 Asbestos Notifications Received

Common asbestos violations:

Glove bags
Dry rips
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

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
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


32 Level 3, Comprehensive Audits

9 random
23 targeted based on screening
Audits Non-Compliance
Level 1 Audits:
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
Person who signed didnt 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
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
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
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
(Why are you picking on me?)
Performance Partnership Agreement
Compliance permitting, permitted/regulated
Technical Assistance
SRF Projects
Performance Partnership Agreement

How are facilities chosen

Drinking Water
Sanitary Surveys Community Systems every 3 years, others
every 5 years,
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
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
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
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
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
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
Add a USGS Water Quality Gaging Station in
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
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
Schools communicated results to families, staff and
Results available on DEP website
Funds available for additional work in 2018
Hampden -Wilbraham School District
System is representative of many schools
Results from our database available on line

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

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

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