Follow us on...

On April 20, 2010, EPA announced the availability of, and invited comments on, a Draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Residually Designated Discharges in Milford, Bellingham and Franklin, Massachusetts; and the related proposed amendments to the Preliminary Residual Designation issued by EPA on November 12, 2008.

EPA is extending the public comment period for the draft permit and Designation until September 30, 2010.  The draft permit proposes that owners of designated discharge sites (generally impervious areas equal to or greater than two acres) undertake comprehensive storm water management actions to reduce pollution to the Charles River.   

EPA has posted relevant documents on its regional website located at: http://www.epa.gov/ne/npdes/charlesriver/

Submit comments identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OW-2010-0292 by one of the following methods:

• Online at: http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.

• Email:  Voorhees.mark@epa.gov

• Mail:  Mark Voorhees, US EPA – Region 1, 5 Post Office Square – Suite 100,
  Mail Code – OEP 06-4, Boston, MA 02109-3912

• No facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

Please contact Lucy Servidio at extension (508) 970-0033 ext. 114 or lservidio@capaccio.com with any questions that you may have regarding the NPDES General Permit.

< Back

Due to severe technical problems with the eDEP servers that is preventing users from accessing source registration forms and entering data, the MassDEP has extended the filing deadlines for all June 11 and July 15 deadline filers to August 11, 2010.  The MassDEP has requested that source registration filers not access the eDEP system until after July 2nd.  The system will be accessible before this date, but due to TURA filing through July 1 you may experience slow system access.  The official extension notice and any updates can be found on the MassDEP website at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/service/compliance/srupdates.htm#extension

If you have specific questions regarding this extension, please contact Lynn Sheridan at x122 (lsheridan@capaccio.com) or David Cotter at x133 (dcotter@capaccio.com).

< Back

During the annual Significant Industrial User (SIU) meetings, held during April 2010 by the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA), the following upcoming changes to PIMS were highlighted.

Currently, each SIU's lab must electronically submit the SIU's analytical monitoring results (e.g., self-monitoring results) to the MWRA.  However, in the future SIUs will be responsible for submitting their own analytical monitoring results.  The MWRA noted that in approximately one year each SIU's lab will only be forwarding analytical results to the SIU and not to the MWRA.  It will then be the SIUs responsibility to electronically submit their analytical monitoring results to the MWRA.

The MWRA also indicated that at some point in the future, approximately one year, MWRA permit applications will be electronic and need to be filled out on-line. 

For more information contact Wayne Bates at 508.970.0033 ext. 121 or wbates@capaccio.com.

< Back

For centuries, the availability of fresh water has never been given a second thought. But, in today’s world, this precious resource is becoming scarce, even non-existent, prompting several magazines - The Economist, National Geographic, Newsweek, Fortune and Forbes – to issue ‘special reports’ on the challenges and risks associated with global water scarcity.

This crisis has become especially critical to corporations and other water-intensive industries that depend on water to run both their operations and extensive supply chains. According to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, "Changes in the availability or quality of water ... can have material effects on companies." Suffice to say, this issue has made its way to the top of the agenda among investors and stakeholders, with some believing it will surpass greenhouse gas emissions (carbon) as the biggest sustainability issue.

The severity of water scarcity and its risks became even more clear to investors after CERES (Boston, MA) issued a special report entitled, “Murky Waters: Corporate Reporting on Water Risk.” The report highlighted the risks companies will face as a result of water mismanagement, and also showcased those who are leading their industry sectors in measuring, managing and reporting their water use.

All of this attention prompted the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) to get involved, and recently announce it is creating a new standard for water footprinting – ISO 14046.  This new standard recommends the tracking of water use throughout the life cycle of your product or service. 

If you are wondering whether your company may be affected by this crisis, ask yourself, Do any of my suppliers operate in areas with a critical water shortage? How does this contribute risk to my operations as measured by the new international risk management standard – ISO 3100? 

CAPACCIO is closely following this topic and will be issuing some blogs on our website:  http://www.ems-hsms.com.  Please tune in to learn more about how you can address the risks these water issues may pose on your operations, products and bottom line.

CAPACCIO can assist by offering services such as water footprinting and reuse options which can help your company reduce its water use and/or use its water more effectively and efficiently. Please call Bob Pojasek at 508-970-0033 ext. 137 or rpojasek@capaccio.com if you are trying to come to terms with any current water issues.

< Back

On March 9, 2010, the US Department of Transportation (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration amended its requirements under 49 CFR 172.700 for training and 49 CFR 172.800 for Security Plans.  These changes are effective as of October 1, 2010.  Voluntary compliance is authorized as of April 8, 2010.

There are changes to the thresholds which trigger the requirement to develop a Security Plan.  The new thresholds are listed below:

Note: A large bulk quantity is >3,000 kg (6,614 pounds) for solids and 3,000 liters (792 gallons) for liquids and gases in a single packaging such as cargo tank, tank motor vehicle, portable tank, tank car, or other bulk container.

The new amendments require that Security Plans contain the following:

• Provisions for personnel security

• Provisions for  unauthorized access

• Provisions for en route security

• Identification of senior management official who is responsible for the overall development and implementation of the Security Plan

• Security duties for each position/department responsible for implementing the plan and notification procedures to be used when specific elements of the plan must be implemented

• A plan for training Hazmat employees regarding the security planning requirements

• The plan must be maintained in writing

• The plan must be reviewed at least annually

• The plan must be available to Hazmat employees who have responsibilities under the plan (consistent with a demonstrated need to know)

• The plan must be readily available upon request of an authorized official of the DOT or Department of Homeland Security

New training requirements include in-depth security training concerning the Security Plan, company security objectives, organizational security structure, specific security procedures, specific security duties and responsibilities for each employee and specific actions to be taken in the event of a security breach.  Training is required at least every three years.  Training is also required within 90 days of implementation of the revised plan if there are changes in the Security Plan. 

Due to changes in applicability thresholds, facilities that formerly needed to have a Security Plan may no longer need one.  However, if your facility still needs to maintain a DOT Security Plan, there are changes that need to be made and implemented before October 1, 2010.

Please contact Linda Swift at (508)970-0033 extension 119 or email lswift@capaccio.com with any questions you may have regarding the changes in DOT Security Plan requirements.

< Back

The Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA) recently conducted an Industrial Coordinator reorganization.  Industrial Coordinators are responsible for inspecting, permitting and issuing Notices of Violation to industrial users located within their assigned municipalities. As of February 2010, each municipality has been assigned a new Industrial Coordinator.  Click on the link below for the most current list of Industrial Coordinators and their contact information per municipality.

http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/trac/icilist.pdf

If you would like more information or assistance, please contact Wayne Bates at 508.970.0033 ext. 121 or wbates@capaccio.com.

< Back

It’s time to collect your chemical use and emissions data for calendar year 2009 and begin to evaluate your reporting thresholds for Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) Section 313 Toxic Chemical Release Inventory (Form R) and Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) Toxics Use (TUR Form S) Reporting.  Reports are due July 1, 2010.  

EPCRA Section 313 Form R Reporting:
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released its TRI-ME web-based software for 2009 to complete and file your Form R reports for Reporting Year (RY) 2009.  You can link to the software at http://www.epa.gov/tri/report/software/index.htm.  If you’d like to get an Adobe PDF copy of the forms and the reporting instructions go to http://www.epa.gov/tri/report/index.htm.

EPA Region 1 is partnering with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) for the EPCRA 313 Form R and Toxics Use Form S training to further assist you in understanding and completing your Form R and Form S reports.  See link below for the session schedule.

TUR Form S Reporting:  
Form S reporting forms are not yet on the eDEP website.  However you can use the following link to check to see if the RY 2009 forms are there at a later date:  http://www.mass.gov/dep/toxics/approvals/turforms.htm

Joint Training Sessions:
To register for the joint EPA and MassDEP Form R and Form S training sessions go to:  http://www.mass.gov/dep/toxics/turatri.htm

TUR Planning:
This is a TUR planning year.  Plan Summaries/Progress Reports and Plan Certification need to be completed and submitted by July 1, 2010.  You will need to have either a traditional TUR Plan, a TUR Environmental Management System, or a Resource Conservation Plan in place by July 1^st.   Reminder: plans must be certified by a MassDEP Certified Toxics Use Reduction Planner.

While the majority of facilities have made the effort to go through the TUR Planning process and have made a good faith effort to implement TUR or Resource Conservation efforts, MassDEP has identified some facilities that have deficient plans and plans that were not signed by certified planners.  MassDEP is on the lookout for facilities that don’t make that good faith effort.  Go to the following link to see MassDEP’s recent report on enforcement of the TUR requirements:  http://www.mass.gov/dep/toxics/tura/turpcau.htm

Please contact Linda Swift at (508)970-0033 extension 119 or lswift@capaccio.com or Lucy Servidio at extension 114 or lservidio@capaccio.com with any questions that you may have regarding EPCRA 313 and TUR Reporting or TUR Planning.

< Back

Over the last several years, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has focused increased attention on compliance of facilities and toxics use reduction (TUR) planners with the Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA).  While the overall compliance level has been high, MassDEP has identified a number of instances of non-compliance relative to certification requirements and deficient TUR plans. 

TURA requires companies that use certain toxic materials above specific thresholds to prepare a TUR plan or plan update and file a plan summary with MassDEP.  The plan summary must be signed by a senior management official and by a TUR planner with a valid MassDEP certification. 

Recently, MassDEP took enforcement actions against two company officials at separate facilities for certifying their facility’s 2008 TUR plan summary as a TUR planner when neither was a certified TUR planner.  In the first case, the company official was a TUR planner whose certification had expired without renewal.  This person agreed to pay a $1,000 penalty.  In the second case, the company official had never been a planner but had relied on certified planners in the past so was aware of the company’s planning obligations.  Because of the more egregious nature of this violation, the individual agreed to pay a $6,050 penalty.  In both cases the individuals agreed that future plan summaries would be signed by certified TUR planners as required.  In addition, MassDEP issued notices of noncompliance (NONs) to the respective facilities for these violations.

MassDEP also reviews TUR plans during facility inspections.  Recently, MassDEP issued five NONs to facilities and to their TUR planners, where warranted, for deficient plans. Violations identified included:

• incomplete scope of plan,

• deficient process flow diagrams,

• incomplete material balance figures,

• no evidence of screening for TUR options,

• a management statement that does not refer to TUR, and

• failure to document the process of identifying TUR options.

The next TURA planning deadline is July 1, 2010, when facilities must complete plans and submit plan summaries to MassDEP.  MassDEP reminds company officials to ensure that their TUR plan meets the regulatory requirements and that the TUR plan summary (or resource conservation plan summary or environmental management system progress report, if applicable) is signed by a TUR planner with a current certification from MassDEP.  MassDEP also reminds TUR planners to ensure that their MassDEP certification is current and up-to-date and that they meet the special requirements for certifying resource conservation plans and environmental management systems, if applicable.

MassDEP periodically updates a list of certified TUR planners and other information about TUR planner requirements on the web at http://www.mass.gov/dep/toxics/tura/planners.htm.

For any questions, please contact Lucy Servidio at (508) 970-0033 ext. 114 or at lservidio@capaccio.com.  

< Back

The following is an update from EPA's Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP & Oil Information Center:

On April 6, 2010, EPA published a proposed rule to add 16 new chemicals to the TRI toxic chemical list (75 FR 17333).  The chemicals that EPA is proposing to add have been classified as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen" by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in their Report on Carcinogens.  Based on a review of NTP's report, EPA believes that the 16 chemicals meet the EPCRA Section 313(d)(2)(B) statutory listing criteria, as they are reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans.  Twelve of the new proposed chemicals would be listed individually, while four are being proposed for addition to the polycyclic aromatic compounds (PAC) category.

The PAC category is of special concern because PACs are persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic (PBT) chemicals.

This proposal is part of EPA's ongoing efforts to examine the scope of TRI chemical coverage and provide communities with more complete information on toxic chemical releases, and is the first TRI program chemical expansion in over a decade. 

Additional information about the proposed rule is available at the following URL: http://www.epa.gov/tri/lawsandregs/ntp_chemicals

For additional questions about the proposed rule or TRI regulatory requirements, please contact Lucy Servidio at 508.970.0033 extension 114.

< Back

For those of you reviewing MSDSs and trying to determine whether a substance is listed in the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) inventory or not, the US EPA has just made the TSCA Inventory available for free online.  All 84,000 substances!  

Here is a link to get to the TSCA inventory.  It can also be downloaded as an MS Access file or a csv file (for the non-confidential substances).
http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/invntory.htm

< Back

Tier II Chemical Inventory Reports / Tier2 Submit

Facilities covered by Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) requirements must submit an Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form to the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC), the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC), and the local fire department annually. Facilities provide either a Tier I or Tier II form. Most States require the Tier II form. Some states have specific requirements in addition to the federal Tier II requirements. Many accept Tier2 Submit.

Click here for information on Tier 2 Reporting

Click here to download the Tier 2 Submit 2009 Software

EPA Hazardous Waste Biennial Reporting Software

Large Quantity Generators (LQGs) as well as Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs) are required to complete this report.  Forms must be completed using calendar year 2009 information and returned to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) no later than March 1, 2010.

Click here for information and a link to the Biennial Reporting software

MassDEP Recycling Reports

Annual reporting requirements apply to Class A recycling activities subject to permits, as well as Class B and Class C recycling activities.

Click here to download the forms and reports.

< Back

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is strengthening the regulations that govern the shipping of hazardous waste for recycling between the United States and other countries. The new measures are meant to increase the level of regulatory oversight, provide stricter controls, and greater transparency. The final rule announced today aligns EPA’s hazardous waste import/export/transit shipment regulations with the procedures of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an international consortium that comprises 30 countries including the United States.

EPA’s new measures bolster regulations regarding hazardous waste shipments into or out of the United States and strengthen the extensive set of regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governing the shipment of hazardous waste within the United States.

Specifically, this rule revises:

• Existing RCRA regulation regarding the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes for recovery among countries belonging to the OECD to conform to legally required revisions made by the OECD, such as:

  • requiring U.S. recovery facilities to submit a certificate after recovery of the waste has been completed,

  • adding provisions to ensure that hazardous wastes are returned to the country of export in a more timely and documented manner when it is necessary to do so, and

  • adding new procedures for imported hazardous wastes that are initially managed at U.S. accumulation and transfer facilities to better track and document that subsequent recovery by a separate recycling facility is completed in an environmentally sound manner.

• RCRA regulations for spent lead-acid batteries (SLAB) to add export notification and consent requirements to provide stricter controls and greater transparency for exports of SLABs to any country, and should ensure that the batteries are sent to countries and reclamation facilities in those countries that can manage the SLABs in an environmentally sound manner.    

• Hazardous waste import-related requirements for U.S. hazardous waste management facilities to confirm individual import shipments comply with the terms of EPA’s consent.

• The address to which export exception reports are to be sent.

The United States participates in a number of bilateral waste agreements between countries and in the multilateral waste agreement controlling the shipment of hazardous waste for recovery between OECD member countries.

More information on the final rule: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/international/oecd-slab-rule.htm

If you would like more information, please contact Lucy Servidio at 508.970.0033 extension 114.

< Back

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released enforcement results for fiscal year 2009, and has developed a new Web-based tool and interactive map that allows the public to get detailed information by location about the enforcement actions taken at approximately 4,600 facilities.

In FY2009, EPA concluded enforcement actions requiring polluters to invest more than $5 billion on pollution controls, cleanup, and environmental projects.  Civil and criminal defendants committed to install controls and take other measures to reduce pollution by approximately 580 million pounds annually once all required controls are fully implemented.

The new mapping tool allows the public to view the locations of facilities that were the subject of those enforcement actions on interactive maps of the U.S. and territories.  The maps show facilities where civil enforcement actions were taken for environmental laws for air, water, and land pollution, and a separate map shows criminal enforcement actions.

Viewers can click on specific facilities to find historical information about specific enforcement actions, such as violations and monetary penalties.  In addition, viewers can use the zoom function to find out which facilities are located near water bodies that are listed as "impaired” because they do not meet federal water quality standards.

EPA mapped the locations of more than 90 percent of the facilities that were the subject of enforcement actions last year.  EPA did not map the locations of drinking water treatment plants due to potential security concerns.

For the past 10 years, EPA has described annual enforcement results by focusing primarily on two measures, the estimated pounds of pollutants reduced and estimated cost of commitments made by defendants to control or reduce pollution.  These measures vary significantly from year to year and are dependent upon the number of large cases that settle in a given year. 

While these large cases are a vital part of our work to protect public health and improve compliance, they do not reflect the totality of the annual environmental enforcement activities, and do not capture the number and variety of enforcement actions taken to help clean up local communities.  The new mapping tool will help increase transparency, improve access to data, and provide the public with the bigger picture of enforcement activity occurring in communities around the country. 

More information: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/endofyear/eoy2009/index.html

If you would like more information, please contact Lucy Servidio at 508.970.0033 extension 114.

< Back

As part of Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) Form S Report/TUR Plan Recertification/Alternative Resource Conservation (ARC) Plan and EMS Options, companies must post an Employee Notification requesting ideas on how to reduce chemical use and waste generation by January 1, 2010. The Employee Notification is also required for ARC plans; however, the focus is on the asset chosen for the plan. If your company decides to incorporate TUR planning in your Environmental Management System (EMS), there is no Employee Notification requirement.  For more information, click here.

If you would like more information or assistance on a TUR Plan for your workplace, please contact Lucy Servidio at 508.970.0033 extension 114, or Travis Wheeler at extension 115.

< Back

Did you know that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires that every workplace, regardless of industry sector and size, have an Emergency Action Plan (EAP) and Fire Prevention Plan (FPP)? Only those facilities employing more than ten full-time employees (FTEs) are required to provide EAPs and FPPs in writing, but facilities smaller than 10 FTEs must at least communicate these plans orally. All plans, both oral and written, must include certain requirements found in each respective OSHA standard.

Required elements of a Fire Prevention Plan primarily include specifics about potential workplace fire hazards and the methods used to control them. These requirements are found in 29 CFR 1910.39 and include:

• A list of all major fire hazards

• Proper handling and storage procedures for hazardous materials

• Identification of potential ignition sources and their control

• The type of fire protection equipment necessary to control each major hazard

• Procedures to control accumulations of flammable and combustible waste materials

• Procedures for regular maintenance of safeguards installed on heat-producing equipment to prevent the accidental ignition of combustible materials

• The name or job title of employees responsible for maintaining equipment to prevent or control sources of ignition or fires

• The name or job title of employees responsible for the control of fuel source hazards

These topics of the plan must be communicated to each employee upon their initial job assignment and must be specific to the fire hazards they may encounter in their job assignment. Employers must review any important elements the employee needs for “self protection” during their job duties as necessary.

The requirements of an EAPs are focused more on procedures employees should follow in case an emergency, such as a fire, does occur. These requirements are found in 29 CFR 1910.38 and include:

• Procedures for reporting a fire or other emergency

• Procedures for emergency evacuation

• Procedures to be followed by employees who remain to operate critical plant operations before they evacuate

• Procedures to account for all employees after evacuation

• Procedures to be followed by employees performing rescue or medical duties

• The name or job title of every employee who may be contacted by employees who need more information about the plan or an explanation of their duties under the plan

In addition to the elements above, employers must ensure they have a sufficient alarm system to activate in an emergency situation that complies with 29 CFR 1910.165 (Employee Alarm Systems), and they must train any employees that will assist in evacuation on the methods to be used. The plan must be reviewed with all employees upon initial job assignment and when changed, and with selected employees if they have specific responsibilities under the plan that have changed. 

If you would like more information or assistance on developing EAPs and FPPs for your workplace, please feel free to contact Conor Hobbs at 508.970.0033 extension 123.

< Back

In light of the Danvers explosion and a previous explosion in Leominster, the Massachusetts Department of Fire Services (DFS) is currently working on hazardous materials process safety regulations.  DFS has not yet formally proposed the regulation, therefore, there is no publication of this pre-proposed regulation available to the public at this time. If this regulation is officially proposed, DFS would require facilities processing hazardous materials to assess their use of hazardous materials at the facility as they fit in the DFS scheme for process safety.   

The regulations do not apply to materials with a health, flammability or instability hazard rating of 2 or less on the NFPA 704 hazard rating system.  The DFS definition for process or processing is as follows:  A sequence of operations in which the sequence can be inclusive of physical operations such as heating, mixing, distilling, compressing, and pressurizing, and chemical operations, such as polymerization, oxidation, reduction, and other chemical reaction processes. The sequence can involve but is not limited to: preparation, separation, combination, purification, or any actions that cause a change in state, energy content, or chemical composition.

Facilities will be classified in one of five categories, with increasing requirements.  The size of the vessel that hazardous materials are processed in will determine the applicable requirements for the facility.  A list of facilities that are not affected will be detailed in the proposed regulation.

Emergency planning will require that an Emergency Coordinator be able to respond to the facility within one hour or less of an emergency; that the facility maintains an updated list of emergency contacts, and a floor plan is provided identifying hazardous materials areas and process shut-offs.  The local fire chief must be notified of any change to the Emergency Response Plan within 14 calendar days.

A written post incident analysis must be initiated within 48 hours of any incident in which there is a reportable release of a hazardous material, or to which the fire department or Emergency Management System (EMS) respond.  The post incident analysis report must be completed within 45 days of an incident.  The report must include a summary of the incident and cause, recommendations to prevent a similar incident in the future, summary of post-incident analysis recommendations and time frames, a reassessment of the category that the facility was assigned and a new permit application.

Facilities in Categories 2 through 5 will need to submit an annual application for “Permit to Process Hazardous Material” to the local fire chief for approval. Within 90 days of receiving the application, the local fire department will either grant the permit or explain to the facility why it was denied.  If no response is received within 90 days, the permit is considered granted.  (The local fire chief can request a third party review of the hazardous material storage and process.)  Annual inspections will be conducted by the local fire department to ensure compliance.

A public hearing on the proposed regulations is expected to take place sometime after January 1, 2010. Regulations will likely be effective one year from the date they go final (some time in 2011).

Since these regulations could increase your company’s regulatory requirements for processing hazardous materials, be on the lookout for the proposed regulations and provide comment during the public comment period.  Please contact Linda Swift at (508) 970-0033 extension 119 or Geoff Gilbert at (508) 970-0033 extension 142 or with any questions you might have regarding this process safety regulation.

< Back

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released new information on EPA and state enforcement of hazardous waste and air regulations.  In addition, the EPA posted data that allows the public, for the first time, to compare toxic releases with compliance data from facilities.  This is part of EPA’s ongoing commitment to increase transparency and promote the public’s right to know by improving access to available data.

EPA made available new summary reports and data from 2004 through 2008 on EPA and state enforcement program performance with Clean Air Act (CAA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requirements.  The reports include online graphs, trend information on enforcement and compliance in each state, and comparative reports.  Data such as compliance monitoring activity, violations discovered, enforcement actions taken, and penalties assessed are available. 

EPA also updated the agency’s Enforcement and Compliance Online (ECHO) Website to allow users to view current information on facility compliance with water, air, and hazardous waste requirements in relation to pollutant release data from EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory and National Emissions Inventory databases.  This provides the public with more information on the overall environmental footprint of each facility.

In the agency’s reviews of both EPA and state enforcement program performance, it identified several concerns with some programs, including uneven enforcement response, failure to identify high priority violators, and inadequate penalty assessment.  The recommendations that EPA made on how to address these concerns are now available through the ECHO website.

ECHO allows users to find permit, compliance monitoring, violation, enforcement action, and penalty information over the past three years.  ECHO provides communities with important enforcement and compliance information about regulated facilities.  Included in the new information released today is a list of commonly asked questions about the CAA and RCRA programs, such as air quality, pollutant releases, state performance, and overall compliance rates.

The compliance data posted today tells only one part of the story and does not relate directly to overall hazardous waste management or air quality, which have improved in the United States over the past 30 years as the result of local, state, and federal implementation of environmental programs.

More information on RCRA data:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/results/performance/rcra/index.html

More information on CAA data:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/results/performance/caa/index.html

More information on ECHO:  http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/

If you have any questions on proposed amendments, please contact Lucy Servidio at (508) 970-0033 extension 114.

< Back

The Secretary of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts promulgated amendments to the 301 CMR 41.00 Toxic or Hazardous Substance List on December 11, 2009.  These regulations implement changes to the list of reportable chemicals made by the Administrative Council on Toxic Use Reduction for CY 2010 and thereafter. The highlights include:

• Retaining the Comprehensive, Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) chemicals except for seven which will be delisted: adipic acid, ammonium bicarbonate, ammonium chloride, ammonium sulfamate, amyl actetate, fumaric acid, maleic acid

• No longer retaining about 180 CERCLA chemicals as individually listed toxic or hazardous substances, except that these chemicals must continue to be reported as part of a chemical category as reportable under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) Section 313 Form R reporting and TURA Form S reporting requirements.

• Designating six CERCLA chemicals as Lower Hazard Substances (LHS): butyl acetate, isobutyl actetate, ferric chloride, ferrous chloride, ferric sulfate and ferrous sulfate. This means companies will still have to report the chemicals to the MassDEP if they trip the threshold in CY 2010, but they will only have to pay the base fee and will not have to pay the “per chemical fee” by July 1, 2011.

• Adding n-propyl bromide (nPB) to the Toxic or Hazardous Substance list

To view the updated portions of the regulation and obtain further details, click here.

If you have any questions about the final amendments, please contact Lucy Servidio at (508) 970-0033 extension 114.

< Back

The MassDEP has revised its cold cleaning degreasing regulation [310 CMR 7.18 (8)] which may require you to replace the cleaning solvents you use in your existing cleaning units.  The new revisions become effective September 6, 2009 and will limit the composite vapor pressure of volatile organic compound (VOC) solvents that can be used to no more than 1.0 millimeter of mercury (mmHG) measured at 20°C.  The criteria applies to all cold cleaning degreasers with a storage capacity of greater than one liter (0.26 gallons).  If you operate a parts cleaner at your facility, these revisions could affect you.  

By MassDEP definition, cold cleaning degreasing means the batch process of solvent metal cleaning by spraying, brushing, flushing or immersion while maintaining the solvent below its boiling point.  Wipe cleaning and exempt VOC solvents such acetone are not included in this definition.  

The regulation does not apply to the cleaning of certain metal parts used in the manufacturing and rework of parts for aerospace service or to units located within a permanent total enclosure whose air is sent to a control device with a control efficiency of 90% or greater.  It also does not apply to the cleaning of metal parts used in the manufacture of certain gases, or which are exposed to certain gases.

The MassDEP has determined that there are readily available compliant cleaners on the market that can replace existing solvents, including the replacement of existing solvent cleaning units  with new aqueous cleaning systems.  If you are not sure if the solvent you use is compliant you can review the material safety data sheet for the solvent in use, or you can contact your cleaning solvent supplier.

If you have any questions on the new revisions and whether they could affect you, please contact David Cotter at (508) 970-0033 extension 133.

< Back

On September 1, 2009, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) published a press release of an additional 15 substances for consideration as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC).  ECHA is seeking public feedback (consultation) by October 15, 2009 on the potential inclusion of these proposed substances in the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) candidate list of SVHCs.  The table below (Table 1 “Potential SVHCs”) is the list of proposed substances, their respective CAS numbers, and examples of potential uses of these substances.  Participation in the consultation process can be completed through the following link:  http://echa.europa.eu/consultations/authorisation/svhc/svhc_cons_en.asp .

Once the consultation process is completed, it is anticipated that ECHA will review the feedback and make a final proposal that will subsequently go for approval by ECHA’s Member State Committee.  If the ECHA Member State Committee unanimously agrees to the proposal, ECHA will add the approved substances to the REACH Candidate List.   A timeline of the process has not been indicated by ECHA at this time.  Please note the candidate list of SVHC’s is posted on the ECHA website:
http://echa.europa.eu/chem_data/authorisation_process/candidate_list_table_en.asp
and is not an actual annex within the REACH regulation.

The REACH Candidate List is the list of Substances of Very High Concern that is applicable to articles under the REACH regulation.  Articles as defined by the REACH regulation is an object which during production is given a special shape, surface, or design which determines its function to a greater degree than does its chemical composition.  Thus, articles that contain candidate listed SVHCs may trigger additional legal obligations for producing, importing, and supplying these articles. 

The consideration of the additional substances to the REACH Candidate List highlights the ever changing world of product compliance substance restrictions.  Customers may be updating their supplier surveys seeking your compliance status to the new substances.  Organizations will need to evaluate regulatory obligations, as well as, processes and vendor materials in anticipation of their customer demands.  As more substances are considered for the REACH Candidate List, it has become clear that complying with product restriction requirements is driving the need for standardized systems.  Is your system prepared to integrate these REACH requirements? For assistance or answers to questions about existing or proposed requirements, contact Paula Esty at (508) 970-0033, ext. 128.

< Back

There is an upcoming change in location and contractor designated to manage the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data processing for all TRI submissions including TRI Trade Secret and confidential information submitted.

Under Section 322 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- Know Act, facilities submitting TRI reports may be eligible to claim Trade Secret for the specific chemical identity of a toxic chemical being reported. Information entitled to trade secret or confidential treatment may not be disclosed by the Agency to the Agency's authorized representative until each affected submitter has been furnished notice of the contemplated disclosure by the EPA program office and has been afforded opportunity to submit its comments.

This Federal Register provides notice that EPA's authorized representative is changing and provides the public an opportunity to comment on this action. Limit your comments to the change of contractor handling trade secret and confidential information submitted to TRI under Emergency Planning and Community Right-to- Know reporting requirements.

Comments should be submitted by August 31, 2009.

The EPA has established a docket for this action under EPA-HQ- TRI-2009-0614. All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at http://www.epa.gov/dockets Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.

For further information, please contact Lucy Servidio at (508) 970-0033 ext. 114.

< Back

 
Stormwater Monitoring Data
Facilities in certain industrial sectors are required to conduct quarterly benchmark monitoring for parameters specified by the 2008 Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP).  Each quarter, those facilities are required to submit all stormwater analytical data to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) within 30 days of receipt of results from the laboratory.  With all of the rain recently, most facilities have had ample opportunity to collect stormwater analytical data (it was probably difficult to retrieve a sample 72 hours since the last rainfall!) 

Facilities can electronically submit the results using the electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) system (http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/enoi.cfm) or use a MSGP discharge monitoring report form (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/mdmr.pdf).

If after the collection of four quarterly samples, the average of the four results exceeds the benchmark, the facility must review control measures and determine if modifications are necessary.  A facility must also submit an exceedance report to EPA if a benchmark is exceeded.  The exceedance report must include the name of the receiving body, copies of all lab results, and an explanation of the situation and corrective actions to be implemented. If the results of one sample greatly exceeds a benchmark, making the results of the subsequent samples irrelevant when a calculating the average, corrective action procedures must begin immediately.  The facility can then choose to make necessary modifications and continue quarterly monitoring until they have completed four additional quarters of monitoring for which the average does not exceed the benchmark; or determine that no reductions are technologically feasible and economically practicable and then continue to monitor once per year throughout the remainder of the permit.  Facilities that determine that further pollutant reductions are not feasible, should document their rationale, and include that information with their stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3).  They must also notify the EPA of this determination using either the eNOI system or a MSGP discharge monitoring report.

In Massachusetts, facilities are required to submit the results of benchmark monitoring to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) if the average of the four samples exceeds the benchmark or if the results of one sample puts them so far above the benchmark the other sample results become irrelevant.  MassDEP requires that facilities submit all follow-up monitoring data and a description of corrective actions required to meet the benchmarks.  Facilities in Sectors Q and R must have all four quarterly samples meet benchmarks   Monitoring data and corrective action reports must be sent to the appropriate Regional Office of MassDEP (attention: Bureau of Water Prevention). 

Routine Facility Inspections
At least quarterly, facilities must conduct routine inspections of facility operations and all areas potentially exposed to stormwater in order to identify and correct any potential problem areas.  The inspection must be performed by a person who is able to assess the effectiveness of control measures and conditions or activities that could impact stormwater quality at the facility.  Once per calendar year, the routine facility inspection must be conducted during a time when a stormwater discharge is occurring.  Routine facility inspection findings are not required to be submitted to the EPA, unless requested. 

Annual Report
Facilities must conduct an annual compliance inspection by September 29^th for each year of the MSGP. The first annual compliance inspection must be conducted between September 29, 2008 and September 29, 2009.  The inspection includes a review of potential pollutant sources, control measures, areas where spills and leaks have occurred, and stormwater conveyances and outfalls.  During the inspection, the facility should review analytical results from stormwater monitoring and corrective actions that have occurred since the last stormwater compliance inspection. Annual reports, Appendix I of the 2008 MSGP (http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/msgp2008_appendixi.pdf), must be submitted to the EPA within 45 days of conducting the comprehensive site inspection.  The report can be submitted to the EPA by mail or online via the e-NOI system.  For more information on the EPA’s online reporting system visit: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/enoi.cfm

For more information about MSGP requirements please contact Travis Wheeler at Ext. 115 or Colleen Walsh at Ext. 129.

< Back

Every year after compiling injury & illness data from the previous calendar year, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) releases information about the lists of facilities they plan on visiting for inspection during the remainder of the year. OSHA just released this year’s information in a directive in July, which also includes information on the areas OSHA will focus on during inspections. This year’s focus for inspections will be in line with the National, Regional, and Local Emphasis Programs.

According to the directive, the major criteria to be added to the list for planned inspections are two injury/illness rates:  the facility Days Away, Restricted, or Transferred (DART)¹ Rate, and the Days Away from Work Injury and Illness (DAFWII)² Case Rate. OSHA collected information on these injury & illness rates through the 2008 OSHA Data Initiative (ODI) survey and compiled two lists; a Primary Inspection list and a Secondary Inspection List. The facilities on the Primary Inspection list will be the priority for inspection and those on the Secondary Inspection list may be inspected if a particular region has inspected all of the facilities on the Primary Inspection list. The DART and DAFWII Rates that result in the addition of a facility to one of these lists are as follows:

Manufacturing Facilities:

• Primary Inspection List: DART: ≥ 8.0 or DAFWII: ≥ 6.0

• Secondary Inspection List: DART: 6.0-8.0 or DAFWII: 4.0-6.0

Non-Manufacturing Facilities:

• Primary Inspection List: Primary Inspection List: DART: ≥ 15.0 or DAFWII: ≥ 13.0

• Secondary Inspection List: DART: 6.0-15.0 or DAFWII: 4.0-13.0

Nursing and Personal Care Facilities (SIC code 805)

• Primary Inspection List: Primary Inspection List: DART: ≥ 17.0 or DAFWII: ≥ 14.0

• Secondary Inspection List: DART: 15.0-17.0 or DAFWII: 11.0-14.0

In addition to facilities capture by DART and DAFWII rates, a random sample of facilities that did not provide information to OSHA in their 2008 ODI Survey will also be added to the Primary Inspection list.

Think your establishment might be on one of these lists? Be prepared and be sure to take note of OSHA’s National, Regional, and Local Emphasis Programs. If these topics are applicable to your site, you can be sure OSHA will take a close look at them during an inspection, and it just might move you to the top of the list. This year’s National Emphasis Programs (NEP) include:

• Process Safety Management (PSM)

• Flavorings

• Lead

• Combustible Dust

• Amputations (selected manufacturing industries)

• Silica

Region I:  Regional & Local Emphasis Programs Include:

• Fabricated Metal Products - Augusta, Bangor

• Fall Hazards in Construction and General Industry - Region-wide

• Mast Climbing Work Platforms - Braintree, Methuen

• Mobile Crane Operations in Construction - Providence

• Powered Industrial Trucks - Region-wide

• Primary Metals - Region-wide

• Residential Construction - Hartford, Bridgeport, Braintree, Concord, Methuen, Springfield

• Silica in Construction - Region-wide

• Stone Slabs - Concord, Methuen, Springfield

• Underground Construction and Tunneling Operations - Braintree

One of the broader 2009 NEPs to keep an eye out for is Process Safety Management (PSM). PSM applies to Facilities that could potentially release highly hazardous chemicals (HHC) resulting in toxic, fire, or explosion hazards (29 CFR 1910.119 Appendix A).

During its first year, the PSM Chemical NEP will be piloted in Regions I, VII, and X only, using programmed inspections. Programmed inspections are planned and do not result from an accident, complaint or referral. The OSHA National Office has determined several parameters used to determine who will be inspected and include three Categories. In order to ensure that inspections are appropriately allocated across all hazardous processes, they should consist of 50% from the Category 3 Master List, 25% from the Category 1 Master List, and 25% from the Category 2 Master List. In a Region where this is not possible due to the types of facilities in its jurisdiction, the mix of facilities may be adjusted as necessary.

OSHA National Office determines Category 1, 2 and 3 as follows:
Category 1 – Facilities likely to have ammonia used for refrigeration as the only HHC;
Category 2 – Facilities likely to have chlorine used for water treatment as the only HHC;
Category 3 – Facilities likely to have both ammonia and chlorine, ammonia or chlorine used for other than refrigeration or water treatment, or HHCs other than ammonia or chlorine.

¹DART Rate = (# of Cases involving Days away, restricted, or transferred/employee total hours worked) * 200,000
²DAFWII Rate = (# of Cases with Days away from work/employee total hours worked)*200,000

For more information on OSHA’s Site Specific Targeting Directive visit: http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_02_09-05.pdf

For more information of OSHA’s National, Regional, and Local Emphasis Programs visit: http://www.osha.gov/dep/local_emphasis_programs.html

For more information on OSHA’s Process Safety Management Directive visit: http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/Directive_pdf/CPL_02_09-06.pdf

For further information please contact Geoff Gilbert at 508-970-0033 ext 142.

< Back

MassDEP has recently stepped up the enforcement regarding violations of waste ban.  Massachusetts has a law banning the disposal of certain recyclable or recoverable materials.  The list of materials included in the state's waste bans are: paper, glass, plastic, metal containers, electronics, leaves, and wood wastes. The entire list and further descriptions can be found at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/laws/policies.htm#bans

Goal of waste bans is to stimulate recycling here in Massachusetts, the program began in 1991.  The program set a goal of a 56% recycling rate by 2010.  The current recycling rate is 44% in Massachusetts.

MassDEP recently conducted a month long inspection sweep to catch possible violators of the waste ban regulations.  Inspectors observed wastes being disposed at solid waste facilities and check for compliant disposals.  In all MassDEP issued 78 notices of violation for non-compliance with waste disposal restrictions.  Violators were both public and private, large and small companies.  First time violators received a letter of non-compliance, but if further violations are found enforcement will be stepped up.

For further information on waste bans or any waste related regulations please contact Linda Swift at 508-970-0033 ext 119.

< Back

On January 12, 2007, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) issued significant revisions to its Sewer System Extension and Connection Permit Program (314 CMR 7.00), also known as the Sewer Connection Program. The revised sewer connection regulations included two significant requirements including the submittal of an Industrial Toxics Sewer Discharge Report (a.k.a., Toxics Report) certification to the MassDEP by January 12, 2009; and a state-wide limit of 1 part per billion of mercury effective May 1, 2009.  

In regard to the Toxics Report, the MassDEP has delayed the submittal because the necessary guidance documentation and submittal forms have not yet been developed by the department. However, the MassDEP is currently testing the report submittal procedures using eDEP and expects the electronic submittal system will be on-line in August or September, 2009.  Regarding Mercury Limit, as of May 1, 2009, the specific prohibition of discharging more than one part per billion (ppb) of mercury went into effect. Prior to this date, industrial sewer dischargers were required to determine possible sources of mercury and take all reasonable steps to eliminate the mercury.

For further information about these revisions, please read the complete article in the upcoming Summer edition of CAPACCIO’s Enviroline newsletter, to be delivered the last week in August. For immediate questions, please call Wayne Bates at 508-970-0033 ext. 121.

< Back

Once you have submitted your Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), Section 313, Toxics Chemical Release Inventory (TRI) Form R reports to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) EPCRA Reporting Center (be it on-line via the EPA Central Data Exchange (CDX) or other electronic format), your facility contact will be receiving an email from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that directs you to your Facility Data Profile (FDP). 

The FDP serves two primary purposes. Firstly, to provide the reporting facility the opportunity to confirm that the EPCRA Reporting Center has entered its data correctly into its Toxics Release Inventory System (TRIS) by providing a summary of the information it has received. And secondly, if the EPCRA Reporting Center identifies potential errors in the submissions through its data validation step, the FDP indicates what the errors are and requests that the facility provide EPA with corrections. If the data presented on the FDP do not match those on the form(s) submitted by the facility, or if the EPCRA Reporting Center has identified errors in a facility's submission(s), the facility may use the FDP to make the needed corrections. Within an FDP notice, there may be up to three different types of errors identified. These are:

1. A Non-Technical Data Change (NDC) notifies the facility of a simple, clerical error that EPA has corrected for the facility. The EPCRA Reporting Center will correct simple, clerical errors that are not technical or scientific. For example, if a facility transposes the CAS number for sodium nitrite (e.g., the facility submits 7623-00-0 instead of 7632-00-0), the EPCRA Reporting Center will correct this clerical error and display the correct information on the FDP. It is not necessary to respond to an NDC.

2. A Notice of Technical Error (NOTE) highlights inconsistencies or miscalculations that may distort a facility's information in EPA's public data products, or skew analyses. A missing or invalid SIC code, or the use of range codes to report Persistent Bioaccumlative Toxins (PBT) chemical releases and other waste management quantities are all examples of a NOTE level error. NOTE level errors should be responded to as soon as possible.

3. A Notice of Significant Error (NOSE) identifies errors that prevent a facility's submission from being entered in TRIS, or because it is missing critical information such as a chemical identifier or submission certification. A facility must respond to a NOSE within 21 days of receipt.

It is important that you correct data and respond to any NOTE or NOSE errors that are noted in the FDP because these types of errors may prevent the submission being entered into TRIS or misrepresent your facility’s TRI data.  EPA will correct data according to your FDP response and will release your facility’s TRI information for that reporting year into its public data products such as Envirofacts and TRI Explorer.  Once your data is entered into these public data products it cannot be corrected.  Therefore, it is important that you review your facility’s data and correct any errors as soon as possible.

Please contact Linda Swift at (508)970-0033 extension 119 or Lucy Servidio at extension 114 with any questions you may have regarding your FDP.

< Back

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has launched its secure, on-line Chemical Security Assessment Tool (CSAT) for completing Site Security Plans (SSP).   DHS is also currently in the process of reviewing Security Vulnerability Assessments (SVAs) submitted by facilities that had potential to be considered high risk facilities and is providing to these facilities a final determination of the facility’s status.  It is likely that Tier I facilities will be the first to receive this communication from DHS.  Those facilities that are determined to be high risk facilities must go on to complete and submit an SSP using the on-line DHS CSAT.  Submission of the SSP to DHS is required within 120 days from the time DHS notifies the facility of its need to submit an SSP.  DHS will then review the SSP and conduct a site visit in order to determine whether the facility met the CFATS requirements for SSP given its risk profile.

An important aspect of the SSP process is demonstrating compliance with the Risk-Based Performance Standards (RBPSs) associated with the facility’s risk profile.   DHS has developed 18 RBPSs to which the facility needs to comply.   The level of performance necessary to satisfy each RBPS is dependent on the facility’s risk-based tier level.   Tier I facilities are expected to meet the highest level of performance, with the expected level of performance becoming less stringent as one moves down the tiers.  These RBPSs specify the outcome required, but leave the specific measures to achieve that outcome up to the discretion of the covered facility.  While providing this flexibility, the performance standards nevertheless establish and maintain reasonable thresholds that covered facilities will have to reach in order to gain DHS approval of its SSP. 

With these RBPSs, the SSP process is a bit more complex than the previous Top Screen and SVA submittals. Before entering data into the SSP tool, facilities must first determine which RBPSs apply to the facility and the Chemical(s) of Interest (COI) at the facility and how the facility will meet those RBPSs.  The SSP allows facilities to enter both existing and planned security measures taken to meet the RBPSs.  However, it should be noted that the planned security measures noted in the SSP submitted to DHS will become legally enforceable.  Therefore, facilities should be committed to implementing the planned security measures provided in the SSP.

DHS has developed a number of documents to assist facilities through the SSP process such as Risk-Based Performance Standards Guidance, CSAT SSP Instructions,  CSAT SSP Screenshots, CSAT SSP Questions document.  All of these guidance documents can be accessed via http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/gc_1238784785789.shtm.

If a covered facility has an alternate security plan (ASP), the SSP tool requires the facility complete the General and Facilities Operations Sections and then upload the ASP.  The ASP will need to address and meet all the RBPSs for the facility’s risk profile.

 Please contact Linda Swift at (508)970-0033 extension 119 with any questions you may have regarding the DHS CFATS requirements.

< Back

In a recent press release, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) announced their recommendation for seven Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) to be included in Annex XIV, the List of Substances Subject to Authorization, of the regulation for Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). (See listing in table below.)  Thus, making these seven substances a subset of the SVHC candidate list that are prohibited from use, manufacturer, import, and distribution, in the EU unless an organization obtains authorization.  Authorization is the process under REACH whereby specific users can be granted approval for specific uses of those substances in the Authorization List after an authorization application has been approved by ECHA.

The final decision on the inclusion of these seven substances in the REACH regulation Annex XIV Authorization List will be made by the European Commission following the comitology process.  (Notification of the inclusion of these substances will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.) It is anticipated that once the substances are added to the REACH Directive (REACH regulation revision) these particular substances will only be able to be used within the EU when “authorized” through ECHA for specific purposes.

Seven Substances Recommended for Authorization

Pending release of the revised REACH regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union, these seven SVHCs will be prohibited unless authorized for use, manufacture, distribution and import in the EU.  The proposed deadline for the submission of authorization for these seven substances applications is 18 months from the proposed prohibition deadline, or date on which these seven substances will be banned from use, unless temporary authorization is granted.

References & Resources: 

ECHA Press Release (02 June 2009)

European Union Directive EC1907/2006

European union chemicals agency (ECHA) Information and Guidelines

ECHA Guidance Documents

Please contact Paula Esty at (508) 970-0033 extension 128 with any questions regarding these SVHCs and the REACH regulation.

< Back

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) amended its hazardous waste regulations in May 2009 to revise definitions and provided technical corrections in an effort to clarify its hazardous waste management requirements.   The following is a summary of these amendments:

• The definition of “Waste Oil” was revised to clarify that petroleum distillates such as parts cleaning solvent with a flash point greater than 140⁰ F are considered waste oil.

•  The definition of “manifest” was revised to coincide with the new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest rather than the former MassDEP manifest.

• The MassDEP adopted the exclusion of medicinal nitroglycerine as a hazardous waste when in finished dosage forms.

• Several amendments were made to the regulations in order to clarify that shipments of regulated recyclable material sent off-site of the generator by the generator must go directly to the appropriate, authorized facility.

• Changes were made to remove the reference to NFPA 704 with respect to the requirements for hazardous waste signage.

• Clarification was provided that off-specification used oil fuel cannot be shipped to a B(3) facility that is only permitted to accept specification used oil fuel.

• Clarification was provided that a marketer of specification used oil fuel may ship said fuel to another marketer or to a burner.

• Clarification was provided that a generator shipping specification used oil fuel using a marketer/transporter does not need a Class A recycling permit.

In addition to the above-noted changes, MassDEP also made some formatting changes to the regulations as well. 

Please contact Linda Swift at (508)970-0033 extension 119 with any questions you may have regarding hazardous waste requirements.

< Back

The Obama Administration’s initial budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2010 indicates a funding increase of $27-million for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). The recently passed economic stimulus bill contains $80-million for the enforcement of worker protection laws and regulations, oversight and coordination activities. This increase in funding along with recent comments made by US Department of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis suggests more emphasis will be placed on the enforcement of workplace safety regulations, including:

• Increased number of inspections to enforce OSHA standards

• Less focus on cooperative programs, such as the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP)

• Development of new OSHA standards, possibly including ergonomics

• Increase in average penalty amounts for serious violations

• Increased funding for state-run OSHA programs

• Less opportunity for employers to negotiate penalty amounts

An OSHA inspection is typically comprised of a review of your company’s injury and illness records, written safety program documentation, safety training records and a site inspection to identify physical hazards or unsafe work practices.   For further information or assistance in maintaining compliance and ensuring your company is properly prepared for these initiatives, contact Bob King at (508) 970-0033 extension 113.

< Back

Facilities in certain industrial sectors are required to conduct quarterly benchmark monitoring for parameters specified by the 2008 Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP).  Each quarter, those facilities are required to submit all stormwater analytical data to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) within 30 days of receipt of results from the laboratory.  Facilities can electronically submit the results using the electronic Notice of Intent (eNOI) system or use a MSGP discharge monitoring report form.

If after the collection of four quarterly samples, the average of the four results exceeds the benchmark, the facility must review control measures and determine if modifications are necessary . The facility can then choose to make necessary modifications and continue quarterly monitoring until they have completed four additional quarters of monitoring for which the average does not exceed the benchmark; or determine that no reductions are technologically feasible and economically practicable and then continue to monitor once per year throughout the remainder of the permit.  Facilities that determine that further pollutant reductions are not feasible, should document their rationale, and include that information with their stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWP3).  They must also notify the EPA of this determination using either the eNOI system or a MSGP discharge monitoring report. An exceedance of a benchmark does not constitute a permit violation.   Please note: if the results of one sample greatly exceeds a benchmark, making the results of the subsequent samples irrelevant when calculating the average, corrective action procedures must begin immediately.

Also on the state level, facilities are required to submit the results of benchmark monitoring to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) if the average of the four samples exceeds the benchmark or if the results of one sample puts them so far above the benchmark that other sample results become irrelevant.  MassDEP requires that facilities submit all follow-up monitoring data and a description of corrective actions required to meet the benchmarks.  Monitoring data and corrective action reports must be sent to the appropriate Regional Office of MassDEP (attention: Bureau of Water Prevention).

For further information about the Multi-Sector General Permit please contact Lucy Servidio at (508) 970-0033 extension 114.

< Back

Part 6.2.4 of the 2008 MSGP specifies requirements for Operators that directly discharge stormwater to certain impaired waters, including monitoring all pollutants for which the waterbody is impaired and for which a standard analytical method exists.  Furthermore, where a pollutant for which a waterbody is impaired is expressed in the form of an indicator or surrogate rather than the pollutant itself, monitoring must include that indicator or surrogate.  Discharges to impaired waters, and related pollutant(s) of concern with and without completed total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) were to have been identified in Part D of Operator's Notice of Intent (NOI).  This impaired waters information is available from the most recent approved "305(b) Report/303(d) List" published by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) and the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (click here for NH List). 

Discharges to Impaired Waters without an EPA Approved TMDL
To assist Operators authorized by the 2008 MSGP fulfill the monitoring requirements included in Part 6.2.4, EPA New England has published U.S. EPA 2008 Multi-Sector General Permit Monitoring Guidance for Discharges into Impaired Waters (Part 6.2.4) - Parameters and Methods (March 2009). The guidance identifies the parameter(s) (including analytical method number(s)) for which the Operator must analyze in its stormwater that discharges directly to impaired waters without an approved TMDL. Separate guidance has been web posted for Operators discharging in the states of Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Discharges to Impaired Waters with an EPA Approved TMDL
For those Operators generating regulated stormwater that discharges directly into an impaired water with an approved TMDL, EPA New England will provide a future notice identifying any monitoring requirements that must be fulfilled during the first year of permit coverage pursuant to Part 6.2.4.2. 

Note for Operators in the Marine Industry Discharging Stormwater into Mass Waters:
For those Operators that have sought or received coverage for their primary or co-located industrial activities under Sector Q: Water Transportation or Sector R: Ship and Boat Building and Repairing Yards, MassDEP recently modified its water quality certification of the 2008 MSGP with respect to the required benchmark monitoring parameters originally included in Part 9.1.2.5 of the permit.  MassDEP has proposed to eliminate the metal tributyltin in its entirety as a state-specific monitoring parameter previously added to Sectors Q and R.  Based upon this and a request from an affected permittee to remove tributyltin as a required monitoring parameter, EPA is now considering modifying the 2008 MSGP to reflect MassDEP's modified water quality certification pursuant to 40 CFR 124.55(b).  If the 2008 MSGP is so modified, EPA will notice the modification in the Federal Register and make it available at its MSGP website.

For further information about the specific requirements for your state or your particular facility please contact Travis Wheeler at 508-970-0033 at extension 115 or Lucy Servidio at extension 114.

< Back

On March 11, 2009 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a change in its Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), Section 313 (Toxic Release Inventory – TRI or Form R) Reporting requirements affecting the reporting of persistent bioaccumulative toxins (PBTs).  (A recent change in Federal Law - The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act - returned TRI reporting requirements back to the rules in effect prior to December 22, 2006.)  This change affects TRI reports due July 1, 2009.

PBTs can no longer be reported in the Form A report format!  The change requires that all reports on PBT chemicals be submitted on "Form R," the more detailed form.

For all other chemicals the shorter form, “Form A” may be used only if the "annual reporting amount" is 500 pounds or less and that the chemical was manufactured, processed or otherwise used in an amount not exceeding 1 million pounds during the reporting year.

EPA will issue a rule shortly revising the regulatory text in the Code of Federal Regulations to reflect these changes. TRI-ME software and other reporting assistance materials are being revised and will also be available soon.

EPA understands that due to the timing of the legislation, facility owners and operators, including many small businesses, will not have as much time as usual to prepare TRI estimates, and, they may not have acquired or retained the relevant data from 2008. Owners or operators of facilities may use readily available data, or where such data are not available, reasonable estimates, of the amounts involved, in completing the Form R.

For answers to questions regarding the EPA TRI (Form R) reporting contact Lucy Servidio at (508)970-0033 extension 114  or Linda Swift at extension 119.

< Back

The following is an update from EPA's Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP & Oil Information Center:

On March 13, 2009, EPA released RMP*eSubmit, the new Internet-based reporting application.  RMP*eSubmit is a secure web-based system that is easy to use and will improve data quality.  For facilities that have previously submitted an RMP, the current submission will be available in the online system to access and update.  The RMP data requirements have not changed, only the method for preparation and submission of the RMP.  EPA is encouraging facilities to use RMP*eSubmit for submissions beginning March 13, 2009.  The RMP*Submit system, which requires the mailing of diskettes, will be phased out in 2009.

Information about RMP*eSubmit, including how to set up an RMP*eSubmit account, is available at http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/rmp.

For technical questions about RMP*eSubmit, please contact David Cotter at (508) 970-0033 extension 133.

< Back

On December 21, 2008 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Mass DEP) promulgated changes in the Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) regulations that changes the threshold for perchloroethylene and the designation of three chemicals as lower hazard substances. 

This means that facilities that use perchloroethylene in calendar year 2009 in excess of the new 1,000 pound threshold will need to submit Form S reports by July 1, 2010.  In addition, these facilities will need to develop a Toxics Use Reduction (TUR) Plan for this use of perchloroethylene by July 1, 2012 and every two years thereafter, if the facility continues to trip the annual reporting threshold.

Please contact Lucy Servidio at (508) 970-0033 extension 114 or Linda Swift at extension 119 if you have questions about or require assistance with the new lower threshold or any TUR requirement.

< Back

If you are the owner/operator of an Underground Storage Tank (UST) in Massachusetts, you will be receiving, or may have already received, a letter from the Massachusetts Department of Fire Services assigning you a “target date” for completion of the required third party inspection of your UST(s).

527 CMR 9.00, was amended effective August 8, 2007 to include a requirement for all new installations of UST’s to be inspected by a certified third party inspector upon completion and at least every three years thereafter, and all existing tanks be inspected by August 8, 2010, and at least every three years thereafter.

So what is the target date all about?
According to the Department of Fire Services, Office of the State Fire Marshall, the Department is concerned about the sheer number of inspection reports that the Department must handle as well as the burden on the limited number of third party inspectors in the state as the August 8, 2010 compliance date approaches.  Therefore, in an effort to “spread out” inspection and reporting, target dates are being assigned by the Department geographically.  While these dates are not regulatory in nature (no fines will be levied for non-compliance with target dates), the Department may contact facilities who have not had an inspection report submitted on their tanks by the target date.

So that you don’t find yourself in a situation where you can not arrange your inspection prior to the August 2010 compliance date, it is in your best interest to schedule your 3^rd Party UST Inspection for completion by or before the target date.  There is no requirement that a tank owner/operator must wait to be assigned a target date before scheduling their 3^rd party inspection.

If you would like further information on UST 3^rd party inspections, contact Wayne Bates at (508) 970-0033 extension 121.

< Back

Per 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 355, facilities have always been required to submit an Emergency Notification, including emergency coordinator identification, to the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) and the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) within 60 days of becoming subject to these regulations.  However, the Environmental Protection Agencies final rule, effective December 3, 2008, revised these regulations (40 CFR Part 355) resulting in the following Emergency Planning Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) Section 302, Emergency Notification, reporting changes.

• Facilities must now report changes, relevant to emergency planning and / or  regarding Emergency Notification (EPCRA Section 302), to their LEPC within 30 days of such changes (i.e., emergency coordinator changes, facility no longer in operation, new EHSs present at the facility, EHSs no longer present at the facility).

• Facilities subject to EPCRA section 302 must submit an Emergency Notification, including the name of the emergency coordinator, to the LEPC with in 30 days of that LEPC being established in their relevant region. 

For questions regarding the EPCRA Section 302 Emergency Notification reporting changes, contact Dan Forsythe at (508) 970-0033 extension 135.

< Back

On December 17, 2008 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) extended the deadline for submittal of Security Vulnerability Assessments (SVAs) for Tier 4 facilities from December 31, 2008 to January 12, 2009.  This extension only applies to Tier 4 facilities. 

If you filed a Top Screen because you store a chemical of interest (COI) in excess of a threshold listed by DHS, DHS would have sent you a letter stating either that your facility is not considered a high risk facility and no further action is necessary or that your facility is a high risk facility, what Tier your facility is in (e.g., Tier 1, Tier, 2, etc.) and the date by which you would need to submit an SVA.

Please contact Linda Swift at (508)970-0033 extension 119 with any questions you may have regarding DHS Chemical Security Requirements.

< Back

The following is an update from EPA's Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP & Oil Information Center:

On November 20, 2008, the EPA Administrator signed amendments to the SPCC Rule to clarify regulatory requirements, tailor requirements to particular industry sectors, and streamline certain requirements for facility owners or operators subject to the Rule.  With these changes, EPA expects to encourage greater compliance with the SPCC regulations, thus resulting in increased protection of human health and the environment.

The amendments do not remove any regulatory requirement for owners or operators of facilities in operation before August 16, 2002, to develop, implement and maintain an SPCC Plan in accordance with the SPCC regulations then in effect.  Such facilities continue to be required to maintain their plans during the interim until the applicable date for revising and implementing their plans under the new amendments. 

EPA also is announcing a proposed rule to extend the compliance dates for all facilities to November 2009 and to establish new compliance dates for farms (November 2009), certain qualified farms (November 2010), and marginal oil production facilities (November 2013) subject to SPCC.  These revised compliance dates will provide owners or operators of the various kinds of facilities the opportunity to fully understand the regulatory amendments offered by revisions to the SPCC Rule from 2006 and 2008.

Finally, EPA is announcing a final rule that vacates the July 17, 2002, definition of "navigable waters" and restores the definition of "navigable waters" that EPA promulgated in 1973.  This is in accordance with an order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.D.C) in American Petroleum Institute v. Johnson, 571 F. Supp.2d 165 (D.D.C. 2008).  This final rule does not amend the definition of "navigable waters" in any other regulation that EPA has promulgated.

Additional information, including the rules and fact sheets, is available at the EPA Website:
www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/SPCC

< Back

On December 3, 2008 the final rule relative to the Emergency Planning Notification, Emergency Release Notification and Hazardous Chemical Reporting regulatory changes will become effective.  These rules have been promulgated to govern requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA). This is the second of four major revisions that were originally proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on June, 8 1998 to go final.  The four revisions proposed on June 8, 1998 were:

(1)  Higher threshold levels for reporting gasoline and diesel fuel at retail gas stations – Finalized February 11, 1999.

(2)  Relief from routine reporting for substances with minimal hazards and minimal risks – May be finalized at a later date.

(3)  Relief from routine reporting for sand, gravel and rock salt - May be finalized at a later date.

(4)  ‘‘Other Regulatory Changes” – Final rule effective on December 3, 2008.

The final rule, effective on December 3, 2008, only addresses the forth proposed revision “Other Regulatory Changes”.  Revisions to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Parts 355 and 370 include clarification and minor changes to the Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS) and Non-EHS reporting of mixtures under Sections 311 and 312, the removal of the Tier I and Tier II forms and instructions from the CFR, minor modifications to the Tier I and Tier II forms and instructions, and the addition and codifying of certain existing policies and interpretations.  In addition, to the clarification and substance changes noted above, 40 CFR 355 and 370 was rewritten using a question and answer format, reorganized and renumbered and now includes tables to improve the clarity and understanding of certain reporting requirements.

Summary of more significant changes and clarifications:

1.  Clarification to the calculation of EHS and Non-EHS threshold and the reporting of mixtures under sections 311 and 312.

• Facilities must calculate the reporting threshold of EHSs using the aggregate total of that particular EHS, including the portion of the EHS in all mixtures, regardless of whether those mixtures are being counted toward another reporting threshold.

• Facilities may calculate thresholds and report hazardous chemicals that do not contain any EHSs, as chemical components or as mixtures.

2. Tier I and Tier II form and instruction changes and removal from the CFR.

• Facilities are no longer required to report their Facility Identification Number on the forms.

• Facilities will now be required to supply their North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code instead of their Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code.

• Facilities will now be required to report the chemical name or the common name as provided on the Material Safety Data Sheet for all hazardous chemicals being reported on the Tier II form.

• The Tier I and Tier II forms and instructions were removed from the CFR and can now be found at http://www.epa.gov/emergencies/content/epcra

3.  Codifying certain existing policies and interpretations.

• Part 355.33 now indicates that reportable releases need to be reported with in a 24-hour time period under EPCRA, which has always been the EPA’s interpretation and aligns with (Comprehensive, Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) reporting requirements.

• LEPC has replaced “Local Emergency Planning Committee” and SERC has replaced “State Emergency Response Commission” through the CFR and have been added to the definition sections of 355.61 and 370.66.

• The term “solution” was replaced with “mixture” and the term “mass” with weight.

For further information about the specific changes to the Tier II reporting requirements, please contact Lucy Servidio at extension 114.

< Back

The Act Relative to Mercury Management was signed into law in July of 2006. It amends Chapter 21H of the Massachusetts General Laws. This law was put in place to prohibit mercury from entering trash and wastewater, and subsequently, the environment. The law prohibits the sale of many mercury-containing products unless they are labeled by the manufacturer. The law also requires the phasing out of certain mercury-containing products, and further, prohibits the disposal of many mercury-containing products. In addition, the Mercury Management Act requires the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) to administer the programs and initiatives established through the act, and contains deadlines for the administration of these programs and goals. MassDEP is currently proposing regulations that will govern three requirements of the law that become effective as of May 1, 2008 and one that will become effective May 1, 2009.

The product sales ban would require retailers, distributors and manufacturers to stop selling some measuring devices containing mercury as of May 1, 2008. By May 1, 2009, retailers, distributors and manufacturers must stop selling any kind of mercury-containing switch and relay, if these proposed regulations pass. See the table below for a list of all products that will be and have been banned and their corresponding dates.

The labeling of mercury-added products would require manufacturers to label all mercury-containing products except for products whose only mercury is contained in button cell batteries, products whose only mercury is contained in one or more removable mercury-added lamps, refurbished medical equipment, or mercury-added formulated products or biological products with mercury-added preservatives. Manufacturers are responsible for the labeling of the applicable mercury-containing products and this requirement begins on May 1, 2008.

The prohibition on the disposal of mercury-added products in solid waste would keep generators of end of life mercury-containing products from disposing of these products in solid waste as of May 1, 2008. These products may be recycled, managed as hazardous waste, or taken care of in a manner approved by the Massachusetts DEP. This prohibition would also prohibit haulers of purposefully collecting mercury-containing products in waste as of May 1, 2008.

There will be six public hearings on the proposed regulations in November. Written comments can also be submitted to the Massachusetts DEP and will be accepted until 5:00pm on November 24, 2008.

For more information, contact Paula Esty at (508) 970-0033 extension 128.

< Back

On October 30, 2008 the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revised its Hazardous Waste Regulations by amending the definition of a solid waste to exclude certain hazardous secondary materials when recycled.  This ruling will take effect December 29, 2008 in states that do not have authorization from EPA to manage the hazardous waste program in the state.  It should be noted, however, that authorized states (such as Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island) must adopt these requirements and incorporate them into the state regulations before they would become effective in the state.  Since this is a new ruling, it may take as much as a year for authorized states to review and incorporate these requirements in to their regulations.

The EPA revisions are designed to encourage safe and environmentally sound recycling rather than management of these materials as a hazardous waste.  EPA defines a hazardous secondary material as a secondary material (e.g., spent material, by-product, or sludge) that when discarded would be identified as a hazardous waste under 40 CFR 261. Since a hazardous waste must first meet the definition of solid waste, hazardous secondary materials excluded by this ruling are not hazardous wastes by EPA definition. 

The ruling addresses the following materials:

• Materials that are generated and legitimately reclaimed under the control of the generator

  • Applies to hazardous secondary materials generated only in the United States or its territories reclaimed at facilities under the control of the generator – certification of this generator control is required to be maintained at the generating facility

  • Hazardous secondary materials must be treated as a valuable commodity rather than a waste

  • Hazardous secondary materials must be contained

  • Hazardous secondary materials must not be speculatively accumulated

  • Hazardous secondary materials must be legitimately recycled

• Materials that are generated and transferred to another company for legitimate reclamation under specific conditions

  • Applies to hazardous secondary materials that generators send to another facility for recycle (recycling facility does not have to be in the United States)

  • Hazardous secondary materials must be contained

  • Hazardous secondary materials must not be speculatively accumulated

  • Generators, reclaimers, and intermediate facilities must keep records of materials generated and shipped, received and processed, etc. to demonstrate that they were not discarded

  • Generator must comply with all applicable US Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Materials Transportation requirements

  • If exported or imported for reclamation/recycle, the generator must comply with appropriate foreign requirements

  • Hazardous secondary materials must be legitimately recycled

    1. Intermediate and reclamation facilities must provide confirmation of receipt to generator

    2. Generator must make a reasonable effort to ensure that their hazardous secondary materials are properly and legitimately recycled

    3. Intermediate, transfer, and reclamation facilities must:

       • Manage the materials in a manner that is at least protective as that for analogous raw material

       • Manage recycling residuals in a manner that is protective to the environment and if hazardous waste, be managed as such

       • Provide financial assurance to demonstrate that the intent is not to discard the material

• Materials that EPA or an authorized state determines to be non-wastes through a case by case petition process

  • This is a voluntary process that (in addition to the exclusions listed above) provides an administrative procedure for receiving a formal determination that a particular hazardous secondary material is not a solid waste when recycled in cases where there is ambiguity about whether a hazardous secondary material is a solid waste.

  • Once a non-waste determination is granted, the material is not subject to the limitations and conditions set for the other exclusions in this ruling.  However, EPA may (at its discretion) specify that the hazardous secondary material meet certain conditions and limitations.

  • There are two types of non-waste determinations:

    1. a determination for hazardous secondary materials reclaimed in a continuous industrial process

    2. a determination for hazardous secondary materials indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a product or intermediate.

  • This exclusion does not affect any existing exclusion, variance, or other EPA or authorized state  non-waste determination.

The amendments specifically do not apply to hazardous secondary materials that are inherently-waste like, that are used in a manner constituting disposal, that are used to produce products that are applied to or placed on the land, or that are burned to recover energy, used to produce fuel, or are otherwise contained in fuel.

All facilities (generator, intermediate, transfer, and reclamation facilities) will need to file a notification using the EPA Form 8700-12 with the EPA Regional Administrator or the authorized state prior to operating under these exclusions and by March 1^st of each even numbered year thereafter.

Please contact Linda Swift at (508) 970-0033 extension 119 with any questions you may have concerning these exclusions.

< Back

RoHS, the Restriction of Hazardous Substances, came into effect in July of 2006. This European Union directive initially restricted the use of six hazardous materials in the manufacture of electronic and electrical equipment. Since the directive has come into force, new restrictions under RoHS have been proposed. Some of these proposed restrictions are confirmed as Substances of Very High Concern (SVHCs) under REACH, which is the European regulation for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals. Some of the proposed new restrictions include Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA), Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCDD), di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP), di-n-butyl phthalate (DBP), medium- chain chlorinated paraffins (MCCP), nonyl phenol ethoxylates, and organochlorine and organobromine compounds. Some of these chemicals have been proposed with exemptions, and some have not. Some of the chemicals aforementioned were proposed for the sole reason of controlling recycling in developing states outside of the EU. The elimination of certain hazardous substances from the market will also eliminate these substances from being dumped in landfills, thus causing less damage to the environment.

An official update to RoHS is likely to be made in 2011 or 2012, and when RoHS is revised, it is likely that its scope will change. Changes to the scope may include the inclusion of categories 8 and 9 (medical devices, and monitoring and control instruments), the inclusion of large-scale stationary industrial tools as well as fixed installations, and the review of the status of components and spare parts. By the end of 2008, the European Commission’s proposals for amending RoHS will be submitted. A review of exemptions will change some and remove others, some by the end of 2009.

For more information, please contact Paula Esty at (508) 970-0033 extension 128.

< Back

REACH, the European regulation for the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals, continues to develop as manufacturers and importers of chemicals into the European Union (EU) scramble to be ready for full compliance with the regulation. As the end of 2008 nears, so does the deadline for pre-registration. All chemicals must be pre-registered by December 1, 2008. If chemicals are not pre-registered, then they will not be allowed to enter the EU market in the future. An intermediate list of those substances that were pre-registered by October 1, 2008 is published on the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) website. This list contains almost 40,000 chemicals and was published so that downstream users can see if substances of interest to them have already been pre-registered.

The ECHA Member State Committee has recently agreed on the identification of 15 chemicals to be named to the Substances of Very High Concern (SVHC) candidate list. This list includes anthracene, cobalt dichloride, diarsenic pentaoxide, sodium dichromate and di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP). The inclusion of a substance in the candidate list is based on the specific intrinsic hazardous properties of the substance, and this list will be updated regularly. After assessing the properties of these substances, the potential exposure from their uses and their market volume, ECHA will draft a proposal of substances to be included on the list of substances subject to authorization (Annex XIV of the REACH Regulation). Substances that are listed on the authorization list cannot be manufactured or imported in the EU after a specific date set by the Commission. However, companies can attempt to get an authorization for specific use(s). The first recommendations of priority substances will be made by June 1, 2009.

For more information, please contact Paula Esty at (508) 970-0033 extension 128.

< Back

 Non-Contact Cooling Water General Permit Goes Into Effect

On July 31, 2008 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a new Noncontact Cooling Water General Permit (NCCWGP), which became effective August 1, 2008 and will expire August 1, 2013.  The NCCWGP allows facilities to discharge noncontact cooling water (NCCW) to waters of the United States under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).  NCCW cannot come into contact with any raw material, intermediate product, waste product (other than heat), or finished product prior to discharge.  The NCCWGP will cover discharges of 1 million gallon per day or less.  The effluent discharge limit will be determined by the flow reported on the Notice on Intent (NOI).  There are specific discharges that are excluded from coverage under the NCCWGP.  In order to gain coverage under the general permit, NCCW can not be discharged to habitats of endangered species, or areas where it will adversely affect a National Historic Place.  The new NCCWGP has specific requirements for cooling water intake structure (CWIS) in order to prevent impingement or entrainment of aquatic organisms.  Facilities with coverage under an expired permit are required to submit a NOI within 60 days (September 30, 2008). Facilities wishing to gain coverage under the new permit for a new NCCW discharge must submit an NOI 60 days prior to discharge.  The NOI must be submitted to both EPA and appropriate State authority.

The NOI must contain the following information:

• General facility information

• Name of receiving water and its state water quality classification

• Description of activity that generates the discharge.

• Engineering calculation of projected temperature rise of receiving water and quantity discharged.

• A description of each outfall including:

  • Flow in GPD, both maximum and average

  • Maximum daily and monthly average temperature of discharge

  • Maximum and minimum monthly pH

  • Whether the discharge is continuous or periodic

  • Latitude and longitude of each discharge location

• Reported or calculated seven day ten year low flow (7Q10).

• NCCW source information

• Best Technology Available for CWIS, if applicable.

• Determination of Endangered Species Act Eligibility

• Documentation of Nation Historic Preservation Act requirements

• If groundwater is a source of NCCW then the NOI must include analysis for a variety of parameters, (e.g. total metals, chlorides, pH) and hardness of receiving stream.  There are no limits.

Compliance with the NCCWGP will require monitoring of the following parameters; flow, discharge temperature, influent temperature, receiving water body temperature, pH, and total residual chlorine if the source of NCCW is potable water.  Limitations of these parameters are based on the class of receiving water.  Results of monitoring must be submitted on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) on a quarterly basis. A noncompliance that endangers the health or the environment must be reported within 24 hours

Please contact Lucy Servidio at (508) 970-0033 extension 114 with any questions you may have about the NCCW Permit or services related to assessing your facility’s compliance.

< Back

 EPA's Self Disclosure Policy Undergoing Modifications

Electronic Self-Disclosure Allowed by EPA Audit Policy
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is now allowing companies to electronically self-disclose violations of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). Electronic self-disclosure will make the act of self-reporting violations simpler, speed up the EPA’s processing of forms and reduce transaction costs by guaranteeing that each disclosure contains all necessary information. The use of this electronic program is also expected to ensure uniformity in how disclosures are processed and evaluated by the EPA. Companies can now use the Audit Policy Self-Disclosure system (or eDisclosure) to disclose the following EPCRA violations: Section 304: Emergency Notification, CERCLA Section 103 (only if the Emergency Notification violation is disclosed), EPCRA Section 311: Material Safety Data Sheets, EPCRA Section 312: Emergency and Hazardous Chemical Inventory Forms, and EPCRA Section 313: Toxic Chemical Release Forms. EPCRA sections 302 and 303 are not included in the eDisclosure provisions. Facilities located in EPA Region 6 states (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas) can also use eDisclosure to report violations of other federal environmental laws. After testing out this electronic program, the EPA will refine it and decide whether to expand the program to report violations of other environmental laws nationwide.

To use eDisclosure, a company must use the EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) to access and fill out the eDisclosure forms. A business confidentiality claim may not be declared with respect to any information submitted to the EPA through eDisclosure. Also, the eDisclosure forms may only be used once, as a unique processing ID is given for each form for tracking purposes. When a self-disclosure is submitted electronically through eDisclosure, all information provided by a company will be saved in a database and routed to the proper EPA contact. Submitters will be notified of the receipt of the disclosure as well as the enforcement response. If a company downloads the self-disclosure form and does not submit it to the EPA, the EPA may contact that company.

As with any legal matter, it is wise to discuss filing a self-disclosure (be it via a hard copy of the form or through eDisclosure) with your legal counsel.

Please note: Self-disclosure is only valid when the facility self-discloses to EPA within 21 days of learning of the violation.  (Unless you are a new owner of a facility – see below for more information about new owner provisions of the EPA Policy.)

A New Interim Approach to EPA’s Self-Disclosure Policy
As of August 1, 2008, the EPA’s new interim approach to the self-disclosure policy allows owners of newly acquired facilities to be treated as “new owners” for the first nine months of purchasing the facility. Those owners that discover any environmental violations would be expected to report those violations to the EPA. Once an owner has reported, they have the option to either sign an audit agreement with the EPA, detailing remedies and penalties, or, if an owner chooses not to enter into an audit agreement, he can disclose violations individually. New facility owners can report violations to the EPA within 45 days of the purchase closing or within 21 days of discovery, whichever is longer. New owners that self-disclose any violations could still be charged with penalties if the EPA concludes that said violations gave the company a competitive advantage. However, this new interim approach to the self-disclosure policy presents an opportunity to significantly improve the environment in a prompt and resourceful manner.

Please contact Linda Swift at (508) 970-0033 extension 119 with any questions you may have about the EPA Self-Disclosure Policy or services related to assessing your facility’s compliance.

< Back

 Proposed MA GHG Emissions Reporting Regulations

 MassDEP has announced that a Public Hearing is scheduled for 1:30PM on Thursday April 30th 2009 at the MassDEP offices in Boston. MassDEP is proposing amendments to the mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting regulation (310 CMR 7.71) that it issued on an emergency basis in December 2008.  The regulation requires reporting of GHG emissions from certain sources and creation of an accurate inventory of statewide GHG emissions that will inform and improve planning, implementation and tracking of state efforts to address climate change.  These amendments address additional reporting requirements.  Testimony may be presented orally or in writing at the public hearing. Written comments also will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on May 11, 2009. 

For more information, contact David Cotter at (508) 970-0033 extension 133.  

< Back

 Global Warming Solutions Act

On August 7, 2008 Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick signed the "Global Warming Solutions Act".  The Act requires annual emissions reporting for:

1. Any facility that is required to report air emissions data to MassDEP pursuant to Title V of the federal Clean Air Act and that has stationary emissions sources that emit greenhouse gases.
    

2. Any facility that emits greater than 5,000 tons per year of greenhouse gases (measured in carbon dioxide equivalents) from stationary sources. 

By April 15, 2009, MassDEP must establish specific reporting requirements.  By July 1, 2009, MassDEP must establish baseline 1990 greenhouse gas emissions and project 2020 emissions statewide. Emissions inventory data will be used to establish baselines and projections.  By January 1, 2011, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) must set state limits on greenhouse gas emissions for 2020 that are between 10 and 25% below 1990 statewide baseline.  Specific industry sector targets may vary.  By 2050, statewide emissions must be 80% below 1990 levels. 

For more information, contact David Cotter at (508) 970-0033 extension 133.

Related News:

• United Nations (UN) Climate Change Press Briefing

• European Union (EU) Report on Emissions Trading

• MA Greenhouse Gas Credit Banking & Trading Program

• Comment Period thru 11 May 2009:  MA GHG Reporting

< Back

 EPA Re-Issues Permit for Construction Site Stormwater

The following was provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Water

The EPA is re-issuing a stormwater Construction General Permit (CGP), which expired July 1, 2008, for a two-year time period. The permit will apply only where EPA is the permitting authority, which is in five states (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Idaho and Alaska); Washington, D.C.; most territories; and most Indian country lands.

The CGP regulates the discharge of stormwater from construction sites that disturb one acre or more of land, and from smaller sites that are part of a larger, common plan of development. The permit requires operators of the construction sites to use stormwater controls and develop stormwater pollution prevention plans to minimize the discharge of sediment and other pollutants associated with construction sites in stormwater runoff.

Under the re-issued permit, new dischargers include new construction sites that start construction on or after the effective date of this permit and those that have already started construction, but do not have coverage under the 2003 CGP. Sites that have coverage under the 2003 CGP must continue to comply with the provisions of that permit and do not need to apply for coverage under this new permit.

The permit uses most of the same terms and conditions as EPA's 2003 permit.

EPA is coordinating the permit with a second effort that is underway to establish national clean water standards, known as an effluent limitation guideline, for the construction and development industry. Upon finalization of the guideline, EPA plans to include its provisions into a new and improved five-year CGP to be reissued no later than July 2010.

For more information on the Construction General Permit: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/cgp

If you have any questions regarding the permit, please contact Lucy Servidio at (508) 970-0033 extension 114.

< Back

 Are You Managing Your Solid Waste Correctly?

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Mass DEP) is  currently increasing the number of inspections at solid waste facilities to assess compliance with the Massachusetts Solid Waste Bans (310 CMR 19.017).  If Mass DEP  sees an excess of restricted material within the waste streams at the solid waste facilities, they will seek out those that may have contributed to that excess.  While the Mass DEP presently only inspects solid waste facilities, they may decide to conduct inspections at generator sites in the future, resulting in potential enforcement penalties. 

The 1991 Waste Bans  are a critical component of the Massachusetts Solid Waste Master Plan.  The waste bans are restrictions on the disposal or transfer for disposal of certain hazardous and recyclable wastes at solid waste facilities in Massachusetts.  These bans apply to solid waste facilities, construction and demolition processing facilities, waste haulers, municipalities and waste generators.

The regulations state that “no person shall dispose, transfer for disposal, or contract for disposal the restricted material…”   Restricted material includes the following materials and activities:

Prohibited from Disposal - Zero Tolerance Items:

• Lead acid batteries

• White goods

• Whole tires

• CRTs

Prohibited from Disposal: Recyclable Items:

• Recyclable Paper:
  All paper, cardboard and paperboard products (EXCEPT tissue paper, toweling, paper plates and cups, wax-coated cardboard and other low-grade paper products)

• Glass, metal, and plastic containers

• Leave and Yard Waste

The desired results of the waste bans are to promote behavior change, through source reduction, reuse, and recycling and to conserve capacity at existing disposal facilities, minimizing the need for new facility construction. 

For more information, click here to visit the MassDEP website.  Or call Linda Swift at (508) 970-0033 extension 119.

< Back

 Massachusetts Requirements for Underground
     Storage Tanks

527 CMR 9.00: Board of Fire Prevention Regulations

Effective August 8, 2007 every newly installed Underground Storage Tank (UST) must be inspected by a third party inspector upon completion of installation and at least every three years thereafter. USTs installed prior to the August 8, 2007 cutoff must be inspected by a third party inspector before August 8, 2010, and at least every three years thereafter.

Inspections shall consist of a review of required documentation described in 527 CMR 9.07(P)(3), as well as a physical inspection of the UST on the topics outlined in 527 CMR 9.07(P)(5). The inspection must be recorded on a form or in a format approved by the Marshal, signed by the inspector, and transmitted to both the head of the Fire Department and the Marshal within 14 business days of the inspection.

Farm or residential tanks of 1100 gallons capacity or less used for storing motor fuel for noncommercial purposes and residential or commercial tanks storing, or having stored, heating oil (fuel oil) for consumption on the premises are exempt from the new provisions of 527 CMR requiring third party inspections.

Third party inspectors must have completed training required by the Massachusetts Fire Marshal and must be a MA Registered Professional Engineer (PE), MA Licensed  Site Professional (LSP), or a person holding a UST inspector certification. Inspectors may not be the owner/operator of the UST, an employee of the owner/operator of the UST, or an otherwise responsible party for the UST.

Please contact Linda Swift at (508)970-0033 extension 119 or Wayne Bates at extension 121 with any questions you may have regarding these requirements.

< Back

In October 2007, the Toxics Use Reduction Act (TURA) Administrative Council voted to designate three chemicals -- trichloroethylene (TCE), cadmium, and cadmium compounds -- as higher hazard substances with a lower 1,000-pound reporting threshold.  These designations were codified in amendments to 301 CMR 41.00 (Toxic or Hazardous Substance List) that were promulgated on December 28, 2007 and are effective for reporting year (RY) 2008.  Under the 2006 amendments to TURA, the Administrative Council was directed to designate up to ten chemicals per year as higher hazard substances.

Facilities that use 1,000 pounds or more of these higher hazard substances in RY 2008 or subsequent years, employ the equivalent of at least 10 full-time employees, and conduct any of the business activities within TURA-covered SIC or NAICS codes, will have to report their use (and pay a fee) to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) beginning with RY 2008. This means you need to start tracking use for these higher hazard chemicals for RY 2008 and if you trigger the 1,000 lbs. threshold, then you’ll need to submit toxics use reports and fees for RY 2008 to MassDEP by July 1, 2009.  Facilities that continue using these substances above the reporting threshold also must prepare toxics use reduction plans by July 1, 2010 and every two years thereafter.

The TURA program is committed to working with facilities to reduce the use of these chemicals.  In some cases, reduced use may enable a facility to drop below the reporting threshold.  The Office of Technical Assistance and Technology (OTA) is available to any facility seeking help to identify options to reduce use and the Toxics Use Reduction Institute’s Surface Cleaning Laboratory can provide particular assistance in identifying alternatives to TCE.

The following are key web links for further guidance and technical assistance resources:

• MassDEP TURA Reporting Guidance
  http://mass.gov/dep/toxics/toxicsus.htm

• Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI)  http://www.turi.org/government

• Office of Technical Assistance and Technology (OTA) http://www.mass.gov/envir/ota

For questions or more information on the reporting and planning requirements for these newly designated higher hazard substances, please contact Lucy Servidio at (508) 970-0033 ext. 114.

< Back

Having up-to-date plans of your industrial wastewater pretreatment system (IWPS) is not just a good idea, it is a regulatory requirement in Massachusetts. Under the recently revised MassDEP sewer connection regulations, 314 CMR 7.05(3), any user with an IWPS must have engineering plans that have been stamped and signed by a Massachusetts Registered Professional Engineer (PE). These plans must be current and demonstrate that the system has been constructed to;

• Meet all local, state and federal limits,

• Treat 120% of the design flow,

• Prevent intentional diversion of non-compliant wastewater,

• Prevent mixing of incompatible wastewater,

• Provide safe operation and maintenance,

• Provides access for sample collection,

• Comply with hazardous waste management rules.

In addition to the facility plans requirements, the sewer connection regulations have specific requirements for IWPS operation and maintenance, system grading, as well as certified operators and up-to-date staffing plans.

If you don’t have up-to-date plans, the wastewater treatment experts and engineers at CAPACCIO can help. Our experts can conduct an evaluation of your IWPS against the regulatory requirements and prepare existing conditions process flow diagram for the IWPS. Treatment systems that meet the regulatory design and construction requirements, will be stamped and signed by a Massachusetts PE. For an IWPS system that requires additional modifications to meet the regulatory requirements, a list of required upgrades will be provided.

If you have questions about your IWPS, please contact Wayne Bates at (508) 970-0033 ext. 121.

< Back

The OHSAS 18001:2007 revision of the Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems standard has been officially released.  Similar to the process of upgrading from ISO 14001:1996 to ISO 14001:2004, companies registered to the OHSAS 18001:1999 standard will be required to upgrade to the 2007 version by 1 July 2009 (at which time the certifications to the 1999 version will no longer be valid).  For new registrations, the 2007 version of the standard should be used.

For information or assistance in upgrading to OHSAS 18001:2007 or integrating with other management systems at your facility (ISO 14001 and others), please contact Paula Esty at (508) 970-0033 extension 128), or Lisa Wilk at extension112.

< Back