Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection

Supplement to Proposal

Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

Excellence and Leadership (XL) Proposal Supplemental Information

December 16, 1996

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
William F. Weld, Governor
Argeo Paul Cellucci, Lt. Governor

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Trudy Coxe, Secretary

Department of Environmental Protection
David B. Struhs, Commissioner

Carol Browner Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW Washington, DC 20460 Dear Ms. Browner:

The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) is pleased to share with you supplemental information about our proposal (originally submitted in April 1996) for two regulatory improvement projects under EPA' s Excellence and Leadership (XL) program.

Our proposal sought flexibility to fully implement two regulatory improvement programs -- the Environmental Results Program (ERP) and the One-Stop Reporting System (One-Stop) -- where federal regulations are actually creating barriers to greater environmental protection. Under its own regulatory authority, the Commonwealth is able to implement ERP and One-Stop, but there are a number of minor yet limiting federal requirements that hinder and delay effective deployment of these two programs.

Since first submitting our proposal, DEP has completed several key actions to further develop and demonstrate the benefit of ERP. The attached supplemental information focuses on these actions. While the second of our regulatory improvement projects -- the One-Stop Reporting System -- certainly remains an active and integral part of our XL proposal, we request that review and endorsement of ERP precede consideration of the One-Stop component.

In the months following our initial XL proposal, DEP has, first of all, continued to seek the advice of constituents. The ERP Design Group -- representing environmental advocacy organizations; business and industry; consultants; and state, local and federal agencies -- has met to help shape ERP development and implementation. Representatives of EPA-New England actively and continually participate in the work of the Group.

DEP has also completed Phase I of an ERP Demonstration Project that involves 19 firms and is designed to test the feasibility of the ERP approach. While the demonstration project is not part of the ERP component of our XL proposal, it has allowed us to further refine the ERP program and help identify the specific improvements to federal regulations we need to fully implement ERP. As part of the first phase of the ERP demonstration project:

_ DEP conducted baseline facility inspections to determine, at the start, the compliance status of participating companies with regard to all applicable regulations. This initial compliance assessment will be compared with a follow-up compliance assessment following completion of the ERP certification.

_ Technical teams -- drawn from the businesses involved, DEP, and EPA-New England -- developed environmental performance standards to replace certain air and sewer-connection permits. The teams then designed a general ERP certification form (enclosed) with which facilities certify to the applicability and compliance status of each required air pollution control, water pollution control, and hazardous waste management regulation or standard. ERP demonstration companies completed the applicability portion of the form in August; they will submit the form completed in full in early 1997.

Phase II of the ERP Demonstration Project will run for one year. During this period, DEP will evaluate how the 19 firms have improved their compliance and how the whole-facility certification plays a role.

Looking beyond the demonstration project, DEP and the ERP Design Group have selected two of the industry segments included in the demonstration project as the first to be regulated under ERP -- dry cleaners and photo processors. Moreover, we have also selected for ERP regulation in the near future one more industry segment -- commercial printers; and two industrial process segments -- facilities requiring sewer connection permits and facilities requiring air pollution control permits for new combustion units. The agency has worked with the ERP Design Group, industry associations and EPA-New England, to draft regulations for the dry cleaning and photo processing segments, which DEP expects to promulgate within the next few months.

DEP evaluated the expected environmental effects of ERP by photo processors and dry cleaners. The analysis indicates that ERP should produce significant environmental benefits; for example:

_ Silver discharges from mini-photo-labs should decrease by 99 percent;

_ Fugitive emissions of perchloroethylene from dry cleaners should decrease by 43 percent.

These and other environmental benefits expected from implementation of ERP with dry cleaners and photo processors are detailed in an Environmental Notification Form prepared by the Department pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (enclosed). Once the MEPA process has been completed, DEP will undertake the formal public regulatory review and comment process on the draft regulations.

We are in the initial stages of developing an evaluation plan to assess the environmental and economic impacts of bringing the first five industrial segments into ERP. The evaluation plan will be completed with input from the ERP Design Group. Over the last several months, EPA-New England program staff have provided valuable input in helping us to develop the environmental standards to which the ERP demonstration firms, dry cleaners, and photo processors will certify. Equally as important, EPA regional staff have helped us to identify and resolve any barriers caused by federal requirements.

We at DEP hope that the XL process can be used as the fast-track mechanism through which EPA-Washington will provide the same high-level assistance and prompt reviews as we have seen throughout the year from EPA-New England. Specifically, we hope that in the XL agreement EPA-Washington will:

_ Provide active support for further development of ERP, by offering timely and constructive review of documents as they emerge and senior management support to resolve issues;

_ Provide, when needed, expedited review of regulatory actions that will allow DEP top implement ERP regulations, such as federal delegation of the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standard;and

Work with DEP to reach a clear understanding of how we will exercise our respective enforcement authorities as we implement ERP. The ideal agreement should avoid any type of "double jeopardy" for companies in compliance with ERP by mirroring EPA's stance during the course of the ERP demonstration project: maintaining the customary oversight role while deferring to DEP to resolve violations in a timely and appropriate manner. To supplement the original XL proposal of April 10, 1996, we enclose the following documents:

_ The ERP demonstration project certification form; and

_ The Massachusetts Environmental Notification Form summary explaining the environmental benefits of ERP.

DEP is now completing draft ERP regulations for dry cleaners and photo processors, as well as the schedule for promulgating them; we will forward these documents to EPA as soon as possible, and we plan to brief EPA-Washington on our progress in early January.

We at DEP strongly believe that the Environmental Results Program holds tremendous promise for realizing greater environmental protection while making it simpler, faster, and less costly for industry to meet applicable standards. The same promise holds true for both our regulatory agencies.

Sincerely,

David B. Struhs Commissioner

cc: John DeVillars, Regional Administrator ERP Design Group

Massachusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection

Local Navigation