As the recent horsemeat scandal in Europe illustrates, the supply chain for processed foods is a complicated global endeavor. It also focuses our attention on the need for transparent food traceability—the ability to know where meat, vegetables, or any food product started and ended its journey to your plate.

In this country, the Food and Drug Administration is in the process of implementing the 2011 FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). One component of that law will require producers of high-risk foods to implement the means to trace food products both forward to the consumer and back to the grower in the event of a discovered contamination or recall.

The FDA has not yet issued rules for high-risk food tracing but is in the process of gathering data and soliciting public comment. A published report (PDF) on food tracing pilot projects initiated by the FDA and USDA included recommendations that the FDA should consider developing standardized electronic mechanisms and a technology platform for collecting product data. In addition, the report endorsed:

• Requiring each member of the food processing chain to develop, document, and exercise a product tracing plan;
• Setting uniform recordkeeping requirements for all regulated foods and not permitting exceptions based on risk classification; and
• Requiring food companies to identify and maintain Critical Tracking Events (CTEs)—critical points of product transfer and transformation—and Key Data Elements (KDEs)—the capture and communication of critical track and trace information.

Woodard & Curran will monitor developments as the FSMA requirements evolve. You can read more about our work with the food and beverage market and about the FSMA in the spring edition of Directions.

The destructive power of severe storms can be immense. “Superstorm” Sandy and the intense winter storms that pounded the northeastern U.S. were a clear reminder that when a natural disaster strikes, we are all at its mercy. Fortunately, there are things that we can do to take more control of our fate and reduce the potential for damage from severe storms and other disasters if we plan ahead.

The University of Massachusetts System took that message to heart and obtained a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency to write Hazard Mitigation Plans for four of its campuses.

Developing these plans requires analyzing the risks posed by various natural disasters and the vulnerabilities of each campus and developing a list of projects that can reduce those risks and vulnerabilities. The projects are prioritized and the plan becomes the basis of an ongoing hazard mitigation program. A Hazard Mitigation plan that has earned FEMA approval also opens the door to grant opportunities to fund project implementation. 

UMass has undertaken the Hazard Mitigation Planning process because it believes it is the best way to protect students, faculty, and staff on its campuses. The fact that it makes them eligible for financial support is an added benefit.

This is just one example of an organization working to be better prepared. Across the country, other universities and communities are following the same path, and confirming the old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Read more about FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grants and how to qualify for the opportunity.

 
 

 

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) recently released an updated assessment of the nation’s infrastructure. Their last report card, released in 2009, gave U.S. infrastructure a cumulative grade of D. This year, the grade improved to D+.

The 2013 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure reviews 16 categories, including water, wastewater, hazardous waste, and energy. Solid waste received the highest grade: B-. Inland waterways and levees received the lowest: D-. No single category received a lower grade than four years ago, but none made significant improvement either. Grades are assigned based on the following criteria: capacity, condition, funding, future need, operation and maintenance, public safety, resilience, and innovation.

Focus on Increasing Funding
The low scores in most categories stem from delayed maintenance and insufficient investment. The ASCE estimates that an investment of $3.6 trillion is needed by 2020 to fund maintenance and improvements to essential infrastructure. Based on current trends, the estimated funding gap is more than $1.6 trillion.

State by State Reports 

For the first time, the report includes infrastructure information for all 50 states. For example, among the key facts listed for Georgia, the state has 484 high hazard dams and only 4% of state regulated dams have Emergency Action Plans. Pennsylvania has nearly twice as many high hazard dams (852), but 96% of them have Emergency Action Plans.

The report estimates that both Maine and neighboring New Hampshire need approximately $1 billion in wastewater infrastructure improvements over the next 20 years. New York and New Jersey are reported to need about $30 billion each to fund wastewater needs. One positive for the “Pine Tree State” was its rank of 11 in production of renewable energy. Massachusetts, by comparison, was ranked 35th, New Hampshire 32nd, Connecticut 44th, New Jersey 46th, and New York a very respectable 4th. 

There’s an App for That 

The complete report card, state by state reports, and more information is available at www.infrastructurereportcard.org. The report can also be accessed via an app for smartphones and tablets. 

 

 

The Massachusetts program to encourage development of solar electrical generation capacity has been much more successful than expected. That’s both good and bad, because the current program was meant to suffice until 2017. The market has grown so rapidly that more than half of the incentives have been claimed. Of the 400 megawatts (MW) carved out in the program, only 150 MWs remain, and those are expected to be used up in the near future. So what’s next for solar in Massachusetts?

We recently attended the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources’ (DOER) meeting on the future of policy to encourage the growth of the solar PV market in Massachusetts after the 400 MW cap of the current Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard (RPS) Solar Carve-Out program is reached. DOER announced to the packed meeting that they believe the market could grow to 2,000 MW. 

DOER’s objective is to provide economic support and foster the right market conditions to maintain and expand PV installations in MA. They also want to reach the point where solar PV does not need a separate program and can be absorbed into the RPS Class I program. They are currently evaluating two options to achieve their goals:

Option 1 – Maintain and expand the RPS Solar Carve-Out framework with revisions 

This option is attractive because the industry is familiar with and generally supports the current program design. Within this option there are many revisions under consideration including creating a new Solar Renewable Energy Certification (SREC) market (referred to as SREC II). While a new SREC II market would require additional compliance burdens, it was acknowledged that simply maintaining one SREC market may breach expectations of existing generators under the 400 MW program who entered the program under specific rules that would likely change if additions are made to the original SREC market.

To reduce incentive value as the market expands and installation costs decline, DOER introduced the idea of Carve-Out Generation – SREC Factor. A qualified project would be given an SREC Factor between zero and one. The electricity from the project would then be split into one portion that generates SRECs and one portion that generates RPS Class 1 credits. The SREC factor would decline gradually to near zero as the program reaches the cap, thus transferring the program solely into RPS Class I. 

To complement the SREC Factor and enable incentive differentiation, DOER also presented the SREC Factor Adjustment. To date, additional incentives through the Massachusetts Clear Energy Center (MassCEC) have been necessary to maintain a robust residential/small system market, but it’s understood that this funding may come to an end. The Adjusted SREC Factor would offer added economic incentive to help drive projects in particular sectors (e.g., small systems) where the Adjusted SREC Factor would equal the SREC Factor multiplied by a “Small System Adjustment rate.”

Option 2 – Establish a new Central Procurement framework  

The second option focuses on creating a new policy framework that fosters a simpler and more predictable solar market. This could take a couple different forms. The first idea uses long term contracts (LTK) for SRECs through frequent, standardized, and competitive solicitations. LTKS might be purchased by DOER, MassCEC, or an independent third party, who would recover the cost through utility rates or a System Benefit Charge. LTKs provide a level of certainty to developers since they set an SREC price for the contracted amount of time. Similarly a Feed-In Tariff (FIT) approach would require distribution utilities to purchase solar energy at regulated prices. Solar generators would be automatically eligible and pricing would be set by DOER, with utilities spreading the cost across ratepayers.

A hybrid approach was also presented in which LTKs would be used for large systems and FITs would be used for small systems.

DOER’s full presentation (PDF) is available, and provides further detail on their observations of the current program, the two primary policy options, and other overarching policy issues.

DOER noted they intend to move the process along promptly, hoping to have a framework sometime this summer. Whatever course is chosen, the future of the solar energy market in Massachusetts should be much clearer in the next few months and potentially much larger.

Read more articles on solar power in the Summer 2012 issue of our Directions newsletter.

How valuable is environmental cleanup? I’m on my way to Salt Lake City to participate in the American Bar Association Energy and Environment annual conference to talk about just that question.

American business spends billions of dollars every year on environmental cleanup. Despite more than 20 years of this kind of spending, there is still much to be done, which raises the question of how much cost is and should be involved in appropriate cleanup.

There are a number of factors that determine costs, and impact our ability to estimate them. Lots of work has been done to understand these factors, and recently this work has shifted the question toward quantifying the benefits of cleanup, not just the cost of conducting cleanup. A novel idea – don’t just track the expense, but actually understand the financial return that comes from a clean environment. 

People have tried to put prices on environmental resources – the value of bald eagles, or clean rivers to name just a couple of examples. I think there is another way to look at the question. I think the value of those resources is built into the value of our companies. If we can understand the financial benefit to companies that proactively pursue a clean environment, that will point to the value of those clean resources. 

I am speaking at the conference about exactly this issue. Specifically, I am presenting a model for how to calculate the financial value of environmental cleanup. Research shows that people demonstrate the value of environmental cleanup in their valuation of a company – how much they are willing to pay for a share of that company in part reflects their perception of how environmentally friendly that company is. 

It turns out that we can use this research, together with a detailed understanding of a company’s assets and liabilities, to determine the return on investment for money spent on environmental cleanup. The results might surprise you – we find that environmental cleanup may result in some of the best Internal rates of return among common corporate investments. 

So much for the idea that business and the environment can’t coexist

Contributed by Dave MacDonald, LSP, PG 

The athletic fields on the Harborside Campus of Johnson & Wales University in Providence, RI provide a picturesque setting on the shore of Narragansett Bay. It wasn’t always so ideal. Decades earlier, the site was home to various industries, and it had been classified as a brownfield. JWU has worked hard to revitalize the area, and a key part of that is developing a new waterfront athletic complex.

JWU’s Providence campus began participation in NCAA athletics in 1995. For the next eighteen years, the athletics department rented nearby locations for their outdoor practices and games.

The University hired Woodard & Curran to create a master plan and provide design services to develop a vacant portion of the waterfront brownfield into recreation facilities. These facilities include three natural-grass fields for baseball, softball, and soccer practice, and one state-of-the-art synthetic multi-purpose turf field. The project includes a soil cap over the site, drainage and stormwater management, site grading, and associated structures such as scoreboards, seating berms, bleachers, a grandstand/press box, and more. The athletic fields were designed with best practices in mind, like minimizing sun glare and NCAA compliance.

The athletic facilities are just one part of the brownfield renewal. The complex was designed to integrate with existing and future buildings and the Urban Coastal Greenway — a park and walking path that provides public access to the Bay. Environmental education signage is incorporated throughout the site in partnership with the nearby Save the Bay organization.

“It’s a fantastic site, aesthetically” said Rich Zarlenga, JWU’s project manager, as told to Johnson & Wales University Magazine. “The views of the Bay nicely compliment the [Urban Coastal] Greenway. It transforms brownfields into something the university will be proud of for a long, long time.”

Read more about Woodard & Curran’s property development and site-civil engineering practices, brownfield remediation, athletic field construction services, or the advantages of synthetic turf.

National Severe Weather Week (March 3-9): no, it’s not a week for paging through slideshows of storm photos, despite how compelling they can be. It’s a week to think about how individuals and organizations can prepare for the possibility of severe weather, and how they can work to prevent injury, loss of life, and damage during severe storms.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have put together resources to raise awareness around emergency preparedness. Severe Weather Week is primarily about helping the public understand how individual preparations can make a difference for them, their families, and their communities, so please take a look and take action! 

Organizations like cities and towns, businesses, colleges, and many more are obviously also important players in emergency preparedness and response. FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plans are a great first step to improving an organization’s emergency preparedness. Going through the process of evaluating risks, identifying mitigation measures, and prioritizing actions is critical to protection residents, community members, and employees. Think of National Severe Weather Week as an opportunity to start the process or to re-examine your existing plan.
 

Awareness of indoor air quality issues is on the rise. Public concern over adhesives, solvents, and other chemicals in the air we breathe is widespread and indoor air contamination is a real public health problem. Government agencies, scientific communities, and the public are increasingly interested in the risks posed by indoor air contaminants and how to mitigate their impact.

Indoor air quality varies widely 

In a 2011 study, EPA found that concentrations of indoor air contaminants were lower than previous studies, but the results varied due to recent changes in construction practices, differences in indoor and outdoor emissions from sources such as heating systems, and the prevalence of cleaning and consumer products used in buildings. All of these factors have a significant and evolving impact on indoor air quality. 

Don’t forget about vapor intrusion 

These so-called “background” sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) do not include the now widely recognized risk posed by vapor intrusion from contaminated soil and groundwater beneath buildings. In many buildings, vapors enter through cracks around the foundation or sumps and drains. Now that buildings are more weather-tight, there is less outside air exchange, increasing the risk of exposure to contaminated indoor air.

The challenges of indoor air contamination and vapor intrusion are complex. How do you deal with multiple sources? How significant is the impact? How do we balance future versus present use? Site specific risk assessment can help find creative solutions when used to proactively evaluate risk and response actions.

Options for dealing with vapor intrusion 

When a source of contamination is found at a new construction site, a focused evaluation should be conducted right where the building will sit. If this evaluation shows risks, engineered controls should be part of the construction. Fixing problems before the building is completed will be much less expensive than addressing concerns later.

Otherwise, remediation of indoor air contaminants in existing construction can be achieved through soil extraction, a passive sub-slab depressurization system (SSDS), or perhaps a simple fan or air exchange system.

For more information, contact Lisa Campe.

Chemical products are all around us – in our furnishings, personal care products, foods and other items we come into contact with every day. Often, these chemical products may be released to the environment in an uncontrolled way, impacting soil, water and air resources. Whether these products are harmful once released must be determined through the application of science. That application is accomplished through risk assessment. 

Risk assessment is a tool that supplies information about risks to human health or ecological receptors. It helps us understand the dangers of identified contaminants. We use it to direct remediation or to demonstrate that no cleanup is needed. Accurate site-specific risk assessment relies on identifying hazards, defining site boundaries, understanding current and future use, and balancing the needs of various stakeholders. 

There are several key questions that change the variables in any risk assessment:

• Who is exposed to hazards? Workers? Children? Future occupants?
• What are they exposed to and at what concentration? Are there toxic effects?
• When does exposure occur? Now? Later?
• Where is the exposure point?
• Why is the hazard being assessed? 
• How does the exposure occur and how often? What is within your control and influence?Answering these questions will guide a cost-benefit and risk-benefit analysis and influence plans to manage, reduce, or eliminate exposure to hazards. 

In one recent case, Woodard & Curran assessed contamination at a former lead mill. The risk characterization included evaluation of recreational and residential uses as well as the proposed redevelopment of a large, vacant parcel of land. Because the site extended into marine habitats, an ecological evaluation was performed to better quantify impacts to ecological receptors. Based on the presence of potential risk to construction workers, residents, and marine species, we developed a cost-effective remedial strategy to integrate risk-reduction measures. Risk assessment continues to be an essential tool in the restoration of contaminated sites. It will help all stakeholders involved, whether they are land owners, residents, or regulators, evaluate a viable and healthy path forward. 

For more information, contact risk assessment expert Lisa Campe.

The NJDEP has just announced significant changes to the Vapor Intrusion Screen Levels including several common compounds (PCE, TCE, ethylbenzene) that are often the driver of environmental investigations. The changes will bring relief to some site owners, but mean many more will face new requirements. Site owners will need to review the impact of these changes on existing and pending vapor intrusion/mitigation projects over the next few months to insure compliance with the implementation time frames.

Key Changes
The screening level for PCE has increased significantly, meaning that many former dry-cleaning locations and other sites impacted by this compound may no longer be required to take corrective action. The majority of changes to the Vapor Intrusion Screening Levels have resulted in more relaxed standards.

On the other hand, the screening level for ethylbenzene has decreased by several orders of magnitude, so sites like gas stations, auto shops, and many more that have historical releases of petroleum products may now be required to address vapor intrusion issues.

Sites already addressing vapor intrusion will have to incorporate the new limits into their management, while many new sites may need sampling to determine what, if anything, needs to be done. Whether action is required at any given site depends on what specific compounds are found at what levels and the effort to address the issues will vary widely.

The Official Details
Visit the Vapor Intrusion Pathway page of the NJDEP website for detailed information and updated guidance documents. The impact of these changes will be far-reaching, so take the time to assess them and understand how they will affect you.

The specific requirements and timelines can be confusing, so please contact John Sammon, Lisa Campe, Mark Pietrucha or Michael van der Heijden if you need support figuring out what you need to do given these changes.

On January third, a federal court in Virginia ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is not authorized under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to impose a flow-based total maximum daily load (TMDL) for Accotink Creek in Fairfax, VA.

This TMDL used stormwater flow rate as a surrogate for sediment loading to the stream. The court decided the case in favor of the plaintiffs, Fairfax County and the Virginia Department of Transportation, who sued EPA on the basis that stormwater runoff is not, itself, a “pollutant” as defined by Congress in the CWA. The court found “Congress’s intent to be clear and unambiguously expressed by the language” of the CWA, stating that “EPA’s authority does not extend to establishing TMDLs for nonpollutants as surrogates for pollutants.” You can read the CWA definition of a pollutant here and the full court decision here.

How will this impact municipal, industrial, and construction stormwater permits and implementation? What about local authority over stormwater? Or already finalized TMDLs? The regulated community is secretly (or not so secretly) hoping that this case will have an impact on stormwater permit conditions, reducing the financial burden of the program through EPA’s generally weakened authority over stormwater.

Not being lawyers, we can’t predict the nuances that may ripple through the legal environment, but upon reviewing the court opinion and talking to regulators, we don’t think the impact on permitees will be dramatic. In our opinion, the scope of this ruling has a fairly narrow focus, impacting EPA’s authority over TMDLs that use “nonpollutants as surrogates for pollutants.” For example, this ruling will likely impact pending flow-based TMDLs in Missouri and Vermont. There is also the potential to impact impervious cover TMDLs. It may also impact the status of EPA’s November 2010 memo on stormwater TMDLs, which recommends using flow as a surrogate for other pollutants or impairments.

If you have questions about how this might impact your community, please contact us.

The reports are clear: American infrastructure is in rough shape. From water and wastewater systems to transportation, much needed investments are being put off due to the tough economy and tight state and municipal budgets. There are still ways to get important work done, but it takes creativity, as the Freeport Sewer District in Freeport, ME recently proved. 

Freeport pursued an aggressive energy use reduction program to generate significant cash savings, allowing the District to pursue important upgrades without raising rates. Woodard & Curran worked with Freeport to conduct an energy use assessment that identified opportunities to save. An economic analysis found that the two most promising were an upgrade to the pumps and blowers used in its wastewater treatment process and improved insulation and air sealing of its facility.

To fund the work, Freeport and Woodard & Curran pursued grant funding from the Efficiency Maine Trust and a State Revolving Loan Fund. Together, these covered the capital cost of the projects. The savings exceed the cost of capital, so the upgrades were cash positive from day one.

Freeport improved the reliability and performance of its treatment process and created a more energy-efficient building with no cost passed on to rate payers. The savings also allowed the District to pursue other long-term projects, including a strategic plan that will guide it well into the future. 

Communities work hard to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act under a number of separate regulatory programs and structures. But is addressing sanitary sewer discharges separately from stormwater pollution really the most efficient way?

In an ideal world, water resource protection would be coordinated, so that the permits communities, major land owners, and other regulated organizations hold work together instead of at cross-purposes. That’s the goal of the new integrated planning framework advocated for by the U.S. EPA. It sounds like a promising approach, but big questions remain.

The idea is that a city or town can identify all its water resource protection needs and prioritize them based on their costs and benefits. This allows them to brings together a range of typically distinct regulatory drivers like National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs); Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs); Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance (CMOM); Asset Management; and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4). 

Under this framework, water resource protection problems to be seen holistically and projects to be lined up so that the most beneficial can be tackled first. Integrated planning gives communities more control over how and when to spend its limited resources on water resource protection projects. 

The approach is relatively new, though, and some things remain uncertain. Most importantly, will regulators issue permits that reflect the steps laid out in a community’s integrated plan? What happens if a city or town spends the time and effort on an integrated plan but the permits issued by the regulatory agencies don’t line up with it? It might cost more to meet the requirements of those permits than it would have under the integrated plan. It may even be that the community can’t afford to tackle the projects that would allow it to stay in compliance with the permits. Under that scenario, there really are no winners.

Integrated planning is still a new idea, but it is gaining traction even in the face of so much uncertainty. To read more about it, take a look at A Streamlined Path; Integrated Planning a Potential Benefit for Communities in the fall 2012 issue of our Directions newsletter.

In 2012, FEMA (the Federal Emergency Management Agency) will give out $1.2 billion in emergency preparedness grants. This non-emergency money will fund an immense array of projects, from flood mitigation to passenger rail security. Cities and towns, colleges, and many other organizations can take advantage of this funding opportunity to get important infrastructure projects done.

Here’s what you need to know to be in position to access this money:

1. You need to write a Hazard Mitigation Plan and get FEMA approval on it. FEMA offers grants to fund this effort.
2. The plan has to specifically identify the projects you want to do. 
3. Your chosen projects must be environmentally sound, cost-effective, solve a problem, and prevent future disaster damages.
4. You will have to provide at least a 25% match in order to receive a grant from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
5. Funding only becomes available when a federal disaster declaration is made for your location.

There is a real opportunity for you to bring in federal money to complete infrastructure projects. As long as the planning has been done and the projects meet the requirements, you could be in line for millions of dollars in matching funds. Putting in the effort to write a Hazard Mitigation Plan is the necessary first step, and is well worth it.

For more information on this topic, see An Ounce of Prevention: Accessing FEMA Funding for Hazard Mitigation Work in the fall 2012 issue of our Directions newsletter.
 

Autumn is officially here, and just like last year, it’s not too soon to start thinking about your stormwater Annual Report. Yes, you submitted a Year 9 Phase II Small MS4 Annual Report last May and next May feels a long way off, but it’s more than halfway through Permit Year 10.

EPA Region 1 has stated new Small MS4 General Permits will not be finalized anytime soon, which means a Year 10 Annual Report will be due to EPA and MassDEP by May 1, 2013. Click here for EPA’s most recent Small SM4 General Permit Update. 

Now is a great time to check progress on your community’s planned Permit Year 10 stormwater activities. Even though EPA doesn’t appear to be taking the permits seriously, it is increasing focus on municipal stormwater programs, with enforcement activities and comprehensive audits continuing at a relatively high rate, including leveling fines for late or missing Annual Reports. That means it is more important than ever to complete Annual Reports on time. You may also find that as summer construction season winds down, there’s more time to catch up on paperwork and documentation.

What should you do? 

 

1. Look up your 2012 (Year 9) Annual Report. Most reports are available on EPA's 2003 Permit Archives website. 
2. Review the Annual Report. What did your community promise to do this year? Are you on track? What have you completed and when? What's left to do? 
3. Gather and organize paper records documenting all completed stormwater activities. 
4. Make every effort to complete activities planned for Permit Year 10 by March 31, 2013 and add documentation to your files. 

How can Woodard & Curran help? 

 

If you have any questions about EPA’s Stormwater Program, General Permit Requirements, or want guidance on your local stormwater program, please contact us. For resources to help with Permit Year 10 activities and lots more, please visit our Community for Smarter Stormwater Solutions.

The EPA recently announced a new Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater Planning Framework: EPA Press Release. Here’s some additional context for their approach.

How does it work?  

EPA's new framework provides guidance on the development of a logical plan to address human health and water quality objectives of the Clean Water Act. The concept is to create one plan incorporating National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements for wastewater treatment and collection systems, Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s), and Combined Sewer Overflows / Long Term Control Plans. Combining all CWA permits into one plan allows municipalities to prioritize the work needed to comply. 

Elements of an integrated plan include:  

• a description of existing water quality, public health, and regulatory requirements;
• a description of stormwater and wastewater systems; 
• a communication and stakeholder plan; 
• an alternatives analysis and implementation schedule; 
• a method to measure success;
• incorporation of "green" and "sustainable" technologies; and 
• a process to improve the plan throughout implementation.

Opportunity to Maximize Funds   

New stormwater regulations, inflow/infiltration reduction needs, new NPDES permit requirements (especially those related to nutrients), and wastewater treatment plant improvements are all opportunities to create and leverage an integrated plan. Using this approach will help you get the biggest bang for your buck.

An Integrated Plan is Underway  

Woodard & Curran is currently initiating work on one of the first integrated plans in EPA Region 1 (New England) for the Town of Durham, NH and the University of New Hampshire. These proactive stakeholders recognize the value and cost-savings of addressing their stormwater and wastewater needs in one consolidated plan.

An informational webinar from EPA is forthcoming and will be found at the following link when it becomes available: EPA Webcasts.

The State of Georgia Environmental Protection Division (GAEPD), through its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit Program, regulates storm water discharges to waters of the state that result from activities at a multitude of industrial sector facilities. This permit is required of most industrial facilities in Georgia and is based upon the provisions of both the Georgia Water Quality Control Act and the Federal Clean Water Act.

Beginning June 1, 2012 and extending for a period of five years, the General Permit (GAR050000) associated with these activities will be re-issued, and, upon submittal of a Notice of Intent (NOI), will authorize new and existing storm water point sources within Georgia to discharge storm water associated with industrial activities to waters of the state. The new permit outlines the types of facilities and their associated Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes that would fall under the purview of this permit.

This law was originally written and regulated by the federal level of government and is currently regulated on the state level. However, it is being increasingly regulated on a local government level, especially where these local governments have requirements to regulate the condition of all waters in their respective jurisdictions.

Substantial changes to this new permit will impact the various sectors that it regulates in a variety of different ways. Each sector may have additional suggested best management practices specific to that sector. The requirement to implement additional practices is based in large part on the types of pollutants expected to be present in storm water from that regulated industrial sector. Amongst the newly required practices is the requirement to sample a variety of water quality parameters that may typically be present on a given industrial facility site. The new permit has assigned benchmark calculations, and in some cases numeric effluent limitations, so that it is clear to regulators which sites are in compliance, and where violations to water quality parameters and the permit may exist. Applicants may also have to conduct a dye, smoke, or equivalent test in their storm water system.

One specific and notable aspect of this new permit relates to those regulated activities that are located within one mile of an impaired stream system (303b/305b). These facilities are required to monitor for certain parameters, and corrective action will be required if the discharge exceeds the benchmark value, pollutant of concern listed in the TMDL.

Below is a matrix describing the new storm water permit changes, how these changes may affect you and your industry, and what we can do to help.

New IGP Change	What does this mean to me?	How can Woodard & Curran help?
There are now 27 Industrial sectors required to comply.	Yours may be one of the 6 new sectors now required to comply. In addition, your local jurisdiction may be getting pressured to monitor and enforce your activity.	Let us work together to determine if your level of compliance, if you may re-categorized, or if you may be exempt from compliance entirely.
New additional sector-specific best management practices.	Based on your industrial activity, you may need to sample for additional pollutants specific to your industry.	We can identify your additional sector-specific requirements and help navigate compliance.
Pollutant benchmarks now have target values.	Your facility will be held to a measurable standard of maintaining clean stormwater, and will no longer be assessed on a case by case basis. You may be able to establish your own benchmarks.	Working together we can identify any possible concerns your site may be facing and potential regulations. We can also partner to establish your own benchmarks.
Exceeding a benchmark now requires quarterly sampling and practice modifications.	Additional resources may need to be used if the initial sampling exceeds the benchmark.	We can assist you in scheduling and organizing your plan to minimize exposure.
There are now 7 types of discharges with numeric effluent limitations.	If a pollutant you are required to sample for has a numeric effluent limitation, and your facility fails compliance, you are in violation and the requirements increase substantially.	Let us assist you in planning and implementing practices that will prevent possible violations.
Conduct a dye, smoke, or equivalent test for presence of non-stormwater discharges.	This new requirement that will likely require additional resources.	Not all facilities will have this requirement. Let us tell you if it is needed at your facility.
New requirement for facilities discharging to impaired streams.	New permit now requires additional compliance measures if your facility discharges to any impaired stream, not just those with a TMDL Implementation plan.	Let us tell you exactly what, if any impaired water is located within one mile of your site and how to effectively manage that proximity to avoid considerably more sampling.
Discharges of pollutants to impaired streams will trigger a corrective action.	A greater number of facilities will have the potential of discharging pollutants to a stream that is impaired. Such actions will trigger enforceable regulations.	We can work with you in planning and implementing practices and sampling that will prevent possible corrective actions.

We can work with you in planning and implementing practices and sampling that will prevent possible corrective actions. 

Compliance with this permit may require substantially greater cost and effort. If you are required to renew authorization or obtain new authorization under the 2012 General Permit, you will have 30 days from June 1, 2012 to submit a Notice of Intent, 60 days to update or create a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and 180 days to implement that plan. If you aren’t sure of your plan of action, please contact us and we can assist you in making this determination. Our team of environmental scientists and engineers specialize in agency coordination and compliance. We have fulfilled storm water discharge permit requirements for industrial clients across Georgia and, under EPA’s similar Multi-Sector General Permit, across the nation.

For more information please contact Marcus Rubenstein at mrubenstein@woodardcurran.com or 770.622.6766.

 

New Jersey's Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) program is evolving rapidly. On May 7, 2012, the LSRP Program goes into full effect, and all cases subject to the Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA) must retain an LSRP by this deadline. As of early 2012, thousands of cases have yet to file notification of LSRP retention with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP). Are you among them? Unsure what you’re required to do? Read on.

Regulatory Enforcement Update  

The NJDEP has indicated that Administrative Orders may be issued to Persons Responsible for Conducting Remediation who are obligated to but have not retained an LSRP after the May 7, 2012 deadline. An Administrative Order is a formal enforcement action that includes a determination that a violation has occurred, an order to take specific actions to correct the violation, and a demand for payment of a specified penalty amount.

While the enforcement strategy unfolds, be aware that the published base penalty for "failure to conduct remediation in accordance with all applicable rules and guidance" outlined in the Administrative Requirements for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites is $8,000. The best way to avoid potential penalties is to ensure that sites subject to the SRRA retain an LSRP and submit the required retention paperwork before the May 7, 2012 deadline.

If your regulated case requires LSRP oversight, or if you need assistance in determining whether your site remediation requires an LSRP, please contact Mark Pietrucha in our East Windsor, NJ office at (609) 448-8110 or mpietrucha@woodardcurran.com.

The implications of the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) on the food and beverage industry can be categorized in two ways – direct and slightly indirect. The direct impacts are fairly obvious – required food safety plans, more site visits and higher scrutiny by regulators including the FDA, and more focus on regulating imports. While these direct impacts are incredibly important and worth monitoring closely, they do not show the whole picture. The ripple effect of the FSMA is far reaching and these indirect but powerful influences are reshaping the food and beverage industry.

The FSMA has clear impacts in black and white terms. Legislators, consumers, and manufacturers alike can read and understand the requirements. But the requirements, as powerful and persuasive as they may be, are merely words. What goes on inside the walls of food processing facilities or import warehouses is where the real change occurs. One very large industry-wide impact the FSMA is having on food and beverage manufacturers is the not-so-small notion of rethinking packaging.

The FSMA is centrally focused on preventing contamination. This simple idea has sent shockwaves through the packaging world, forcing food and beverage processors to consider their entire packaging line. Issues such as the need to switch from galvanized steel to the more aseptic stainless steel or the facility’s ability to sanitize packaging equipment have leapt to the front of every industry decision maker’s mind.

The Packaging Machinery Manufacturers Institute (PMMI), the trade association made up of nearly 600 food and beverage manufacturing companies, is tracking the impact of the FSMA on the packaging of food and beverage closely. Many companies are being forced to rethink their packaging strategies, including line layout, equipment selection or replacement, and overall process. Jim Pittas, Vice President with PMMI, was recently quoted as saying the FSMA has created “a whole new design game” for food and beverage packaging. He noted that “clean design principles” are the dominating the conversation amongst good manufacturers, with the FSMA being the undeniable driving force.

In recent years, sustainability has been the hot topic in the industry, driving many conversations both internally and externally. That focus has shifted to the FSMA and the impacts it is having on the industry as a whole. Unlike sustainability which was largely voluntary, the food safety regulations will be a sink or swim effort for manufacturers. For many, they will rely on the expertise of consultants who can provide the deep bench of engineering solutions while navigating the shifting tides of the FSMA and its implications.

For more information on Woodard & Curran’s Food and Beverage Market and to learn more about the FSMA, food safety plans, and more, please contact one of our industry specialists.

Lloyd Snyder, PE, is a Senior Vice President with Woodard & Curran’s Food and Beverage Market. He can be reached at lsnyder@woodardcurran.com.

Bill McPhail is a Senior Technical Consultant with Woodard & Curran’s Food and Beverage Market. He is HACCP and SQF certified. He can be reached at wmcphail@woodardcurran.com.

It has been a long time coming, and now it’s official: OSHA has aligned the Hazard Communication Standard, 29 C.F.R. 1910.1200, with the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS). The updated Hazard Communication Standard provides classification criteria for chemical health and physical hazards and specifies the hazard communication elements needed for chemical labels and safety data sheets. This revised standard affects chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers. During implementation of the new rule, chemical manufacturers, importers, distributors, and employers can comply with the new Hazard Communication Standard aligned with GHS, the existing Hazard Communication Standard revised as of October 1, 2011, or both.

Key Changes 

• Labels – Chemical manufacturers and chemical importers must provide a label that includes a pictogram, signal word, hazard statement, and precautionary statement for each hazard class and category to which the chemical belongs. 
• Hazard Classification – Chemical manufacturers and chemical importers must determine the hazards of the chemicals they produce or import. The updated Hazard Communication Standard provides specific criteria to address physical and health hazards of individual chemicals as well as classification of mixtures. 
• Safety Data Sheets (SDSs) – Formerly referred to as material safety data sheets (MSDSs), the new format requires 16 specific sections, providing consistency in the presentation of information.

What does this mean for chemical users?

Chemical users may begin to see changes in labels and safety data sheets as chemical producers adopt the revised Hazard Communication Standard. Chemical users should begin: 

Replacing MSDSs with SDSs as they become available; 

• Training employees on the new label elements and SDS sections; and 
• Updating hazard communication programs if new hazards are identified.

Employers must train employees on the new label elements and SDS format by December 1, 2013 and comply with all modifications to the Hazard Communication Standard by June 1, 2015.

What does this mean for chemical producers?

Chemical producers should begin: 

• Reviewing hazard information for all chemicals produced or imported; 
• Classifying chemicals according to the new classification criteria; 
• Updating labels; and,
• Updating SDSs.

Chemical producers must comply with all modifications to the Hazard Communication Standard by June 1, 2015.

For more information, contact Kelly Camp.

Additional Resources

• OSHA Fact Sheet: Hazard Communication Standard Final Rule
• OSHA’s Hazard Communication Highlights & FAQs
• OSHA’s Hazard Communication Safety & Health Topics
   

EPA has issued a No Action Assurance to all owners/operators of existing industrial, commercial and institutional boilers at area sources that are subject to the requirement to conduct an initial tune-up by March 21, 2012 under the Boiler MACT rule.

 

In response to industry comments, EPA published a proposed reconsideration of the Area Source Boiler MACT in December 2011 that would adjust the initial date for completing tune-ups to March 21, 2013. As the original tune-up deadline approached there was confusion among area source owners/operators as to when initial tune-ups were required to be completed. Some sources commented that tune-ups, as described by the rule, were not technically feasible for their boilers. Others commented that the large number of small boilers at their facilities made meeting this tune-up deadline impossible. The No Action Assurance provided by EPA establishes that EPA will not pursue enforcement action for failure to complete a tune-up by the compliance date of March 21, 2012.

 

The letter has been posted to EPA's Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters Web page. If you have any further questions about how this impacts you and your facilities, please contact us.

 

For more information, contact Kelley Begin.

An Annual Report detailing stormwater management during Permit Year 9 (April 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012) is due to EPA and the state agency by May 1, 2012. Even if this has been a slow year for stormwater activities given the difficult spending decisions each community has had to make, BE SURE TO SUBMIT YOUR ANNUAL REPORT ON TIME! EPA is increasingly monitoring communities' efforts, as shown by their comprehensive audits, enforcement orders, and fines. Beginning in Fall 2011, EPA has fined over 20 communities $1,000 to $6,000 for non- or late submittal of their Annual Reports (Notices for Clean Water Act penalties). In their email reminder, EPA even stated that "failure to report may subject you to penalties of up to $37,500 per day of violation under the Clean Water Act." Yikes!

. Even if this has been a slow year for stormwater activities given the difficult spending decisions each community has had to make, BE SURE TO SUBMIT YOUR ANNUAL REPORT ON TIME! EPA is increasingly monitoring communities' efforts, as shown by their comprehensive audits, enforcement orders, and fines. Beginning in Fall 2011, EPA has fined over 20 communities $1,000 to $6,000 for non- or late submittal of their Annual Reports (). In their email reminder, EPA even stated that "failure to report may subject you to penalties of up to $37,500 per day of violation under the Clean Water Act." Yikes!

 

Here are five tips for this year's Annual Report:

1. Start it now. If you find something wasn't done in 2011, there is still time in March to do some last-minute catch up.
2. Don't leave any blanks. Fill out every box in EPA's form, even if you didn't do anything last year.
3. Make sure the right person signs it. Per 40 CFR 122.22, the report should be signed by either "a principal executive officer or ranking elected official", such as the Town Adminstrator or Mayor.
4. Work together and think creatively. Stormwater management activities are done by commissions and departments such as Conservation, Planning, DPW, Engineering, Health, Water and Sewer; or cable TV, watershed & stream groups, and others in the community. Reach out!
5. Get it in on time! If you are working until the last minute, scan the signed Annual Report and submit it electronically to stormwater.reports@epa.gov.

 

Further information, Annual Report templates, and mailing information is on EPA's Annual Reporting Requirements page.

 

If you need any assistance preparing the Annual Report, or have any questions about EPA's Stormwater Program, contact Woodard & Curran's stormwater experts.

If you own a boiler of any size that burns oil, the new National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants – Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers at Area Sources, commonly known as Boiler MACT, is probably weighing on your mind. With tune-ups to schedule and new compliance reporting requirements to worry about, you may be feeling the pressure. But there are a couple things you should know: EPA’s March 21 tune-up deadline may not be as firm as you thought, and given the Department of Energy’s long-term projected low gas prices and large utility incentives, converting your boiler to natural gas could save you time and money down the road. Exemptions may apply for hot water heaters and dual fuel boilers that burn oil only when natural gas is curtailed.

 

The Deadline Is Looming… Or Is It?
Under Boiler MACT, many existing facilities that were not required to have air emissions permits face new requirements. Essentially, if you have an existing oil-, coal-, or biomass-fired boiler, it may need a tune-up by March 21, 2012. Unless, that is, EPA extends the deadline to March 21, 2013 as currently proposed. If the proposed deadline is not formally extended before the current 2012 deadline, EPA will likely stay the effective date of the current rule for 90 days to allow time to finalize the extension. Comments on the proposed extension will be accepted until February 21, 2012. Visit EPA’s Boiler MACT website for a copy of the proposed amendments: http://www.epa.gov/boilercompliance/.

 

Boiler MACT Boiled Down
Boiler MACT establishes several requirements, which vary depending on the date constructed, size, and fuel type of your boiler:

• Emission limits for criteria and hazardous air pollutants -PM, CO, Hg 
• Operational limits for boilers and any pollution controls the boiler may have 
• Work practice standards for boilers (tune-ups and energy assessments) 
• Emissions testing and continuous monitoring 
• Initial notifications were due 9/17/11 (submit ASAP if you haven’t already) 
• Ongoing reporting and recordkeeping

 

Requirements differ depending on whether your boiler is defined as “existing,” “new,” or “reconstructed.” You can read the requirements on EPA’s Web site, or contact one of our air quality specialists for help.

 

Natural Gas – A Simpler Choice?
If you haven’t yet made plans for a tune-up, you do have another option: convert your boiler to natural gas. Boilers that use only natural gas are exempt from Boiler MACT, and natural gas is also very competitively priced compared to other fuels. In fact, natural gas currently costs about 40% less than oil per unit of energy (BTU). Many natural gas utilities are offering very attractive conversion packages that may cover much of the cost of converting. Some prospective Woodard & Curran gas conversion projects will have project paybacks less than one-year. Making the switch could save you money and time in the long run, reducing your fuel costs, lowering Green House Gas emissions up to 30% and avoiding Boiler MACT requirements.

 

If you would like help evaluating your compliance options, or think converting to natural gas might be a good option for you, give us a call. We have experts who can help you determine the best course of action for your specific situation.

 

Contributed by our Compliance team

For more information, contact Kelley Begin

 

Through its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit program, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates stormwater discharges to waters of the United States from construction projects that ultimately will disturb one or more acres in Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Washington DC, some federal facilities, and most territories and Indian lands.

 

Projects in these areas that include one acre or more of land disturbance activities such as clearing, grading, excavating, and stockpiling and that discharge to a water of the United States must obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit by filing a Notice of Intent (NOI) with EPA, developing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and meeting many other requirements.

 

The new 2012 CGP replaces the expired 2008 CGP, and includes increased and new requirements, such as:

• NOI is now due 14 days prior to construction, instead of 7 days,
• More prescriptive Best Management Practices (e.g. erosion and sediment controls, deadlines for stabilization, pollution prevention, etc),
• Enhanced provisions to address water quality impairments, and 
• Detailed staff training requirements.

Compliance with this permit will require a substantially greater cost and effort. If your project is currently covered by the CGP, you are required to submit a NOI for coverage under the new permit by May 16, 2012, or terminate your coverage. If you are planning a new project, you will be required to obtain coverage under the new CGP. Please contact Woodard & Curran’s stormwater experts for assistance with obtaining coverage for your project. More information, including frequently asked questions (pdf), is available on EPA’s Web site.

 

Note: There is some good news! The 2012 CGP will not contain numeric effluent limits for turbidity. EPA previously issued a turbidity limit for large sites but removed that limit due to questions on accuracy of data.

 

Contributed by our Stormwater team

A recent survey conducted by FoodProcessing.com helps shed some light on what the food and beverage industry landscape might look like in the near future. The survey polled 200 plant operations professionals from various food and beverage backgrounds including dairy, non-dairy beverages, meats and poultry, snack foods, and frozen foods, amongst others.

The survey shows a great deal of optimism with a tinge of uncertainty. It also gives indications of goals, market drivers, and challenges facing the industry. While the survey is certainly not a crystal ball, it does highlight key trends, uncover the drivers behind the trends, and give insight into what the industry is working on.

The first piece of information is the challenges the industry expects to face in 2012. The majority of respondents saw their top five challenges as:

• Food Safety (53% of respondents ranked this the top challenge or concern) 
• Cost Control (29.5%) 
• Inspections/Regulations (20.5%) 
• Automation (12.5%) 
• Sourcing and Materials (12.5%)

That food safety is the highest priority on the list for food and beverage manufacturers should come as no surprise. With growing consumer awareness, tighter governmental regulations, and competitive pressure, food safety is one aspect no company can afford to miss on. In 2011, one small cantaloupe farm in Colorado sparked a nationwide listeriosis outbreak, causing 15 deaths, the most lives lost by a U.S. food borne outbreak in nearly 15 years. In response, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) is targeted at reforming food safety laws in our country. Woodard & Curran is equipped to provide preventative solutions for the industry such as inspection and compliance assistance, prevention-based controls, and response programs.

Another survey result was that a staggering 94.5% of the respondents said they expected their plant’s production to either increase or stay the same. This is good news for the industry, indicating that the economic strain felt in the last few years may have loosened a bit, opening the opportunity for more capital projects because increased production can equate to a need for updated processes and equipment.

Nearly half of the survey respondents (47.2%) said their company's capital budget was due for an increase in 2012 from the previous year. This echoes the sentiment that the food and beverage industry is poised to spend on production facilities.

When asked what portion of their facility is automated, 53.8% of respondents said sections of their production line were fully automatic. This was the highest number followed by 37.2% of packaging sections. Only 8% said their entire production line was automated. Perhaps the most interesting take away from this is the general lack of automation across a variety of food and beverage manufacturing facilities. This indicates that there is a substantial opportunity for automation upgrades.

Energy management is undeniably a huge part of any industry, and food and beverage is no exception. Whether it’s sustainable buildings, water efficiency, emissions reduction, or using alternative energy, energy management is interwoven with the industry. The majority of respondents mirrored this sentiment, with 76.1% indicating their company would be conducting some degree of energy management in 2012.

The largest portion of respondents who said they expected energy improvements indicated they were going to focus on taking steps towards energy conservation. A wide array of energy initiatives were noted in the survey including recycling energy through redirection systems, conducting energy audits, seeking alternate energy solutions such as co-generation, and installing solar panels.

While answers from a survey should not be considered definitive, it offers valuable insight. After analyzing the survey and the market conditions we can pull a few key thoughts out – food safety, increased production, and energy management are going to be large focus points for the industry this year. Understanding what drives food and beverage manufacturers and bridging the connections with outside influences such as consumer demand, governmental regulation, and economic factors will give the best possible insight to the trends of 2012.

Contributed by Lloyd Snyder, PE