oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of the Administrator
Washington, DC 20460
Mail Code 1807
EPA 100-R-00-033
January 2001
www.epa.gov/opei
Project XL Progress Report Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection —
Environmental Results Program
In 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) embarked on a series of innova-
tive initiatives in an effort to test new ways to achieve greater public health and environmental
protection at a more reasonable cost. Through Project XL, which stands for excellence and
Leadership, EPA enters into specific project agreements with public or private sector spon-
sors to test regulatory, policy, and procedural alternatives that will produce data and experi-
ences to help the Agency make improvements in the current system of environmental protec-
tion. The goal of Project XL is to implement 50 projects that will test ways of producing
superior environmental performance with improved economic efficiencies, while increasing
public participation through active stakeholder processes. As of November 2000,50 XL
projects are in the implementation phase and three XL projects are under development. EPA
Project XL Progress Reports provide overviews of the status of XL projects that are
implementing Final Project Agreements (FPAs). The progress reports are available on the
Internet via EPA's Project XL Web site at http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL. Hard copies
may be obtained by contacting the Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation's (formerly
the Office of Reinvention) Project XL general information number at (202) 260-5754.
Additional information on Project XL is available on the Web site or by contacting the
general information number. The information and data presented in the January 2001
Progress Report is current as of January 2001.
Background
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (Massachusetts DEP) is the
state agency responsible for protecting human health and the environment by ensuring clean
air and water, the safe management and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes, the timely
cleanup of hazardous waste sites and spills, and the preservation of wetlands and coastal
resources. Massachusetts DEP established its Massachusetts Environmental Results Program
(ERP) on the premise that a primary
reason for non-compliance among
small businesses is a lack of knowl-
edge and understanding of the rules
(including permit requirements). ERP
is a multimedia, whole sector-based
regulatory system that replaces case-
by-case permits with industry-wide
environmental performance standards
and an annual certification of compli-
Major Milestones
April 23, 1996
Massachusetts DEP XL
Proposal Submitted
December 23, 1996
Supplement to
Proposal Submitted
October 6, 1998
Final Project Agreement
Signed
March 31, 1999
Draft Addendum for
Dry Cleaners Submitted
October 6, 2008
Final Project Agreement
Terminates
-------
Massachusetts DEP XL Project 1-31-01
ance. The project is intended to reduce resources expended by both DEP and industry in the permitting process
and improve compliance through company flexibility and pollution prevention.
There are several components of ERP that contribute to the attainment of this goal and to the superior environ-
mental performance specified by Project XL, and defined in the Final Project Agreement. The components of
the ERP approach include annual certifications of compliance, clear performance-based standards written in
plain language, pollution prevention assistance, identification of a more complete universe of firms under regula-
tion, measuring and evaluating performance and environmental results, targeted compliance assistance within
sectors, and increasing publicly available data.
One of the goals of the ERP is to use real-time data to reduce the number of state permits applied for, renewed,
and issued, and to make more informed decisions on resource expenditures. Under ERP, senior-level company
officials are required to annually self-certify that their company is, and will continue to be, in compliance with all
applicable air, water, and hazardous waste management performance standards throughout their facility(ies). In
addition, ERP companies are accountable for reporting any releases orexceedances of discharge or emission
standards to the Massachusetts DEP. Violations are reported to the DEP and a "Return to Compliance Plan" is
submitted which details specific facility corrective actions that the ERP company will take and timelines for
getting back into compliance with appropriate standards.
Beginning with a demonstration project of 18 companies, industry representatives cooperated with Massachu-
setts DEP in establishing criteria for reporting compliance with stringent state performance and operating stan-
dards in certain industrial categories without developing permits for each facility. Between August 1996 and
August 1997, the participating firms were allowed to make operational changes without new permits as long as
they remained in compliance with the demonstration project's standards. In lieu of new permits, the participating
companies were required to certify as to the status of their compliance with ERP standards and other require-
ments for their facility. The first three sectors to participate in ERP were dry cleaners, photo processors, and
printers. The first annual certification for dry cleaners and photo processors occurred in Fall 1997, and printer
sector regulations were promulgated in Spring 1998. The final "umbrella" project agreement for all of these
sectors was signed on October 6,1998.
The Massachusetts DEP is currently working to implement ERP in two more sectors - firms that discharge
industrial waste water (IWW sector) to sewers and firms installing new boilers (combustion sector). Massachu-
setts DEP expects to apply ERP to the combustion sector in Spring 2001, and the IWW sector in 2001.
Massachusetts DEP anticipates that ERP will result in superior environmental performance in the following ways:
(1) ERP will enhance the outreach and training provided to participating companies that helps explain and clarify
their environmental obligations; (2) ERP will convert the permit requirements to performance-based standards
through accountability and certification procedures. Company officials will be aware of their environmental
obligations before they make decisions about modifying equipment and operations, rather than at the end of a
long, expensive permitting process. This gives companies more flexibility to choose cost-effective compliance
strategies for themselves, thereby reducing the "time to market" for new products and removing regulatory
obstacles to pollution prevention; (3) ERP will develop a performance-based system that is founded in measure-
ment and evaluation, so that DEP can base its enforcement and compliance assistance efforts on real-time data
and on the actual situations at a facility or conditions within a sector. DEP will be able to make informed re-
source decisions and provide compliance assistance to those sectors or facilities requiring little help to reach or
go beyond compliance and target its enforcement actions at specific facilities that remain out of compliance with
regulations.
Through a collaborative process, Massachusetts DEP developed Environmental Business Practice Indicators
(EBPIs) as a key way to confirm facility performance in the three industry sectors currently in ERP. EBPIs are
-------
Massachusetts DEP XL Project 1-31-01
industry-specific measures that provide a snapshot of a facility's environmental performance and are unique
because they include measurement of adherence to traditional regulatory standards (e.g., level of compliance
with labeling, record keeping, and monitoring, such as putting labels on barrels of hazardous waste), or "beyond
compliance" measures (e.g., pollution prevention and reuse/recovery activities, such as posting a sign above a
sink prohibiting the discharge of process chemicals into the sink). The goal in using EBPIs is to "benchmark"
facility/sector performance and use that information to potentially shift agency resources and focus compliance
assurance strategies. The number of EBPIs developed for each sector is different. Printers have 16 EBPI
measures (including nine pollution prevention-specific measures), dry cleaners have 16, and photo processors
have eight. The number of indicators is based on the complexity of the industry and the number of multimedia
discharges.
DEP is using EBPIs, along with random field inspection findings, data reported on a facility's self-certification
forms, and statistical sampling techniques, to measure and evaluate the environmental results of ERP and mea-
sure sector-specific performance. In establishing a sector-specific program, DEP uses field inspection data and
statistical methodology to calculate a baseline that represents an industry-wide EBPI score "before" program
startup. This "before" score is compared with "after" participation scores to determine individual facility perfor-
mance, industry-wide performance, and indicator-specific performance. Rather than inspecting each ERP facility
to establish a baseline understanding of the regulated universe, DEP uses statistics to determine the appropriate
number of facilities to inspect. Inspection data from these facilities is also being compared with information
supplied by those firms' annual certification forms to determine overall certification accuracy.
An analysis of the first year of the ERP has recently been completed by an EPA contractor. This study calcu-
lated facility scores and industry-wide scores (e.g., "before ERP" dry cleaner scores versus "after ERP" dry
cleaner scores) and analyzed changes in specific behaviors (e.g., to compare the percentage of dry cleaners that
perform leak inspections over time) to determine whether differences in scores or changes in before and after
behavior are statistically "significant." The first year analysis compares results of data collected from facilities
during random inspections after ERP to the answers on the certification forms from those facilities to determine
the overall level of accuracy of the certification data. The findings of the study are discussed in more detail under
Environmental Performance.
The evaluation may now be used to target the use of limited Massachusetts DEP resources. For example, if dry
cleaners are not performing leak checks, Massachusetts DEP might increase outreach and then reanalyze this
behavior. Or, if printers score higher than expected, Massachusetts DEP might conduct fewer inspections for
printers.
The Experiment
This project will test a process to streamline permitting and reporting and improve and better measure compli-
ance rates for several business sectors within the state of Massachusetts. The project reduces the reporting
burden for affected facilities and the Massachusetts DEP while fostering superior environmental performance by
identifying and encouraging opportunities for pollution prevention.
The Flexibility
The purpose of the umbrella EPA signed under Project XL is to establish an expedited EPA review process for
any changes to Federal regulations or policies that Massachusetts DEP may propose to ensure effective ERP
implementation. Subsequent phases of FPA development will appear as separately negotiated and signed
sector-specific addenda to the umbrella FPA. These addenda will be developed only for those sectors that need
flexibility in Federal regulations or policies. Only those ERP sectors for which a sector-specific addendum is
required will be evaluated by EPA under Project XL.
-------
Massachusetts DEP XL Project 1-31-01
According to the umbrella FPA, sector-specific addenda will identify:
sector;
• the superior environmental performance to be gained as a result of extending ERP to that sector; and
• the evaluation process to judge ERP's effectiveness in that particular sector.
Massachusetts DEP will convert most state-only permits to certifications under ERP. Currently, a facility is
excluded from participating in ERP if it is subject to any of the following federally mandated permits: Federal Air
Quality Operating Permits; National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Surface Water Permits;
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility Licenses; and EPA Single-Source State Implemen-
tation Plan (SIP) Revisions. Therefore, EPA does not anticipate providing flexibility in these areas. The statutory
programs, and the EPA offices administering the programs, that will affect the Massachusetts DEP XL project
will be determined by the sector-specific addenda.
Promoting Innovation and System Change
Project XL provides EPA opportunities to test and implement approaches that protect the environment and
advance collaboration with stakeholders. EPA is continually identifying specific ways in which XL projects are
helping to promote innovation and system change. The innovations and system changes emerging from the
Massachusetts DEP XL project are described below.
Using Self-Certification as a Means to Improve and Reward Compliance. A key component of ERP
focuses on corporate accountability and self-evaluation. ERP provides a period of outreach and training for
companies on compliance and other performance standards, after which the companies submit a statement in
which they certify compliance with applicable environmental standards and that they will maintain compliance for
the coming year. Self-certifications are signed under the penalties of perjury by the facility's owner, president,
chief executive officer (CEO), or other high-ranking official. If a facility is not in compliance when it self-certifies,
it must identify the existing violations and include a Return to Compliance Plan that specifies how and when
compliance will be achieved. The ERP approach—with clear performance standards written in plain language,
targeted compliance assistance, an emphasis on pollution prevention, and required annual self-certifi-cations—
promises to yield environmental results superior to those achieved through traditional permitting. EPA and
Massachusetts DEP acknowledge that some reasonable amount of time must be allowed to pass before final
conclusions about a particular sector's response to self-certification can be drawn.
Approach for Evaluating Performance. The Massachusetts DEP's efforts to measure a sector's performance
using EBPIs is one of ERP's most significant policy innovations. The number of EBPIs is different for each
sector. Printers have 16 EBPIs (plus an additional nine pollution prevention measures), dry cleaners have 16,
and photo processors have eight. The number of EBPIs is based on the complexity of the industry, the number
of multimedia discharges, and the potential for beyond compliance opportunities. The use of EBPIs rather than
the traditional "single dimension" measures of compliance (e.g., in compliance, out of compliance, or significant
noncompliance) allows regulatory agencies to look at compliance more comprehensively and to offer the
opportunity to recognize and potentially encourage "beyond compliance" techniques for industry leaders.
Project Commitment Summary
This section and the environmental performance section will summarize progress made in meeting commitments
described in sector-specific addenda to the Massachusetts DEP FPA. Below is a summary of the ERP
commitments in the initial umbrella project agreement.
-------
Massachusetts DEP XL Project
1-31-01
Commitment
Provide clear performance
standards and compliance
assistance to companies in the
participating sectors through
outreach and technical
assistance.
Status
DEP established workgroups of industry and government representa-
tives that worked to formulate industry performance standards for the
dry cleaning and photo processing sectors. As part of ERP, DEP devel-
oped Environmental Business Practice Indicators (EBPIs), industry-
specific measures that provide a snapshot of a facility's environmental
performance. These standards, which can be regulatory requirements or
"beyond compliance" measures, were derived using compliance inspec-
tion findings and certification forms for each of the participating sectors.
DEP is using the EBPIs to measure and evaluate ERP compliance and
environmental results. There are 16 EBPIs for printers, 16 for dry
cleaners and eight for photo processors. The EBPIs compliance require-
ments have been simplified in an easy-to-read format in the industry
workbook and compliance statement.
In addition, DEP has promulgated regulations with extensive review by
the public and industry sectors. During the first year of implementation to
each sector, DEP conducted workshops to provide guidance and
assistance to industry representatives in understanding and complying
with the standards.
DEP's certification requirements, well-designed workbooks, and out-
reach efforts have helped firms to establish compliance management
procedures, accountability and records.
Promote corporate accountabil-
ity and self-evaluation of
environmental performance by
requiring annual compliance
self-certification.
Under ERP, Massachusetts DEP established a self-certification process
for three sectors. ERP provides the compliance assistance tools that
enable businesses in the participating sectors to determine what rules are
applicable to them and what is required to comply. Because firms must
certify annually, the ERP forces companies to conduct an environmental
review annually and ensures that firms are in compliance more frequently.
ERP includes similar components as an environmental management
system where compliance obligations are established and audited on a
regular basis. Because the certification forms require the signature of a
high-level owner or manager, the process has improved senior
management's attention to environmental management.
Encourage the adoption of
pollution prevention techniques
via sector-specific guidance and
implementation manuals and
inclusion in performance stan-
dards (EBPIs).
DEP has developed workbooks that provided step-by-step guides to
compliance and pollution prevention techniques. These outreach efforts
were developed through extensive interaction with related industry
experts. In the dry cleaning sector, the workbook was translated into
Korean to accommodate the large percentage of Korean-owned
businesses.
Nine specific pollution prevention (P2) measures have been incorpo-
rated into EBPIs for the printing sector.
-------
Massachusetts DEP XL Project
1-31-01
Commitment
Increase compliance assurance
and enforcement through
random inspections, targeting
deficient certifiers, and identifi-
cation of the universe of firms in
each sector.
Status
ERP's strategy to ensure compliance includes continued field presence
by way of targeted and random inspections, review and analysis of
certification data (including Return to Compliance forms), and using the
agency's enforcement protocols as appropriate. ERP targets inventoried
entities that have not filed certifications, firms whose certifications are
incomplete or technically deficient, and companies that have been the
subject of complaints. From the program's inception to My 1999,
approximately 160 Notices of Non-Compliance were issued to dry
cleaners and photo processors that failed to certify. (Learning from
Innovations in Environmental Protection, Research Paper Number
1, Evaluation of the Massachusetts Environmental Results Pro-
gram, by Susan April and Tim Greiner of Kerr, Greiner, Andersen and
April, Inc., prepared for the National Academy of Public Administration,
dated June 2000, p. 34.) Most facilities responded to the actions. In
addition, there have been two high-visibility enforcement actions taken
as a result of questions raised in DEP's review of annual certifications.
Another benefit to improved compliance has been the increase in the
number of facilities under regulation. In DEP's initial outreach work, the
universe of firms under the department's oversight increased by approxi-
mately 340 percent. The inclusion of a more complete universe of firms
in ERP leads to greater sector-wide compliance.
Conduct an evaluation of the
program to measure and
evaluate compliance and
environmental results.
Two studies performed on the printing sector [related to the ERP
predecessor Massachusetts Printing Partnership (MP2) program] show
significant improvements in compliance practices, pollution prevention
practices, and quantifiable emission reductions. (Learning from Innova-
tions in Environmental Protection, Research Paper Number 1,
Evaluation of the Massachusetts Environmental Results Program,
by Susan April and Tim Greiner of Kerr, Greiner, Anderson & April,
Inc. prepared for the National Academy of Public Administration dated
June 2000 p.27,53.)
In addition, the first year analysis of the ERP program with respect to the
dry cleaning and photo processing sectors has recently been completed
by a DEP contractor. Its findings suggest significant improvements in the
dry cleaning sector. This analysis compares EBPIs from pre- and post-
ERP inspections and determines facility scores and industry-wide scores
to track changes in indicator-specific behaviors. It also compares results
of data collected from facilities during random inspections after ERP to
the answers on the certification forms from those facilities to determine
the overall level of accuracy of the certification data. This evaluation will
be used to strategically focus Massachusetts DEP resources.
-------
Massachusetts DEP XL Project
1-31-01
Commitment
Make the certification informa-
tion available to the public.
Status
The original intent of the ERP was to operate the self-certifications
electronically, thus eliminating or minimizing full-time equivalent resources
required for certification review and facilitating the process of providing
public access to these certifications. However, barriers to security,
consistent technology accessibility, and signatory verification prevented
the electronic mechanism.
Information on the progress of ERP is posted on the Massachusetts
DEP Web site: www.state.ma.us/dep/erp. The site includes publica-
tions, ERP sector regulations and certification packets, press releases,
and other background material. It does not include specific information
on facilities participating in the program or any data from the certifica-
tions.
Environmental Performance
In May 2000, Massachusetts DEP presented its own preliminary assessment of the ERP program to EPA. The
preliminary graphical information and supporting data that are presented below on the status of ERP are taken
from the May 2000 Massachusetts DEP presentation.
This section summarizes progress in meeting the environmental performance described in sector-specific
addenda to the Massachusetts DEP EPA. Specific measurements of environmental performance before and
after undertaking the XL project will be presented in these addenda.
In general, the Massachusetts DEP XL project intends to achieve superior environmental performance by
• promoting pollution prevention through outreach and assistance;
• giving Massachusetts DEP a better understanding of regulated industries; and
• increasing the number of facilities operating within Massachusetts DEP's regulatory programs.
Overall, Massachusetts DEP has successfully met their commitments through the implementation of the com-
ponents listed above to achieve superior environmental performance. ERP provided extensive outreach and
technical assistance to participating sectors to promote pollution prevention and successfully eliminated a
significant number of permits in the printing sector. As a result, and because the dry cleaning and photo pro-
cessing sectors required few permits originally, the resources that may have become available with reduced
permitting needs went unrecognized. However, several highly visible enforcement actions were taken and DEP
maintained an active "field presence."
The implementation of ERP dramatically increased the number of facilities in each of the sectors that are now
under DEP's regulatory net. DEP applied the ERP to three small business sectors for which it had little infor-
mation. DEP's work with trade associations and sector stakeholders increased the universe of firms under the
Department's oversight by more than 340 percent (See Table 1). It is estimated that the ERP allows DEP to
track environmental performance for over 90 percent of the firms in a sector compared to less than 33 percent
prior to ERP. To date, the ERP program has over 2300 participating companies - approximately 1300 print-
ers, 650 dry cleaners, and 550 photo processors. The number of companies exceeds those that were tradi-
tionally regulated by DEP prior to the implementation of ERP.
-------
Massachusetts DEP XL Project
1-31-01
Massachusetts DEP anticipated superior environmental
performance by converting permit requirements into
industry-wide performance standards in the printing, dry
cleaning, and photo processing sectors. For example,
Massachusetts DEP estimates that compliance with ERP
standards will lead to an estimated 43 percent reduction in
perchloroethylene emissions (a total of 500 tons) from
Massachusetts dry cleaners each year, will yield significant
reductions in the use of smog-forming solvents and alcohol
used by commercial printers, and will reduce wastewater
discharges of silver by 99 percent from photo processors.
An analysis of the first year of the ERP has recently been
completed by a DEP contractor. This study uses the EBPIs
to measure, track, and assess program results and sector
performance. Specifically, it compares baseline data (which
include EBPIs) collected during random inspections before
ERP certification to data collected during random inspec-
tions after outreach and certification under ERP. Facility
scores and industry-wide scores (such as "before ERP"
dry cleaner scores versus "after ERP" dry cleaner scores)
have been calculated. The graphics to the right present
aggregate EBPI analysis for each sector. In the photo
processing sector, the report found that the average score
after the program implementation was higher than baseline,
whereas the aggregate EBPI scores for the dry cleaning
sector remained the same. However, using an aggregate of
all certification questions (not just EBPIs), the average
score for the dry cleaning sector did go up after program
implementation.
In addition to calculating facility and industry wide scores,
the first year analysis included an accuracy analysis. It
compares results of data collected from facilities during
random inspections after ERP to the answers on the
certification forms from those facilities to determine the
overall level of accuracy of the certification data. In the dry
cleaner sector, there is agreement between the certification
form and the inspector 76 percent of the time.
Below is a summary of environmental performance im-
provements recorded in recent studies on the printing
sector. Other than the first year analysis of ERP (mentioned
above), there is no comprehensive study regarding the
impact of ERP on the dry cleaning and photo processing
sectors.
TABLE 1
SECTOR
Printers
Dry Cleaners
Photo processors
Total
ERP UNIVERSE IDENTIFICATION
DEP-IDENTIFIED DEP-IDENTIFIED
UNIVERSE PRE-ERP UNIVERSE POST-ERP
-250 -1100
-30 -600
-100 -500
-380 -2200
(Learning from Innovations in Environmental Protection, Research Paper Number 1,
Evaluation of the Massachusetts Environmental Results Program, by Susan April and Tim
Greiner of Kerr, Greiner, Andersen and April, Inc., prepared for the National Academy
of Public Administration, dated June 2000, p. 27 J
DRY CLEANERS
Aggregate EBPI Analysis
CO
CD
CO
_CD
o
o
CD
O)
ro
CD
o
CD
D.
60% -
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10% -
0%
Baseline
(Average score is 8.4)
I After
(Average score is 8.4)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 £
Aggregate EBPI Score
10
Data presented are based
DEP, which were included
.conducted by Massachusetts
item
Aggregate EBPI Analysis
o%
Baseline
(Average score is 5.7)
I After
(Average score is 7.1)
L.
ll
1234567
Aggregate EBPI Score
9 10
Data presented are based on assessment of the ERP program conducted by Massachusetts
DEP which were included in DEP's May 2000 presentation to EPA.
DRY CLEANERS
Aggregate Question Analysis
CD
CO
_CD
O
o
CD
O)
ro
'£
CD
o
CD
D.
50% -
45% -
40% -
35% -
30% -
25% -
20% -
15% -
10% -
Baseline
(Average score is 8.3)
| After
(Average score is 8.6)
I
Jill
0123456789 10
Aggregate Score for All Questions
Data presented are based on assessment of the ERP program conducted by Massachusetts
DEP, which were included in DEP's May 2000 presentation to EPA.
-------
Massachusetts DEP XL Project
1-31-01
Environmental Performance Improvements in the Printing Sector
Information provided in the next four bullets of this section
was obtained from Learning from Innovations in
Environmental Protection, Research Paper Number 1,
Evaluation of the Massachusetts Environmental Results
Program, by Susan April and Tim Greiner of Kerr, Greiner,
Andersen and April, Inc., prepared for the National
Academy of Public Administration, dated June 2000, (pp.
27-28).
ERP has increased the universe of regulated firms from
approximately 250 pre-ERP to 1100 post-ERP. Of these
1100, roughly 900 have completed first year certifica-
tions.
Dry Cleaner Accurancy Analysis
Self-Certifications vs. Inspections
76%
4%
1%
19%
• Facility =Y,
Inspector = Y
| Facility = N
lnspector = Y,
Facility = N,
Inspector = N
^ Facility =Y,
Inspector = N
Y = Facility is in
compliance
N = Facility is not in
compliance
Data presented are based on assessment of the ERP program conducted by Massachusetts
DEP, which were included in DEP's May 2000 presentation to EPA.
The primary environmental pollutants from the printing
sector come from silver in wastewater, ink-contaminated cleanup sludge, paper and cleanup towels, and volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions from solvent-based cleansers. Although there have been two studies on
the printing sector [focusing on the Massachusetts Printing Partnership (MP2), the predecessor to ERP printing
sector rollout] neither quantify pollutant reductions related to silver in wastewater or VOC emissions. However,
the studies found that:
• Firms that participated in the MP2 partnership showed dramatic environmental protection improvements.
These firms tended to install more efficient silver recovery systems, reduce the disposal of hazardous waste
with solid waste, eliminate practices of washing ink-saturated rollers in sinks, and reduce VOC emissions.
• Fifty-four percent of participants indicated that the newly designed workbook influenced their environmental
practices.
• On average, environmental performance at facilities
that certified was about 40 percent better than those
that did not certify (based on a random sample).
DEP has estimated VOCs from printers will drop by 10
percent statewide. Using a baseline total emissions of
1688 tons per year from small printers pre-ERP, ERP is
predicted to cut VOCs by approximately 168 tons
annually.
CL
"o
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
PRINTER'S PARTNERSHIP
Aggregate EBPI Analysis
....III
9 10
Aggregate EBPI Score
Data presented are based on assessment of the Massachusetts Printers Partnership program
conducted by Massachusetts DEP, which were included in DEP's May 2000 presentation to EPA.
The graphic to the right displays the analysis of aggregate
EBPI scores for the printer sector based on MP2. The
graphic shows the comparison of the aggregate EBPI
scores for printers before the partnership to the aggregate
scores after the partnership.
Stakeholder Participation
Massachusetts DEP worked to ensure the involvement of key stakeholders and the general public in ERP
development.
When state agencies propose regulations for promulgation, the Massachusetts Administrative Procedures Act
requires them to give public notice of the regulations' availability for review and the dates, times, and locations
-------
Massachusetts DEP XL Project 1-31-01
of public hearings. Massachusetts DEP was required to follow this procedure when promulgating ERP regula-
tions for dry cleaners, photo processors, and commercial printers and will also give public notice in the future
when proposing regulations for other sectors.
Massachusetts DEP developed ERP with the active participation of its ERP Design Team, comprised of repre-
sentatives from EPA, other government entities, environmental advocacy groups, business and industry, consult-
ing firms, and the legal community. For more than a year during the development of the project, members of the
Design Team met weekly to review and comment on various decision and discussion documents.
Massachusetts DEP kept the ERPs Design Team apprised of its efforts to obtain Project XL designation for the
program and intends to continue to involve the group. Massachusetts DEP also provides the general public
access to information about the ERP XL project development process. Massachusetts DEP published notices in
several major newspapers and on Massachusetts DEP's Web site (www.state.ma.us/dep) inviting the public to
participate in the January 1998 Design Team meeting that served as the kickoff for public review of and com-
ment on the umbrella EPA. The EPA document itself was published on Massachusetts DEP's Web site.
The Design Team continues, although less frequently, to play an integral role in the function and implementation
of the ERP program. Massachusetts DEP has also initiated a new management system by having sector manag-
ers for each of the sectors currently involved in ERP identify appropriate stakeholders that need to be involved
in the development of industry performance measures for their specific sector. With the sector managers in
place, Massachusetts DEP can effectively involve the general public as well as key stakeholders in the develop-
ment of ERP. Proposed sector-specific regulations and draft sector-specific addenda will be made publicly
available, and interested stakeholders will be invited to provide input.
Six-Month Outlook
Key focus areas for successful implementation of the EPA over the next six months include:
• expansion of ERP to firms installing new boilers (combustion sector);
• determination on sector-specific addendum for dry cleaner sector;
• expansion of ERP to include the IWW sector (within the next year); and
• continuing analysis of EBPI data for all sectors.
Project Contacts
• Steve DeGabriele, Massachusetts DEP, (617) 556-1120.
• Tara Velazquez, Massachusetts DEP, (617) 348-4040.
• MarthaCurran, U.S. EPA, Region 1, (617) 918-1802.
• Ted Cochin, U.S. EPA, Office of Policy and Reinvention, (202) 260-0880.
Information Sources
The information sources used to develop this progress report include (1) the EPA for the Massachusetts DEP
XL project; (2) an ERP brochure and report entitled Evaluation of the ERP Demonstration Project from the
Massachusetts DEP Web site; (3) Project XL background information and a press release dated October 6,
1998, from the U.S. EPA Project XL Web site; (4) Learning from Innovations in Environmental Protec-
tion, Research Paper Number 1, Evaluation of the Massachusetts Environmental Results Program, by
Susan April and Tim Greiner of Kerr, Greiner, Anderson & April, Inc., prepared for the National Academy of
10
-------
Massachusetts DEP XL Project 1-31-01
Public Administration dated June 2000; (5) the December 1999 Project XL Progress Report Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (EPA 100-R-00-013); and (6) Massachusetts DEP Environmental
Results Program (ERP) briefing presented by Steve DeGabriel, Director, Business Compliance Division, Bureau
of Waste Prevention, Massachusetts DEP, May 2000.
Glossary
Air Emissions: Pollution discharged into the atmosphere from smokestacks, other vents, and surface areas of
commercial or industrial facilities; from residential chimneys; and from motor vehicle, locomotive, or aircraft
exhausts.
Air Emission Standard: The maximum amount of air-polluting discharge legally allowed from a single source.
Baseline: The measure by which future environmental performance can be compared.
Discharges: Flow of liquid or chemical emissions from a facility into water, air, or soil.
Environmental Business Practice Indicators (EBPI): Industry-specific measures that provide a snapshot of a
facility's environmental performance.
Final Project Agreement (FPA): The FPA outlines the details of an XL project and each party's commitments.
The project's sponsors, EPA, state agencies, tribal governments, other regulators, and direct participant stake-
holders negotiate the FPA.
Hazardous Waste: By-products of society that can pose a substantial or potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly managed. These wastes possess at least one of four characteristics—ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity—or appear on special EPA lists.
Massachusetts Printers Partnership (MP2): A DEP-industry partnership established in 1995 that focused on
increasing compliance in the printer sector. This voluntary participation program worked to develop plain-
language workbooks, conduct assistance workshops throughout the state, and measure the results of outreach
through a set of performance indicators. The Massachusetts DEP partially modeled the ERP on MP2.
Media: Specific environments-air, water, soil-which are the subject of regulatory concern and activities.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): A provision of the Clean Water Act that prohibits
discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States unless a special permit is issued by EPA, a state, or a
tribal government on an Indian reservation.
Perchloroethylene: A manufactured chemical that is widely used for dry cleaning of fabrics and for metal
degreasing. It is also used to make other chemicals and is used in some consumer products. Other names for
perchloroethylene include tetrachloroethylene, PCE, and tetrachloroethene.
Permit: An authorization, license, or equivalent control document issued by EPA or an approved state agency to
implement the requirements of an environmental regulation.
Reinvention Initiatives: Programs designed by EPA to promote innovation to achieve greater and more cost-
effective public health and environmental protection.
Release: Any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching,
dumping, or disposing into the environment of a hazardous or toxic substance.
State Implementation Plans (SIP): EPA-approved state plans for the establishment, regulation, and enforcement
of air pollution standards.
11
-------
Massachusetts DEP XL Project
1-31-01
Self-certification: The central concept of self-certification is that the regulated community should internally certify
their compliance with requirements, subject to regulator verification, as a substitute for permit issuance and some
compliance reporting.
SIP Revision: A revision of a State Implementation Plan altered at the request of EPA or on a state's initiative.
Solvents: Substances, usually liquid, that can dissolve other substances.
Wastewater: The used water from a home, community, farm, or industry that contains dissolved or suspended
matter.
12
------- |