Environmental Health and Safety Blog | EHSWire

Charles Peruffo

The Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §13101 et seq. (1990)) was a paradigm shift in the control of pollution (and hazardous waste). While previous regulations emphasized the “end of the pipeline”, the PPA moved the control of pollution upstream in the manufacturing process to prevent the waste from being generated in the first place. Closely related to the PPA is the NJ Pollution Prevention Act.  Passed in 1991, the NJ PPA implements the concept of reduction in waste production “upstream” by requiring affected companies to develop and submit a 5-year pollution reduction strategy and file  a Release and Pollution Prevention Report (RPPR). The NJ Release and Pollution Prevention Report collects data for New Jersey Right to Know Act ( NJRTK).

What does the Federal PPA require?

Facilities must account for their use of toxic chemicals  and, where feasible, reduce their use.  Toxic pollution that cannot be reduced should be recycled, and pollution that cannot be recycled should be disposed of in an environmentally safe manner. 

EHS professionals must have a firm understanding of the processes that use toxic chemicals in order to reduce their use.  Documenting these activities is an important step in PPA compliance and must include an accounting for the final disposal of toxic chemicals.  Generally this is done using the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting Form R.  

For facilities in New Jersey, what else is required?

The New Jersey Pollution Prevention Act (NJ PPA), enacted in August of 1991, requires a Pollution Prevention (“P2”) Plan for facilities that meet specific requirements:

• A facility in New Jersey that files a Form R and a Release and Pollution Prevention Report (RPPR) under the New Jersey Worker and Community Right to Know Act for the same chemical(s) in two consecutive years.  Note that in New Jersey any employer required to submit a TRI Form R is also required to submit the RPPR.


• The chemicals listed in the Form R and RPPR remain at or above the TRI activity thresholds.

The facility must  prepare a five-year Pollution Prevention (P2) Plan and submit a P2 Plan Summary by July 1 once they become covered (the second year they submit an RPPR for the same chemical).  This becomes the “base year”.  For each of the following years that the facility remains at or above the TRI activity thresholds, the facility completes the P2-115 which compares pollution prevention progress for the reporting year to the base year.

The PPA Filing Process by an EHS Professional

When recently preparing PPA paperwork for a small biotech site, I had to collect a variety of information for preparing a New Jersey P2 Plan.  A brief review of the steps is listed below.  For detailed instructions, look at NJDEP Form DEP-113.

1. Contacted the company’s purchasing department to find out how much of each toxic chemical had been delivered to the facility. 


2. Contacted the company’s hazardous waste management contractor to confirm that the amount purchased (Step 1) equaled the amount that was disposed. 


3. Compare the purchased to disposed amounts. The amounts did not match. 


4. Investigate the discrepancy.  It turned out the waste management contractor was using a less accurate method for calculating the percentage of toxic chemical in our waste stream.  Their laboratory data indicated that the company was disposing of more toxic chemical than purchased.  Ultimately, the volume data from the company’s purchasing department was used since no new toxic chemicals could be produced by the company’s processes. 


5. Reviewed the company’s air permit for an estimation of the toxic chemicals lost to the air.


6. Calculated the chemical remaining as residue in the empty drums, which were also removed by our hazardous waste management contractor.


7. Contacted the site Controller for the facility SIC code.


8. Prepared a “Five-Year Use Reduction Goal” based on pollution prevention activities such as process improvements after a review of documentation of meetings where possible improvements were discussed with personnel who work with toxic chemicals as well as process engineering diagrams. (Sets site five year pollution prevention goals).
   
   
   
   • Progress towards these goals needs to be reviewed yearly and documented on the site P2 Plan.
   
   
   
   


9. Obtain signatures for plan from the “highest ranking corporate official with direct operating responsibility” and the “highest ranking corporate official at the facility”.

Note --- A P2 Plan Summary needs to be updated and submitted every five years for the chemicals referenced in the original P2 Plan submission.

This process needs to be repeated for each toxic chemical at each applicable facility in New Jersey with all of the information included as part of one P2 Plan regardless of the number of toxic chemicals reported.  The facility does need to file one RPPR for each chemical. Does this seem like a lot of work? Consider this:  In the twenty years since adoption, the PPA and NJ PPA have helped to substantially reduce the use and improper disposal of toxic chemicals by requiring industry to examine their work processes.

How about your facility?

As a facility, are you tracking your toxic chemicals and filing the appropriate PPA/NJ PPA documentation? Have you noticed that a mindful approach to the processes and paperwork have resulted in reduced usage and better, more healthful disposal of chemicals?

About Our Guest Blogger:  Charles Peruffo is an EHS professional specializing in laboratory health and safety. Prior to his EHS career, Charles spent many years as chemist in the pharmaceutical industry with responsibilities ranging from laboratory safety to analyst training.  He holds a Bachelor of Science in Biology from Montclair State University and is pursuing his Master of Science in Occupational Safety Health Engineering from New Jersey Institute of Technology.

Dale Wilson, CIH, LEED AP

When the National Weather service issues a forecast calling for 3 to 4 inches of rain, most people react by wondering how it will affect their plans or travel.  I think about what water damage will occur.

 When heavy rains are forecast, are you ready? Do you know what to do if your building is affected by rain penetration through the roof or walls? What is your plan if your building is flooded by a local stream or river?  Even without bad weather, water damage is always a possible threat if your building has a water line break.  Or worse yet, do you know how to react if there’s a sewage back-up?

Depending on the water source your options for cleaning up and salvaging property vary greatly.  But for all kinds of damage, you need to have a plan in place anticipating what you will do, who you will call, and how quickly they will respond.  Emilcott was recently asked to work in four, very different, water-damaged commercial and/or multi-tenant residential properties.   These events included:

• Retail and Office Complex – Roof and Façade Leak


• Office and Warehouse – Broken Water Supply Main


• Multi-tenant Apartment building – Sprinkler Activation


• Public Housing Complex – Steam Leak

What did all four projects have in common?  The answer is time.  Lots of time!  Too much time between the initial event, the response and Emilcott’s resulting late involvement!  Time and water combined can grow to be an expensive and time-consuming enemy.  Failure to respond promptly will, very likely, result in mold growth within the building requiring significantly more demolition than if the condition is handled in a timely manner.  What is the definition of timely? As soon as it is discovered!

With the retail complex, we were called in approximately one month after the roof and walls began leaking.  An employee actually complained to their nearest OSHA office and OSHA issued a notice of potential violation to the employer.  Mold was present in a localized area of the store, along with a significant insect infestation due to wet, damp conditions of building surfaces.   Unfortunate results of the delay:  a mold remediation project was required and portions of the retail space were out of use for weeks.

The damage to the office and warehouse operation was more significant.  Water from the broken water main filled the 5400 sq. ft.  office to several inches and made its way to the adjacent warehouse.  The initial response by the building owner seems logical:  removal of standing water, placement of a few box fans to attempt to dry the carpet, and operating the air conditioning 24/7 as cold as the occupants would tolerate.  By the time we arrived just 5 days after the event, sheetrock walls were saturated at the base of every wall and elevated moisture readings were present up to 8 feet above the floor. Relative humidity was close to 70%, carpets had a strong musty odor, and internal wall cavities were impacted by mold growth even though no visible growth was observed on the exterior of the wall.  Final results of a mere 5 day delay in appropriate responsiveness:  the tenant and their sub-tenants loss use of the office area as trailers were brought in to house them while remediation and reconstruction occurred over a two week time period.

A kitchen fire occurred in the residential apartment complex triggered sprinklers to turn on which caused water to run from the sixth floor down to ground level.  Removal of standing water was the only initial response.  When Emilcott arrived 2 weeks later sheetrock walls were still saturated with water, visible mold was appearing in multiple, occupied apartments, and paint was bubbling and peeling from the walls.  Another significant mold remediation project was required, which in turn required relocation of tenants while remediation was in progress.

Finally, the public housing complex had experienced a steam leak for a period of several months.  Tenants in effected units were relocated and those apartments remained unoccupied.  However, an unusual occurrence happened with this steam leak as these apartments had plaster walls.  Mold grew quite well on the painted surface of the walls, something that may be expected, but due to high, high humidity and moisture levels in the plaster for extended periods of time, the analytical laboratory verified that the mold growth penetrated into the plaster from the surface.  This resulted in the demolition of the plaster walls and loss of effected housing units for several additional months.

For each of these properties and water-related circumstances, delayed and improper response increased the magnitude of the problem resulting in increased time that each space was unusable, and increased the total cost of response and repair. What should you do instead?  Bringing in a water-remediation expert immediately to identify the scope of the problem, develop a water response action plan, and implement that plan right away will minimize the damage to building materials and reduce impacts to building occupants.  In each of the four instances listed above, response actions like relocating furnishing away from walls or out of the area completely, immediately removing cove moldings, installing commercial grade dehumidification equipment, installing commercial grade floor fans, selective limited demolition, and actively monitoring and evaluating the drying process would have significantly reduced the duration of the response activity and the overall cost of each event. 

So, how can you reduce the costs of the surprise water problem? My advice is to plan now -- whether it is for rain and flooding that may occur due to weather conditions or for the pipe break that always happens unexpectedly.  Knowing who to call to determine the scope of the problem and who can implement the recommended response will save you significant time, money, property and hassle.

Dian Cucchisi, PhD, CHMM

The Bhopal Disaster has been in the news again with the eight former company executives getting convicted of negligence.     A court in the Indian city of Bhopal returned the verdict on June 7, 2010, more than 25 years after the incident. 

What was the Bhopal Disaster?

For those of us old enough to remember, the words “Bhopal, India” brings to mind the very tragic events of December 2, 1984.  On that day a Union Carbide facility had an accidental release of approximately 40 tons of methyl isocyanate, a chemical used in pesticides.  The chemical plume killed 3,000 people and left an estimated 500,000 people with long-term, damaging health effects.  Amnesty International reports that approximately 15,000 people died in the subsequent years as a result of this incident.  As a result the Union Carbide Bhopal accident is often considered the world's worst industrial disaster.

And then a smaller, but similar event occurred in the USA…

In August 1985 a Union Carbide facility located in Institute, West Virginia experienced an accidental release of toxic chemicals causing more than 100 residents of the area to seek medical treatment.

US Regulators Respond to Community Concerns

In response to these incidents and the growing concern by the American public that this could happen in their backyard, regulatory agencies enacted laws for facilities that manufacture, store, or use certain chemicals above designated threshold quantities.

In 1986 the United States Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). The law requires facilities to annually report the quantities of “extremely hazardous substances” to the facility’s state and the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC).  This information is available to any member of the public upon request to the LEPC.

In late 1985, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) created the Hazard Communication Standard (HCS) (29 CFR 1910.1200) also known as “Right to Know.”  The HCS requires manufacturers and distributors of hazardous materials to communicate to employees the hazards of the chemicals in their workplace by providing Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and ensure that hazardous materials are labeled according to certain requirements.

The Clean Air Act was amended by Congress in 1990, including some regulatory changes intending to create safer workplaces and mitigate the risk of a Bhopal-like disaster in the US, such as:

• Charging the EPA and OSHA with more authority over the chemical industry.
  
  
  
  • OSHA created the Process Safety Management Standard (29 CFR 1910.119), a program that looks in depth at process technologies, procedures and management practices.
  
  
  • The EPA codified Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions (40 CFR Part 68) which requires facilities to conduct a hazard assessment, develop a prevention program, and implement a risk management plan.
  
  
  • Other laws that regulate the use of hazardous materials were enhanced.  These include the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA); the Resource, Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
  
  
  
  


• Creating the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB). 

The Senate legislative history states: "The principal role of the new chemical safety board is to investigate accidents to determine the conditions and circumstances which led up to the event and to identify the cause or causes so that similar events might be prevented." Congress gave the CSB a unique statutory mission and provided in law that no other agency or executive branch official may direct the activities of the Board. Congress directed that the CSB's investigative function be completely independent of the rulemaking, inspection, and enforcement authorities of EPA and OSHA. The CSB became operational in January 1998.  

Accidents in the U.S. STILL OCCUR

In spite of this, accidents continue to happen.  In 2002, the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) examined 167 chemical accidents that occurred between 1980 and 2001.  More than half of those accidents involved chemicals not covered by the regulations mentioned above.  The CSB recommended that the EPA and OSHA expand their regulations.  The Agencies did not agree with the recommendation stating they feel the best approach is worker education.  In 2004, OSHA formed an alliance with the EPA, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), and others to develop and provide worker education on chemical reactivity hazards. 

How do you feel about the expansion of regulations to include chemicals currently not covered by regulations designed to prevent accidents and reduce health risk?

Dale Wilson, CIH, LEED AP


“Vapor intrusion refers to this migration of volatile chemicals from the subsurface into overlying buildings.”  Vapor intrusion (VI) air sampling is a method to evaluate if chemical vapors are entering a building due to contaminated soil or groundwater that is on or adjacent to the property on which the building is built. In order for vapors to enter a building from the soil or groundwater there have to be pathways such as  cracks in the foundation, openings around piping used for mechanical, pluming, and electrical systems, groundwater entering the basement just to name a few. Once vapors are in a basement or crawlspace, there have to be additional pathways for the vapors to enter the first floor occupied space. 

When it comes to vapor intrusion understanding “why it is happening” is just as important as understanding “what is happening”.

What is Vapor Intrusion?

“Vapor intrusion has become a significant environmental issue for regulators, industry leaders, and concerned residents. Degradation of the indoor air quality can cause fear and anxiety among building occupants, businesses, and other property owners.”

A Vapor Intrusion Project

Recently, Emilcott was hired to review vapor intrusion air sampling data collected by another consultant.  The building site was a large commercial property that was mostly composed of office space, but there was also an onsite daycare center.  After collecting data for several years, the vapor intrusion had not been resolved. 

After reviewing all the data, we made a site visit to help us understand what was contributing to the continued and increased vapor concentrations -- both in the basement of the building, which was used for storage, and in the first floor daycare center.   

Our initial site visit revealed multiple pathways that permitted vapors to enter the basement and additional pathways that permitted vapors to enter the first floor occupied space.  It was clear that the owner’s other consultant had focused on What Is Happening through continuous air sampling without understanding the dynamics of Why It Is Happening.  Based upon

• An analysis of the collected air monitoring data,


• A thorough site inspection, and


• An understanding of vapor intrusion causes and migration,

we were able to propose a step-by-step procedure to protect the client’s building and occupants. In addition, by including the client in the process, the client stated that they had learned more about the building from our visit than they had over the several years of data collection.

Vapor Intrusion – A Way Out

When reviewing a VI problem with a building owner or property manager, indoor air quality consultants should have answers to these basic questions to fully understand the problem and suggest a remediation solution:

1. What are the volatile chemicals that we are dealing with?


2. What are the risks of short-term and prolonged exposure to these chemicals?


3. Why and where are they getting into my building?


4. Can I stop the VI chemicals from getting in?


5. If I can’t stop the VI chemicals from getting in, what are the alternatives?

Interrupting and sealing the pathways is the only way to prevent building occupants from exposure to vapors. 

For our client the process of sealing pathways has been accelerated and should be complete in a few weeks.  With the complete understanding of vapor intrusion What? and Why?, a plan to seal the pathways between the ground and the basement, and the basement and the first floor, may reduce the occupants’ exposures to the vapors and avoid any increased levels of regulatory oversight and accelerated response actions.

Have you experienced a vapor intrusion problem that remains unresolved or puzzled the experts? Do you have questions about indoor air quality issues and evaluation techniques and best practices? Please share your story or questions below and we’ll respond quickly.