Oversight gap cited on waste at Danvers site

Environmental regulators never inspected hazardous materials storage practices at the small Danvers chemical plant that exploded last week because the state and federal governments focus their enforcement efforts on larger facilities.

There are 15,000 companies in Massachusetts that produce small amounts of hazardous waste, and fewer than 2 percent -- between 100 and 200 -- are inspected each year by the state Department of Environmental Protection , an agency official said . In contrast, 20 percent of the roughly 400 companies that generate large amounts of waste are inspected annually.

But more of the state's small waste generators than the large ones are cited for serious environmental violations, such as illegally storing dangerous chemicals or failing to keep records of hazardous waste shipments from the facilities.

Concerned about this imbalance, the state reached a first-in-the-nation deal with the US Environmental Protection Agency in September that will give Massachusetts environmental officials flexibility to inspect more of the smaller facilities and better target industries that pose problems. Still, each year only a tiny fraction of the small companies will be visited by the state, which is authorized by the EPA to enforce federal hazardous-waste laws.

The top state environmental regulator said the Danvers explosion has added a sense of urgency to the state's stepped-up oversight of smaller plants.

"We don't know what caused this accident . . . but it will raise awareness of these small facilities," said Arleen O'Donnell, acting commissioner for the DEP. "We are going to look more closely at facilities that produce small quantities of waste but may pose significant risks."

Small quantity generators include auto body shops, dry cleaners, photo processors, and printing facilities.

The EPA requires most states to annually inspect 20 percent of companies that produce large quantities of hazardous waste -- more than five 55-gallon drums a month. But firms that create less are not subject to routine environmental inspections.

State and federal environmental regulators occasionally visit small facilities, however, usually because of a complaint, an accident, or because it is part of a targeted industry that uses a particularly toxic chemical.

When state inspectors go to plants, they check that the hazardous waste matches the types and quantities the company has reported, and that they are stored properly. They also ensure that there is an escape plan and that the company is properly disposing of waste and documenting it.

A check with agencies that could have conducted inspections at the plant shows that neither the state DEP nor federal EPA ever inspected ink maker CAI Inc. or Arnel Co. Inc., the industrial paints and finishes manufacturer, that operated in the Danvers building.

The federal Occupational Safety & Health Administration did inspect the plant in 1990 but found no problems, a spokesman said.

In its 11-year history, the state fire marshal's office has never inspected the plant, according to its records.

"There's no requirement to inspect that kind of building unless there's a request," said Jennifer Mieth, a spokeswoman for the office.

She said local fire departments often request assistance when their own crews lack the expertise, but the Danvers department never requested an inspection of the Danvers plant.

Danvers Fire Department records show it last inspected the plant in 2002, after installation of new alarm and foam systems, and found no violations. But the department does not perform a detailed fire-safety evaluation of manufacturers using chemicals, other than to ensure they are stored away from ignition sources, said Deputy Fire Chief Kevin Farrell. "We are not chemists," he said. "I don't believe there's anything we could have done to prevent this."

He said CAI and Arnel had properly filed annual disclosures of hazardous chemicals on site.

The EPA's focus has long been on large producers of waste because they are the biggest potential individual polluters. But several years ago, state DEP officials realized that only about 9 percent of the large quantity waste generators had serious environmental violations.

In comparison, more than 13 percent of smaller generators -- defined as those that produce between one-half barrel and five barrels of hazardous waste a month -- had serious violations. And since there are so many more of the smaller facilities, they had the combined potential to pollute much more.

For example, the hazardous waste produced by the state's 650 dry-cleaning businesses equals the waste from 23 typical large quantity generators, said Steven DeGabriele, director of the business compliance division for the state DEP.

He said that many large companies might have one person devoted to environmental stewardship. But at small companies, one person might be doing several jobs, including overseeing handling of hazardous materials, and might not have the expertise or time to do it properly.

"And right now, if you are one of the 15,000 small-quantity generators, the chances are you are not going to be inspected," DeGabriele said. "And we want to change that."

The state began a program a decade ago that requires small companies in select industries -- including dry cleaners, print shops, and photo processors -- to report a vast amount of information about how they handle hazardous material, wastewater, and air emissions.

The state inspects fewer than 200 of those facilities every year, however. A few years ago, state officials decided they wanted to inspect more small facilities, and broaden the inspection program to other small waste producers, including manufacturers like the ones in Danvers.

After two years of negotiations, the EPA reached agreement with Massachusetts this year to allow it greater flexibility in future years to inspect more of the small facilities, while slightly reducing the number of large producers that are inspected.

"It's a breakthrough," said Sam Silverman, deputy director for New England EPA's office of environmental stewardship. Unlike some other states, he said, Massachusetts doesn't have vast numbers of large-scale industries but has a significant number of small ones. Sixteen other states are exploring starting programs modeled on the Massachusetts initiative.

Still, some chemical industry analysts say that even with the DEP's ambitious program, only a small number of the smaller waste generators will be inspected -- there are just too many to visit with limited state and federal funds , they say .

But they applaud the state for recognizing that small industrial companies need more oversight.

"It's been a long time coming," said Ken Geiser, director of the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts at Lowell. "It's not the size of the plant that matters, but what the chemical is and its storage."

John R. Ellement and Raja Mishra of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Beth Daley can be reached at bdaley@globe.com.