NEWS GOVERNMENT Massachusetts aims to eliminate permits for 70% of businesses By year's end, Massachusetts plans to have in place a program that would eventually eliminate state environmental permits for 10,000 companies—70% of all Massachusetts businesses with state or federal environmental permits. Supporters say the "Environmental Results Program" will save the state money and give companies greater flexibility in deciding how to control emissions. Critics warn that the program may wind up as a shell game in which industries hide pollution cincl crg^ an undeserved break. Under the plan, state regulators will develop emissions limits for categories of pollution and polluters, rather than preparing technology-specific, individually tailored operating permits for each pollution source, which is the case today. Companies have the freedom to choose how they want to comply with the standard, but to be part of the program, a participating company's chief executive officer must sign a legally binding contract each year certifying that the com.D3.riv is meeting the limits Massachusetts will enforce the law through dom and targeted inspections similar to Internal Revenue Service audits according to Doug Fine head of the state demonstration project Massachusetts Dlans to shift staff from writing nermits to making inspections The goal of Massachusetts' self-certification program, Fine said, is similar to that of trial programs under way in California, Minnesota, and other states: Give companies emissions limits and let them figure out how best to comply. These programs, according to state officials, are intended to fix an overburdened system in which environmental staff spend huge amounts of time writing state permits that are seldom enforced and strongly disliked by businesses. Everyone from environmentalists to manufacturers appears
"The state hopes to get some sort of magic out of the shift from permitting to self-certification," said Robert Russell, a Conservation Law Foundation attorney and a member of the project's advisory panel. Despite Massachusetts' desire to move away from specific permits, the nature of the 10,000 small companies may drive state regulators back to permits, Russell said. In many cases, these facilities have many small emissions sources and lack a big single point source that can be easily monitored and controlled. Consequently the state may have to rely on technology-specific requirements to cut pollution and to ease concerns of environmentalists and residents living near these factories Russell warned The Massachusetts plan covers state permits and will not affect companies in the federal system. Overall, Fine estimates that the state conducts 1000 inspections a year, and 500 of those are at the 10,000 companies with state permits. The new program would
increase staff for additional inspections, according to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, by moving them out from behind desks and into the field to track down environmental violators. But, Fine said, "We are not saying we are definitely going to increase the compliance and enforcement resources at these small sources. We haven't decided what is the right mix. But we are saying we want better use of our own compliance and enforcement resources. The case-by-case permit reviews at these smaller sources aren't getting the bang for the buck we thought, and we are going to shift those resources over to compliance and enforcement somewhere." Fine emphasized that of equal importance was the program's goal of giving industry more flexibility in determining how it complies However he stressed that the state expects to get better compliance In April, Massachusetts conducted multimedia compliance audits of 23 companies that volunteered to take part in a selfcertification pilot program. More than 60% of the companies were found to be out of compliance with state and federal laws. Most were in violation of what Fine said were less significant manage-
EPA tries "StarTrack" permits in New England Massachusetts is one of four states taking part in a pilot program initiated by EPA Region I to ease federal permitting for companies with stellar environmental records. Called "StarTrack," the EPA program allows companies in Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, and Massachusetts to escape close permit oversight if they volunteer for third-party environmental audits and are certified as in compliance with environmental laws, have no major pending violations, and have an operating environmental management system. At the core of the program is EPA's reliance on independent environmental auditors who will certify that companies are in compliance, according to George Hawkins, senior advisor in EPA's New England regional office. Hawkins compared the auditors with certified public accountants who monitor corporate fiscal performance for the Securities and Exchange Commission. Nine companies are interested in the pilot, Hawkins said, which begins this summer. In return for opening their books, qualifying companies would not be cited for minor violations or subjected to routine inspections, would have more flexible permit limits, and would receive expedited attention from EPA for permit modifications, Hawkins said. Certified companies would not be required to disclose audit details to EPA and hence would be shielded from possible enforcement actions springing from matters revealed through the audit, he said. The region's proposal is one of several demonstration projects under EPA's Environmental Leadership Program intended to ease permitting for companies with good environmental records, Hawkins said. —JEFF JOHNSON
to \A/fiTit such a
change but achieving it may not be easy 2 8 6 A • VOL. 30, NO. 7, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
incut stctnQcirQS tor hazardous waste generators, but five were in violation of state permits and one was dropped from the program because it was hauling hazardous waste to an illegal site. "Obviously this says something is wrong with a system in which companies willingly invite us in and we still have 60% noncompliance," Fine said, adding that possibly the state's regulations are too complicated or there is insufficient outreach to explain the requirements to industry. He said he believes, however, that company management that commits to self-certification will become more interested in solving these problems, rather than trying to follow state-derived orders. But to Russell the revelation that half the pilot companies are out of compliance signals that the state should go slow with implementing the program. "If these companies are willing to step up to the plate, be audited, and participate in an open process, it really
EPA wraps up two-year permit system review After two years of workshops and hearings, in May the agency completed a comprehensive evaluation of all federal permitting programs and issued a final report (Federal Register r996, 6/(92), 21856-80)) The report contained more than 70 recommendations with the overall theme of offering companies greater flexibility than a one-size-fits-all permitting system, according to Lance Miller, who led the review. The report's recommendations also looked beyond permitting and called for greater emphasis on ambient monitoring to determine the overall condition of the environment. "We need to know where the problems are and where we are," Miller said. "To encourage the public to accept a change in how we regulate, we need to show the actual condition of the environment." The recommendations are now being examined by several federal advisory committees and will go to the administrator for review this summer. If accepted, small changes could begin within a year. —JEFF JOHNSON
raises question about the other guys out there, who may not even know what the regulations are." 1'he state plans to issue draft regulations for two industrial sectors this summer, covering emissions limits and sample certification statements. Fine hopes to be open for business in the fall in a couple of sectors.
Fine noted that much will depend on the regulated community. "Some companies may want to hide out rather than join a new program. With the current system, we spend so much time writing permits that companies know we don't have much time to go out and see if they're in compliance." —JEFF JOHNSON
New Jersey, Southern California programs, agencies face cuts Budget cuts to leading state and regional environmental programs signal difficult times ahead for environmental protection—especially "devolution" of federal EPA authority—environmentalists and others fear. They point to New Jersey, where Republican Gov. Christie Whitman has reduced funding for the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) by 30% over the past three years, and to Southern California where the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has cut funding by 15% since 1991 and plans to halve its budget within a decade Both agencies are leaders in exploring new approaches to environmental science and regulation In New Jersey the latest round of cuts, effective July 1, hit many programs. Among them is the Science and Research Division, in which 11 of 28 positions are trimmed, and the Office of Pollution Prevention's facility-wide permitting program, where four of six staff members are eliminated. "There were once more than 70 people in the science division," said Robert Tucker, who led the
division for 10 years and is currently director of the Rutgers University Ecopolicy Center. "It was considered the best overall state environmental science group in the nation." Tucker said the division developed a state right-toknow reporting requirement that is now a national model, a leading-edge state environmental mapping program, the nation's first risk communication program, and the facility-wide permitting program which has issued the nation's first multimedia environmental permits (ES&T Feb 1996 D 72A) "The irony," Tucker said, "is that New Jersey's program is being severely decimated at a time when the federal government is also being downsized. Federal downsizing gives states new opportunities, but there's no way we can step up to the plate in terms of trying to take over federal obligations." NJDEP Commissioner Robert Shinn strongly disagreed with charges that the Whitman administration has reduced the DEP budget by 30% in three years, saying 20% is more accurate. Con-
cerning specific cuts, he said in an interview that funding for seven of the 11 science division positions is not being cut but is being shifted to outside contractors. Concerning Office of Pollution Prevention cuts, Shinn said the layoffs are caused by seniority-based bumping rights among 200 DEP staff, who are being terminated. The pollution prevention staff is hard hit because it has less seniority, but the positions will remain. However, DEP staff, most of whom wished to remain unnamed, said the net impact will be to weaken both programs by terminating experienced employees. They also said the layoffs show a general disregard for the programs' value. The Science and Research Division conducts research across all programs and media and is currently developing New Jerseyspecific environmental indicators for the National Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS). New Jersey is one of five states taking part in the demonstration program, which has been held up as a model of future
VOL. 30, NO. 7, 1996/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS " 2 8 7 A
