Such approval traditionally takes up to three years, DeLoatch said. Thus far, the proposal has the support of chemists, drinking water utility representatives, and environmental groups. "The basic idea of a performance-based system is you have a very specific measurable goal, and how you get to it is up to you," said Karen Florini, a senior attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund in Washington, D.C. "You could do it by putting on scrubbers or by any pollution prevention method. It's up to you." EPA's enforcement officials, however, say the initiative would make it more difficult to prove that a company is in violation of a regulation. Other EPA officials contend that the system would provide a stricter form of compliance. "This system relies less on the honor system and more on factual information," explained DeLoatch. "It will require enforcement [officers] to do more investigation. They will have to look at the scientific validity of the information presented. They consider that a burden. Right now they don't have to look at the raw data before determining if someone has complied " Training for auditors and enforcement officials would be included in the final initiative, DeLoatch said. The proposal is still in the developmental stage, although EPA officials say they hope to begin using the system in the fall.
Metal finishers sign emission reduction pact In a negotiated agreement with EPA, the metal-finishing industry agreed to voluntarily reduce hazardous emissions to air and water by 80% and to cut in half its waste sludge. Administrator Carol Browner announced the agreement on Oct. 27 at a metal-finishing plant in South Providence, R.I. The Strategic Goals Program for metal finishing is the latest in a series of pollution reduction initiatives produced under EPA's Common Sense Initiative, which involves participants in "finding more flexible, cost-effective, and environmentally protective solutions tailored to specific industry needs," according to an EPA program description. Thus far, the initiative has targeted six industries: automobiles, computers
and electronics, iron and steel, metal plating and finishing, printing, and oil refining. The finishing industry uses metals, acids, and other chemicals to put decorative or protective coatings on metal products, including plumbing fixtures, computer hardware, and aeronautical equipment. There are approximately 3000 independent metal-finishing operations nationwide, most with fewer than 25 employees, and 8000 larger facilities such as automobile manufacturing plants. The pollution reduction plan was hammered out over three years. The five-year plan calls on the metalfinishing industry to reduce toxic emissions from 8000 to 2200 tons to air and from 251 to 70 tons to water, cut metal releases from 60 to 36 tons in air and 173 to 104 tons in water, and reduce hazardous sludge from 500,000 tons to less than 300,000 tons. Industry is supposed to deploy a mixture of commercially available and new technologies to achieve these goals. In addition to plans to increase awareness among shop owners and evaluate new technologies, demonstration projects are under way on chromium fume suppression and achieving zero discharges. The plan is voluntary, with a goal of 80% industry participation.
Chemical accident team issues first report Two years after a chemical plant fire and explosion that killed five workers, a team led by EPA and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) found that the accident was caused by poor hazard analysis and inadequate safety measures. The report is the first one issued by the EPA/OSHA task force since its inception in December 1996. "The most likely cause of the accident was the inadvertent introduction of water/heat to water-reactive materials during the mixing operations," the team concluded about the April 1995 incident at Napp Technologies, Inc., in Lodi, N.J. In addition to the worker deaths 300 area residents were evacuated several nearby businesses were destroyed and chemically contaminated water ran off into streets and a nearby river According to the OSHA/EPA investigation, Napp made several fatal er-
1 6 A • JAN. 1, 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
rors in managing the reaction, including failure to identify hazard factors, such as sources of water or heat, and failure to note the steps needed to stop reactions in the blender. As a result of the investigation, EPA plans to harmonize its List of Regulated Substances with OSHA's Highly Hazardous Chemicals List. OSHA is considering including additional reactive chemicals to the list covered by its process safety management rules. Both agencies are reviewing whether companies need additional guidance for proper use of material safety data sheets. Chemical company representatives, labor unions, and members of Congress have criticized the federal investigative team and called for an independent board to investigate accidents. In October, President Clinton signed the EPA appropriations bill, which included $4 million to fund an independent Chemical Safety Board, authorized under the 1990 Clean Air Act.
TRI interpretive booklets update 1990 guidance A new booklet designed to assist companies understand their responsibilities under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) is available from EPA. The document, in a questionand-answer form, provides answers to the most commonly asked questions on interpreting TRI requirements, including determining reporting thresholds and waste management classifications as well as understanding the new definitions for modifications of chemical listings. The booklet updates answers provided in a 1990 edition Copies can be found on the Web at http: / /www gov/opptintr/tri Guidance documents tailored to assist the seven industry groups added to the TRI in May 1997 have also been published. The documents are designed to help companies gauge whether they have any reporting responsibilities. Companies that meet the thresholds in the seven added industries—metal mining, electric utilities (those that combust coal and oil) commercial hazardous waste treatment facilities chemical producers, and petroleum bulk terminals were required to begin reporting under TRI for activities that began Jan 1 1998
