EPA WATCH New manufacturing plants are targets of toxics rule In a rule representing a significant simplification of the agency's proposal two years ago, new manufacturing plants and those with newly constructed units will be required to install top-performing systems to control toxic emissions. The rule, signed by Administrator Carol Browner in December, is aimed at major sources of air pollution. Under the rule, which implements Section 112(g) of the Clean Air Act, "major" sources that emit more than 10 tons of a single hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or 25 tons of a combination of HAPs in a year will be required to install improved technology to control toxic emissions. The technology must meet the MACT (maximum achievable control technology) standard requiring controls capable of meeting emissions levels achieved by the top-performing 12% of existing facilities. Plants with HAPs emissions that fall below the "major" source threshold will not have to install controls The rule represents a "significant" streamlining of the agency's August 1994 proposal, said Kathy Kaufman of the Office of Air Quality, Planning, and Standards. Under that proposal, facilities that modified plants or built a new process unit resulting in "major" emissions would have been required to install MACT controls. That approach was widely criticized by industry sources and later dropped. When the agency proposed a draft final rule last March it said thcit EPA would rely on state programs to control major HAPs emissions at existing manufacturing and that it would tackle a national MACT standard for modifications in the future By aiming this MACT standard at new or reconstructed major sources, toxic air pollutants will be controlled at the time of construction, "when controls are most cost-effective to install," the agency wrote. Industry sources said the rule is a
OSHA, EPA jointly fight accidental chemical spills The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and EPA have agreed to jointly investigate the root causes of major chemical accidents and to recommend ways to prevent similar accidents under an agreement signed in December. Both agencies have the authority to investigate chemical accidents and to develop plans to reduce spills, but each has a separate policy focus: OSHA to safeguard workers and EPA to protect the public and the environment. Joint investigative reports will include a description of the accident, its cause, the response, any laboratory test results, and recommendations for improving chemical safety. The agencies plan to work closely to coordinate new policies related to spill prevention, including compliance assistance to regulated industries. Both agencies have finalized rules to help workers reduce accidental spills. EPA incorporated OSHA's standard on process safety management into its spill prevention program for facilities that both agencies regulate.
good approach, because it drops the requirement to control emissions from plant modifications and will allow new technologies to be installed during plant construction. EPA is required to finalize by the year 2000 standards covering 174 sources of hazardous air pollutants. So far, 21 standards covering 45 sources have been completed, staff said.
Public interest groups target Project XL permit A recently signed permit under Project XL has drawn protests from more than 100 public interest groups concerned that EPA is allowing industry extreme regulatory latitude at
7 2 A • VOL. 31, NO. 2, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
the expense of public health and worker safety protections. Administrator Carol Browner and Intel Corp. officials celebrated the signing of a five-year Project XL agreement on Nov. 19 for Intel's computer chip manufacturing plant in Chandler, Ariz. In exchange for meeting tougher air pollution standards, agency staff said, the company received an air pollution permit that eliminates a lengthy approval process each time the company mulces 3. enemies! or process change so long as overall air emissions remain under a facilitywide cap Although a "stakeholder" group— including community groups and state and local agencies—was involved in the permit development and agreed to the final permit, more than 100 public interest groups, including environmental groups and unions, urged EPA in a letter not to sign the agreement. These groups are concerned that Project XL offers companies a chance to operate without government oversight, which would encoursffe the dismantling of environmental and worker protection rules Despite the effort to obtain public input on XL projects, most citizens cannot follow the highly technical presentations about process changes and Clean Air Act requirements offered during public meetings, the groups add. EPA has agreed to provide technical experts to assist local citizens interested in reviewing the Intel permit. As part of the agreement, Intel agreed to hold two public hearings each year on its progress. Intel's Tim Mohin defended the XL permit, saying it has the support of many groups operating in and near Chandler, including the Gila River Indian Community and League of Conservation Voters. Those groups opposing the permit simply distrust businesses, he said. The permit caps toxic emissions at four tons per year, well below the 10 tons per year that would define it
0013-936X/97/0931-72A$14.00/0 © 1997 American Chemical Society
