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
as a "major" source, which would require Intel to install top-performing controls, Mohin added. The permit levels for all pollutants require that emissions fall below levels required for other plants in Arizona, he said.
Agency begins drafting drinking water rules Despite the lack of critical data from municipal water utilities, agency staff have begun drafting two significant drinking water rules aimed at controlling microbial pathogens. Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, signed by President Clinton in August 1996, require EPA to issue the proposed rules by November: one to control microbial pathogens and another to help control the potentially carcinogenic byproducts of chlorine and other drinking water disinfectants. To meet the November deadline, however, EPA must begin developing the two regulations before critical microbial and disinfection byproduct data are available from large metropolitan water suppliers. The data are to be collected under the Information Collection Rule (ICR), finalized last May, covering the occurrence of microbial contaminants and disinfection byproducts, their associated health risks and proper forms of treatment. Collection of the data has been delayed however, as questions raised by water companies are addressed concerning the analytical methods for detecting Crvvtosporidium a microscopic parasite implicated in a number of waterborne disease outbreaks The rule requires this information to be reported by November 1998 The ICR schedule reflects an agreement negotiated in 1993 by water utilities, state and local agencies, environmental, and consumer groups, and EPA. But the data gap poses a problem for some of the participants in the agreement. The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA), which represents larger water suppliers, and the Natural Resources Defense Council support the enforceable limit and say that if the agency waits for the ICR data, controls on microbials and disinfection byproducts won't be in place until 2002 or later. However, AMWA representatives note that some water systems will be unable to comply, at least in the
short term, because of cost and technical considerations. Small systems, in particular, are wary about the cost of new water purification techniques. A trade group that includes small systems in its membership, the American Water Works Association (AWWA), is calling for an unenforceable action level that will allow systems more flexible treatment options. Without more data, AWWA believes an enforceable limit is premature because little is known about the number of systems that can meet future requirements or what action EPA would take against those systems that don't comply
times to speed up the agency's "glacial pace" of regulating effluents, according to NRDC attorney Jessica Landman. Although the two options are acceptable to the NRDC, Landman said the group is more concerned that the industry-by-industry process of controlling effluents moves forward. The agency has discussed with the NRDC and others revisions to help speed the standardsetting process. In the next four V63TS the agency plans to regulate the coastal oil, gas extraction, and pharmaceutical manufacturing industries as well as industrial laundries
Pollution prevention option offered pesticide formulators
New financial assurance test for local landfill owners
The nation's 2600 pesticide formulators, packagers, and repackagers will be allowed to discharge small amounts of pesticide pollution in their wastewater in exchange for better pollution prevention controls under a recently published rule [Federal Register r996, ,1 (216)6 57518-66). The guidelines are the latest in a series of rules required by the 1972 Clean Water Act limiting discharges of polluted effluents into the nation's rivers, lakes, and streams. The agency's 1994 proposed rule called for a "zero discharge limitation" and pretreatment standards. But that approach was abandoned after EPA received complaints from pesticide makers and packagers who said the limitation would create other "cross-media" impacts, such as possible environmental damage resulting from hauling and incinerating the nonreusable portion of wastewater from the plants. In a move supported by industry, EPA will now allow facilities to choose between achieving zero discharge of pesticides in effluents or implementing pollution prevention practices and wastewater treatments on a product-by-product basis. The pollution prevention options include practices such as pretreatment of effluents, water conservation, and facility maintenance. They will reduce toxic discharges by almost 99%. EPA estimates that the new rules will remove 7.6 million toxic pound equivalents from water discharges per year, for about $29.9 million. Since the mid-1970s, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has successfully sued EPA several
After five years of negotiations with municipal owners of solid waste landfills, EPA will provide localities with more flexibility when proving their ability to pay landfill closure costs. New landfill regulations in 1991 required owners and operators to demonstrate that adequate funds will be available for closure, postclosure care such as groundwater monitoring, and corrective action for releases from facilities. This rule required local governments and private landfill owners to prove their ability to pay closure costs through the use of a trust fund, insurance policy, or other third-party financial instrument. But several local governments and waste management industry companies that own and/or operate landfills felt the 1991 requirement to obtain a third-party guarantee of closure funds was excessive—EPA estimated the cost of obtaining letters of credit at $18.1 million annually. Under a recent final rule published Nov. 27 {Federal Register 1996, 62(230), 60328-39), the nation's 2700 municipal landfill owners are expected to save $105 million annually, EPA
S3VS
The new rule adds two new, selfimplementing mechanisms: a financial test for landfill owners and one for local governments willing to guarantee the costs for the landfill owner. The new financial mechanisms become effective April 7. Industry landfill owners and operators expect EPA to finalize similar self-implementing financial mechanisms for their facilities in April.
VOL. 31, NO. 2, 1997/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS " 7 3 A
