Project XL demonstrations promise less pollution, fewer regulations More than 10 demonstration projects that, EPA staff say, could lead to "alternative compliance paths" for industry and regulators are being hammered out in factories around the country. The plans are intended to offer a simplified regulatory system in return for less pollution, but some of the industry- and regulator-initiated proposals are sketchy at this point, and their implementation would require relaxation of current laws. They incorporate regulatory approaches that U.S. industries have lobbied for for years. The first wave of projects were announced last fall through EPA's Project XL to encourage companies, states, and communities to develop innovative ideas for pollution control. In December, eight projects were formally selected by EPA and two were waiting in the wings, according to Jon Kessler, director of the Emerging Sectors and Strategies Division in EPA's Policy Office. Project selection starts a sixmonth timetable in which companies, states, and community groups must agree on a plan to implement the trial projects, Kessler said. By June, the Agency expects to have detailed plans for the first eight proposals. The agreements must be approved by EPA, states, companies, and the community before projects begin. Kessler said the role of EPA headquarters will be minimal in the beginning: "We've staked out a goal of superior performance, and then we'll see what we get. We want to allow for creativity. If we spell out exactly what we want, that's all we'll get." He also spoke against central control, saying it was a drag on momentum. Consequently, much will turn on the actions of regions, states, communities, and—most of all— companies. Kessler singled out projects by Intel and Merck as demonstrative of corporate plans. Intel Corp. is proposing a performance-based permitting system in which overall plantwide emissions limits will be set at levels that are tougher than currently required. In return, compliance details will be left to Intel. "How a company achieves a goal isn't the government's con-
Project XL participants As of late November, EPA had received proposals from the six companies and two regulators listed below. Plans from several others are under consideration. Intel Corp. proposes developing a single performance-based, multimedia "contract" to control pollution rather than several media-specific permits at a new semiconductor wafer fabrication facility in Arizona. Anheuser-Busch Co. proposes to develop a multimedia permitting approach at its Jacksonville, FL, plant that would allow banking and bubbling of emissions with a local power plant and wastewater treatment facility. HADCO Corp. plants in New Hampshire and New York propose a production system that would avoid hazardous designation for wastes by directly recycling metal-bearing streams back into production at its printed wiring board manufacturing facilities. Merck & Co., Inc.'s Elkton, VA, facility would establish a plantwide emissions cap that would allow it to "trade" emissions and increase some pollutants in return for significant reductions in others. AT&T Microelectronics' business unit proposes greater use of environmental auditing and management systems in return for more flexible monitoring and reporting requirements under the Clean Water Act. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency proposes three to five local projects modeled on Project XL, all with a variation of multimedia permitting. South Coast Air Quality Management District in California proposes several alternatives to vehicle work-trip reduction plans, including remote sensing, tougher inspection and maintenance programs, and buy-back programs for old vehicles. 3M Corp. facilities in California, Illinois, and Minnesota would obtain "beyond compliance" performance-based permits, establish emission caps below existing limits, develop a single multimedia permit, and use a simplified reporting system with environmental audits. —JEFF JOHNSON
cern. But we are very interested in whether the goal is achieved, in monitoring it, and in distributing that information," Kessler said. Merck & Co., Inc., in Elkton, VA, proposes to "push the envelope as far as any of the proposals," Kessler said. Merck is putting together a pollution trading plan that will allow increases as well as decreases in emissions as long as the cuts are greatest, he said. Because of community opposition
to increased emissions, Kessler said, "I can just as easily see us saying Merck tried something and it didn't work as I can see us saying Merck tried something and it did. But Merck wants to give it a try, and we are willing to explore it with them." Merck's plan will be complicated further because of the plant's proximity to Shenandoah National Park, which is suffering from air pollution problems, he noted. —JEFF JOHNSON
New reporting rules for endocrinemodulating chemicals considered To speed up government action on endocrine-modulating chemicals, EPA may require industry to submit unpublished health and ecological effects studies related to the reproductive effects of chemicals. Under the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Agency is also considering methods to standardize testing of potential endocrine
modulators, according to John Walker, executive director of the TSCA Interagency Testing Committee. Walker spoke at the Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry meeting in Vancouver, Canada, in November. Under TSCA, EPA has the power to request and evaluate unpublished data and require further testing of chemicals on the
VOL. 30, NO. 1, 1996 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 1 9 A
