Below is a brief, and non-comprehensive, summary of the history of Environmental Leadership Programs at the US EPA and in various states. Information on past and contemporary EPA "innovation" efforts, including those that can be defined as ELPs, can be found at www.epa.gov/opei/byepa.htm. Links to state initiatives are provided by the National P2 Roundtable and at the EPA Performance Track web site.

Environmental Protection Agency

The EPA's 33/50 was one the first efforts launched "to demonstrate whether voluntary partnerships could augment the [EPA's] traditional command-and-control approach by bringing about targeted reductions more quickly than would regulations alone." Reductions of 33% by 1992, and 50% by 1995, for 17 selected chemicals among participating companies were targeted.. The program reached its ultimate goal in 1994, one year ahead of schedule, in part due to the US phase out of ozone-depleting chemicals under the Montreal Protocol. (1) Twenty-six Rhode Island facilities participating in the program reported a net reduction in the targeted chemicals (over 1988 to 1996) of 86% (by mass). In comparison 169 non-participating facilities reported a 66% reduction in the same chemicals over the same period. (2)

In 1995 the EPA initiated two programs that attempted to encourage beyond-compliance environmental performance. The Environmental Leadership pilot program offered decreased inspections and recognition in exchange for the development and implementation of environmental management systems, environmental audits, mentoring and stakeholder participation. This program has been subsumed by the EPA's newest program Performance Track. (3)

Project XL, the other program launched in 1995, was put forward in hope of obtaining pollution prevention gains through regulatory flexibility. It was intended to foster collaborations (between industry, federal, state and local governments, and environmental groups) toward development of site-specific plans for major industrial facilities. XL was to be "more flexible with respect to how the firm would be required to reduce emissions in each of the different media, and in this way, presumably be more economic, while at the same exceed the aggregate level of emission reduction that could be expected under conventional regulation." (4)

The results from XL pilot studies have been mixed and efforts to correct for the deficiencies in the early efforts are ongoing. The EPA originally expected 500 proposals for pilot projects from which it would select the 50 most viable. However, as of 1997 only 51 proposals had been submitted from interested firms. One of the reasons suggested for this low performance was "the agency's decision not to establish firm standards and requirements for participation [which] discouraged more than inspired firms to take the program seriously." (5) In addition, although one might expect a reduction in paperwork over that required in normal permitting procedures, the XL proposal process may in fact not result any significant reductions. The EPA has acknowledged that it was "cautious" in the early stages of the program and that "project sponsors, regulators and citizens alike invested significant resources and time in XL's creative and complex experiments." (6)

The EPA has started a "reengineering" process for XL with the intention of overcoming the problems experienced in the early history of the program. In 1998 EPA streamlined the proposal process to assure that "negotiations would go more smoothly, quickly and predictably." The new process is expected to produce XL agreements within 6 months to a year as opposed to 24 months under the old system. (7) Examples of recent XL agreements include several whereby companies were given pre-approval on future process changes in exchange for the establishment of plant-wide emissions caps and phased reductions. Through the Massachusetts Environmental Results Program XL (ERP), permit and reporting flexibility is being extended to small business sectors such as dry cleaners, photo processors and printers. The RI DEM is presently piloting an Autobody Certification Program which is based on the Massachusetts ERP.

The Narragansett Bay Commission (NBC) intends to conduct a two-year study that will utilize regulatory flexibility through XL to encourage superior environmental performance by the metal finishing industries located within the Narragansett Bay Commission's servicing district. The Project XL Pretreatment Program will grant varying levels of regulatory flexibility to 10 metal finishing business that have demonstrated superior environmental performance in the past. The NBC has also participated in the EPA's Common Sense Initiative which promoted the development of innovative practices in various industrial sectors.

Other EPA initiatives relevant to Rhode Island include Region 1's Star Track which has been subsumed by Performance Track. The main goal of the program was to test the use of third-party audits of environmental performance as a means of assuring compliance. Toray Plastics, Inc. of North Kingstown was the sole RI business that completed the program and produced an environmental performance report. (PDF 11 pages; 26 K)

Details on Performance Track are discussed further in this thesis; especially in Participation Level 2 where I recommend that the DEM adopt the same participation criteria as Performance Track for the second and third tiers of a RI program. Of the 228 charter P-Track members, five are considered small businesses under the EPA's definition. (8) This low participation rate indicates that attracting small businesses to a RI environmental leadership program may be especially challenging. As of March 2001 no RI businesses or other organizations have been accepted into Performance Track.

State Programs

Environmental Leadership Programs have been planned or implemented in about twenty states across the U.S. The Wisconsin and Oregon programs are considered to be the most advanced at this time. (9) Links to information on state initiatives are available at the National P2 Roundtable and EPA Performance Track web sites.

Other state programs that can provide lessons to draw on for developing an environmental leadership program in RI include:

Colorado Environmental Leadership Program: enabling legislation calls for specific financial incentives for companies that participate in the program. These include access to a revolving fund for low interest loans for pollution prevention projects limited to program participants, establishment of participants as preferred vendors for state contracts, and credits for beyond compliance performance that can be applied against emission fees.

Michigan Clean Corporate Citizen (C3) offers a series of modified air, surface water, ground water and underground storage tanks regulations that are intended to provide "tangible benefits that allow permitting flexibility, shorten the waiting period to receive necessary permits, and reduced monitoring and reporting oversight." (See: Michigan Clean Corporate Citizen (C3) Regulatory Benefits).

New Jersey Silver and Gold Track For Environmental Performance . New Jersey designed its program so that development and initiation of a lower tier of its ELP (Silver) would not require enabling legislation. Legislation is expected to enable participation benefits for its highest tier (Gold). The Gold Track tier will be piloted through an Project XL agreement with the EPA.

Georgia Pollution Prevention Partners has attracted a substantial number of participants - twenty-four as of March 2001 - relative to other programs. The program offers companies that participate at the "Achievement" level, which requires an active pollution prevention plan and documented progress toward P2 goals, a 10% reduction in their Hazardous Waste Management and Hazardous Substance Reporting fees. Participants in the "Model" level are eligible for up to a 25% reduction in these fees.

Virginia Environmental Excellence Program has been established without specific enabling legislation. The Virginia DEQ is authorized to develop pollution prevention programs, which provide financial incentives and regulatory flexibility, under its general authority granted by state law. As outlined by the Code of Virginia, the purposes of the Department include: "To assist in the effective implementation of the Constitution of Virginia by carrying out state policies aimed at conserving the Commonwealth’s natural resources and protecting its atmosphere, land and waters from pollution." (Section 10.1-1183) and, "[t]o establish and effectively implement pollution prevention programs to reduce the impact of pollutants on Virginia’s natural resources." (Section 10.1-1183)

 

Three other New England states are pursuing ELPS:

Connecticut Exemplary EMSs

Maine Environmental Leaders , established in 1997, recognizes gas stations that achieve a 100% compliance rate with environmental rules and regulations. The program focuses on compliance with underground storage tank rules. Potential participants complete a self-audit through a certification checklist, which is then verified by a third party contractor through an inspection of the facility. The program is designed to help increase the station’s customer base by attracting consumers who are likely to support a business that is committed to environmental excellence.

Massachusetts Environmental Stewardship Program

For all practical purposes these programs can be considered to be pilot projects at this time. A common experience in these programs, as has been evidenced in the EPA's Project XL, is a difficulty in attracting participants, and building program momentum. In a review of 19 state programs the Tellus Institute found:

"No active program we reviewed had more than 30 participants, and most had fewer than 10 - a minuscule portion of potential facilities. Furthermore, most participants are among the small numbers of facilities that already are engaging in beyond compliance activities." (10)

The Washington State Environmental Excellence Program has attracted only one participant since inception in 1997. Low participation is attributed to the "failure of the ELP to reduce the perceived burden and duplication of federal and local regulatory requirements." (11) Further, the Washington program has been controversial with environmental interests because of its definition of "superior" that allows for cases where regulatory flexibility improves economic performance but does not enhance environmental performance. (12)

Notes:

(1) US EPA, 33/50 Program: The Final Record, EPA-745-R-99-004, March, 1999.

(2) Id. Reductions for RI facilities were calculated using the data reported in Table 6 "Total Releases and Transfers of 33/50 Program Chemicals, by Participant Status, by State, 1988, 1990, 1995, 1996," pp. 22-23 of the PDF version of the report. (PDF 44 pages)

(3) Crow, Michael, Jeanne Herb, James Goldstein, Allen White, and Dima Reda, "Beyond Experiments", The Environmental Forum, May/June 2000, pp. 19 -29, Environmental Law Institute, Washington D.C., pp. 22[PDF Copy From Tellus, 29 pages; 2863 K]

(4) Vig, Norman J. and Michael E. Kraft, Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century, 4th Ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2000), pp. 268

(5) Id.

(6) US EPA, Project XL: From Pilot To Practice - A Journey to System Change, September 1999, pp. ii. (PDF 16 pages; 450K)

(7) Id.

(8) Information on small business participation in Performance Track was supplied by Matt Engler at the Performance Track Information Center. PTRACK@indecon.com. 1-888-339-PTRK (7875)

(9) Speir, Jerry, Green Permits and Cooperative Environmental Agreements: A Report on Regulatory Innovation Programs in Oregon and Washington (sic) Wisconsin, Prepared for the National Academy of Public Administration, Learning From Innovations in Environmental Protection, June, 2000, pp.39, [HTML 66 pages, 300 K]

(10) Crow, et al. pp. 24

(11) Id., pp. 25

(12) For example, see "Letters of Opposition" at the WA DOE Environmental Excellence Program web site / Correspondence.

Back To Top