the changing nature of environmental and public health ... · informing citizens about the safety...

The Changing Nature ofEnvironmental and PublicHealth ProtectionAn Annual Report onReinvention

United States Environmental Protection Agency

EPA100-R-98-003March 1998www.epa.gov/reinvent

1EPA

Office of Reinvention(1801)

cover.qxd 3/24/98 4:36 PM

FINAL.QXD 3/24/98 1:03 PM

THE CHANGING NATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL

AND PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION

An Annual Report on Reinvention

MARCH 1998

FINAL.QXD 3/24/98 3:40 PM

1Table of contents

1997 annual report on reinvention

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

5 INTRODUCTION

7 A STRONGER PARTNERSHIP WITH STATE

AGENCIES

7 A Framework for Collaboration

9 Measures to Track Environmental Results

9 Dialogue on Key Policy Issues

10 SECTOR-AND COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACHES

10 An Industry Commits to ImprovingEnvironmental Performance

11 Addressing Industry Needs in Rulemaking

11 Empowering Communities

14 INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE BETTER

PERFORMANCE

14 Flexibility for Going Beyond Compliance

16 Less Reporting for Proven Performers

16 Public Recognition

18 MARKET-BASED FORCES GUIDE ACTION

18 A Marked Increase in Trading

20 A Tax Fix

21 Fair Pricing

22 MANAGING IN THE INFORMATION AGE

23 Data Standards

24 Universal Access to Electronic Reporting

24 Reengineering Environmental Database Systems

24 Related Initiatives

25 SUPPORTING THE PUBLIC’S “RIGHT-TO-KNOW”

26 Consumer Labeling Initiative

27 Expansion of the Toxic Release Inventory

27 A Response to Beach Safety Concerns

27 Better Drinking Water Information forConsumers

29 NEW APPROACHES TO ENFORCEMENT AND

COMPLIANCE

29 More Choice in Measuring Compliance

30 Meeting Special Compliance Assistance Needs

31 Engaging Local Law Enforcement

31 Using Information To Boost Compliance

31 Encouraging Self-Policing

32 A Comprehensive, Corporatewide Focus

33 CUTTING RED TAPE AND REGULATORY BURDEN

34 Avoiding a Patchwork of RegulatoryRequirements

35 Getting Safer Products to Market

36 Clarification for Waste Managers

37 Superfund Reform

37 A Common Sense Approach for a CommonProblem

38 Creative Permitting

38 Breaking Through New Technology Barriers

39 CONCLUSION

40 APPENDIX: STATUS OF REINVENTION PROJECTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FINAL.QXD 3/24/98 3:40 PM Page 5

2 Executive summary


EPA’s reinvention agenda comes at a time when avariety of forces are creating pressure for changes tothe nation’s environmental regulatory system. Thisyear’s report explains some of the most significantchanges that are taking place in environmental pro-tection as the twenty-first century draws near, andwhat these changes mean for the way EPA doesbusiness. The results — the practical effects forbusinesses, communities, and individuals — arehighlighted below.

GREATER PUBLIC ACCESS TO

INFORMATION

Because Americans have a right-to-know aboutenvironmental risks in their communities andbecause an informed, knowledgeable public canplay a meaningful role in solving tough problems,EPA has expanded public access to environmentalinformation.

Expanded Reporting on Toxic Releases —Another 6,400 facilities, representing seven addi-tional industry sectors, are reporting information ontoxics released into their communities through anexpansion of the nation’s Toxic Release Inventory.

Informing Citizens About the Safety ofDrinking Water and Swimming Conditions —Community water supplierssoon will be required toreport to their customers onwhether their drinkingwater meets federal publichealth standards while newassistance for the Statesaims to strengthen watermonitoring and publicadvisory programs forbeaches and coastal areas.

Established “Plain English” LabelingRequirements — New labeling requirements forthe pesticides industry provide consumers with

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

For 3 years, EPA Administrator Carol Browner has led EPA in pursuing

an unprecedented agenda for consistently delivering cleaner, cheaper,

smarter results from environmental and public health protection pro-

grams. This agenda was developed in response to Vice-President Gore’s

challenge to all federal agencies to reinvent government so that it works

better and costs less for the American people. It involves streamlining and

innovating within proven programs and testing more integrative, holistic approaches

with the potential to better address unresolved problems that threaten our people and the

natural environment.


3Executive summary


clearer information for selecting and properly usingpesticides and other common household productsin and around their homes.

MORE FLEXIBILITY TO

OBTAIN BETTER RESULTS

In an effort to obtain betterresults, EPA is providing businessesand communities with more flexi-bility in how they fulfill their publichealth and environmental protec-tion responsibilities. By condition-ing this offer on a record of provenperformance and public account-ability, EPA provides assurance thatstrong protection will be main-tained and creates an incentive forfacilities to improve performance.

Testing New Ideas — Through Project XL, EPAis working with 27 companies to develop or testinnovative management strategies that offer promisefor getting better environmental results than whatwould be achieved under current law.

Promoting Trading — New policies and pro-grams allow and promote market-based trading as amore cost-effective, environmentally protectiveoption for helping businesses and communitiesaddress a variety ofproblems, such assmog, habitat loss andwater pollution.

Offering Optionsin Rulemaking —The nation’s first everintegrated (or multi-media) environmentalrule, just issued for thepulp and paper industry, allows companies to delaycompliance with more stringent water pollution con-trol requirements if they commit to installing moreadvanced technologies.

STRONGER PARTNERSHIPS

Because many of today’s problems cannot beaddressed through regulatory action alone, EPA isreaching out to diverse stakeholders to bring allavailable expertise and resources to bear on the jobof protecting public health and the environment.

Established New Working Relationship withState Agencies — EPA worked with states, its mostcritical partners, to create a new framework forjointly collaborating on environmental priority-set-ting and decision-making to ensure that publichealth and the environment are best protected.Participation in the National EnvironmentalPerformance Partnership System rose from 6 pilotstates in 1996 to a majority of 30 states participat-ing last year.

Implementing Sector-Based Approaches —Through the Common Sense Initiative, EPA reachedan agreement with the metal finishing industrywhereby firms obtain regulatory relief and otherbenefits in exchange for going beyond compliance— this action, potentially affecting 11,000 metalfinishing shops nation-wide, could voluntarily cuttoxic emissions from theindustry by up to 75 per-cent compared to 1992.

EncouragingVoluntary Action — Anew voluntary agreementwith the car industrymeans that, later this year, all vehicles sold in theNortheast and District of Columbia will bedesigned to emit 70 percent less pollution. By 2001,these vehicles will be available throughout the coun-try, providing Americans with safer, cleaner air.

Supporting Community Brownfields Cleanupand Restoration — Cleanup of Brownfields —abandoned, contaminated urban property — hasaccelerated with over $24 million in seed grants andtechnical assistance awarded to 121 communities. Anew tax incentive and an additional $300 millioninvestment announced last year will help revitalizesome 5,000 more communities in the future.


4 Executive summary


MORE COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE

With 1997 bringing the largest fines ever collect-ed in the history of the Agency, EPA’s record ofenforcing against irresponsible polluters is strongerthan ever before. At the same time, EPA is makingit easier to comply with environmental regulationsthrough targeted compliance assistance programs.EPA recognizes that most businesses and communi-ties want to operate in an environmentally responsi-ble manner — in some cases, they just need extrahelp or incentive to succeed.

Compliance Assistance Centers —Compliance assistance centers are beingestablished or expanded to providesmall communities and businesses ineight sectors with quick, easy access toinformation on how to control and pre-vent pollution.

Providing Incentives for Findingand Fixing Problems — To promoteenvironmental compliance, EPA isreducing penalties for companies (notengaged in criminal activity) that show

good faith towards finding, publicly disclosing, andcorrecting environmental problems. To date, 247companies — ranging in size from Fortune 500companies to small businesses — have voluntarilydisclosed violations at more than 760 facilities.

Support for Local EnvironmentalEnforcement — To help communities guardagainst environmental violations, EPA is workingwith local law enforcement agencies to support jointinvestigations and to increase understanding ofenvironmental crimes.

LESS PAPERWORK AND RED TAPE

To ensure that environmental managers in thepublic and private sectors can focus on the greatestrisks, EPA is simplifying and reducing paperworkand regulatory requirements that detract from pub-lic health and environmental protection.

EliminatedUnnecessaryRequirements — EPA haseliminated more than1,300 pages of environ-mental requirements repre-senting nearly 20 millionhours of regulatory burden— that’s the equivalent ofreturning more than a half million work weeks, withan estimated value of $600 million, back to business-es and communities for more productive use.

Avoided Issuing Millions of New Permits — Acommon sense, risk-based approach to storm watermanagement prevented millions of small businessesand communities from becoming subject to newpermitting requirements.

Speeding the Cleanup of Toxic Waste —Through aggressive administrative action, theSuperfund Program has cleaned up twice as manycontaminated sites in the past five years than in thefirst 12 years of the program. Cleanups are now 20percent faster and less costly.

Increasing Efficiency Through ElectronicReporting — To modernize the current paper-

based reporting sys-tem, EPA is workingwith the states to pro-vide all regulated facil-ities with a more effi-cient electronic optionfor reporting regulato-ry information withinfive years.


5Introduction


Nationally, environmental programs are as varied asthe risks they are intended to address — they are vol-untary and mandated, technology-based and market-driven, targeted and broadly applicable. They involveconducting scientific research, setting numeric andqualitative standards for environmental quality andpublic safety, issuing pollution control permits andencouraging pollution prevention, registering pesticideproducts, collecting data to monitor conditions andassure compliance with environmental laws, and whennecessary, taking enforcement actions against polluters.Collectively, environmental programs — managedjointly in cooperation with state and local environ-mental agencies — form what is generally referred toas the nation’s environmental protection “system.”

For more than a quarter century, this system hasserved the American people well, significantly improv-

ing conditions in communities throughout the coun-try. Today, our air, land, and water are safer and clean-er despite continued population growth and economicexpansion. Nevertheless, lingering and emerging risksstill challenge environmental managers — pollutedrunoff continues to degrade water quality; urbansprawl reduces natural habitat and increases air pollu-tion; increases in carbon dioxide emissions contributeto global warming; and toxic chemicals increase cancerrisks and disrupt natural biological systems.

These challenges reinforce the need to continuouslyimprove the current system so that human health andthe natural environment are protected as fully as possi-ble — without imposing unnecessary costs and regula-tory burden on society. But other factors are creatingpressure for change as well. Rapid technologicaladvancements provide tools for detecting, evaluating,

INTRODUCTION

...to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment.

This mission for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the

Agency) is the driver for reinvention — a broad-based, agency-wide

strategy to consistently deliver cleaner, cheaper, smarter results from

public health and environmental protection programs. At EPA, reinven-

tion means streamlining and innovating within proven programs, but it

also means testing more integrative, holistic approaches with the poten-

tial to better address unresolved problems that threaten our people and the natural envi-

ronment. While such efforts have long been a priority for the Agency, in recent years, they

have intensified as a result of the Clinton Administration’s commitment to reinventing

government. Three years ago, in March 1995, President Clinton, Vice-President Gore, and

EPA Administrator Carol Browner announced an ambitious reinvention agenda for EPA

aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental programs.


6 Introduction


controlling and preventing pollution in ways neverbefore possible. The Internet, geographic informationsystems and other new information management capa-bilities are helping to transform environmental datainto a much more powerful, accessible tool to supportdecision-making. The public is becoming more knowl-edgeable about environmental issues and the need toassure environmental justice for all people, particularlyour children. American industries are looking for waysto become more sustainable and competitive in theglobal marketplace by improving resource efficiencyand cutting waste. And years of implementing envi-ronmental requirements has resulted in an extensivenetwork of state and local officials, industry profes-sionals, and consultants and engineers with consider-able knowledge and capability in managing environ-mental affairs.

As a result, the nineties have proven an opportunetime for reinventing environmental and public healthprotection programs. Providing flexibility along withstrong accountability, offering more compliance assis-tance, improving public access to environmental infor-mation, building stronger partnerships with otherstakeholders, and cutting red tape and unnecessarypaperwork that divert attention from more pressingissues — these are some of the ways in which EPA isacting to take advantage of varied, complex, and oftencompeting forces within society.

Many of EPA’s reinvention efforts are reflected inthe following sections, which illustrate how the currentregulatory system is evolving as the twenty-first centu-ry draws near. These sections highlight EPA’s resolveand commitment to finding new ways of doing busi-ness so that a strong system of environmental andpublic health protection becomes even stronger.

In the past few years, many organizations have comeforth with very specific recommendations on ways toimprove the nation’s environmental protection system.Among the most notable are two independent organiza-tions—the National Academy of Public Administrators(NAPA) and the Enterprise for the Environment (E4E).

NAPA, a nonprofit organization chartered by Congressthat assists federal, state, and local governments in improv-ing their performance, has published two consecutivereports on environmental regulatory reinvention. In a 1995publication called Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A NewDirection for the Environmental Protection Agency, NAPAunderscored the need to move toward a performance-based system that focuses on results rather than end-of-the-pipe controls. NAPA recommended that EPA design its pro-grams to specify desired results, but allow businesses,states, and communities to decide how to achieve that levelof performance. A followup report, Resolving the Paradox ofEnvironmental Protection: An Agenda for Congress, EPA,and the States, released in September 1997, assessesprogress made toward a performance-based system since1995. Several of EPA’s flagship reinvention initiatives, suchas Project XL, the Common Sense Initiative, and theNational Environmental Performance Partnership System,are commended for providing useful lessons that can shedlight on strategies for broader innovation. However, notingthat the results of these initiatives have yet to produce majorchanges in environmental programs, NAPA made recom-mendations aimed at accelerating progress.

Another perspective on change was developed by theEnterprise for the Environment (E4E), a broad-based, bi-partisan group with representatives from government, business,and the environmental community, chaired by former EPAAdministrator William Ruckelshaus. In its final report, TheEnvironmental Protection System in Transition: Toward a MoreDesirable Future, E4E emphasized the need for an evolutionary“stepping stone” approach to changes in environmental protec-tion. Based on a consensus vision for the future reached dur-ing two years’ work, E4E called for a 21st century system ofprotection that is performance-based, information-rich, flexible,accountable, open, and transparent to stakeholders.

While they showed some differences of opinion, in general,these two organizations identified many of the same prioritiesthat EPA is focused upon. Their views reaffirm EPA’s reinven-tion strategy and suggest some convergence of opinion aboutwhat needs to be done to ensure continued progress in envi-ronmental and public health protection in the future.

CHANGING THE SYSTEM —OPINIONS BEGIN TO CONVERGE


7A stronger partnership with state agencies


Years of managing environmental programs has pro-vided states with more experience, expertise, and sophis-tication that was lacking in the mid-1970s when mostenvironmental programs got underway. As more envi-ronmental responsibilities are delegated to the states,their officials are demanding a stronger voice in deci-sion-making and priority-setting. At the same time,national efforts aimed at testing new approaches toenvironmental protection often result in EPA workingdirectly in the states with businesses and communitiesthrough pilot projects. As a result, EPA and the statesare going through a transitional period of questioninghow to best work together so that the skills andresources of each are used for the greatest possible gains.

A FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATION

The most prominent outcome during this periodhas been the establishment of the NationalEnvironmental Performance Partnership System(NEPPS). Signed by EPA Administrator Carol

Browner and state leaders in 1995, NEPPS waslaunched based on a shared recognition that continuedenvironmental progress could be achieved most effec-tively by working together as partners. NEPPS wasdesigned to promote joint planning and priority-set-ting, and to provide states with more flexibility indetermining how resources should be targeted.

Under NEPPS, states and EPA developPerformance Partnership Agreements that are based ona comprehensive assessment of state environmentalproblems. They include criteria for measuring environ-mental and program management results, clearlydefined management and implementation roles, andspecific areas where EPA can reduce its program man-agement oversight based on a history of strong stateperformance. NEPPS also includes PerformancePartnership Grants, which allow states to consolidategrants as a way of cutting paperwork and simplifyingfinancial management.

Now in its second year of operation, NEPPS isexpanding rapidly, with the majority of states choosing

A STRONGER PARTNERSHIP WITHSTATE AGENCIES

Together, EPA and the states share major responsibilities for protecting

public health and the environment. In the most general sense, EPA’s

role has focused on developing the science and national standards that

protect our people and natural world from risk. While EPA regional

offices play a vital role in implementing these standards, the states

have been the primary, front-line delivery agents, working with other

governmental agencies, businesses, and communities to ensure that standards are met.

These roles still exist, but for a variety of reasons, they are becoming less distinct.


8 A stronger partnership with state agencies


to participate. Just six states piloted PerformancePartnerships in 1996. By 1997, 30 states had signedPerformance Partnership Agreements with EPA, and36 state agencies received Performance PartnershipGrants. This participation signals a growing accep-tance of NEPPS by the states as a substantive, careful-ly thought-out program that can improve environ-mental program efficiency and effectiveness. Althoughparticipation is expected to continue to increase, allstates — whether participating or not — will benefitfrom streamlined joint-planning and priority-settingprocesses that have evolved as a result of state/EPAcollaboration.

One example of how NEPPS collaboration canenhance program management can be seen in the stateof Florida. There, state and EPA managers in theRCRA and water programs reviewed every reportable

document, including inspection reports, permit appli-cations, and notices of violations, which had beenagreed to over the years. Based on this detailed evalua-tion and the maturity of the RCRA program, theywere able to eliminate about 75 percent of the routinereporting previously required. Many of the water pro-gram reports were reduced as well without compro-mising program operations. EPA’s regional office inAtlanta is working now to extend these same benefitsto other state NEPPS participants.

Performance PartnershipsStates With Agreements and Grants in 1997

NEPPS process helps slash Florida’s RCRAreporting requirements by 75 percent.

Result

Grant Only

Agreement Only

Both


9A stronger partnership with state agencies


MEASURES TO TRACK

ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS

During the year, a critical element ofthe NEPPS structure was put in placewhen EPA and the states agreed on aset of Core Performance Measures totrack environmental results. In the past,measures have focused more on pro-gram management than environmentalprogress. The measures adopted for1998 move beyond this point, so inaddition to tracking the number of per-mits issued to control waste water dis-charges, a measure now exists to reporton the percent of watersheds with toxicpollution at or below permitted levels.Such measures will provide EPA andthe states with a basis for determiningand demonstrating whether NEPPS isimproving environmental programmanagement capabilities. In a broadercontext, these measures will help linkenvironmental results in the states withEPA responsibilities under theGovernment Performance and ResultsAct (GPRA), a recent federal law thatrequires EPA, along with all other federal agencies, todevelop a strategic plan with clear goals and measuresof success.

DIALOGUE ON KEY POLICY ISSUES

While NEPPS represents a major milestone forimproving the state/EPA partnership, it does notaddress every issue of importance to state and EPAofficials. As a result, EPA and the states continue toengage in dialogue on key issues affecting environmen-tal program management. For example, the states’interest in reinventing environmental protection is cre-ating a demand for more authority for experimentingwith innovative regulatory approaches. Over the pastyear, EPA and the states have worked to develop ajoint agreement on how these innovations should bemanaged in the context of broader regulatory reforms.After months of consultation and negotiations, a draft

agreement was reached and published in the FederalRegister for public comment in October 1997. A finalagreement is expected in spring 1998. Reinventing thecollection and use of environmental data is anotherkey issue for state and EPA officials. Recognizing theneed to make better use of this important tool, in late1997, EPA and the states agreed to work on a com-mon vision and action plan to bring about the neces-sary reforms. This effort got underway in early 1998with a joint meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah. (Formore information on the challenges associated withenvironmental data, see “Managing in the InformationAge” later in this report.)

MORE MEANINGFUL REPORTING

A SAMPLE SET OF MEASURES FOR WATER QUALITY

Clean Waters: All of America’s rivers, lakes,and coastal waters will support healthy com-munities of fish, plants, and other aquaticlife and uses such as fishing, swimming, anddrinking water supply for people. Wetlandswill be protected and rehabilitated to providewildlife habitat, reduce floods and improvewater quality. Ground waters will be cleanerfor drinking and other beneficial uses.

By 2005, pollutant discharges from keypoint sources and nonpoint source runoffwill be reduced by at least 20 percent from1992 levels.

Percent of watersheds with toxic pollutantloadings at or less than permitted limits.

Percent of facilities implementing wet weath-er control measures. Where available, reportthe annual pollutant loadings of key parame-ters associated with wet weather sources.

Environmental Goal

Environmental Objective

Core Program Outcomes


10 sector- and community-based approaches


In an effort to build on these strengths, EPA isworking on sector and community-based approachesthat offer more tailored management options. As thefollowing examples show, they require in-depth analy-sis, flexibility and a willingness to engage all affectedstakeholders in creative problem-solving.

AN INDUSTRY COMMITS TO IMPROVING

ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE

In an effort to go beyond compliance and achieveeven cleaner operations, in 1997, the metal finishingindustry developed an ambitious strategic goals pro-gram for addressing environmental performance. Thegoals were an outcome of the industry’s participationin the Common Sense Initiative (CSI), a special forumestablished by EPA Administrator Carol Browner in

SECTOR- AND COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACHES

Making the current regulatory system more responsive to the

evolving needs and capabilities of specific industries and com-

munities is a key issue for reinventing environmental protec-

tion, and one that represents a natural progression for envi-

ronmental policy. Over the past quarter century, EPA has

developed a comprehensive set of national environmental

standards as required by 16 federal environmental laws. As the essential underpinning

of the entire environmental protection system, these standards provide Americans citizens

with assurance that no matter where they live or work, a baseline level of protection will

exist. They also provide state and local governments and the private sector with a clear

understanding about what is expected in terms of environmental responsibility — an

important factor for long-range planning, development, and investment purposes.

Finally, they help assure a level playing field among economic competitors.

Regulation31%

PollutionPrevention

27%

EnvironmentalTechnology

12%

Permitting8%

Compliance & Enforcement

12%

Recordkeeping& Reporting

9%

The Common Sense Initiative

Sector Projects Address a Variety ofEnvironmental Management Issues


11sector- and community-based approaches


1994 to test multimedia, sector-based approaches toenvironmental management as an alternative to thepollutant-by-pollutant approaches that have long beenused. Through CSI, the metal finishers and otherselected industries work with their stakeholders tolook at a broad array of issues as a means to develop-ing more flexible, cost-effective, and environmentally-protective solutions tailored to industries’ and stake-holders’ needs.

With support from state and federal officials, envi-ronmental and other public interest groups, and theirnational trade associations, the metal finishing indus-try developed a comprehensive set of environmentalperformance goals that go beyond compliance withenvironmental requirements and aim for cleaner oper-ations. Industrywide, these goals could cut toxicchemical emissions to air and water by up to 75 per-cent; while metal releases and hazardous sludge dispos-al could fall by about 40 percent. To meet these goals,the industry is striving to have 80 percent of all firmsparticipating, and supporting tough enforcementaction against firms that consistently fail to meet theirenvironmental compliance obligations. Ultimately, thisunprecedented program, developed on a voluntarybasis, could become a model for other industries inter-ested in improving their environmental performanceand stewardship in the future.

ADDRESSING INDUSTRY

NEEDS IN RULEMAKING

A move towards more tailoredmanagement strategies can be seenalso in recent regulatory develop-ments. For example, EPA is requiredto develop an air toxics rule for thepharmaceutical industry in 1998. Thepharmaceutical industry, which pro-

duces a wide range of existing and new/improvedproducts, has expressed concern that its frequentchanges may necessitate permit modification. Theindustry has predicted that such permit revisionswould result in delays in implementing processchanges and cause significant new administrative bur-dens on the facility and permitting authority. In orderto address the industry’s operational needs up-front,EPA established a partnership with affected stakehold-ers to incorporate and draw upon their different views.With this input, EPA launched a pilot program todevelop a flexible operating permit for a pharmaceuti-cal facility and to identify flexible ways to implementproposed air toxics requirements with other applicableair pollution requirements. In addition to influencingthe final rule, the pilot project is expected to result inuseful guidance for developing flexible permits acrossthe pharmaceutical industry and for involving stake-holders in the regulatory development process.

EMPOWERING COMMUNITIES

The need for more tailored approaches is not limit-ed to business and industry — communities face thischallenge, too. For this reason, EPA is promotingcommunity-based environmental protection, or CBEP,an approach for working collaboratively with citizensin a specific geographic area. By protecting all parts ofthe environment together — the air, water, land, andliving resources — while considering economic andsocial objectives, this approach meets the needs oflocal citizens for cleaner environments, vibranteconomies, and livable communities.

Many of EPA’s reinvention initiatives support andpromote CBEP. For example, Performance PartnershipAgreements with states allow resources to be targetedto particular problems rooted in communities;Supplemental Environmental Projects, if negotiated aspart of an enforcement action settlement, require pol-luters to perform cleanup or restoration projects withinthe affected community; and the Brownfields Initiativeoffers incentives for cleanup and redevelopment ofabandoned or under used industrial and commercialproperties where redevelopment is complicated by realor perceived environmental contamination problems.

An ambitious sector-based environmentalmanagement program for the metal finishing industry.

Result


12 sector- and community-based approaches


The Brownfields Initiative is a particularly usefulcatalyst for helping urban communities make a come-back from economic and environmental problems.Left unaddressed, these problems can trigger a spiral ofdeclining property values and increased unemploy-ment, leading business and industry to move to newlocations — often adding to urban sprawl. To avoidthese repercussions, EPA has provided $200,000grants to 121 communities throughout the UnitedStates to support Brownfield site assessments and toexplore redevelopment barriers and solutions. In manycases, communities have been able to use this fundingto leverage local investments of funding and resources

far exceeding the amount of the original grant. Forexample, in Cuyahoga County, Ohio — the first ofEPA’s Brownfield pilots — $4.5 million have beenleveraged in cleanup and property improvements at aformer industrial furniture manufacturing plant. Newbusinesses there now provide over 180 new jobs andpayroll taxes amounting to more than $1 million. InBridgeport, Connecticut, a Brownfields pilot has ledto $15 million in private investment and $133 millionin public investment; and 400 jobs have been created,adding $250,000 to the local tax base. In Emeryville,California, a Brownfields pilot project has drawn $644million in private investment. It is expected that

IA

MA

DuwamishCoalition

Puyallup Tribeof Tacoma

Bellingham

Tacoma

Portland OregonMillSites

SanFrancisco

Richmond

Oakland

Richmond

EmeryvilleEast Palo Alto

Stockton

Sacramento

PanhandleHealthDistrict

SaltLakeCity

WestJordan

Provo

Murray City

Ogden City

North Stockton

Englewood

NavajoNation

Sand CreekCorridor

Laredo

Houston

Tulsa

Tucson

San Diego

PomonaSantaBarbaraCounty

Phoenix

Dallas

Sioux Falls

Des Moines

St. PaulPort Authority

GreaterKansas City(KS and MO)

State ofMinnesota

NW RegionalPlanning Comm.

WisconsinDNR

Milwaukee

ChicagoCookCounty

West Central MunicipalConference

State ofIllinois

NW IndianaCities

State ofIndiana

Indianapolis

St. LouisWellston

EastSt. Louis

Bonne Terre

Shreveport

New Orleans

Prichard

Tallahassee JacksonvilleGainsville

Dade County

Birmingham

Knoxville

Memphis

Louisville

Cincinnati

LimaCleveland

KalamazooDetroit

Chippewa CountyKinross Twp.

DownriverCommunityConference

Atlanta

Cowpens

ClearwaterSt. Petersburg

Miami

Charlotte

High Point

Fayetteville

RichmondCape Charles/Northampton County

BaltimoreCounty

BaltimorePhiladelphia

Pittsburgh

Trenton

CamdenWilmington

Bucks CountyDanbury

PhoenixvilleNew York

Newark

Glen Cove

Jersey CityElizabethPerth Amboy

BridgeportNew Haven

State of Rhode IslandWorcester

New BedfordBoston

Somerville

LowellLynn

LawrencePortland

Concord

Greenfield

WestfieldChicopee

Burlington

Naugatuck Valley

Rome

ElmiraRochester

BuffaloNiagra Falls

Hartford

UTCO

OK

OR

WA

CA

AZ NM

TX

KS

NE

WY

ID

MT

SD

ND MN

MO

AR

LA

MSAL

FL

GA

KY

OH

MI

PA

WVMD

VTNH

ME

NV

SC

NC

VA

TN

IL IN

MICT

NJ

DE

NY

EPA Brownfields Pilots121 Awarded as of September 1997


13sector- and community-based approaches


10,600 jobs will be created over the next five years,creating $6.4 million in tax base improvements forEmeryville.

In 1997, community cleanup and redevelopmentneeds led the Administration to announce the

Brownfields NationalPartnership Action Agenda,which included a newBrownfields cleanup and rede-velopment tax incentive and asubstantial, $300 million invest-ment for Brownfields projects.A centerpiece of the agenda isthe Brownfields ShowcaseCommunity Project, which callsfor EPA and more than 20 fed-eral agencies that shareBrownfield interests and respon-sibilities to choose at least 10communities that will serve as

national models for Brownfields collaboration. Eachshowcase community will receive a mix of financial,technical, and staff support, depending on the needsof the community. Overall, the Action Agenda willresult in cleanup and redevelopment in up to 5,000more communities in the future.

In addition to working with other federal agencies,EPA works closely with state, local, and other nationalgovernments to promote Brownfields action. To date,EPA has signed agreements with 11 states outliningstate and federal roles at Brownfields sites and contin-ues to work closely with states and communities tointegrate Brownfields projects with local efforts. InRhode Island, for example, EPA is working with theDepartment of Environmental Management on twosites as part of a broader effort aimed at promotinggrowth and stability in the Woonasquatucket Rivercorridor. Internationally, EPA is working with publicand private sector organizations to share Brownfields

expertise with the United Kingdom, Germany, theNetherlands, and Canada.

Another demonstration of community-based envi-ronmental protection can be seen in South Floridawhere efforts are underway to protect and restore theEverglades and surrounding ecosystem. Following sev-eral years’ work, in January 1997, implementationbegan on a consensus plan to accomplish multiplegoals, including restoring natural water flows to theecosystem and creating buffer areas to control pollutedrunoff from urban and agricultural areas. As part ofthis effort, EPA is working with other federal partnersand community stakeholders in Dade, Broward, andPalm Beach counties to contain urban sprawl and easedevelopment pressures stemming from rapid popula-tion growth. The objective is to direct new develop-ment away from Southeast Florida’s remaining envi-ronmentally sensitive water resources and agriculturallands and into previously developed areas. The FloridaDepartment ofCommunity Affairs, whichhas the lead for the urbancomponent of theEverglades restorationeffort, has requested EPA’sassistance in a number ofkey areas, includingBrownfields redevelopment,transportation, and publicparticipation.

Providing an additional $300 million toaddress community Brownfield cleanupand restoration needs.

Result


14 Incentives to encourage better performance


While this realization is leading many regulatedentities to invest in environmental improvements inde-pendently, EPA is considering new incentives to accel-erate the trend. Incentives can take many differentforms, and EPA is experimenting with a wide variety toappeal to different interests. In some cases, the incen-tive for improving performance might be operational

flexibility that allows companies to move ahead withproduct changes without regulatory delay. In others,the incentive is public recognition of good environ-mental stewardship that can be promoted to attractenvironmentally-conscious consumers. As the followingexamples show, these incentives can help spark progres-sive action for improving environmental performance.

FLEXIBILITY FOR GOING BEYOND

COMPLIANCE

“If you have a proposal that promises better envi-ronmental results than what would be achieved underthe traditional regulatory system, and if you committo engaging all stakeholders in developing alternativeapproaches and appropriate safeguards, then EPA willgive you the flexibility to put those good ideas to thetest.” That challenge issued from EPA’s Project XL,which stands for eXcellence and Leadership, was made2 years ago as an incentive for regulated facilities to gobeyond compliance with environmental requirements.

INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE BETTER

PERFORMANCE

EPA is promoting system changes that can encourage businesses and com-

munities to not just meet baseline environmental standards, but to aim

higher and go beyond compliance. Too often in the past, environmental

requirements have been regarded as a burden to be endured rather than

an opportunity for improving operations. But today, that perspective is

changing based on a realization that sound environmental management

can boost economic performance by cutting waste, saving energy, and reducing liability

concerns.

“If you have a proposal that promises bet-

ter environmental results than what would

be achieved under the traditional regulatory

system, and if you commit to engaging all

stakeholders in developing alternative

approaches and appropriate safeguards, then

EPA will give you the flexibility to put those

good ideas to the test.”


15incentives to encourage better performance


Since then, agreements have been reached with sixcompanies and a federal facility. They include: an Intelcomputer chip manufacturing plant in Arizona; aWeyerhauser paper mill in Georgia; a Merck pharma-ceutical plant in Virginia; Jack M. Berry, a citrus com-pany in Florida; OSi Specialties, a specialty chemicalmaker in West Virginia; HADCO, a printed circuitboard manufacturer in New York and NewHampshire, and the U.S. Department of DefenseVandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara,California. Another 20 project proposals are beingnegotiated or developed. Ultimately, EPA expects totest pilot 50 projects.

EPA’s experience, to date, shows that the alternativemanagement strategies being tested through ProjectXL can prove to be winners for the facility, for stake-holders in the community, and for the environment.

As an example, Merck produces an active ingredientfor a drug used in treating adults with HumanImmunodeficiency Virus. As a result of its negotiatedagreement, Merck gained a streamlined environmentalpermitting process for its Virginia plant so the compa-ny can introduce desperately needed new products tomarket more quickly.

In return for this benefit, Merck agreed to gobeyond compliance with air quality standards andreduce its total air emissions by 20 percent. Thisreduction will improve visibility and reduce acid rainin nearby Shenandoah National Park, a favored touristattraction for east coast travelers. Among the actionsbeing taken to achieve this reduction is a multi-mil-lion dollar investment to convert the facility fromcoal-burning to natural gas, a much cleaner burningfuel. As part of the final agreement, Merck also agreedto join other stakeholders in conducting a five- yearstudy of air quality trends in the area, including thenational park. This commitment, which would havenever come about through the traditional permittingprocess, was realized only because project stakeholdersidentified the issue as a priority.

Testing, negotiating, or developing alterna-tive environmental management strategiesat 27 sites around the country.

Result

In what could represent a new trend for regulatory development,EPA relied heavily on incentives in developing new regulations for thepulp and paper industry. The regulations, which happened to be thefirst integrated, or multimedia, rulemaking in the Agency’s history,aim for substantial reductions of toxic pollution to air and water.Consisting of proposed and final requirements, they provide millswith flexible alternatives for complying with air standards. For mills that voluntarily choose to invest in advancedwater pollution control technologies that go beyond regulatory requirements, the new regulations also provide morecompliance time, less monitoring and reporting, fewer inspections, additional certainty about future permittingrequirements, and public recognition. These incentives will help preserve sustainable development while encourag-ing further industry progress toward achieving long-term environmental goals.

The pulp and paper regulations were developed with extensive stakeholder involvement, and as the XL programintends, are at least in part, reflective of lessons learned through the Weyerhaueser project. In the process of negoti-ating the Weyerhauser agreement, EPA was made aware that what the industry most needed to improve perfor-mance was overall flexibility in controlling pollution to various media. As the regulations were under development,this preference was shared with the Agency and, ultimately, contributed to the content of the regulations.

Issued the nation’s first-ever integrated, ormultimedia, environmental rulemaking.

Result

A PACKAGE OF INCENTIVES FOR THE

PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY


16


While individual facilities and their surroundingstakeholders may realize environmental and economicbenefits from participation, the most significant benefitof Project XL is the learning opportunity it presents.Project XL provides a mechanism for testing innovativeideas that might lead to changes within the existing reg-ulatory system, and innovative proposals will continueto be selected with this goal in mind. As the programmoves into its third year of operation, evaluating pro-jects to determine whether they have features thatshould be transferred into into larger scale programchanges will be a major focus of management attention.

LESS REPORTING FOR PROVEN

PERFORMERS

Less frequent monitoring and reporting is theincentive being used to promote better performancefor facilities discharging wastewater under the CleanWater Act’s National Pollution Discharge EliminationSystem (NPDES). While reporting requirements areessential for ensuring compliance with environmentallaws, EPA recognizes that, in some cases, the resourcesrequired to collect and report data might be betterspent elsewhere. Based on a comprehensive statisticalanalysis of past effluent monitoring data that showedaccountability could be maintained with less report-ing, EPA issued guidance to the states in 1995 thatallows water quality reporting to be scaled back forfacilities with proven records of environmental perfor-mance. When fully implemented by states, this guid-ance could reduce NPDES monitoring and reportingburden by about 4.5 million hours, or 25 percent,nationwide. On average, monitoring and reporting atindividual facilities would drop by about 25 to 30 per-cent. However, certain facilities with exemplary com-pliance and enforcement records would be eligible forreductions of up to 80 percent.

Oklahoma has been particularly successful inimplementation. Since assuming delegated authorityfor managing the NPDES program in November1996, all wastewater permits up for reissuance havebeen screened to determine eligibility for monitoringand reporting reductions. Consequently, approximate-ly 70 percent of the dischargers were found to be eligi-ble for some reductions. Oklahoma is in the process ofissuing these permits with reduced monitoring andreporting, with no adversarial responses receivedthrough the public comment process. In 1998, EPAand the states will consider issuing the guidance as afinal product and take steps to increase the pace ofimplementation.

PUBLIC RECOGNITION

Public recognition is one of the incentives EPA isusing to encourage membership in the Agency’s volun-tary partnership programs. These programs, which ofteninclude technical assistance as well, help participantsincrease efficiency by switching to more environmentallysustainable practices. From EPA’s perspective, they repre-sent an attractive opportunity to address a broad rangeof environmental issues, such as reduced pesticide use,polluted runoff, energy and water conservation, recy-cling, and greenhouse gas reduction that may not beamenable to traditional regulatory approaches.

NPDES monitoring and reporting reformshelp Oklahoma cut requirements in 70 percent of all wastewater permits.

Result

Measure Current Projected 2000

Toxics reduced (pounds) 750,000,000 At Least 750,000,000

Waste reduced (million tons) 5.2 8.3

CO2 prevented 24.7 210 (million metric tons)

Energy saved (trillion BTUs) 199 935

Water saved (million gallons) 1,280-2,375 7,190-10,457

Number of partners 6,882 13,055

Money saved (millions) $852 $4,640

Incentives to encourage better performance

PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS CUT

POLLUTION AND COSTS


17Incentives to encourage better performance


As the table on the opposite page shows, this vol-untary approach is quite meaningful: as of January1997, partners reduced toxic emissions by 750 millionpounds; saved 1.3 billion gallons of water; eliminated5.2 million tons of solid waste from entering landfillsand incinerators; and reduced greenhouse gas emis-sions by preventing 24.7 million metric tons of CO2

(nearly twice as much as the year before). By cuttingwaste, preventing pollution, and reducing liabilityconcerns, participants can gain substantial economicbenefits. The public recognition that comes along withparticipation can prove financially rewarding, too.Most programs provide some form of recognition thatparticipants can use as a marketing tool for promotingenvironmental stewardship in the marketplace.Technical assistance, and in some cases financial sup-port, are additional incentives used to encourage par-ticipation.

Today, nearly 7,000 partners — representing nearlyevery sector of the American economy — have signedup for one or more voluntary programs. Based on thepositive results achieved, to date, EPA projects morethan 13,000 partners by 2000.

Recognizing the potential value to partners, EPA uses different marketingtools to help recognize sound environmental stewardship among voluntary pro-gram participants. For example, EPA’s Energy Star partners, who agree to pro-duce more energy efficient computer and office equipment, may use the EnergyStar logo in labeling their equipment and in their advertising campaigns. TheGreen Chemistry Program, aimed at encouraging development of less toxicchemical products and processes, includes a national Presidential AwardsProgram. Other marketing opportunities include: signing ceremonies with partic-ipants, public service advertising, and mention in Agency outreach materials,such as press releases and senior official speeches. These opportunities pro-vide tangible recognition for partners and a potential advantage in the market-place. They also provide other potential partners with reason to consider partici-pation as well.

MARKETING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTNERS


18 market-based forces guide action


These approaches, used in appropriate circum-stances, offer a number of advantages for society. Theincreased affordability and flexibility means that stan-dards can be set at higher levels than what might oth-erwise be possible. They can ensure continued growthand development opportunities in situations thatmight otherwise warrant development constraints.Perhaps most importantly, economic approaches offerpromise for addressing problems, such as pollutedrunoff, that have not been brought under controlthrough traditional regulatory means.

A MARKED INCREASE IN TRADING

Trading, in particular, has become a standard envi-ronmental management tool, with the number ofnational programs offering this compliance optionincreasing markedly in recent years. Previously, EPA’sair and water programs have relied primarily on per-formance standards that set a minimum pollutioncontrol level — for example, a numerical limit on

emissions or discharges. As a result, the vast majorityof rules do not require use of a particular pollutioncontrol technology. Instead, they give industry flexibil-ity to decide the best way to achieve the required levelof performance, considering cost and other factors.

During the 1980s, EPA began allowing companiesto comply with some performance standards throughtrading options. For example, as the nation movedtoward use of unleaded gasoline, refiners were allowedto trade credits under EPA rules requiring a nationalphased reduction. Ultimately, these rules helped cutlead emissions from motor vehicles by more than 90percent. In the 1990s, EPA has expanded the use oftrading along with other economic incentiveapproaches. In appropriate circumstances and withproper design, trading can promote better environ-mental performance and technological innovationwhile providing industry with flexibility to reduce pol-lution in the most economical way. EPA strives tocouple this flexibility with accountability, througheffective monitoring and enforcement, to ensure that

MARKET-BASED FORCES GUIDE ACTION

As the previous section noted, financial considerations can be a

strong incentive for encouraging better environmental perfor-

mance. This reality is true for American corporations, but it is

equally true for individuals, for communities, for small business-

es, and for nonprofit organizations. Recognizing the “power of

the purse,” EPA is considering how financial instruments, such

as the federal tax code, federal subsidies, and community service fees can be used to

advance environmental and public health protection goals.


19market-based forces guide action


environmental goals are met. Although not a panaceafor every situation, as the following examples show,trading is being used to help solve a variety of environ-mental problems.

Acid rain — Perhaps the best known example oftrading is the acid rain program, which is designed toreduce U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions by 10 milliontons annually from 1980 levels. In 1997, EPA issuedthe latest of a series of rules to implement this system.Already, the trading system is helping to achieve cost-effective reductions ahead of schedule — the annualcost of meeting the full reductions is expected now tobe between $2 - 2.5 billion a year, about half the costestimated originally.

Smog and other common pollutants — In 1997,EPA announced new national rules to cut pollutionfrom diesel locomotives, trucks and buses to help thenation meet the new air quality standards for smogand particulate matter. Rather than requiring everyengine family to comply with the standards, the rulesallow manufacturers to average emission limits, to

bank excess reductions for lateruse, and to sell excess reductionsto other manufacturers. Thisoption gives manufacturers flexi-bility to meet overall emissiongoals at the lowest cost andenables EPA to set emissions stan-dards at levels more stringent thanthey would be otherwise.

In addition to building in flexi-bility in national rules, EPA isworking with states on flexibleways to achieve compliance withnational air quality standards for

smog, particulate matter and other common pollu-tants. EPA has developed guidance for the states onways to use trading and other economic incentives inmeeting standards, and has assisted the states in settingup trading programs, such as California’s RECLAIMprogram for reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogenoxide emissions and the Ozone TransportCommission’s program for controlling nitrogen oxideemissions among states in the Northeast.

Ozone layer depletion — In gradually phasing outproduction of chemicals that harm the stratosphericozone layer, EPA is giving producers and importers theflexibility to trade allowances. Under the MontrealProtocol, the United States and other industrializedcountries agreed to stop producing and importing oneof the most destructive chemicals for ozone — chloro-fluorocarbons — (CFCs) and other substances by spe-cific deadlines. With the United States’ CFC tradingregulations serving as a model for other countries’rules, phase-out of CFCs was completed in 1996.

Toxic Air Pollution — Emissions averaging is oneof several tools being used to provide compliance flexi-bility as EPA produces new rules to cut toxic air pollu-tion. During the past four years, EPA has providedopportunities for averaging in final toxic emissionstandards from printing and publishing firms, and avariety of manufacturing operations, such as syntheticorganic chemicals, polymers and resins, wood furni-ture, and primary aluminum production. (To avoidshifting risks from one area to another, toxics averag-ing is allowed only within individual facilities, withappropriate safeguards).

Water Pollution — Under the national water pro-gram, trading allows pollution sources to reduce pollu-tion beyond what is needed to meet water qualitystandards, and then sell or exchange the reductions toother sources within the same watershed. Trades canoccur between point sources, nonpoint sources, orpoint and nonpoint sources as long as they result inpollution reductions equal to or greater than what

HOW DOES TRADING WORK?

Trading programs enable a company or facility to earncredits for making extra reductions at one pollutionsource, and allow these credits to be used to meetrequirements that apply to another pollution source. Oneform of trading is emissions averaging. Rather than havingto meet the same limit for each emission point within afacility—or for each product made by a company—the facili-ty or company can comply by averaging across multipleemission points or products. Additional flexibility is allowedby trading programs that allow a company to sell or tradereduction credits to other companies.


20 market-based forces guide action


would be achieved otherwise. The flexibility in thisarrangement capitalizes on economies of scale andvarying treatment efficiencies, thereby reducing overallcompliance costs within a watershed. It creates an eco-nomic incentive for going beyond compliance andpreventing pollution, and it presents an opportunityfor expanding nonpoint source management and habi-tat restoration efforts.

EPA provided guidance concerning trading optionsin a Policy Statement on Effluent Trading in Watershedsin 1995, and in a draft Framework for Watershed-BasedTrading in 1996. With this guidance in place, in 1997,EPA moved to encourage implementation throughpilot projects. In one project, EPA joined forces withthe state of Michigan and other stakeholders to devel-op a trading program in the Kalamazoo River water-shed. The purpose of this project, which involvespoint and nonpoint sources, is to improve river waterquality and, more broadly, to gain experience andinformation for use in designing a potential statewidewater quality trading program.

Wetlands — Wetland mitigation banks are aninnovative, market-based way for landowners to com-pensate for wetland losses authorized under federalwetlands programs. Mitigation banks are establishedwhen a public or private entity restores, creates, orpreserves wetlands for the purpose of providing miti-gation to offset unavoidable losses that occur duringdevelopment. These banks help landowners save timeand money by having the option to simply purchase

“credits” from anapproved mitigation bankrather than having to pro-vide mitigation them-selves. Moreover, thisalternative transfersresponsibility to an entitywith the financialresources, scientific exper-tise, and incentive neces-sary to ensure that themitigation will be ecolog-

ically successful. Approximately 20 states have estab-lished or are developing programs or formal policies toencourage mitigation banking.

A TAX FIX

Another potentially significant mechanism for har-nessing market-based forces for environmental gainlies within the federal tax code. As an example, in1997, a relatively minor tax reform was adopted toencourage commuting by means other than drivingalone. The reform evolved from an obstacle the stateof California faced after passage of the Energy PolicyAct of 1992. This federal law stipulated that employerswho provided taxable cash as a commuting subsidy —an offer some California employers were required tomake under a new state air quality improvement law— would lose the tax exemption they previouslyreceived for providing employees with free parking.Furthermore, employees who continued to accept theparking would be required to treat the parking asincome, creating additional tax liability for bothemployers and employees.

As a practical matter,these tax liabilities weredisincentives for themore environmentally-sound commuting sub-sidies. As CongressmanBrian Bilbray (R-CA)said of the tax problem,“It had a way of killingour clean air strategy inCalifornia.” Californiaexplained the problemto EPA, which waslooking at ways to use commuter benefit incentives toreduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transporta-tion sector. EPA developed a federal proposal, calledParking Cash Out, that was modeled on the Californialaw and removed the federal tax disincentive to offer-ing employees choice among commuting benefits.Following unsuccessful attempts to have the proposaladopted through other legislative avenues, EPAworked with the Department of Transportation tocraft a new proposal for the 1997 transportation reau-thorization bill. A similar provision sponsored bySenator Chafee (R-RI) was enacted as part of the TaxRelief Act of 1997. Beginning with taxable year 1998,this measure eliminates the federal tax penalty foroffering taxable cash in lieu of tax-exempt parking.


21market-based forces guide action


Ultimately, this tax reform could prove a powerfultool for improving air quality. In California, eightemployers who offered cash as an alternative to a freeparking space at work — despite the disincentive thatexisted — found that solo driving to work fell by 17percent, on average. The resulting emission reductionis the equivalent of taking one in eight cars headed tothese sites off the road during rush hour, the time ofday when smog formation begins.

FAIR PRICING

In recent years, more and more communities havebegun to use fee structures to encourage environmen-tally-preferable behavior. For example, as an alternativeto a set charge, “pay-as-you-throw” programs havebeen established to charge customers based on theamount of trash they throw away. Similar to gas, elec-tricity, and water utilities, the more you use, the moreyou pay.

EPA is supporting “pay-as-you-throw” for a numberof reasons. First, it reduces waste generation andencourages recycling, which means less use of our nat-ural resources. Communities with programs in placehave reported reductions ranging from 25 to 35 per-cent, on average. Second, this variable-rate approach ismore equitable. When the cost of managing trash ishidden in taxes or charged at a flat rate, conscientiousresidents who recycle and minimize waste generationsubsidize their neighbors’ wastefulness. Finally, it is aneffective means for helping communities cope withsoaring municipal solid waste management expenses.Well-designed programs generate revenues which com-munities need to cover their solid waste costs, includ-ing the costs of complementary programs, such asrecycling and composting.

For these reasons, over the past several years, EPAhas developed technical guidance and other tools topromote use of “pay-as-you-throw” programs. In

1997, the Agency established a new web site that pro-vides extensive information on community awareness,pricing, and other issues related to implementation. Inaddition, the Agency is providing financial support —in the last two years, $400,000 has been offered tohelp communities meet their outreach and technicalassistance needs.

Removed federal disincentives thatdiscouraged more environmentally soundcommuting options.

Result


22 managing in the information age


In recent years, EPA has made strides to improvepublic access to environmental information. EPA hasmade its world wide web site more user friendly,allowing users to search for environmental informationby zip code right from its home page. As the figure onthe opposite page shows, today, over 27 million usersaccess EPA’s web site every month. EPA also has madeseveral key improvements to its information databases.The Envirofacts database, which allows users to accessdata on more than 700,000 sites where potentiallydangerous chemicals are used, was one of CIO (ChiefInformation Officer) magazine’s 1998 winners of theEnterprise Value Award — given for using web tech-nology to improve customer service to the public.Another electronic tool, Surf Your Watershed, allowsusers to identify facilities and the pollutants they emitin a given watershed.

Despite these and other advancements, the vastreserve of environmental data is not being used to itsfull strategic advantage. First, most data are still beingtransmitted manually, via paper-based reports. Thismode of transmission creates considerable delaybetween time of data collection and reporting. Andbecause of the manual duplication that often occurs at

each stage of transmission, (i.e., from a regulated facil-ity to government agency or between governmentagencies) this mode can be more time-consuming andprone to error.

Second, and consistent with the evolution of thenation’s environmental laws and programs, data arestored in separate, media-specific systems, each withits own requirements and formats. Efficiently designedfor their original uses — tracking compliance withenvironmental requirements — this arrangement cre-ates a number of difficulties and inefficiencies. At apractical level, it means that a facility might berequired to report basic information, such as nameand address, repetitiously into multiple systems. Andyet, because of a lack of common standards among thevarious systems, state agencies and EPA may not beable to extract, aggregate and analyze data on thatfacility — a major limitation for conducting the cross-media assessments needed to fully understand andmanage environmental risks.

Thus, while the current systems have served indi-vidual environmental program needs as originallydefined, today, they are often ill-equipped to meet the

MANAGING IN THE INFORMATION AGE

Transforming environmental data into meaningful, accessible information

for environmental decision-makers and concerned citizens is one of the

most important, yet challenging, reinvention issues EPA faces. Under vari-

ous statutory authorities, EPA and state agencies routinely collect a wealth

of data to help ensure compliance with environmental laws. Data are col-

lected on air emissions under the Clean Air Act, on wastewater discharges

under the Clean Water Act, on drinking water quality under the Safe Drinking Water Act,

and on contamination levels under Superfund, just to name a few.


23managing in the information age


evolving informational demands of industry, the pub-lic, and regulatory officials. Meeting these demandswill require fundamental changes in EPA’s informationinfrastructure — the policies, procedures, data defini-tions, and technology used to store, process, and com-municate data. They also provide an exciting opportu-nity to apply a whole new wave of information tech-nology, such as the Internet, geographic informationsystems, and high-speed networks, to name a few.These changes present organizational challenges forthe Agency in creating new business rules and in forg-ing new working relationships with its partners in datamanagement — the states.

To meet these challenges, in July, 1997, EPAAdministrator Browner and Deputy AdministratorHansen launched a special initiative to accelerateinformation reform. Known as ReinventingEnvironmental Information (REI), this initiative com-mits the Agency to implementing several reforms that

are crucial to moving environmental data managementinto the information age. They include:

1. Establishing key data standards to improve thevalue of environmental information and to enabledata sharing and integration;

2. Providing universal voluntary access to electronicreporting as an alternative to paper-based reportingin order to reduce burden and improve data qualityand timeliness; and

3. Implementing these data standards and electronicreporting reforms in the Agency’s national systemsand in partnership with the states.

DATA STANDARDS

Data standards are the key to sharing, linking, andultimately, integrating environmental data to gain afuller understanding of environmental conditions andrisks. They provide consistent formats and definitionsso that data in one system are consistent with the samedata in another. As a first step towards standardization,in 1997, EPA and the states developed a facility iden-tifier so that data from a single source, such as a man-ufacturing plant, can be identified and tracked amongthe various environmental data base systems. To illus-trate, in the past, data from a single site might havebeen identified as coming from “Company” X in onesystem and “Facility” X in another. This seeminglyslight variation has presented a major obstacle forenvironmental database and program managers.

The Growing Demand for Environmental InformationTraffic On EPA’s Web Site

Like all organizations with data management responsibili-ties, EPA is faced with modifying systems to handle year2000 data. But based on preemptive steps already taken,the turn of the century should not be an obstacle for nation-al environmental data base users. The necessary systemmodifications are either completed or underway.

READY FOR THE YEAR 2000

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Mill

ions

of V

isits

11/94 2/95 5/95 8/95 11/95 2/96 5/96 8/96 11/96 2/97 5/97 8/97 11/97 2/98

135,

825

380,

996

627,

922

935,

713

1,53

6,83

6

2,26

1,09

6

2,90

2,50

8

3,53

9,57

6

5,13

1,75

1

6,15

5,35

8

9,75

3,29

0

13,0

67,1

30

21,7

52,7

50 27,5

62,7

1740


24 managing in the information age


Additional standards for consistently identifyingchemicals and living organisms (i.e., biological taxono-my) among systems are now being developed.

UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC

REPORTING

Providing universal access to electronic reporting isanother important data reform goal. As an alternativeto the traditional, but more laborious paper-basedreporting, EPA has committed to providing an elec-tronic reporting option for all environmental require-ments within five years. In addition to cutting paper-work, this mode of operation should enhance access todata, speed delivery, and improve accuracy by elimi-nating errors that occur through manual data entry.

Some EPA national systems already allow regulatedfacilities to report data electronically to EPA, or to del-

egated state agencies.However, without thebenefit of standard dataformats, transfer proto-cols, security and man-agement procedures,there is little consistencyin how the various EPAprograms and delegatedstate agencies now handlethis function. To ensurethat both government

programs and regulated facilities can enjoy the effi-ciencies of streamlined and integrated data transfer,EPA is developing a coordinated, standards-basedapproach to electronic reporting based on the needs ofall parties involved in data exchange. The approachwill offer states and regulated companies a range ofoptional electronic reporting methods, but will alsoallow participants to conduct electronic transfer in auniform, integrated manner.

REENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL

DATABASE SYSTEMS

The data standards and electronic reporting capa-bilities described above will be implemented by reengi-

neering national environmental systems and by work-ing with the states on modifying their systems. AtEPA, 13 national systems have been targeted as priori-ties for reengineering, with an initial emphasis oncompliance systems.

Implementation will be an issue for state systemmanagers as well. In many cases, states are the collec-tor and primary steward of the data contained in EPAsystems. In addition, states collect data to satisfy theirown unique legislative mandates and business needs.Nationwide coordination of environmental data sys-tems will require close cooperation among EPA and itsstate partners. A framework for joint collaboration hasbeen laid through EPA’s One Stop Reporting program,launched in 1995 to reduce the reporting burden onindustry, to foster multimedia and geographicapproaches to problem-solving, and to provide thepublic with meaningful, real-time access to environ-mental data. In the past two years, EPA has provided13 states with $500,000 grants to support data reformprojects, and REI commits EPA to expanding the pro-gram to all 50 states by fiscal year (FY) 2003 . Resultsfrom these individual state efforts will continue toinform and drive specific information reforms, andhelp to move EPA and the states towards a commonvision for managing environmental data in the wake ofnew technologies and the growing public demand forinformation.

RELATED INITIATIVES

While REI aims to address the most basic short-comings of environmental data management, it doesnot represent the complete information reform agen-da. To meet challenges that REI does not address, EPAhas launched other information initiatives, such as theCenter for Environmental Information and Statistics(CEIS). Expected to open in 1998, this center willfocus on presenting integrated analysis of environmen-tal data and reporting on environmental quality, sta-tus, and trends. Similarly, the EnvironmentalMonitoring for Public Access and CommunityTracking (EMPACT) initiative is conducting a nation-wide data needs assessment as a first step towards pro-viding real-time data on environmental conditions in85 metropolitan areas. Other smaller-scale informationreform projects continue throughout the Agency.


25


Supporting the public’s “right-to-know”

Today, these stakeholders are more interested andprepared to engage in problem-solving than everbefore. Environmental education in the school systemhas helped to raise awareness of and understanding ofenvironmental issues. The Internet is making it easierfor interested parties to go online and access environ-mental information and data, and other new informa-tional tools, such as geographic information systems,can help to transform that data into much moremeaningful formats for technical and nontechnicalusers. As a society, we are more aware of the need toensure environmental justice for all our citizens, par-ticularly our children. The result is a new generationof stakeholders that are willing and able to play amuch more active role in environmental issues.

Efforts to encourage and empower these stakeholderscan be seen throughout the Agency. Today, stakeholdersare being invited to join regulators in the early stages of

regulation development — a move that can helpimprove buy-in and ward off litigation later on. Otherefforts are aimed at providing stakeholders with moreinformation so that environmental issues and risksbecome more transparent and understandable for all.

SUPPORTING THE PUBLIC’S “RIGHT-TO-KNOW”

Atelling sign of change in the current environmental protection

system is the increasing focus on the public’s right-to-know. For

many years, attention to stakeholder needs often have been over-

shadowed by a regulatory agenda focused almost exclusively on

point source control. But, in most situations, point sources have

been brought under control and attention has turned to a differ-

ent set of environmental problems that are more diffuse and less amenable to regulatory

solution. Today, finding and implementing effective solutions to problems, such as pol-

luted runoff and urban sprawl, requires a different approach — one that more fully

involves environmental and public interests groups, businesses and industry, the academ-

ic community, other government agencies, and private citizens.


26



CONSUMER LABELING INITIATIVE

One method of empowering stakeholders is in thecommercial market place, and in 1996, EPA acted onthis opportunity through a special initiative toimprove consumer labeling information. EPA is work-ing with a variety of stakeholders to help consumersmake more well-informed choices about pesticides,cleaning supplies, and other common household prod-ucts, based on their own needs and values, and to pro-mote safe product use. Government agencies, con-sumer product manufacturers, trade associations, pub-lic interest groups, health and safety professionals, andmarket research experts are conducting research andgathering information in order to better understandconsumer behavior and needs.

Based on learning from the first phase of this pro-ject, EPA has made several changes aimed at makingproduct labels more user-friendly. Now, labels shouldinclude phone numbers so that emergency and prod-uct information is easier to obtain. Rather than chemi-cal names, common names are recommended so thatconsumers can recognize what they are buying. Andbecause many consumers did not understand the term“Inert Ingredients”, the term “Other Ingredients” wasadopted.

These actions represent a greater sensitivity tostakeholder needs. Rather than acting independently,EPA took the time to listen to customers about whatthey wanted and consulted with industry on the bestapproach for making these important changes happen.This approach, which has been commended by severalstakeholders, has provided a high level of creativityand greater flexibility in dealing with various con-sumer labeling issues. It also has meant that thechanges being made are more reflective of customerneeds and more acceptable to the manufacturersexpected to comply.

The next phase of the project will examine how tostandardize environmental information on productlabels, whether and how to further disclose the other(or inert) ingredient contents of registered pesticideproducts, and how to improve the storage and disposalinstructions. In addition, a consumer education pro-gram, focused on “Read the Label,” is planned.

For many years, EPA has used a stakeholder process sanctioned under the Federal Advisory Committee Act(FACA) to gain external views prior to developing a new regulation. This process recently proved useful for helping toaddress an unusually broad and nationally significant set of implementation issues raised by the simultaneous estab-lishment of new air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter, and a regional haze program to reduce visibili-ty impairment. Recognizing the effect these new standards could have on communities and businesses, EPA estab-lished a FACA subcommittee with more than 80 representatives from federal, state and local government agencies,tribes, business and industry, environmental groups, and scientific and academic institutions to obtain public input.

These representatives identified the critical implementation issues, developed policy alternatives, and identifiedoptions and made recommendations to the Agency. Based upon the interactions with FACA representatives, EPA isdeveloping implementation approaches that will reflect this input, providing flexible, market-based systems, positiveincentives to achieve emissions reductions, continuation of existing control programs that have worked well, and anappropriate mixture of national, regional, and local measures. These approaches are being set for th in new guid-ance and rules.

MORE INVOLVEMENT IN REGULATORY

DECISIONS

New features ensure more user-friendlylabels on pesticide and common householdproducts.

Result


27



EXPANSION OF THE TOXIC RELEASE

INVENTORY

As part of an overall Administration commitmentto strengthening community right-to-know opportu-nities, in May 1997, EPA expanded the national ToxicRelease Inventory (TRI) to include seven additionalindustry sectors: metal mining, coal mining, electricutilities, commercial hazardous waste treatment, chem-icals and allied products — wholesale, petroleum bulkterminals and plants, and solvent recovery services.Initially established in the late-1980s as a result of the1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, TRI focused previously on manufacturingindustries. The 1997 expansion will result in newinformation about toxic releases from sources thatwere not previously required to make such informa-tion publicly available. EPA expects the total numberof facilities reporting under TRI will increase by about6,400, or about 25 percent.

In addition to adding new facilities, EPA also clari-fied the range of activities that must be considered indetermining a facility’s total emissions. Together, thenew requirements are expected to provide a morecomplete picture of how toxic chemicals are beingmanaged within communities.

A RESPONSE TO BEACH SAFETY

CONCERNS

Every year, millions of Americans head to coastalareas for weekend getaways and vacations. But fishkills and water-borne illnesses from bacteria, viruses,and other pathogens have led the public to raise perti-nent questions about the safety of swimming, water-skiing and other water-related activities. Traditionally,concerned citizens have not had an easy, reliablemeans for making safety determinations. Monitoring

and reporting requirements have varied from state tostate and community to community. Even where pub-lic advisory programs have been strong, analytical lim-itations have made it difficultto detect problems in a timely,accurate manner.

To overcome these obstacles,in May 1997, EPA launchedthe Beaches EnvironmentalAssessment, Closure, andHealth (BEACH) program tohelp states protect the quality ofcoastal and inland recreationalwaters and to provide the publicwith reliable information. As afirst step, EPA set up a newBeach Watch web site that pro-vides quick, easy access to the latest information avail-able. In addition, EPA is surveying state and localhealth and environmental directors on the quality ofinland and coastal recreational waters. The results willbe posted on the web site in 1998, and updated annual-ly. By summer 1998, the web site will serve as a centralclearinghouse for health-related information on recre-ational water quality in coastal communities and theGreat Lakes.

Through technical assistance, EPA’s BEACH pro-gram also will help states strengthen their water-qualitymonitoring and public advisory programs. A new test-ing technology will allow states to assess health-relatedwater quality problems more quickly, so as to improvethe timeliness of their monitoring information.

BETTER DRINKING WATER INFORMATION

FOR CONSUMERS

Americans generally enjoy one of the safest drink-ing water supplies in the world. Because an informed

New program to ensure help ensure safetyof America’s beaches.

Result

Additional 6,400 facilities now reportingon toxic chemical releases in their communities.

Result


28


better drinking water information for consumers

and involved public is necessary to keep this level ofsafety, in February 1998, EPA acted to provide con-sumers with better information about the quality ofdrinking water in their community. This informationempowers consumers to make important health deci-sions for themselves and their families. Under a newproposed rule, water suppliers would — for the firsttime — be required to report to their customers atleast once a year. These consumer confidence reportswould provide practical information on a number offactors, including the quality of the local drinkingwater; whether or not the tap water meets EPA’s pub-lic health standards; likely sources of any contami-nants; and, the health risks associated with any conta-minants found. Also included would be informationon sources of local drinking water, such as rivers, lakesor wells; on violations and regulatory enforcementactions, and — to educate vulnerable populations —information on how to avoid cryptosporidium, amicrobe that is potentially dangerous to people withseverely depressed immune systems.

The rule applies to all of the nation’s 56,000 com-munity water systems, providing information to morethan 240 million people across the country. Largewater suppliers will have to mail their reports, eitherwith their bills or as a separate mailing. Smaller sys-tems (those serving less than 10,000 people) may beable to post their report in a central location or print

it in a local newspaper. Followinga public comment period, EPAexpects to issue the final rulelater this summer. The firstreports will be issued next year.

Consumer confidence report-ing is the centerpiece of the pub-lic information provisions of thenewly amended Safe DrinkingWater Act. Signed by thePresident in August l996, theseprovisions strengthened andexpanded the nation’s drinkingwater protections to give con-

sumers more information on their drinking water andto provide unprecendented opportunities to getinvolved in protecting their drinking water. EPA devel-oped this rule in consultation with water suppliers,

local governments, environmental groups, risk com-munication experts and others during numerous pub-lic meetings in l996 and l997.

For the first time ever, drinking water sup-pliers, serving 240 million Americans, will berequired to report to customers on thequality of local drinking water.

Result


29


new approaches to enforcement and compliance

To protect that baseline, EPA relies upon a mix ofenvironmental enforcement and compliance methods.Today, EPA is looking for new ways to help facilitiesachieve compliance, and even exceed compliance aspart of a company’s broader strategy for improving effi-ciency and profitability. In addition, EPA has adjustedits program to meet the compliance assistance needs ofsmall businesses and communities. Making better useof environmental data and local law enforcement per-sonnel, encouraging facilities to police themselvesthrough comprehensive self-auditing programs, andpromoting innovative enforcement settlements to com-pensate communities affected by environmental crimesare just a few of the ways in which EPA is working tomake enforcement and compliance even more effective.

MORE CHOICE IN MEASURING

COMPLIANCE

In a departure from traditional efforts, EPA is givingthe regulated community flexibility to choose the mea-

surement technology they use when demonstratingcompliance with effluent permit limits, stack emissionlimits, and other regulatory requirements. Previously,regulated facilities generally have been limited to use ofan EPA approved method. However, a newPerformance Based Measurement System, announcedin 1997, provides much more choice so that environ-mental managers can decide for themselves what worksbest for their given opera-tion. This approach mayhelp reduce costs for the reg-ulated community; stimulatedevelopment and commer-cialization of innovative,cost-effective technologies;and improve the quality ofdata. In addition, it will shiftmore attention to the ques-tion of whether complianceis being achieved rather thanon how a measurement is taken.

NEW APPROACHES TO ENFORCEMENT AND

COMPLIANCE

The past year was record-setting for environmental enforcement actions:

EPA referred the largest number of civil and criminal enforcement cases

in its history to the Department of Justice and assessed the largest total

amount of civil and criminal penalties in any one year period. Despite

some notions to the contrary, these actions are consistent with, and in

fact, complementary to the Agency’s reinvention agenda. In addition to

providing a level economic playing field among competitors, strong, consistent enforcement

against polluters is what allows EPA to support and encourage innovative approaches to

solving complex environmental problems. Strong enforcement provides deterrence against

future violations, and assures the American people that a baseline level of environmental

and public health protection remains in place.


30



This new openness to measuring compliance wasdemonstrated through EPA’s response to a requestfrom an Amoco refinery in Utah. Under the NewSource Standards in the Clean Air Act, refineries arerequired to measure total sulfur dioxide emissions — aprocedure that involves climbing smokestacks over 2to 4 hour increments, often under challenging weatherconditions. Amoco approached EPA to discuss thepossibility of developing an alternative approachwhereby emissions would be calculated theoreticallyusing data collected mechanically through ambientmonitoring devices. Through months of data analysisand interpretation, EPA and Amoco developed a mul-tiplier that allows total emissions to be calculatedbased on ambient data. This alternative makes compli-ance monitoring far less burdensome without compro-mising compliance assurance capabilities.

MEETING SPECIAL

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE

NEEDS

Environmental managers in smallbusinesses and communities were offereda helping hand in understanding environ-mental requirements in 1997 when EPAexpanded and opened new ComplianceAssistance Centers. In the past, theAgency’s focus on larger point sources hasmeant lesser attention for smaller entities.

As a result, smaller entities have not been inspected asfrequently, and consequently, have not become as famil-iar with environmental requirements.

The Compliance Assistance Centers are an innova-tive approach to providing smaller operations with up-to-date information so they know exactly what isrequired and what their options are for achieving com-pliance and preventing pollution. Because of the easyaccessibility, they allow the Agency to assist many moreoperations than would otherwise be reached throughtraditional methods. The four new centers will servethe printed wiring board manufacturing, chemicalindustry, transportation, and local government sectors.

The decision to open new centers was based on suc-cessful launches for the metal finishing, printing, auto-

mobile service, and agriculture sectors in 1995 and1996. These centers, which were expanded in 1997 toprovide even more information for users, are meeting adistinctive need. For example, a followup survey withbusinesses that viewed a Printing Center VideoConference showed that 92 percent of the participantswho answered the survey had improved environmentalcompliance in their shops. A preliminary evaluation ofthe Metal Finishing Center showed that 15 percent ofbusinesses in the industry were regular users.

MEASURING RESULTS

To better assess the results of national enforcement andcompliance assurance efforts, in 1997, EPA initiated theNational Performance Measures Strategy (NPMS) to createmore meaningful measures of program effectiveness.Traditionally, results have been measured in terms of programactivities (e.g., the number of cases settled). These numbersremain important for assessing program performance and pro-viding accountability to the public, but they do not reveal thestate of compliance among regulated entities, the environmen-tal results and impact from enforcement and complianceassurance activities, nor the extent to which important environ-mental objectives and problems are being addressed by theAgency.

With the new strategy, EPA developed and has begun touse an enhanced set of measures that, in addition to measur-ing program activities, also measures the effect and outcomesof activities on regulated entities, the environment, and humanhealth. These measures include: impact on environmental andhuman health problems; levels of compliance in regulated pop-ulations; and environmental or human health improvements byregulated entities. In addition to improving EPA’s ability toreport to the public, these measures are a powerful tool formanaging programs more strategically and for complying withthe 1997 Government Performance and Results Act, whichrequires EPA to show progress towards specific goals.

Launched new compliance assistance centers to provide small businesses in fourmore sectors with quick, easy access toinformation on environmental requirements.

Result


31



ENGAGING

LOCAL LAW

ENFORCEMENT

In an effort to deliv-er better enforcementaction at the local level,EPA is changing theway it deploys itsresources for investigat-ing environmentalcrimes. Under the

national enforcement program, EPA uses specialagents for investigations. Historically, these individualshave been assigned to the larger metropolitan areasaround EPA’s ten regional offices. However, in 1997,special agents were deployed in 40 different citiesacross the nation in communities ranging fromAnchorage, Alaska to Miami, Florida. Today, EPA isworking with local law enforcement agencies in train-ing exercises, task forces, joint investigations andregional initiatives to detect serious violations of envi-ronmental laws and to provide community based envi-ronmental protection.

EPA’s collaboration with the InternationalAssociation of Chiefs of Police in producing an envi-ronmental crimes training video and curriculum forpolice academies led police forces around the country

to incorporate environmental training into their basictraining programs. In another effort to expand com-munity-based enforcement, support was offered forcity neighborhood watch and public outreach efforts,such as Houston’s Rat on a Rat program, which targetsillegal dumping. In December 1997, EPA held thefirst national conference devoted to community-based

enforcement. Collectively, these efforts are aimed atestablishing a larger, more well-informed network ofindividuals and organizations dedicated to finding andaddressing environmental crimes.

USING INFORMATION TO BOOST

COMPLIANCE

In 1997, EPA continued developing the SectorFacility Indexing Project (SFIP) to provide communitymembers greater accessibility to facility-level environ-mental information. The SFIP is an innovative pilotproject that basically synthesizes environmental recordsfrom existing data systems into a single system thatallows interested parties to analyze and compare envi-ronmental performance at the facility or sector level.Indices are being created for five sectors: automobileassembly, iron and steel, petroleum refining, primarynonferrous metals, and paper mills. Based on individ-ual facility permits and data records, the indices willprovide facility-specific information on compliance his-tory and pollutant releases as well as facility size, localdemographics, and toxicity of released chemicals.

The sector facility indexing project is part of anoverall goal of expanding access to environmentalinformation to the states, to regulated facilities, and tothe public, in particular. Access to information aboutenvironmental releases and the compliance history ofindividual facilities should help improve the quality ofthe data used to make decisions, boost compliancewith the law, and provide both local communities andcorporate managers with information for preventingpollution and improving facility operations.

ENCOURAGING SELF-POLICING

In FY 1997, EPA’s effort to encouraging self-polic-ing under the national Audit Policy (Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction andPrevention of Violations, 1996) proved inviting. Thispolicy allows EPA to reduce as much as 100 percent ofthe gravity portion of a penalty (i.e., the portionbeyond the economic benefit gained from noncompli-ance) and recommend no criminal referral to the

More extensive deployment of specialagents to help communities investigateand respond to environmental crimes.

Result


32



Department of Justice when a facility voluntarily dis-covers its violations, promptly discloses them to EPA,and corrects the violations in an expeditious manner.

To date, 247 companies have disclosed environmen-tal violations at 760 facilities, providing informationthat would not have been available otherwise. Self-dis-closures have come from small businesses and frommany industry sectors, including communications,pharmaceuticals, transportation, steel, and energy.Many of these disclosures resulted in waivers. Thelargest settlement ever reached under the policy waswith GTE Corporation in 1997. The agreement, whichresolved 600 spill prevention and right-to-know viola-tions at 314 GTE facilities in 21 states, demonstratedthe policy’s broad scope in promoting compliance atfacilities nationwide and provides a good model fornational companies that want to come forward andresolve multiple federal violations.

A COMPREHENSIVE, CORPORATEWIDE

FOCUS

Throughout its history, EPA has enforced thenation’s environmental laws by focusing on violationsof individual statutes at individual facilities. However,in an effort to use enforcement resources more effi-ciently and to maximize the environmental resultsfrom taking enforcement actions, EPA recently devel-oped a new multimedia enforcement approach thataddresses companies on a comprehensive, corporate-wide basis. It aims to ensure that companies takeresponsibility for all of their federal environmentalresponsibilities at each and every facility.

A multimedia screening methodology was devel-oped that allows EPA to assess violations at multiplefacilities and identify candidates warranting furtherinvestigation. The initial cases involving use of thisnew screening process are still in the investigative orsettlement negotiation stages, but word of the programhas already inspired several large corporations toimprove their environmental compliance efforts, andothers to evaluate and disclose their problems underEPA’s voluntary audit and disclosure policy.

One recent example of the success that can beachieved through such a targeted multimedia effort isthe settlement with ASARCO, Inc. Under a settlementannounced on January 23, 1998, the national miningand smelting company agreed to invest more than $50million to correct hazardous waste and water violationsat two of its facilities in Montana and Arizona, tocleanup water and soil contamination at these facilities,and to reduce hazardous waste emissions from itssmelters nationwide. In addition, a penalty of $6.4 mil-lion will be paid by the company for its past violations.One unique aspect of this settlement is that ASARCOhas agreed to establish a court-enforced environmentalmanagement system that is applicable to all of its facili-ties nationwide. The detailed system that was devel-oped in the context of the ASARCO settlement willchange the day-to-day operations of the company’s 38active facilities in seven states and require environmen-tal training for the company’s more than 6,000employees in order to promote compliance with allenvironmental requirements, and achieve pollutionprevention and pollution reduction at these facilities.

This new corporatewide enforcement strategy elim-inates the need for the federal and state governmentsto bring multiple cases to achieve the same final out-come. In addition, a comprehensive enforcementaction can require comprehensive, companywidechanges with potential for long-term environmentalbenefits, such as the environmental management sys-tem required for ASARCO.


33


Cutting red tape and regulatory burden

To rid the system of unnecessary requirementsstemming from 16 federal environmental statutes, in1995 EPA initiated an extensive line-by-line review ofall its regulations. Since then, the Agency has slashedmore than 1,300 pages of requirements from the Codeof Federal Regulations, reducing regulatory burden by20 million hours. This reduction is the equivalent ofreturning more than a half million work weeks, valuedat about $600 million, back to our society for moreproductive use. In a continuation of this effort, EPAexpects to slash an additional 8 million hours in 1998.

While this extensive line-by-line review has improvedthe system overall, it has helped raise internal Agencyawareness about the need to continuously streamlineprocesses and improve efficiency, too. In a sign of inter-nal culture change, managers and staff are showinggreater attention to customer service — to local officialsneeding financial or technical guidance, to small com-panies trying to achieve environmental compliance, andto large corporations requiring permits to expand opera-tions and bring new products to market. As the follow-

CUTTING RED TAPE AND REGULATORY BURDEN

Complementing efforts to test new approaches for achieving better

environmental results is an equally important commitment to fine-

tuning proven components of the environmental protection system

as it exists today. Predictably, the evolution of environmental pro-

grams over three decades has resulted in requirements that are no

longer applicable or necessary. Moreover, as acknowledged previously

in this report, the single-media structure of environmental laws and programs has result-

ed in requirements that are duplicative across programs.

Burden Reduction Hours by Statute

CAA (Clean Air Act), CWA (Clean Water Act), RCRA (Resource Conservationand Recovery Act), TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act), FIFRA (Federal,Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), OPA (Oil Pollution Act), EPCRA/TRI(Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act/Toxic ReleaseInventory), CZARA (Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments),CERCLA/SARA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, andLiability Act; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act), SDWA (SafeDrinking Water Act), Misc. (routine contractor support, quality assurance reports,and purchase orders)




ing examples show, today’s system of environmentalprotection works better for these customers — pro-gram-by-program, it is becoming less burdensome andmore user-friendly. Quite simply, what began as a“house-cleaning” exercise has evolved into a whole newmind set and mode of operation within the Agency.

AVOIDING A PATCHWORK OF

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

One of the challenges associated with selling prod-ucts across the country is having to comply with dif-ferent regulatory requirements. In recent years, thischallenge has intensified for the automobile manufac-turing industry as states have focused on reducingtailpipe emissions from new cars to control smogproblems. Currently, mobile source emissions accountfor half of the pollutants that cause smog.

The 1990 Clean Air Act prevents EPA from man-dating tighter emission standards before model year2004. This appeared to leave states that need to reducenew motor vehicle emissions with only one option —to adopt the California program, which is more strin-gent than the current federal program. (Under theClean Air Act, California is the only state with author-ity to develop its own standards). Some states, particu-larly those in the northeast, have adopted or have beenconsidering adopting the California program. Thisapproach concerned the auto industry due to the diffi-culty of complying with different requirements in dif-ferent parts of the country. Under EPA’s leadership,the auto industry, the states, environmentalists and

other interested parties engaged in a lengthy publicprocess to find a better solution — a program thatwould meet the environmental needs of theNortheastern states, would bring about better environ-mental results nationally more quickly than the statu-tory timeframe would allow, and would help theindustry avoid a patchwork of state programs.

EPA brought this process to a successful conclusionin February 1998 by brokering an agreement with theauto manufacturers whereby they voluntarily agreed toproduce cars that emit 70 percent less air pollutioncompared to today’s models. These new clean vehicleswill be made available later this year in eightNortheastern states and the District of Columbia, andin model year 2001 for the rest of the country —three years earlier than EPA could mandate under theClean Air Act.

The agreement means cleaner, safer air for millions ofAmericans, as well as economic opportunity for areas thatmight otherwise face growth and development con-straints. Ultimately, nationwide availability of these clean-er new vehicles will result in pollution reductions equiva-lent to taking over 10 million cars off the road each year.

The agreement is beneficial to industry because itgreatly reduces the difficulty and expense of a patch-

“ONE PLAN” FOR

RESPONDING TO EMERGENCY SITUATIONS

In the event of an actual chemical emergency, such as a spill, what would be most useful for facility man-agers: one plan or nine plans? Obviously, only one, and in 1995, EPA joined several other federal agencies todevelop a single, consolidated plan for complying with multiple emergency response planning requirementsunder nine federal statutes. One company acting on this new opportunity is Polyclad Laminates, a NewHampshire-based laminator of printed circuit boards for the computer industry. In 1997, Polyclad worked withEPA’s New England office and the New Hampshire Pollution Prevention Internship program to evaluate itsoperations in an effort to develop “one plan” for its six facilities. This option should make it less burdensomefor Polyclad and other companies to maintain a single, up-to-date plan. More importantly, it should minimizeconfusion and response time in an emergency situation.

Voluntary agreement will result in the production of new cars designed to emit 70percent less air pollution.

Result

34


35



work of state regulatory programs. It also is beneficialbecause it harmonizes federal standards and testingobligations with those of the California program, thusreducing design and testing costs. The auto industryalso is benefitting from the good will and positivepress generated by voluntarily agreeing to provide con-sumers with cleaner cars.

GETTING SAFER PRODUCTS TO MARKET

Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),EPA serves as a gatekeeper, regulating potential unrea-sonable risk posed by certain new chemicals beforethey enter the market. Traditionally, EPA has usedenforceable consent agreements and new regulations tomanage new chemical risks. But these actions haveproven to be very labor intensive, time consuming,and frustrating for industry as well as EPA. Newchemicals are subject to regulation even though similarchemicals, in existence prior to TSCA, remain uncon-trolled. Industry claims this discrepancy often creates abarrier to new product commercialization and marketsuccess. From EPA’s perspective, manufacturers oftendo not apply the same controls to existing chemicalsthat are required for new chemicals even though risklevels may be comparable.

To address these shortcomings, EPA launched aspecial initiative, known as Environmental TechnologyInitiative (ETI) for Chemicals, to eliminate red tapeand frustration from the review and risk managementof new chemicals. Working in partnership with indus-try, a more flexible approach was created to overcomeregulatory barriers and allow for quicker approvals ofsafer, environmentally preferable chemicals.Furthermore, in cases where regulations are too limit-ed to address risks of concern, the new approachallows companies to look beyond regulatory compli-ance and to come up with more comprehensive risk-management strategies.

The benefits of this new approach can be seen in arecent approval of a new product from Union Carbidethat essentially splits hazardous waste streams into non-polluting, low-risk components. To realize this environ-mental benefit, customers must handle the new prod-ucts properly. Traditionally, EPA would have issued a

regulation to ensure proper handling practices. Butunder ETI for Chemicals, EPA developed an alternativerisk management agreement whereby the companycommitted to a product stewardship campaign toensure customer knowledge about safe and proper use.

A vice president at Union Carbide stated that thisnew product “might still be a gleam in the eye of ourscientists and regulatory managers if not for EPA’s newEnvironmental Technology Initiative.” The companyestimates that its partnership with EPA enabled theirproduct to reach the marketplace 1 year earlier than itwould have had it gone through the traditional riskmanagement process. U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman

While getting safer products to market as quickly andeasily as possible is an obvious priority, so too, is removingproducts that have been banned due to high risks. In 1976,Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act, whichamong other things, banned the manufacture, processing,distribution, and use of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).However, EPA was given authority to modify the bans,through rulemaking, when it finds that no unreasonable riskof injury to health or the environment will result.

In order to provide more flexibility in PCB management,EPA developed a new approach that essentially reducesduplication and costs for PCB sources through self-imple-mentation of lower-risk activities, such as recycling ordecontamination, and by allowing risk to be taken intoaccount when determining disposal methods. It also modi-fies or deletes outdated requirements; harmonizes PCBrequirements stemming from TSCA and other federal envi-ronmental statutes; and fosters greater coordination of fed-eral and state permitting processes. These reforms, expect-ed to be adopted as a final rule in 1998, are based on thefirst comprehensive review of PCB regulations in the 19year history of the program. Overall, EPA estimates the rulewill cut national PCB compliance and disposal costs by ahalf billion dollars per year over the next 20 years.

DEALING WITH PRODUCT BANS

“The ETI for Chemicals is an excellentexample of how to make governmentwork for the people it serves.”


36



(D-CT) has written that “the ETI for Chemicals is anexcellent example of how to make government workfor the people it serves.”

CLARIFICATION FOR WASTE MANAGERS

During 1997, EPA continued work on importantchanges to provide equally protective, but more cost-effective waste management alternatives for businessesand communities. Following continued consultationwith affected stakeholders in 1997, in early 1998, EPAexpects to propose a new definition of solid waste thatcould substantially reduce the number and types of

operations subject to hazardous waste regulation.Under the current system, companies that generateand recycle hazardous waste are subject to full haz-ardous waste treatment requirements. The new rulewould allow some hazardous waste recycling to occurwithout imposing the burden of hazardous waste regu-lation. It also would remove regulatory disincentivesthat currently lead companies to choose incinerationor land disposal over safe recycling.

Another significant action underway is reproposingthe hazardous waste identification rule. Under the cur-rent system, once a waste is listed as hazardous, it is

Before

§310.20 Eligibility for reimbursement(a) Any general purpose unit of local government

may request reimbursement for temporary emergencymeasures if all requirements under §310.30 are met.

(b) States are not eligible for reimbursement for tem-porary emergency measures and no state may requestreimbursement on its own behalf or on the behalf ofpolitical subdivisions within the state.

§310.40 Allowable and unallowable costs(a) Allowable cost. In general, allowable costs are

those project costs that are eligible, reasonable, neces-sary and allocable to the project. Costs allowable forreimbursement may include, but are not limited to:

(1) “Disposable materials and supplies” acquired,consumed, and expended specifically for thepurpose of the response for which reimburse-ment is being requested (hereafter referred to as“the response”);

After

§310.5 Am I eligible for reimbursement?If you are the governing body of a county, parish,

municipality, city, town, township, federally-recognizedIndian tribe or general purpose unit of local govern-ment, you are eligible for reimbursement. This does notinclude special purpose districts.

§310.6 Are states eligible?States are NOT eligible for reimbursement under this

part, and states may NOT request reimbursement onbehalf of their local governments.

§310.11 What costs are allowable?(a) Reimbursement under this part does NOT sup-

plant funds you normally provide for emergencyresponse. Allowable costs are only those necessary foryou to respond effectively to a specific incident that isbeyond what you might normally respond to.

(b) Examples of allowable costs are:

(1) Disposable materials and supplies you acquiredand used to respond to the specific incident;

The difficulty in understanding federal regulations has been a longstanding criticism of federal agencies, includingEPA. In order to reduce regulatory burden on our stakeholders and improve regulatory compliance, EPA has estab-lished a pilot program aimed at improving both the clarity and comprehension of regulatory language. Under the pilot,13 regulations cutting across all program areas are being written or revised using more concise language. In addition,they are being restructured to allow users to find information more quickly. Results from this effor t are becoming visi-ble. For example, in February 1998, EPA issued a “Plain English” revision to its Superfund Local Government reim-bursement regulation. This regulation helps local governments by making it easier to apply for reimbursement ofmoney spent when responding to certain chemical spills. More “Plain English” regulations are expected in the Spring.

PLAIN ENGLISH REGULATIONS


37



always considered hazardous — even if the toxicchemicals have been removed. This approach, whileprotective of human health and the environment, hasthe disadvantage of discouraging innovative treatment

and pollution prevention — whywould a company invest in detoxi-fying its waste if the detoxifiedproduct was still subject to haz-ardous waste requirements? In1995, EPA proposed a rule thatwould allow companies to testtheir waste, and if all potentiallyhazardous chemicals are at orbelow safe levels, then it would nolonger be federally regulated ashazardous waste. Instead, it wouldbe managed under alternative, butequally protective, state programs.

(Because of the extensive comments received by thepublic and EPA’s Science Advisory Board, in 1997, theAgency requested an extension to revise the underlyingrisk assessment used in establishing safe levels. Thenew deadline for proposal is set for October 1999).

SUPERFUND REFORM

Over the past 5 years, EPA has implemented threerounds of administrative reforms covering a widerange of Superfund concerns, including: fairness inenforcement; public involvement; state and Tribalempowerment; smarter cleanups that protect publichealth at less cost; economic redevelopment; and pro-gram efficiency. These reforms, which are not solelyresponsible for recent program success, have strength-ened and streamlined the program. Cleanup construc-tion is underway or completed at 89 percent of thesites on the final National Priorities List (excludingfederal facilities). Twice as many sites have beencleaned up in the last 5 years than in the first 12 yearsof the program. Today, cleanups are about 20 percentfaster and less costly — on average, cleanups are com-pleted two years earlier. Reforms have removed 15,000small parties from potential cleanup liability whileresponsible parties are being required to pay their fairshare — these parties cover approximately 75 percentof long-term cleanup costs, saving taxpayers more than$12 billion to date.

A COMMON SENSE APPROACH FOR A

COMMON PROBLEM

Controlling storm wate r— runoff from the landthat carries pollution into the nation’s waterways dur-ing wet weathe — has presented a substantial opportu-nity for reducing environmental regulatory burden.Under the Clean Water Act of 1987, new requirementsfor controlling storm water greatly expanded the typesof operations requiring permits under the NationalPollution Discharge Elimination System. For the firsttime ever, the law required large industries and cities aswell as smaller businesses and towns to obtain permitswithin specified time frames to control storm waterdischarges from their property. In 1990, EPA issuedregulations requiring permits for storm water runofffrom larger municipal sewer systems (serving popula-tions of 100,000 people or more) and industrial facili-ties. As a first step towards implementing these require-ments, in 1995, EPA issued a rule that required per-mits only for sources known to be contributing towater quality problems. All other unregulated sourceswere to apply for permits by 2001. At that point, per-mits would be required for more than 19,000 munici-palities and for millions of industrial and commercialsources, no matter what the size.

To avoid this massive permitting burden — forEPA and for the many public and private sources thatwould be subject to the requirements — EPA workedwith multiple stakeholders to develop a more rational,risk-based approach to storm water management. Theproposed rule, issued in late 1997, identifies sourcesthat need to be controlled through regulation, butprovides automatic coverage for two broad categoriesof storm water discharges: small municipal separatestorm sewer systems located in urbanized areas, andconstruction activities that disturb equal to or greaterthan one and less than five acres of land. Other facili-ties and industrial and construction activities, as wellas small municipal separate storm sewer systems out-side urbanized areas, are to be permitted on a case-by-case basis. The rule also provides an exemption forindustrial facilities that could certify their operationsresulted in “no exposure” to storm water by moving allindustrial activities and contaminants indoors or plac-ing them under cover from wet weathe r— an excep-tion that could apply to as many as 70,000 facilities.


38



EPA believes this risk-based approach will reduceadverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitatby reducing storm water pollution while regulatingonly those sources with potential for imposing envi-ronmental harm. It will substantially decrease thenational cost of storm water management — in con-trast to the billions of dollars estimated for permittingall sources, the cost for the more risk-based approachis estimated at $511 million.

CREATIVE PERMITTING

Because any change in operational status can triggerthe need for regulatory review of air emission permits,companies can be hampered from rapidly respondingto changes in market demand. To address this problem,EPA initiated the pollution prevention permitting pilot(P4) to test ways of providing more operational flexi-bility within the existing regulatory structure and ofachieving equal if not better environmental protectionin part through improved pollution prevention tech-niques. Through a series of pilot projects, EPA is work-ing with states and industry to develop innovative per-mits that pre-approve certain operational changes overthe five-year life of an air permit without regulatorydelay.

EPA expects the P4 program to produce severalimportant benefits. First, promotion of pollution pre-vention opportunities and overall net reductions inemission levels will improve environmental protection.Second, the experience of developing these innovativepermits on a pilot basis will help lay the frameworkfor potential broader application to other sources.Third, operational flexibility may help companiesavoid unnecessary financial losses that can occur as aresult of regulatory delay. One company estimatedthat the added operational flexibility provided by itspilot permit helped save up to $1 million a day.Finally, streamlining the review process is expected tolower workload burdens for both air emission sourcesand permitting authorities, allowing each to focus onhigher priority issues.

BREAKING THROUGH NEW TECHNOLOGY

BARRIERS

Numerous government and private groups haveidentified the lack of an organized program to produceindependent, credible performance data as a majorimpediment to the acceptance and use of more effi-cient, less costly environmental technologies. Suchdata are needed by technology buyers and permittersboth at home and abroad to make informed environ-mental protection decisions. In general, buyers andpermitters have favored traditional, but proven, tech-nologies rather than new ones.

To break through this resistance and to acceleratethe development of new technologies, EPA establisheda five-year pilot program in 1995, called theEnvironmental Technology Verification (ETV)Program, to verify the performance of innovative tech-nologies. In its first 2 years of operation, 12 new envi-ronmental technologies have been verified, and 35additional verifications are underway. Preliminaryfeedback from technology vendors indicates substan-tial market acceptance of the performance evaluationsand that the ETV verification statements are useful inestablishing new technology credibility. One vendorreported approximately $200,000 in sales of a $30,000field monitoring device within the first 3 months afterissuance of the ETV verification. EPA expects to verifythe performance of over 300 innovative technologieswithin 10 years, greatly expanding investment optionsand providing decision-makers with more assurancewhen confronted with major technology investmentdecisions.

As a precursor to verifying new technologies, EPAestablished a program to advance new technologydevelopment. The Advanced Measurement Initiativetests new methods for detecting and analyzing envi-ronmental problems. Last year, the first year of pro-gram operation, projects focused on finding betterways of detecting wetland changes, characterizing con-ditions at mining waste sites, and collecting air emis-sions data from continuous monitoring devices.Results from these efforts will inform and guide com-panies interested in creating new products for theenvironmental technology market.


39conclusion


During the past year, progress toward advancingpublic health and environmental protection was madeon a number of important fronts. State participationin NEPPS rose to 30, up from the 6 that wereinvolved in the initial pilot; interest in testing alterna-tive environmental management strategies outside thetraditional regulatory framework increased underProject XL; sector-based management came to fruitionwhen metal finishers announced a voluntary programto go beyond compliance and achieve even cleaneroperations across the industry as a whole; the nation’sfirst multimedia environmental regulation was issuedto further reduce toxic emissions from the pulp andpaper industry; efforts to increase public access toenvironmental information increased; more compli-ance assistance was offered while enforcement againstpolluters was stronger than ever before; and regulatoryburden associated with unnecessary paperwork wasslashed by another 5 million hours.

These and other advancements featured in thisreport demonstrate meaningful results for reinventingthe nation’s environmental regulatory system; lookingahead, EPA is committed to building on this successthrough a continued course of prudent, but progres-sive actions. These actions will draw upon the valuablelessons learned through the reinvention process, todate, such as the need to clarify how innovations willbe managed in the context of traditional regulatoryprograms and the need to establish realistic timeframes for moving an idea from concept to reality. AsEPA pursues new reinvention opportunities, it musttake these and other important lessons and use themto help shape responsible public policy. In so doing,the Agency can propel environmental managementinto a new era where continuous environmentalimprovement is not only expected, but widelyachieved in society.

CONCLUSION

Providing strong, consistent, environmental and public health protection

is not a simple process; it occurs through a highly varied system with

multiple dimensions, diverse players, and often complex challenges. As

this report shows, the opportunities for affecting progressive change

within such a system are great, and yet, consistent with the approach

advocated by former EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus and his

fellow representatives on the Enterprise for the Environment project, this process is being

managed with great care. Where obvious common sense reforms are needed, the Agency is

acting swiftly. However, before permanently adopting fundamentally new approaches into

the nation’s environmental regulatory system, the Agency first requires thorough testing

and evaluation — an approach that sets the stage for continued progress without compro-

mising the substantial gains in environmental and public health protection that have

been achieved over the past three decades.


40 appendix


APPENDIX: STATUS OF EPA REINVENTION PROJECTS

EPA’s reinvention activities have increased and evolved considerably since the initial “ReinventingEnvironmental Protection” agenda was launched in March 1995. The following matrix provides a brief descrip-tion and status of the initial reinvention projects—with distinction for the 25 highest priority projects. It does notreflect the full range of EPA’s reinvention activity nor all of the projects featured in this report.

Initial “List A” (High-Priority) Projects

Project description

• Open-market air emission trading.For smog-creating pollutants, establish an openmarket for trading emission credits, with account-ability for quantified results, and encourage newtrading options.

• Effluent trading in watersheds.Promote use of effluent trading to achieve waterquality standards (e.g., establish a framework fordifferent types of trading, issue policy guidance forpermit writers, and provide technical assistance.)

• Refocus RCRA on high-risk wastes.Reform hazardous waste regulation so that: a new“common-sense” definition of solid waste is devel-oped to simplify industry compliance with RCRArules; low-risk wastes are exempted from hazardouswaste requirements; and states have greater latitudeto design management requirements for low-risk,high-volume wastes from cleanup operations.

• Focus drinking water standard setting on highest health risks.Establish a risk-based approach to regulatory devel-opment, and tailor drinking water monitoringrequirements to reflect local contaminant threats.

Status

• Proposed emissions-trading policy August 1995.• Draft final policy currently under internal Agency

review.• Provided guidance to states to facilitate interstate

trading.

• Final policy on effluent trading issued in 1995.• Draft framework (“how to” guidance) published in

1996. Extensive stakeholder input being soughtand evaluated before a final framework is issued.

• Numerous pilot projects in progress around theUnited States.

Forthcoming proposed rule revising the definitionof solid waste: February 1999.• Forthcoming proposed rule revising the definition

of hazardous waste to remove stringent require-ments for low-risk wastes: October 1999.

• Forthcoming final rule reforming managementrequirements for remediation wastes to promotebetter and faster cleanups: June 1998.

• Forthcoming proposed rule shifting regulation oflead-based paint debris from RCRA to TSCA tomake it easier to remove lead-based paint:September 1998.

• Successfully worked with Congress to revise theformer statutory requirement that EPA regulate25 contaminants annually into a more flexiblemandate that allows EPA to set regulatory priori-ties based on health risks.


41appendix


• Expand use of risk assessment in local communities.Promote risk-based decision-making at the localand regional level by providing citizen access toappropriate tools, resources, and information.

• Flexible funding for states and tribes.Provide an option for state and tribal govern-ments to combine their existing grant funds toreduce administrative burdens and to improveenvironmental performance by allowing statesand tribes to target funds to their high-priorityenvironmental problems.

• Sustainable development challenge grants.Offer competitive action grants to encourageplace-based/community-based management thatcombines sustainable economic development withsound environmental practices.

• Published ANPRN July 1997 to initiate process ofstreamlining drinking water monitoring require-ments for 64 chemical contaminants.

• Finalized guidelines August 1997 on additionalmonitoring flexibility for states.

• Planned stakeholder discussions to help evaluatedata received in response to July 1997 ANPRN:spring 1998.

• Stakeholder input will help determine appropriatedirection for chemical monitoring revisions.

• Developed online Green Communities Tool Kit toprovide community planning guidance includingbasic elements of comparative risk assessment tohelp communities determine their environmentalpriorities.

• Since 1995, provided technical assistance to morethan 20 communities on risk-based priority set-ting, use of environmental indicators, communityplanning, and consensus building (through coop-erative agreements).

• Also since 1995, promoted risk-based decisionmaking at local level through cooperative agree-ments with the National Governors Associationand the International City/County ManagersAssociation.

• Developed National Environmental PerformancePartnership System (NEPPS) in 1996 as anumbrella framework for Performance PartnershipAgreements (PPAs) and/or consolidatedPerformance Partnership Grants (PPGs) for statesto direct resources where they are needed most toaddress environmental priorities.

• Approved performance partnership grants to 36states by end of FY 1997 and arranged PPAs with30 states.

• Forthcoming regulations on PPGs and othergrants to states: proposal mid-1998; final by year’s end.

• Established Sustainable Development ChallengeGrant (SDCG) Program in 1996.

• Announced 10 SDCG awards September 30,1996.


42 appendix


• Regulatory negotiation and consensus-basedrulemaking.Review all rules to identify candidates for negoti-ated rulemaking — a process that involves allstakeholders in developing agreement on how bestto regulate. Use the Common Sense Initiative(CSI) process as a vehicle for identifying regula-tions that might be developed through negotia-tion and consensus.

• 25 percent reduction in paperwork.Reduce existing reporting and recordkeeping bur-den hours by 25 percent, beginning with localgovernments and small businesses. Initiativesalready underway include expanded use of elec-tronic reporting and recordkeeping.

• One-stop reporting.Create a consolidated system for environmentalreporting. Initiate as a pilot program in coordina-tion with the states before applying more broadly.

• Consolidated federal air rules.Work with key industries, beginning with thechemical industry, to streamline federal air com-pliance requirements.

• Expanded SDCG program in 1997 to fund 45projects for $5 million.

• Forthcoming 1998 SDCG grant solicitation:April through May 1998.

• Continued monitoring EPA’s regulatory agendato identify appropriate candidates for negotiatedrulemakings.

• Increased community and stakeholder involve-ment, partnership programs, and consensus-basedproject development in nearly all facets of EPA’swork.

• Negotiated agreement with metal finishing industryin October 1997 under CSI that will reduce pollu-tion below what is required under current law.

• Cut paperwork burden on the regulated commu-nity by 20 million hours as of November 1997.

• EPA’s paperwork reduction initiative now con-joined with OMB’s governmentwide burdenreduction initiative, which targets a goal of 25percent reduction in paperwork burden by theend of FY 1998.

• Established one-stop reporting program in 1995.• In 1996 and 1997, awarded one-stop grants of

$500,000 each to a total of 13 states (to MA,MO, NJ, UT, and WA in 1996; and to PA, WV,GA, MI, MN, NM, OR, and TX in 1997).

• In 1997, launched Reinventing EnvironmentalInformation (REI), a broad information reforminitiative that incorporates one-stop programgoals in its action plan for establishing commondata standards, implementing electronic report-ing, and reengineering the Agency’s nationalinformation systems in collaboration with thestates.

• Up to 8 more one-stop grants of $500,000 willbe awarded in April 1998.

• Forthcoming proposed rule consolidating andsimplifying 16 different air-emission rules for thesynthetic organic chemical industry: spring 1998.


43appendix


• Risk-based enforcement.Target enforcement actions against significant vio-lations that present the greatest risks to humanhealth and the environment. Develop tools thatallow analysis of risk as well as patterns of viola-tions among corporations and facilities within aparticular sector. Make results publicly available.

• Compliance incentives for small businesses andcommunities.Provide compliance assistance, without fear offines and penalties, to responsible small businessesand small communities who volunteer to complywith environmental regulations. Allow up to 180days for small businesses to correct violationsidentified through federal or state technical assis-tance programs. Provide similar compliance assis-tance for small communities.

• Small business compliance assistance centers.Establish national customer centers for six smallbusiness sectors that face multiple environmentalrequirements. The centers should provide up-to-date, easily accessible and understandable compli-ance and pollution-prevention information.

• Incentives for auditing disclosure and correction.To reward responsible companies and eliminatecostly litigation and red tape, provide incentivesthrough reduced penalties for companies that dis-close and promptly correct violations — exceptfor criminal violations, imminent and substantialendangerment, or repeat violations.

• Developed sector-facility indices for five indus-tries that provide compliance history and envi-ronmental performance information on a facilityor sector basis. Internet posting of this informa-tion is pending settlement of a lawsuit contestingits publication.

• Evaluated several potential risk assessmentmethodologies for comparing relative risks of spe-cific facilities, based on cross-media emissions;expect to announce a decision concerning theimplementation of a particular methodology inApril 1998.

• For small businesses seeking compliance assistance,authorized a 180-day grace period effective June1996. Issued guidance in 1995 encouraging states toallow small communities a 180-day grace periodwhen they have committed to compliance assistance.

• To support states committed to offering compli-ance assistance and incentives to communities,offered technical assistance and some grant fund-ing for compliance assistance and training. Todate, SD (FY 1996) and MO and WA (FY 1997)have received grants.

• EPA report on impact of complianceincentives/compliance assistance on small busi-nesses and communities due to Congress by endof March 1998.

• Four centers (i.e., autos, metal finishing, agricul-ture, and printing) established and operational asof 1996.

• Forthcoming opening of printed wiring boardmanufacturing center: April 1998.

• Three additional centers projected for startup fall1998: chemical industry, local government, andtransportation.

• Issued policy in January 1996 on incentives forself-policing, disclosure, and correction.

• Violations disclosed by 247 companies at over760 facilities nationwide.

• By January 1999, EPA is required to conduct andpublish a followup study on the results of theaudit policy.


44 appendix


• Self-certification.Develop a self-certification program to handlelow-risk pesticide registration activities, and thenexpand self-certification into other appropriateprogram areas.

• Public electronic access.Make information from all EPA programs avail-able through Internet and other electronic meansthat Americans and local organizations can accessin their homes, schools, and libraries.

• Center for Environmental Information andStatistics.Establish a new Agencywide center charged withassessing, consolidating, and disseminating envi-ronmental information.

• Project XL.Manage Project XL to provide a limited numberof responsible companies a structured opportunityto develop and employ an alternative environ-mental strategy, replacing the requirements of thecurrent system if certain conditions are met.

• Alternative strategies for communities.Join with states and communities to conduct pilotprojects that will demonstrate and assess the mer-its of community-designed and directed strategiesfor achieving environmental and economic goals.The pilots will be undertaken with communitiesseeking innovative alternatives to currentapproaches and those grappling with limited abil-ity to meet current regulatory requirements.

• Began streamlined pesticide label amendmentprocess in 1996, allowing registrants to submit asimple notification to EPA before making labelchanges that do not create risks (rather thanapplying for an amended registration).

• Self-certification process established in January1998, allowing registrants to satisfy productchemistry data requirements for registration bysubmitting a simple certification notice to EPA.

• Forthcoming by end of calendar year 1998: EPAreport analyzing most common causes of pesti-cide registration application rejections. This infor-mation will be used to educate registrants on howto avoid common, but costly mistakes.

• Redesigned EPA web site <www.epa.gov> for eas-ier public access to desired information.Redesigned site includes news banners, keywordand zip code-based search capabilities, and envi-ronmental and regulatory information tailored tothe needs of various stakeholder groups.Approximately 27 million users accessing web siteeach month.

• Administrator announced plans, in February1997, to establish a new Center forEnvironmental Information and Statistics (CEIS).

• Startup date for new CEIS website: late spring1998.

• Reached final XL agreements with six companies.• Negotiations on seven more XL projects

underway.• Three additional proposals in technical review.• Ultimately, EPA expects to test pilot 50 proposals.

• Project XL for Communities: Solicited proposalsfrom communities in November. 1995. Five pro-jects presently under development or negotiation.


45appendix


• Alternative strategies for agencies.Starting with a pilot project focusing on two tofour Department of Defense (DOD) facilities,work with other federal agencies having environ-mental responsibilities to ensure that these federalprograms achieve results in the most cost-effectiveways, while eliminating needless bureaucratic pro-cedures. Develop a memorandum of understand-ing with DOD defining performance goals andan optimal approach for achieving them. Theapproach agreed upon must combine pollutionprevention, compliance, and technology researchprojects.

• Third-party audits for industry compliance.As one approach for streamlining complianceoversight, explore the use of independent, certi-fied, private-sector firms to audit industry envi-ronmental performance. The EnvironmentalLeadership pilot program—with input from envi-ronmental groups, industry, and states—will eval-uate criteria for third-party audits that will assurethe public that environmental requirements arebeing met, and any violations disclosed andpromptly corrected.

• Multimedia permitting.Evaluate as a mechanism for addressing all releasesat a facility through a single permit and encourag-ing facilities to pursue performance-basedapproaches.

• Promoting community-based environmental pro-tection (CBEP) on a broader scale, both by work-ing directly in a limited number of communitiesand by developing essential “capacity-building”tools and resources for CBEP and making theseavailable to communities, states, and citizens.These include: environmental information andmonitoring systems; guidance on socioeconomicanalysis; flexible grants; technical assistance; nego-tiation and facilitation; and training.

• Finalized Project XL agreement in November1997 with DOD’s Vandenberg Air Force Base inSanta Barbara, California.

• Two additional projects are in negotiation stage:Plant Four (Lockheed-Martin), and ElmendorfAir Force Base.

• Two projects in technical review stage.• Signed Memorandum of Understanding with

DOD to implement specified performance goalsand approaches to achieve them.

• As part of nationwide Environmental LeadershipProgram (ELP) pilot for industrial and federalfacilities, tested third-part auditing at several facil-ities. Results being used as basis for potentiallydeveloping a permanent performance-basedreward and recognition program.

• Concurrent testing of third-party audit certifica-tions at the New England regional level (throughStar Track).

• Issued report, Multimedia Pollution PreventionProtocols (EPA 902-R-97-003), in 1997 summa-rizing state multimedia permitting efforts andgiving recommendations on ways to promote themultimedia approach.


46 appendix


• Design for the Environment — “GreenChemistry Challenge.”Jointly sponsor, with the chemical industry, a pro-gram to recognize and promote innovative chemi-cal technologies that further pollution preventionin industry.

• Established Presidential Green Chemistry Awardprogram in partnership with the AmericanChemical Society, the Council for ChemicalResearch, the National Research Council, andstakeholder groups.

• Made five awards in 1996, five again in 1997, toacademic institutions, small businesses, and thechemical industry.

• Have received nominations for 1998 awards fromacademic institutions and from companies innumerous industrial sectors across the UnitedStates.


47appendix


Project description

• Facilitywide air emissions.Conduct demonstrations of facilitywide limits forair emissions that allow companies increased man-agement flexibility to use least-cost control optionsto meet air-permit requirements.

• Flexibility in meeting effluent discharge deadlines.Propose targeted Clean Water Act revisions toextend compliance schedules for industrial waste-water treatment standards for companies that applyinnovative treatment approaches that prevent pollution.

• Eliminate millions of stormwater permit applications.Work with stakeholders to develop a risk-basedapproach to stormwater management by limitingindividual permits to only those sources that areknown to contribute to water quality impairment.

• Exempt low-risk pesticides and toxic chemicalsfrom regulation.Exempt low-risk active ingredients from pesticideregulation. Propose a similar exemption for low-risk chemicals under TSCA, for which manufac-turers must now submit premanufacturing notices.

• Environmental forecasting to anticipate futureenvironmental problems. Establish a program to help identify and character-ize emerging environmental problems, takingguidance from a new report by the EPA ScienceAdvisory Board (Beyond the Horizon: UsingForesight to Protect the Environmental Future,1995).

Status

• Total of nine demonstration projects at industrialsites around the country: five active, four com-pleted or close to completion.

• Guidance forthcoming, based on lessons learnedfrom demonstration projects, on facilitywide permitting for air emissions: December 1998.

• Crafted proposed amendments to Clean WaterAct (CWA) that include incentives for pollutionprevention.

• Further action contingent on Congressional reau-thorization of CWA.

• Consulted extensively with small businesses andother stakeholders to work through stormwaterpermit issues affecting them.

• Proposed rule January 1998 to cut requirementsfor 7 million sites, including 3,500 small munici-palities and 110,000 construction sites between 1to 5 acres.

• Exempted 31 low-risk chemicals from being regu-lated as pesticide active ingredients (final ruleMarch 1996).

• Forthcoming proposed rule to exempt another 75low-risk pesticide active ingredients from regula-tion: December 1998 or early 1999.

• TSCA premanufacturing notifications (PMNs)no longer required for polymers that meet partic-ular low-risk criteria (March 1995 final rule).

• To help EPA lay groundwork for recommended“early warning system,” the SAB convened a seriesof meetings and workshops to explore variousmethods for projecting future environmental risks.

• Prompted by the SAB’s 1995 report, Beyond theHorizon, the G-7 countries have devoted theirApril 1997 and February 1998 meetings to dis-cussions of transnational environmental forecast-ing issues.

Initial “List B” Projects (Other Significant Actions)


48 appendix


• State and tribal flexibility for municipal landfillpermits.Encourage states and tribes to implement a flexi-ble, performance-based approach for permittingmunicipal landfills by proposing clear criteria forstate and tribal programs consistent with thatapproach.

• Save billions on PCB disposal.Revise PCB disposal regulations to reduce thenumber of permits required, eliminate duplicativestate and federal controls, and give states and theregulated community flexibility to choose lessexpensive disposal methods as appropriate.

• Simplify air permit revision requirements.Develop a streamlined process for revising air quali-ty permits that allows states to build on their exist-ing programs and avoid unnecessary regulations.

• Simplify review of new air pollution sources.Streamline EPA’s new source review process to pro-vide more flexibility, reduce the number of indus-try activities subject to major review as newsources, reduce permit review times, and createincentives for use of innovative technologies.

• Simplify water permit paperwork.Reduce paperwork burdens for municipalities andbusinesses by simplifying the permit applicationforms for water discharges.

• Streamlining RCRA corrective action procedures.Promote “faster, better” cleanups under RCRA byresponding to a number of promising ideas identi-fied through discussions with outside stakeholders,such as reducing government oversight and expe-diting use of interim protective measures.

• Proposed “land disposal flexibility program” ruleAugust 1997 outlining criteria for state programs.

• Forthcoming final rule giving states flexibility torun performance-based programs for permittingmunicipal landfills: April 1998.

• Notice of final rulemaking to amend existingPCB disposal regulations: December 1996.

• Forthcoming final rule giving states and regulatedcommunity flexibility to choose the most cost-effective PCB disposal methods: May 1998.

• Proposed rule May 1997 streamlining revisionprocess for air permits.

• Forthcoming final rule streamlining the air per-mit revision process and giving states added flexi-bility in administering air permit programs: mid-1999.

• Proposed rule July 1996 to streamline review ofnew air pollution sources and encourage technol-ogy innovations.

• Forthcoming final rule reforming EPA’s NewSource Review program: December 1998.

• Proposed rule in December 95 simplifying waterpermit paperwork for municipalities.

• Forthcoming final rule simplifying permit appli-cation forms for municipalities: June 1998.

• Forthcoming proposed rule simplifying water per-mit paperwork for industrial sources: September1998.

• Final rule for industrial sources scheduled forMarch 2000.

• Forthcoming final rule establishing flexible, per-formance-based corrective action procedures:mid-1999.


appendix


• Flexible compliance agreements for specificindustries. Develop experimental EPA/Industry ComplianceAgreements to allow companies to voluntarily dis-close violations and correct them in a timely man-ner in exchange for reduced penalties.

• Independent study on collecting and usinginformation more effectively.Commission a study on ways to improve data col-lection and management at EPA, and use thestudy recommendations in designing a center forenvironmental information and statistics.

• Electronic data transfer.Establish a system to allow facilities to reportmonitoring results electronically, thereby reducingmonitoring burdens while enhancing enforceabili-ty or accountability.

• In 1997, developed flexible compliance agree-ments with three industry sectors: natural gasprocessors (liability capped for 62 companies thatself-disclosed having not met TSCA reportingrequirements); the chemical industry ($1 millionliability limit for 89 companies that disclosedchemical exposure and incident reports); and thefood sector (liability no more than $100 for 117companies that failed to provide right-to-knowdata to local emergency personnel).

• Consolidated with initiative listed under “high-priority projects” as Center for EnvironmentalInformation and Statistics (CEIS)—CEIS opera-tions scheduled to begin late spring 1998.

• Pilot projects in states being coordinated throughEPA’s one-stop program.

• “Reinventing Environmental Information” (REI)initiative, announced July 1997, commits EPA tomaking electronic reporting option available to allregulated entities within five years.

49


For more information on EPA’s reinvention activi-ties, contact the Office of Reinvention at 202 260-4261 or send an email message to [email protected]. Information can be foundon the Internet at <www.epa.gov/reinvent>. Forquick access to specific projects mentioned in this

report, see the following list of Internet addresses:

Beach Watchwww.epa.gov/ostwater/beaches/

Brownfieldswww.epa.gov/brownfields/

Center for Environmental Information and Statistics (CEIS)www.epa.gov/reinvent/notebook/ceis.htm

Common Sense Initiativewww.epa.gov/commonsense/

Community Based Environmental Protectionwww.epa.gov/ecocommunity/

Drinking Waterwww.epa.gov/OGWDW/programs.html

Envirofactswww.epa.gov/enviro/index_java.html

EPA Home Pagewww.epa.gov/

Enforcement and Compliancewww.epa.gov/oecaerth/index.html

One Stop Reportingwww.epa.gov/reinvent/onestop/

Partnership Programswww.epa.gov/partners/

Pay As You Throwwww.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/paytold/public.htm

Project XLwww.epa.gov/ProjectXL/

Storm Water Permittingwww.epa.gov/reinvent/notebook/rswp.htm

Surf Your Watershedwww.epa.gov/surf/


1EPA

1EPAU

nited States Environm

ental Protection Agency

(1801)W

ashington, DC

20460

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use

$300

cover.qxd 3/24/98 3:56 PM Page 1

the changing nature of environmental and public health ... · informing citizens about the safety...

Documents