&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Prevention, Pesticides,
And Toxic Substances
(7409)
EPA-742-R-96-001
February 1996
Preventing Pollution Through
Regulations
,
i ' '
, ' \ . .
The Source Reduction
Review Project
An Assessment
-------
-------
im
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.G. 20460
JAN 3 I 1996
OFFICE CF
PREVEMTION, PESTICIDES AND
TOXIC SUBSTAhKJES
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT
FROM:
TO:
Transmittal of Our Assessment of the Source Reduction
Review Project
Lynn R. Goldman, M.D. W4l/W ](_ ,
Assistant Administrator V
The Administrator
The Deputy Administrator
As promised in our November 22nd briefing with you, Fred, we
are ready to share with you both our assessment of the Source
Reduction Review Project (SRRP). OPPT conducted this assessment
over a period of two years in cooperation with the media offices.
We undertook this assessment because SRRP was the first time EPA
made such a coordinated effort across media offices to take a
cross-media perspective and foster pollution prevention (P2)
through regulations.
SRRP Assessment . :
The assessment has been reviewed by OAQPS in OAR, OSW in
OSWER, OST in OW, ORD, and OGC. As such, it represents views
generally held by the majority of reviewers. I believe the
assessment addresses some fundamental issues about our
environmental regulatory process and its impact on real
environmental management.
The assessment includes case studies of seven SRRP rules so
readers can better evaluate our conclusions. We draw a list of
positive SRRP lessons and identify the Agency-wide obstacles that
offices collectively faced. (There is significant common ground
between our assessment and the NAPA Report discussion of EPA's
role in managing industrial pollution, and overcoming
fragmentation.) Based on our broad findings, and as supported by
case-study level details, we make several recommendations in the
paper.
Recycled/Recyclable « Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer)
-------
Points of Emphasis
The main points we want to highlight are as follows.
1) In evaluating P2 outcomes, we found the importance of
taking a multi-media approach was striking, yet a multi-media
perspective is often not emphasized in the development and
implementation of regulations at the Agency.
2) Environmental regulatory planning, as largely shaped by
Congressional statutes, is a legacy of single-media thinking and
is not aligned with cross-media needs. The current planning
model impedes integrating regulations, impedes offices' abilities
to create cross-media strategies, and often breeds piecemeal
approaches.
A basic premise of the assessment is that an environmental
regulatory framework is here to stay. The existing framework has
an enormous impact on how Americans choose to manage their
environmental responsibilities. A key question addressed in the
assessment is what can be done by EPA to reinvent this framework
for the better.
The paper emphasizes what EPA can do internally, and with
others, to address some of the commonly acknowledged obstacles to
promoting cleaner (and smarter and cheaper) regulatory outcomes.
Steps that EPA takes in the short term internally and with
others will help inform longer term efforts, both
administrative and legislative. Few are better positioned than
EPA to think through, test out, and report on the administrative
implications of moving toward more integrated and flexible
approaches to environmental management.
3) P2 and reform go very much together. In looking at the
obstacles offices confronted while working on SRRP rules, the
assessment found issues that run across regulatory activity
generally. The single-media system contributes to the perception
that P2 is an "extra" activity rather than an integral regulatory
goal for the majority of cases. While SKRP rulemaking went the
extra mile to foster P2 wherever reasonably feasible, the
assessment observes that for numerous non-SRRP rulemakings, the
single-media system tends to allocate resources and set goals in
a way that discourages people from seeing P2 as their principle
of first choice in the environmental management hierarchy.
With considerable reflection, the assessment concludes that
reform and P2 (or wise use of the environmental management
hierarchy) go together very well. The assessment posits that if
resources were allocated and if goals were set in ways that made
cross-media planning and coordination more realistic and more
routinely attainable, people would be more inclined to see their
work as routinely following the environmental management
hierarchy.
-------
Next Steps Implementation
As you suggested at the briefing, Fred, OPPTS will share the
key elements of the SRRP assessment with the Regulatory Policy
Council. We will work with this forum and report on our progress
in tackling issues raised in the assessment. Any interest and
support from the 12th floor would be critically advantageous in
implementing steps in modifying the budget and planning
processes. Finally, I would like to note that Appendix A of the
assessment highlights the paper's relevance to recent
initiatives, especially the Common Sense Initiative, and
regulatory reinvention. ,
Attachments:
Executive Summary of the SRRP Assessment
SRRP Assessment, with Appendices
cc: Mary D. Nichols/OAR
Elliott P. Laws/OSWER
Robert Perciasepe/OW
Robert J.' Huggett/ORD
Jonathan Z. Cannon/OGC
David M. Gardiner/OPPE
Steven A. Herman/OECA
Sallyann Harper/OARM
Paul A. Wohlleben/OIRM
John S. Seitz/OAQPS/OAR
Michael H. Shapiro/OSW/OSWER
Tudor T. Davies/OST/OW
Manik R. Roy/AO/PPPS
Alfred W. Lindsey/OEETD/ORD
Alan W. Eckert/OGC
Susan H. Wayland/OPPTS
James V. Aidala/OPPTS
William H. Sanders III/OPPT/OPPTS
Joseph S.. Carra/OPPT/OPPTS
Sharon E. Stahl/OA
-------
-------
Executive Summary
ASSESSMENT OF THE SOURCE REDUCTION REVIEW PROJECT:
PREVENTING POLLUTION THROUGH REGULATION
December 1995
> ' The Project. The Source Reduction Review Project (SRRP) started in early 1992 to
encourage cross-media and pollution prevention (P2) approaches during the Agency's
regulatory development and implementation processes. The work was prompted hi
part by the Pollution Prevention Act, which requires the Agency to review regulations
before and after proposal to determine their effect on source reduction. In developing
SRRP rules, media programs collected more P2 data, added technical and economic
analyses of P2 options and technologies, and otherwise engaged in more cross-media
analysis than in rulemakings prior to SRRP. In this respect, SRRP offered an
opportunity for close-hand examination of the opportunities for and obstacles to using
multi-media P2 approaches.: (Appendix B of the assessment provides case studies for "
seven SRRP nilemakings, consisting of NESHAPs under the Clean Air Act, Effluent
Guidelines under the Clean Water Act, and a RCRA hazardous waste listing.)
> Positive Lessons. EPA's experience with SRRP represents the beginning of a
transition in how EPA media programs, develop their rules. The air, water, and solid
waste offices are making genuine strides in incorporating a multi-media and P2
perspective into their rulemakings. The positive lessons that can be drawn from their
experience include: (1) focus, on cross-media data collection and cross-media analysis
of regulatory options; (2) write the standard to be flexible; (3) test new territory with
stakeholders; (4) coordinate agenda-setting; (5) use preambles and development
documents to explain P2 multi-media approaches; (6) use statute-specific approaches
developed in SRRP; and (7) use program-tailored P2 training.
> The Obstacles. A key contribution of SRRP is identifying Agency-wide obstacles to
more effectively integrating multi-media and P2 approaches into regulatory and other
mainstream activities, and finding general agreement among SRRP participants that
the obstacles should be addressed. The fundamental obstacles that participating
programs encountered are: (1) the lack of incentives for inter-office (multi-media)
coordination hi planning and budgeting; (2) the piecemeal nature of the statutory
framework; (3) challenges in promoting P2 process changes and innovative
technologies; (4) the lack of understanding about cross-media impacts; (5) the lack of
resolution about collecting source reduction data through industry surveys; and (6)
unclear roles for sharing P2 leadership among all parts of the Agency on various
aspects of P2. . ,
> Effects of Obstacles. These obstacles have had the following effects: (1) resource
allocations are not conducive to the coordination and cross-media analysis that is
beneficial to the development and evaluation of P2 options, and information sharing
among offices is limited; (2) deadlines for rules affecting the same industry are
-------
generally not synchronized, and regulatory strategies are not developed on an
industry-sector basis; (3) P2 process changes and innovative technologies can be
difficult to promote; (4) potential cross-media impacts sometimes remain unknown;
(5) missing P2 data from surveys sometimes impedes development of source reduction
options; and (6) P2 and cross-media policy issues are not explored as creatively as
they might be.
Implementation Issues. Based on SRRP rulemaking experience, implementing source
reduction in permitting will raise issues regarding flexibility in timetables, resource
demands on permit writers, cross-media coordination in permitting, and risk sharing
for innovative source reduction approaches.
Recommendations. To make multi-media and P2 perspectives more central in the
development and implementation of EPA rules, the assessment recommends:
1) Emphasizing the key link between cross-media solutions and source reduction;
2) Continuing to place special attention on targeted rules, especially during their
implementation through the permitting and compliance phases;
3) Applying some of the positive SRRP lessons to more rulemakings;
4) . Taking steps to start systematically addressing the obstacles to fostering
prevention:
Reinventing the planning and budgeting processes to enhance cross-
media and P2 outcomes;
Developing a cross-media legislative strategy;
Broadening the flexibility of regulatory requirements;
Deepening Agency understanding of cross-media impacts;
Addressing Paperwork Reduction Act concerns about collecting source
reduction 'data from industry;
Clarifying P2 roles within the Agency; and
5) Linking efforts to address these obstacles to full implementation of the
Common Sense approach and reinvention of EPA.
Appendix A. Appendix A highlights that the assessment is relevant to the common
sense approach and reinvention of EPA because: (1) it provides a partial
demonstration of how regulatory actions can be compatible with the principles of the
Common Sense Initiative (CSI); (2) it provides a source or ideas for making
regulatory actions more compatible with CSI; (3) it reinforces the value of the mission
of EPA's Permits Improvement Team; and (4) it reinforces the value of many of the
priority actions in the Administration's program for reinventing environmental
regulations, and contributes ideas for reinventing EPA.
-------
PREVENTING POLLUTION THROUGH REGULATION:
THE SOURCE REDUCTION REVIEW PROJECT
Assessment
December 1995
Outline
1. The Project 1
2. Approach of this Assessment 2
3. Significance of this Assessment to EPA . . 3
4. Overall Assessment of SRRP Success 3
4.1 Positive Lessons of SKRP for Rule Development 5
4.2 Obstacles to Multi-Media and Pollution Prevention Approaches
as Revealed in SKRP 7
5. Effects Resulting from Unaddressed Obstacles 11
6. Anticipated Issues for Rule Implementation . . . 16
7. Recommendations 17
7.1 Broad-Based Recommendations 17
7.2 Steps for Implementing Recommendation #4 20
8. Conclusion
23
-------
-------
PREVENTING POLLUTION THROUGH REGULATION:
THE SOURCE REDUCTION REVIEW PROJECT
Assessment
December 1995
1. The Project
In 1992, EPA began the Source Reduction Review Project (SRRP)1 in response to the
Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (the Act), which requires the Agency to "review regulations
. . . prior and subsequent to their proposal to determine their effect on source reduction"
(section 4(b)). EPA's goal, through SRRP, has been to foster2 industry's using cross-media,
source reduction measures as the primary means .of complying with regulations. If EPA
cannot find a way to foster source reduction, then it encourages recycling, in accordance
with EPA's pollution prevention.(P2) policy statement (which places source reduction at the
top of the environmental management hierarchy, followed by recycling, then treatment, and
lastly disposal). - .
, As framed in the August 1992 publication, "Source Reduction Review Project," the
initial goal of SRRP has been to evaluate opportunities for.building multi-media pollution
prevention into the development and implementation of a number of specific water, air, and
hazardous waste rulemakings. The longer-term goal of SRRP is to assist EPA in creating a
model for integrating P2 into the development and implementation of its rules generally,
since the Act applies to all EPA rulemaking^
SRRP was 'designed to consist of two phases: rule development and rule.
implementation. The rule development phase of SRRP has established a clear track record,
since seven SRRP rules have been proposed or are near proposal, and two have been made
final.3 One rule implementation activity is underway, and others are being explored.
Participants in SRRP have been .the Office of Science and Technology (OST) in the water office, 'the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) in the. air office, and the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) in OSWER. The Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) has been coordinating SRRP, and OPPT staff cover cross-media, source reduction
issues on SRRP workgroups. The Pollution Prevention Policy Staff played a leading role in initiating SRRP as partners with
OPPT. Office of Research and Development (ORD) laboratories have made significant contributions to the SRRP process
through the research, development, and demonstration of viable pollution prevention approaches and technologies, and ORD
generally has been an active player in SRRP regulatory decision-making. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) and the. Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE) have contacts for SRRP.
Statutes do not authorize EPA in most cases to require use of source reduction measures. Rather, EPA simply
identifies technologies that will meet required emission limits.
Appendix B gives individual assessments of the SRRP rules listed below, describing for each the net source reduction
anticipated (measured across media) and the impediments to using cross-media, source reduction approaches. The rules-are:
-------
2. Approach of this Assessment
This assessment examines primarily the period from 1992 to 1994, when most SRRP
activities took place. This paper analyzes the experience of SRRP participants, namely staff
and managers at the working level, and it meant to reflect their comments on what actually
happened in the development of SRRP rules. Some of this experience includes events
subsequent to 1994. ;
This assessment is intended primarily to assist EPA in meeting the Administrator's
challenge of making pollution prevention the principle of first choice and the central
environmental ethic,.of the Agency. The purpose of this paper is to assess4 how EPA is
* Pulp and Paper Manufacturing NESHAP (National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants, under the
Clean Air Act) and Effluent Guideline (under the Clean Water Act). Proposed 12/93; final expected no earlier
than late 1995. These affect pulp and paper mills and are EPA's first integrated rules, a benchmark for cross-
media rulemaking.
* Halogenated Solvent Cleaners (Degreasing) NESHAP (CAA). Proposed 11/93; final 11/94. This rule covers
halogenated solvent cleaning machines used in making furniture, fixtures, metal products, and
electric/electronic/transportation equipment.
* Carbamates Hazardous Waste Listing (RGRA Subtitle C). Proposed 3/94; final 2/95. EPA proposed listing six
wastestreams from the production of carbamates as "hazardous." This affects about 25 sites making organic
chemicals. OSW will also be determining the Best Demonstrated Available Technology for treating these wastes.
* Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging Effluent Guideline "Pesticide Formulating Effluent Guideline"
(CWA). Proposed 3/94; final due 3/96. This affects about 3,500 facilities.
* Metal Products and Machinery Effluent Guideline (Phase I) (CWA). Proposed 5/95; final due 9/96. This effluent
guideline covers facilities that make, rebuild or maintain finished metal parts, products, or machines. Phase I
covers aerospace, aircraft, electronics, hardware, ordnance, and mobile and stationary industrial equipment.
* Pharmaceuticals Effluent Guideline (CWA). Proposed 5/95; final due late 1996. This affects about 304
manufacturing facilities, who already recycle 2/3 of their solvents.
* Wood Furniture Manufacturing NESHAP (CAA). Proposed 11/94; final due 11/95. This affects wood furniture
makers; sources of emissions are coatings, glues, clean-up, and wood cutting and storage. OAQPS developed the
proposal through regulatory negotiation with State, industry, and public interest representatives.
4 Several preparatory steps were taken for this assessment. OPPT studied opportunities and barriers to fostering
prevention through regulations in early 1993, and then convened a September cross-program meeting to discuss SRRP
coordination, opportunities for "clustering" development of SRRP rules, and sharing data and technology across SRRP
workgroups and with other offices. Later in September 1993, OPPT convened a workshop for SRRP participants to discuss
rulemaking successes, obstacles to fostering source reduction in rulemaking, and ways to overcome the obstacles. OPPT
continued to assess SRRP activities and solicit comments from other EPA offices. Studies considered during development of
this paper include: 1) the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology's "Transforming
Environmental Permitting and Compliance Policy to Promote Pollution Prevention: Removing Barriers and Providing
Incentives to Foster Technology Innovation, Economic Productivity, and Environmental Protection"; 2) the Business .
Roundtable's "Facility-Level Pollution Prevention Benchmarking Study"; 3) EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation's study of efforts to cluster EPA rulemakings; and 4) Integrated Pollution Control: A Symposium,
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW, Vol. 22, No. 1 (1992).
-------
doing in fostering P2 through its regulations, in part by having the media programs join
OPPT in reflecting upon SRRP progress, and to recommend next steps. It can also serve as
an internal tool for educating a spectrum of personnel about issues EPA faces as it moves
increasingly toward P2 (and therefore multi-media) approaches for protecting the
environment. . . ', ' ~
3. Significance of this Assessment to EPA
The value of this assessment to EPA is not only as a measurement of the SRRP
experiment, but also as: (a) a partial demonstration of how regulatory actions can be
compatible with the common sense approach5; (b) a source of ideas for making regulatory
actions more compatible with the common sense approach; and (c) a source of ideas for
reinventing EPA6. This paper helps to support CSI and other regulatory reinvention
initiatives, adds another perspective'on.the issues being engaged in these initiatives,-and
raises related issues for thought and .discussion.
s ' "
As a partial demonstration of how regulatory actions can be compatible with CSI, the
assessment gives examples of actions providing incentives for P2, actions encouraging new
technologies, actions building partnerships with stakeholders, actions making economic sense,
and. actions exploring multi-media approaches. It also explores ideas for increasing P2
incentives, expanding multi-media approaches, and further encouraging technological
innovation through regulatory action. Finally, -it reinforces the value of many of this
Administration's priority actions for reinventing environmental regulation. It explores ideas
for remaking our organizational structures work to support the new generation of
environmental approaches, redesigning the way the Agency does its work, and changing
EPA's culture to facilitate reaching Agency objectives. -
Appendix A gives citations:to pages in the text and Appendix B that discuss
issues relevant to the common sense approach and. regulatory reinvention.
In 1994, Administrator Browner took the principle of organizing environmental efforts by industrial sector and
created the Common Sense Initiative (CSI) which as these goals for six pilot industry sectors: 1) coordinated review of
regulations; 2) pollution prevention; 3) simplified record-keeping/reporting; 4) permit streamlining; 5)
compliance/enforcement initiatives; and 6) innovative technology. In late November 1994, the Admiinistratiion identified as
an EPA priority the full implementation of the common sense approach. This includes examining all regulatory actions
currently underway to see if they are compatible with the principles of CSI and, if not, to reconsider their approach. .
This Administration identified reinventing EPA as an Agency priority in 1994. On March 16, 1995, President
Clinton and Vice President Gore released a report containing a comprehensive set of 25 high priority actions for reinventing
environmental regulations. The first track is a set of actions targeted to fixing problems with today's regulatory programs,
and the second track is a set of actiions designed to develop innovative alternatives to the current regulatory system.
-------
4. Overall Assessment of SRRP Progress
Successes: Steps Taken, Obstacles Identified. SRRP rule-writing efforts to date are
a major step in the right direction. EPA can be proud of the substantial work that went into
writing these rules with a source reduction perspective. Many of the proposed and final
rules set limits that can be achieved, at least in part, by using source reduction technologies
and approaches, and some of them document specific source reduction approaches in rule
preambles and development documents. SRRP experience to date indicates that practical
solutions most often combine source reduction, recycling, and treatment. If EPA implements
these rules hi a way that emphasizes the source reduction aspects of the rules' design, then
EPA will hi all likelihood foster significant progress hi preventing pollution.
Although the August 1992 guidance on SRRP did not specifically state its measures of
success, the guidance does state, "The emphases of the [SRRP] will be on rigorous technical
analysis as the underpinning for incorporating source reduction into regulations, and on a
coordinated, multi-media approach to rulemaking." In assessing the success of SRRP, it is
helpful to recognize that SRRP is the beginning of a transition for EPA. Measuring current
SRRP results from the perspective of how EPA has traditionally developed rules, it is clear
that EPA programs are making significant strides toward incorporating a P2 ethic into their
rulemakings. Generally, they have collected more P2 data, added technical and economic
analyses of P2 options and technologies, and engaged hi more cross-media analysis .than in
rulemakings prior to SRRP. Nonetheless, they have encountered significant obstacles that
kept them from getting all the data they needed and addressing certain issues. (These
obstacles will be discussed hi section 3.2.) If these obstacles can be overcome, then future
efforts to foster prevention through regulations should benefit substantially.
One major success in SRRP is the identification of these obstacles and the general
agreement among participants that they must be addressed. An inherent challenge in
fostering source reduction through national rules is that source reduction measures cannot
always be applied broadly across an industry; these institutional obstacles facing participants
greatly compounded this challenge. These obstacles contribute routinely to the inefficient use
of Agency resources, and have placed serious constraints on the results attainable through
SRRP. EPA should address these barriers hi a systemic way. The importance of doing so
lies hi the direct relationship this bears on whether the Agency can successfully meet the
Administrator's objective of making prevention the principle of first choice in all EPA
mainstream operations, and to the resulting benefits anticipated for the environment and the
economy.'
SRRP Impact on Rulemaking Generally is Mixed; Lack of Consistent Multi-Media
and P2 Perspective in Rulemaking. An EPA long-term goal, through SRRP and other
efforts, is to develop a model for routinely building multi-media and prevention approaches
into environmental regulations. SRRP has increased people's awareness of source reduction,
and consequently some questions are asked that may not have been addressed before. SRRP
was an important catalyst hi launching efforts such as those made in developing the
-------
ESD/OAQPS prevention training, the preamble language in the Magnetic Tape NESHAP
addressing prevention, OAQPS' use of a broad source definition in CAA Sections 112(g) and
112(j), the prevention ideas incorporated in OST's non-seryice industry effluent guidelines,
OST's initiation of a life-cycle analysis for a service industry effluent guideline, and OSW's
investigation of source-reduction/recycling in the hazardous waste listings for dyes and
petroleum.
In spite of these steps forward, cross-media and P2 approaches are still not used
consistently in EPA rule development and implementation. The routine constraints and '
deadlines that interfere with effective planning generally act as substantial obstacles to taking
a cross-media perspective and integrating P2 into regulations. When these obstacles are
perceived as jeopardizing a timely output, the organization generally feels compelled to
proceed with or without careful attention to opportunities for pollution prevention. For the
integration of prevention to be seen as more central to the core rulemaking, the Agency must
be willing to address some combination of the obstacles to allow for better timing, better use
of resources, meaningful coordination, creativity, and clarity of roles.
4.1 Positive Lessons of SKRPfor Rule Development
The SKRP project shows that certain activities contribute positively to EPA's P2 ethic
in rulemaking. These steps are proving effective or bear substantial promise for further
development and refinement. These steps are widely applicable in rulemaking. They are:
(a) Focus on Cross-Media Data Collection and Cross-Media Analysis of Regulatory
Options. These are key. points for taking action. Collecting release and source reduction
data across all media and conducting thorough cross-media analysis, for all releases to all
media, lays the foundation for assessing cross-media transfers associated with various
options. A good example of thorough cross-media analysis is the risk characterization that
OSW did in the Carbamates Hazardous Waste Listing (see Appendix B, page 4). Sharing
insights on effective approaches is also useful; good examples are a May 1994 discussion
between OW and OSW economists on using full cost accounting in evaluating regulatory
options, and QSW's use of source reduction language from OST's preamble for the
Pesticides Formulating Effluent Guideline in its Carbamates Hazardous Waste Listing.
(b) Write Standard to be Flexible. Writing the standard so it allows industry
flexibility is key because P2 approaches are generally not "one size fits all" (for industrial
process and economic reasons) and new P2 technologies can emerge after a rale is issued.
As- noted in (c), consulting with stakeholders helps achieve a balance between flexibility and
conformity. .-
An excellent example of flexibility can be found hi the proposed Pesticide
Formulating Effluent Guideline (the 6/95 Federal Register Supplemental Notice version).
This proposed approach gives industry flexibility in several key'areas: (1) it allows facilities
to .choose between meeting zero-discharge requirements or using P2 practices (this latter
-------
option allows them to discharge remaining pollutants to water, based on multi-media benefits
associated with P2 practices); (2) it allows.facilities room for technological innovation
because permit-Writers are being given explicit authority to approve P2 practices not listed in
the rule; and (3) it allows facilities the potential to avoid in-plant treatment altogether, as
permit writers will have the authority to determine if in-plant treatment is unnecessary based
on how clean the discharge has become as a result of P2 practices. (See Appendix B, p. 6).
(c) Test New Territory with Stakeholders. Consulting with stakeholders in advance
of and in addition to the normal comment process useful in any rulemaking also helps
foster prevention. Offices are finding it helpful to test new territory with stakeholders
industry, environmentalists, and States to see what can work for everyone. In
performance standards, for example, EPA must strike a balance between the flexibility
industry wants (to experiment, meet diverse needs, etc.), and the conformity inspectors need
to measure performance. For this reason alone, OAQPS found consultation useful in
developing the Aerospace and Wood Furniture NESHAPs, among other rules (in the Wood
Furniture NESHAP, industry might also help collect needed data after the rule is final). In
the Pesticide Formulating Effluent Guideline, mutual interest between OST and the
stakeholders led to a Supplemental Notice adding a P2 alternative under the Guideline.
(d) Coordinate Agenda-Setting. Setting compatible dates for rules affecting the same
industry is key to cross-media coordination. In the Pulp and Paper rules, the Administrator
and Assistant Administrators made a historic decision to integrate rule development.
Deadlines were synchronized, and EPA made its first attempt at writing a combined air and
water rule for an industry. While there are numerous issues associated with this effort, the
resulting proposal contains elements that are among the strongest for fostering prevention.
The experience of Pulp and Paper can offer lessons for the next integration effort.
(e) Use Preamble and Development Document. Industry and permit-writers need to
have the rule preamble and development document (1) discuss findings regarding the
applicability of P2 measures for the source category and cross-media implications of various
compliance approaches, and (2) encourage source reduction as a compliance strategy, even if
not required. (Good examples can be found in the Pesticide Formulating and Metal Products
Effluent Guidelines.)
(f) Use Program-Tailored Training. Staff training could be used widely to integrate
prevention ttanking into offices' rulemaking cultures. In one approach, an OAQPS division
first surveyed staff on P2 efforts, and then conducted State-led training that took cases from
the survey. Training should cover rulemaking case studies whenever possible.
(g) Use Statute-Specific Approaches. Background information is included in
Appendix B and is further available from the Pollution Prevention Division in OPPTS.
'Clean Air Act In setting NESHAP emission limits, it is useful to: (1) define
"source" broadly, when an entire facility is the regulated source, to include facilities having
-------
low-to-zero releases of hazardous air pollutants (this not only helps data collection, but also
helps determine the.MACT (Maximum Achievable: Control Technology) floor - performance
.of top 12% of industry and thus the standard itself); (2) consider whether a subcategory of
an industry could have its own source reduction-based standard, if such an approach would
not work for the industry as a whole; and (3) consider factors listed in Title in such as .non-
air media impacts and costs (energy costs, materials savings, treatment costs/savings.)
Clean Water Act In setting effluent guideline limits, it is useful to: (1) consider
whether an industry subcategory could have its own source reduction-based standard, if such
a standard wouldn't apply to the whole industry (these rules often cover more industry
.subcategories than NESHAPs); (2) use P2-based management practices to augment best
available technologies, especially for small facilities; (3) include source reduction options in
economic analyses; (4) consider non-water quality impacts, such as the pollutant loadings
from hauling and incineration of wastes associated with zero discharge limits; and, (5) use
mass-based effluent limits whenever practicable.
RCRA Useful approaches for determining a list of hazardous constituents arid the
Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) for recovering or treating those
constituents include: (1) modeling all media pathways during risk characterizations to identify
releases to all media and identify regulatory gaps (cross-media analysis enhances prevention
options); (2) using concentration-based:listings to provide an incentive for facilities to limit
releases of hazardous wastes; and (3) investigating BDAT at the same time.as the hazardous
waste listing is being developed; this way, the criterion for selecting which chemicals go on a
list can be whether they are all compatible with a particular recovery-based (as opposed to a
treatment-based) technology.
(h) Train Contractors. Contractors often provide technical assistance to EPA in its
development of rules. Requiring them to take prevention training (as being explored1 by
OAQPS) .would be quite useful.
4.2 Obstacles to Multi-Media and P2 Outcomes as Revealed in SRRP
Six Main Obstacles. This assessment identifies six obstacles that detract from a
consistently strong multi-media and P2 perspective in rulemaking. SRRP participants found
these obstacles were usually beyond their immediate control (but not necessarily beyond.
EPA's capacity to initiate or influence change), and they and SRRP observers generally
conclude that these obstacles impede cross-media and P2' results in rulemakings across the
Agency. They are:
> The lack of incentives for multi-media coordination hi planning and budgeting;
> The piecemeal nature of the statutory framework;
> Some challenges in promoting P2 process changes and innovative technologies;
> The lack of understanding about cross-media impacts;
-------
> The lack of resolution about collecting source reduction data through industry
surveys; and
> Unclear roles --'how to share P2 leadership among all major EPA offices.
(a) First Obstacle: The Lack of Incentives for Multi-Media Coordination in
Planning and Budgeting. -Through SKRP, EPA created new incentives for inter-office
coordination, but did not fundamentally alter7 offices' independent priority setting, resource
planning, and budgeting on rules: To meet the goal of considering cross-media impacts hi
conjunction with source reduction, SRRP participants had to coordinate their work more than
ever before across offices; yet without more coordination of offices' priority setting, strategic
and resource planning, and budgeting having taken place, they found opportunities for
coordinating and integrating work were sometimes limited. This diminished the effectiveness
of their efforts to redefine what can be achieved under existing statutes.
Historically, almost no one has expected EPA offices to coordinate their planning and
budgeting from a multi-media perspective. The long-standing expectation has been that each
program should focus on its own agenda priorities, operating plan, budget, and outputs.
EPA offices generally do not coordinate their regulatory agendas, budgets, or resource
planning sufficiently to lay a meaningful foundation for cross-media and pollution prevention
outputs. While EPA is now emphasizing cross-media and prevention approaches hi rules, the
Agency has been slower to change its budget and agenda-setting policies and processes to
promote cross-media and prevention outcomes. Since budgets and deadlines decisively affect
the outcome of Work, independent decision-making in these key activities is now serving as a
limitation on offices' abilities to foresee and respond to needs for mutual coordination in
working across media.
EPA's principal statutes do not give EPA an incentive to coordinate planning and
budgeting from a multi-media perspective, because these statutes focus more on controlling
releases to individual media, than on minimizing cross-media transfers of waste or integrating
rules. The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 created a national policy favoring prevention,
but didn't amend EPA's core statutes or create new remedies.8 So, as before, EPA still
works with a framework hi which statutes are largely not coordinated with one another. This
statutory framework has led to another long-standing expectation, which is that offices should
7 EPA began SRRP before this Administrator's arrival. This Administration has been taking steps to add incentives
for coordinating approaches to environmental protection. With the Pollution Prevention Policy Statement; the Administrator
emphasized the need to minimize cross-media transfer of waste. She also put enforcement back together as a multi-media
office, organized on an industrial sector basis. She then used this same industry-sector principle and created the Common
Sense Initiative. She also invited States and Tribes to the 1993 budgeting meeting to hear directly about their needs and
interests. This Administration has also set many other initiatives in motion, including the recent 25 high priority actions for
reinventing environmental regulation (see footnote 6).
8 Rather, the-Act (Section 6608). requests EPA feedback on regulatory -and nonregulatory barriers to source reduction,
opportunities for using existing regulatory programs, and incentives and disincentives for source reduction.
8 .
-------
independently apply their own regulatory tools, based on the goals of their own programs.9
Virtually no one has expected'EPA offices to plan how to bring together technology-based
and risk-based tools from the entire regulatory framework and coordinate their use to address
cross-media and prevention concerns.
(b) 2nd Obstacle: The Piecemeal Nature of the Statutory Framework. If the
statutory framework were better coordinated across media, one would expect multi-media and
P2 outcomes to be enhanced considerably in EPA ralemaking. An expanding literature
discusses the barriers presented by single-media statutes and their piecemeal agendas: The
existing framework is one in which statutes are generally not coordinated with one another in
term of specific deadlines, chemicals to be regulated, methodologies, or approaches to setting
regulatory standards. This impedes EPA coordination and drains industry resources.
Do Specific Statutes Pose Barriers? To some extent the answer is yes. For example,
although some language in the amended CAA clearly supports prevention approaches, its
structure imposes some limitations on using P2 approaches as the bases for standards. The
CAA requirement of setting standards at .the average emission level, of the best 12% of
industry performers can limit the use of P2 approaches. If EPA lacks data to prove that P2
approaches can match the performance for air emissions achieved by the top 12% of
industry, then EPA cannot designate these P2 approaches as ones that achieve the emission
limits of the MACT standard.
Further, the CAA requires 'EPA to address 189 hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), and
the inflexibility of this requirement can often mean requiring expensive control devices even
when prevention options exist. This can happen because available P2 options might not
reduce total HAP emissions to a level achievable through control devices, leaving EPA with
little choice except to require control devices. This can have the affect of curtailing P2
investments, because of the competing expense of the required control devices.
The lack of explicit direction in RCRA and CWA statutory language on prevention
fosters a perception that these statutes'do not make prevention a priority, but it is not clear
whether they pose actual barriers. Lastly, there is a tension between the authority under
environmental statutes for collecting source reduction data from industry and the Paperwork
Reduction Act (see discussion in (e) below). .
(c) 3rd Obstacle: Challenges in Promoting P2 Process Changes and Innovative
Technologies. Many P2 opportunities are based on changes that can be made to industrial
processes inside the plant. EPA's ability to use its knowledge of industrial processes to
foster P2 depends on such factors as the breadth of the industrial category being regulated,
the complexity of. the industrial processes in question, and how quantifiable the P2 reductions
and benefits are. Broadly-defined industrial categories make it hard for EPA to use the
9 ' ~
"Regulatory tools" refers to the collective body.of techniques and approaches used to execute regulatory statutes.
-------
performance of P2-based processes changes as a basis for compliance, because these .
processes can vary tremendously from plant to plant. Similarly, when P2 approaches vary a
lot from plant to plant, this makes it difficult to quantify P2 reductions and benefits.
Innovative technologies are often promising for P2. When investigating innovations
during rule development, personnel sometimes face difficulties in finding a measurable track
record for recent innovations to justify using them as a basis for a rule. When innovation
occurs after a rule is final, it becomes a permitting decision whether the new technology will
qualify as compliance. Technically, rules based on. technology performance do not command
the use of the referenced technology but, as a practical matter, permit writers often rely
heavily on this technology because evaluating innovations burden their workload. This
creates a challenge for encouraging innovative technologies.
(d) 4th Obstacle:. Lack of Knowledge about Cross-Media Impacts. The major shift
toward P2 at the Agency leaves EPA with an expertise problem on cross-media impacts.
EPA currently knows more about single-media analysis than either (1) cross-media analysis,
or (2) comparative analysis of P2 approaches minimizing cross-media transfers versus control
approaches maximizing reductions to a single media.
(e) 5th Obstacle: Lack of Resolution on Collecting Source Reduction Data Through
Industry Surveys. The main vehicle that some media offices use to obtain needed data on
source reduction and recycling practices is the Information Collection Request (industry
survey). Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, EPA must obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for gathering data from more than nine independent sources.
Although reference materials are generally available on P2 approaches, specific opportunities
can often only be identified through learning about the industries to be regulated. OMB has
repeatedly asked, in particular, whether OSW questions on. source reduction relevant to it
listing determinations were necessary. Due to consent decrees and related tune
constraints, OSW has chosen in all but one case10 to leave questions voluntary rather than
entering into further negotiations with OMB, which might have significantly delayed its data
collection efforts and listing progress. Information is necessary and empowering, and lack of
source reduction data through surveys has served as a barrier to developing source reduction
options.
(f) 6th Obstacle: Unclear Roles How to Share Leadership Among All Major EPA
Offices on Various Aspects of Multi-Media and P2 Approaches. Lack of clarity about how
to share leadership on various aspects of multi-media and P2 approaches creates some
confusion. For example, it is widely acknowledged that it is difficult to share data across
offices, but it is not clear whose role it is to take the lead in resolving this issue. Also,
within the traditional framework of working relationships, media offices respond to how the
10 OSW, with upper management support, got an agreement from OMB that its survey of the petroleum industry could
contain mandatory source reduction questions.
10
-------
other EPA offices conduct their business, and vice versa, so a status quo role by virtually
any part of the organization tends to inhibit the .overall evolution to more P2 and cross-media
approaches. Lack of clarity about one's leadership role on prevention can result in little risk-
taking and a reluctance to elevate P2 policy issues. This, in turn, can limit the Agency's
creativity in finding ways -to define the functional relationships among offices as a matrix that
promotes cross-media and P2 outcomes.
5. Effects Resulting from Unaddressed Obstacles
5.1 Effects Resulting From the Lack of Incentives for
Multi-Media Coordination in Planning and Budgeting.
(a) Few Cross-Media Resource Allocations; Narrow Focus of Analysis. Analyzing
multiple media pathways enhances the quality of regulatory options for fostering prevention.
Yet, programs often face resource allocations that are not conducive to the cross-media
analysis that is beneficial to the development and evaluation of source reduction options.
Few resource allocations are made according to cross-media needs, and once EPA has
allocated resources according to single-media heeds, there are seldom resources for needed
cross-media work. When programs respond to these constraints by narrowing their focus to
exclude some media pathways, this perpetuates the difficulty of bridging gaps between single-
media perspectives on multi-media phenomena.11
The tendency of offices to narrow their focus is common. Research suggests that rule
writing workgroups give limited consideration to the issue of where residual releases might
re-enter the environment after treatment.12 EPA's recently initiated tiering of rules (for .
purposes of internal review) indicates offices place the vast majority of their rules in Tier 3,
which presumes little involvement from other offices, streamlines review, and is designed for
rules having mirtimal cross-media impacts. Offices choosing Tier 3 usually respond "no" oh
the tiering form to whether cross-media impacts are foreseen for the rule. Maintaming a
11 SRRP provides several examples of the difficulty of bridging media gaps through single-media planning. First, a
routine factor in developing effluent guidelines, including Metal Products and Machinery, is that industries pay to have their
wastewaters hauled off-site for treatment. Agency analysis counts the cost of contract hauling, but counts the pollutant
loadings from contract hauling as zero. While EPA deals with these pollutant loadings in central waste treater and
incineration effluent guidelines and underground injection rules, it does not conduct an integrated assessment of how these
wastes hauled off-site might be transferred across several media, and how to minimize this. Second, in the Carbamates
Hazardous Waste Listing, OSW did cross-media modeling for characterizing risk and found unregulated carbamate air
emissions that it felt RCRA could not address. Yet, opportunities for OSW and OAQPS to coordinate on other options for
addressing these unregulated air emissions were limited, due to issues of timing, resource allocations, and communications
associated with single-media planning. (It is quite resource-intensive as it is in the RCRA Subtitle C program to develop
source reduction incentives through concentration-based listings; it would be beneficial if cross-media benefits could ensue
from these efforts.) '.
' See "Potential Impact of Future EPA Regulations on Hazardous Waste Combustion," 10/94 Draft Report by Radian
Corp. for OPPT. .
' 11 ' .
-------
single-media perspective avoids having a rule in Tier 2, which presumes more complete
multi-office involvement.
Problems can worsen when budget trade-offs within a media office have a large
impact on all Later-office coordination. The OAQPS budget for developing NESHAPs was
cut substantially for FY 1994195. This impedes the ability of OAQPS to sustain its prior
level of cross-media arid source reduction analysis for SRRP rules (much less expand to other
rules), postpones numerous NESHAPs for one to four or more years, and gives OAQPS little
or no flexibility to coordinate with OST or OSW hi any rulemakings, with or without OPPT
assistance. Since the regulatory agenda for NESHAPs now dwarfs those for effluent
guidelines and hazardous waste listings (due to reauthorization of the CAA), this will have
big repercussions on cross-media coordination, and the generation of source reduction
options, across rulemaking generally.
(b) Few Synchronized Deadlines; liming Problems. In many cases, two or three
media offices have rules affecting the same industries. Since EPA does not have
synchronized deadlines for such rules, this imposes limitations on the Agency's ability to
address cross-media issues. Resolving cross-media issues during single-media rulemaking
expands the workload, and EPA has been-reluctant to jeopardize single-media deadlines.13
In rulemakings outside the SRRP framework, workgroup members often do not raise cross-
media issues, as this could interfere with a timely output.
(c) Missed Opportunities for Teamwork on Cross-Media Impacts. Limited
coordination at the planning level contributes to the difficulty of addressing the relative risks
of chemical substitutes. To address substitutes typically involves analyzing the relative risks
of volatile chemicals and/or aqueous chemicals. This is a task well-suited to risk analysts,
who may not be found in the media office leading the development of a technology-based
rule. This makes the case for selectively combining EPA's technology-based and risk-based
tools to resolve questions of cross-media impacts that may arise as a result of a media rule.
13 For example, EPA tried to resolve cross-media issues common to the Metal Products and Machinery Effluent
Guideline and Degreasing NESHAP, but single-media deadlines made this difficult. Although the rules were not
synchronized at the outset, OAQPS, OST, and OPPT were working collaboratively to show the environmental impacts of
substitution and other compliance approaches for these two rules-and how the use of substitutes would affect the cost of
complying with Metal Products. The timetables for the rules grew further apart, and this factor weighed against
accomplishing the task (the end product was to be data for industry).
EPA also tried to resolve cross-media issues common to the Pharmaceuticals air and water rules. Given a
commitment to meeting their own single-media schedules (proposed water rule 5/95, proposed air rule 7/96), the best OST
and OAQPS could do was coordinate activities to mutually shape the water rule. But stakeholders are not satisfied with
OST's basing the rule on the performance of a technology that addresses water and air concerns, and are now asking why
these rules were not integrated, believing the "best" CWA option for addressing multi-media issues may not be as good as
combined CWA/CAA regulatory options. (As of this writing, industry is concerned that their flexibility may be jeopardized
if the final water rule is based on a technology that results in water benefits and significant air benefits and that costs more
than the technology which is solely geared to water concerns.)
12
-------
(This is not saying risk assessment should be routinely required in technology-based
standards.) OAQPS and OST efforts14 to engage OPPT risk analysts, a very positive step,
could have benefited from early, multi-office, synchronized planning.
(d) Limited Information-Sharing Between Regulatory and Other Programs. Several
SRRP participants and observers have noted that better coordination between regulatory and
non-regulatory efforts could improve results in fostering P2 through regulations.15
Voluntary, right-to-know, and technical assistance programs can be good sources of P2 data
to inform ralemaking. Front-end coordination could also involve personnel who will be
involved in permitting and compliance, since they are a key link between regulators and the
regulated community, and could shed light on what approaches could fair well during
implementation.
(e) Difficulty in Sharing Data Across Media Offices. Numerous SRRP participants
have observed it is not easy to share data across offices, due to differences in data formats
and data often being with different EPA contractors. This situation alone is a major
impediment to cross-media analysis. It is a situation more easily addressed systemically than
in individual rulemakings.
5.2 Effects Resulting From the Piecemeal Statutory Framework.
1) Difficulty in Developing Integrated Cross-Media Strategies. Statutory deadlines
for single-media rules are not coordinated by .industry sectors. This makes it very hard for
EPA to develop cross-media strategies, because the Agency can rarely work on all media
aspects of an industry at the same time; the timing is usually off by years. When the Agency
is sued, consent decrees usually establish new independent deadlines, thus perpetuating and
compounding the problem. This is a roadblock in virtually all rulemaking, including all
SRRP rules - except the pulp and paper rules which have integrated deadlines. (For
example, the Degreasing NESHAP consent deadline precluded synchronizing its development
with the Metal Products Effluent Guideline; Degreasing deadline precluded addressing the
impacts of aqueous cleaners; OSW did not request OMB approval for mandatory source
14 As noted in footnote 13, the workgroups in the Degreasing NESHAP and Metal Products and Machinery Effluent
Guideline did not pursue investigations of aqueous cleaners' impacts on their own, but turned to a collaborative effort among
OAQPS, OST, and OPPT about the time Degreasing was proposed. This multi-office effort evolved because the
workgroups for both rules did not find existing data easy to assimilate on the environmental and health effects of aqueous
cleaners, potential substitutes for regulated cleaners in both rules. The offices assumed some facilities would resppnd to
both rules by substituting unregulated aqueous cleaners for regulated ones, and OPPT agreed to try creating data on
comparative hazards. The task was quite involved, given the myriad of cleaner formulations, and the need for more lead
time was another factor that weighed against accomplishing the task. ' *
One opportunity almost missed was in the Drydeaning NESHAP (a non-SRRP rule), where the focus was on
controls rather than P2 alternatives. At the same time, a voluntary EPA Design for Environment initiative was investigating
an improved drycle'aning technology with fewer cross-media impacts. Fortunately, EPA used the new technology as a basis
for the final .rule.
13
-------
reduction questions in its Solvents Listing industry survey due to probable delay in meeting
consent decree.) .
2) Difficulty in Setting Priorities on an Industry-Sector Basis. In the regulatory
scheme, lack of synchronization among statutory approaches and chemical lists and the
absence of administrative discretion to evaluate pollutant priorities on a sector basis leave
little room for exercising common sense when trying to get the most environmental
protection per dollar on a sector basis. For example, if cross-media analysis for an industry
reveals that, in one industrial process, releases of greatest concern are primarily to air, but
the CAA regulatory agenda does not focus on this industrial process, and/or only the CWA
regulatory'agenda focuses on this industrial process, this makes it hard for EPA to address
this situation according to the priorities of multi-media risk.
5.3 Effects Resulting From Some Difficulties in Promoting
P2 Process Changes and Innovative Technologies.
(a) Process Changes Difficult to Use as Basis for Limits in Broad Industrial
Categories. EPA-'s preliminary success with writing a P2 alternative in a proposed rule,
based on its knowledge of P2 process changes, confirms the value of investigating P2 process
changes. Yet, factors contributing to this positive outcome hi the proposed Pesticides
Formulating Effluent Guideline the narrowly-defined industrial category and the lack of
complexity in the industry's processes and wastestreams are not present in every case.
The Metal Products and Machinery Effluent Guideline presents a different scenario, with a
broadly-defined industrial category and more diverse, complex processes. The opportunity
for re-creating the use of a P2 alternative in the proposed Metal Products rule does not
appear viable, based on the great diversity of facilities affected by the rule.
(b) Difficult to Quantify Some P2 Benefits. Personnel are used to quantifying the
actual reductions and health benefits associated with add-on controls, and at least some are
finding it difficult to quantify the reductions and benefits for P2 approaches, either because
they are not one-size-fits-all for an industry sector, or because they are having some
difficulty in getting measurable track records for some P2 innovations, and this has
sometimes led them to choose control options. .
(c) Permitting Can Stymie Use of Innovative Technologies. Some facilities
reportedly experience difficulty in getting approval for innovative technologies as a basis for
their operating permits, when innovation has occurred after a final rule.
5.4 Effects Resulting From the Lack of Cross-Media Understanding.
Potential Cross-Media Impacts Unknown. Cross-media impacts may be associated
with the Wood Furniture NESHAP, the Degreasing NESHAP, and the Metal Products and
Machinery Effluent Guideline, yet the relative risks of these impacts are unknown. In the
case of the wood furniture rule, industry might help collect data after the final rule is issued.
14
-------
5.5 Effects Resulting From Lack of Resolution on Collecting
Source Reduction Data through Industry Surveys.
Difficulty in Gathering Needed Data. As a result of OMB discouraging some offices
from using mandatory source reduction questions in industrial surveys, these offices have had
difficulty in gathering data needed for developing options. For example, in the SRRP
Solvents Listing, OMB discouraged OSW from using mandatory source reduction questions in
their survey because it felt that if source reduction was good for industry, facilities would
already be doing it on their own. (Experience suggests, however, that companies are often
unfamiliar with the analytic tools that would reveal the savings achievable through P2.)
OSW decided to use voluntary source reduction questions to avoid further negotiations hi the
face of a consent decree deadline.16 OSW received virtually no data on waste minimization
in the survey responses, which impeded development of waste minimization options for this
listing. OSW could not fill in the data gaps through site, visits, because solvent use is too
diverse to capture in a few visits.
5.6 Effects Resulting From Unclear Roles on P2 Leadership Among Offices.
Business as Usual. Media offices work in connection with all other EPA offices, and
all affect each other's ability to reinvent Agency business to enhance P2 outcomes. For
example, in the context of mamstream rulemaking, OGC traditionally defers from raising P2
policy questions, yet media offices'tend to avoid potential risks identified by OGC.
Generally, media offices are kept busy with regulatory action, and other offices have key
roles to play in designing the planning and other systems that structure EPA decision-making
on regulatory action and other matters. Offices such as OARM, OPPE, OGC, and OECA
are involved in budgeting, planning, legal, and enforcement issues, and their involvement is
key for reinventing approaches that affect decision-making on regulatory action. In the
context of SRRP, it has sometimes appeared difficult for the separate offices of EPA to use
their interconnectedness in a focused way to enhance the success of P2 outcomes.
"Reinforcing messages may be needed to clarify expectations. SRRP participants
were sometimes unaware of the importance of coordinating with other media offices to gather
cross-media data relevant to their rulemaking. This happened only in instances where one
media rule was under development for an industry. Nonetheless, emphasizing source '
reduction by itself has not necessarily meant to people that they should coordinate with other
offices to examine cross-media impacts. -
As stated in footnote 10, OSW, with upper management support, got OMB's okay for using mandatory source
reduction questions in .its petroleum industry survey, ..
' 15
-------
6. Anticipated Issues for Permitting, Compliance, and Enforcement
The implementation of new and existing regulatory standards is a key phase of
activity for fostering source reduction, a phase of activity that warrants attention if EPA rules
are to result in actual use of P2 approaches. Implementation is key because: 1) there is a
great deal more flexibility to foster P2 approaches through specific facility permitting than.
through nationwide rules; 2) EPA rules cannot always capture the state of technological
innovation during rule development; and 3) the market place also has .non-source reduction
technologies that facilities could choose to meet EPA limits. Based on SRRP rulemaking
experience, the following are some issues that EPA will need to address to foster source
reduction through permitting, compliance, and enforcement activities.
Flexible Permitting Timetables. EPA and States often lack flexibility in permitting
timetables to accommodate the longer time it may take to implement P2 technologies, and the
possibility that new P2 approaches may not work. Facing relatively short tune constraints,
.facilities with a choice between P2 and controls will tend to install controls. Facilities with
little choice besides prevention may need to begin before a rule is final, which is a bit risky.
This is the case for a few mills affected by the proposed Pulp and Paper rules, who would .
have to retrofit to meet a chlorine-free performance standard. . .
Permit Writers Will Need Help. Without more flexibility in permitting timetables and
adjustments to their own workloads17, permit writers will have difficulty finding time for the
facility investigations that may be needed to justify writing source reduction into a specific
permit. Outreach to permit writers (mostly in state programs) and industry will be key.
Permit writers may .need to work with a range of P2 options so .they can demonstrate
flexibility in approving facility permits, and industry will need compliance assistance.
Development documents, routinely produced as background on the rule, could be used as a
source of guidance on applicable source reduction measures, and more user-friendly guidance
manuals may also be needed. Regional/State non-regulatory P2 staff could also help, permit
writers by assisting with targeted, compliance outreach to industry.
Support of Local Authorities Needed for Mass-Based Effluent Limits. A major issue
for prevention in the water program is finding a way to- make more effective use of mass-
based effluent limits for indirect dischargers. Unlike the traditional concentration-based
limits, mass-based limits minimize the possibility of diluting a wastestream with water as a
way of meeting an effluent limit, and thus promote source reduction in very concrete terms.
Generally, local control authorities (POTWs) write the NPDES permits for industrial indirect
dischargers. With mass-based limits, POTWs would have to convert concentration-based
limits to mass-based limits, on the basis of historical water flow. They would also have to
change their inspection practices from end-of-pipe grab samples to uvplant inspections of
The Permits Improvement Team is working on administrative streamlining and alternatives to individual permits as
ways to ease the workloads of permit writers so they can devote more time to complex and pollution prevention-based
permits. . . .
16
-------
flow meters. The Metal Products and Machinery Effluent Guideline is a testing ground for
this issue, and is the subject of discussion among stakeholders hi the Metal Finishing CSI
(Common Sense Initiative) Sector.
Cross-Media Permitting. States and EPA have often been unable to synchronize the
implementation .of rules across media, leading industry to respond with single media end-of-
pipe controls rather .than comprehensive prevention strategies.18 EPA and States need to
move forward in coordinating permitting on a cross-media basis so industry can take .
comprehensive, P2-based approaches instead of single-pipe approaches.
Accommodation Needed in Enforcement Policy. A company has little incentive to
risk trying a P2 approach, if it must face substantial enforcement penalties for noncompliance
in the event the P2 technology fails. Source reduction often involves more experimentation
than pollution control, and concern about the enforcement risks of trying P2 is being raised
as an issue in EPA's Permits Improvement Team and the Common Sense Initiative. EPA's
Project XL does not address this particular concern, because qualifying applicants must
already be in compliance. The EPA enforcement culture needs to evolve to accommodate
facilities that will be taking a compliance risk in trying P2 approaches.
Need for Better Coordination Between Rule Development, Implementation, and
Non-Regulatory Efforts. As noted above, some observers believe there is a need for better
coordination among rule development, implementation, and non-regulatory efforts. In
particular, coordination with voluntary, right-to-know, and technical assistance programs
could enhance the use of prevention as a .means of compliance.
7. Recommendations
People need to come together more effectively, within EPA and across government-
stakeholders lines, to develop a thoroughly cross-media perspective to source reduction, and
to use their resources more effectively. This assessment, conducted with the active
participation of media program managers, recommends action in several key areas. Many
recommendations are directed to EPA leadership for consideration. These recommendations
may or may not be ripe to address, and a further assessment of some recommendations may
be warranted before major steps are taken. '
18 *
The creation of the Administrator's Permits Improvement Team arid the cross-media permitting pilot under the
President's 25 initiatives for reinventing environmental regulation offer opportunities for examining cross-media permitting.
17
-------
7.1 Broad-Based Recommendations
The broad-based recommendations of this assessment are:
* '
(1) .Emphasize the fundamental link between cross-media solutions and source
reduction;
(2) Continue to place special attention on targeted rules, especially during their
implementation through the permitting, compliance, and enforcement phases,
as a way of piloting approaches for broader use;.
(3) Apply some of the already developed SRRP approaches to other rulemakings',
(4) Take steps to start systematically addressing the obstacles to fostering.
prevention; and
(5) Link efforts to address these obstacles to full implementation of the common
sense approach and reinvention of EPA.
It is especially key for the Agency to examine the incentives and disincentives for P2
during the permitting and enforcement phases of regulatory action. This should include
examining the steps identified in section 6 above.
7.2 Steps for Implementing Recommendation #4
To expand on Recommendation #4, the following steps are recommended for
addressing the obstacles to fostering P2 experienced first-hand hi SRRP. As stated above,
the assessment endorses linking these steps to full implementation of the common sense
approach and regulatory reinvention.
First Step:- Reinvent the Planning and Budgeting Processes to Enhance Cross-
Media and P2 Outcomes.
While Administrator Carol Browner has established strong incentives for niter-office
coordination, more can be done to integrate the Agency's separate media cultures and change
the way it does business. It is important for sustained pressure to come from the
Administrator's level to reshape basic EPA processes and ways of doing business.19
Internal coordination is vital to using EPA resources more effectively, helping the
environment, and fostering sound investments for industry.
EPA needs to increase the frequency and visibility of coordinated action. When
source reduction is highly visible, as in the early stages of the SRRP pilot, people's
awareness broadly increases across the organization. Having senior management tirelessly
promote coordination, P2, and the importance of cross-media solutions among concurrent and
19 The Administrator has already set the stage by taking unprecedented steps in this area. See footnote 1'.
18
-------
related rulemakings and major initiatives would help keep needed visibility on P2 and
maintain expectations, accountability,, and recognition of continuous improvement.
(a) Reinvent Agenda-Setting to Extent Possible. Achieving more compatible
deadlines that allow for meaningful cross-media analysis is essential for personnel to integrate
P2 into regulations. ,
Work Toward Fully Coordinated Regulatory Agenda. When conducting rulemaking,
EPA should take steps to devise arid negotiate compatible regulatory deadlines across media
for regulations affecting the same industries, and lay groundwork for working toward a fully
coordinated regulatory agenda. (Presumably cross-media planning would retain the one
benefit of .single-media planning, which is to address the priorities of each media office.)
Due to the barriers presented by statutory deadlines and related consent decree deadlines, this
effort would need to involve discussions -with Congress and key stakeholders. EPA should
explore with stakeholders whether a cross-media proposal for addressing some of these
deadlines collectively would be effective.
Use Flexibility in Agenda for Effluent Guidelines. EPA could start by using the.
existing flexibility in the agenda for effluent guidelines under the Clean Water Act. Under a
1991 consent, decree with the Natural Resources Defense Council, the water office must
select eight, as-yet unidentified industries to set CWA effluent guidelines for. Consultation
with other offices about multi-media opportunities would be useful. The water office may be
selecting the first two of the eight industry sectors in 1995.
(b) Reinvent Budgeting Processes. It would be valuable for EPA to consider using
its budgeting policies and processes more explicitly to promote cross-media, prevention-based
outcomes. Agency analysis would more easily result hi cross-media solutions if resource
planning was done on a cross-media basis to begin with.
Work Towards Allocating Regulatory Budget by .Industry. A key step that EPA has
taken in this direction is working on an industry-sector basis hi the Common Sense Initiative,
EPA-should take additional steps toward allocating its regulatory budget by industry.
Personnel often find they are now hemmed in by the cross-media inefficiencies that result
from media-by-media allocations.. A primary goal of developing cross-media regulations is
to use an integrated approach for a given industry. EPA could demonstrate a strong
preference for source reduction, including resource shifts from end-of-pipe activities to
prevention initiatives.
Use Interim Measures as Needed. As interim measures, EPA could build on the
Administrator's efforts to make budgeting more collaborative by considering some of the
following actions: (a) Collaborative Budget Proposals - the Agency could ask for jointly
developed collaborative budget, proposals from its media, offices; (b) More Stakeholders -
more stakeholders could be invited,early in the budget process to give EPA input on
opportunities for coordinating efforts; (c) Budget Flexibility - EPA could create budget
19
-------
flexibility for offices so they can respond to each other's cross-media requests; (d) Inter-
Office Reserve Fund EPA could create an inter-office reserve rund that could be used to
support cross-media work identified after agenda-setting;, and (e) Budget Set-Aside EPA
could use'introductory incentives to promote cross-media budgeting, such as a budget set-
aside20 for addressing cross-media regulatory issues.
(c) Use Multiple-Statute Training and New Teams to Create Multi-Media Culture.
To enhance its .understanding of cross-media issues and to promote collaboration in a very
complex regulatory environment, EPA needs to integrate its separate media cultures within
the Agency. (For the discussion of new teams, see Fourth Step below.) '
Integrate Media Cultures Through Training. EPA should develop training on the
basics of multiple statutes - CWA, CAA, -RCRA, TSCA, PPA, and SARA Title III (TRI) ~
to integrate the separate media cultures in the Agency. Personnel need a baseline of multi-
program knowledge to think creatively about combining regulatory tools and using them as a
range of alternatives for addressing issues. This baseline of multi-program knowledge could
also help personnel bridge the cultural gaps that exist among the sub-parts of the
organization, based on their different orientations. EPA could designate a.cross-program
team to identify what to emphasize in naming.
(d) Invent New Data Strategies. New data strategies could help offices share data
more easily.
Unified Reporting System Endorsed. The recent announcement of a major new
Agency initiative to create a single, unified reporting system21 for industrial facilities will
set EPA on the right path toward sharing data easily and efficiently. This is increasingly
important for cross-media outcomes. Through a unified reporting system, EPA would gain
an ability to cross-check a facility under multiple statutes, the public would get more facility
information, and industry would be able to meet reporting requirements more easily. The
first step toward one-stop reporting will be create a database in which each facility has a
single identification number; OPPT is now developing the common identifiers.
Consider Post-Rule Public, Reporting. In addition to this new initiative, EPA should
also consider the use of post-rule public reporting. EPA needs better databases on industry
practices, including facility shifts away from targeted pollutants, as the basis for its rules. .
Based on the tremendous power of public information in TRI, this could have a significant
In prior Agency use of budget set-aside, a portion of operating funds was "set-aside" so each office could submit
proposals for prevention projects that, if chosen, would be funded from this pool. By contrast, an inter-office reserve fund
would be available on a first-come, first-served basis for cross-media needs arising during a fiscal, year.
21 This is one of the administration's 25 priorities for reinventing environmental regulation, described in the 3/16/95
report from the President and Vice President as one-stop emission reports.
20
-------
impact on changing behavior toward implementing prevention on the part of the regulated
community.
Second Step: Develop a Cross-Media Legislative Strategy.
(a) Take a Multi-Media, Integrative Approach to Legislative Priorities. To promote
multi-media and P2-based outcomes, EPA should whenever possible take ,a multi-media,
integrative approach to legislative priorities. If a .single-media statute is being reauthorized,
it is key to seek enough flexibility in its agenda and provisions to allow an office to
coordinate with other media programs on cross-media regulatory issues and to set integrated
cross-media standards when appropriate. The crowded agenda of the air program, brought
on by CAA reauthorization, has left the program limited flexibility. EPA should take a
multi-office view on whether the terminology, approaches, and chemical lists of media
statutes can be made more mutually compatible. Given the opportunity, EPA should also
explore ways to integrate the provisions of the Pollution Prevention Act with other
environmental statutes. . :
(b) Discuss Statutory Multi-Media Issues with Stakeholders. In concert with the
earlier recommendation to discuss agenda-setting, with stakeholders and Congress, EPA
should raise in these discussions any related multi-media concerns about the statutory
framework not previously explored with these parties. The Common Sense Initiative offers
one opportunity for exploring some of these issues with stakeholders.
Third Step: Broaden Flexibility of Regulations.
(a) Continue Expanding Emphasis on Flexibility. To promote technological
innovation and encourage P2-based process changes, EPA should explore a variety of ways
.to create more flexibility in regulatory actions. Flexibility can be, a powerful incentive for
industry, and flexibility can be tailored to promote various goals, as appropriate to the nature
and scope of a particular regulatory action and affected regulated community. In new
initiatives like Project XL, EPA will be piloting ways to grant regulatory flexibility in
exchange for an enforceable commitment to achieve better environmental results (preferably
through P2) than'required by existing regulations.
(b) Use Flexibility in Rule Development. In rule development, EPA should seek to
apply the approaches proposed in the Pesticides Formulating Effluent Guideline (creating a
P2 alternative hi the rule, creating economic incentives for using P2 alternative, giving
explicit authority to permitters to approve innovative technology) to other regulatory actions
as appropriate.
(c) Encourage Innovation Through Permitting. EPA should consider developing a
strategy for broadly encouraging permitters to encourage technological innovation through the
implementation of existing rules. ,
21
-------
(d) Use Flexibility in Enforcement. Flexibility as an incentive for industry is also
key for those facilities who will find it a risk to be trying ,P2 approaches. Concerned about
enforcement penalties if their P2 approaches should fail, facilities are expressing interest in a
"soft landing" policy that would allow them some alternatives for coming into compliance in
the event of a failed P2 technology. EPA should take steps to address this commonly
expressed concern.
Fourth Step: Address the Need for Track Records on Innovative Technologies.
Technology Verification Endorsed. Since lack of a measurable track record for
innovative technologies can impede EPA's ability to base a standard on an innovative
technology, it is important to gain credible performance data on innovative technologies.
EPA has recently launched an effort to promote technology verification and to accelerate the
entrance of-new technologies into the market place by providing the purchaser and permitter
with credible performance and cost data. This assessment strongly endorses these efforts.
EPA personnel should also continue developing their confidence in assessing the
performance of P2 technologies.
\
Fifth Step: Deepen Understanding of Cross-Media Impacts; Guide on Quantifying
P2 Benefits.
(a) Increase Knowledge of Cross-Media Impacts. To enhance decision-making by
government, industry, and the public alike, EPA should take, steps to increase the scientific
knowledge arid understanding of comparative risks across media. This should include
increasing understanding of the comparative benefits of P2 approaches minimizing cross-
media transfers and controls obtaining bigger reductions to a single media. This is the kind
of job that EPA federal government is uniquely suited for. It should give industry and
communities (and state and federal government) the kind of data needed to make better, more
well-informed environmental decisions.
(b) Guide on Quantifying P2 Benefits. EPA should guide personnel on how to
proceed when unable to quantify the reductions and health benefits associated with a P2
approach. At a minimum, rule writers should be encouraged to point out potential cross-
media transfers associated with different compliance approaches to a rule.
(c) Consider Building Teams that Combine Technology and Risk Skills. To
increase understanding of cross-media impacts, EPA should consider building new teams or
creating other incentives for combining the use of technology-based and risk-based skills
For example, risk characterization 'of wastestreams could inform choices about chemical
substitutes. TSCA chemical testing authority might be used to generate missing data on the
health and environmental effects of aqueous cleaners. Risk-modeling and/or structured
activity reports might be used to help guide decision-making when some data are missing.
22
-------
Sixth Step: Address Paperwork Reduction Act Concerns vis-a-vis Collecting Source
Reduction Data. -
For media programs that need to collect source reduction data through industry
surveys to develop relevant prevention-based regulatory options, EPA should make the case
for collecting mandatory source reduction data. EPA should take this matter as high up the
chain of command as is needed to resolve this issue.
Seventh Step: Clarify Prevention Roles.
EPA should consider how its preference for P2 approaches in all its mainstream
operations can translate into an empowering, leadership role for each major office in .the
Agency.
(a) Clarify Roles. EPA should translate the principle of P2 into better defined roles
for not just media offices but all EPA offices. Each office has a distinct and principal role to
play in reinventing the Agency to promote P2 and cross-media outcomes in the next
generation of environmental approaches. Offices would benefit by understanding how all
roles fit together for promoting P2 in mainstream operations. This would assist in
redesigning planning and budgeting systems to support the success of P2 outcomes, and in
promoting creativity for regulatory reinvention. For example, this should include clarifying
what is expected in interactions between program offices and OGC on P2 issues that arise in
rulemaking, and how policy questions can get raised in this context for upper level
consideration.
(b) Clarify Messages. In tandem with clarify ing and reinventing roles within the
Agency, EPA should clarify aspects of the P2 message such as how a P2 policy preference
is to be weighed against legal risk: that pertain to each office. If personnel are being
encouraged to adopt new norms, repeated and confirming messages help build confidence
about what course of action is expected. Emphasizing coordination, source reduction, and
cross-media approaches, not only among regulatory actions affecting the same sector but also
across rule development, compliance, and voluntary efforts, would be very valuable.
8. Conclusion
It has been the goal of this assessment to assist principally in highlighting key issues
for prevention during this tune of regulatory reinvention. The lessons of SRRP can help to
assure that pollution prevention will be an important part of the success of the next
generation of environmental approaches. Regulatory action, and alternatives to regulatory
action, will continue to be central to the core mission of the Agency. In this time of re-
examining Agency programs, the possibilities for reinventing how the Agency does business
are as good as they have ever been. The challenge now is to seek out the opportunities that
change presents, and to act on these opportunities throughout the reinvention process.
23
-------
-------
Appendix A
Appendix A gives citations to pages - in the text and Appendix B - that discuss
issues relevant to EPA's common sense approach and regulatory reinvention efforts.1
Specifically, the issues discussed are relevant as: (1) positive SKRP examples of how
regulatory actions can be compatible with Common Sense Initiative (CSI) principles; (2)
ideas for making regulatory actions more compatible with CSI principles; and (3) ideas for
reinventing EPA.
I. Positive SRRP Examples of How Regulatory Actions Can be Compatible with CSI
Principles .
a) Actions providing incentives for P2:
A proposed P2 regulatory option would excuse a facility from meeting zero-
discharge obligations and could potentially excuse a facility from meeting
in-plant treatment requirements (Pesticide formulating, packaging,, and
repackaging effluent guideline "pesticide rule", pp. 5, B5>;
Making a hazardous waste listing concentration-based provides an incentive
to reduce hazardous constituents in wastestreams (Carbamates hazardous waste
listing, pp. 7, B3-B4); .
Basing standards, at least in part, on the performance of P2 technologies
can increase confidence in the reliability of these P2 technologies (various
SRRP rules discussed throughout the text and appendix).
b) Actions encouraging,new technologies:
Giving local authorities explicit discretion to allow P2 technologies other
than those listed in the rule (proposed pesticide rule, pp. 5, B5).
c) Actions building partnerships with stakeholders:
Developing the proposed wood furniture manufacturing NESHAP by
stakeholder consensus is bringing industry into partnership with EPA in
collecting post-rule data on the use of chemical substitutes (pp.5, 14);
. Stay ing-attuned to industry interest hi a P2 alternative led to revising proposed
rule to include a P2 alternative (proposed pesticide rule, pp.5, B5).
1 For a description of EPA's common sense approach and its regulatory reinvention efforts, see page 3 of the main
text, footnotes 5 and 6.
Al . ' '
-------
d) Actions making economic-sense:
The proposed pesticide rale allows industry to use a P2 alternative (based on
cross-media benefits) instead of meeting a zero-discharge requirement, thus
eliminating the cost of contract hauling of wastes; also, rule allows local
authorities discretion to define allowable P2 discharge so as to make in-plant
treatment unnecessary, thus potentially eliminating the cost of in-plant
treatment (pp. 5, B5).
e) Actions exploring multi-media approaches: .
A multi-media risk characterization helped identify hazards for a waste listing
(Carbamates Hazardous Waste Listing, pp. 7, B3-B4);
Proposing a P2 alternative prevents water pollution and reduces the cross-
media impacts anticipated from the zero-discharge alternative of the rale
(Pesticide rale, pp. B4-B5);
Proposing source reduction.measures reduces water pollution, minimizes
pollutant transfers to air, reduces the metals in sludge, and reduces the amount
of sludge (Metal Products and Machinery Effluent Guideline, pp. B6-B7).
Proposing source reduction measures contributes to preventing air and water
pollution (pulp and paper integrated rales, pp. 6, B1-B2).
II. Ideas for Making Regulatory Actions More Compatible with CSI Principles
a) Providing greater P2 incentives by:
Using any of various statute-specific approaches for fostering multi-media P2
outcomes e.g., investigate BDAT at the same time as developing a
hazardous waste listing, so that a criterion for deciding which chemicals go on
a list can be whether all are compatible with a particular recovery-based as
opposed to a treatment-based technology (pp. 6-7);
Using ideas listed in Section III below for creating a budgeting and planning
framework that promotes P2 outcomes;
Developing an integrative, multi-media legislative strategy (p. 20).
b) Encourage new technologies by:
Developing a strategy that encourages permit writers to approve new
technologies that meet standards of existing regulations (p. 21);
A2
-------
' - Making it explicit in new rules as done in the proposed pesticides
formulating rule - that local authorities have the flexibility to approve new
technologies not foreseen by the rule (pp. 5, B5).
c) Explore multi-media approaches by: .
Using flexibility hi the effluent guideline agenda to create an opportunity for
integrating rules; a key factor in deciding which industries OW should regulate
could be whether guideline development can be integrated with development of
a NESHAP or hazardous waste listing for the same industry (p. 18);
Creating interdisciplinary teams of personnel using technology-based tools
and those using risk-based tools to address the cross-media impacts of
chemical substitutes that industry might use in response to particular rules (pp.
8, 12, 19); .
- Using ideas in Section III below for creating a budgeting and planning
framework that promotes cross-media outcomes.
III.. Ideas for Reinventing EPA
a) Maiding our organizational structures work for us:
Budgeting: Use the budgeting process to create more opportunities for multi-
media pollution prevention (pp. 10-11. describe the significant impacts of the
budgeting process on the development of multi-media P2 approaches; pp. 18-
19 discuss recommendations).
b) Redesigning the way we do our work:
Agenda-setting: Coordinate regulatory (and non-regulatory as possible)
agenda-setting across media offices by industry to create more opportunities
for integrated, multi-media P2 approaches (pp. 11-12 describe the significant
impact of agenda-setting on the development of multi-media P2 approaches;
pp. 18 and 20 discuss recommendations); also, consult with stakeholders in
the development of the effuent guideline agenda;
Clarify roles for all offices not just media offices on how to share
leadership on various aspects of P2 (p. 21).
c) Changing EPA's culture to facilitate reaching our objectives:
Give multiple-statute training to most EPA personnel to spur creative, multi-
media thinking (p. 19). . .
A3
-------
Appendix B
This appendix describes seven SRRP rules - and their source reduction outcomes.
Each rule description assesses the net source reduction being fostered, as measured across all
media, and states the impediments SRRP participants encountered in using cross-media
analysis and selecting source reduction measures. Air regulations (National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants) and water regulations (Effluent Guidelines) set
emission limits that are based on the performance of designated technologies; to comply with
these rules, facilities can use the designated technologies or any other legal technologies and
approaches that can perform- within the emission limits.
1. Pulp and Paper NESHAP (National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air
Pollutants/CAA) and Effluent Guideline (CWA).
Proposed 12/93; final due Spring 1996. The proposed air and water rules for pulp
and paper manufacturing mills are the first that EPA has integrated and set a benchmark for
cross-media rulemaking.
(a) Description,of Net Source Reduction Across Media. The integrated air and water
rules set emission levels that are based on the performance of a combination of source
reduction technologies and management practices, air pollution control devices, and upgrades
on existing end-of-pipe wastewater treatment systems. The performance of source reduction
technologies significantly reduces net water releases, but does not adequately control all
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) releases. Air pollution control devices are needed to control
HAP emission levels. In the pulping area, open sources would be hooded, and would vent
gases through a duct to a boiler or incinerator; OAQPS is evaluating how to handle the
sulphur dioxide that remains after burning vent gases containing total reduced sulphur.
Process water from the pulping area will go to a steam-stripper; the methanol vented from
the steam-stripper is sent to a boiler or an incinerator to recover heat value. In the bleaching
area, vents are ducted to a scrubber which produces a fairly neutral waste stream that goes to
a wastewater treatment facility.
The use of source reduction technologies improves the quality of sludge by reducing
its dioxin concentration. After the rules are final, OSW has the option of addressing
landfilling of'sludge through a hazardous waste listing determination. Facilities can also
incinerate and landfill sludge. .
Source reduction measures that contribute to achieving the proposed water limits (in-
process and end-of-pipe) are process changes in the pulping and bleaching areas of mills. . .
Facilities can use any combination of technologies to meet the proposed effluent limits.
Changes hi the pulping area improved uniformity of wood chips, better washing of pulp
prior to bleaching, and oxygen delignification reduce the amount of bleaching chemicals
required. Changes in the bleaching area - substituting chlorine dioxide for elemental
chlorine to brighten pulp and eliminating hypbchlorite reduce the discharges of dioxiiis;
Bl
-------
furans, chlorinated phenolics, and other compounds in bleach plant streams and final effluent
discharges. For one small subcategory of the industry, the proposal sets a totally chlorine-
free (TCP) standard. . . .
Source reduction measures that contribute to achieving the proposed.air limits are
using low-flow enclosed washers for washing pulp and.substituting chlorine dioxide for
hypochlorite (which specifically reduces air emissions of chloroform, chlorine, and
hydrochloric acid). ,
Proposed prevention-based Best Management Practices (BMPs) require good
housekeeping and control equipment to reduce pulping liquor leaks/spills discharged to
wastewater treatment systems, and to reduce operating costs through more chemical
recovery. BMPs would include mandatory practices such as developing and updating spill
prevention plans, training, and related activities. BMPs would also require installation of
equipment that can be chosen from a menu including secondary containment diking, covered
storage tanks, and tank level alarms.
(b) Impediments to cross-media analysis/source reduction. There were two
impediments to completely eliminating discharges of dioxins and related compounds hi these
rules. First, facilities do not think there is an adequate market for all the lower-brightness
paper that would result from a major industry shift to TCF technology. While some U.S.
mills are taking advantage of the European market for TCF products, U.S. mills have a
weaker domestic market for TCF products. The President's Executive Order on recycling
and procurement of environmentally friendly products and related initiatives may help to
grow the TCF market at a modest pace. Moreover, other options being considered '(e.g.,
chlorine dioxide substitution) will substantially reduce dioxin generation to levels that are "at
or below limits of detection.
Second, EPA did not have the administrative discretion to decide which pollutants
were most important to address from a cross-media, as opposed to a single-media,
perspective, and accordingly did not have the opportunity to evaluate which solutions
represented the best investment from a cross-media perspective.
One additional factor was negative, although not an impediment, and that is EPA's
current inability under the CWA to extend the time for facilities to come into compliance.
An extension may be necessary for some mills to comply with .the rules. To comply within
the normal tune.frame, some facilities may not be able to wait until the rule is final to begin
making changes. EPA cannot extend the time frame because EPA authority for an
"innovation waiver" under the CWA has expired. EPA will continue to evaluate this concern
and any appropriate options.
2:. Halogenated Solvent Cleaners (Degreas'ing) NESHAP
Proposed 11/937 final 12/94, This rule affects halogenated solvent cleaning machines.
B2
-------
Industries affected include furniture and fixtures, fabricated metal products, electric and
electronic equipment, transportation equipment, and other manufacturing.
(a) Description of net source reduction across media. The rule sets limits at the
cleaning machines themselves, and this is designed to reduce the use of halogenated solvents,
which is a source reduction approach to reducing volatile air emissions. The rule is not
expected to reduce sludge (mostly grease being cleaned off product parts plus spent solvent)
that forms at the bottom of machines. The use of carbon adsorbers (devices installed directly
at the machine), allowed by the rule, would present cross-media impacts such as releases to
water if not properly operated, sludge collected from carbon adsorbers, and spent carbon
adsorbers that need to be'disposed as hazardous waste. If facilities use aqueous cleaners to
avoid halogenated solvents altogether, EPA does not know what impact this would have on
water. If facilities use technology that eliminates the need to clean (using plastic molds to
create product parts), this would reduce sludge significantly.
The preamble to the proposed rule discussed the benefits of eliminating the need to
clean. The final rule lists three ways to achieve compliance when using cleaners; all are
designed to reduce solvent use. The first method is equipment modification, and can be
achieved from a menu of equipment modifications plus work practices, record-keeping, and
monitoring. The second method is idling emission limit plus work practices, record-keeping,
and monitoring. The third method is overall emission limit plus record-keeping. Emission
limits are at a level that approximates what would be achieved through equipment
modification. . .
(b) Impediments to cross-media analysis/source reduction. Addressing substitute
issues would have been desirable for cross-media analysis. Impediments to addressing
substitute issues were (1) the lack of existing data on the environmental and health impacts of
aqueous cleaners, and (2) a consent-decree deadline that limited the time for exploring these
issues.
3. Carbamates Hazardous Waste Listing (RCRA Subtitle C)
In February, 1995 EPA published a final rule listing six wastes from the production
of carbamates as hazardous and thus subject to Subtitle C regulations under RCRA. This'.
affects about 25 facilities making organic chemicals. EPA will subsequently be making a
determination of Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) for treating these wastes.
(a) Description of net source reduction across media. The hazardous waste listing
creates one incentive for source reduction which, if used, could reduce the. volatilization of
pollutants in waste water (including scrubber waters, condenser waters, wash water,
separation waters, and waste waters derived from organic waste from the production of
carbamates) going to .waste water treatment tanks.-For reasons discussed in (b) below, this
incentive is somewhat undercut by other factors, and the upcoming opportunity to foster
recovery of constituent chemicals through determining the BDAT may be rather limited.
B3
-------
OSW took a major stride in .cross-media modeling by going beyond the traditional
examination of groundwater to look at risk in all media pathways for all waste streams in this
rule. Modelling for waste stream K157 (waste waters comprised of scrubber, condenser,
wash, and separation waters) and the waste water derived from waste stream K156 (organic
waste including heavy ends, still bottoms, light ends, spent solvents, filtrates, and decantates)
showed that fugitive air emissions from waste water treatment tanks were the main concern.
Facilities could reduce volatilization by reducing the concentration of the carbamate
contaminants in waters going to treatment tanks. Accordingly, OSW created exemptions for
K157 and waste waters from treatment of K156, so that wastes measured at the point of
generation with a concentration of less than 5 ppmwt for hazardous pollutants would not be
considered hazardous. Known source reduction practices would result in the production of
smaller volumes of more concentrated wastes (most likely K156 wastes). These exemptions
are perceived as providing operational flexibility and an incentive for waste minimization.
When setting the BD.AT as a follow-on activity to the listing, EPA would find it
desirable to find a recovery technology that achieves acceptable performance levels, since
this would be closer to source reduction .than a treatment technology. Yet OSW's upcoming
opportunity to foster recovery through setting the BDAT may be limited, as discussed below.
(b) Impediments to cross-media analysis/source reduction. First, under an "NPDES
Wastewater Exemption," the Clean Water, Act exempts wastewater going to treatment tanks
from RCRA (the tanks receive NPDES permits to discharge to surface waters). Thus, listing
K157 has no regulatory force beyond creating the stigma of a HAZWASTE listing. Second,
the economic impact analysis indicated that recovery or recycling of K157 constituents costs
several times more than status,quo discharge via NPDES permits. These two factors
undercut the incentive for reducing the concentration of carbamate contaminants in waters
going to treatment tanks. Third,.from a cross-office coordination perspective, OSW explored
whether the CAA cpuld be used to bolster the incentive for limiting the volatilization of
carbamates, but the Hazardous Organic NESHAP then under development in OAQPS did not
materialize as a good opportunity for regulating carbamates. Fourth, OSW's opportunity to
promote recovery when setting BDAT may be limited due to EPA's recent .choice of a
streamlined approach to land disposal restrictions (LDR). The limitation in the streamlined
LDR approach is that universal treatment standards will now apply to many constituents of
concern, with no flexibility for lowering threshold concentration values to a performance
level that could be achieved through recovery-based technology.
4.
Pesticide Formulating, Packaging, and Repackaging Effluent Guideline (CWA)
Proposed 3/94; supplemental notice to proposed rule published 6/8/95; final due 3/96.
The rule will affect about 3,500 facilities discharging directly to surface waters and indirectly
to publicly owned treatment works. Affected are formulators/packagers that mix pesticide
active and inert ingredients, and repackagers of agricultural pesticides at bulk refilling
establishments. ' .
B4
-------
(a) Description of net source reduction across media. The rule as proposed in March
1994 sets a limit of zero discharge to water (only small producers of sanitizers are exempt).
The Agency has identified approaches that most facilities could use to meet this limit that
would minimize, but not eliminate, transfers of waste to air and land. If facilities do not use
the recommended approaches, this could result in measurably more transfers of waste to air
and land.
Following the proposal of the zero discharge regulation, EPA received comment on
the possible increase of incineration of dilute pesticide-containing wastewaters that were not
reusable. Comments requested that EPA consider allowing de minimis discharges of
wastewater in exchange for facilities incorporating specific source reduction, recycling, and
reuse practices. On June 8, 1995, EPA published a supplemental notice on an alternative
pollution prevention option. Using the source reduction, recycling, and reuse practices
discussed in the proposed rule, EPA has developed a set of specified practices. If a facility
chooses to implement these practices they will be allowed a pollution prevention allowable
discharge. If a facility cannot fully demonstrate that they can meet this alternative, it will
have to comply with zero discharge.
This pollution prevention option should reduce the concentration and volume of
wastewater being indirectly discharge to POTWs, and reduce the cross-media impacts
associated with contract hauling for off-site incineration. This option will also help spread
the use of source reduction/recycle/reuse practices throughout the industry and, possibly, to
non-pesticide formulating operations when performed under the same roof as pesticides
formulating. Moreover, this option would add flexibility for facilities by giving local
authorities the discretion, based on their best professional judgment, to (1) allow alternative
practices to meet the pollution prevention alternative, and (2) eliminate the need for in-plant
treatment.
Fbrmulators and packagers can meet the limit through in-process and out-of-process
reuse of contaminated rinsewater, reduced water flow, and treatment of the remainder where
necessary. Facilities choosing the zero discharge limit can reuse the water left over after
treatment, while facilities choosing the pollution prevention alternative can discharge these
wastewaters. Agricultural repackaging establishments can meet the limit through secondary
containment, and use of loading pads and sumps to hold collected wastewater for reuse as
product. Facilities not relying on source reduction or recycling will have off-site hauling of
solids and/or wastewater to incinerators and deep wells to fall back on. Some facilities
already achieve close to total recycling; this is because the industry has a relatively simple
wastewater stream, consisting mostly of product-wash. Zero discharge and the pollution
prevention alternative eliminate the need for analytical monitoring for compliance.
The preamble and development document discuss source reduction practices. The
development document flags their cross-media implications so facilities can make informed
choices. (For example, it describes how to reuse water in existing wet scrubbers; it also
points out that disposable worker clothing avoids wastewater, but creates solid waste.) The
B5
-------
development document also refers to EPA's cost-effectiveness analysis. In its economic
analysis, EPA-did an expanded assessment of pollution control costs and identified the
benefits of reusing contaminated water, reducing wastewater requiring treatment, and reusing
the remaining treated water. .
(b) Impediments to cross-media analysis/source reduction. No data on air-pathways
was collected or factored into cross-media analysis, due to cross-media resource constraints.
5. "Metal Products and Machinery Effluent Guideline (Phase I) (CWA).
Proposal published 5/30/95; final due 9/96. This guideline will be the first of two
phases of regulations covering facilities that manufacture, rebuild, or maintain finished metal
parts, products, or machines and discharge directly to surface waters and indirectly to
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The sectors covered under Phase I are
aerospace, aircraft, electronics, hardware, ordnance, and mobile and stationary industrial
equipment. Common across all these facilities is the metal content of their wastewaters and
corresponding treatment systems.
(a) Description of Net Source Reduction Across Media. The proposed effluent
guideline sets limits that are based on the performance of a combination of in-process source
reduction technologies, recycling, and end^of-pipe wastewater treatment systems. (The
proposal is soliciting comment on whether to include best management practices.) The
proposed guideline covers more than 90% of industry flow, applying to all direct and indirect
dischargers except existing indirects who discharge less than one million gallons annually.
EPA projects that use of the combined technologies as proposed should eliminate almost a
million pounds of toxic pollutants discharged to water, minimize pollutant transfers to air,
reduce the metals content of municipal sludge, and reduce the amount of sludge. The
reduced-metals content of the sludge will allow 184 sewage treatment facilities to land-spread
an additional 439,000 dry metric tons of sewage sludge rather than incinerating or landfilling
the sludge.'
Source reduction and recycling measures that contribute to achieving the proposed
water limits include the use of flow restrictors, conductivity controllers or timed rinses,
centrifugation and recycling of painting water curtains, centrifugation and pasteurization to
extend the life of water-soluble machining coolants, and in-process metals separation and
recovery. End-of-pipe treatment is chemical precipitation. Effluent limits are proposed as
mass limits, obtained by multiplying the concentration limit by a reasonable process
wastewater value (this promotes source reduction by preventing use of dilution water in lieu .
of treatment). "
. In-process metals recovery, bath maintenance practices, and water conservation
technologies reduce the discharge of metals present in the wastewater, which in turn reduces
the amount of sludge generated. Air transfers are minimized by recovering and recycling
materials in-process (reduces volatilization off wastewater treatment areas) and from the
B6
-------
industry's awareness of problems with air-borne solvents (no shift to these solvents is
expected).
EPA has developed a compendium of pollution prevention methods and literature
sources that is found hrthe technical development document; many of these methods apply
only to sites with certain characteristics and cannot be the basis for the nation-wide standard.
This pollution prevention information is expected to be a valuable resource to site
environmental managers. Benefits from source reduction, such as material recovery were
incorporated into the costing of in-process technology options.
(b) Impediments to cross-media analysis/source reduction. First, it was .a difficult task
to identify all the aqueous cleaners used on metal parts. Instead of regulating individual
organic compounds, EPA is proposing to use oil and grease as an indicator parameter for the
control of organics. During sampling, it was found that the organic compounds tended to
remain in the oil fraction; therefore, treating for oil and grease should result in the treatment
of organics as well. .The lack of data on aqueous cleaners also meant the relative cross-
media risks of airborne solvents could not be compared with the risks of aqueous cleaners.
Second, regulatory analysis modeled releases from contract hauling of wastes as zero.
Contract hauling of wastes is a viable option available to MP&M sites, yet there was no
integrated assessment of how these wastes hauled off-site might be transferred across several
media (through incineration, centralized wastewater treatment, and/or underground injection),
and how to minimize this.
Another area not actually an impediment but more of a challenge is the use of mass-
based limits to measure compliance in this and other effluent guidelines. Mass-based limits
are obtained by multiply ing the concentration, limitation by a reasonable process wastewater
flow value. While mass-based limits are required for direct dischargers, this is not typically
the case with indirects. Facilities which hi the past have not had to measure the flow of
process wastewater must do so, and the control authority must determine an appropriate flow
rate to use. , . .
6.
Pharmaceuticals Effluent Guideline (CWA)
Proposal signed 2/28/95; final due in 1996. This affects about 304 facilities making
Pharmaceuticals by fermentation, extraction, synthesis, and mixing. The industry already
recycles about 2/3 of solvents used.
(a) Description of Net Source Reduction Across Media.' In developing the proposal,
source reduction was not the basis for the effluent guideline, largely because this industry is
regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and a facility must get FDA approval
to use new processes or materials. The Office of Water explored with FDA the possibility
of expediting FDA approval for certain process changes in the industry; FDA separately
undertook an initiative to expedite reviews of revised processes for manufacturing existing
B7
-------
drugs. EPA shared with FDA information gathered from the pharmaceutical industry to
facilitate these reviews. FDA also agreed to encourage manufacturers to consider developing
and using processes for new drugs which do not use solvents (i.e., water-based processes).
Technologies used as the basis for the proposed effluent limits are steam stripping
(post-manufacturing, pre-treatment) and biological wastewater treatment (endrof-pipe).
Direct dischargers would use both technologies, and indirect dischargers would use only
steam stripping, with POTWs providing the biological wastewater treatment. Releases from
this industry are from air and water, and steam stripping is favored because it controls air
releases as well as water releases. Steam stripping also would allow a facility to implement
additional materials recovery or recycling. Biological wastewater treatment is the source of
most air releases in the form of volatilizing solvents and other chemicals particularly from
preliminary treatment areas. Condensible gases from steam-stripping may be used hi a boiler
or an incinerator, and sludge from biological treatment is land-filled.
OST has been coordinating with OAQPS, who is developing a NESHAP for the
Pharmaceuticals industry, in cross-media data analysis and modeling. For direct dischargers,
the proposed effluent guideline includes end-of-pipe limits for volatile organic pollutants and
defers to OAQPS standards being developed. For indirect dischargers, the proposed effluent
guideline sets in-plant limits to remove the highly strippable, volatile'organic pollutants.
OST and OAQPS discussed integrating their rules but decided not to because the OAQPS
rulemaking was on a schedule behinds OST's, and resource constraints would not permit
them to be integrated. Nonetheless, the final air and water rules for this industry will, at a
minimum, be closely coordinated and may yet be integrated.
(b) Impediments to cross-media analysis/source reduction. First, the inability to
integrate the air and water rules has led to some uncertainty among stakeholders regarding
details of how EPA will address multi-media concerns and achieve the best multi-media
outcome. Second, the opportunities for expedited FDA review of process changes for
existing drugs appear limited, given manufacturers' considerable investments already in the
efficacy and availability of those drugs. (Greater opportunities are likely for developing
organic solvent-free processes for new drugs.) .
7. Wood Furniture Manufacturing NESHAP (CAA).
Proposed 11/94; final due between 11/96 and 11/98. This will affect wood furniture
manufacturing sites; sources of emissions are coatings, glues, and clean-up. OAQPS is
developing the rule through regulatory negotiation with State, industry, and public interest
representatives.
(a) Description of Net Source Reduction Across Media. Most air emissions from
wood furniture plants are fugitive, leaving the building through windows, doors, roof
monitors, and oven stacks. The proposed rule would set a HAP-emission rate limit for
coatings based on chemical substitution of non-HAP or low-content HAP coatings, such as
B8
-------
switching from methyl alcohol to ethyl alcohol. Ideally, however, some sites may opt for the
more challenging approach of switching to low-solvent (low volatile organic compound
(VOC)) coatings, thereby also helping to minimize depletion of the ozone layer. One low
solvent option is the use of water-borne instead of organic solvent-borne coatings. It is also
possible, in some production situations, to switch to radiation (i.e., ultraviolet and electron
beam cured coatings which can be formulated to contain little or. no solvent. It is somewhat
difficult to predict the net effect of the rule across media, because it is unclear how many
sites will choose the more challenging water borne and/or low solvent route. The cross-
media impact would not change for the simple alcohol substitution option. EPA has
requested comment on whether use of water-borne coatings would result in increased effluent
discharges. . .
The rule also sets out work practices aimed at boosting efficiency in coating and
clean-up operations. The proposed rule would not limit the formaldehyde content of glues.
Emissions from the cutting and storage of wood products was deferred to a future pressed
wood manufacturing NESHAP.
Facilities relying on-substitution to comply with the finishing operations emission rate
limit (1.0 Ib HAP/1 Ib of solids for existing sources, and 0.8 Ib HAP/1 Ib of solids for new
sources) can do so either on the basis of individual coatings or averaging across all coatings.
Substitutes include higher-solids coatings, non-HAP or low-content HAP VQC coatings, and
aqueous coatings. The limit for cleaning operations in both existing and new sources
requires use of strippable spray booth coatings that contain no more than 0.8 lb/1 Ib solids.
There are separate emission limits for foam and. non-foam gluing operations, the limits for
new sources being more stringent. Proposed work practices include using more efficient
spray guns, record-keeping on use of cleaning solvents, worker training, equipment
maintenance plans, and other housekeeping options.
Facilities in non-attainment areas for ozone will likely be subject to state limits on
VOC content (VOCs are precursors for ozone). To assist them, EPA made publicly
available on July 15, 1994 a Preliminary Draft Model Rule for VOCs that reflects the views
of the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Regulatory Negotiation Committee. EPA also plans to
publish a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) that will give information on low VOC
solvent coatings, including water-borne topcoats, radiation cured topcoats, water-borne
stains, and high-solids topcoats and sealers. The CTG work practice options are identical to
those in the MACT standards.
(b) Impediments to cross-media analysis/source reduction. The lack of information
and analysis on chemical substitutes and their health and environmental impacts was an
impediment to cross-media analysis. Perceived time constraints operated against gathering .
this data and involving the water office.
B9
------- |