United States Office of the Administrator EPA-1 OO-R-96-003
Environmental Protection Office of Cooperative June 1996
Agency Environmental Management
EPA Promoting Innovative
Approaches to
Environmental Protection
A Summary of
Recommendations from the
National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and
Technology
Recyclec(Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Based Inks on Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer)
-------
1995 NACEPT EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
Chair:
Dr. John Sawhill
President and CEO
The Nature Conservancy
Arlington, Virginia
Vice Chair:
Ms. Holly Stoerker
Executive Director
Upper Mississippi River
Basin Association
St. Paul, Minnesota
Designated Federal Official:
Gordon Schisler
Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC
Ms. Joan Bavaria
President
Franklin Research and Development Corp.
Boston, Massachusetts
Dr. Edwin H. (Toby) Clark, II
President, Clean Sites, Inc.
Alexandria, Virginia
Mr. Thomas S. Davis
Director, Environmental Safety and
External Affairs
AT&T
Basking Ridge, New Jersey
Mr. Gerald Digerness
National Association of
Conservation Districts
Sumas, Washington
Dr. Walter Handy, Jr.
Assistant Health Commissioner
Department of Health
Community Health Services Division
Cincinnati, Ohio
Mr. Michael Scott Haire
Director, Chesapeake Bay & Watershed
Management
Baltimore, Maryland
Ms. Linda Hixon
President
Friends of the North Chickamauga Creek
Greenway, Inc.
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Dr. Kai Lee
Director, Center for Environmental Studies
Williams College
Williamstown, Massachusetts
Ms. Pamela P. McVety
Executive Coordinator
Florida DEP
Tallahassee, Florida
Ms. Jeanna M. Paluzzi
Coordinator, Transverse Bay Watershed Initiative
Transverse City, Michigan
Ms. Lee A. Pfannmuller
Ecosystems Service Manager
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
St. Paul, Minnesota
Dr. Bruce Piasecki
Director, Lally Management Center
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, New York
Mr. Frank R. Pope
General Partner, Technology Funding, Inc.
San Mateo, California
Dr. Earl S. Richardson
President, Morgan State University
Baltimore, Maryland
Mr. Ted Strong
Executive Director
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Portland, Oregon
Dr. Joseph Sullivan
Senior Vice President
Ciba-Geigy Corporation
Ardsley, New York
Dr. A. Wayne Tamarelli
Chief Executive Officer
Dock Resins Incorporated
Linden, New Jersey
Dr. Perry Wallace
American University
Washington, DC
Ms. Sherry Wasserman-Goodman
Deputy Under Secretary for
Environmental Security
U.S. Department of Defense
Washington, DC
-------
Law Offices
HOLLAND & 'KNIGHT
2100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, B.C. 20037-3202
202-955-3000
FAX 202-955-5564
Atlanta Orlando
Fort Lauderdale St. Petersburg
Jacksonville Tallahassee
Lakeland Tampa
Miami West Palm Beach
May 20, 1996
To the Reader:
I am pleased to provide you with this report from the National
Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT):
"Promoting Innovative Approaches to Environmental Protection."
This document describes the Council's work and resulting
recommendations during FY 1995.
The EPA and many of its programs are undergoing major change
as part of the current efforts to reinvent government, and NACEPT
has helped the Agency identify new ways of managing environmental
protection. One of the newest approaches is the concept of
Community Based Environmental Protection (CBEP), a way that long-
term ecological, economic and social needs can be integrated to
achieve community based environmental management.
The Administrator of EPA asked NACEPT for recommendations in
making this management shift. To respond to this reguest, NACEPT
formed three committees charged with:
• Examining the availability, accessibility and use of
environmental information in support of CBEP
• Evaluating opportunities for EPA to re-orient its
statutory and regulatory authorities to integrate an
ecosystem management approach into its decision making
processes, and
• Examining the major elements of sustainable economies
and the opportunities for harmonizing environmental
policy, economic activity, and ecosystem management.
I want to thank Holly Stoerker, Vice-Chair of NACEPT, for her
energy and leadership during the development of the Council's work
culminating with this report. I also want to thank the staff of
the Office of Cooperative Environmental Management for their
excellent support and service to NACEPT.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Rhodes Jr.
Chair, NACEPT
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABOUT NACEPT i
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY OF NACEPT RECOMMENDATIONS 3
Recommendations of NACEPT's CBEP Committees 4
Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) 4
NACEPT's Role in CBEP 6
General Findings and Conclusions 7
New Roles and Responsibilities for EPA 8
Building Partnerships and Promoting Consensus 9
Science, Data and Education to Support CBEP 10
Integrating Economic and Environmental Goals 12
Recommendations of Other NACEPT Committees 14
Environmental Information, Economics, and
Technology Committee 14
Toxics Data Reporting Subcommittee 14
Radiation Cleanup Subcommittee 15
Effluent Guidelines Task Force 15
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Subcommittee 16
Environmental Statistics Subcommittee 16
Appendices:
A. Ecosystems Information and Assessments Committee A-l
B. Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee B-l
C. Ecosystems Sustainable Economies Committee C-l
D. Environmental Information, Economics, and Technology Committee D-1
The National Advisory Councillor Environmental Policy and Technology is an
independent advisory committee to the A dministrator of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The findings and recommendations of the Council do not necessarily
represent the views of the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
ABOUT NACEPT
The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) is a
public advisory committee that was first chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) PL92-463 on July 17, 1988. The Council provides advice and recommendations to the
Administrator and other officials of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on a variety
of environmental issues. NACEPT members include senior level officials and experts from a wide
range of EPA's constituencies, including business and industry; federal, state, local, and tribal
governments; international organizations; academia; and environmental, professional, and labor
organizations.
Composition of NACEPT Membership 1995
Federal
Government
14%
State and Local
Government
21%
Non-Governmental
Organizations
19%
The Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM), a staff office within the
EPA Administrator's office, provides budgetary support and serves as the executive secretariat for
NACEPT. Working with EPA program offices, OCEM assists the Administrator in recommending ,
broad, cross-cutting environmental policy and technology issues for NACEPT consideration.
Page i
Summary of 1995 NACEPT Recommendations
-------
NACEPT has several standing committees, as well as ad hoc committees formed to address
specific issues. Currently, NACEPT has three committees addressing issues related to EPA's
Community-Based Environmental Protection initiatives, and one committee that deals with several
more narrowly-focused matters. Committees include NACEPT members and other individuals
chosen for their expertise and because they represent a group particularly affected by the issue under
deliberation: All meetings of NACEPT and its committees are open to the public.
The results of NACEPT's -work may be delivered in formal reports, or advice may be
provided in the context of meetings with EPA management and staff. All levels of the Agency have
interacted with NACEPT at various times, including the Administrator and Deputy Administrator,
Assistant Administrators, and Program Office Directors and staff. This interactive format allows
NACEPT to provide timely and relevant feedback as the Agency's work proceeds and evolves.
Page ii Summary of 1995 NA CEPTRecommendations
-------
INTRODUCTION
A major focus of NACEPT's -work during FY 1995 -was providing advice to EPA as it
commenced development of its community-based approach to environmental protection. CBEP is
a framework whereby communities — in partnership with local governments, states, federal agencies,
and other stakeholders — identify environmental problems and priorities in specific places, develop
management strategies to achieve community objectives, and implement those strategies at the local
level.
The Administrator requested that NACEPT concentrate on ecosystem management and the
integration of ecological, economic, and social needs that will be required to achieve a community-
based approach to environmental protection. In response, NACEPT formed three committees:
The Ecosystems Information and Assessments Committee examined the
availability, access, and use of environmental information, and current science and
assessment processes to support CBEP.
The Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee evaluated opportunities for the
Agency to reorient the use of its existing statutory and regulatory authorities to
integrate CBEP into the Agency's decision-making and identified opportunities for
developing partnerships.
The Ecosystems Sustainable Economies Committee examined issues associated
with harmonizing economic activity and ecosystem management, and the policies
needed to achieve sustainable economies.
NACEPT endorsed CBEP as a valuable framework for an integrated approach to ecosystem
management that has great potential for success. Protecting the environment by empowering
communities through information, science, and education was viewed as one of the most potentially
significant initiatives EPA has started in many years.
Many of NACEPT's recommendations to EPA addressed the changes needed in institutional
roles and responsibilities if CBEP is to achieve its full potential. In particular, NACEPT described
the need for EPA to play new roles — as leader, convener, mediator and educator. NACEPT also
focused on the need for collaborative partnerships among EPA and other federal agencies, states,
local governments, private parties and communities.
Page 1 Summary of 1995 NA CEPTRecommendations
-------
NACEPT also provided advice on the tools and resources needed to implement CBEP
effectively, including scientific models, data and information, and training. NACEPT described the
required characteristics of these tools, and made specific suggestions for ways in which EPA could
contribute to their improvement.
Finally, NACEPT provided advice on steps needed to integrate economic and ecosystem
management goals, including EPA's role in promoting consensus, issues related to measurement,
the design of accounting tools, the use of incentives, and the valuation and modeling of
environmental impacts.
In addition to the activities of the CBEP committees, NACEPT's Environmental
Information, Economics, and Technology Committee made recommendations to the Agency on the
following issues during FY 1995:
Toxics data reporting: NACEPT made recommendations on the redesign of the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Form R and provided advice on the selection of
industries for expanded coverage of TM.
Radiation cleanup: NACEPT members provided comments on the draft Radiation
Site Cleanup Rule.
Effluent guidelines: NACEPT made a number of recommendations regarding
access to pollution prevention research, conduct of surveys, long-range plans for
identifying candidate industries, review of past experience with effluent guidelines,
and development of analytical methods.
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP): NACEPT made recommendations on three
major issues related to EPA's oversight of environmental performance by the
Department of Energy at the WIPP: the design of release limits, the role of passive
institutional controls, and the use of peer review.
Environmental statistics: NACEPT recommended that EPA establish a Center for
Environmental Statistics and that the US/Mexico Border Environmental Statistics
effort be elevated to program status.
Page 2 Summary of 1995 NA CEPTRecommendations
-------
SUMMARY OF NACEPT RECOMMENDATIONS
This report summarizes NACEPT's recommendations to the Agency during FY 1995. The
first section summarizes NACEPT's recommendations concerning CBEP, made by the three CBEP
committees shown below. These recommendations were provided to EPA senior management and
program office staff, and as input to the Agency's Senior Leadership Council for its February 1995
meeting.'
The second section discusses recommendations concerning topics other than CBEP. These
recommendations were made by the Subcommittees of the Environmental Information, Economics,
and Technology Committee; the topics addressed include toxics data reporting, radiation site
cleanup, effluent guidelines, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, and environmental statistics.
NA
ENVIR
Comm
Envi
Prc
nONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR
ONMENTAL POLICY & TECHNOLOGY
1995
NACEPT
Chair: John Sawhill
Vice Chair: Holly Stoerker
Gordon Schisler
Designated Federal
Official
EXECUTIVE
COUNCIL
unity-Based
ronmental
)tection
Implementation Tools Smsta
Cosa nalftee C
Chair: Dr. Edwin H. Clark. U Chair
Co-Chair: Gerald Digerness Co-Chair
nablo Zees.. Es information & Asaamab
ommittee Coma ns lase
Joan Bavaria Chair. Thomas Davis
D. Dillon-Ridgley Co-Chair: Julie Norman
DFO: Gwendolyn Whitt DFO: Mark Joyce DFO: Joseph Sierra
Environmental Information,
Enaomtea, &Teebadop
Committee
Chair. Dr. A. Wayne Tamarelli
DFO: Morris Altschuler
Effluent Guidelines
Taxies Data Reporting
Radiation Cleanup
Waste Isolation Mot Plant
Environmental Statistics
The Senior Leadership Council (SLC) is chaired by the Deputy Administrator and is
comprised of the Agency's Deputy Assistant Administrators and Deputy Regional Administrators.
The focus of the SLC's February 7, 1995 meeting was to reach agreement on the components for
CBEP, a conceptual framework, and the next steps necessary for the Agency to move forward in
implementing CBEP.
Page 3
Sum m ary of 1995 NA CEPT R ecom m endations
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS OF NACEPT'S CBEP COMMITTEES
The following is a summary of NACEPT's key findings and recommendations concerning
CBEP. This summary combines the "work of all three committees, and is organized by topic.
Summaries of individual committee recommendations can be found in Appendices A, B and C. The
initial sections describe the CBEP approach and NACEPT's role in CBEP.
Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP)
EPA's traditional media-based programs have achieved significant improvements in
environmental quality over the past twenty-five years. However, -we continue to discover new
sources of stress on the environment that threaten precious ecological resources: Declines in the
salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest, decreases in Chesapeake Bay oyster stocks, threats to
water quality from excessive nutrient runoff, and losses of wetlands and grasslands to development
all point to the need for new approaches to protecting natural resources. EPA has recognized that
even if perfect compliance with all its existing regulations were achieved, these disturbing trends
might not be reversed, and that a new paradigm is needed to ensure protection of our ecosystems.
Community-based environmental protection (CBEP) is a new approach for identifying
environmental problems, setting priorities and forging solutions through an open, inclusive process
that is driven by places and the people who live in them. It differs fundamentally from EPA's
program-based efforts, which focus on more narrowly-defined environmental problems and attempt
to structure national solutions.
The Agency's Ecosystem Management Task Force2 met in Edgewater, Maryland on March
5, 1994 to develop a vision and strategy for a "place-driven" approach to ecosystem protection. The
purpose of this meeting was to discuss how the Agency could respond to a growing public mandate
to address human health and ecological concerns within an economic, social and geographic context.
The consensus was that a fundamental reorientation of the Agency is needed to address the strategic
environmental priorities of the Nation. The Edgewater Consensus3 is an agency-wide plan for
2 The Ecosystem Management Task Force was formed in 1994 to lead the Agency's
ecosystem protection efforts. Members of the task force included the Assistant Administrators of
the Office of Water, the Office of Administration and Resources Management, and the Office of
Policy Planning and Evaluation, with support from senior agency managers from both headquarters
and the regional offices.
3 See the Task Force's report, Toward a Place-driven Approach: The Edgewater Consensus
on an EPA Strategy for Ecosystem Protection (March 15, 1994).
Page 4 Summary of 1995 NACEPTRecommendations
-------
ecosystem protection, and serves as a framework for the Agency's implementation of ecosystem
management.
This mandate has led to the development of EPA's CBEP approach. This approach
recognizes the need to integrate efforts to promote healthy ecosystems, healthy economies and
healthy people. CBEP provides a framework and a process within which a variety of community
economic and environmental goals can be achieved.
A central premise of the community-based approach is the reorientation of government
activities based on the issues faced by particular ecosystems and the economies they support. This
involves "changing the unit of work" from single-media program mandates to the more holistic,
multi-media imperatives of a specific place. Success will require greater integration and teamwork
among environmental agencies, natural resource departments, and commerce, trade and economic
development programs.
A second key premise of CBEP is the need to work in partnership with stakeholders. EPA
needs to enhance its collaboration with public and private partners — including other federal
agencies, states, tribes and local governments, land managers, businesses, environmental groups, and
community groups — to realize the potential of CBEP.
A third premise is the need for appropriate tools to support implementation of a community-
based approach. Information is the key to empowering communities. EPA must work to improve
and integrate the information it gathers, make it more accessible, and forge a stronger link between
the Agency's scientific community and the information technology community. EPA must also
provide leadership for public education and outreach programs to explain the importance of
ecosystem protection to the public.
Page 5 Sum mary of 1995 NA CEPT R ecom m endations
-------
NACEPTS Role In CBEP
During FY 1995, NACEPT and its committees devoted a substantial portion of their work
to advising EPA in the development of the CBEP approach. Following the March 1994 Edgewater
meeting, the Administrator asked NACEPT to make ecosystem management a priority for its work,
and to concentrate on how long-term ecological, economic and social needs can be integrated to
achieve a community-based approach to environmental management. The Agency recognized that
it cannot be involved in every community where environmental protection needs to be addressed,
nor should it be. NACEPT was therefore asked to consider how EPA can best stimulate and support
CBEP efforts in the many places where it will not be directly involved.
To respond to these requests, NACEPT formed three committees with the following charges:
Ecosystems Information and Assessments Committee
To examine the availability, access, and use of environmental information in support
of place-based ecosystem protection, as -well as examining how science could be
brought to bear in supporting CBEP.
Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee
To evaluate opportunities for EPA to re-orient the use of its existing statutory and
regulatory authorities to integrate an ecosystem management approach into the
Agency's decision-making processes, and identify opportunities to develop
partnerships.
Ecosystems Sustainable Economies Committee
To examine the defining elements of sustainable economies and the opportunities for
harmonizing environmental policy, economic activity, and ecosystem management.
Throughout FY 1995, these NACEPT committees and their working groups met with EPA program
office managers and staff to discuss and present recommendations on various topics related to CBEP.
This report summarizes the recommendations made by NACEPT in these various forums. Many of
the committees' recommendations are being incorporated into the development of the Agency's
CBEP strategy.
Page 6 Summary of 1995 NACEPT Recommendations
-------
General Findings and Conclusions
The NACEPT committees endorsed the concept of community-based environmental
protection as a highly productive addition to the environmental protection efforts of the Agency and
the Nation.' CBEP provides the integrated local approaches needed to resolve composite,
multimedia and nonpoint source environmental and ecosystem problems. It adds flexibility,
efficiency and effectiveness to the existing efforts of regulatory agencies and their customers.
NACEPT made the following general observations about the design of CBEP:
• EPA should apply a broad definition of "place" or "community" — to include a watershed,
a spatially-defined ecosystem, or even an area defined by jurisdictional boundaries that may
support marshaling of local community efforts.
• CBEP is not a panacea. It provides an integrated framework and a mechanism for
coordination with public and private sector partners, but cannot wholly replace other
programs.
CBEP should supplement and enhance, but not replace, current media-
specific regulations and standards.
Other integrative Agency programs — such as the Common Sense Initiative,
Environmental Justice, and Pollution Prevention — must continue.
• EPA will need to reorganize many of its current functions to reflect a multi-media, place-
based approach. The Agency should consider a matrix management approach to support
CBEP, and should explore new assignments for agency experts that will encourage an
integrated, place-based perspective.
• EPA should guard against letting budget pressures undermine progress on CBEP.
The term "community-based" replaced an earlier term, "place-based." NACEPT has
adopted the new terminology in this report, but expressed reservations about potential
misunderstandings that may arise with use of "community-based." In particular, NACEPT members
were concerned that the new terminology would be inappropriately thought of as applying only to
human habitats or as connoting only relatively small geographic scales.
Sum mary of 1995 NA CEPT R ecom m endations
-------
• Implementation of a CBEP approach should occur -within an operational frame-work or
sequence of steps:
1. Determining baseline conditions;
2. Determining the desired end-state;
3. Preparing and implementing a management plan;
4. Monitoring and evaluation; and
5. Modification to the management plan, as required.
Each phase should involve collaboration among the key stakeholders in the affected communities.
New Roles and Responsibilities for EPA
In most instances, states and local agencies, local nonprofit organizations, and/or landowners
and land managers -will carry out CBEP — not EPA. EPA -will often not be the lead agency, but
instead must assume the roles of partner, convener, and facilitator. In these new roles, NACEPT
recommended that EPA:
• Take a leadership role in encouraging the use of CBEP approaches by:
Conducting scientific assessments to promote consensus on environmental
needs;
Promoting stewardship and a long-term vision of environmental and
economic sustainability; and
Promoting technology and data transfer to support local CBEP efforts.
• Promote a cultural change from media-based management to CBEP, both within the Agency
and outside, by
Effectively communicating the CBEP vision, goals and desired outcomes;
Providing training to all employees; and
Enhancing coordination and collaboration with various stakeholders.
Page 8 Summary of 1995 NACEPT Recommendations
-------
Promote the use of mediation and negotiation to solve environmental problems.
Offer flexibility in its programs to complement, and not hinder, appropriate state and local
CBEP initiatives.
Advocate national environmental goals, maintain strong national standards, and conduct
scientific research to support those standards.
Develop a place-based enforcement program.
Provide traditional enforcement where necessary to ensure compliance with the law and to
maintain national consistency.
Coordinate federal programs and activities that support CBEP.
Establish connections between EPA research grants to academic institutions and local CBEP
efforts.
Develop guiding principles for a community-based approach to ecosystem management, and
disseminate them to its partners.
Building Partnerships and Promoting Consensus
Public participation is intrinsic to the success of a community-based approach. Community
members need to take ownership and responsibility for the health of their communities. Involving
communities and enhancing their ability to contribute to decisions will enhance prospects for long-
term success. NACEPT recommended that EPA take the following actions to encourage effective
partnerships and promote consensus:
* Promote effective public participation:
Encourage public participation and buy-in from the outset;
Make initial investments to identify key constituencies, engage them in
dialog, and form the required partnerships;
Develop a map of locations with active community groups, as an aid to
identifying active stakeholders;
Identify and resolve gaps in representation; and
Honor the role of valid representatives and organizations already in existence.
FaSe 9 Sum maty of 1995 NA CEPT R ecom m endations
-------
• Focus efforts on communities that are "willing" but not yet "able" to adopt CBEP.
• Collaborate with other federal agencies, state governments, tribal organizations, businesses,
community organizations and the general public.
• Work with national NGOs and local grassroots organizations to shape new directions,
advocate reforms, and communicate new themes to a broad audience.
• Develop broader methods of valuing ecosystems and their components.
• Identify examples where public participation in community environmental assessments has
been successful (such as Sustainable Seattle and Oregon's State Clean Water Strategy).
Science, Data and Education to Support CBEP
A comprehensive evaluation of the available tools to support CBEP was beyond NACEPT's
capabilities. However, NACEPT made a number of recommendations for actions EPA can take to
support implementation of CBEP. NACEPT recommended that EPA:
• Take a leadership role in expanding the ecological knowledge base:
Develop and refine more integrated measurement metrics.
Encourage recognition that uncertainty and unpredictability is inevitable, and should
not prevent taking action to address impacts.
• Develop a "tool chest" inventory:
Evaluate existing tools for their relevance to CBEP;
Describe how they can be accessed and used;
Provide adequate documentation;
Identify impediments to using existing tools within a CBEP context, and
specific ways to overcome those impediments.
Page 10 Sum maty of 1995 NA CEPT Recomm endations
-------
Provide technical assistance and training opportunities to states, tribes and local groups on
the use of CBEP tools.
Develop a Handbook of CBEP Methods for local use, which describes the CBEP vision and
provides a methodology and framework for implementing the approach.
Separate but integrated and complementary handbooks may be needed for
government versus community audiences.
EPA should consult with community-based practitioners to develop a
practical and useable handbook.
Involve hands-on users in the design, testing, and evaluation of CBEP tools and programs
by:
Adopting successful collaborative models, such as the USGS National Spatial
Data Infrastructure and the Federal Geographic Data Committee;
Attending users' conferences; and
Maintaining diverse participation in user committees and conferences —
perhaps by seeking philanthropic funding for users with limited resources.
Improve the link between science and local problem-solving by:
Providing a clearinghouse of case histories of successful community actions;
Supporting pilot projects that improve the link between science and problem-
solving; and
Focusing more scientific effort on linking the use of geographic information
systems and modeling.
Develop multi-media, multi-dimensional models to support place-based ecosystem
protection, including both small- and large-scale models:
Develop means to disseminate the methodologies used in existing large-scale models
(e.g., for the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay).
Encourage sharing of small-scale community/site models as they are developed.
Create incentives for private market development and distribution of models.
Develop an education program with the theme "Take Care of Your Place," presenting the
need for local involvement and describing appropriate methods and data sources.
11 Sum maryofl 995 NA CEPT R ecom m endations
-------
Develop and deploy multi-disciplinary teams to assist communities in assessing
environmental problems and developing management strategies.
Consider realigning EPA's laboratories as multi-disciplinary research institutions, -with
expertise on specific geographic locations.
Make it a priority to get EPA data out and available for use:
Place highest priority on those unique data sets that no other source has the
capability to collect (e.g., facility identifier/locational data);
Provide data on national trends, as context for evaluating local conditions;
Avoid letting concerns about scale and accuracy delay dissemination of data;
Promote established technologies such as GIS and Remote Sensing;
Allow stakeholders and communities to determine what data is useful to
them; and
Provide locational identifiers to ensure compatibility of EPA data -with
standard geographic information systems.
Develop innovative strategies for disseminating data:
Continue development of the Government Information Locator Service
(GILS);
Promote access through local library Internet connections, the American
Research Libraries, a resource room in Washington, and/or Regional Offices;
and
Distribute information via diskettes or CDs, or through direct connection with
EPA resources.
Integrating Economic and Environmental Goals
"Sustainable economies" allow the current generation's needs to be met without reducing the
stock and value of the environmental capital available for future generations. CBEP provides the
framework for integrated consideration of economic and environmental outcomes that will promote
sustainability. NACEPT identified several issues that it felt were essential to successful integration
of economic activity and ecosystem protection. While many of these issues are not the primary
responsibility of EPA, the Agency should exercise a leadership role in this area. EPA should:
Page 12 Summary of 1995 NA CEPTRecommendations
-------
Promote the integration of ecological and economic modeling, including:
Expanding economic measures to reflect broader values; and
Working -with other Federal agencies to integrate economic models -with
ecosystem level measurement, analysis and models.
Promote the development of improved methods for valuing ecosystems:
Promote research on the value of service flows from natural resources; and
Help coordinate the research efforts of natural scientists, social scientists, and
economists by working to improve communication among the disciplines.
Encourage the use of improved accounting methods, including:
National Income Accounting that tracks depreciation of the Nation's
environmental assets;
Full Cost Accounting methods that reflect environmental costs in corporate
decision-making; and
Agency accounting practices that improve incentives for state and local
governments.
Help develop a more complete understanding of the environmental impacts of incentive
policies, as well as new opportunities to use incentives to achieve environmental goals,
including:
Environmental impacts of taxes and subsidies;
Unintended environmental impacts of regulations;
Allocation of resources to the highest-risk issues;
Voluntary initiatives and rewards for progressive approaches to
environmental protection;
Environmental impacts of property rights regimes; and
Environmental impacts of trade policies.
Pa§e 13 Summary of 1995 NA CEPTRecommendations
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS OF OTHER NACEPT COMMITTEES
In addition to ad hoc committees convened to address emerging issues, NACEPT has
standing committees -which are responsible for providing information and advice on topics of
continuing interest. Currently, NACEPT has one standing committee — the Environmental
Information, Economics, and Technology Committee.
Environmental Information, Economics, and Technology Committee
The Environmental Information, Economics and Technology Committee is a newly
reorganized Committee under NACEPT, whose major current responsibility is oversight and review
of the activities and products of its five Subcommittees. The five Subcommittees are the
Environmental Statistics Subcommittee, the Radiation Clean-up Subcommittee, the Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant, the Toxics Data Reporting Subcommittee, and the Effluent Guidelines Task Force.
Membership of. the Committee consists of members (predominantly the Chairs) of the
Subcommittees. The major subject areas covered by the Subcommittees are data gathering and
reporting, radioactive waste storage and clean-up, and effluent guidelines and pollution prevention.
The following is a summary of the FY 1995 objectives and recommendations of the five
Subcommittees. More detailed descriptions of the Subcommittees' recommendations are provided
in Appendix D.
Toxics Data Reporting Subcommittee
The Toxics Data Reporting Subcommittee was established to provide advice to the Agency
on the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI), under section 313 of the Community Right-to-Know Act. The
Subcommittee held one meeting this year, and made recommendations to the Environmental
Assistance Division of the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances on the redesigr
of Form R for the TRI, and on expansion of the list of industrial sectors to be covered in TRI.
Recommendations on TRI addressed- reporting underground injection and secure landfills a
releases to the environment, and the need for separate sections on the form for releases to th
environment for other wastes.
No consensus was reached on the selection of new industries to be covered by TR
However, two basic models were suggested for the selection of new industries: one based on ti
significance of releases and the other based on economic factors.
Page 14 Summary of 1995 NA CEPTRecommendatic
-------
Radiation Cleanup Subcommittee
The Radiation Cleanup Subcommittee provides advice to the Agency on the management
of radioactive waste disposal. The Subcommittee did not meet in 1995. However, Subcommittee
members provided comments on a draft of the Radiation Site Cleanup Rule. These comments
addressed land use issues, consideration of local statutes and cultural needs, and the need to consider
other regulations in developing the rule.
Effluent Guidelines Task Force
The Effluent Guidelines Task Force was established under the terms of a consent decree with
the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund. It provides the
Agency with advice on ways to promote pollution prevention and to consider other media in the
development of effluent guidelines. The Task Force held three meetings in 1995, and made
recommendations to the Office of Science and Technology of the Office of Water on the following
topics:
• Pollution prevention: EPA should work with other appropriate entities to develop an
integrated data base on pollution prevention research.
• EPA should design its effluent guidelines surveys in cooperation with industry and limit the
number of questions to minimize reporting burdens, and should provide for electronic
transfer of survey responses.
• EPA should analyze past experience with effluent guidelines, to inform future development
of guidelines.
.EPA should develop long-range plans that identify candidate industries for effluent
guidelines development.
• EPA should encourage and support the development of improved analytical methods.
Page 15 Summary of 1995NACEPTRecommendations
-------
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Subcommittee
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Subcommittee provides advice to the Agency on
implementation of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act.' One Subcommittee meeting was held in FY
1995, and the Subcommittee provided advice and feedback on three aspects of the compliance
criteria rule:
Release limits: The Subcommittee concluded that the difference between two
options being considered for defining the point in time from when release limits
would be applied is small compared with overall uncertainty levels.
Passive institutional controls: The Subcommittee commented on the potential
benefits of surface markers in reducing intrusion and on the extent to which credit
should be given for the use of markers.
Peer review: The Subcommittee endorsed the use of peer review in the compliance
application process, and made several recommendations on the scope of that review.
Environmental Statistics Subcommittee
The Environmental Statistics Subcommittee provides advice to the Agency on the availability
of federal statistics, the use of the data to measure environmental progress, and the development of
environmental and economic indicators of progress. During FY1995, the Subcommittee
recommended that the Agency establish a Center for Environmental Statistics and made specific
suggestions about the Center's functions and organization. In addition, the Subcommittee
recommended that current efforts to collect environmental data on U.S./Mexico border issues be
institutionalized and elevated to programmatic status.
5 The WIPP is a potential site, located in Carlsbad, NM, for disposal of transuranic waste and
transuranic mixed wastes generated during the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
This rule will be used by EPA to certify whether the WIPP complies with the Agency's
final radioactive -waste disposal regulations.
Page 16 Summary of 1995NACEPTRecommendations
-------
Appendix A
NACEPT ECOSYSTEMS INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENTS COMMITTEE
FY1995 Activities and Recommendations
The Ecosystems Information and Assessments Committee (EIAC) was asked to "... examine the
availability, access, and use of environmental information in support of place-based ecosystems protection,
as well as examining how science could be brought to bear in support of CBEP implementation."
Three committee meetings were held during FY95. The Committee met with Agency program office
representatives to discuss and provide comment on current and planned CBEP activities. The Committee also
provided input on CBEP implementation strategies for EPA's Senior Leadership Council Meeting in
February 1995. Some of the Committee's discussions centered around current activities, such as EPA's
efforts to develop an on-line environmental information service (the Government Information Locator
Service or GILS). Other discussions provided comment and advice on development of an overall
information and science strategy to support CBEP. Many of the Committee's recommendations have already
been incorporated into EPA's developing science and information dissemination strategies.
EPA's ROLE IN CBEP
The Committee endorsed CBEP as a basis for organizing EPA's programs.
The Committee concluded that, if CBEP is to succeed, EPA needs to consider reorganizing many
of its current functions to reflect more accurately a multi-media, place-based management process.
CBEP must enhance rather than replace existing single-media regulations and standards.
The Committee also included a note of caution: the Agency's current single-media approach has had
various successes over the years and should not be cast aside. The Agency should begin building an
appropriate management infrastructure to support CBEP efforts. These efforts should be aimed at enhancing,
not supplanting, its current single-media structure. EPA must implement the CBEP approach as the next step
in environmental protection: going beyond the current focus on chemical contaminants to biological
protection as the next logical step.
-------
EPA needs to develop science and information tools that can be used by community stakeholders
whether or not EPA is directly involved.
The Committee concluded that EPA's current Science and Information Strategies are on the right
track. If communities are to succeed in implementing CBEP, the Agency needs to provide as many of the
required tools as possible, as well as providing technical and scientific expertise to support their use. CBEP
reflects the trend toward less direct federal involvement and more community/local empowerment. By
supporting of use of CBEP, EPA will form a closer relationship with communities, albeit in a new role.
EPA needs to take on new roles to support implementation of CBEP.
Traditionally, the federal government has assumed a lead role in many inter-governmental or
governmental/ community partnerships. As the Agency moves toward a community-based approach, it must
recognize that leadership may be ~ indeed, may already be ~ provided by private industry, states, local
governments, or other federal agencies. EPA's role in implementing CBEP will vary with the needs of each
community or site. In addition to its traditional regulatory and enforcement role, EPA may be called on to
act at various times as:
Leader • Planner • Facilitator
Funder • Broker • Planner
Coach * Participant • Catalyst
Encourager • Educator
EPA should consider a Matrix Management approach for supporting CBEP.
The Committee encouraged EPA to assign its employees to positions that broaden their experience
and points of view. For example, staff in media programs might be assigned Regional responsibilities, and
staff in the Region might be assigned to a specific media-based program or a broad multi-media, multi-
program initiative like the Common Sense Initiative. While some people might perceive such assignments
as a threat, experience in private industry indicates that this process contributes to professional development
and makes programs more successful.
CBEP initiatives must not be sacrificed to budget exigencies.
Streamlining in the face of shrinking budgets should not result in sacrificing of innovative
approaches. CBEP has great potential for improving environmental protection by empowering communities
through information, science and education. EPA must find some way to protect and preserve key segments
of this program.
A-2
-------
CONSTITUENCY INVOLVEMENT AND BUY-IN
Collaboration with other federal, state, local, tribal, public, and business organizations is required.
A CBEP approach cannot be implemented without direct involvement and acceptance from the sites'
communities. Public participation and buy-in must be part of the planning process while the project is still
on the drawing board. Initial investments need to be made in identifying key constituencies, engaging them
in dialog, and forming a partnership with them, if this concept is to work. EPA cannot and should not do it
alone.
General public participation is critical to the success of a community-based approach.
EPA should stress, at all levels, the importance of public buy-in and participation, as well as forming
partnerships with government and business organizations. Encouraging the general public to take ownership
and responsibility for their local environment, and involving them in decision-making from the beginning,
will enhance the prospects for long-term commitment and success.
Environmental assessments should include public participation. EPA should identify models where
this participatory process has worked.
Along with a sound scientific process, valid research, and quality information/data, the success of
any environmental assessment is also predicated on the public's willingness to accept the findings of that
process. EPA should explore efforts such as Sustainable Seattle and Oregon's State Clean Water Strategy,
as examples of successful public participation in environmental assessments.
EPA should include stakeholders in the design, testing, and evaluation of CBEP.
It is critical to have hands-on users of all kinds, including industry, local governments, and grass-
roots groups, engaged in a formal feedback process. The Agency should follow examples such as:
USGS's National Spatial Data Infrastructure (TSfSDP: Once a provider of data, USGS now
facilitates dialog among players, and in many cases reinforces what is done at local levels.
USGS promotes a common process, procedure, and standards throughout state councils,
across geographic information user groups, and across grass-roots associations that are
engaged data collection activities.
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC): Grants awarded to States support networking
with their local constituents and Regional Workshops.
A-3
-------
EPA should also attend users' conferences for the information and methods related to CBEP. These
conferences are a good way to learn how place-based/community-based programs are implemented and
supported in practice. Conferences also maintain a sense of momentum and enthusiasm among users, and
encourage continual improvement in data and methods based on practical experience.
To provide useful feedback, users' conferences need to include all user groups. However, requiring
all attendees to pay for participation can create a skewed distribution of constituents. Not all state, local
government, NGOs, and grassroots organizations can afford to attend conferences. EPA should consider
seeking philanthropic partners to support conferences, and using funding from these sources to maintain
diversity in participation.
EPA should develop an education program with the theme "Take Care Of Your Place."
This general awareness program should address such basic topics as "What is the concept of
CBEP?", "How can a CBEP effort be organized?", and "What is a watershed?" The awareness programs
could be developed in partnership with other current educational programs. Many secondary school
programs, such as those in Detroit and Dallas, are currently involved in "Take Care Of Your Place" efforts.
EPA should consider development of "Institutional Role Models" as part of its CBEP program.
Role models educate, motivate, and use peer pressure positively. Programs like OSHA's Voluntary
Protection Program and EPA's own Project XL are examples of role model efforts with good potential.
Similar role model efforts fit very well within the theme of "Take Care Of Your Place", and identifying and
publicizing CBEP success stories would be a low-resource commitment for the Agency.
EPA should develop a Handbook of CBEP Methods for local stakeholder use.
This handbook should include: a clear statement of the CBEP vision; a framework for implementing
CBEP; description of information/data and science needs; methods for identifying and involving
stakeholders; and the effects of national and local policies. Users of this handbook may include citizens,
entrepreneurs, scientists, academics, legislatures, professionals (planners), and the regulated community
(industry). EPA should consult with community-based practitioners by convening a CBEP "Specialist"
meeting or symposium, to ensure that the handbook is practical and useable.
EPA should develop a separate CBEP Handbook for environmental agency use.
This handbook should be consistent with the stakeholder handbook, but targeted to a governmen
audience ~ initially EPA, and ultimately state and tribal governments. This handbook should educate
program office staff on the concepts of "place-based" management, and lay out explicit rules for governmen
participation in CBEP efforts.
-------
SCIENCE IN SUPPORT OF CBEP
EPA should take steps to create stronger, shorter links between science and local problem-solving.
EPA can "enlarge the pipeline" between science and decision-making in the following ways:
Communicate case-histories through a clearinghouse: This would cut down on duplication
of effort at the local level, and would provide models of the application of scientific
methods in CBEP programs.
Emphasize the practical application of methods to decision-making at every level (local,
county, state, etc.): For example, Toxic Release Inventory data and GIS technology to
analyze it are available. However, most analysis tools currently available address single
points, and do not look at cumulative releases for a community as a whole. Local decision-
makers need help using and understanding TRI data. Other methods and data sources need
more support for application to decision-making as well.
Consider supporting local pilot projects: EPA could support specific projects in different
geographic regions which test and demonstrate application of descriptive science to local
problem-solving. Evaluating the results of these experiments would help the Agency
identify methods and applications it should support with funding more widely. EPA's
Science Strategy seems to have the flexibility to support such an effort.
Focus more scientific effort on making science methods useable in decision-making: For
example, EPA should promote research on the combined use of GIS and modeling tools.
EPA has indicated that these tools lack a unifying principle now. Development of a
framework for relating time and geography would improve the usefulness of these tools in
CBEP applications.
EPA needs to develop multi-media, multi-dimensional models for application to different scales.
As work continues on large-scale ecosystem models such as the Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, and
Gulf efforts, EPA should develop a method for disseminating the information to interested parties. The
Agency should provide information on the methodologies used to develop the assessment models, the
technology used, and the methods used to engage partners. These efforts provide useful models for similar
efforts in other locations.
EPA should also foster the development and sharing of models to support much smaller place-based
efforts. The processes used in large-scale efforts may not be appropriate to small community/site projects.
As EPA identifies successful methods employed at the smaller sites, it should also develop the means to
disseminate this information.
-------
EPA should create incentives for private market distribution of modeling products.
Development of effective tools requires moving from abstract, difficult-to-use, poorly-documented
technical processes to clear, user-friendly, well-documented products. EPA should encourage thinking of
modeling as a product rather than solely as a technical process. In particular, EPA needs to determine how
to get some of their current modeling efforts into private market mechanisms. Getting modeling products
into the marketplace will encourage development of standards, improvement in methods, and more effective
dissemination of products by commercial suppliers.
EPA should develop and deploy multi-disciplinary teams to assist communities in CBEP efforts.
Teams of experts can assist communities with initial assessments and the development of CBEP
strategies. The teams can draw on staff from EPA's laboratories, where development of risk assessment
expertise is already on-going. Experts' experience on such teams will contribute to their ability to make
scientific tools useful and relevant, as well as providing valuable support to client communities.
EPA should consider realigning its laboratories as multi-disciplinary, "place-oriented" research
institutions.
Since EPA's laboratories are already geographically scattered across the country (e.g. Athens, GA;
Corvallis, OR; Las Vegas, NV; etc.), it would be possible for each laboratory to house a multi-disciplinary
team specializing in those geographic areas. The laboratories could be designed as Centers of Excellence
for place-based environmental assessments and ecosystems management.
INFORMATION ACCESS AND DISSEMINATION
EPA should adopt and foster the use of FGDC Standards.
EPA needs to adopt and use the standards of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) as
a "rallying point," to ensure that the many disparate data coordinating activities of government are in fact
being properly coordinated.
The Committee acknowledges the value and importance of the National Data Service Program
proposed by EPA.
The Agency should be sure that the program is carefully planned and coordinated with Federal
Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) members and others that have data dissemination plans. As part of this
effort, EPA should consider the following priorities:
-------
Making accessible those unique data sets that no other agency has the capability to collect
(i.e. facility identifier/locational data).
Providing data on national trends that helps communities put data on local conditions in
context.
EPA should make it a high priority to get its data out and available for use.
Concerns about scale and data accuracy can become barriers and even excuses to avoid getting
information out to communities. EPA should give stakeholders and communities the benefit of the doubt.
If data are made available, local people can in fact make sense of, integrate, and interpret the data on a scale
that makes sense to them and their problems. At a minimum, EPA should avoid being a barrier to wider use
of the data. Communities should make their own decisions about what the data are worth and about how
much effort should go into making them useable.
EPA should support development of skills and expertise in communities, through intermediaries.
The goal should be a "democratization" of expertise, where intermediaries are used to pass on skills
and knowledge. The effort should draw on existing expertise, with EPA encouraging and coordinating
outreach and training. EPA could help to train intermediaries such as libraries, community-based
organizations, some schools, and universities. In addition, EPA should consider implementing a small grants
program and developing inexpensive videos or CD-ROMS that teach people how to use available data.
EPA should evaluate new trade secrecy policies.
Claims of confidentiality can be a barrier to dissemination of data, which hinders communities'
ability to implement CBEP programs effectively. EPA should evaluate alternative trade secrecy policies that
would establish the presumption that data will be disseminated unless it is shown that disclosure would cause
significant business harm.
EPA should develop a map of geographic areas that have active community groups working on CBEP.
Identifying who is active in communities will assist in the process of identifying stakeholders for
specific CBEP efforts, especially where "hot spots" of high environmental concern are identified.
-------
Development of EPA's Government Information Locator Service (GILS) should be continued.
GILS is a good example of EPA's efforts to get information out to the public. To further
development of GILS, EPA should consider:
Promoting access through local library Internet connections, and through the American
Research Libraries, which include research libraries at major universities.
Providing public access to EPA databases at a physical location in Washington, with support
staff available.
Using the Regional Offices as a distribution channel.
-------
ECOSYSTEMS INFORMATION AND ASSESSMENTS COMMITTEE
Chair:
Mr. Thomas S. Davis
Director
Environmental Safety &
External Affairs
AT&T
Basking Ridge, New Jersey
Co-Chair:
Ms. Julie K. Norman
President
Headwaters, Inc.
Ashland, Oregon
Designated Federal Official:
Joseph Sierra
Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC
Ms. Patricia Bauman
President & Co-Director
The Bauman Foundation
Washington, DC
Dr. Donald F. Boesch
President
Center for Environmental &
Estuarine Studies
University of Maryland
Cambridge, Maryland
Mr. David Crockett
Councilman
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Ms. Patricia Cummens
GIS Manager
Department of Environmental
Protection
State of New Jersey
Trenton, New Jersey
Dr. Francisco Dallmeier
Director
Man & The Biosphere
Diversity Program
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC
Mr. Jack Dangermond
President
Environmental Systems
Research Institute
Redlands, California
Mr. Michael W. Hale
Chief Information Official
Information Technology
Policy Council
Atlanta, Georgia
Mr. David Hulse
Associate Professor
Landscape Architecture
University of Oregon
Eugene, Oregon
Dr. James R. Karr
Director
Institute for Environmental
Studies
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington
Ms. Kate Kimball
Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Oceans & Atmosphere
Department of Commerce
Washington, DC
Dr. Jerry Mechling
JFK School of Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Mr. David A. Mullon
Director
Cherokee Nation's Division
of Law and Justice
Tahlequah City, Oklahoma
Dr. Anil Nerode
Goldwin Smith Professor of
Mathematics
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York
Dr. John C. Ogden
Director
Florida Institute of
Oceanography
University of South Florida
St. Petersburg, Florida
Dr. Peter Raven
Director
Missouri Botanical Gardens
St. Louis, Missouri
Dr. Michael Hill Robinson
Director
Smithsonian Institution
National Zoological Park
Washington, DC
Mr. William T. Sexton
Deputy Director
Ecosystem Management
USDA, Forest Service
Washington, DC
Dr. A. Wayne Tamarelli
Chief Executive Officer
Dock Resins Incorporated
Linden, New Jersey
Nancy Tosta
Chief
Geographic Data Coordination
Committee
U.S. Geological Survey
Reston, Virginia
-------
Appendix B
NACEPT ECOSYSTEMS IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS COMMITTEE
FY1995 Activities and Recommendations
The Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee (EITC) was convened to evaluate opportunitia
for EPA to reorient its statutory and regulatory responsibilities to integrate a place-based, now term(
"community-based" approach to environmental protection (CBEP) into its decision-making process, ar
to identify opportunities for the Agency to develop partnerships with state and tribal co-regulators and lar
resource management agencies.
The Committee met in both full sessions and workgroup sessions during FY 1995. In its fir
meeting in September 1994, it identified the following questions as a framework for responding to tl
Agency's charge:
• What is EPA's role in place-based management?
What are the relevant tools in existing programs?
What impediments exist to the use of the tools?
Who else has a role and the tools for place-based management?
In January 1995 the Committee prepared an interim report for the Agency's Senior Leadership Council. TI
report addressed EPA's shift to place-based management and the role EPA should play, and suggested a fiv(
step process for implementation of CBEP. In a later phase of its deliberations, the Committee determine
that a comprehensive evaluation of EPA's tools to identify which were best-suited to CBEP needs wa
beyond NACEPT's capacity.
EPA'S ROLE IN CBEP
The Committee concluded in general that a place-based approach would be a highly productiv
addition to the environmental protection efforts of the Agency and the nation. It provides the integrate
approaches needed to resolve the composite multi-media and nonpoint source environmental/ecosyster
problems evident throughout the nation. It also adds flexibility, efficiency and effectiveness to the existin
environmental protection efforts of regulatory agencies and their customers.
The Committee expressed its concern to the Agency regarding the change in terminology from place
based to "community-based." While understanding that the fundamental concept of "place-based" was nc
changed, the Committee believes that these terms have different meanings to different people. In particular
the term community-based can be thought of as pertaining only to human habitats, and as connotin
relatively small geographic scales. The Committee prefers the more general term "place-based" and use,1
it synonymously with the term "community-based" in its recommendations.
B-l
-------
The Committee believes that to successfully implement a place-based or CBEP approach, EPA must
promote a paradigm shift and a cultural change from media-based management to CBEP. EPA can
accomplish this by effectively communicating its vision, goals, and desired outcomes. This includes
providing direction and training to all employees on the principles and key components of CBEP, and
enhancing coordination and collaboration with various stakeholders.
The Committee recommended using a broad definition of "place" because the place may often be
a watershed, a spatially-defined ecosystem, or even a spatial entity defined by particular environmental
concerns (e.g., a jurisdictional boundary) where local community empowerment can martial a comprehensive
approach to environmental problems.
The place-based approach should provide an integrated framework for addressing many problems,
and a mechanism for coordination and integration with other public and private sector partners. However,
it cannot wholly replace other programs. The Common Sense Initiative, Environmental Justice, and
Pollution Prevention programs must continue as other integrative approaches for the Agency. Many media-
specific and statute-based programs must also remain as key dimensions of the Agency's operations.
The Committee made a number of recommendations for roles and actions EPA should undertake to
implement the CBEP approach.
EPA must support and assist the organizations responsible for managing places.
In most instances, states and local agencies, local nonprofit organizations, and/or other
landowners or land-managers will carry out place-driven environmental management. EPA
will not always be the lead agency in implementation, but instead may assume the roles of
partner, convener, and facilitator.
EPA must develop partnerships with state, local, and tribal agencies and private organizations that
have developed or are seeking to develop place-based initiatives.
In these partnerships, EPA must offer flexibility in its programs to complement and not
hinder appropriate state and local level CBEP initiatives. EPA must also encourage its state
partners to develop partnerships with regional and local governments and private
organizations, so that all levels of government and willing private partners are working
cooperatively toward mutually-desired environmental goals.
-------
The states and localities may need support from EPA for research, analysis and innovation
enforcing regulatory programs.
This may include developing or assisting with the development of quantitative measures of
ecosystem health and capabilities, landscape modeling and applications, relative costs and
technological feasibility of achieving desired end states, and other tools necessary to good
ecosystem management.
EPA should advocate national environmental goals and focus its efforts on the coordination of feder;
programs and activities designed to implement place-driven environmental protection programs.
Local communities need to receive a consistent federal message when developing and
implementing their programs. EPA can encourage the use of CBEP approaches by
conducting scientific assessments and developing consensus on environmental needs; acting
as the Nation's environmental conscience ~ promoting stewardship and a long-term
sustainability perspective; and promoting technology and data transfer that can be useful to
local leaders of place-driven initiatives.
EPA should promote the development of flexible pilot programs to demonstrate alternative approach^
to traditional regulation and enforcement, and serve as a clearinghouse for the dissemination
information on both successful and unsuccessful approaches.
EPA should provide traditional enforcement when necessary to ensure compliance with the law an
to maintain national consistency.
EPA must maintain strong national standards and conduct scientific research to support thos
standards.
To ensure consistency in implementation, EPA should develop principles and themes for a "place
driven" approach to ecosystem management.
While some of them may be self-evident to the Agency, the guiding principles must be
stated explicitly and disseminated to its partners.
-------
STEPS FOR IMPLEMENTING CBEP
There are five basic steps or phases that are generally recognized as the fundamental components
of a CBEP process. These progressive phases offer a useful framework for thinking about the role EPA can
play in CBEP. EPA's role may differ in each step. In some, EPA's function may be more prominent or
appropriate than in others.
1. Determining Baseline Conditions involves identifying and delineating the appropriate ecological
boundaries and components of the "place" in relationship to the resource issues and opportunities
identified by the "local" stakeholders.
The assessment should include the characteristics and status of natural resources, socioeconomic
situations, and environmental conditions. The ecological profile should identify environmental stressors
and their impacts on the place and its population.
It is important to assure that this process includes all stakeholders and attempts to identify common
community values and concerns. Specifically, EPA should work in cooperation with states, local parties,
tribal stakeholders, other federal agencies and the private sector in collecting, arranging, and sharing data
as baseline information. EPA's data should have locational identifiers to insure that they are compatible with
standard geographical information systems.
2. Determining the Desired End-State involves developing a vision to determine what is desired, and
conducting a sustainability analysis to determine what is feasible.
Based on knowledge of the baseline conditions, the "local" stakeholders articulate their vision and
goals for the future ecological and socioeconomic health of their "place." Strong public participation is
needed to develop a vision designed to protect and/or identify the socioeconomic benefits of natural systems
for present and future generations. A sustainability analysis is conducted to determine whether the goals are
attainable or sustainable, whether the natural system can support the goals, and if not, whether there are
alternative goals that are attainable and sustainable within the constraints of the natural system.
EPA's role regarding determining "desired end-states" is to keep local stakeholders mindful of
national environmental goals (e.g., fishable and swimmable waters) to the extent that such goals exist and
are pertinent to the specific environmental problems of the place or community. In addition, EPA's data and
understanding of causal relationships can be reflected in the sustainability analysis.
3. Preparing and Implementing a Management Plan allows the stakeholders to analyze options and
select strategies for achieving the resource protection and/or restoration goals articulated by the
collective sustainable vision for their "place."
It is important to include local, state, and relevant federal agencies in the development of the
management plan, because they will often be responsible for assisting with its implementation.
B-4
-------
Although EPA may not directly implement the management plan, the Agency may have a variet;
of tools at its disposal to assist others in implementation; for example, the authorities which EPA delegate
to states under the Clean Water Act for NPDES permitting or nonpoint pollution control projects
Enforcement actions are an example of how EPA may have a more direct role to play. Nevertheless, i
should be recognized that the tools which EPA has at its disposal are only part of a broader array of option
that could be considered to implement an agreed-upon management plan.
4. Monitoring and Evaluation: In this step, it is important to determine whether the managemen
efforts are achieving the objectives and desired conditions. If they are not, new managemen
strategies should be identified.
Again, all stakeholders should participate in the monitoring and evaluation process as appropriate
EPA should support monitoring and evaluation by providing scientifically-sound evaluation tools such a
environmental indicators. The Agency should also ensure that goals are met as part of its complianc(
activities.
5. Modifications to the Management Plan: New strategies should be identified and employed if the
monitoring and evaluation results show that goals are not being achieved.
Modifications may be needed if resource conditions fail to improve or if socioeconomic benefits am
not realized. As part of this process, EPA must be willing to develop alternative management solutions
propose statutory changes, and/or make administrative changes to its own management tools, if they prov(
to be ineffective or unworkable.
USE OF EXISTING EPA TOOLS
EPA's "tools" include a variety of programs, authorities, research initiatives, and data bases - all o:
which contribute to the Agency's environmental protection mission. In some instances, EPA's traditiona;
tools are not particularly well-suited for CBEP. Some may need to be modified or supplemented to better
meet the needs of CBEP. This may be due in part to specific legislative or policy constraints. In other cases
it may be that the Agency has not yet explored creative new approaches.
The Committee made the following recommendations concerning EPA's existing management tools:
EPA Should Make Tools Place-Based.
Many existing tools were not originally designed for use within a CBEP framework. Some tools arc
more useful than others where the emphasis is on place and on locally-driven goals and choices. Rather than
creating entirely new tools (authorities, regulations, programs, etc.), EPA should:
Identify tools that are currently relevant to CBEP and describe how they can be used;
Evaluate the remaining tools to identify impediments to using them within a CBEP
framework, and identify specific ways to overcome the impediments;
B-5
-------
Ensure that tools are readily available to and useable by community-based groups, by
providing adequate documentation and technical assistance; and
Inform potential users and EPA staff about the availability of tools to support CBEP efforts.
EPA Should Compile a "Tool Chest" Inventory.
The inventory should include a description of each tool, an explanation of its potential application
in a CBEP context, and basic information on how users can access the tool. The inventory should address
tools for each of the five implementation steps outlined above. Although a detailed review of the Agency's
Tools Inventory Report was not conducted, the Committee believes that many of the tools described
appeared to be very specialized and limited, and their direct relevance to CBEP efforts was sometimes
unclear. Furthermore, some tools appearing to have the greatest potential for assisting in these efforts
seemed to be in the conceptual stage or under development.
IMPLICATIONS FOR EPA
While EPA may have the lead or be an active partner in some CBEP efforts, most often it will not
have direct involvement. It has been estimated that this may be the case 80 percent of the time. The
Committee believes that EPA can best leverage its resources through partnerships and by strategically
choosing opportunities. The Committee utilized the following criteria to evaluate options and identify the
most effective strategies:
Is it affordable? (Zero budget impact)
e Is it workable? (Can it be done quickly?)
Can it be done without legislative action?
Will it have broad geographic impacts?
Will the environmental impact be felt relatively quickly?
• Is there low resource demand by users?
• Is EPA the best or most appropriate provider?
• Will it contribute to lasting change?
-------
OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT
Given these criteria and the interest in pursuing strategies that will enable EPA to address the
estimated 80 percent of cases where it will have no direct involvement, the Committee made the following
recommendations:
EPA should integrate various media approaches and management structures to cultivate cross-media
thinking and action.
It is important for EPA staff to be knowledgeable in the different media. For example, a cross-
trained employee writing program specifications should be aware of the implications the specifications
would have on other program regulations and the possible conflicts that might arise. This will yield both
greater environmental gains and greater efficiencies and flexibility.
To effect a paradigm shift from media-based to place-based thinking, EPA should develop
innovative means of communicating and training both internally and externally. Training should avoid
overly-simplistic cookbook techniques. The Agency should require training of all program professionals
on the principles and science of ecosystem management and on the key components of CBEP.
EPA should develop a place-based enforcement program.
The Agency's enforcement tools have been an issue of particular concern to the Committee and are
illustrative of the type of tools that may be most challenging to adapt to CBEP. EPA's efforts to create
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) and use them to assist CBEP efforts is a good example of the
changes needed.
EPA should establish connections between research grants to universities and colleges and local CBEP
efforts.
The Agency should make an effort to ensure that funds provided to academic institutions located in
areas where CBEP efforts are underway are designed to address some of the outstanding information needs.
PARTNERSHIPS
The Committee made the following recommendations about formation of partnerships and EPA's
role in them:
-------
EPA should emphasize CBEP in its established partnerships with states.
State natural resource, land management and environmental protection agencies are the primary
means of "delivering" many of the tools to facilitate CBEP efforts. Many of EPA's authorities are delegated
to and administered by the states. In addition, the states are frequently the laboratories of innovation where
creative new approaches are explored. They have closer and often unique relationships with their
communities, and can empower local communities to act. They can also create sub-state or regional
environmental management districts.
EPA should work with NGOs to implement CBEP.
In many communities, local grassroots organizations are the catalysts for action and change.
Nationally, NGOs can be valuable partners in shaping new directions, advocating reforms, and
communicating new themes to broader audiences.
EPA should expand its grants program to provide matching CBEP grants to local partners and
communities.
EPA should focus on communities that are "willing" and make them "able"
Different levels of ability and interest exist. Some communities are neither willing nor able to
assume responsibility for the management efforts associated with CBEP. Others are moving ahead
aggressively and bringing substantial resources to bear. Still other communities have a mixture of
willingness and ability. In a climate of diminishing resources, EPA must focus its efforts in areas where they
will have the most impact ~ in communities where significant interest already exists (the "willing") but
where the resources (either technical ability or funding) are scarce ("unable").
-------
ECOSYSTEMS IMPLEMENTATION TOOLS COMMITTEE
Chair:
Dr. Edwin H. (Toby) Clark, II
Clean Sites Inc.
Alexandria, Virginia
Co-Chair:
Mr. Gerald Digerness
National Association of
Conservation Districts
Sumas, Washington
Designated Federal Official:
Gwendolyn Whitt
Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC
Mr. Dean Bibles
Director
Policy on Land Tenure
Department of Interior
Washington, DC
Ms. Catharine M. DeLacy
Vice President
Health, Environment, and Safety
Allied Signal, Inc.
Morristown, New Jersey
Dr. Margot W. Garcia
Executive Director
Department of Urban Studies & Planning
Virginia Commonwealth University
Richmond, Virginia
Mr. Joel Gross
Acting Chief
Environmental Enforcement Section
Department of Justice
Washington, DC
Mr. Michael Scott Haire
Director
Chesapeake Bay & Watershed Management
Maryland Department of Environment
Baltimore, Maryland
Dr. George Hallberg
Chief Environmental Research
University of Iowa Hygienic Laboratory
Iowa City, Iowa
Ms. Trixie Johnson
Vice Mayor
San Jose, California
Dr. Walter Handy, Jr.
Assistant Health Commissioner
Department of Health
Community Health Service Division
Cincinnati, Ohio
Dr. Kai Lee
Director
Center for Environmental Studies
Williams College
Williamstown, Massachusetts
Ms. Pamela P. McVety
Executive Coordinator
Florida DEP
Tallahassee, Florida
Ms. Jeanna Paluzzi
Coordinator
Transverse Bay Watershed Initiative
Transverse City, Michigan
Ms. Lee A. Pfannmuller
Ecosystems Service Manager
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
St. Paul, Minnesota
Ms. Ann Powers
Associate Professor of Law
Pace University Law School
White Plains, New York
Dr. Malcolm K. Sparrow
Lecturer in Public Policy
Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Ms. Holly Stoerker
Executive Director
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
St. Paul, Minnesota
Dr. Perry Wallace
American University
Washington, DC
Ms. Sherri Wasserman-Goodman
Deputy Under Secretary for
Environmental Security
Department of Defense
Washington, DC
-------
Appendix C
NACEPT ECOSYSTEMS SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIES COMMITTEE
FY1995 Activities and Recommendations
The Ecosystems Sustainable Economies Committee (ESEC) was asked to "... broadly examine the
defining elements of sustainable economies and opportunities for harmonizing environmental policy,
economic activity, and ecosystem management." The Committee identified several issues that it felt were
essential to successful integration of economic activity and ecosystem protection. Many of the issues that
the Committee identified are not the primary responsibility of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Nevertheless, the Committee has concluded that EPA must exercise a leadership role to help bring consensus
to these areas, and to integrate sustainability into the conscious decision-making processes of all
stakeholders.
The Committee considered issues in three broad categories ~ Consensus-building, Measurement and
Expanding the Knowledge Base, and Incentives ~ but felt that two issues were over-arching ~ Scale and
Population. All of the issues in the three broad categories occur at different levels of organization ~ local,
regional, national, and global ~ and many environmental problems occur because of incompatible incentives
across different scales. As ecosystems are multi-scale, a multi-scale approach to place-based environmental
management must be developed that integrates, rather than isolates, these differing scales. A growing world
population and economic activity will stress ecosystems beyond their carrying capacity unless more
sustainable economic systems are developed.
CONSENSUS-BUILDING
Ecological systems are integrated with other systems. To manage these diverse systems as a whole,
all stakeholders that represent different parts of these various systems must be engaged in a consensus-
building process. More stable, cost-effective policies should result if consensus-building approaches prevent
conflict from occurring.
EPA as Convener: Although EPA must maintain and exercise its authority to protect the environment
through regulatory means when necessary, the Agency must also develop and expand its use of mediation,
negotiation, and advocacy to avoid and solve environmental problems.
Ecosystem Valuation: Different constituencies and stakeholders have different measurement systems for
valuing the various components of ecosystems. The consensus-building process needs to incorporate the
opinions of all stakeholders. In addition to refining models for economic valuation, EPA must also work
with other agencies to develop non-monetary ecosystem valuation models. EPA's national goals need to be
stated explicitly to facilitate linkages with the development of environmental indicators and place-based
ecosystem valuation efforts.
Property Rights Regimes and Public Interest: The historical dichotomy between public and private
property rights needs to be bridged and considered in the context of long-term sustainability. There are
responsibilities attendant on those who are given various kinds of property rights, and the legitimacy of all
stakeholders and their interests must be recognized in the consensus-building process.
Cl
-------
Integration of National, State, Regional, and Local Planning: Gaps and overlaps in jurisdictional
representation need to be identified and resolved, and valid representatives and organizations that are in
existence should be honored. EPA should become involved as a convenor and consensus-builder when there
is a need to identify problems and implement solutions.
Education and Outreach: Education and outreach are essential to consensus-building and negotiated
settlements. EPA must address all spectrums of populations in its outreach efforts, and should use a variety
of communication technologies to facilitate informed discussion.
MEASUREMENT AND EXPANDING THE KNOWLEDGE BASE
As EPA makes greater use of consensus-building and more decentralized place-based and
participatory decision-making approaches, the Agency needs to assume a leadership role in expanding the
ecological knowledge base. The development and refinement of more integrated measurement systems is
critical to effective risk assessment and risk management.
Uncertainty and Unpredictability: We have come to acknowledge that we cannot quantify environmental
impacts with high precision because of the complex nature of the systems with which we are dealing. With
this acknowledgment, we must also accept a shift in the burden of proof, and take prudent steps to minimize
the effects of estimated impacts, rather than waiting until detrimental environmental impacts have occurred.
Integrated Ecological and Economic Modeling: Economic measurements need to reflect broader values
that have not been incorporated in the past. EPA should work with other Federal agencies to insure that
economic models are integrated with ecosystem-level measurement, analysis, and modeling.
Ecosystem Valuation: Various techniques are used to monetize the service flows that come from natural
resources. While methodologies to estimate costs are well developed, techniques to monetize benefits are
not. EPA should work with other agencies to convene panels and develop research agendas to address these
gaps. These efforts should examine ecosystem services and their valuation, and help establish links between
natural scientists, social scientists, and economists.,
Accounting ("green" and other): Accounting is a way for both the public and private sector to keep score
and measure progress. What is counted, and how it is counted, is critical to educated discussion, planning
and decision-making in both government and business.
• National Income Accounting — Current National Income Accounts do not track depreciation and
depletion of the nation's environmental assets, which prevents informed discussion of the allocation
of tax expenditures and tax revenues. EPA should work with other Federal agencies to develop a
consensus on properly valuing and accounting for environmental assets in our National Income
Accounts.
-------
Full Cost Accounting r- We need to measure the full cost of the depletion of environmental assets
in the corporate context as well as the national context. This applies for financial accounting,
managerial accounting, and capital budgeting methods. EPA should determine where it can assume
a leadership role to help change accounting systems so that the environmental costs of corporate
decisions are accurately reflected. EPA should also examine its own internal accounting practices
to assess the effects they have on the behavior of state and local governments.
INCENTIVES FOR SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIES
The use of incentives to further various policy goals is well-accepted, and can be very effective. The
environmental impacts of these incentives are not well understood, however. Nor are incentives widely used
to further environmental goals. EPA should help develop a more complete understanding of the
environmental consequences of different policy incentives, and develop new ways to use incentives to
promote environmental protection.
Better Regulation: Regulation can sometimes cause unanticipated or undesirable effects. Attempts to
address one environmental problem may exacerbate others, or disproportionate resources may be diverted
to dealing with lower-risk issues. EPA should structure its regulatory efforts to achieve the greatest overall
health and environmental benefit at the least cost. Enforcement should be targeted at the highest risk
problems to achieve the greatest net benefit.
Voluntary Initiatives: Voluntary initiatives can play an important role in encouraging creative and
progressive approaches to environmental protection. Greater use of voluntary initiatives would also allow
EPA to divert resources from traditional enforcement and inspection activities to consensus-building.
Voluntary initiatives should be structured to reward progressive actions by both creating incentives and
removing disincentives. EPA should recognize voluntary initiatives that are already in existence and work
to expand them, rather than creating entirely new programs. EPA must encourage the development of
monitoring, measurement, and auditing metrics that track environmental impacts rather than process-oriented
actions.
Tax Policy and Subsidy: Tax policies and subsidies have at times had detrimental environmental
consequences. EPA needs to develop the analytic capability to communicate the environmental impacts of
both taxes and subsidies, as well as the income-generating effects, incentive effects, and distribution effects
of any tax policy.
Trade Policies: Environmental problems have global effects, and trade policies affect national and
international protection efforts. EPA must develop the analytic capacity to assess the environmental impacts
of trade policies. The Agency must also become involved in trade policy negotiations, to help craft
consensus-driven agreements that will achieve both environmental protection goals and free-trade objectives.
-------
ECOSYSTEMS SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIES COMMITTEE
Chair:
Ms. Joan Bavaria
President
Franklin Research &
Development
Boston, Massachusetts
Vice-Chair:
Ms. Dianne Dillon-Ridgley
Citizens' Network on
Sustainable Development
Iowa City, Iowa
Designated Federal Official:
Mark Joyce
Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington, DC
Dr. Mary C. Barber
Executive Director
Sustainable Biosphere Initiative
Washington, DC
Mr. Gerard Bulanowski
Director, Environmental Assessment Program
Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment
Denver, Colorado
Mr. John K. Bullard
Director
Office of Sustainable Development and
Inter-Governmental Affairs
NOAA, DOC
Washington, DC
H. E. Ambassador Arthur H. Campeau
Westmount, Quebec
Canada
Dr. Robert Costanza
Director
Maryland International Institute for
Ecological Economics
Solomons, Maryland
Mr. Robert Crow
Oakesdale, Washington
Mr. Robert Doppelt
Executive Director
Pacific Rivers Council
Eugene, Oregon
Dr. George C. Eads
Vice President and Chief
Economist
General Motors Corporation
Washington, DC
Mr. Bruce Hamilton
Conservation Director
of the Sierra Club
San Francisco, California
Ms. Linda K. Hixon
President
Friends of the North Chickamagua
Creek Greenway, Inc.
Chattanooga, Tennessee
Dr. Mario Negron-Portillo
University of Puerto Rico
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Dr. Bruce Piasecki
Director
Lally Management Center
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Troy, New York
Mr. Frank Pope
General Partner
Technology Funding, Inc.
San Mateo, California
Dr. Earl S. Richardson
President
Morgan State University
Baltimore, Maryland
Mr. Ted Strong
Executive Director
Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission
Portland, Oregon
Dr. Joseph Sullivan
Senior Vice President
Ciba-Geigy Corporation
Ardsley, New York
Dr. Willie R. Taylor
Director
Office of Environmental Policy
& Compliance
U.S. DOI
Washington, DC
-------
Appendix D
NACEPT ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION,
ECONOMICS, AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
FY1995 Activities and Recommendations
This appendix describes the FY 1995 activities and recommendations of the five Subcommittees of
the NACEPT Environmental Information, Economics, and Technology Committee.
TOXICS DATA REPORTING SUBCOMMITTEE
The Toxics Data Reporting Subcommittee was established to provide advice to the Agency on the
Toxic Release Inventory (TM), under section 313 of the Community Right-to-Know Act. Its membership
includes representation from government and non-governmental organizations, private industry,
environmental groups, health officials, labor officials, and state government. The Subcommittee held one
meeting this year.
The Subcommittee made recommendations to the Environmental Assistance Division of the Office
of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances on the redesign of Form R for the TRI, and on expansion of
the list of industrial sectors to be covered in TRI.
The group unanimously agreed that underground injection and secure landfills should be reported
on Form R as releases to the environment. Releases to the environment should be reported separately from
other wastes. Finally, separate sections should be devoted to wastes that are recycled versus those that are
combusted for energy recovery or treatment.
No consensus was reached on the selection of new industries to be covered by TM. However, two
basic models were suggested for the selection of new industries:
• Model A: Select industries with significant releases:
Reporting by these industries will help communities with emergency preparedness.
These industries are able to monitor and report release data.
The total number of added facilities reporting will not overwhelm the TRI system.
These industries have a reasonable capacity to reduce releases.
• Model B: Select industries based on economic factors (cost to EPA and industry):
Data should be reported as a percentage of total releases of TRI chemicals.
The risk and cost associated with each industry's releases should also be reported.
D-l
-------
RADIATION CLEANUP SUBCOMMITTEE
The Radiation Cleanup Subcommittee provides advice to the Agency on the management of
radioactive waste disposal. The Subcommittee's membership includes representation from non-governmental
organizations, private industry, academia, and state government. The members are recognized experts in the
policy and technical aspects of radioactive waste management and cleanup.
The Subcommittee did not meet as a group in 1995. However, the Subcommittee members provided
comments on a draft of the Radiation Site Cleanup Rule. These comments addressed land use issues,
consideration of local statutes and cultural needs, and the need to consider other regulations in developing
the rule. After lengthy intea- and inter-agency negotiations, this rule has been sent to the Administrator for
approval prior to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
EFFLUENT GUIDELINES TASK FORCE
The Effluent Guidelines Task Force is required under a consent decree with the Natural Resources
Defense Council and the Environmental Defense Fund. It provides the Agency with advice on methods for
promoting pollution prevention and incorporating consideration of other media in the Effluent Guidelines
program.
The Task Force held three meetings in 1995. It is currently addressing the criteria for selecting
industries for regulation, looking at cross-media opportunities with a goal of zero discharge, and pretreatment
of effluent. The Task Force made the following recommendations to the Office of Science and Technology
of the Office of Water:
• EPA and other appropriate entities should aggregate all of the data on pollution prevention research
(by EPA and various stakeholders) into one readily-accessible data base.
For any survey related to effluent guidelines, EPA should review the need for individual questions
to keep the number of questions to a minimum. Development of questionnaires in cooperation with
industry was encouraged. In addition, EPA needs to develop a method for electronic transfer of
survey responses.
EPA should initiate an analysis of the 51 effluent guidelines, and the experience gained from this
effort should guide future development of guidelines.
* The Office of Water, in conjunction with the Office of Research and Development, should develop
long-range plans identifying candidate industries for effluent guidelines development.
• EPA should encourage and support new analytical methods for pollutants of concern that recognize
and work to decrease inter-laboratory variability, and that allow for detection at lower
concentrations.
-------
EPA should develop approved analytical methods across media, including drinking water,
wastewater, hazardous waste, and air, to encourage consistency and reduce conflicting variability.
WASTE ISOLATION PILOT PLANT SUBCOMMITTEE
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) Subcommittee provides advice to the Agency on issues
related to implementation of the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act. The Act gives EPA the responsibility of
overseeing many of DOE's activities at the WIPP and insuring that these activities comply with
environmental laws.'
One Subcommittee meeting was held in 1995. The Subcommittee provided advice to EPA officials
on issues surrounding the development of the compliance criteria rule. This rule will be used by the Agency
to certify whether the WIPP complies with EPA final radioactive waste disposal regulations. A full report
on the Committee's recommendations will be available in early 1996.
The following is a summary of the Subcommittee's recommendations to the Agency during FY 1995:
Release Limits: The Agency selected two options for the fixed point in time to be used in
calculating the release limits (zero years from the time the repository is sealed, or 100 years after
the repository is sealed), and asked for the Subcommittee's advice on which option would be more
appropriately applied to the WIPP. The majority of the Subcommittee believed that the difference
between the two starting points is small compared with the overall uncertainty levels associated with
the size and nature of the waste inventory. Those who had an opinion favored using 100 years as the
starting point for calculating the release limits. The Subcommittee also noted that it would be useful
to express the release limits and any differences in release limits in a risk framework.
Passive Institutional Controls (PICs): The Agency asked the Subcommittee whether credit should
be given for the use of passive institutional controls at the WIPP. The Subcommittee made the
following observations and recommendations:
• Markers may increase advertent intrusion, but should decrease inadvertent intrusion as long as they
endure and are understood.
• Surface markers are needed now for compliance application purposes, but will probably not be
constructed until the repository is closed
Markers are perceived to be beneficial, but there is no clear quantitative way of estimating a credit
for them against the drilling rate.
The Subcommittee was split regarding credit for PICs and thought that if credit were to be allowed,
it may be more sensible to assume that PICs delay the onset of intrusion rather than reducing the
frequency of intrusion. Any such delay should be limited to a few hundred years.
' The WIPP is a potential site, located in Carlsbad NM, for disposal of transuranic wastes and iransuranic
mixed waste generated during the manufacture of nuclear weapons.
D-3
-------
Peer Review: The Agency asked the Subcommittee how to revise six critical program area
guidelines in order to establish a consistent rationale for the use of peer review. The Subcommittee
made the following observations and recommendations:
Peer review is an essential element in the compliance application process.
Sensitivity analysis is a useful tool in establishing areas requiring peer review. The analysis should
flow from performance assessment (PA), and appropriate aspects of PA must also be peer reviewed.
DOE should be required to prepare a document summarizing previous peer reviews on WIPP-related
matters as an essential first step in EPA's review of the adequacy of past peer reviews on sensitive
issues.
Peer review to insure that the selected models are an appropriate representation of physical reality
is necessary. Peer review should address such questions as "Has the correct model been selected?"
and "What is the difference in uncertainty when selecting one model over another?"
Peer review of QA programs and plans is not necessary; conformance to the QA requirements is
adequate to control the QA process.
ENVIRONMENTAL STATISTICS SUBCOMMITTEE
The Environmental Statistics Subcommittee represents a broad spectrum of statistical information
users and producers. It provides advice to the Agency on what federal statistics are available, how the data
are used to measure environmental progress, and how EPA can best develop appropriate environmental or
economic indicators to track, quantify, and report on the state of the environment.
The Subcommittee held one meeting this year. It made recommendations on the following topics:
Center for Environmental Statistics: EPA should establish a Center for Environmental Statistics
whose principal mission would be to develop statistical information needed to make and assess
environmental policies. The Subcommittee recommended that the Center perform a number of specific roles,
including:
• Setting priorities for collecting statistics;
• Developing statistical frameworks and analytical models to help guide the development of
indicators;
• Linking physical and chemical measures with social and economic information;
• Analyzing statistics and data for critical issues that face the Agency;
• Acting as an advisory service to other parts of the Agency on environmental monitoring,
data collection and processing;
-------
Coordinating with other parts of the Agency, federal government, the states and other
countries;
Working with ORD to assess and review the use of statistical methods;
Improving the accessibility of EPA environmental statistics; and
Developing a number of more highly visible statistical products.
The Subcommittee suggested that the Center should be located in EPA's Office of Policy Planning and
Evaluation or be integrated in a separate office of statistics and information, and that it be advised by a
standing committee of experts.
US/Mexico Border Environmental Statistics: The Subcommittee recommended that the current
US/Mexico border effort be institutionalized, elevating it to programmatic status. It recommended that
planning should be coordinated with the Office of International Activities, the Regions and program offices,
and that the data base be expanded to include local, state and Mexican data. Finally, it recommended the
development of a methods document to show how to combine data from EPA data bases.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION,
ECONOMICS, AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
Chair:
Dr. A. Wayne Tarnarelli
Chief Executive Officer
Dock Resins Incorporated
Linden, New Jersey
Ms. DianaBorja
Director
Office of Border Affairs
and Environmental Equity
Texas Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
Austin, Texas
Mr. William Dornsife
Chief
Division of Nuclear Safety
Bureau of Radiation Protection
State of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
Dr. Kimberlee J. Kearfott
Professor
Department of Nuclear Engineering
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Mr. James Loomis
Division of Emergency Management
State of Florida
Tallahassee, Florida
Designated Federal Official:
Morris Altschuler
Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Mr. Robert Neill
Environmental Evaluation Group
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Paul Orum
Working Group on Community
Right-to-Know
Washington, DC
Daniel B. Tunstall
Deputy Director
Center for International Development
and Environment
World Resources Institute
Washington, DC
Michael Witt
Chief
Industrial Wastewater Section
Department of Natural Resources
State of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin
Dr. Chris Whipple
ICF Kaiser Engineers
Oakland, California
------- |