United States Office of EPA 100-R-99-005B
Environmental Protection The Administrator July 1999
Agency (160 IF)
&EPA National Advisory
Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology
(NACEPT)
Past & Future
Appendix M
Chronology and History Report
-------
APPENDIX M
Appendix M to NACEPT Past & Future is a chronology and history of the National
Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), by standing committee,
since its creation in 1988. Since 1988, the Council has convened and directed the work of 26
standing committees, each established to address a specific issue. These standing committees
have been grouped in Appendix M by issues into three categories including (1) General Agency
Policy or Management, (2) Program/Media Specific, and (3) Information Management and
Technology.
Each standing committee's chronology and history contains the following information:
A. Why the subcommittee was established.
B. A description of the charge or guidance that the committee was given.
C. The standing committee's membership, dates of activity, and mode of
operation.
D. The standing committee's reports and recommendations.
E. The resulting EPA actions.
On the following page you will find a table of contents to Appendix M.
-------
APPENDIX M
TABLE OF CONTENTS
General Agency Policy or Management PAGES
Community-Based Environmental Protection Committee 1996-1997 CBEP.l
Environmental Capital Markets Committee 1998-1999 ECMC.l
Environmental Education and Training Committee/Pollution EETC/PPEC.I
Prevention Education Committee 1988-1993
Environmental Financial Advisory Board 1989-1990 EFAB.l
Environmental Information Economics & Technology Committee EIET.l
1995-1996
Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee 1994-1995 EITC.1
Ecosystems Sustainable Economies Committee 1994-1996 ESEC.l
Reinvention Criteria Committee 1996-Ongoing RCC.l
State and Local Programs Committee 1988-1993 s&L.l
Trade and Environment Committee 1989-1993 TEC.l
Technology Innovation and Economics Committee 1989-1993 TIE.l
Title VI Implementation Advisory Committee 1998-1999 TITLE VI. 1
Program/Media-Specific
Effluent .Guidelines Task Force 1992-Ongoing EGTF.l
Environmental Measures/Chemical Accident Prevention Committee EMCAP.l
1990-1996
Food Advisory Committee 1996 FSAC.l
Superfund Evaluation Committee 1993-1994 SAC.l
Toxic Data Reporting Committee 1993-Ongoing TDR.l
Total Maximum Daily Load Committee 1996-1998 TMDL.l
Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee 1998 TRAC.l
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Review Committee 1992-Ongoing WIPP.1
Information Management and Technology
Environmental Information and Assessment Committee 1994-1996 EIAC.1
.Environmental Information and Public Access Committee 1998 EIPAC.l
Environmental Statistics Committee 1992-1997 ESTATS.l
Ecosystems Sustainable Economics Committee 1994-1996 ESEC.l
Information Impacts Committee 1996-1997 IIC.I
Information Resources Management (IRM) Strategic Planning IRM.1
Task Force 1994
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Community-Based
Environmental
Protection Committee
1996-1997
if Established at the request of the EPA Administrator, to assist in evaluating how the Agency
could pursue a CBEP approach.
if Charged to focus on the availability of information, measures of success, public incentives,
and private incentives required for community-based environmental protection.
* Published "Report and Recommendations of the Community-Based Environmental
Protection Committee, Fiscal Year 1997."
A. Why Established
Traditionally, EPA managed its environmental protection efforts through single-medium (e.g., water)
approaches, where environmental problems were narrowly defined and solutions were structured on a
national scale. Over the last decade, a movement has arisen to focus EPA efforts on more holistic,
multi-media approaches toward environmental protection. For example, Community-Based
Environmental Protection (CBEP) is an approach for identifying environmental problems, setting
priorities and developing solutions through an inclusive process that is driven by the relevant
community. This approach differs fundamentally from traditional approaches in its attention to multi-
media concerns and its "place-based" focus.
In 1995, three NACEPT Committees the Ecosystems Information and Assessments Committee; the
Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee; and the Ecosystems Sustainable Economies Committee
examined aspects of the CBEP approach. As a result, the EPA Administrator requested that
NACEPT develop more detailed recommendations as to how EPA could support and advance CBEP
programs. In response, the CBEP Committee was established in 1996.
B. DescrigtionMDlfjCharge _____^^
The Committee was charged with focusing on four areas of community-based environmental protection:
(1) information and its availability; (2) measurements of success; (3) public incentives; and (4) private
incentives. Specifically, the CBEP committee was asked to:
examine the elements which define sustainable economies;
identify opportunities for harmonizing environmental policy, economic activity, and ecosystem
management;
develop recommendations that identify regulatory and non-regulatory incentives to promote CBEP
activities, such as changing wetlands regulations to promote advanced planning and mitigation
banking; and
develop measures of success for each of the four charges based on global, regional, local and micro-
community levels of scale.
June 15,1999 1996-1997 CBEP
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
The CBEP Committee convened several meetings between April 1996 and March 1997, culminating in
the preparation of a final report.
The Committee was comprised of representatives from federal, state, tribal, and local government;
academia; industry; and non-governmental organizations. Specifically, membership included
representatives from coastal ecosystem centers; fisheries commissions; local and national envkonmental
advocacy groups; county tourism offices; water rights groups; departments of public health; departments
of economics and estuarine studies; and manufacturers.
The Committee met with representatives of the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation's Project XL
for Communities and Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and Communities, as well as representatives
from other EPA programs, including the Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative and the
Community-Based Envkonmental Protection Coordination Team to gather thek input and ensure
Agency- wide consistency in the consideration and implementation of various CBEP approaches.
D. Reports and Recommendations^ ______________________________________
The Committee presented its findings in its "Report and Recommendations of the Community-Based
Envkonmental Protection Committee, Fiscal Year 1997." In addition, because the "Summary of 1995
NACEPT Recommendations" was so instrumental in the formation of the CBEP Committee, it also is
oudined in this summary.
The recommendations provided in the Committee's report are described in the following pages.
CBEP 1996-1997 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Report and Recommendations of the Community-Based
Environmental Protection Committee, Fiscal Year 1997"
In this report, the Committee recommended that the CBEP process be based on a framework that
includes the following factors: information; incentives; measuring the integrated results of environmental,
economic, and social welfare indicators; and planning for evaluation of CBEP activities. Each factor is
explained in more detail below.
Information
EPA should continue to develop and disseminate information products designed to increase
awareness.
EPA should integrate relevant existing data to develop useful information products that will
empower communities to understand and address complex environmental issues.
As EPA develops or enhances CBEP information products, the Agency should engage
representative users in all phases of development.
Incentives
EPA should focus on incentives to encourage community participation in CBEP activities.
EPA should develop different incentives for different groups. EPA should tailor incentives
according to the opportunities, constraints, and objectives of each target group.
EPA should create incentives that will encourage target groups to maintain (not just initiate) desired
behaviors.
CBEP Measurement
EPA should provide assistance on what to measure, how to measure it, and how to use the
measurements.
EPA should encourage communities and businesses to report to the public on environmental
impacts of their decisions and activities. EPA should also encourage regulated/delegated activities to
be reported from several scales.
EPA should help communities consider tradeoffs among environmental/human health, economic,
and social impacts.
Planning for Evaluation
EPA should evaluate:
Its success in providing useful CBEP support to target audiences.
The success of this support in catalyzing initiation of and participation in community environmental
activities.
The success of this work in improving environmental quality.
June 15,1999 1996-1997 CBEP
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
"Summary of 1995 NACEPT Recommendations"
General Recommendations. In this report, NACEPT recommended that EPA undertake the following
activities:
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.
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.
Developing Partnerships and Promoting Consensus. NACEPT also 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
required partnerships;
* Develop a map of locations with active community groups, as an aid to identifying active
stakeholders.
4 CBEP 1996-1997 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology* 1988-1998
Identify and resolve gaps in representation; and
Honor the input of valid representatives and organizations already in existence.
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 case studies where public participation in community environmental assessments has been
successful (such as Sustainable Seattle and Oregon's State Clean Water Strategy.)
Information Development and Dissemination. In addition, NACEPT recommended that EPA take the
following actions to develop useful CBEP information, methodologies, and tools, and disseminate them
to interested parties:
Take a leadership role in expanding the ecological knowledge base:
> Develop and refine more integrated measurement metrics.
* Encourage recognition that uncertainty and unpredictability are 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.
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.
* Consult with community-based practitioners to develop a practical and usable 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 '
June 15, 1999
1996-1997
CBEP
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
* Maintaining diverse participation in user committees and conferences perhaps by seeking
philanthropic funding for users with limited resources.
8 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.
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.
Promoting New Approaches. Finally, NACEPT recommended that EPA should take the following actions
to promote the new approaches it is advocating:
CBEP 1996-1997 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
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 die 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,
including:
* Taxes and subsidies;
* Unintended impacts of regulations;
* . Allocation of resources to the highest-risk issues;
> Voluntary initiatives and rewards for progressive approaches to environmental protection;
* Property rights regimes; and
* Trade policies.
June 15,1999
1996-1997
CBEP 7
-------
1988-1998 * NACEPT Chronology
E. Resulting EPA Actions
The findings and suggestions of the CBEP Committee have resulted in the development of techniques
for ecosystem valuation.
CBEP 1996-1997 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Environmental
Capital Markets
Committee
1998-Ongoing
* Formed to identify concrete actions that EPA, on its own or in cooperation with other Federal
or state agencies, could take to help the financial services industry incorporate
environmental information into its core credit, investment, and underwriting decision-making
processes.
* Established in February 1998, and is expected to finalize its recommendations in early 1999.
A. Why Established
In its efforts to improve the environmental performance of different industry sectors, the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) convened a formal dialogue among representatives from
financial institutions, and Federal bank regulatory agencies on the potential utility of the ISO-14001
Envkonmental Management Standard as an investment screen. One of the key findings was that there is
potential value in using a firm's environmental management practices as criteria in evaluating its financial
exposure; however, standard measures do not currently exist to translate environmental performance
into probable financial performance.
The Environmental Capital Markets Committee was formed to identify practical ways for the financial
services industry to include the environmental performance of its clients as an integral part of its core
credit, investment, and underwriting processes.
B.
The Environmental Capital Markets Committee is charged with examining the environmental
performance of a firm from the perspective of the financial services industry. As part of this charge, the
Committee will be investigating the current limitations and potential utility of using environmental
management systems and other environmental metrics as investment screens. The ultimate goal of the
Committee is to identify concrete actions that EPA, on its own or in cooperation with other Federal or
state agencies, could take to help the financial services industry incorporate environmental information
into its core decision-making processes.
Some of the major issues the Committee is addressing include:
The extent to which the financial services industry currently takes environmental factors into account
in its credit, investment, and underwriting processes and the basis for such considerations.
The characteristics of current (and projected) environmental management systems (EMSs) and
practices that could help correlate environmental performance and financial performance.
June 15,1999 1998-Ongoing ECMC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
How information flowing from these EMSs and practices might be quantified so that it could be
integrated into the financial service industry's credit, investment, and underwriting processes.
jC.^ Membership, Dates_of Activity, and Mode(s) of Operation
The Committee was officially established in February 1998. The membership includes representatives
from financial sectors, including investment banks, commercial banks, and insurance providers; and
nongovernmental associations, including environmental and financial interests; academia; and
government.
The Committee held meetings in April, June, and July 1998, and has meetings planned for September
and December 1998.
JD._Recommendations and Reports
The Committee expects to have a first draft of its recommendations in 1999.
ECMC 1998-Ongoing June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Environmental Education
and Training Committee/
Pollution Prevention
Education Committee
1988-1993
* Charted to develop a balanced informational and educational process to heighten public and
business environmental awareness.
* Developed five reports:
1. "National Advisory Council for Environmental Technology Transfer: Report and
Recommendations of the Environmental Education and Training Committee" (1990)
2. "National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology: The Urban
Environmental Education Report" (December 1990)
3. "Pollution Prevention Education and Training for an Environmentally Sustainable Future:
Report and Recommendations of the Academic Focus Group of the Pollution Prevention
Education Committee" (October, 1992)
4. "Partnership Building to Promote Pollution Prevention: Industry Focus Group Report"
(October, 1992)
5. "Partnerships for Pollution Prevention Education and Training" (December 1992)
A. Why Established
Over the past two decades, the concept of sustainable development and the need to coordinate
environmental protection with economic development have grown in importance. Environmental
education is now seen as a crucial step in helping citizens, industries, and governments to understand the
real consequences of environmentally detrimental actions and the benefits of environmentally- friendly
actions. This understanding, in turn, will enable better, more environmentally conscious decisions to be
made and, hopefully, promote such environmentally beneficial behavior as the norm.
EPA established the Environmental Education and Training Committee (EETC) as a mechanism for
improving environmental education and training by public and private educational systems, government,
associations, business and industry, and the media. The Committee's name was later changed to the
Pollution Prevention Education Committee (PPEC) to reflect the Agency's increased focus on pollution
prevention.
JEMD^crij>tion ofCharge^ _ _^^
The Environmental Education and Training Committee was established to promote an environmentally
conscious and responsible public. The Committee had three major objectives:
heighten public sensitivity to the environmental consequences of our individual and collective
actions;
June 15,1999 1988-1993 EETC/PPEC
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
educate our youth and train future environmental management professionals; and
aid public and private executives in making informed and responsible decisions.
Committee members focused on thedevelopment of a balanced informational and educational program
directed toward the general public and development of an ecologically literate and competent workforce.
The Committee encouraged the formation of education and training networks, emphasizing participation
from teachers, administrators, textbook publishers, parents, non-governmental organizations, private
firms, and individuals at the community level.
To meet its charge, the Committee sought to answer the question "What can be done to institute the
changes and direct the actions necessary to guide this nation to a philosophy of stewardship and
enlightened management of the earth, its resources, and its environment?" The initial emphasis was on
developing an environmental ethic by increasing environmental education in grades K-12 and developing
a comprehensive framework and strategy for environmental education and training.
C. MembershigJPates of Activity^ and Mode of Operation_
Committee members include representatives from environmental advocacy groups, non-profit pollution
prevention groups, remediation firms, consulting firms, law firms, metals processors, petroleum
companies, academia, local, state, and federal government, the AFL-CIO, the World Resources Institute,
the United Nations, and pollution control representatives from manufacturing firms. This provided the
Committee with a variety of perspectives from which to look at pollution prevention issues economic,
environmental, social, political, legal, educational, and international.
The Committee first met on December 15, 1988. At the first meeting, the Committee heard testimony
from several external organizations and key EPA officials, followed by Committee discussion and the
formation of five focus groups. The focus groups were formed to help to define the environmental
education and training roles of government, business and industry, academia, professional associations,
and the media.
The two most active focus groups were the Academic focus group and the Industry focus group. The
Academic focus group dealt with the need to instill a pollution prevention ethic throughout society, and
proposed ways to achieve this objective (primarily through the postsecondary education community).
The Industry focus group explored ways for business and government to interact for the advancement of
pollution prevention practices (primarily through partnerships and cooperative efforts).
The Committee also held a national hearing on September 12-13,1989, soliciting testimony and
recommendations from over 40 national and international experts on the present status of environmental
education and training in the field, and how EPA might best proceed in these areas in the next decade.
The hearing, co-sponsored by the Alliance for Environmental Education, received the support of the
EPA Administrator and provided a wealth of new ideas and support for a fresh environmental education
and training initiative.
After its initial meeting, the EETC held six additional meetings between 1988 and 1990. The Committee
also sponsored a university presidents roundtable and an urban/minority education project; assisted
expansion of the existing environmental education network; helped to create a non-profit
business/environmental management institute and a non-profit corporation focusing on environmental
education for college-level students; and assisted development of a pollution prevention education
curriculum.
EETC/PPEC 1988-1993 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
The Committee was disestablished at the end of FY 1993, at the request of the Administrator, when the
Agency determined that the Committee had met its objectives.
D. RecomnrHSj^^
The Committee developed the following five reports:
"National Advisory Council for Environmental Technology Transfer: Report and
Recommendations of the Environmental Education and Training Committee" (1990
Recommendations)
"National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology: The Urban
Environmental Education Report" (December 1990)
"Pollution Prevention Education and Training for an Environmentally Sustainable Future: Report
and Recommendations of the Academic Focus Group of the Pollution Prevention Education
Committee" (October 23, 1992) -
"Partnership Building to Promote Pollution Prevention: Industry Focus Group Report" (October
23, 1992)
"Partnerships for Pollution Prevention Education and Training" (December 1992)
The recommendations contained in each of these reports are presented in the following pages.
June 15,1999 1988-1993 EETC/PPEC
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"National Advisory Council for Environmental Technology Transfer
Report and Recommendations of the Environmental Education and
Training Committee" (1990 Recommendations)
In this report, the Committee made the following recommendations:
1. The EPA Administrator should request that the President announce a "call to action" for effective
environmental education and training in the United States, to serve as a global role model for
sustainable development balanced with economic competitiveness.
2. The EPA Administrator should redefine the Agency's mission to encompass a broad environmental
education and training mandate, in order to emphasize the importance of national and international
networks to address the following issues:
improvement of teacher training, curriculum development, and public participation;
coordination of environmental training institutions to increase the quality and quantity of
environmental professionals; and
empowerment of the environmental education and training institutions in these networks through
the use of interactive electronic technologies.
3. An Office of Environmental Education and Training should be established within EPA's Office of
the Administrator to provide both national and international leadership in environmental
stewardship. This Office should be responsible for developing:
a National Environmental Education and Training Policy;
an associated short and long-term implementation plan; and
an annual report on national and international environmental literacy and behavior.
4. EPA should assist with the creation of a national public/private foundation to fund environmental
education and training.
5. EPA should convene annual roundtables with national and international leaders of industry and
business, government, academia, professional associations, training centers, the media,
environmental and public interest groups, minority groups, religious organizations, and other
appropriate groups to address, synergistically, the imperative for a national environmental ethic.
6. EPA should assume a leadership role in coordinating environmental education and training activities
among Federal and state agencies and departments.
7. The EPA Administrator should develop a strategic plan for a long-term public education program to
encourage environmental responsibility.
4 EETC/PPEC 1988-1993 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology:
The Urban Environmental Education Report" (December 1990)
In this report, the Committee made the following recommendations, presented in terms of the major
topic areas discussed:
« Partnerships. EPA should consider expanding existing partnerships and establishing new ones with
urban schools, as well as environmental advocacy groups and local community organizations that
are involved in urban environmental education.
Technical Assistance. EPA should consider publishing fact sheets targeted to minority populations
on urban environmental issues like air pollution, energy efficiency, and hazardous waste
placement. The fact sheets could be translated into other languages (e.g., Spanish) or written in
easy-to-understand English vocabulary. These fact sheets could be.inserted easily into existing
curricula, while also promoting adult literacy on environmental issues that directly impact urban
areas.
Recognise I Award "Existing "Programs. EPA should consider instituting an environmental awards
program (similar to the Department of Interior's Take Pride in America program) that recognizes
and applauds the variety of environmental education programs that are developed by
environmental advocacy groups, local community organizations, and other governmental agencies.
Regional Publications. Regional offices should consider expanding their liaison activities between
local urban minority communities in the Region and EPA Headquarters. In this role, they could
provide detailed information to relevant Headquarters offices and become the active interpreters
of the specific current environmental concerns of those communities.
Historically Black College and University (HBCU) Research Budget. EPA should consider increasing
research funding to HBCUs that are engaged in urban environmental education. Moreover, the
Agency should seek to initiate programs through partnerships at universities without
environmental education projects.
June 15,1999
1988-1993
EETC/PPEC
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Partnership Building to Promote Pollution Prevention:
Industry Focus Group Report" (October 23,1992)
In this report, the Committee's Industry Focus Group made the following recommendations:
1. EPA should generate a marketing plan for voluntary programs that communicates the benefits of
such programs and rewards participation. The Agency should tailor voluntary partnerships to satisfy
the needs of customers by:
communicating the benefits of the program to all potential participants;
providing greater recognition for involvement; and
rewarding achievement based on continuous improvement rather than fixed goals.
By molding the voluntary partnerships to meet the needs of its potential participants (treating them
as customers rather than part of the regulated universe), the Agency should be able to increase
participation in the programs.
2. EPA should convene a Steering Committee composed of EPA officials and outside stakeholder
parties to design and direct EPA-sponsored voluntary partnerships.
3. EPA should design the next generation of voluntary partnerships to be long-term, continuous
improvement programs that address multi-media pollution prevention specific to individual
industries or companies. Recommendations to broaden EPA-sponsored voluntary programs
include:
Adopting a voluntary program that goes far beyond the 17 chemicals chosen for the "33/50"
program. EPA should expand the "33/50" program to all chemicals already reported on
corporations' internal and external reports, including Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA) Section 313 chemicals.
Expanding the reduction objectives permanently in a comprehensive voluntary program to avoid
the administrative costs of developing a series of "micro" voluntary programs. Because
developing the infrastructure necessary for industry to manage voluntary programs is expensive,
one comprehensive program is better than various fragmented ones.
Designing a voluntary program using risk-based criteria. Recognize, however, that the state of
"risk assessment" is such that it may be better to develop voluntary programs based on individual
company risk-based priority systems rather than creating an industry-wide system.
Initiating a total waste program that incorporates all wastes to all media, and is measured by
industry's efficient use of raw materials. This program should address both service and
manufacturing sectors.
4. EPA should design collaborative initiatives to harness the expertise of industry, EPA, and academia
for pollution prevention education at higher educational levels and among the current workforce.
EETC/PPEC
1988-1993
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
5. EPA should expand the concept of a voluntary program to include technical assistance and funding
resources so that more small and medium-sized companies can participate.
6. EPA should establish research and technology transfer programs or sites so that industry and EPA
can share technology information on pollution prevention.
7. EPA should study regulatory reform and how a different permitting structure could be implemented.
8. EPA should establish a task force of interested parties to develop specific recommendations on ways
to move environmental management away from single-media approaches toward multi-media
approaches in EPA, the Federal government, and industry.
June 15,1999
1988-1993
EETC/PPEC 7
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Pollution Prevention Education and Training For an Environmentally
Sustainable Future: Report and Recommendations of the Academic
Focus Group of the Pollution Prevention Education Committee"
(October 23,1992)
In this report, the Committee's Academic Focus Group made the following recommendations:
1. EPA should begin integrating its programmatic emphasis on pollution prevention into all its
activities in environmental education. EPA should make pollution prevention an explicit goal of
each of its internal, inter-agency, and grant programs on environmental education.
The newly established grant programs in the Office of Environmental Education should begin to
develop a strategy emphasizing pollution prevention.
EPA should introduce pollution prevention into the interagency education committee.
EPA should include pollution prevention education in its awards programs (e.g., in the
Administrator's Pollution Prevention Awards).
In all interagency committees on education and training, EPA should become an advocate for
inclusion of pollution prevention.
2. EPA should study the linkage between pollution prevention and employment, establish trends, and
build an inventory of faculty development, retraining and vocational training programs.
3. EPA should establish a National Campus Environmental Audit Clearinghouse to collect campus
environmental audit information, allowing for the compilation, evaluation, and comparison of data
and programs. Case studies would be shared with other schools through this network.
4. The mandate of the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation (NEETF) should
overtly address pollution prevention. The NEETF has great potential to raise matching funds from
private sources, and the Administrator should request the NEETF to assist in fund-raising.
5. EPA should include a substantive emphasis on pollution prevention in student internship programs,
such as the National Network for Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS). In tandem with
an expansion of NNEMS, EPA should urge the formation of an equivalent program by industry.
Industry is leading EPA in many aspects of pollution prevention, and the technology needs to be
transferred to academia.
6. EPA should initiate a series of new programs to train educators on pollution prevention.
EPA should establish regional centers for faculty development in pollution prevention as partners
to the National Pollution Prevention Center at the University of Michigan. These Centers would
focus on faculty development/training, curriculum development and dissemination, and
development and dissemination of pollution prevention field studies for inclusion in curricula.
This network of Centers should share activities and information with one another. The centers
should work with and build on the efforts of the National Pollution Prevention Education Center.
EPA should provide seed funding, and participate in encouraging match funding by other agencies
and private sources. EPA would act as an advisor to each Center, and a network coordinator
among them.
8 EETC/PPEC 1988-1993 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
EPA should establish a series of pollution prevention education professorships at colleges and
universities to facilitate pollution prevention emphases in individual fields and departments, in
partnership with the National Pollution Prevention Center. These professorships would include
funding for graduate students to undertake research in pollution prevention. The National
Environmental Education and Training Foundation should lead an effort to secure funding from a
consortium of governmental agencies, a consortium of industries, and appropriate foundations.
This investment would build EPA's credibility in promoting the establishment of endowed chairs
in pollution prevention by leading corporations and foundations.
EPA should develop and implement a faculty development program in pollution prevention that
should emphasize a pro-active exchange between universities, government, and industry.
7. EPA should adopt a leadership role globally, both in declaring the importance of pollution
prevention education, and in promoting human resource development programs for building human
capital. Specifically, EPA should ensure that pollution prevention is an integral component of all
initiatives at the international level. Programs would include:
"Train the trainers" programs for teachers and faculty to build their knowledge and skills both for
teaching and conducting research in pollution prevention.
Curriculum development programs to produce material that is appropriate to the culture and
economic development strategy of the region.
Training programs for the existing workforce.
Dissemination and networking through national environmental agencies and United Nations
Environmental Programs (UNEP), via electronic bulletin boards, regional conferences and
workshops.
Partnership formation with industry and government, to make education and training programs
more relevant and expand the reach of the centers.
8. EPA should provide leadership to this growing field by establishing regional centers of experiential
learning, where faculty and students explore the ecological design arts, designing sustainable systems
of transport, architecture, nutriment, and leisure.
9. The EPA should develop a human resource policy that encourages employee development and
competence in pollution prevention. Such actions will serve as models for other government
agencies, industry, and educational institutions.
June 15, 1999
1988-1993
EETC/PPEC
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Partnerships for Pollution Prevention Education and Training"
(December 1992)
The Committee made the following recommendations in this report, which synthesized some of the
recommendations made in the individual focus group reports:
1. EPA should broaden its participation in partnerships with industry. The next generation of
voluntary partnerships should be programs structured to be comprehensive. They should foster
long-term, continuous improvements and address multi-media pollution prevention specific to
individual industries or companies.
2. EPA should design a plan for its voluntary programs that is attractive to industry participants; the
program should communicate benefits and reward participation.
3. EPA-sponsored voluntary partnership programs should be designed and directed by a steering
committee composed of EPA officials and outside stakeholder'parties.
4. EPA should design initiatives in a way that harnesses the expertise of industry, EPA, and academia
for pollution prevention education at all levels of education and in the current workforce.
5. EPA should begin integrating its programmatic emphasis on pollution prevention into all of its
environmental education activities.
6. EPA should initiate a series of new programs to train educators on pollution prevention.
7. EPA should adopt a leadership role globally, both in declaring the importance of pollution
prevention education, and in promoting human resource development programs for building human
capital.
8. EPA should provide leadership to the growing field of ecological design by establishing regional
centers of experiential learning.
9. EPA should develop a human resource policy that encourages employee development and
competence in pollution prevention.
10 EETC/PPEC 1988-1993 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
E. Resulting EPAActions
A number of the Committee's key recommendations have been implemented at EPA, including the
formation of EPA's Office of Environmental Education; creation of the National Environmental
Education and Training Foundation; creation of non-profit organizations addressing environmental
education and training needs of industry; creation of Enviro$en$e (an electric library of information on
pollution prevention, technical assistance, and environmental competence), and improved delivery of
environmental information to college students and young adults.
June 15,1999 1988-1993 EETC/PPEC 11
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Environmental
Financial
Advisory Board
1989-1990
Created in response to the increasing gap between actual public expenditures and
anticipated budgetary needs for environmental services to look at the conflicts between tax
and environmental policies, as well as other impediments to financing environmental
facilities.
Established four workgroups, each of which focused on a specific aspect of environmental
financial management and each of which issued a report of recommendations in March
1990:
1. Environmental Tax Policy Statement Workgroup
2. Small Communities Financing Strategies Workgroup
3. Public Financing Options Workgroup
4. Private Sector Incentives Workgroup
A. Why Established
National environmental policy recognizes the critical role of state and local governments in protecting
public health, assuring public safety, and preserving the natural environment. One way these
government units meet such national goals is by building drinking water, wastewater treatment, and solid
waste disposal facilities. Traditionally, the federal government has helped its state and local partners
build these facilities by reducing their cost of capital through tax-exemption on public-purpose
environmental bonds. However, the Tax Reform Act of 1986 significantly restricted the ability of state
and local governments to raise funds efficiently to finance public-purpose environmental facilities by
altering the tax-deductible status of certain state and local bond issues. Because state and local
government spending for environmental protection is often financed through bonds, the loss of tax
deductibility acts as a disincentive for these levels of government to undertake capital-intensive initiatives,
despite the potential for significant environmental benefits.
EPA studies have indicated that the gap between public expenditures for environmental services and
budgetary needs to achieve effective environmental protection could reach $21 billion by the year 2000.
In anticipation of the increased need for better public financing programs for environmental protection
projects (especially in small communities), the Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) was
created under the auspices of NACEPT's State and Local Programs Committee to look at the conflicts
between tax and environmental policies, as well as other conflicts that hamper investment in
environmental facilities.
June 15,1999
1989-1990
EFAB
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
B. Description of Charge
The goal of the Environmental Financial Advisory Board was to increase the total investment in
environmental protection by facilitating greater leverage of public and private environmental resources.
The Advisory Board was charged with advising the Administrator on environmental financing, related
taxation issues, innovative financing approaches, legislative and regulatory options, public/private
partnerships, local and regional infrastructure issues, and accounting disclosure standards. The Board
approached its charge through the following four issues:
public sector environmental financing options;
tax policy barriers;
financing strategies for small communities; and
incentives to increase private sector participation in environmental services.
J-LJM^
The Advisory Board was established in October 1989 and was transferred in July 1990 to EPA's Office
of Administrative Resources Management.
The 25-member Board included Congressional representatives; state and local government officials;
accountants; bankers; investment advisors; lawyers; trade association representatives; and academics.
The Advisory Board established four workgroups, each of which focused on a specific aspect of
environmental financial management, as follows:
The Environmental Tax Policy Statement Workgroup considered a wide range of source materials
documenting effects of the U.S. tax code on financing environmental facilities. Based on this input,
the workgroup concluded that certain provisions of the tax code currently impede adequate public
and private investment in environmental infrastructure. The most pressing issues, in the opinion of
the workgroup, emanated from limitations on the use of tax-exempt debt to finance environmental
facilities.
The Small Communities financing Strategies Workgroup discussed what financing strategies could be
implemented to improve the ability of small communities to provide environmental services and
infrastructure.
The Public Financing Options Workgroup discussed the range of financing approaches or mixture of
approaches - both innovative and traditional - that could be used to fund environmental services and
infrastructure needs.
The Private Sector Incentives Workgroup discussed how to reduce barriers and create incentives to
increase private sector participation in the provision of environmental services.
^D^ReconrmTe^ _____^^
Each workgroup developed a set of recommendations in support of the Advisory Board's charge and
issued a report of findings. These reports include:
"Environmental Tax Policy Statement Draft Recommendations," March 1990;
"Small Communities Financing Strategies Workgroup Draft Recommendations," March 1990;
2 EFAB 1989-1990 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Public Financing Options Workgroup Draft Recommendations," March 1990; and
"Private Sector Incentives Workgroup Draft Recommendations," March 1990.
"Environmental Tax Policy Statement Draft Recommendations"
(March 1990)
The workgroup recommendations focused on immediate actions, as well as longer-term issues for
investigation, that the Administrator could undertake to broaden the availability of tax-exempt debt for
environmental purposes.
Immediate Actions
EPA should issue a policy declaration based on this statement, calling for a new federal-local
partnership in environmental finance and promote this policy in cabinet-level deliberations, in public
forums, and in communication with other federal agencies with the same vigor as is accorded to
other EPA policies such as pollution prevention or leadership in international environmental affairs.
EPA should, in concert with Administration policies, testify before Congress in favor of
reclassifying state and local bonds to remove volume caps and other limitations applicable to private
activity bonds if they finance facilities that provide environmental services that are generally available
to the public on common terms.
EPA should, in the absence of reclassification, seek legislative changes to lift the most onerous
restrictions on the use of tax-exempt debt for environmental facilities including volume caps on
private-activity bonds, the alternative minimum tax, and limitations on costs of issuance.
EPA should work with Congressional leaders to fashion new legislation that would enable issuers of
tax-exempt bonds to earn interest on bond proceeds without penalty over a period that coincides
with actual construction times of environmental facilities if that interest is used exclusively to reduce
the size of the bond issue.
Ijanger-term issues for investigation
EPA should explore the limitations on leveraging State Revolving Funds attributable to the
provisions of the tax code to assure that states can leverage limited resources to meet the investment
needs mandated by the Clean Water Act.
EPA should explore the limitations on institutional demand for tax-exempt debt attributable to the
tax code to address the recent decline in institutional demand for tax-exempt bonds, which in turn,
has limited the market for tax-exempt debt.
EPA should explore the use of tax incentives to discourage polluting behavior and investigate the
merits of tax incentives to attract private capital to environmental investments.
June 15,1999
1989-1990
EFAB
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
"Small Communities Financing Strategies Workgroup Draft
Recommendations" (March 1990)
EPA should include provisions in the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program that would provide
special benefits to small communities. The authorized and appropriated levels for the SRF program
should be increased to accommodate these provisions.
EPA needs to develop a set of criteria to define the universe of communities most in need.
EPA needs to take an active role in discovering and developing non-subsidy approaches which
would provide small communities with options for financing their environmental programs,
regulations, and infrastructure needs.
'Public Financing Options Workgroup Draft Recommendations"
(March 1990)
EPA should improve the operation of its State Revolving Fund Program for wastewater treatment
projects.
EPA should endorse state consideration of State Environmental Facilities Corporations (EFCs)
when financing environmental facilities.
EPA should endorse state consideration of bond banks as a viable option in helping to finance
environmental activities.
EFAB 1989-1990 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Private Sector incentives Workgroup Draft Recommendations"
(March 1990)
Reduce Federal and State Barriers
EPA should develop and encourage federal policy to permit public and private owners of public-
purpose environmental facilities to finance improvements to the facility without triggering
mandatory repayment of prior federal grants.
EPA should ensure that its State Revolving Fund guidance encourages and promotes public-private
partnerships.
EPA should encourage states and localities to develop favorable privatization laws that would foster
private sector participation in environmental projects.
Improve Climate for Investment
EPA should endorse and promote responsible fiscal practices, such as full-cost pricing of
environmental services and structuring appropriate fees for service.
EPA should disseminate educational and marketing tools to capital lenders and providers of
environmental services so they have the necessary information to assess the risks and benefits of
environmental projects.
EPA should foster either private or public provisions of environmental liability insurance to capital
lenders and providers of environmental services and a means to encourage private sector
participation in environmental services.
June 15,1999
1989-1990
EFAB
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
E. Resulting EPA Actions
The record is incomplete as to EPA actions resulting from the Committee's recommendations.
6 EFAB 1989-1990 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Environmental Information
Economics & Technology
Committee
1995-1996
* Established to provide policy recommendations to assist EPA's Office of Policy, Planning,
and Evaluation in its study of alternative methods of improving the rate at which new
technologies are brought onto the market.
* Peer-reviewed the data sources, the methodology, the weighting system and the approach
utilized in the "Analysis of Cost-Based Environmental Technology Gaps" report and the
"Resource-Based Method for Identifying Environmental Technology Priorities" report.
* Provided recommendations as to the appropriate methodology in selecting industrial sectors
in which the environmental technology improvement demand was strongest.
A. Why Established
In 1993, President Clinton announced the creation of the Environmental Technology Initiative (ETI) to
fund partnerships and projects to promote improved public health and environmental protection by
advancing the development and use of innovative environmental technologies.
Through FY 94-95, ETI supported over 250 such partnerships. During FY 96, influenced in part by
ETI budget reductions, EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation (OPPE) decided to investigate
alternative methods of improving the rate at which new technologies are brought onto the market As a
result, the Environmental Information, Economics and Technology (EIET) Committee was established
to provide policy recommendations on related technology and information issues to assist OPPE in its
study.
B. Description of Charge
The EIET Committee was tasked with reviewing two reports, entitled "Analysis of Cost-Based
Environmental Technology Gaps" and "Resource-Based Method for Identifying Environmental
Technology Priorities." The Committee was asked to review the data sources, the methodology, the
weighting system and the approach that was proposed in the reports. The Committee also was asked to
provide recommendations to OPPE as to the appropriate methodology to use in the selection process of
the industrial sectors in which the demand for more efficient environmental technologies was strongest.
_C._MeiTibershjp_, Pates of Activity, and Mode of Operation
The Committee, convened to provide oversight and coordination of NACEPT's ongoing analysis of
environmental technology and information issues, was comprised of the Chairs of its five
June 15, 1999 1995-1996 EIET
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Subcommittees:
Toxic Data Reporting Subcommittee;
Radiation Cleanup Subcommittee;
Effluent Guidelines Task Force;
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Subcommittee; and
Environmental Statistics Subcommittee.
The Committee met several times during 1995 and 1996. In the September 1997 realignment of
NACEPT, four EIET Subcommittees were elevated to full Committee status to continue their advisory
roles (for more information, see the individual reports on each of the Subcommittees).
D. Recommendations and Reports _ _ _____
The Committee published two reports, which do not contain recommendations:
"Peer Review Of: Analysis of Cost-Based Environmental Technology Gaps," June 28,1996
"Peer Review Of: Resource-Based Method For Identifying Environmental Technology Priorities,"
July 29,1996
EPA has taken action in response to the activities and recommendations of the five committees that the
Environmental Information, Economics and Technology Committee oversaw. See the summaries of
those committees for more details.
2 EIET 1995-1996 . June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Ecosystems
Implementation
Tools Committee
1994-1995
Established to advise EPA on how it could support community-based environmental
protection (CBEP) efforts in cases where the Agency would have no direct involvement.
Charged to evaluate opportunities for the Agency to reorient its statutory and regulatory
responsibilities to focus on CBEP.
Published two reports:
1. "Interim Report of the NACEPT implementation Tools Committee on EPA's Place-Based
Approach to Ecosystem Management" (January 1995)
2. "Promoting Innovative Approaches to Environmental Protection: A Summary of
Recommendations from the National1 Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology (June 1996)
A. Why Established
The Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee (EITC) was established in 1994 in response to the
Deputy Administrator's request for advice regarding how EPA could most effectively stimulate and
support community-based environmental protection efforts in cases where the Agency would not have
direct involvement. In March 1994, the "Edgewater Consensus" work group described a vision for
reorienting the Agency toward a community-based focus for environmental protection. According to
this vision, the Agency would be driven by the environmental needs of communities and ecosystems.
For any given place, EPA would establish a process for determining long-term ecological, economic, and
social needs and would orient its work to help meet those needs. The group envisioned that a
community-based focus, which had already been successful in a small number of places, would benefit
the entire country.
j'JiJ3680^!!^^ Charge ______
EITC was charged to evaluate opportunities for EPA to reorient its statutory and regulatory
responsibilities to a community-based approach to environmental protection (CBEP). In addition, the
Committee was responsible for identifying opportunities for the Agency to develop partnerships with
state and tribal co-regulators and land resource management agencies.
The Committee identified and addressed the following questions:
What is EPA's role in community-based environmental protection?
What are the relevant tools, programs, authorities, and research initiatives available in existing
programs to implement CBEP?
June 15, 1999 1994-1995 EITC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
What impediments exist to the use of these tools?
What other organizations have roles and the tools for community-based environmental protection?
JfLJ^Ol!^
Committee members included representatives of non-governmental organizations; private industry; state,
local, federal and tribal agencies; and academia.
EITC held two meetings between September 1994, and December 1995. In addition, the Committee
organized into two work groups. One work group focused on stakeholder involvement, outreach, and
training tools, while the other investigated the criteria and options the Agency needed to support CBEP
in cases where EPA had no direct involvement. The workgroups held additional planning sessions and
presented information on their findings at the full Committee meetings.
JjLl*eC(°J^
EITC's recommendations were issued in two reports:
"Interim Report of the NACEPT implementation Tools Committee on EPA's Place-Based "
Approach to Ecosystem Management," January 1995
"Promoting Innovative Approaches to Environmental Protection: A Summary of
Recommendations from the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology,"
June 1996
EITC 1994-1995 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPTChronology » 1988-1998
"Interim Report of the NACEPT Implementation Tools Committee
on EPA's Place-Based Approach to Ecosystem Management,"
January 1995
The Committee submitted this interim report for the Senior Leadership Council Meeting in January
1995. EITC concurred with the general concepts of the "Edgewater Consensus" and concluded that the
community-based approach was appropriate as long as a broad definition of community was used in
implementing the ecosystem management strategy. The interim report focused on a framework for
implementing a community-based approach to ecosystem management, and presented both consensus
and non-consensus recommendations.
Determining the Baseline Conditions - Consensus Recommendations
EPA should work in cooperation with state and local governments, 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.
Determining the 'baseline Conditions - Non-Consensus Recommendations
EPA should provide resources to support state and local governments in collecting baseline data by
reallocating existing funds and/or providing additional funds.
EPA should ensure that there is adequate quality assurance/quality control of data.
Determining the Desired 'End-State - Consensus Recommendations
EPA should assist states and localities in carrying out their roles by providing supporting research
and analysis.
Determining the Desired End-State - Non-Consensus Recommendations
EPA should provide financial resources to state and local governments to assist them in the
planning process.
Preparation and Implementation of a Management Plan - Consensus Recommendations
9 EPA needs to develop principles and themes for a community-based approach to ecosystem
management.
EPA should review its existing tools (e.g., regulations, enforcement, education, pollution prevention,
planning) in relation to the principles and themes, and modify the tools as needed for consistency.
June 15,1999 1994-1995 EITC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Preparation and Implementation of a Management Plan - Non-Consensus Recommendations
B EPA needs to provide grant funds (not necessarily new dollars) for pilot projects demonstrating
different management strategies to accomplish the agreed-on end state.
* Strategies are needed to increase flexibility with accountability in permitting and enforcement that
will allow standard requirements to be modified if such modifications clearly contribute to improved
ecosystem health, and without reducing environmental protection.
* EPA should coordinate with other agencies in order to provide consistency in management across
the "community."
EPA should reorient programs to accomplish "end states" identified by citizens of the
"community."
EPA should provide incentives for regulators to achieve "community-based" goals, while including
the caveats of "accountability" and "without reducing protection of the environment."
Monitoring and Evaluation - Consensus Recommendations
EPA should conduct its monitoring programs in coordination with community-based partners.
EPA's role should be to ensure that its goals are met through its compliance activities.
EPA should offer insights into scientifically sound evaluation tools such as environmental
indicators.
Monitoring and Evaluation - Non-Consensus Recommendations
EPA should provide funding to local or state ecosystem management agencies to evaluate
effectiveness of management plans.
EPA should ensure that there is sufficient quality assurance/quality control in the collection of
monitoring information/data.
Modify Management - Consensus Recommendations
EPA must be willing to suggest alternative management solutions and propose statutory and/or
administrative changes to its own management tools if and when they are proved ineffective or
unworkable.
EITC 1994-1995 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Promoting innovative Approaches to Environmental Protection:
A Summary of Recommendations from the National Advisory
Council for Environmental Policy and Technology," June 1996
A major focus of NACEPT's work during FY 95 was providing advice to EPA as the Agency began
developing its community-based approach to environmental protection. NACEPT formed three
committees to address ecosystem management and the integration of ecological, economic, and social
needs required to achieve CBEP: the Ecosystems Information and Assessment Committee (EIAC), the
Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee (EITC), and the Ecosystems Sustainable Economies
Committee (ESEC). The recommendations of these three committees are highlighted in this report.
The final recommendations of EITC are described below.
Roles and Actions EPA Should Undertake to Implement the CBEP Approach
EPA must support and assist the organizations responsible for managing communities.
EPA must develop partnerships with state, local, and tribal agencies and private organizations that
have developed or are seeking to develop community-based initiatives.
The states and localities may need support from EPA for research, analysis, and innovation in
enforcing regulatory programs.
EPA should advocate national environmental goals and focus its efforts on the coordination of
federal programs and activities designed to implement community-based environmental protection
programs.
EPA should promote the development of flexible pilot programs to demonstrate alternative
approaches to traditional regulation and enforcement, and serve as a clearinghouse for the
dissemination of information on both successful and unsuccessful approaches.
« EPA should provide traditional enforcement when necessary to ensure compliance with the law and
to maintain national consistency.
EPA must maintain strong national standards and conduct scientific research to support those
standards.
To ensure consistency in implementation, EPA should develop principles and themes for a
"community-based" approach to ecosystem management.
Use of Existing EPA Tools
EPA should make its tools community-based.
EPA should compile a "tool chest" inventory.
June 15,1999
1994-1995
EITC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Operations and Management
EPA should integrate various media approaches and management structures to cultivate cross-media
thinking and action.
EPA should develop a community-based enforcement system.
EPA should establish connections between research grants to universities and colleges and local
CBEP efforts.
Partnerships
EPA should emphaske CBEP in its established partnerships with states.
EPA should work with non-governmental organizations to implement CBEP.
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."
EITC 1994-1995 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
E. Resulting EPA Actions
EPA actions in response to the Committee's recommendations were subtle (i.e., linkages of
recommendations to terms in subsequent policy). In addition, because there was some overlap in
covering this topic within the Agency at the time, it is difficult to directly link any resulting Agency
actions to the recommendations of this Committee.
June 15,1999
1994-1995
EITC
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Ecosystems Sustainable
Economies Committee
1994-1996
* Charged to examine the defining elements of sustainable economies, and identify
opportunities for harmonizing environmental policy, economic activity, and ecosystem
management.
if Published one report:
> "NACEPT Ecosystems Sustainable Economies Committee FY 1995 Activities and
Recommendations" (June 1996).
A. Why Established
Historically, economic development has tended to encroach upon, expend, or otherwise impair
environmental resources. Sustainable economies, on the other hand, allow the current generation's needs
to be met without reducing the stock and value of environmental resources for future generations.
Reaching a sustainable economic state requires successful integration of ecosystem protection into
economic activities.
In recent years, there has been considerable and increasing political pressure to move toward a more
sustainable economy. Because EPA's mission includes environmental protection for both current and
future generations, the Ecosystems Sustainable Economies Committee (ESEC) was formed to obtain
participation and feedback from representatives of industry, various levels of government, and citizens to
identify ways in which the Agency can facilitate greater implementation of a sustainable economy.
JBiJPg^^ _______ ..
The Committee was charged to examine the defining elements of sustainable economies and
opportunities for harmonizing environmental policy, economic activity, and ecosystem management. .
Specifically, the Committee was charged with examining responsibilities and opportunities related to the
following three types of activities:
consensus-building;
measurement and expansion of knowledge base; and
development of an incentive structure.
j^Membetghjp, Dates of Activity, and Mode of Operation
The Committee was comprised of a group of economic and environmental experts from Federal, state,
local, and tribal governments; academia; a variety of industries; and environmental justice groups.
The Committee was created in 1994. Quarterly meetings were held throughout 1994 and 1995. The
June 15,1999 1994-1996 ESEC 1
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Committee was disestablished in 1996.
D. Reports and Recommendations
The Committee identified several issues that it believed were essential to successful integration of
economic activity and ecosystem protection. The Committee concluded that EPA must exercise a
leadership influence beyond its primary area of responsibility (such as assisting to integrate national, state,
and local planning efforts which have potential future environmental impacts) to help bring consensus to
these areas, and to integrate sustainability into the decision-making process.
The Committee published the following report:
"NACEPT Ecosystems Sustainable Economies Committee
FY 1995 Activities and Recommendations," June 1996
The report presented considerations of the following three broad categories of activities:
consensus-building,
measurement and expansion of knowledge base; and
development of an incentive structure.
The Committee determined that the level at which these activities take place and the size of the affected
population would always determine the philosophy and direction of the activities. All three activities can
occur at the local, regional, national, and/or global level, and many ecosystem sustainability issues may
result because of incompatible incentives among these different levels. Since ecosystems are multi-scale,
a multi-scale approach to place-based environmental management must be developed that integrates,
rather than isolates, these differing levels.
The Committee organized its recommendations in terms of the three major activities it examined:
Consensus building. Ecological systems are integrated with other systems. In order to manage these
diverse systems as a whole, all stakeholders who 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. Specific recommendations included the
following:
EPA as Convenor. Although EPA must maintain and exercise the legal and moral authority to protect
the environment through regulatory means when necessary, the Agency must also develop and
expand its use of mediation and negotiation to solve environmental problems.
Ecosystem Valuation. Different constituents and stakeholders have different measurement systems for
valuing the various components of ecosystems, and the consensus building process needs to be
broadened 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 explicitly stated to facilitate linkages with the
development of environmental indicators and place-based ecosystem valuation efforts.
ESEC
1994-1996
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Properly 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 recogni2ed in the consensus building
process.
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 diere 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 of populations in its outreach efforts, and should use all available
communications technologies to facilitate informed decisions.
Measurement and Expanding the Knowledge Ease. 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. Specific
recommendations include the following:
Uncertainty and Unpredictability. Experts have come to acknowledge that environmental impacts
cannot be quantified with high precision because of the complex nature of the systems with which
they are dealing. With this acknowledgment, a shift in the burden of proof must be accepted, and
prudent steps taken to minimize the effects of estimated impacts, rather than waiting until
detrimental environmental impacts have occurred.
0 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 ensure
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.
a. National Income Accounting. Current national income accounting methodologies 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.
June 15,1999 1994-1996 ESEC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
b. full Cost Accounting. The full cost of the depletion of environmental assets must be measured in
both the corporate context and the national context, including 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 also should examine its own internal accounting practices
to assess the effects they have on the behavior of state and local governments.
Incentive Structure. 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 furdier environmental goals. EPA should help to develop a more complete
understanding of the environmental consequences of different policy incentives, and new ways to use
incentives to promote environmental protection. Specific recommendations included the following:
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 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 akeady 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 environmental protection efforts. EPA must develop the analytical capacity to assess
the environmental impacts of trade policies. The Agency also must become substantively involved
in trade policy negotiations to help craft consensus-driven agreements that will achieve both
environmental protection goals and free-trade objectives.
ESEC
1994-1996
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
E. Resulting EPA Actions
At the end of FY 1995, EPA adopted the Committee's recommendation to create a guidebook to help
communities develop more sustainable economic systems. The Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and
Communities with OCEM funding as well as assistance and comment from the ESEC developed
a handbook for community-based ecosystem protection.
June 15,1999 1994-1996 ESEC
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Reinvention
Criteria Committee
1996-Ongoing
* Established and charged to identify and recommend criteria EPA could use to measure the
progress and success of its reinvention activities.
* The Committee's charge was expanded to advise EPA on promoting an internal culture
change and to identify a mechanism to ensure management accountability for reinvention
programs.
* Published four sets of interim recommendations:
1. "Letter to the Deputy Administrator: Preliminary Findings and Recommendations" (October
1996)
2. "Letter to the Deputy Administrator: Preliminary Findings and Recommendations" (April -
1997)
3. "Recommendations on EPA's Draft Strategic Plan" (July 1997)
4. "Interim Report of the Reinvention Criteria Committee" (March 1998)
A. Why Established
In March, 1995, the President and Vice-President issued a report, "Reinventing Environmental
Regulation," identifying 25 high-priority actions, divided into two tracks, which could substantially
improve the existing environmental regulatory and management systems. These two tracks were focused
on producing a new era of cleaner, cheaper, and smarter environmental management by:
1. targeting solutions to problems -within the current regulations; and
2. developing innovative alternatives to the current regulatory system.
Implementing this comprehensive approach would require demonstrating commitment to providing
flexibility; cutting red tape; encouraging collaboration; focusing on achieving environmental results in
local communities; and entering partnerships with businesses, environmentalists, states, and communities
to test alternative management strategies. The Reinvention Criteria Committee (RCC) was established in
April 1996, to assist EPA in identifying criteria the Agency could use to measure the progress and
success of its reinvention activities.
jUDescriptipn of Charge __________^^
The Reinvention Criteria Committee was charged to recommend criteria by which the Agency can
measure the progress and success of its reinvention programs. Additionally, the Committee was charged
to identify opportunities for the Agency to promote self-certification as an alternative to Agency
approval and recommend a framework to identify self-certification opportunities. In 1997, the Deputy
June 15,1999 1996-Ongoing RCC 1
-------
Administrator asked the Committee to expand its charge to include the following:
recommend criteria to measure the progress and success of improving public confidence, fostering
flexibility and environmental innovation, and increasing accountability for results;
provide advice on how the Agency can promote an internal culture change that goes beyond specific
reinvention programs and incorporates reinvention philosophies into general practice; and
identify a mechanism that EPA can use to ensure management accountability for reinvention
programs.
The Committee prepared an interim report in March 1998 to reflect its progress in addressing the
charges described above. The RCC is currently addressing the charge to provide advice on how
incentives can be used most successfully by EPA to inspire firms, companies, communities, and
individuals to go beyond mere compliance with existing regulations and to begin the process of
addressing unresolved environmental problems. In particular, the Committee will address the following
questions:
What opportunities exist for EPA to use incentives to promote environmental stewardship in
industry, states, local communities, and the general public?
How can EPA evaluate the effectiveness of incentives to encourage environmental stewardship that
leads to improved environmental results?
What can EPA do to ensure that incentives promote and enhance public confidence?
How can EPA measure the impact that incentives have on public confidence?
What criteria should be used to decide whether the use of incentives is appropriate?
How can the concept of performance ladders be used to tailor incentives most effectively?
Additionally, the Agency and Environmental Council of the States signed an agreement in May 1998,
calling for joint evaluation by EPA, the states, and other interested parties of the success of regulatory
innovations. If a significant number of state proposals are received during the year, the RCC may be
called upon to provide advice on EPA's process for handling state proposals and to assist in the
development of criteria for the evaluation of innovations.
C. Membership, Dates of Activity, and Mode of Operation
The Committee consists of representatives of non-governmental organizations, state and local
governments, academia, and business/industry. The Committee's membership is reflective of the
Agency's stakeholders and the regulated community.
The Committee held 10 meetings between April 1996, and July 1998. The next meetings are scheduled
for September 27-28,1998, and December 8-9,1998.
At each meeting, the Committee dialogued with the managers of several headquarters and regional
reinvention programs identified by EPA. The Committee recommended that EPA should clearly
articulate the goals and objectives of the reinvention programs, and link the goals and objectives to
reinvention as a whole. The Committee met with the managers of 18 reinvention programs.
jDURecojn^^ __
The Committee has communicated its progress and interim recommendations as follows:
"Letter to the Deputy Administrator: Preliminary findings and recommendations," October 22,1996
"Letter to the Deputy Administrator: Preliminary findings and recommendations," April 18,1997
"Recommendations on EPA's Draft Strategic Plan," RCC meeting, July 6-7, 1997
"Interim Report of the Reinvention Criteria Committee," March, 1998
2 RCC 1996-Ongoing June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Letter to the Deputy Administrator," October 22,1996
The Committee drafted this letter as a progress report. The Committee had reviewed seven reinvention
initiatives and had general discussions about the overall reinvention effort. Based on its review, the
Committee identified required components of successful reinvention programs:
Each program needs to have a clear and succinct statement of its particular goals and objectives.
Each program needs to define an evaluation strategy, based on its own particular goals and
objectives.
Evaluation strategies should be designed as a hierarchy of integrated measures that range from
short-term to long-term components.
Evaluation strategies should include measures of stakeholder involvement and stakeholder
satisfaction.
June 15,1999 1996-Ongoing RCC
-------
"Letter to the Deputy Administrator," April 18,1997
This letter addressed the cross-cutting themes that the Committee shared with EPA staff during its
meetings. Its comments focus on culture change and innovation, the creation of the Office of
Reinvention and its role.
Culture Change and Innovation
For reinvention to be successful, it must involve a more pervasive cultural change within the Agency.
The Agency should be looking for ways to infuse the culture of reinvention throughout the Agency
and ensure that the lessons learned from implementation of the reinvention projects are diffused
into general practice. An Agency review of factors leading to the adoption of positive innovations
may be useful.
As the Agency moves toward increasing implementation of such strategies as Community Based
Environmental Protection, it would be important for the Agency to lead or assist in a similar analysis
of factors leading to the adoption of positive environmental innovations among the entire panoply
of environmental stakeholders.
Ro/e of the Office of Reinvention
If carefully designed and implemented, the Office of Reinvention (OR) can balance its role to provide a
higher visibility to reinvention and consolidate reinvention into a single office. OR should be viewed as
evolutionary, with its functions changing as reinvention needs change over time. The Committee
believes that the OR could fulfill the following important roles:
promote better communication throughout the Agency regarding reinvention projects and
philosophy;
coordinate and integrate reinvention efforts;
serve as evaluator and diagnostician (through statutes and regulations) of "lessons learned;"
develop a plan for applying "lessons learned" from individual projects to broader implementation
efforts by program offices;
focus on using "lessons learned" to change the Agency's culture and system for environmental
protection;
provide training across the Agency; and
advocate and promote reinvention.
RCC 1996-Ongoing June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Recommendations on EPA's Draft Strategic Plan," July 6-7,1998
The Committee was asked to review and comments on the Agency's Draft Strategic Plan. At the July 6-
7, 1997, meeting of RCC, the Committee members met with representatives of EPA's Office of the
Chief Financial Officer and provided recommendations on the Agency's draft Strategic Plan. The
Committee expressed concern diat the draft did not:
reflect the operating procedures in terms of identifying die Agency's priorities;
indicate relationship of the plan to program activities; and
show the linkage to Regional offices' activities.
The Committee recommended that EPA make reinvention a continuous and fundamental theme of the
Strategic Plan.
"Interim Report of the Reinvention Criteria Committee,"
March, 1998
This interim report included the Committee's most recent preliminary recommendations associated with
evaluating reinvention as a whole. They were presented to the NACEPT Council during die November
5-6,1997, plenary meeting, as follows:
In order to evaluate die progress and success of reinvention, EPA must clearly define its purpose,
goals, and objectives.
The Committee believes that there are actually multiple goals for reinvention. EPA should make
each goal specific.
To succeed, the Agency's reinvention efforts must maintain public confidence; involve stakeholders;
recognize that EPA is a partner in environmental protection; and serve as a catalyst for change in
collaboration with other stakeholders.
EPA should address die question of what is needed to meet die environmental challenges of the
future.
It is inevitable diat cross-program comparisons will be made. To minimize "bureaucratic
Darwinism," EPA should establish a more explicit process for deciding which programs are worthy
and feasible to pursue.
Reinvention must eventually move from its current pilot/laboratory phase to systemic change.
There are opportunities for consolidation and coordination of individual reinvention programs. In
order to pursue diem, EPA should group similar types of reinvention programs for evaluation.
Barriers to the adoption of positive innovations include uniformity mydis and risk aversion. Both
should be recognized by EPA, and strategies should be developed to overcome diem.
As Reinvention is an evolutionary process, die function of die Office of Reinvention should evolve
over time.
" Evaluation criteria must be defined early in program development to provide interim feedback on
program direction (or needed redirection) as well as for later measures of progress or success in die
programs.
June 15,1999 1996-Ongoing RCC
-------
E. Resulting EPA Actions
The Agency responded to the Committee's correspondence to the Deputy Administrator in letters dated
December 13,1996, and May 12, 1997, respectively. The Deputy Administrator acknowledged that the
preliminary recommendations were consistent with the Agency's ideas regarding reinvention criteria. He
urged the committee to expand its focus to include:
examining the reinvention activities in the more traditional media offices and providing
insight into how their progress can be measured; and
recommending criteria for measuring the success of reinvention as a whole.
The Committee focused on these broader issues and presented relevant recommendations in its interim
report in March, 1998.
The Committee will submit final recommendations on all of its activities to the NACEPT Council for
approval and transmittal to EPA during FY99.
RCC 1996-Ongoing June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
State and Local
Programs Committee
1988-1993
if Established to provide a formal mechanism through which state and local governments could
bring issues and recommendations to the Administrator.
* Charged to advise the Administrator on enhancing of state and local governments's ability to
carry out their environmental management responsibilities and on building cooperation among
government, business, academia, and the public interest.
* Published four reports:
1. "Report and Recommendations of the State and Local Programs Committee"
(February, 1990)
2. "Implementation of Recommendations" (October, 1990)
3. "State and Local Programs Committee Recommendations" (March, 1991)
4. "Building State and Local Pollution Prevention Programs" (December, 1992)
{Note: This Committee is also frequently referred to as the "State and'Local'Environment Committee." For clarity, this
report uses "State and Ij)cal Programs Committee" in all cases, even if the source document used another name to refer to
the Committee.)
A. Why Established
The State and Local Programs Committee was established to provide advice and counsel to the
Administrator to (1) enhance the ability of state and local governments to carry out their environmental
management responsibilities and (2) build cooperation among and between levels of government and the
business, public interest, and academic communities.
B. Description of Charge
In late 1988, at the creation of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Technology Transfer
(NACETT), EPA Administrator Lee Thomas asked the newly formed committee to provide a formal
mechanism through which state and local governments could bring issues and recommendations to the
Administrator, and to address how EPA could:
Promote allocation of environmental management responsibilities among Federal, state, and local
governments that best utilizes the unique capabilities of each;
Create a positive institutional climate for innovative approaches to environmental management;
Foster diffusion of successful solutions to a range of environmental management issues;
Assure consideration of state and local implementation issues in the design of national environmental
programs;
June 15,1999 1988-1993 S&L
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Identify trends and obstacles to progress in state and local environmental management programs and
their implications for national environmental policy;
Develop increased state and local capacity to manage environmental protection programs and deliver
needed assistance, training, and information;
Optimize operation and maintenance of existing environmental protection facilities to protect public
and private investments and assure continuing pollution control effectiveness;
Identify and implement effective alternative public/private fiscal management approaches by states
and local governments to assure continued construction of needed public pollution control facilities;
and
Deliver needed technical assistance, training and information, particularly to help small public and
private entities maintain regulatory compliance and to obtain appropriate regulatory relief where
justified.
C.
The Committee held its first meeting on March 9, 1989 in Washington, D.C. At this meeting, the
Committee heard testimony from key EPA officials concerning the needs for public/private financing,
and the needs and management strategies of the wastewater, drinking water, and solid waste management
programs. The Committee discussed the issues and its possible roles and emphases, and identified a list
of priority areas and issues for evaluation, focusing on: (1) state/local/EPA relationships; (2)
infrastructure; and (3) data management/information transfer.
The Committee subsequendy held meetings on the following dates:
October 24, 1989
March 27, 1990
July 18-19, 1990 (small community subcommittee)
August 2-3, 1990
September 12, 1990
October 24, 1990
December 13-14, 1990
May 8, 1991
January 13-15, 1992 (workshop)
September 14, 1993
The Committee was disestablished in late 1993.
Committee recommendations have: (1) urged clarification of roles and responsibilities; (2) accelerated use
of risk-based priority setting; and (3) improved delivery of information to state and local governments.
The Committee also has urged EPA to expand state participation in die Agency's risk-based strategic
planning process; provide the flexibility needed in management and budget systems to implement
strategies based on assessment of environmental problems; suggested ways that EPA could assist local
governments named as potentially responsible parties at Superfund sites; and recommended that EPA
expand opportunities for interested and qualified local governments to take an active part in response
actions.
S&L 1988-1993 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
The Committee published the following reports:
"Report and Recommendations of the State and Local Programs Committee,"
February, 1990
"Implementation of Recommendations," October, 1990
* "State and Local Programs Committee Recommendations," March, 1991
"Building State and Local Pollution Prevention Programs," December, 1992
June 15, 1999 1988-1993 S&L
-------
1988-1998 * NACEPT Chronology
"Report and Recommendations of the State and Local Programs
Committee," February, 1990
In this report, the Committee made the recommendations listed below.
Improving Sfate/EPA Cooperation
The Administrator should clearly articulate the shared environmental management responsibilities of
EPA, states, and local governments, and EPA's responsibility for providing assistance, information,
and education to enable improved management capacity.
Meeting Real Environmental Needs
Accelerate use of environmental needs-based assessments and plans to establish priorities, allocate'.
resources, and monitor progress.
Shift emphasis of the Strategic Planning and Management-System (SPMS) from "bean counts" to
monitoring useful environmental progress measures and implementations of key policy initiatives by
Regional Administrators and National Program Managers. Hold Regional Administrators
accountable in significant part for establishing improved state capacity and improved relationships
with state and local governments.
Increase the states' role in development of the risk analyses and resulting annual plans, priorities,
and resource allocations. Also involve local officials, envkonmental groups, and other public
interest entities more actively.
Accelerate the development and application of geographic information systems (GIS) to support
risk and infrastructure analyses. EPA's efforts should be coordinated with other Federal agencies
that are also assisting state and local GIS Implementation.
Local Governments
Increase emphasis on improving local government management capacity.
Issue national policy recognizing the importance of enabling more effective local government
environmental management.
Continue to work closely with the three existing informal local government advisory bodies.
Improve implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Involve Agency offices, key associations,
and other Federal agencies in establishing more effective procedures for development, review, and
coordination of proposed regulations and ongoing review of existing regulations to identify
opportunities for additional appropriate flexibility.
Direct Regional Administrators to establish more formal local government advisory processes to
obtain more direct input on local issues, information, and assistance needs. Each regional office
should develop appropriate forums to hear directly local government officials' issues and needs.
Enhance the visibility and responsibilities of existing Regional-level Small Community Coordinators
to represent broader local government concerns with regional programs.
Provide funding to help transfer and institutionalize local government "Self Help" as an element of
EPA's and states' strategies for meeting small community infrastructure needs.
Build municipal government capacity for envkonmental self-evaluation through development of
envkonmental auditing programs at the municipal level.
S&L
1988-1993
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Information and Assistance to Ljocal Governments and States
* Provide for more effective delivery of information and assistance to local governments and states.
Help states and local governments expand in-state technical assistance, training, and information
transfer processes.
8 Expand networks and EPA resources to deliver information and assistance.
Create additional mechanisms to encourage information transfer.
Involve the intended audience.
June 15,1999 1988-1993 S&L
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
"Implementation of Recommendations," October 1990
Other Committee recommendations and specific Action Steps for implementing them were summarized
in an October 1990 Committee report.
Recommendation: Clarify the shared environmental management responsibilities of EPA, states, and local
governments and EPA's responsibilities in providing enabling assistance, information, and education.
Specific elements of this recommendation include:
Issue a national policy on Federal-State relationships.
Hold senior managers accountable for state capacity building and improving EPA-State relations.
Action Steps:
Issue a statement regarding implementation of the oversight policy.
Direct each EPA Headquarters and Regional Office to develop a strategic plan for implementing the
oversight policy.
Institute programs for improving EPA-State mutual understanding.
Include a measure in performance standards of Headquarters and Regional managers for state
capacity building and improving EPA-State relations.
Recommendation: Accelerate the use of risk and problem assessment for planning, managing, and allocating
resources for environmental programs. Specific elements of this recommendation include:
Accelerate development of baseline risk analyses in Regions and states.
Increase Regional and state flexibility to reallocate resources.
Shift accountability measures to measures of environmental progress.
Involve state and local governments and public interest groups in strategic planning.
Accelerate development and application of Geographic information Systems.
Action Steps:
Assess strengths and weaknesses of risk analysis efforts.
Support NGA project to study state planning approaches.
Study whether and how flexibility in resource allocation (cross-program and within programs) is
being applied to determine the practical barriers that need to be overcome. Assign responsibility to
OPPE for a brokering process in Headquarters to resolve problems as die occur. Develop policy
and guidance for greater implementation based on diis experience.
Give states flexibility comparable to that which is now available to EPA Regions to use its grant
funds to address state-identified priorities. Give Regional Administrators authority to fund state
activities that address priority multi-media problems.
Allow experimentation in approaches to measuring progress in achieving environmental goals.
Evaluate various approaches proposed and used by EPA Regions and states; transfer successes and
refine approaches found to have significant problems.
Conduct an experiment releasing a Region and pilot state from current accountability measures in
exchange for an alternative progress reporting plan. __^_^__
S&L
1988-1993
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Discuss issues and options for involving states in the strategic planning process and the state role in
plan implementation at senior management meetings.
Clarify the role of state (and local) governments in the development and implementation of EPA
strategic plans.
Develop guidance on effective involvement of state and local governments and external
organizations in the development and implementation of strategic plans.
Continue and expand efforts to develop and disseminate information about GIS and its uses in
environmental management.
Provide technical assistance and resources to encourage use of GIS for ranking priority
environmental problems in Regions and states.
Recommendation: Increase emphasis on .empowering local government management capacity. Specific
elements of this recommendation include:
Issue national policy on enabling local government environmental management.
Maintain formal mechanisms to identify local government needs and assure delivery of information
and assistance to them.
Build local government capacity for environmental self-evaluation so that they can develop and
implement sound environmental management plans.
Action Steps:
The Administrator/Deputy Administrator should issue a policy memorandum which:
a. Explains EPA's responsibility for fostering improved environmental management capacity at the
local government level;
b. Requires programs and Regions to consult with local governments on regulatory and other
decisions affecting them;
c. Sets out expectations on implementation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, particularly with
regard to assessing the technical and fiscal feasibility of proposed regulations for small
communities;
d. Establishes opportunities for EPA regulation writers and program managers to visit and become
sensitized to the needs and capabilities of very small communities affected by regulatory
programs; and
e. Details strong support for EPA, state, and nongovernmental organization efforts to deliver
technical assistance; training, and information to local governments.
Conduct cross-media examination of current systems for providing technical assistance to local
governments as basis for developing improvements, greater coordination, and more effective
delivery.
Build and expand on the Office of Water's efforts (drinking water/waste water) to coordinate local
delivery of information and assistance.
Continue and expand ICMA grant program to reach local governments with environmental
management information and technical assistance.
Strengthen ties to USDA's Extension Service as a mechanism for educating and training local
governments in environmental management issues.
June 15,1999 1988-1993 S&L
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPTChronolggy_
Explore opportunities to use networks such as local fire and health departments in providing
education and technical assistance.
Fund a cooperative agreement with ICMA for die development of a "green book" on
environmental management.
Develop an environmental auditing protocol for local governments. Explore the use of Extension
Service program approach and network as a mechanism for dissemination to small communities.
Explore the potential for developing a small communities cross-program compliance policy that
would base compliance efforts on a plan developed as a result of an environmental audit, risk
assessment, and affordability analysis.
Recommendation: Improve delivery of information and assistance to state and local governments. Specific
elements of this recommendation include:
Expand networks and EPA resources to deliver information, training, and assistance to states.
Expand the ability of EPA, states, and non-governmental organizations to provide technical
assistance, training, and information transfer to local governments.
Action Steps:
Continue support for the National Governors Association program to provide environmental
management peer matches, information, and odier assistance to states, and continue to support the
other state executive branch organizations.
Assure that planners for the EPA Institute and the enforcement academy adequately consider the
universe of state and local personnel who need training in the design of their programs.
Initiate a study of die current status of state (and local) training for environmental personnel as a first
step to a longer-term strategy for meeting their training needs.
Continue and expand EPA's peer match and information transfer grant widi the International City
Management Association.
Expand the self-help program for drinking water and waste water to other states and add a solid
waste component.
Continue and expand support to other organizations providing technical assistance to small
communities.
Inventory and publicize information on successful state technical assistance programs, hodines,
clearinghouses, newsletters, and other information dissemination mechanisms. Assist in establishing
interstate networks for sharing approaches and systems.
S&L
1988-1993
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"State and Local Programs Committee Recommendations,"
March 1991
In this report, the Committee made the following recommendations:
States and Strategic Planning
EPA should actively involve states now as an integral part of the strategic planning process.
Regions should be required to demonstrate effective involvement of states in their management
strategies for addressing priority problems in order to qualify for flexibility in funding.
EPA should expand its pilot efforts to assist states with strategic planning and should begin
implementing risk management projects with states right away.
Risk Reduction Elements
* EPA should provide adequate time, resources, and technical assistance for developing plans for
actually addressing priority problems.
Since states do the vast majority of environmental work performed at the field level, they must be
involved in developing risk reduction plans.
EPA should evaluate and report on the "lessons learned" from ongoing efforts to develop and
implement strategic risk reduction plans at the Federal and state levels.
Incentives for State Participation in Strategic Planning
Incentives such as funding and management accountability system flexibility must be passed on to
the states. EPA should define what resources are available for strategic planning and what would
precipitate changes in resource allocation.
EPA must recognize and accommodate the diversity of authorities, institutional arrangements,
capacity, and environmental problems among the states.
An appropriate EPA office should be given the responsibility and authority to serve as
"ombudsman" to resolve conflicts between EPA regions, Headquarters, and/or states on issues
associated with implementing .strategic planning.
EPA should pilot and evaluate innovative incentives for implementing strategic plans.
Improvements in State Strategic Planning Capacity
Encourage states to designate a high-level official with multi-media responsibilities to be responsible
for environmental planning and negotiations with EPA.
Continue working to improve state ability to carry out environmental strategic planning.
Assure that states include local governments in their planning processes.
^cal Governments and Superfund
Local government officials must be informed immediately if a site in the community is suspected to
be a potential Superfund site so they can take steps to protect the public.
June 15,1999 1988-1993 S&L
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
« EPA should develop procedures for notifying local government officials that are appropriate to the
state and type of local government where the site is located.
If EPA fails to respond expeditiously to a local government's request for information about a
CERCLA matter such that the local government is unable to meet an EPA deadline for comments or
other action, EPA should automatically extend the deadline.
Local governments should be included in discussions between EPA and the state regarding
Superfund sites, recognizing their potential role in enforcement and oversight.
EPA should expand its efforts to involve local governments in Superfund management and oversight
by providing education and technical assistance to interested communities through appropriate
networks that reach local officials.
Ljocal Government PKPs vs. Private Sector PRPs
Immediately notify local governments directly and in writing of initial investigation steps being taken
under CERCLA involving a landfill site owned or used by local governments.
Include an information kit with the PRP notice to help guide local government officials through the
Superfund process.
Accommodate the legal procedural obligations that local governments must comply with before they
can enter into consent agreements or other formal agreements.
Maintain and expand the use of "in kind" work options available under the Municipal Settlement
Policy.
Perform Superfund financial analyses using methodologies that are appropriate to assessing the
financial health of local governments.
Structure settlement agreements to reflect an understanding of municipal finance and local economic
constraints.
Improve the ability of local governments to cope with process and public relations problems
associated with use of new technologies in Superfund cleanups.
Management of Superfund
Apply regulations and management processes consistently nationwide.
Carefully select and screen prime contractors for RI/FS and remedial activities and avoid duplicative
oversight contractors.
Pursue nonsignatory PRPs more aggressively, providing local governments more leverage with other
responsible parties.
Continue working to identify and resolve Superfund issues affecting local governments.
building Capacity of Local Governments
Facilitate sharing of lessons learned and advice between local governments that have had experience
as PRPs and other local governments, through dissemination of information kits, peer matches,
seminars, and publications.
Help educate local officials about the potential for environmental damages and liability, targeting
special efforts to small communities and Indian tribes.
« Develop a program to assist local governments in assessing and addressing environmental programs
systematically.
10
S&L
1988-1993
June 15,1999
-------
JNACEPTChronology » 1988-1998
Encourage local governments to undertake prevention activities that limit future liability for ground-
water contamination.
Encourage local governments and industry to work more closely together to limit liability for ground-
water contamination.
June 15,1999 1988-1993 S&L 11
-------
J988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
"Building State and Local Pollution Prevention Programs,"
December 1992
To develop this report, the Committee and its staff examined the current status of state and local efforts
to promote pollution prevention and the issues such programs face, giving particular attention to the
relationship of these efforts to EPA programs and policies. The Committee reviewed existing documents;
interviewed key government and private sector experts; and commissioned papers on the topics of
implementing state and local prevention programs, incorporating pollution prevention into permits and
enforcement actions, and leveraging business assistance programs to promote prevention. The
Committee's information gathering process culminated widi a national workshop, during which 60
participants from all levels of government, business and industry, academia, and the advocacy community
provided their insights on issues and opportunities for building state and local pollution prevention
programs.
Leadership and Support for Pollution Prevention
Provide national leadership in promoting pollution prevention as the strategy of choice for
environmental management.
Continue fostering a strong environmental regulatory climate that pushes companies to seek
prevention alternatives.
Assure that its actions and decisions are consistent with its pollution prevention message.
Develop and implement a careful strategy for building greater consensus and support for pollution
prevention.
Develop and implement a pollution prevention education strategy to foster prevention as both an
ethical standard and a practical goal for all endeavors.
Build support for pollution prevention by state and local policy makers.
Develop an outreach strategy, working with national organizations representing elected officials, to
educate them about pollution prevention and how to build effective prevention programs.
Develop and disseminate information about potential economic and environmental benefits to states
and communities of prevention efforts.
Forge new alliances with economic development entities and financial institutions.
Expand its work with national economic development organizations as well as with other Federal
agencies which have relevant programs.
Expand efforts to educate financial institutions and the insurance industry about the benefits of
pollution prevention and examine the role pollution prevention might have in helping to resolve
lender liability concerns.
R.o/es and Responsibilities
EPA should clarify roles and responsibilities between Federal, state, and local governments for
pollution prevention.
^revention in Mainstream Environmental Programs
Clarify goals and expectations for prevention efforts and develop a cohesive strategy to build
prevention into mainstream environmental programs.
12
S&L
1988-1993
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Establish clear goals and expectations for what its program offices should do to incorporate pollution
prevention into their routine activities and to accommodate multi-media and prevention innovations.
Develop an overall strategy for incorporating pollution prevention into its programs, including both
multi-media and single media components.
Continue and expand industry cluster approaches to regulation development to enhance
identification of prevention opportunities and address multi-media issues.
Take steps to assure that the results of pilot projects are translated into needed changes in routine
program operations.
Begin a deliberative process to resolve policy issues associated with integration of pollution
prevention into regulatory programs.
Management Accountability and Funding
Develop and implement new approaches to funding and assessing state and local environmental
programs.
Continue exploring ways to provide for greater flexibility in funding, administration, and oversight of
state and local environmental programs - - using strategic planning and pollution prevention as key
components of new approaches.
Foster development of more stable sources of funding for pollution prevention efforts.
Maximize its use of existing funding mechanisms to support pollution prevention efforts.
Ask Congress for adequate funds to support pollution prevention initiatives, and seek the flexibility
needed to support them with routine program funds.
Identify and disseminate information about alternative mechanisms being used to finance state and
local prevention programs.
Technical and Management Capacity
Build effective mechanism(s) for sharing technical information on pollution prevention and related
policy, management, and organizational issues.
Design a national strategy for meeting technical information and training needs, and provide
adequate financial support for implementation.
Establish an ongoing program to develop and disseminate information to government managers on
the design and implementation of pollution prevention programs.
Support mechanisms through which state and local regulatory program staff can share information
and experiences on integrating pollution prevention and other multi-media approaches into their
routine operations.
Reap greater benefits from government investments in pollution prevention projects.
Develop and implement a system that will allow the Agency to keep track of the myriad pollution
prevention projects (internal and external) - - and their results - - funded by the various Agency
offices.
Develop and share expertise on state and local innovations in environmental management, including
pollution prevention.
Monitor and analyze innovations in state and local environmental programs and policies, facilitate
transfer of information about new approaches, and broker policy conflicts.
June 15,1999 1988-1993 S&L 13
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Prevention Opportunities in the Wastewater Pretreatment Program
Develop a long term strategy for improving the capacity of local pretreatment programs, including
adoption of pollution prevention approaches.
Establish environmental goals and objectives for the pretreatment program.
Improve its relationship with local POTWs and work to address their concerns and needs.
Invest in building the technical and managerial capacity of POTWs.
Support additional pilot initiatives by POTWs to incorporate pollution prevention, and disseminate
the results.
Explore policy options that would encourage greater adoption of pollution prevention as a strategy in
local pretreatment programs.
14 S&L
1988-1993
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology;» 1988-1998
E. Resulting EPA Actions
The Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE)1 had several responses to the Committee's
recommendations.
While OWPE was pleased that the Committee supports the municipal settlement policy,
it noted that it is incorrect to say that EPA will not take an enforcement action against a
municipal generator or transporter. The commenter offered alternate language to
describe the policy.
OWPE also requested a clarification of the recommendation which urges EPA to
automatically extend comment deadlines when EPA fails to respond to a request for
information. Without more specific information on when such extensions would apply,
OWPE stated that it was unable to evaluate this recommendation.
OWPE clarified that widi regard to the recommendations, EPA has never established a
policy to take enforcement action against the ten largest PRPs, and that if the Agency
decides, after applying the municipal settlement policy to include a city in settlement
negotiations, they will usually receive both general notice and special notice.
Administrator's Summary of Agency Actions. EPA took a number of actions in direct response to the
Committee's recommendations. In a memorandum to Assistant Administrators, General Counsel,
Inspector General, Associate Administrators, and Regional Administrators, EPA Administrator William
K. Reilly summarized some of the recommendations that were already being implemented by the Agency
as of October 1991, including:
The Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation began implementing some of the
NACEPT recommendations by supporting several projects to build state and local
capacity for risk-based planning.
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, in response to Committee
recommendations, took several important steps designed to assist local governments
facing Superfund problems. OSWER issued guidance and provided a model letter for
Regions to use in providing early notice to communities about a potential Superfund site.
OSWER also supported the development of new training and education programs by the
International City Management Association that will provide "first aid kits" and other
assistance to communities named as PRPs, and enhance the ability of local governments
that are willing and qualified to take on some direct cleanup activities.
The Office of Air and Radiation responded to a suggestion to involve a full range of
interests in planning for Clean Air Act implementation by establishing the Clean Air Act
Advisory Committee.
Office of Pollution Prevention Actions. The Office of Pollution Prevention initiated several major efforts in
direct support of Committee recommendations.
In order enhance the states' ability to conduct comparative risk analyses of their
environmental problems and develop pollution prevention-oriented strategies to address
environmental problems, the Office directly supported five states in conducting
The Office of Waste Programs Enforcement has since been changed to the Office of Site
Remediation and Enforcement (OSRE) under the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA).
June 15,1999 1988-1993 S&L 15
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Comparative Risk projects, and also coordinated Comparative Risk projects in all
Regions. In addition, the Office began an initiative in Regions 8 and 10 to provide grant
flexibility to allow two states to focus resources on the mitigation of environmental
threats identified in their Comparative Risk projects.
6 In response to the Committee's recommendation to provide risk management support to
states, in addition to risk analysis support, the Office began efforts to strengthen the
coordination between its two divisions the Division of Pollution Prevention and the
Division of Strategic Planning and Management in order to ensure that pollution
prevention experts are targeting their efforts more toward the areas of high risk identified
through the Comparative Risk planning process.
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement Actions. The Office of Waste Programs Enforcement also indicated that
it was taking action to begin implementing several of the Committee's recommendations, including:
Drafting a "non-notice" letter that can be used to provide earlier notice to local
governments of Superfund activities. The Office also began development of a Superfund
"desk reference" that will assist local governments in learning about EPA's programs.
Discussing a grant with NACEPT and the International City Managers Association, in
order to help local communities to address concerns about the capacity of local
governments to handle Superfund programs.
Office of Enforcement Actions. Comments from the Office of Enforcement (OE) on the Committee's
recommendations focused on its responses to the planning and local government aspects of the
Committee's report.
Strategic Planning. OE noted that states participated extensively in the development of the
Enforcement four-Year Strategic Plan through their representation on the Steering
Committee on the State/Federal Enforcement Relationship. The comments noted that
the proposed approach is embodied in the draft Addendum on Multi-Media
Enforcement, and that the process it lays out for state involvement in Agency
enforcement strategic planning is consistent with the recommendations of NACEPT.
The approach was expected to be fully operational for the FY 1993 planning cycle.
Local Government Environmental Management Capacity. OE noted that it was working to
develop several aspects of local government capacity: (1) to improve compliance with
existing requirements through the use of environmental compliance auditing and (2) to
expand the roles of local government in environmental enforcement. In FY 1991, the
comments noted, OE and the City of Colorado Springs, CO developed a case study of
the City's environmental auditing program. The case study offers a good introduction to
the concept and benefits of environmental auditing and shows how one city effectively
implemented a program. OE arranged to have this case study published in a monthly
magazine of the International City Management Association which was distributed
during the Spring of 1992 to 2,700 subscribers who are city and deputy city managers.
This is a major effort to increase the awareness of public officials of this environmental
management tool to improve compliance. In addition, OE noted that it was exploring
ways to expand the role of local government in environmental enforcement A work
group was formed to explore opportunities and develop criteria for expanding the civil
enforcement role of local governments.
Criminal Enforcement. OE noted that it was continuing its support for training of local
enforcement personnel through the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in
Georgia by providing legal and technical instructors for courses. Through the Advisory
16 S&L 1988-1993 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Council of the National Enforcement Training Institute, OE anticipated gaining a better
understanding of the enforcement training needs of state and local governments. OE
stated its intention to work with the Compliance Programs and Regions to find ways to
meet those needs, be they technical or legal, generic, or program-specific.
Region 3 Actions. The Deputy Administrator for Region 3 noted that the Region had reviewed the
Committee report and had decided to adopt a number of its recommendations, and also had identified
several efforts currently underway related to some of the recommendations.
Strategic Planning. The Region noted that several activities were planned or underway
regarding Committee recommendations in this area.
The Office of Policy and Management, the Office of External Affairs, and the Environmental Services
Division are currently developing a briefing package on comparative risk and strategic planning which was
to be presented by the Regional Administrator and Deputy Regional Administrator to the Environmental
Secretary of each state. The first such meetings with the states were scheduled for late January 1992.
The states were encouraged to conduct, with EPA technical support, their own risk studies and to develop
their own state strategic plans. This Region provided technical assistance, and, to the extent possible,
resources to the states for the development of risk management strategies for addressing priority .
problems.
As part of a process begun at a Senior Management Retreat in October 1991, the Region reviewed the
flexibility available to the states under current grant procedures and identified areas where additional
flexibility might be allowed within the Agency's authority. Pursuant to the Committee's
recommendations, the Region provided greater flexibility in management accountability and the creative
use of state program grant funds to states that participate fully in the risk reduction/strategic planning
process.
Ijocal Governments and Superfund. The Region indicated that it also had begun to implement
some of the Committee's recommendations in this area.
The Committee report stated that in no situation should the press or public be informed about a potential
Superfund site prior to notifying appropriate local officials, as a way of involving local governments as
part of the team at Superfund sites. In response, all counties in the Region are now provided periodically
with copies of the CERCLIS list. This procedure, begun as a pilot project in Pennsylvania, was designed
to make local officials aware of all potential hazardous waste sites in their jurisdiction of which the Region
is aware. Local officials are given a point of contact to call for any follow-up information they may
require.
The Region also has procedures in place to be certain that local officials know in advance of planned
Agency actions within their jurisdiction. The Field Investigation teams are required to notify the
appropriate local officials before conducting any field work. The Office of External Affairs has
procedures to assure that local officials are notified of any significant Agency actions or decisions
regarding a site in their jurisdiction. Additionally, the Superfund Community Relations Coordinators of
the Office of External Affairs hold briefings for local government officials in advance of any public
meeting to assure that there are no surprises and to give the officials the opportunity to ask any questions
or raise any concerns.
The Region also plans to adopt some of the other recommendations of the report. The Region will
establish a procedure to notify local governments of-any steps being taken under CERCLA with regard to
landfills they may own or use. The Region also will develop and provide an information kit for PRPs to
June 15,1999 1988-1993 S&L 17
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
explain the Superfund process and to suggest what steps that process might require.
In addition, the Region plans to involve local governments in the Superfund process by encouraging their
participation in the long-term operation and maintenance often required at sites. This work, currently
done by the states, can often be handled more efficiently by local governments who in most cases have
personnel in place to handle routine maintenance chores such as lawn mowing, fence maintenance, and
other similar tasks. This work can be performed by the local government as "in kind" contribution under
the Municipal Settlement Policy, should they be a PRP.
Finally, the Region stated that it would consider pursuing the recommendation to build local government
capacity to participate in the management of sites by conducting education and technical assistance
efforts. Should sufficient resources be identified, the Region might conduct workshops or otherwise
provide information and assistance through the associations of townships and counties that already exist
in many states.
Programs to Assist'Local'Governments. The Region also described several initiatives that
implement Committee recommendations in this area.
The Environmental Services Division, with the Office of External Affairs, is developing an outreach
program to local communities on wetlands protection. Improving the awareness of local governments
about wetlands and their regulation may help to reduce the expense and frustration they experience when
projects are conceived and designed only to be derailed when wetlands concerns emerge.
In addition, the Chesapeake Bay Program works through the Chesapeake Executive Council and the Local
Government Advisory Council to provide information and assistance to local governments and to
encourage their support for non-point source control and other efforts to protect the Chesapeake Bay.
These mechanisms give the local communities a real opportunity to participate in the development and
implementation of environmental programs related to the Chesapeake Bay.
Clean AirA.ct Impkmentation. The Region implemented a strategy to communicate the
requirements of the Clean Air Act Amendments to the states. The strategy included staff
level meetings as well as a personal briefing from the Regional Administrator and Air,
Radiation and Toxics Division Director for each State Secretary. The Region has
maintained a close working relationship not only with the states but also with local
agencies such as the Allegheny County Health Department and Philadelphia Air
Management Services and is providing technical assistance to them as they develop
programs to meet the requirements of the Act.
Other section Items. The Region noted several other action items that are not specific to a
particular Committee recommendation, but which the Region was pursuing in order to
further state and local government relationships in general.
The state and local government associations that already exist could be better utilized by EPA to provide
information and technical assistance, build capacity, and make those governments part of the team as
envisioned by the Committee. The Region compiled a list of the County, City, and Township Associations,
as well as a schedule of their conventions and annual meetings. As a way of "asking the customer what
they want," the Region considered requesting that those groups discuss at their meetings what needs they
may have of EPA. EPA may suggest topics for discussion, such as "Superfund PRP Workshop" or "Clean
Air Act Amendments."
Established mechanisms exist in some EPA programs, such as Local Emergency Planning Councils under
SARA Tide III, that can be better exploited for a wider range of interaction witii local governments. Using
established groups provides the Agency with a natural audience and leverages its ability to work with the
18 S&L 1988-1993 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
state and local governments. Through this leverage, the Agency may be better able to use scarce resources
to provide some of the many kinds of training and technical assistance recommended by the Committee.
Finally, the Region also noted that it would continue developing a set of environmental guidelines for
responsible local governments, similar to a previously developed guideline for responsible corporate
citizens. This could include information on pollution prevention, municipal waste, underground storage
tanks, and many other issues that local government officials routinely face, with suggestions for the
environmentally responsible way to proceed.
Other Accomplishments. In a FY 90 summary of actions taken in response to Committee recommendations,
the Agency noted the following accomplishments.
In response to the Committee's recommendation that the Agency accelerate EPA-wide
development and implementation of risk-based priority setting and resource allocation,
EPA noted that baseline risk analysis had been initiated in the seven EPA Regions that
were not part of the Agency's comparative risk pilot study; $700,000 was committed in FY
90 for data collection. In addition, Regions 1, 3, and 10 were provided increased flexibility
(up to 30 percent) in their FY 91 budgets. EPA also reported that efforts were underway
to develop a more integrated budget review process; however, a more formalized cross-
media budget review process is still needed.
In response to the recommendation that EPA create additional mechanisms to encourage
information transfer, EPA noted that comprehensive grant-making authority had been
recently delegated for state data management systems.
Another summary of the Committee's accomplishments included the following itemsr
Increased state strategic planning role
« Focus on small community issues; coordinator established
Small towns environment program Rensselaerville Institute
Local government PRP help
National Governors Association state financing and strategic planning reports; peer
matching
International City Management Association Local roundtable, NGO coordination, peer
matching
Establish Regional Institutes Regions 3, 6, and 9
June 15,1999 1988-1993 S&L 19
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Trade and
Environment
Committee
1989-1993
Established to address broad, cross-cutting major issues related to trade and the
environment. Within months of the Committee's establishment, EPA's role escalated
dramatically in the development of the free trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico
as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Charged to assist the Administrator to clarify EPA's trade position, advance the integration of
environmental and trade policy making, and identify key policy issues and
recommendations.
Published one report:
"The Greening of World Trade" (February 1993)
A. Why Established
The Trade and Environment Committee, previously the International Environmental Committee, was
established in September 1989, in response to EPA Administrator William Reilly's request that NACEPT
shift its primary focus to address broad, cross-cutting major issues related to trade and the environment.
Although there was little public debate or press coverage at this time, the Agency was akeady receiving
requests to address issues relating to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Within
months of the Committee's establishment, the debate surrounding NAFTA intensified, and EPA's role
escalated dramatically in the development of the free trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico.
B. Description of Charge
The Trade and Environmental Committee was composed of a wide variety of experts from the
environmental, trade, and investment communities. It was charged to identify key policy issues and
recommendations for the EPA Administrator, assist the Administrator to clarify EPA's trade position,
and advance the integration of environmental and trade policy making.
Specifically, the Committee was charged to:
identify the overlap between trade and environment;
develop specific recommendations to ensure mutually supportive trade and environmental policies;
initiate and support discussion and research on the compatibility and conflicts between environment
and trade;
farther define EPA's global role and inter-governmental relationships in the environment as they
relate to trade; and
advise the development of U.S. policies which would support sustainable development as basis for
global environmental protection.
June 15,1999 1989-1993 TEC 1
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
The Committee formed three working groups - the GATT Working Group; the Indus trialized
Coun tries /OECD Working Group; and the Western Hemisphere Working Group - to address trade and
environment issues specific to their geo-institutional focus. The Committee and its working groups held
a total of thirteen meetings during a ten-month period from September 1989 to 1993.
D.
The Committee issued its final report, "The Greening of World Trade," in February 1993, with the
following recommendations:
The GATT Working Group
Guiding Principles
The U.S. Government should urge GATT to add to its major objectives the consideration of
environmental concerns.
GATT and Environmental Agreements
The U.S. Government should undertake efforts to reconcile the GATT and multilateral
environmental agreements, when they are in conflict.
Criteria for Reconciling future Agreements
The U.S. Government should develop criteria for insuring the compatibility of both future
multilateral trade agreements and future multilateral environmental agreements.
Transparency and Participation
The U.S. Government should advocate a review of GATT procedures governing the dispute
resolution process, with the objective of providing greater transparency, particularly through the
immediate publication of panel and working party reports;
The U.S. Government should provide greater transparency and public participation for
environmental interests in the development of U.S. trade policy and trade negotiating positions that
affect environmental considerations; and
The U.S. Government should advocate that GATT dispute resolution panels strengthen existing
mechanisms for using outside experts to help to resolve technical and scientific questions relating to
environmental issues.
Subsidies and Standards
The Working Group agreed that priorities for the next phase of its work should include
TEC 1989-1993 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
consideration of subsidies and standards with respect to their effect on environmental protection.
June 15,1999 1989-1993 TEC 3
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
The OECD Working Group
Guiding Principles
' The U.S. Government should adopt "sustainable development" as a guiding principle of U.S. policy
relating to the interrelationships among trade, international investment and environmental
protection. The Working Group understands the term "sustainable development" to have the
meaning ascribed to it in "Our Common Future", the report of the World Commission on
Environment and Development: "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of
die present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
Agreement should be sought with OECD members to incorporate the principle of "Sustainable
Development" in OECD Guidelines.
Competitiveness
Criteria should be developed for evaluating the impacts, both positive and negative, of domestic
environmental standards and requirements on U.S. competitiveness.
Whenever possible, the U.S. government should adopt environmental protection measures
(including market-based mechanisms) that advance the competitiveness of U.S. businesses by
allowing flexibility and encouraging efficiency and innovation.
The U.S. Government should take greater note of the large and growing market for environmental
goods and services and should take steps to facilitate the participation of the U.S. environmental
goods and services industry in international markets. Continued and enhanced support for the U.S.
Environmental Training Institute, and expansion of USAID's Asian Environmental Partnership
Program to other geographic regions, would be suitable ways to implement this recommendation.
Additionally, EPA should search for ways of showing support for U.S.-based companies when they
are bidding on projects abroad.
Harmonization of Standards
Recognizing that die international harmonization of standards can reduce barriers to trade and lower
the cost of producing and distributing products, the U.S. government should identify appropriate
areas for the international harmonization of standards. Where harmonization is not practicable, the
U.S. Government should seek to achieve mutual recognition of standards with a view to reducing
unnecessary obstacles to trade while preserving or enhancing existing levels of environmental
protection. This effort should address the harmonization of:
> substantive standards;
> testing protocols;
* risk assessment techniques;
> certification and conformity assessment procedures; and,
TEC 1989-1993 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
procedural standards that provide for public access to information and participation in the
standard setting process at the national and international level.
Science
Recognizing that science plays an important role in the establishment of levels of environmental
protection, both nationally and internationally, the U.S. Government should seek to achieve
international agreement on accepted protocols for developing and evaluating scientific data and
performing risk assessments in standard setting processes.
Institutional Issues
EPA should urge that the U.S. delegation to the OECD Ministerial meeting propose strong language
in its communique, instructing the Joint Experts Group on Trade and Environment to speed up the
negotiating process in order to develop substantive proposals for the revision of the Guidelines by
the 1993 Ministerial, at the latest. If progress can be made earlier, a meeting of trade and
environment ministers should be convened to review the report.
In order to satisfy the legitimate request of the private sector and other non-governmental
organizations for more involvement in the policy-making process, consideration should be given at
the May 1993 OECD Ministerial to the establishment of an Environmental Advisory Committee
similar to the existing Business and Industry Advisory Committee and the Trade Union Advisory
Committee.
In all multilateral and bilateral trade and environmental negotiating fora, there should be close
collaboration between officials having environmental and trade responsibilities.
The U.S. Government should seek agreement among the OECD members to allow for greater
transparency, public participation and access to information in the OECD's processes and
procedures.
future Efforts
The Working Group intends to continue its study of the areas discussed above. In particular, it
intends to address more difficult issues such as the role of environmental subsidies and the question
of when it may be appropriate to take unilateral trade-related actions in order to achieve
environmental objectives. ______^_
June 15,1999
1989-1993
TEC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chtgnglogy
The Western Hemisphere Working Group
Sustainable Development
The U.S. Government should adopt sustainable development as a guiding principle of U.S. policy
relating to trade, international investment flows, and environment, and should support its
incorporation into all future trade and investment agreements.
Agreement should be sought with other Western Hemisphere nations to recognize the principle of
"Sustainable Development" as one of the major objectives of the international trading system.
Free Trade
Recognizing that additional free trade agreements between the U.S. and other Western Hemisphere
countries are both likely and desirable, potential signatories should establish criteria for evaluating
the environmental implications of all future free trade agreements. The U.S. should take a leading
role in this process.
Once such criteria have been fully developed, the potential signatories should commence, at the
earliest possible time, a review of their environmental laws and capabilities, building on the process
akeady under way pursuant to Resolution 1114, dated June 8,1991, of the General Assembly of the
Organization of American States.
The Working Group also recommends that environmental concerns should be integrated into future
trade agreements.
The Working Group recommends that environmental disputes arising out of trade agreements be
subject to a separate, comprehensive dispute resolution process just as are other aspects of free trade
agreements.
Increased North/ South Cooperation
The Working Group recommends that the U.S. Government adopt a policy favoring cooperative
efforts, rather than sanctions, as the preferred approach to advance environmentally-sound actions
by other countries.
The Working Group encourages the U.S. Government to expand its existing programs that utilize
debt reduction as an incentive for environmental initiatives and to urge other creditor countries and
international financial institutions to develop or expand such programs of their own.
Recognizing the need for both strengthened intellectual property protections in developing
countries, and for increased access for developing countries to environmentally-friendly
technologies, the Working Group recommends that the U.S. Government expand existing programs
that increase developing countries' access to environmentally-friendly technologies as well as the
capability to assess technologies and cooperative development of technologies.
TEC 1989-1993 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
To facilitate greater environmentally-friendly technology cooperation between the developed and
developing countries of the Western Hemisphere, the Working Group recommends that the U.S.
Government develop a partnership program for the developing countries of the Western Hemisphere,
similar to the ones already underway for Central and Eastern Europe and Asia.
Recognizing the importance of institutional capabilities for environmental management and technology
transfer, the Working Group recommends that the U.S. Government substantially expand its support
for cooperative education and training activities involving U.S. and other Western Hemisphere
countries.
Investment
Recognizing that investment plays an important role in both expanded free trade and in the
environmental quality of the development that takes place, the Working Group recommends mat
each country evaluate the effect of investment on the environment.
The evaluations should consider:
* type of projects;
* impact of project types;
* demands for infrastructure; and
* technologies employed.
June 15, 1999
1989-1993
TEC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
In addition to "The Greening of World Trade," the OECD Subcommittee presented the following
recommendations to die Administrator:
Study the effects of envkonmental regulation on the competitiveness of domestic industries on both
domestic and international markets to develop a regulatory framework that can serve both
competitiveness and envkonmental benefits.
Develop guiding principles and specific guidelines for the international harmonization of standards
and for the United States acceptance of such standards into the domestic regulatory framework.
Study die role of alternative unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral economic instruments as a means
for encouraging environmentally sound behavior on the part of other countries.
Study the agreed upon terms of the 1974 OECD "Polluter Pays Principle" to determine if this
principle or if the OECD should seek to adopt a new expression of the principle.
Outline a set of guiding principles diat the OECD should adopt in the area of trade and
environment.
Advocate that the OECD apply the polluter pays principle in all instances where appropriate,
realizing that at times it will need to reevaluate the polluter pays principle to take into account the
need for environmental subsidies.
Advocate that the OECD should increase technological cooperation and financial assistance to
developing countries to aid them in adopting more environmentally sound policies.
Advocate that the OECD adopt the following as guiding principles:
* sustainable development;
* the precautionary principle;
* transparency;
* citizens participation and access to information;
* the polluter pays principle;
* full internalization of environmental costs;
* the doctrine of state responsibility; and
* the jurisdiction of a state to regulate all acts within its jurisdiction or undertaken by its nationals.
Advocate that die GA'lT system be amended to provide for greater environmental sensitivity.
TEC 1989-1993 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
E. ResuIting EPA Actions
As a result of the work of the Trade and Economic Committee, through the Office of Policy, Planning
and Evaluation/Office of International Activities (OPPE/OIA), EPA established a new U.S.
Environmental Training Institute.
June 15, 1999
1989-1993
TEC
-------
NACEPT Chronology > 1988-1998
Technology
Innovation and
Economics Committee
1989-1993
* Established to explore ways to improve the efficiency of government and private sector
development and use of innovative environmental technologies.
T*T Charged with examining (1) the effectiveness of governmental "environmental systems" in
ensuring a suitable climate for technological development and (2) the adequacy of market
forces to stimulate the development of environmentally beneficial technologies.
* Established the Industrial Pollution Prevention Project Focus Group at EPA's request to
provide specific recommendations on how best to promote industrial pollution prevention
through the effluent guidelines process.
* The Committee published five reports:
1. "Report and Recommendations of the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee"
(January 1990)
2. "Permitting and Compliance Policy: Barriers to U.S. Environmental Technology
Innovation" (January 1991)
3. "Improving Technology Diffusion for Environmental Protection" (October 1992)
4. "How Best to Promote Industrial Pollution Prevention Through the Effluent Guidelines
Process" (February 1993)
5. 'Transforming Environmental Permitting and Compliance Policies to Promote Pollution
Prevention: Removing Barriers and Providing Incentives to Foster Technology
Innovation, Economic Productivity, and Environmental Protection" (April 1993)
A. Why Established
Innovative environmental technologies can contribute to both environmental protection efforts and
economic growth in the United States. However, progress in meeting environmental objectives often is
subject to technological limitations, both in terms of development of new technologies and wider
diffusion of existing technologies.
NACETT established the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee (TIE) Committee to
investigate the barriers, incentives, and remedies which affect the development of environmentally
beneficial technologies, including Federal regulations, regulatory administrative systems, and
environmental technology diffusion programs.
June 15,1999 1989-1993 TIE
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
B. Description of Charge
The TIE Committee was established to explore ways to improve the efficiency of government and
private sector development and use of innovative environmental technologies. The Committee's goals
were to:
Increase the development and commercialization of innovative environmental technologies;
« Ensure the diffusion of existing and new environmentally beneficial technologies;
Help EPA, other agencies, and technology developers to identify and reduce statutory, ,
regulatory, policy, and administrative barriers to innovation;
Help regulated organizations learn how to co-optimize economic productivity and
environmentally sound decisions; and
Help the public play a more informed role in the innovation process, gaining benefits from both
technical innovation and environmental protection.
The Committee was charged with examining (1) the effectiveness of the "environmental system" (i.e., all
regulatory, administrative, and research programs that operate in federal, state, and local governments to
achieve environmental objectives) in ensuring a suitable climate for technological development and (2)
the adequacy of market forces to stimulate the development of environmentally beneficial technologies.
The Committee sought to identify impediments to environmental technology innovation, review ways to
alleviate these impediments, and create incentives for environmentally beneficial technological
developments.
The TIE Committee also:
investigated how to apply economic incentives and other alternatives to conventional regulation
and when these options are most appropriate;
examined the relationship between permitting and compliance policies and technology
innovation and use, including that for pollution prevention approaches;
considered why much of the best environmentally beneficial technology is not being transferred;
explored how to encourage pollution prevention through the effluent guidelines program, and
discussed ways to foster wider use of advanced remediation technologies.
Since the partnership between government and the private sector is crucial to the development of
environmentally beneficial technologies, the TIE Committee sought to advise EPA on the relationships
needed to build and maintain such partnerships.
C. Membership, Dates of Activity, and Mode of Operation
The TIE Committee met for the first time on January 25-26, 1989. This meeting brought together
environmental entrepreneurs, capital sources, regulated industries, environmentalists, and regulators to
examine the impediments, incentives, and remedies applicable to technology innovation for
environmental purposes. Following the first meeting, the Committee met several times a year between
1990 and 1993.
The Industrial Pollution Prevention Project Focus Group (IP3), a subcommittee of the full TIE
Committee, was established in 1991 and held six meetings between December 1991 and February 1993.
The IPS Focus Group was requested by EPA to provide specific recommendations on how best to
TIE 1989-1993 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
promote industrial pollution prevention through the effluent guidelines process. In February 1993, the
group finalized and approved its recommendations, which were then submitted to the full TIE
Committee for consideration.
JD._Repgrtsand_Recommendations __ ___________
The Committee published the following reports:
"Report and Recommendations of the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee,"
January 1990
"Permitting and Compliance Policy: Barriers to U.S. Environmental Technology Innovation:
Report and Recommendations of the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee," January
1991
"Improving Technology Diffusion for Environmental Protection: Report and Recommendations
of the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee," October 1992
"How Best to Promote Industrial Pollution Prevention Through the Effluent Guidelines Process:
Report of the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee/Industrial Pollution Prevention
Project Focus Group," February 1993
"Transforming Environmental Permitting and Compliance Policies to Promote Pollution
Prevention: Removing Barriers and Providing Incentives to Foster Technology Innovation,
Economic Productivity, and Environmental Protection: Report and Recommendations of the
Technology Innovation and Economics Committee," April 1993
June 15,1999 1989-1993 TIE
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
"Report and Recommendations of the Technology Innovation
and Economics Committee/' January 1990
In this report, the TIE Committee offered the following recommendations on Agency strategy toward
supporting technical innovation:
The Administrator should develop for EPA a strong leadership role in fostering technology innovation for environmental
purposes, plating such technology innovation in the context of sustainable development.
The Administrator should develop and issue a policy statement redefining the Agency's mission to
include fostering the development and diffusion of innovative technologies that both furdier the
Agency's environmental objectives and enhance the competitiveness of the United States economy.
EPA should develop and implement a strategy which carries out the Administrator's policy
statement on EPA's mission to foster technology innovation.
The Administrator should work with the President's science and technology advisors to develop and
implement across the federal government new policies reflecting the high priority it places on
expanding the range of technologies available to solve environmental problems and simultaneously
enhance productivity in the United States.
The Agency should, within statutory constraints, build greater flexibility into permitting and
compliance programs so that the development and diffusion of environmentally beneficial
innovative technologies is not unnecessarily impeded by standard operating procedures in regulatory
systems. Among the specific steps that the Agency should consider are the following:
a. Identify, develop, and apply ways to use compliance and enforcement policies and programs to
encourage technology innovation (e.g., by directing civil penalties to underwrite technology
innovation).
b. Identify, develop, and apply ways to integrate permitting and compliance programs to foster
technology innovation.
c. Maximize coordinated permitting strategies across the environmental media, and increase
intergovernmentally-coordinated permitting, whenever possible, within the constraints of existing
statutes.
d. Expand the use of research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) permitting provisions
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
e. Put Subpart Y regulations in place quickly, enabling the issuance of RCRA permits for
experimental testing facilities.
f. Investigate where RCRA Subpart X could be useful in facilitating the use of miscellaneous.,
innovative treatment technologies.
TIE 1989-1993 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
g. Expand the use of emissions trading within the air and other regulatory programs.
The Agency should, within statutory constraints, build greater flexibility into other EPA programs so
that the development and diffusion of environmentally beneficial innovative technologies is not
unnecessarily impeded by standard operating procedures. Among the specific steps that the Agency
should consider are the following:
a. Explore how to make greater use of the provisions of the Federal Technology Transfer Act
(FTTA).
b. Investigate ways to strengthen ORD's roles as (1) identifier and conveyor, with the regulatory
offices, of information about present and future technology gaps and (2) a non-regulatory
forum that works closely with technology user communities, as in the SITE program, to
evaluate and guide technology development efforts.
c. Examine programs that appear to have fostered technology innovation, such as the Innovative
and Alternative Technology portion of the Construction Grants program and the underground
storage tank program, to document what worked and why.
d. Build incentives for technology innovation into the strategy of EPA's pollution prevention
program.
e. Identify steps needed to bring technologies successfully demonstrated in the Superfund
Innovation Technology Evaluation (SITE) program into practical use at Superfund and other
locations.
Develop specialized requirements for liability and financial responsibility, as needed, for assisting
technology innovation.
Build into the Agency's strategy processes to inform affected and interested parties about the
purpose and benefits of fostering technological innovation, and develop programs for carrying out
this objective. Specifically, these information efforts undertaken by EPA should communicate with
the public and other interested parties, train EPA permit writers and compliance staffs, encourage
the training of state permit writers and compliance staffs, and develop comprehensive approaches to
inform regulated parties, particularly small and medium-sized organizations, about (1) applicable
environmental requirements, (2) the advantages of developing and using innovative technologies 'to
meet these environmental requirements, and (3) EPA's specific programs to foster innovative
problem solving.
The Administrator should direct each ERA office to conduct a systematic review and evaluation of the degree to which the
implementation of its programs is effective in stimulating technology innovation. These evaluations should identify
approaches required to foster the full range of technological innovations including, in priority order, pollution prevention,
recycling, pollution control, and pollution treatment.
The Agency should examine the degree to which at least the following programs are being applied
effectively to stimulate environmental technology innovation:
a. The Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA).
June 15,1999 1989-1993 TIE
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
b. Compliance and enforcement policies and programs.
c. Permitting.
d. Research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) permitting provisions under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
e. RCRA Subpart X.
f. Emissions trading within the air and other regulatory programs.
g. The "innovative technology" variance (Section 301 k) and the "Fundamentally Different
Factors" variance (Section 301 n) under the Clean Water Act and innovative technology
waivers (Section 111 j) and delayed compliance orders for existing major stationary sources
using "new means of emission limitation" (Section 113 d 4) under the Clean Air Act.
h. The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program.
i. Research, development,.and demonstration programs under the Office of Research and
Development (ORD).
j. The Innovative and Alternative Technology portion of the Construction Grants program,
and the underground storage tank program.
k. EPA's pollution prevention program.
The Agency should assess the effects of liability and financial responsibility requirements on
technology innovation for environmental purposes.
The Agency should evaluate how to inform affected or interested parties about the purpose and
benefits of fostering technological innovation that is beneficial to the environment.
TIE
1989-1993
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Permitting and Compliance Policy; Barriers to U.S. Environmental
Technology Innovation: Report and Recommendations of the
Technology Innovation and Economics Committee," January 1991
In this report, the TIE Committee made the following recommendations as to how permitting and
compliance regulations could be modified to support environmentally beneficial technical innovations:
Modify permitting systems to aid the development, testing, and demonstration of innovative technologies for environmental
purposes.
Institute a working system of specialized permits in all media for testing and demonstrating
innovative technologies (for environmental purposes), including permits for specialized testing
facilities and permits for testing at other locations.
Develop a system of dedicated centers for tests and demonstrations of innovative environmental
technologies.
Develop a system for cross-media and cross-jurisdictional coordination of the review of permit
applications.
Implement permitting processes that aid the commercial introduction of innovative technologies for environmental purposes.
Increase the flexibility of permitting processes involved in introducing environmentally beneficial
technologies into commercial use.
Streamline the process of reviewing permit applications for newly introduced innovative
technologies that have environmental benefit, coordinate their review, and afford them high priority.
Assure national consistency in the consideration of proposed uses of innovative technologies,
subject to site-specific limitations.
Develop a system of incentives for users of commercially-available innovative technologies.
Use compliance programs to encourage use of innovative technologies to solve environmental problems.
Modify environmental compliance programs to create an expectation of the need to comply. (This is
necessary to create markets for innovative technology.)
EPA and state agencies should practice and encourage flexibility in the choice of remedies during
enforcement actions, aiming at encouraging the use of innovative technologies under appropriate
circumstances.
EPA, state agencies, and other regulatory authorities should institute mechanisms to increase
coordination in compliance programs across media and across jurisdictional lines.
June 15,1999 1989-1993 TIE 7
-------
1988-1998 * NACEPT Chronology
Support regulators and other involved communities to maximisg the effectiveness of improvements recommended in
permitting and compliance systems.
Institute a system of incentives, training, and support to retain experienced state and federal permit
writers who participate in permitting decisions involving the testing or early commercial use of
innovative environmental technologies.
Institute a system of incentives, training, and support to retain experienced state and federal
inspectors and compliance staff who participate in decisions involving innovative environmental
technologies.
Provide support to prospective innovative technology permittees (including technology developers
and technology users).
Emphasize the role of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) as consultant to federal,'
state, and local government permit writers and inspectors to provide information on innovative
technologies for environmental purposes.
Institute systems to provide the public with information and support related to the testing and use of
innovative environmental technology.
Identify and remove regulatory obstacles which create unnecessary inflexibility and uncertainty or otherwise inhibit
technology innovation for environmental purposes.
The Administrator should consider seeking statutory authority allowing EPA to develop an efficient
regulatory mechanism under RCEA Subtitle C for making determinations about the effectiveness of
technologies to render wastes not hazardous.
The Administrator should clarify a number of definitions of terms of art under RCRA.
The Administrator should consider statutory and regulatory revisions to provide that RCRA land
ban treatment standards based on incineration as BDAT need not automatically be applied to all site
remediation technologies.
TIE 1989-1993 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT'Chronology;»1988-1998
"Improving Technology Diffusion for Environmental Protection:
Report and Recommendations of the Technology Innovation and
Economics Committee," October 1992
In this report, the TIE Committee made several recommendations focusing on ways the Agency can
support the diffusion of environmentally beneficial technologies, including:
Make technology diffusion a major supporting mission for the EPA.
Establish a high level position to advocate the role of diffusion in accomplishing the Agency's
mission, to promote changes in EPA's culture to support diffusion activities, and to coordinate the
Agency's diffusion programs.
Redeploy EPA's diffusion resources to increase their effectiveness and efficiency.
Develop the diffusion support tools that Agency employees require, including career enhancements,
training, performance standards, information, and rotational assignments.
Include in EPA's approach to regulation incentives that encourage innovation and emphasize
diffusion as a major contributing element of the environmental management system.
'build a stronger partnership between EPA and technology diffusion providers and users.
Work more effectively with the full range of diffusion partners, including information developers,
diffusion providers, and diffusers, to actively promote the increased use of innovative environmental
solutions.
Increase the collection and generation of credible information about environmentally beneficial
technologies.
Take advantage of the full range of diffusion mechanisms, including EPA's own and others'
research, information systems, technical assistance programs, publications, training, trade shows,
professional conferences, and cooperative research and licensing programs.
Define, collect, and analyze environmental business data to understand diffusion partners and
information users.
Support university curriculum development to increase literacy in environmentally beneficial
technology.
Make diffusion and incentives the emphases of EPA's pollution prevention programs.
Preferentially increase the use of data-based, non-regulatory drivers, including diffusion programs, as
a feature of EPA's pollution prevention strategy.
June 15,1999 1989-1993 TIE
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
« Create incentives, including multi-media approaches, that favor the choice of pollution prevention by
regulated and non-regulated organizations. Improved regulatory, permitting, and compliance
practices can place emphasis on the increased availability of information about pollution prevention
mediods brought about by stronger diffusion programs. A combination of regulatory and non-
regulatory incentives can best influence the development and application of pollution prevention
approaches, and information sharing about them.
Introduce new steps to diffuse the pollution prevention ethic within EPA and to establish a system
of incentives and support for diffusion efforts by EPA personnel. Such support includes Agency
policy direction and an increased use of incentives, rewards, training, and information.
« Increase resources for EPA's own technology R&D efforts focusing on pollution prevention.
Expand support for the international diffusion of environmental technologies to help meet U.S. environmental and
competitiveness objectives.
Increase support for the diffusion of environmental technologies out of die U.S. This step may lead
to greater environmental improvements overseas, especially in developing countries where litde
pollution reduction has occurred.
Strengthen support for U.S. exports of environmentally beneficial technologies to the major world
markets in the industrialized nations.
Enhance EPA's technology diffusion efforts aimed at expanding the range of environmental
technology solutions available domestically. Increase efforts to gather information on state-of-the-
art environmentally beneficial technologies developed abroad.
Increase support for the diffusion of technology provided by EPA. 's research programs on environmentally beneficial
technologies.
Adopt a leadership position in environmental innovation throughout the R&D life cycle. The R&D
life cycle includes R&D planning, the conduct of R&D (including research, development,
demonstration, testing, and evaluation), and the dissemination of the results of these activities
among all participants in the environmental management system (including industry, other federal
agencies, state and local governments, universities, and research consortia).
Build and expand EPA coordination efforts in environmental R&D programs across the public and
private sectors.
Use EPA's technology R&D programs to improve the quality of environmentally beneficial
technology data generated by others.
Emphasize the commercialization endpoint in environmental technology R&D programswhether
they are EPA's or those that EPA influences in its leadership role.
Increase support for the diffusion of technology provided by EPA's research programs on environmentally beneficial
technologies.
10 TIE 1989-1993 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology * 1988-1998
"How Best to Promote Industrial Pollution Prevention Through the
Effluent Guidelines Process: Report of the Technology Innovation
and Economics Committee/Industrial Pollution Prevention Project
Focus Group," February 1993
This report presented the TIE Committee recommendations for improvements to Industrial Pollution
Prevention through the Effluent Guidelines process.
To encourage more pollution prevention, provide industry with an alternative approach that is more flexible than the strict
requirement to attain a single Best Available Technology (BAT) effluent limit.
Offer incentives to industry to implement pollution prevention measures that reduce pollution beyond the traditional single
'RAT limit.
further incorporate pollution prevention into the existing effluent guidelines development process, by:
Encouraging pollution prevention actively in all parts of the Agency's programs.
. Making the development of every effluent guideline multi-media (i.e., addressing all impacts in all
media with each effluent guideline and striving for concurrent rule development for the various
media).
Telling die public and industry what EPA's pollution philosophy and agenda are, and eliciting
comments.
Gathering input on pollution prevention from co-regulators early in die regulatory development
process.
Negotiating more leeway from agencies with relevant regulatory authority regarding the definition of
"process modification."
Coordinating more with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regarding the effluent
guidelines limits and possible issues with worker health and safety.
Conducting more dialogue with industry during die process modification/treatability studies and site
reports.
Continuing to explore pollution prevention technology used overseas. (Reali2e that some is
government-supported; factor this into die economic analysis.)
Using the pollution prevention information clearinghouse (PPIC) in conjunction with the effluent
guideline Development Department.
Initiating discussion with industry groups about market protection and any associated product
standards.
Starting witii the more homogeneous industrial categories where data are plentiful, in piloting the
incorporation of pollution prevention into effluent guidelines.
Encourage industries to engage in more pollution prevention through the existingprocess, by:
Looking for and finding ways to develop and promulgate effluent guidelines more quickly so that
more industries can be covered by effluent guidelines.
Making sure diat enforcement personnel and policies do not simply promote the adoption of a BAT
control technology but instead support pollution prevention.
June 15,1999 1989-1993 TIE 11
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
"Transforming Environmental Permitting and Compliance
Policies to Promote Pollution Prevention: Removing Barriers
and Providing Incentives to Foster Technology Innovation,
Economic Productivity, and Environmental Protection,"
Report and Recommendations of the Technology Innovation and
Economics Committee (April 1993)
This report presents the TIE Committee recommendations for ways to remove barriers to technology
innovation and provide incentives in the environmental permitting process, including:
1. Re-design permit procedures to foster and reward efforts by regulated facilities to expand their use of both multi-media
management and pollution prevention approaches for environmental improvement.
Maximize the implementation of multi-media pollution prevention alternatives during permit
development by emphasizing environmental results rather dian the specific means of attainment.
Administer single-medium permit requirements flexibly to encourage environmentally beneficial
multi-media pollution prevention initiatives by regulated parties.
Initiate, and encourage state and local agencies to initiate, fast-track permits for pollution prevention
initiatives at facilities with.well-documented, good compliance records.
Support additional state and local multi-media permit pilot projects (with well-defined objectives and
timelines) and initiatives to synchronize timing and coordinate issuance of single-medium permits.
Re-deploy scarce regulatory agency and regulated organization resources from procedural or
redundant permitting activities, and relocate resources for die permitting of multi-media, pollution
prevention, and innovative approaches.
Support expanded use of permits-by-rule for permit renewals and selected new permits under certain
conditions to encourage pollution prevention.
* Permit renewals involving no significant changes.
* Renewals or new permits for facilities:
With good compliance records for existing requirements.
H Which have involved the public in die planning process for the specific permit, or more
generally for pollution prevention plans at the facility.
Which have provided the state agency or EPA with requested environmental or operational
information beyond that legally required.
12
TIE
1989-1993
June 15, 1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology -» 1988-1998
2. Accelerate the development of innovative pollution prevention technologies and techniques and encourage their use.
Foster the development, testing, and demonstration of innovative pollution prevention technologies.
* Institute a working permitting system (covering all media) for RD&D, testing, and evaluation.
This could be accomplished through a special, multi-media "RD&D" permit or through the
creation and effective coordination of single medium ED&D permits.
* Develop a system of dedicated centers for tests and demonstrations, for example -with the
Departments of Energy and Defense (DOE and DOD).
* Develop a simple, practical system for cross-media and cross-jurisdictional coordination of
reviews of such permit applications.
Implement permitting processes that aid the commercial introduction of innovative pollution
prevention technologies and techniques. This will require increased flexibility of permitting
processes involved in the commercial introduction of pollution prevention technologies and
techniques.
Recognize in compliance or enforcement policies and practices the need for flexibility during the
development, testing, and early uses of innovative pollution prevention technologies and techniques.
3. Work with the states to encourage and develop pollution prevention enforcement initiatives.
Increase use of pollution prevention enforcement policy alternatives, such as those in EPA's Interim
Policy on Pollution Prevention and Recycling Conditions in Settlements and Policy on Supplemental'Environmental
Projects.
Establish easily accessible mechanisms (e.g., a clearinghouse and the pollution prevention
information exchange system network [PIES]) for sharing successful experiences about the use of
pollution prevention in enforcement settlements.
Develop a multi-media compliance inspection package, including training opportunities, for use by
EPA, state, and local inspectors. EPA should aggressively encourage adoption and use of this
inspection scheme to promote pollution prevention.
In evaluating state performance under delegated programs, adopt a policy giving additional credit for
multi-media inspections.
Provide technical support for multi-media inspections. Modify base grant objectives for the states to
promote multi-media inspections.
4. Proactive^ support state initiatives in multi-media pollution prevention facility planning.
Work with state officials to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative approaches to facility planning.
Draw die national lessons from state experiments and facilitate transfer of information and results of
evaluations between states.
June 15,1999 1989-1993 TIE 13
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Establish industry-specific advisory groups to facilitate the transfer of pollution prevention technical
information and provide support for pollution prevention facility planning for selected industries,
with due regard for protecting confidential business information.
Augment industry-specific and process-specific information sharing through PIES.
5. Create a culture change by working with federal, state, and local agencies, non-profit organisations, and environmental
groups to facilitate the implementation of pollution prevention technologies and techniques by expanding training,
educational, and technology diffusion efforts.
Provide or support intensive, regular multi-media inspection training to federal, state, and local
inspectors and encourage rotating these personnel across different medium-specific assignments.
Provide or support training to increase the technical proficiency of inspectors and technical
assistance personnel, with respect to rules and regulations, as well as production and compliance
technologies and techniques.
Support development at one or more major business schools of training programs for senior and
middle corporate managers on die economic benefits of implementing pollution prevention
technologies and techniques.
Adopt the specific measures recommended in Improving Technology Diffusion for Environmental Protection
for promoting a partnership for the dissemination of pollution prevention information and the
adoption of pollution prevention technologies and techniques.
6. Alter personnel reward systems to encourage EPA. staff to champion pollution prevention.
Incorporate both pollution prevention and multi-media factors into Agency personnel performance
evaluation criteria and into die Agency reward system.
Make promotion of multi-media pollution prevention culture at EPA a primary criterion for Agency
awards for senior staff.
7. Expand and publicise the system of national recognition and awards honoring outstandingpollution prevention
research, training, and technology implementation.
Expand and publicize a system of national recognition for individuals in other federal agencies
making outstanding contributions to promoting pollution prevention.
Expand and publicize a system of national recognition for outstanding pollution prevention efforts
by state and local agencies and officials.
Expand and publicize the system of national recognition for regulated parties making major strides
in institutionalizing pollution prevention approaches to environmental protection.
Expand and publicize the system of national recognition for non-profit institutions (e.g., public
interest groups, universities) making major pollution prevention contributions.
14 TIE
1989-1993
June 15, 1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
E. Resulting EPA Actions
Several EPA offices responded to the TIE Committee's March 10,1992 draft report entided,
"Improving Technology Diffusion: Steps to Environmental Protection Success." A summary of each
office's response is presented below.
Office of Enforcement (OE). OE noted its agreement with die Committee that die success of its
interim policy on "Pollution Prevention and Recycling In Settlement Agreements" depended on
making compliance personnel in EPA and die states aware of innovative alternatives. OE also noted
that the Committee report would help it to finalize its policy for a planned evaluation of setdement
agreements diat included pollution prevention provisions. In addition, OE noted mat consistent
with die report's recommendations its National Enforcement Training Institute was planning to
provide pollution prevention training to enforcement attorneys and other enforcement personnel
beginning in FY 1992, and that the Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse was establishing a
database of enforcement setdement agreements that eventually would be accessible to die Regions,
states, and die public.
In addition, OE expressed its agreement with the concept of "soft landings" for good faith efforts in
which the use of pollution prevention or innovative technologies to meet permit requirements fall
minimally short of compliance. OE noted, however, tiiat there will always be some differences in
perception between the regulator and regulated entities regarding how "niinimally short" is interpreted.
OE suggested that the draft report be edited to reflect mat EPA may accept pollution prevention or
innovative techniques for compliance "in lieu of some, but not all, penalties or fines." OE agreed that
multi-media inspections and enforcement are worthwhile areas to pursue. While OE found die
content of the draft report highly relevant, it suggested that a streamlined report might have more
impact.
Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration (OEETD). OEETD expressed
agreement with all of the report's recommendations in principle, and suggested several clarifications.
First, OEETD noted tiiat die Committee report emphasized die diffusion phase of the innovation
process, and recommended diat some of die report's findings apply to the other phases of the
innovation cycle, such as Research and Product Development. Also, the inclusion of some examples
might help readers better understand die issues and problems that need to be addressed and resolved.
Further, die report could be strengthened by showing how commercialization philosophies have
already been successfully implemented within the Agency (i.e., the Agency's cooperative agreement
with die University of Pittsburgh Trust die NETAC project).
Office of Water. Municipal Technology Branch. The Municipal Technology Branch of the Office of
Water (OW) noted its agreement that technology diffusion should be a major supporting mission for
the Agency. Nonetheless, die Agency also needs to support the movement of new technologies from
die concept stage to commercial application, and the testing and evaluation of applications to ensure
that the technology merits diffusion.
OW suggested diat the report should incorporate recognition of die Agency's successful technology
diffusion programs, such as that of ORD's Center for Environmental Research Information. Further,
the report should emphasize die need to convince state and local regulatory agencies and the public
diat new, innovative technologies which perform well should be approved. Additionally, the report
should investigate the management issues that restrict permit writers. Finally, OW encouraged the
Committee to propose action plans for implementing the report's recommendations.
EPA initiated a number of actions as a result of the Committee's recommendations.
June 15,1999 1989-1993 TIE 15
-------
1988-1998»NACEPTChtopology
1 OPPE established a group to develop policies for incorporating environmental concerns into a
sustainable economy in response to the suggestion that the Administrator work with the President's
science and technology advisors to develop and implement policies reflecting a high priority on the
expansion of environmentally and economically beneficial technologies.
EPA began a pollution prevention initiative in response to the suggestion that the Agency identify,
develop, and apply ways to use compliance and enforcement policies and programs to encourage
technology innovation. The TIE Committee Focus Group on Environmental Permitting was charged
with developing further recommendations in this area. Additionally, the Agency incorporated
incentives for technology innovation into its pollution prevention strategy.
1 In response to the suggestion diat the use of RCRA RD&D permitting provisions be expanded, the
Agency proposed that the authority to issue RD&D permits be extended from one to ten years and
include provisions to enhance technology innovation. In addition, OSW indicated its intention to
begin work to expand the flexibility of the RD&D permit program during FY 1991. The Committee's
Focus Group on Environmental Permitting worked with six states to explore the ways to make the
permitting of new technologies, including testing, more efficient.
OSWER established the Technology Innovation Office (TIO) in response to the suggestion that the
Agency identify steps needed to bring technologies successfully demonstrated in the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program into practical use at Superfund and other locations.
TIO began four projects to bring successful, innovative technologies into practical use through
remediation contractor awareness, remedial market assessment, and increased data availability for
Regions and consulting engineers.
In response to the suggestion that the Agency build into the strategy processes to inform affected and
interested parties about the purpose and benefits of fostering technological innovation and develop
programs for carrying out this objective, OCEM established the Environmental Education Foundation
for public education and developed a Business Institute for Environment and Management for'
professionals.
OPPE began a project to evaluate the .potential for financial responsibility requirements to assist in
EPA's mission in response to the suggestion that the Agency assess the effects of liability and financial
responsibility requirements on technology innovation for environmental purposes. TIO also examined
the role of financial responsibility requirements as an impediment to the entry of new technologies and
new firms into the hazardous waste cleanup market and in the selection of innovative technologies for
remediation.
The Agency began several evaluations of how to inform affected or interested parties about the *
purpose and benefits of fostering technological innovation that is beneficial to the environment.
In response to the Committee's recommendation to coordinate permit writing across environmental
media and jurisdictions, the Agency initiated the "multi-media permitting state demonstration
program." EPA surveyed all EPA Regional Offices, the states, and the Pollution Prevention Office to
identify activities and interest in coordinated permitting. As a result, EPA identified three states
Kansas, New Jersey, and Massachusetts willing to work with EPA on a pilot project for cross-media
permitting.
EPA formed the "Innovative Technology Council," comprised of the "technology advocates" for each
of EPA's major offices. The purpose of this group was to establish a senior-level point of
coordination and advocacy for technology innovation within the Agency.
16 TIE 1989-1993 June 15, 1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
EPA's Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement, Technology Innovation Office, and Office of
Research and Development launched a joint EPA/DOD/DOE program for testing and
demonstrating new environmentally beneficial technologies at Federal facilities. The program also
engaged private sector firms who could also potentially benefit from the use of innovative
technologies.
EPA implemented a Committee recommendation that improved technical training regarding
innovation, permitting, and pollution prevention be provided for regulators, permit writers, and
compliance staff. The American Institute for Chemical Engineering and EPA began this collaborative
effort to develop training courses that will result in more technically knowledgeable government staff
and simultaneously help the staffs of regulated organizations and regulators understand the principles
of pollution prevention and co-planning for productivity and environmental outcome.
EPA has adopted as a strategic objective a commitment to fostering environmentally beneficial
technology innovation.
June 15,1999 1989-1993 TIE 17
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Title VI
Implementation
Advisory Committee
1998-Ongoing
if Established to help EPA to reverse the increasing trend of complaints alleging that EPA
discrimination in state and local permitting decisions has resulted in minority and low-income
communities bearing a disproportionate level of the environmental and health effects of
pollution.
if Charged by Administrator Browner to help the Agency to develop a process which
incorporates environmental justice into EPA planning. Further, Ms. Browner pledged that
EPA would not finalize its Title VI guidance until it receives the Committee's
recommendations in December 1998.
* EPA has encouraged public input to the Committee's activities. As a result, the first
Committee meeting was attended by over two hundred members of the public and included
twenty-nine public comment contributions.
A. Why Established
Under Tide VI of the Civil Rights Act, citizens may file complaints with EPA that allege discriminatory
effects resulting from the programs and activities of EPA funding recipients. Many of the complaints
filed to date raise concerns regarding the issuance of pollution control permits by state and local
government agencies.
The number of complaints received by EPA alleging discrimination in state and local permitting
decisions has steadily increased since 1993. The Title VI Implementation Advisory Committee was
established to help EPA to reverse this trend and, along with it, the perception that minority and low-
income communities often bear a disproportionate level of the environmental and health effects of
pollution.
The Tide VI Implementation Advisory Committee is not mandated by legislation, but was instead
formed when the Agency determined that something needed to be done to address the increasing
number of Title VI complaints, many of which have languished without an Agency decision for far
longer than allowed in the Title VI regulations. Another impetus for formation of the Committee was
controversy surrounding EPA's interim guidance on handling complaints received under Tide VI, which
contained some ambiguous definitions and often resulted in lengtiiy processing times.
B. Description of Charge _ _ _ _.__,
The Tide VI Implementation Advisory Committee was charged with advising EPA on the
implementation of Tide VI of die Civil Rights Act, which requires that any program or activity mat
receives any federal funding may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin. More
specifically, die Committee is charged widi aiding EPA in handling and preventing complaints that state
or local pollution control permits violate federal civil rights laws. One of the Agency's goals in
June 15,1999 1998-Ongoing Tide VI 1
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
establishing the Committee was to help the Agency determine how it could assist state and local
governments in implementing programs that are in compliance with Title VI requirements.
In a June 18,1998 letter to several members of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, EPA Administrator
Carol M. Browner stated that the Committee is also responsible for helping the Agency to develop a
process that builds environmental justice considerations into development plans from the beginning.
Ms. Browner charged the Committee with providing its recommendations by December 1998 and
pledged that EPA would not finalize its Title VI guidance until it receives the Committee's
recommendations.
C. Membership, Dates of Actiyjty,_and Mode oH^Egration^^^^^^^^^^^^^
EPA Administrator Browner announced the establishment of the Committee on March 12,1998, and
the Committee held its first meeting on May 18-19,1998. The Committee will meet quarterly for the
remainder of 1998, and then present its recommendations, through NACEPT, to the Administrator.
The next Committee meeting will be held in late October, and the final meeting (essentially a
summary/report meeting) will be held in December.
The membership of the Tide VI Implementation Advisory Committee consists of 23 representatives
drawn from academia, industry, state and local government, tribal government, and grass-roots
environmental and other non-governmental organizations.
The structure of the Committee is still evolving; currently, the Committee is comprised of three working
groups, each of which holds two conference calls between quarterly meetings of the full Committee.
Each working group has been assigned one of the three issues identified for the Committee to examine
by the Director of EPA's Office of Civil Rights. The three work groups are:
The Assessment working group, which is examining the question "What is disparate impact?" and
attempting to develop measures for determining the eligibility of communities to file Tide VI
complaints;
The Operations working group, which is examining the "nuts and bolts" of the permit issuance
process and criteria for issuance, with a focus on eliminating practices that may result in violations of
Tide VI requirements; and
The Mitigation working group, which is examining how to lessen impacts in cases where a decision
is made to issue a permit in an affected area.
The Committee has approached its charge by brainstorming about what "ideal" permitting policies and
procedures which assured Title VI compliance would look like, rather than attempting to identify
modifications to past and current EPA policies. EPA has encouraged public input to die Committee's
activities as demonstrated by the mailing of meeting announcements to over 7,400 groups and individuals
to attend die first meeting of the Committee. As a result, the meeting was attended by over two hundred
members of die public and included twenty-nine public comment contributions.
D. Reports and Recommendatjonis
No recommendations or reports have yet been issued by the Committee.
Title VI 1998-Ongoing June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Effluent Guidelines
Task Force
1992-Ongoing
* Established as a result of a Consent Decree to assist EPA in planning for the Effluent
Guidelines Program.
* Charged to make recommendations on a process for expediting the promulgation of effluent
guidelines and the rulemaking process.
if Published five reports:
1. "The Effluent Guidelines Program: Selection Criteria for Preliminary Industry Studies"
(June 1994)
2. "Effluent Guidelines Task Force Workgroup 1 - Issue Paper: Design of Preliminary
Studies" (September 1996)
3. "Fostering Pollution Prevention and Incorporating Multi-Media Considerations into
Effluent Guidelines Development" (September 1996)
4. "Removing the Bottlenecks from the Effluent Guidelines Process" (October 1996)
5. "Recommendations on Streamlining the Effluent Guidelines Development Process: Draft
Report" (May 1998)
A. Why Established
On January 31, 1992, EPA entered into a Consent Decree affecting the entire Effluent Guidelines
Program (Natural Resources Defense Council, et al v. Reilly. D.D.C. No. 89-2980). This Consent
Decree required EPA to adhere to a schedule for developing regulations, create a Task Force to assist the
Agency in planning for the Effluent Guidelines Program, and publish a biennial plan for the Program.
As a result, the Effluent Guidelines Task Force (EGTF) was established in July, 1992, as a subcommittee
of the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee (later restructured as the Environmental
Information, Economics, and Technology (EIET) Committee), and in the September 1997
reorganization of NACEPT, was elevated to full committee status.
B. Description of Charge
The Effluent Guidelines Task Force was charged to assist the Agency in implementing the Clean Water
Act and advise the Administrator on the long-term strategy for the Effluent Guidelines Program. The
Task Force was asked to make recommendations on a process for expediting the promulgation of
effluent guidelines as well as ways the Agency could expedite the rulemaking process.
Specific issues for which the Committee was charged to provide recommendations include:
a process for deciding which categories to regulate by means of effluent guidelines, based on the
potential for risk reduction, the utility of regulation, and the schedule for promulgation of such rules;
June 15,1999
1992-Ongoing
EGTF
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
a process and schedule for reviewing and determining whether to revise additional or existing
effluent guidelines;
new technologies and control methods, including methods to achieve zero discharge;
the minimum components of new and revised effluent guidelines to ensure that they are adequate in
scope and coverage;
8 minimum requirements for surveys (used to support regulation development); and
process for effective co-regulation of categories to eliminate or minimize cross media transfer of
pollution.
jCJMen^erehlgJPatg^ _
Task Force members included representatives from EPA Regional and field offices, state and local
governments (including publicly owned treatment works); relevant industries, public and environmental
interest groups, and the scientific/academic community.
The Task Force held a total of 18 meetings between October, 1992, and May, 1998.
The Task Force has operated chiefly through workgroups to provide recommendations on specific
issues. Currently, there are diree work groups focusing on effluent guidelines: stakeholder involvement;
incentives and regulations review; and universal treatment and presumptive standards. Workgroups
present reports and recommendations based on their findings at Task Force meetings. Additionally,
representatives of EPA programs, industry, and state interest groups often attend and contribute
statements for Task Force consideration.
To date, the Effluent Guidelines Task Force has issued its recommendations in five reports:
"The Effluent Guidelines Program: Selection Criteria for Preliminary Industry Studies," June, 1994
"Effluent Guidelines Task Force Workgroup 1 - Issue Paper: Design of Preliminary Studies,"
September, 1996
"Fostering Pollution Prevention and Incorporating Multi-Media Considerations into Effluent
Guidelines Development," September, 1996
"Removing the Bottlenecks from the Effluent Guidelines Process," October, 1996
"Recommendations on Streamlining the Effluent Guidelines Development Process: Draft Report,"
May, 1998
EGTF 1992-Ongoing June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology »J988-1998
"The Effluent Guidelines Program: Selection Criteria for
Preliminary Industry Studies," June 1994
This report addressed how improvements in selection criteria, information sources, and other related
preliminary study issues could help to expedite the overall guideline development process. As a general
framework for the selection process and to ensure consistency, the Task Force recommended that EPA
develop written selection guidelines to include procedures on applying screening and selection criteria
and better use of information sources. The Task Force also recommended that the selection guidelines
be reviewed after each selection process to explore lessons learned.
Criteria to be Used to Screen Industries for Preliminary Studies for New and Revised Effluent Guidelines
Preliminary Input - In advance of the screening process, EPA should obtain feedback from
pretreatment control authorities and National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) .
authorized states; industry; and professional/trade associations regarding their recommendations
pertaining to revising existing effluent guidelines and to targeting industries for new guidelines, and
that the information be obtained through formal and/or informal means such as surveys or national
meetings. As part of this effort, permit and control authorities should provide information on
noncategorical regulated industries.
Section 304(1) Information - EPA should continue to utilise the number and type of facilities
discharging into water quality-impaired receiving waters per the CWA Section 304(1) listing as a gross
screening tool to identify industrial categories for further consideration in the selection process.
Sediment Inventory - EPA's sediment inventory should be used as a screening criterion for targeting
industries after the inventory has been completed and validated.
Pollution Prevention Implementation - If information becomes available pertaining to which
categories of industries are and are not implementing pollution prevention (P2) practices, EPA
should use this as a screening criterion for selecting industries for preliminary studies thereby
targeting those industries that have the greatest potential for source reduction through P2.
Whole Effluent Toxicity - If reliable information on whole effluent toxicity is available on EPA's
Permit Compliance System (PCS), then the Agency should use this information as a screening
criterion.
Toxic Release Inventory - EPA should use information in its Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) for
screening industries while taking into consideration its limitations.
Criteria to be Used to Select Industries for Preliminary Studies for Ness and Revised Effluent Guidelines
Legal Mandate for Specific Studies - In selecting industries for studies, any legal mandates (statutory
or judicial) to perform specific studies must be heeded.
Total Toxic Pounds-Equivalent Discharged - EPA should continue to utilize total toxic pounds-
equivalent (TTPE) discharged as a primary tool for selection. The TTPE calculation should include
the priority pollutants and other toxic pollutants of interest which also have existing laboratory
methods for analysis.
June 15,1999 1992-Ongoing EGTF
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Number of Facilities and Wastewater Flow - EPA should continue to use the number of facilities
and flow as criteria in selecting industries for study, thereby focusing on those categories that
collectively have the potential for significant impacts. In the same light, with regard to industrial
categories with small numbers of facilities and/or facilities with de rmnimis flows, EPA should
establish a minimum cutoff for the number of facilities within a category or de minimis flow below
which a different approach would be taken rather than promulgating effluent guidelines. For
categories where the number of direct dischargers and/or the flows of direct dischargers fall below
the cutoff, EPA should develop suggested control guidance which can be used by control authorities
to prepare permits. For categories where the number of indirect dischargers or the flows of indirect
dischargers fall below the cutoff, the classification of these industries as "significant industrial users"
should be left to the discretion of the pretreatment control authority so that the industries will be
regulated under local control strategies and local limits.
Industries not Covered by Existing Effluent Guidelines - EPA should give priority to selecting
industries not covered by existing guidelines that are highly ranked in terms of TTPE discharged.
Multi-Media Rulemaking - To the extent practicable, priority should be given to industries targeted
for regulations by other EPA media programs.
Service Industries - EPA should give priority to selecting service industries for preliminary studies to
assure national consistency and equity.
Investment Cycles - EPA should use information on investment cycles for industrial categories to
select industries for preliminary studies, and that resources should be provided to the Agency in
order to collect and evaluate the information. The objective would be to target industrial categories
that are at or are approaching the beginning of investment cycles.
Information to be Relied Upon to Charactering Industries as Part of the Selection Process
AMSA/POTW/State Data - EPA should continue to work with the Association of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), and other POTW representatives, and states to collect existing
information on direct and indirect dischargers for the effluent guidelines development process.
Trade Association Data - EPA should continue to seek out and contact trade associations in order
to provide such groups with the opportunity to contribute available data that would help with the
selection of industries for preliminary studies, or any other aspect of the effluent guidelines program.
Literature Reviews - Resources should be made available to EPA for technical literature searches to
collect information to characterize industries.
Toxic Release Inventory - Due to its limitations, EPA should use TRI information only for
identifying potential industrial sources, and industrial locations. Other uses of TRI data could be
undertaken, provided that its limitations are understood and considered. EPA should compare TRI
data with applicable effluent discharge data such as that in PCS and pretreatment program
information provided by Control Authorities.
Pollution Prevention Clearing House - Due to its limitations, EPA's Pollution Prevention Clearing
House should not be used as a primary source for selecting industries.
Elimination of Barriers for Collection and Use of Information
Case Studies - The results of the present EPA/AMSA case studies, which are collecting and
evaluating existing data/information sources, may be used as examples of how information bias and
transfer-of-information barriers can be eliminated.
EGTF
1992-Ongoing
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
EPA Regional Contacts - EPA Regional contacts should be established to simplify the collection and
dissemination of information and feedback between EPA Regions and Headquarters. Each Region
should have a lead staff member at the Water Division Director level appointed by Headquarters to
deal -with effluent guidelines issues and a staff coordinator.
Paperwork Reduction Act Survey Barrier - The present Paperwork Reduction Act requirement
which limits the number of respondents for small EPA surveys should be revised to allow for at
least 30 surveys to be conducted without having to first obtain OMB approval.
Other Ways to Improve and Expedite the Selection Process
Permit Compliance System Modification - EPA should begin a concerted effort to modify its Permit
Compliance System (PCS) so that the information contained in the system and the format of the
information can be used for more than one purpose. All stakeholders that need to utilize the
system, including EPA Headquarters and Regions, and authorized states should be involved in a
comprehensive modification of PCS.
Office of Research and Development Involvement - The Office of Research and Development
(ORD) should be involved early in the selection process by participating in the Effluent Guidelines
Planning workgroup and by collecting industry-specific information on feasible pollution prevention
and control technologies and the costs/impacts of those technologies. This work would be similar
to the types of information developed in the 1970's for the early guideline development efforts.
ORD should be provided with the resources to undertake this effort with emphasis placed on the
development of new technologies that could be applied genetically to industry or to specific
industrial category.
National EPA and AMSA meetings - The EPA and AMSA National Pretreatment Coordinator
meetings should be scheduled so that they overlap with time devoted to discussing the selection of
industries for preliminary studies.
Annual Pretreatment Program Reports - In the near term, EPA should direct NPDES authorized
states and pretreatment approval authorities to provide summary sheets to the EPA Office of Water
for all direct and indirect dischargers under each authority's jurisdiction. The summary sheets
should present a tally of the total number of dischargers, categories, compliance status, etc. as
determined by the information presented in the dischargers' annual reports. The authorities and
dischargers should be provided with the resources needed to accommodate this requirement. As a
long-term option, EPA should investigate a standardized annual reporting format for approval
authorities.
Other Recommendations
Feedback from Stakeholders - With regard to plans for revising effluent guidelines, EPA should
obtain feedback from permit writers and control authorities, industry, and professional/trade
associations regarding their satisfaction with the effluent guidelines in terms of ease of
administration and effectiveness.
Retrospective Studies of Effluent Guidelines - A provision should be included in all effluent
guidelines which provides adequate funding and directs EPA to routinely conduct a retrospective
evaluation of the impacts of promulgated regulations. The evaluation would assess the economic
impacts on the regulated industries; what the industries have undertaken to comply with the
regulations; and what the administrative impacts have been on the control authorities implementing
the regulations (e.g., what works and what does not). The evaluations should be jointly conducted
by the Engineering and Analysis Division and the Office of Wastewater Management.
June 15,1999 1992-Ongoing EGTF
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
National Meetings - Both EPA and AMSA's national pretreatment coordinators' meetings should be
scheduled so that they overlap with time devoted to discussing both technical issues and planning
issues pertaining to the effluent guidelines program. EPA should also utilize other forums for
feedback such as annual conferences sponsored by the Association of State and Interstate Water
Pollution Control Administrators, Water Environment Federation, American Institute of Chemical
Engineers, Air and Waste Management Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, and trade
associations.
Input During Rule Development - As effluent guidelines are developed, EPA should disseminate
more information on which industries will be affected by the guidelines and how the rules will be
implemented to facilitate obtaining feedback from state and local regulators and the regulated
community. The Metal Products and Machinery (MP&M) rule should be used as a case study in this
regard.
Centralized Waste Treatment Facilities - For the forthcoming Centralized Waste Treatment (CWT)
regulations, EPA should consider how these regulations will mesh with existing and future
guidelines; how to define CWTs to avoid the creating of future regulatory problems; and how the
rule will affect the dynamics of waste generation, treatment, and disposal in the future. This is of
particular importance for both approval authorities and control authorities in terms of how to
regulate categorical industries that have zero discharge limits, or other categorical industries that
send wastes to CWTs. It is also important for industries that send waste to CWTs in lieu of on-site
treatment or waste minimization, and CWTs in terms of cost and compliance issues. EPA should
revise the present guidance for CWTs for the interim period between promulgation of the guidelines
regarding the issue of what standards should be applied to CWTs treating wastes form categorical
industries.
EGTF
1992-Ongoing
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Effluent Guidelines Task Force Workgroup 1 - Issue Paper:
Design of Preliminary Studies," September 1996
This paper presented the findings of a Task Force workgroup which investigated the use of preliminary
studies as part of the effluent guideline development process. Preliminary studies are used to indicate
whether and to what extent an industry discharges toxic and nonconventional pollutants, and to provide
a basis for comparison with other industries for purposes of assigning priorities for regulation.
Study Design and Implementation
In cases where the industry and its issues are documented, EPA should proceed directly to
rulemaking rather than conducting an intermediary preliminary study.
In cases where there is uncertainty about the extent of industrial discharges and comparability to
other industrial categories, a study should be conducted to explore these issues. The workgroup
recommended that EPA develop general guidelines which would establish several study outlines,
depending on the type of industrial category being studied, characterize study components, identify
where resources should be directed in terms of exploring key issues or study factors, and build in
formal procedures for stakeholder input and peer review;
Design studies to have phases with interim checkpoints built in; which would allow for EPA to
make determinations as to whether to proceed to rulemaking, to stop the study and not proceed to
rule-making, to conduct a full two-year study, or to continue a study.
Studies should include stakeholder involvement through the collection of information on
dischargers not accessible- through the Permit Compliance System (PCS) and other national data
base management systems, and stakeholder surveys should be conducted at the beginning of a study.
Studies should include stakeholder involvement by incorporating peer review as part of the
implementation of preliminary studies, and resources should be allocated to facilitate this process.
Use of Resources
EPA should utilize a team or workgroup approach in conducting preliminary studies, similar to the
approach used for rulemaking projects.
Resources should be made available to EPA for securing the appropriate number of qualified full-
time equivalents to perform preliminary studies, and use of contractual services should be
determined on a case-by-case basis.
Use of Data
EPA should be provided access to information sources and resources to collect information for
conducting preliminary studies, and should use all available sources of information for decisions
stemming from preliminary studies.
EPA should be provided with the resources to undertake facility, receiving water, and POTW
sampling in cases where it is necessary to fill in information gaps when all available information has
been evaluated, or to document facilities with unique pretreatment or pollution prevention
technologies.
June 15,1999 1992-Ongoing EGTF
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chtonology
Information Needs
EPA should be provided with the resources to develop updated chemical use trees and Industrial
Process Profiles for Environmental Use (IPPEUs) for industrial categories listed in Effluent
Guidelines Plans.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance, which is now responsible for maintaining the Permit
Compliance System (PCS) Data Base, should establish an interagency task force to ensure that all
EPA program offices, including the Engineering and Analysis Division, are involved in managing
and modifying PCS.
EPA, or other appropriate entities, should aggregate all of the data on pollution prevention research
(e.g., EPA data, stakeholder data, etc.) into one data base which is accessible to everyone, or
maintain a listing of information that is accessible.
The workgroup also reviewed the general data categories for which information is collected in
preliminary studies and recommended that EPA collect information -focusing on environmental impact
data, including:
products manufactured and/or services provided by an industry;
number, types, and geographic location of facilities;
destination of discharges;
characteristics and environmental impacts of the wastewater discharges;
sampling and analytical methods available to ascertain the presence and concentration of wastewater
constituents;
pollution prevention and control technologies in use and potentially available;
cross-media impacts associated with wastewater treatment in the industry;
cost of pollution prevention and control technologies in use, and the cost for additional controls;
cost-effectiveness of pollution reduction, both toxic and conventional;
estimates of receiving water quality impacts of wastewater and POTW discharges; and
economic assessments including the current financial condition of the industry, expansion or
reduction trends, size characterization, and impact of estimated treatment costs.
EGTF
1992-Ongoing
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Fostering Pollution Prevention and incorporating
Multi-Media Considerations into Effluent Guidelines Development,9
September 1996
This report focused on two areas: means by which EPA could better promote [via the Effluent Guideline
(EG) Process] the development and practice of pollution prevention (P2) technologies and practices; and
means by which EPA could best factor other media impacts into the development process. It was
developed by a Task Force workgroup directed to examine EPA's process of setting discharge limits.
Recommendations to foster Pollution Prevention Technologies
Areas in which EPA is focusing within Effluent Guidelines development to promote pollution
prevention and to which the Task Force wished to add support and emphasis:
The Task Force suggested that utilizing information from a variety of sources would be enhanced by
also targeting companies which are identified as advanced in their application of P2 technologies,
and practices for site visits to determine technologies utilized.
EPA should consider addition of questions to the shorter screener questionnaires as well, to
ascertain the level of P2 practiced by each industry.
This methodology (economic comparison of Best Available Technology (BAT) alternatives) should
be expanded to also factor in other "hard" costs and savings associated with potential BAT
technologies, such as avoided disposal and transportation fees, energy costs, increased or reduced
raw material costs, savings in permit application fees, etc.
Means by which EPA could better incorporate pollution prevention at the effluent guidelines
development stage. Internal protocols should be established by EPA for:
guiding decisions within the EG process with respect to the Agency's waste reduction hierarchy (i.e.
P2, before recycle, before treatment, etc.); and
weighing the impact of potential BAT rules with respect to releases of pollutants to other media.
A. EAT Definition and Mechanism Which Will Promote Better Solutions for Protection of the Environment
The workgroup assembled a new proposal which allows industry additional time for the development of
pollution prevention routes to CWA compliance. The proposed model was developed to promote
development and implementation of superior technologies for reduction of environmental releases, while
preserving the intent of the Clean Water Act to permanently lower pollutant loadings to a level consistent
with the Best Available Technology for a given industry. If this Pollution Prevention Option (P2O)
proposal is found not to be implementable under current statutes, the Task Force recommends that EPA
support legislation necessary to implement the P2O recommendations.
Recommendations for Fostering Pollution Prevention which can be Implemented Outside the Affluent Guidelines
Development Process
Means by which EPA can promote P2 through assistance and technology transfer to industry and
POTWs :
June 15,1999 1992-Ongoing EGTF
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Technical assistance for source reduction audits (both for POTWs and for industry) as well as a
clearing house of P2 information;
Financial assistance in the form of insurance underwriting and capital cost underwriting for smaller
facilities in order to provide incentives to upgrade processes and equipment;
Assistance in accounting practices which enable industries to better track and allocate the cost of
pollution prevention and control, and to better quantify the benefits of pollution prevention
technologies;
Better communication with POTWs to provide them with access to information regarding P2
technologies and practices which they can then share with facilities discharging to them; and
TRI information regarding discharges to POTWs should be directly reported to the POTW for use
in the POTWs P2 planning and strategy.
Options for promoting P2 at the permit issuance stage:
Consider use of longer permit terms and/or alternative fee structures (where applicable) as an
incentive for adoption of P2 approaches to meeting EG limits;
Decreased monitoring requirements might be offered as an incentive for those
technologies/practices which would drop discharges significantly below EG limits (provided the
company maintains a blemish-free record with respect to discharge compliance); and
Consider use of multi-media permits for facilities.
Options for promoting P2 at the enforcement action stage:
Allow an extension of time for a facility to come into compliance with an enforcement action if the
use of P2-based technologies will take the discharge to a point clearly below that specified by the
EG; and
Allow the use of P2O options as acceptable methods to decrease discharges of pollutants during
negotiations and settlements of enforcement actions.
Other mechanisms for promoting P2 which can be coordinated!fostered by the POTWs (Note: The following
recommendations are excerpts from "A Survey of Sewerage Districts on Pollution Prevention
Activities," a report by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District in cooperation with the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies [AMSA]):
Encourage cooperative efforts with other municipal, Regional and state agencies;
Develop consistent, meaningful effectiveness indicators for pollution prevention activities at
POTWs;
Increase awareness among POTWs of the variety of education and technical assistance materials
currendy available;
Include a specific POTW component in the Pollution Prevention Clearinghouse, publicize it and
ensure that POTWs have the capability to access and effectively use the system;
Focus efforts on smaller POTWs with limited capabilities to initiate or expand pollution prevention
activities on their own; and
* Develop a variety of staged approaches to implementing a POTW pollution prevention program.
10
EGTF
1992-Ongoing
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Recommendations of the Effluent Guidelines Task Force:
Removing the Bottlenecks from the Effiuent Guidelines Process,"
October 1996
This report contained the Task Force's analysis of EPA's current effluent guidelines process with an
intent to improve the efficiency of regulation issuance. The Task Force developed recommendations in
four areas that could benefit from streamlining:
Project Management
Project Manager - EPA should identify separate personnel to manage Effluent Guidelines projects.
At a minimum, EPA must continue die trend to use the individuals experienced in project
management, rather than automatically using the regulation technical person.
Improve Communication - EPA should improve communications in" and among its offices that
participate in the effluent guidelines process, as well as by increasing communication with
stakeholders.
Internal Review Delays - EPA should modify its review processes to delegate some policy decisions.
Legal Counsel - The project manager must be trained to identify the need of early Office of General
Counsel (OGC) input.
Data Collection and Analysis
Stakeholder Involvement - The Effluent Guidelines Project Manager should obtain stakeholder'
involvement early in the process.
Staff Training on Surveys - EPA should provide proper training and guidance to staff in conducting
surveys.
Obtain OMB Approval of a Generic Questionnaire - EPA should work with OMB to develop an
approval process for screeners and full questionnaires.
Optimize Survey Questions - EPA should look critically at the need for individual survey questions
to keep the number of questions to ones absolutely needed. Cooperative development with industry
groups on the questionnaire is encouraged.
Electronic Transfer of Data - EPA needs to develop a method to allow electronic transfer of
questionnaire responses.
Review and Use of Historical Data - EPA should initiate a project to statistically analyze the 51
effluent guidelines to inform future guideline development. *
'Laboratory Analysis Methods and Support
Early Identification of Needs - The Office of Water in conjunction with the Office of Research and
Development should develop long range projections of candidate industries for effluent guidelines
and the need for development of analytical methods.
Background Information for Methods Development - When candidate industries are identified, the
Office of Water and the Office of Research and Development should contact such groups to define
sampling protocol, matrix interferences and analytical electronic deliverables that can affect the
analysis results.
Priorities and Funding - EPA should provide appropriate priorities and funding to either EPA
laboratories or contract laboratories to as sure that analytical methods are ready when sampling and
June 15,1999 1992-Ongoing EGTF 11
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
analysis need to begin and that such work takes advantage of existing methods in other media
programs.
New Analytical Methods - EPA should encourage and support new analytical methodologies for the
pollutants of concern that will recognize and work to decrease inter-laboratory variability, and that
will allow for lower levels of detection.
Multi-Media Methods - EPA should develop approved methods across multi-media such as drinking
water, wastewater, hazardous waste, and air (if applicable).
Industry Subcategori^ation
Stakeholder Input on Subcategories - EPA should begin working early with primary stakeholders to
determine potential subcategories in order to avoid problems and delays later in the process.
Effluent Performance Data - EPA should optimize the number of subcategories for direct and
indirect dischargers by utilizing treated effluent performance data for conventional pollutants and
comparable manufacturing processes as well as other current elements required by the Clean Water
Act.
Surrogate Pollutants - EPA should search for technically defensive surrogates for toxic pollutants
either in the process waste stream or final treated effluent that could be used to represent a group
of parameters of concern.
Indirect Discharger Subcategorization - EPA should establish a different (small) number of
subcategories for indirect dischargers since only toxic pollutants are regulated for indirect as
opposed to toxics and conventionals for direct dischargers. .
12 EGTF
1992-Ongoing
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Recommendations on Streamlining the Effluent Guidelines
Process: Draft Report," May 1998
This report presented recommendations to expedite the effluent guidelines development process.
The primary recommendation from the Task Force workgroups was that the Engineering and Analysis
Division (HAD) of EPA's Office of Water should utilize an alternate effluent guideline development
process that incorporates increased, interactive stakeholder involvement throughout the process,
develops a presumptive rule prior to proposal, and offers other appropriate alternate protocols.
These recommendations were discussed and approved at Task Force meetings during 1996 and 1997, but
are subject to NACEPT review and revision.
Improvements in Questionnaire Surveys and Data Collection
Review Past Technical Surveys - EPA should review its past engineering questionnaires. Common
questionnaire elements should be extracted and refined for usefulness in future rule projects.
Utilize Existing POTW Information - EPA should gather existing industry information from
sources including but not limited to POTWs to reduce need for questionnaire data. Cooperative
agreements between EPA and organizations such as AMSA and the Water Environment Federation
(WEF) may be an effective vehicle for joint data collection efforts.
Electronic Data Transmission - EPA should move towards exchanging data electronically, short of a
full "electronic form" with respondent data entry.
Direct Respondent Data Entry - EPA should explore direct respondent data
entry, with the Agency doing QC of die database rather than QC of completed hard copy forms.
Improvements in Sampling Visits and Laboratory Analysis
Use POTWs and States to do Field and Lab Work - BAD should evaluate using universities, states,
and POTWs to perform site visits, sampling and analysis to leverage its own resources and accelerate
projects schedules. EAD should also consolidate control of sampling and analytical services within
BAD, to facilitate leveling of effort and reduced costs.
Determines Analytical Method Objectives at Beginning of Project - EAD should involve
stakeholders at the outset of planning for a guideline, to provide advice on what chemicals or
pollutants will be looked for, and how to analyze them.
Obtain Lab Results Faster - EAD should minimize die number of contract labs it uses, and fully
implement the improvements under way including, 1) automate more of the data review function, 2)
evaluate specific analyses as opposed to looking for priority pollutants, 3) use results of screening
tests to drive the next set of data decisions, 4) prepare the sampling and data validation plan as early
as possible, 5) use the special analytical services contract strategically. EAD should evaluate using
university labs. Implementation of recommendation 2.1 may facilitate a leveling of demand resulting
in better laboratory performance.
June 15,1999 1992-Ongoing EGTF 13
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Contracting Procedures and laboratory Performance
Improvements in EPA Contracting Procedures and Laboratory Turnaround Time - EPA should
evaluate consolidating all sampling activities and placing them with the Analytical Methods Staff.
EAD should also evaluate using an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity contract that covers
several guidelines. Reorganizing the Contracts Management Division to provide better focus on
project needs should be supported. EAD and Contracts staff should be asked to explore the
options that have been suggested, as well as to propose other ideas.
ing the Overall Effluent Guidelines Development Process
Systems Analysis of Sub-Processes
a. EPA should do a systems analysis of the sub-processes that the EAD staff undertake
throughout a rule project: contract management, budget planning, collecting information,
follow-up with industry respondents, POTWs, laboratories, etc. This analysis should evaluate
the efficiency, work and information flow, and work structure of these subprocesses, as well as
how these subprocesses support the purpose and statutory requirements for the overall Effluent
Guidelines Development process.
b. Besides self-analysis and review, the following, at a minimum, should be utilized in this analysis:
review of the suggestions of the previous Task Force recommendations on pollution prevention
opportunities ("Fostering Pollution Prevention and Incorporating Multi-Media Considerations
into Effluent guidelines Development, 1994), and benchmarking of analogous air and solid
waste regulatory programs. Consideration should be given to benchmarking the subprocesses
with analogous industrial subprocesses and state and local government regulatory processes.
EPA should use the results of this analysis to improve the effluent guidelines development
process and regularly report the progress and results of this analysis to the Task Force.
Develop a Master Rule-making Schedule in All Media by Industrial Sector
a. EPA and other regulatory agencies with related responsibilities should develop a "master
schedule" for its rulemakings in all media by relevant industrial sector or sub-sector, so
coordinated meetings and data collection, and identification of industry-specific multi-media
source reduction opportunities can occur prior to simultaneous rule issuance.
b. The EPA Office of General Counsel (and analogous counsels from other agencies) should
perform an analysis of flexibility in regulation issuance dates, and EPA's budget analysts (and
analogous analysts from other agencies) should revise annual budget figures to reflect any
resulting change in schedule for regulation issuance.
c. EPA should make the case to the Office of Management and Budget for collection of source
reduction data in questionnaires used in regulatory development, including development of
effluent guidelines.
Multi-Media Permitting
a. EPA should encourage state-level use of multi-media permitting that includes local wastewater
officials, in combination with pollution prevention planning for all environmental media and a
single point of contact for permitting. .
14 EGTF 1992-Ongoing June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
b. Through its Performance Partnership grant program, EPA can encourage states to issue multi-
media permits that incorporate pollution prevention planning.
c. EPA should assist local wastewater officials, when necessary, to enable them to participate in
local multi-media permitting efforts.
Alternate Effluent Guideline Development Process - EPA should utilize an alternate effluent
guideline development process for at least two upcoming effluent guidelines in less than 5 years with
a target of 4 years, that incorporates:
a. Increased, interactive stakeholder involvement throughout the process;
b. Development of a presumptive rule prior to proposal; and
c. Other appropriate alternate protocols.
d. EPA should cooperatively utilize a subcommittee of the Effluent Guidelines Task Force to
refine the details of this alternate effluent guideline development process and identify
appropriate rulemaking for its utilization. The Agency should accept the concept that it must
balance timely promulgation of guidelines against the pursuit of the perfect rule.
June 15,1999 1992-Ongoing EGTF 15
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
E. Resulting EPA Actions
The Engineering and Analysis Division (HAD) annotated two Task Force reports, "Fostering Pollution
Prevention and Incorporating Multi-Media Considerations into Effluent Guidelines Development" and
"Removing the Bottlenecks from the Effluent Guidelines Process." The annotated comments described
Agency action taken in response to Task Force recommendations. Currently, EAD is annotating "The
Effluent Guidelines Program: Selection Criteria for Preliminary Industry Studies" and "Effluent
Guidelines Task Force Workgroup 1 - Issue Paper: Design of Preliminary Studies" to respond to the
recommendations presented in these reports.
In August, 1997, EPA formally addressed the following reports to show actions the Agency took as a
result of the Task Force's recommendations.
"Fostering Pollution Prevention and Incorporating Multi-Media Considerations
into Effluent Guidelines Development"
Added P2 to its search criteria for identifying site visits.
Expanding examination of P2 as part of preliminary studies.
Building upon P2 information collected during preliminary studies in the initial guideline
planning stages for new industries, when feasible.
Incorporated some additional "hard" costs and savings into analysis as appropriate.
Prioritize decisions within the EG process to maximize pollutant reductions (focused on
relative toxicity) and still result in an economically achievable regulation.
Exploring, through its pharmaceutical effluent guideline and air standards, methods for
systematically evaluating multi-media impacts and benefits.
Attempting to implement the single-media P2O approach in the Pulp and Paper effluent
guideline through an incentives program for direct dischargers.
Developed a new electronic library of information on pollution prevention, technical
assistance, and environmental compliance (Enviro$en$e).
Sponsored activities to support POTW efforts relative to P2.
Considering, as part of the advanced technology incentives program under the Pulp and
Paper effluent guideline, encouraging states to give lower priority to reissuing permits
for pulp and paper mills achieving more stringent limits than baseline BAT, allowing
(under administrative continuance provisions) permits to extend beyond the five years.
;'Removing the Bottlenecks from the Effluent Guidelines Process"
Explored the use of senior staff to serve as project "directors."
Continued practice of selecting the team-member with the best project management and
communication skills, as well as (when possible) historical knowledge or experience in
guidelines development, to serve as the project manager.
Continue to encourage training opportunities in team leadership for all staff.
Planning to repeat training periodically to provide a forum for sharing experiences,
issues, and-solutions between project teams.
Held a series of meetings to discuss issues across the various projects.
Organized meetings to train project managers on the various procedures and
requirements imposed by the Regulatory Management Staff ans the Office of Water to
assist effluent guidelines teams with the Agency's internal review system.
Implemented a new internal regulatory process.
16 EGTF 1992-Ongoing June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Established as "standard practice" pre-proposal public meetings in addition to
participation in trade association meetings, technical association meetings, and co-
regulator meetings.
Improved "communication" technology for internal and external communication.
Participated in regular conference calls with EPA regions and states on issues involving
quality assurance, permitting, compliance monitoring, and the pretreatment program.
8 Participating in meetings with stakeholders in a variety of settings.
Solicited feedback from small entity representatives in the upcoming proposals having
the greatest impact on small business.
Expanded post-regulatory development process to include compliance workshops and
permit writer assistance.
Improved the early identification of legal issues in the guidelines development process.
Planning training on rulemaking for non-lawyers and effluent guidelines litigation
history.
Initiated additional involvement of POTWs by conducting site visits to POTWs as part
of the industrial laundry regulation development process; developed a questionnaire for
POTWs for the MP&M regulation; held preliminary discussions to gain the support of
POTWs in identifying industrial sites and collecting samples for determining technology
performance; and used feedback from co-regulators to expand the list of technologies
being examined in individual guidelines.
Explored training options for survey design.
Including statistical analysis staff at the very beginning of the questionnaire development
process to take full advantage of their expertise.
Conducted a study of the economic surveys done for six effluent guidelines to
determine which questions were effective, which questions were confusing or resulted in
significant follow-up with respondents, which responses were used/which were not, and
what necessary data was not requested.
Conducting a study of technical surveys.
"Pretested" all subsequent questionnaires with a subset of respondents.
Obtained approvals on one set of five distinctive questionnaires with OMB.
Following the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) example of a
generic screener survey.
Conducting early stakeholder outreach to determine potential subcategories.
Evaluating the types of issues that may affect subcategori2ation during the preliminary
study phase.
Continued to focus on the selection of appropriate technologies for the control of
pollutants in the wastewater, to determine if effective limitation can be established
without unnecessarily subcategorizing or segmenting the industry.
Will establish a different (small) number or subcategories for indirect dischargers when
it applies.
In the May 28, 1998, Notice of Proposed Effluent Guidelines Plan, EPA attributed the start of three new
effluent guideline projects in late 1997 to Task Force recommendations. Specifically:
« EPA is developing a focused rule that will establish limitations for the use of synthetic-
based drilling fluids (SBFs) in the Oil and Gas Extraction category.
EPA is developing a focused rule addressing coal remining operations, which are not
covered by the existing Coal Mining Category, and alkaline mining operations in the
west, for which existing regulations based on sedimention ponds may not be
environmentally effective. For this regulation, EPA is focusing on a number of the
Task Force recommendations. First, EPA is focusing on two segments for which
controls have been identified that would result in environmental improvements.
June 15,1999 1992-Ongoing EGTF 17
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Second, the Agency has enlisted the support of the U.S. Office of Surface Mining and
the Interstate Mining Compact Commission to assemble and analyze existing
information.
The revisions to the Feedlots category will also rely on the Task Force
recommendations. First, the regulation will focus on specific industry segments.
Second, EPA will rely, in part, on stakeholders for background information.
18 EGTF 1992-Ongoing June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Environmental Measures/
Chemical Accident
Prevention Committee
1990-1996
Established at the request of EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention
Office to provide policy advice on ways to obtain the measurements and other information
that EPA needs to make its chemical accident prevention programs work.
Formed three Subcommittees to explore specific issues in a more focused manner: the
Environmental Statistics Subcommittee, the Pollution Prevention Measurements
Subcommittee, and the Chemical Accident Prevention Subcommittee.
Published three reports:
1. "National Environmental Information Goals and Objectives for the 21st Century" (April
1992)
2. "Report of the Pollution Prevention Measurements Subcommittee" (June 1992)
3. "Measuring Progress in Chemical Accident Prevention" (September 1992)
A. Why Established
During the last few decades, the volume of hazardous chemicals produced and used has increased to
satisfy rising demand from the growing world economy. Moreover, a number of major chemical
accidents have increased public awareness of the potential tragedy that can result from the world-wide
use of hazardous chemicals. These two trends have stimulated efforts to reduce chemical accidents. At
the same time, the focus of legislation has shifted from simply regulating the handling and disposal of
hazardous chemicals to stimulating a broader environmental safety consciousness.
The Chemical Accident Prevention Committee was created in 1990, at the request of EPA's Chemical
Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO), which is responsible for the development
and implementation of chemical accident prevention programs and activities. The Committee was
established to provide policy advice on ways to obtain the measurements and other information that
EPA needs to make its chemical accident prevention programs work. In 1991, the Committee was
renamed the Environmental Measures and Chemical Accident Prevention Committee (EM/CAP) to
better reflect its involvement in using environmental statistics and measures to reduce the risk of
chemical accidents and pollution.
B. Description ofCharge ^^^
EPA Administrator Carol Browner noted that EM/CAP was established to directly respond to EPA
clients. In this capacity, the Committee was responsible for:
June 15,1999 1990-1996 EMCAP
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
examining and providing external advice on policy alternatives to CEPPO, the Center for
Environmental Statistics, and the Pollution Prevention Program;
reviewing existing chemical accident and pollution prevention reporting measures;
identifying quantifiable ways to indicate progress in reducing the risk of chemical accidents and in
fostering pollution prevention;
identifying environmental statistical data needed by all parties and recommending mechanisms to
improve information sharing; and
recommending ways to measure program success.
In addition, EM/CAP advised, consulted with, and made recommendations on a continuing basis to the
Administrator on issues associated with the management of environmental problems generally, and on
matters relating to activities, functions, and policies related to the Pollution Prevention Act, the Clean Air
Act, the Federal Technology Transfer Act, and other statutes, executive orders and regulations affecting
or requiring environmental measurements and/or the prevention of chemical accidents. Specifically,
EM/CAP was asked to provide independent advice and counsel to EPA regarding specific activities,
issues, and needs, including:
compiling and analyzing environmental quality measures;
gathering environmental trends information;
providing guidance related to chemical accident prevention;
reviewing periodic EPA reports describing the Agency's progress in implementing statutes, executive
orders and regulations; and
assessing alternative approaches for measuring the environmental benefits of technology transfer
and related activities.
C. Membership, Pates of Activity, and Mode of Operation ____
EM/CAP consisted of members drawn from industry and business; academic, educational and training
institutions; Federal, state, and local government agencies; international organizations; environmental
groups; labor groups; and non-profit entities.
EM/CAP held its first meeting in late 1990 and continued to operate until 1996.
Three subcommittees were formed to explore specific issues in a more focused manner: the
Environmental Statistics Subcommittee, the Pollution Prevention Measurements Subcommittee, and the
Chemical Accident Prevention Subcommittee. Each subcommittee met from one to three times per year
while active, and presented a report summarizing its conclusions to the full Committee.
The Environmental Statistics Subcommittee assessed the potential value of establishing a Center for
Environmental Statistics within EPA, and conducted a preliminary review of the Center's
Conceptual Framework for Environmental Statistics and Indicators, its Guide to Selected
Environmental Statistics in the U.S. Government, and its proposed Compendium of Environmental
Statistics.
The Pollution Prevention Measurements Subcommittee reviewed two EPA documents: (1) the
Agency's proposed methodology for measuring the success of source reduction efforts, and (2) the
proposed criteria for evaluating the waste minimization portions of State Capacity Assurance Plans
(CAPs).
The Chemical Accident Prevention Subcommittee examined potential EPA actions to foster and
measure the effectiveness of chemical accident prevention activities.
EMCAP 1990-1996 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
D. Reports and Recommendations
The Committee and its subcommittees published several reports:
"National Environmental Information Goals and Objectives for the 21st Century: Draft Interim
Recommendations of the Environmental Statistics Subcommittee," April 14, 1992
"Report of the Pollution Prevention Measurements Subcommittee," June 22, 1992
"Measuring Progress in Chemical Accident Prevention: Recommendations of the Chemical Accident
Prevention Subcommittee," September 21, 1992
Establishment of a Center for Environmental Statistics at EPA: Interim Recommendations 1992
Each of the final reports is discussed in more detail below.
"National Environmental Information Goals and Objectives for the
21st Century: Draft interim Recommendations of the Environmental
Statistics Subcommittee,"April 14,1992
The Environmental Statistics Subcommittee made a number of recommendations in its April 14,1992
draft report. The Subcommittee strongly endorsed and supported EPA's efforts to begin establishing
a Center for Environmental Statistics at the Agency. Establishment of such a Center, in the
Subcommittee's view, is long overdue. Specifically, the subcommittee made the following
recommendations:
Any such Center needs to have the highest possible level of independence and be insulated from other regulatory and
policy-making responsibilities. Locating the Center as a Division within the Office of Strategic Planning
and Environmental Data within EPA fails to meet this test of independence. EPA should address
this concern by continuing its efforts to support legislation establishing a Center for Environmental
Statistics either as part of a new Department of the Environment, or barring that, as an independent
entity within EPA.
The current staff and resources of the Center are inadequate for carrying out the large task at hand. Without
additional staff and resources certain activities should possibly be deferred until such time as
sufficient resources are found. It might be better to think small at first and complete a few high
quality projects that will serve as building blocks for the future.
The Environmental Statistics Subcommittee also conducted a preliminary review of the Center's
Conceptual Framework for Environmental Statistics and Indicators, its Guide to Selected
Environmental Statistics in the U.S. Government, and its proposed Compendium of Environmental
Statistics, and provided the following recommendations:
The Conceptual Framework should be made available for comment outside EPA to ensure that its
assumptions are clear, and that the sensitivity of the Center's results to changes in those assumptions
is clearly understood.
The effort to keep the Guide to Selected Environmental Statistics up to date should not exceed a
modest fraction of the Center's limited resources.
The Subcommittee suggested that some data may not be sufficiently accurate to be included in the
first edition of the Compendium of Environmental Statistics, and recommended that the Center
June 15,1999
1990-1996
EMCAP
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
I make the absence of such data explicit.
4 EMCAP 1990-1996 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Report of the Pollution Prevention Measurements Subcommittee,"
June 22, 1992
The Pollution Prevention Measurements Subcommittee made a number of recommendations
following its review of two EPA documents: (1) the Agency's proposed methodology for measuring
the success of source reduction efforts, and (2) the proposed criteria for evaluating the waste
rninirnization portions of State Capacity Assurance Plans (CAPs). With regard to the four basic
assumptions of the draft source reduction measurement methodology, the Subcommittee made the
following recommendations:
A. meaningful framework for analysing multiple measurement parameters is essential. EPA should improve its
measurement capability by concentrating on the development of a cohesive measurement and
analytical framework for combining information from disparate sources.
"Requiring too many measurement parameters is potentially counter-productive. EPA needs to recognize the
burdens associated with reporting requirements. At some point, the benefits of having more data
are no longer commensurate with the added cost (and such data collection could even divert
resources from actual pollution prevention activities).
EPA must be very careful about how it chooses to evaluate trends. Since some companies change production
processes and product mixes frequently, comparisons of waste data over time may fail to reveal
legitimate improvements in pollution prevention.
In addition, the Pollution Prevention Measurements Subcommittee made several recommendations
not specifically linked to any of the four assumptions of the source reduction measurement
methodology, including:
EPA should not assume (as the Pollution Prevention Act implicitly does) that all chemical substitutions mil result in
a net environmental gain.
* EPA should consider improvements in "housekeeping" and safety not only as precursors to, but also as requirements
for continued waste reduction. If properly and continually implemented, better housekeeping practices
can result in substantial source reduction gains; effective waste control starts with better
housekeeping.
EPA should adjust changes in the quantity of chemicals recycled/ treated/ disposed to account for changes in
production, in the same way as changes in the quantity of chemicals entering the waste are adjusted. However,
standardized adjustments should not be undertaken at the facility level, but at the national level
according to industrial sector. Moreover, a linear relationship between concentration of chemical
waste generated and changes in production cannot be assumed.
With regard to the overall concept of using CAPs to achieve waste reductions, the Pollution
Prevention Measurements Subcommittee had the following recommendations:
Targeting by shortfall category is not an effective approach. Targeting by waste stream, process, use, or SIC
code are more sensible alternatives. Focusing too heavily on capacity may undermine waste
niinimization efforts.
Integrate the CAP into a multi-media pollution prevention program. A waste minimization program geared
solely toward capacity assurance may have less credibility than one that is part of a larger integrated
program.
Combine or alter some of the criteria. Specifically, generator communication is important for criteria 1
and 3; it is virtually impossible to judge generators' technological abilities without sufficient input
June 15,1999
1990-1996
EMCAP
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
from the generators themselves. In addition, economic feasibility should be incorporated into
criterion 4, because the adequacy of economic resources has an effect on the feasibility of projected
reductions.
Set up an infrastructure that diminishes a generator's ability to redistribute instead of reduce waste. EPA should
seek ways to close the loopholes that allow for redirection of wastes in order to ensure the
nationwide effectiveness of the capacity assurance planning process.
In addition, the Pollution Prevention Measurements Subcommittee affirmed several ideas implicit in
the draft methodology in general, and the four criteria specifically., including:
More participation for the private sector, especially the large chemical manufacturers, could lead to more effective source
reduction methods. States should solicit participation from these companies in order to ensure that they
will abide by the CAPs, and also because they have access to the most modern technology and
processes.
Communication between the State and the generators is extremely important. It is important to ensure that the
waste minitnization projections in the CAPs are realistic for the generators. The generators and the
State need to have equal input when determining the waste minimization abilities and goals of the
generators. Effective communication should reduce shortfalls.
Technological attainability is an extremely important component to effective CAPs. The reliability of CAP
projections will be suspect if generators do not have the ability to effectively reduce their waste to
the levels indicated.
Finally, the Pollution Prevention Measurements Subcommittee report included several ideas which
were not consensus recommendations, but which reflected opinions discussed and debated among
different members of the subcommittee:
The Agency should create incentives and disincentives for submitting accurate CAPs.
EPA might wish to consider privatization within all areas of capacity assurance.
EPA should find a means of determining the potential of a generator for minimization.
EPA should grant flexibility to those States that target the amount of toxicity in their wastes.
EPA should urge innovation at all levels, including technology, data collection, and targeting.
EMCAP 1990-1996 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Measuring Progress in Chemical Accident Prevention,"
Recommendations of the Chemica! Accident Prevention
Subcommittee," September 21,1992
This report contained several recommendations regarding potential EPA actions to foster and measure
the effectiveness of chemical accident prevention activities.
EPA should select a simple means of demonstrating improvement or impairment in the state of chemical accident
prevention. EPA needs to demonstrate progress in reducing the likelihood of chemical accidents to
the public, and give an overview of the state of chemical accident prevention to policy makers in
EPA and other agencies. To achieve these objectives, the measurements must be kept simple and
understandable for two reasons: (1) a simple measurement will enable the periodic reporting needed
to track changes over time, and (2) the information must be readily understood by a large audience.
EPA should adopt two types of measurement, one of implementation and one of results. While institutional
change implies new behavior patterns and the adoption of management practices that help prevent
chemical accidents, it will not be convincingly evident simply from measuring institutional change
whether such changes will lead to an improvement or impairment of the state of chemical accident
prevention. As a result, EPA needs a second set of measurements to demonstrate the direction of
the change.
EPA should make every effort to use only existing data to measure results; to measure implementation, it should
consider augmenting existing data with a voluntary survey of a limited statistical sampling of users and producers.
Collecting additional data on a broad scale would unnecessarily increase the burden of reporting on
users and producers of chemicals, while doing little to reduce (and possibly even increasing) the
likelihood of a chemical accident.
EPA should establish a benchmark standard from which it can deduce improvement or impairment in the state of
chemical accident prevention. To track change, EPA needs to establish a point of departure. In addition,
EPA should not draw any firm conclusions about the state of chemical accident prevention until
changes have been tracked over a period of at least five years.
EPA should normalise the data used to measure implementation and results to reflect changes in chemical production
and use (that are not part of an accident'prevention program). Nevertheless, when demonstrating the measurements,
EPA should show them as they reflect non-normalised data as well. The uses, types, methods of production
of, and demand for chemicals are constantly changing. Unless these developments are accounted
for in the measurements, they will obscure a clear understanding of the changes brought about
specifically through accident prevention initiatives.
EPA should recognise publicly that institutional change at the facilities producing or using chemicals is essential to
reducing the likelihood and incidence of chemical accidents. To encourage and guide such a change, EPA ,
should adopt and promulgate principles of chemical accident prevention. EPA needs to tell industry
what it is expected to do. One first step is to identify the guiding principles to which users and
producers are expected to be adhering.
June 15,1999
1990-1996
EMCAP
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
E. Resulting EPA Actions
The advice of EMCAP has been utilized in many aspects of EPA's Pollution Prevention Program's
measurement process, as well as in the development of the final guidance for implementation of the data
elements required by the Pollution Prevention Act. The EPA established a Center for Environmental
Information and Statistics (CEIS) based on the advice of the Environmental Statistics Committee. In
addition, the Committee provided advice and guidance to the Agency on the implementation of policies
and CEIS.
EMCAP 1990-1996 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Food Safety
Advisory Committee
1996
* Established to solicit input from stakeholders regarding the development of EPA's Food
Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Implementation Plan.
if Charged to provide strategic, policy-level advice and counsel to the EPA Administrator to
facilitate quick implementation of FQPA.
* Published one report:
"Summary Report of Food Safety Advisory Committee" (1996)
A. Why Established
After years of debate over food safety and inconsistencies between the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, Congress unanimously passed in
1996 (with broad support from a diverse coalition of environmental, public health, agricultural, and
industry groups) the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). The new law comprehensively overhauled
the nation's food safety system, including aspects of pesticide regulation. The new standards and
requirements included in the FQPA necessitated that EPA develop an FQPA implementation plan. The
Food Safety Advisory Committee (FSAC) was established in August 1996 to assist the Agency in
soliciting input from stakeholders regarding the development of the FQPA implementation plan.
B. Description of Charge
The Food Safety Advisory Committee was charged to provide strategic, policy-level advice and counsel
to the Administrator to facilitate quick implementation of FQPA including:
overall priorities for implementation of the many new requirements in FQPA;
practical, protective approaches and policies by which to address pesticide food safety issues;
how to foster improved communication and understanding among all stakeholders regarding
pesticide risks and benefits;
approaches for measuring successful implementation of the Agency's FQPA implementation plan;
and
ways to assure environmental justice and community-based environmental protection during FQPA
implementation.
June 15,1999 1996 FSAC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Jg. Membership, J^tes of Actiyit^_andj\/jodes of
The Committee's membership was comprised of industry and user associations, environmental and
public interest groups, federal and state governments, academia, public health community, agricultural
groups, and the public.
The FSAC conducted its business in a six-month period from September to December 1996, during
which time the Committee met four times. To support the investigation of issues more in depth, the
committee established seven work groups to facilitate the discussion of issues identified by the full
Committee. EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs and USDA staff provided background issue papers and
overviews of past pest management and information collection programs at FSAC meetings.
EPA staff also presented proposed interim decision logic, the proposed interim decision process, and the
draft implementation plan outline for the Committee's comment. The goal of FSAC discussions was to
gather input from a variety of stakeholders to assist the Agency in the development of its FQPA
implementation plan. During the FSAC meetings, the Committee provided input on which FQPA
provisions should be given priority. FSAC members also identified and discussed concerns related to the
interpretation of specific provisions.
D. Reports and Recommendations _ _
The purpose of the FSAC was not to reach consensus or to develop formal recommendations, but
to gather input from a variety of stakeholders to assist the Agency in the development of its FQPA
implementation plan. FSAC prepared a report entitled "Summary Report of Food Safety Advisory
Committee." This report presents summaries of the topics and concerns discussed at the four FSAC
meetings.
"Summary Report of Food Safety Advisory Committee,"
1996
First Meeting - September 26,1996
EPA outlined the objectives of the Committee, provided a review of the major provisions of the FQPA,
and indicated the major changes from previous law. The Committee identified issues to be covered at
subsequent meetings.
Second Meeting - October 22-23,1996
Resources
Recognition of the tremendous size of the task before EPA to implement the FQPA and the
amount of resources that will be needed.
Congress appropriated an additional $30 million for implementation of FQPA and the Safe Water
Drinking Act. Many members urged EPA to allocate much of it to FQPA activities.
FSAC
1996
June 15, 1999
-------
_NACjEPTChtonglpg^» 1988-1998
Communication and Right-to-Knon*
« Many members believed that the development of a FQPA-required brochure for distribution in
grocery stores should be the Agency's priority.
A number of members stressed the need to test the message to be used in the brochure to determine
the best message to use.
Many members suggested that the audience should include low income consumers; it was observed
that this is a different audience than that being reached by the EPA hotline.
Some members urged the use of partnerships to leverage resources as well as to provide additional
credibility.
Risk: Aggregate Exposure and Common Mechanism ofToxicity
* Some members raised concerns about data gaps and how they would be addressed.
Most members supported the idea of using default values when data are not available; they did not,
however, agree on how defaults would be determined.
Concern was expressed by a number of members about the quality of data to be used in decision-
making.
Many members identified the need for a transparent process so that growers and others would
understand how decisions are made.
Members considered three approaches to determining common mode of toxicity. Many of the
members felt diat all three should be considered and the appropriate one used for each case.
Some members suggested that EPA should consider the use of time limited tolerances when they
use defaults.
Issues around lack of data on aggregate exposure were raised.
Minor Uses
Communication to growers about pesticide products with potential concerns.
Discussion of uses retained tends to include only registrants and EPA; a number of members urged
greater and earlier involvement of growers.
It was observed by several members that the need for additional data under FQPA places an
increased burden on growers to gather and provide data. It was also noted several times that growers
can provide data on actual usage.
The idea of reserving a portion of the risk cup for minor uses was raised. It received mixed reviews.
Concern was raised by a number of members about the impact of FQPA on the adoption of
Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
Some members suggested that the loss of minor use products may drive fruit and vegetable
production offshore.
A number of members urged that USDA and EPA look proactively for alternatives to chemicals that
are likely to be canceled.
deduced Risk Pesticides
Many members pointed to the current lack of resources in this program. The background paper had
noted that more than two applications will overwhelm the program's capabilities.
Discussion by the members reflected confusion over whether the goal of this program was to
June 15,1999 1996 FSAC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
address absolutely safe products or those that are relatively safer.
Members acknowledged that if the scope is defined too broadly, too many applications will qualify
and the program will be overwhelmed.
Possible measures for success of a reduced risk pesticides program were identified.
Benefits
* Members discussed what kind of benefits are to be considered under FQPA and which under
FIFRA.
FQPA allows the consideration of benefits only if there is a "significant disruption of the food
supply." Members questioned how that would be defined.
It was observed that decisions have rarely been driven by economic considerations in the past; it is
unclear how benefits will be used in the future.
Proposed Interim Decision Logic
EPA staff presented a proposed interim decision logic that outlined how an application for a
chemical may be handled under FQPA. Many of the members stated that at first glance the logic
seemed to make sense. Several noted that the devil is in the details, but it at least gave them
something to consider. The proposed logic or process was refined further between the October and
November meetings.
Third Meeting - November 14-15,1996
Tolerance Reassessment
EPA presented its proposed strategy for reassessing tolerances. It was noted that FQPA will change
the Agency's priorities for the reregistration process.
Several members raised concerns about the lack of adequate data on aggregate exposure.
This discussion resulted in members identifying concerns about the process to be used for
categorizing chemicals under the common mode of toxicity requirement. That such grouping will
draw in other chemicals was addressed and members explored with EPA staff how this would be
handled.
Problems with data on exposure and on common mode led to the restatement of concerns about
defaults, data gaps and the magnitude of resources needed to accomplish this task.
Worker ~Risk
EPA staff presented their current activities to address risk to workers; such as worker protection
standards, certification, and decontamination procedures.
Some members detailed their experiences which suggest that workers have safety problems due to
increased exposure and increased risk of injury and disease.
Several members urged EPA to consider worker exposure when they are calculating aggregate
exposure.
Concerns about the quality of information on worker exposure was raised by some members.
Some members noted that worker training and education are successful in protecting workers.
FSAC
1996
June 15, 1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology ^JL988-1998
IrLuman health Risk Assessment
In utero testing and the 10-fold uncertainty factor were presented to the Scientific Advisory Panel
(SAP) at its October meeting. Dr. McConnell, chair of the SAP, explained the SAP process and its
preliminary findings. Based on the studies reviewed, the SAP agreed with the Agency that there is
not convincing data that pre-natal exposure does increase die incidence of cancer. Thus, in utero
testing would not be required in all circumstances.
On the 10-fold uncertainty factor, the SAP agreed that there is a need for an additional uncertainty
factor on a case-by-case basis and that the Agency should use a weight-of-evidence approach.
Section 18's
EPA explained the Section 18 process and how decisions are made, especially that EPA now has to
establish a time limited tolerance when it grants a Section 18.
Some members expressed concern about the potential for Section 18's to utilize all available
resources.
A number of members pointed to the amount of information that will now be required and
questioned whether Section 18's will be viable since emergencies cannot be planned.
Concern was also raised about the potential that the Agency may not be able to respond in a timely
manner.
Some members suggested that one way to address some of the anticipated problems with Section
18's is to give more responsibility to the states.
Some members urged that there be a special process for deciduous, perennial crops that allows them
to submit Section 18's months in advance.
Proposed Interim Derision Process (Revised)
EPA presented a flow chart of the revised process to further reflect the comments received.
Subsequent discussion addressed issues raised such as aggregate exposure and different ways to
handle defaults as presented in the handout illustrating possible options.
Many members asked clarifying questions. Many of the members preferred the option that provided
the most detail.
EPA staff noted that the tradeoff is between the amount of data needed for that option versus the.
need to make decisions in a timely manner.
Some members suggested that EPA use a phased approach - start with the option that requires the
least data and move through the others if the product would not qualify and if additional
information is available.
Fourth Meeting - December 5,1996
Draft Implementation Plan Outline
EPA presented an overview of the Draft Implementation Plan Outline. EPA staff explained that, in
addition to providing context and background on the FQPA, the plan includes guidance on the
approach to risk assessment, requirements for minor uses, description of other regulatory
requirements, plans for public outreach, and additional sources of information.
June 15,1999 1996 FSAC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Approach to Science Assessment
EPA addressed three major issues addressed by the science assessment: protecting sensitive
populations, including children; aggregate exposure; and common mode of action. They noted that a
fourth major issue, endocrine disrupters, would be addressed in another forum.
Several participants wanted EPA to explain its choice to use common mode of action versus "
mechanism of action and expressed concern that the choice be consistent with the meaning of the
law. At the time, EPA was trying to determine how to pragmatically comply with the "common
mechanism" provision; this issue was taken up at the March SAP meeting. In the meantime, EPA
felt that describing the "common mechanism" provision using the term "common mode" was a
compromise.
Other participants requested that EPA clarify how to interpret the additional uncertainty factor (up
to 10-fold); starting with 10-fold uncertainty factor unless data showed otherwise, or basing it on the
weight-of-evidence? EPA explained that additional information about the uncertainty factor would
be available soon after the Agency considers the SAP review of the issue.
Many members wanted reassurance that there would be additional opportunities to evaluate and
comment on the issues presented. EPA assured members that there would be additional
opportunities.
Interim Decision Logic for Screening Risks
EPA presented an updated proposal for the reregistration and registration decision process and
summarized the interim decision logic, stressing that it was conditional and time-limited.
EPA explained the three revised risk cup options to determine the percent of risk to reserve in the
risk cup. EPA identified Option 2, which allows categorization of active ingredients based upon the
level of risk (high and low), as the preferred option.
Several members raised concerns about the use of defaults to determine the percent of the risk cup
to reserve, particularly for lawn and residential exposure. EPA explained that they would use defaults
only when data were not available. They welcomed other sources of data and requested that
members provide guidance on how to allocate the risk cup fairly.
Some members wanted clarification on how this process would apply to non-food uses. EPA
explained that non-food uses would be considered when characterizing aggregate exposure and when
sensitive populations could be affected.
Many members were concerned about what and how subpopulations would be addressed. EPA
noted that there were 22 subpopulations identified in the food consumption surveys and that
subpopulations are generally the driving force when allocating risk.
After some discussion, many members supported the use of Option 2.
Tolerance Reassessment Program
Several members were concerned about whether EPA had sufficient resources to devote to the
proposed program. EPA noted that it was evaluating the demand for resources.
Other members wanted EPA to explain what happens to pesticides for which reregistration is close
to completion. EPA explained that these pesticides will be scheduled for consideration in 1997 and
1998.
Some members questioned the efficacy of time-limited decisions. EPA acknowledged the concern
and suggested that the group consider and propose more effective alternative strategies using
coalitions in the user community. '
FSAC 1996 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology> 1988-1998
Minor Uses and Section 18 Program
EPA addressed die overall implementation plan of die minor use program, the results of die Section
18 Workshop, the status of Section 18 activities, and current Section 18 decisions facing EPA.
Several members wanted to know how EPA planned to involve the grower community to address
concerns which included crop size, expediting reduced risk pesticides, the safety of using
weight-of-evidence to address worker safety, and criteria for risk allocation. In addition, suggesting
diat die grower community could become more involved by providing EPA with additional data,
some members proposed that EPA arrange to hold structured meetings widi the minor use
community and work closely with other affected agencies.
EPA supported this suggestion and requested that USDA lead the effort to bring the registrant
community, grower groups, and die agencies togetiier to recommend to EPA what criteria should be
used to allocate risk.
EPA also presented an example of a pending Section 18 decision on two unregistered fungicides on
seed corn. EPA indicated tiiat it was concerned about whetiier diese could be granted based on its
interpretation of the new requirements. [Note: Since the meeting, these two Section 18's were
granted.]
Many members felt diat die example was not a good one because seed corn is not a food. They
urged EPA to use common sense when assessing risk.
June 15,1999 1996 FSAC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
E. Resulting EPA Actions
The Office of Pesticide Programs' October 1, 1997 report on the status of FQPA implementation
acknowledges the contribution of the Food Safety Advisory Committee as instrumental in the
development of an interim approach to risk management as well as the blueprint for FQPA
implementation. Also, at the conclusion of the last meeting, both Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen
and Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances Lynn Goldman thanked
the Committee members for their participation, time, and input. They stated that the Committee had
provided valuable stakeholder input that fulfilled the objective of the FSAC.
FSAC 1996 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology> 1988-1998
Superfund
Evaluation Committee
1993-1994
Established to gather the views and concerns of outside parties regarding changes in the
Superfund law.
Charged to examine stakeholder values; seek proposals for change; and develop a creative
proposal for changes that are consistent with and help to foster capacities for state and local
control over Superfund investment decisions and actions.
Published five reports:
1. "Superfund Liability Workgroup Recommendations" (November 1993)
2. "Remedy Selection Workgroup Recommendations" (November 1993)
3. "Environmental Justice/Community Issues Workgroup Recommendations," (November
1993)
4. "State Role Workgroup Recommendations" (November 1993)
5. "Municipal Liability Workgroup Recommendations" (November 1993)
A. Why Established
In the wake of Congressional hearings on Superfund reauthorization in 1993, EPA Administrator
Browner determined that the Agency needed additional support and input in answering questions and
providing recommendations on key Superfund program areas to help the Agency formulate its positions
on potential changes to the Superfund law.
The Superfund Evaluation Committee was created to ensure that EPA was fully informed of the views
and concerns of outside parties regarding changes in the Superfund law. The Committee represented
EPA's effort to work with stakeholder groups on the development of a framework within which the
Agency could develop policy options of its own, or at least respond to those being offered through the
legislative process.
B. Description of Charge
The Committee was charged with considering and answering questions related to five Superfund
reauthorization issues: (1) liability, (2) remedy selection, (3) environmental justice/community
involvement, (4) state role, and (5) municipal liability. The objectives of the Committee were:
review the current performance of the Superfund program;
identify the concerns of affected constituencies about the program's operations;
identify possible administrative and legislative improvements in the program; and
assess the advantages and disadvantages of those improvements.
June 15,1999
1993-1994
SEC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Specifically, the Committee was charged with:
examining stakeholder values that constitute the basis for a new mandate;
seeking proposals for change that support this new mandate; and
developing a creative proposal for changes that are consistent with and help to foster capacities for
state and local control over Superfund investment decisions and actions. The new mandate is
dependent on a clear distinction between what must remain Federal and what must not.
C. Membieirehjg, Dates of Activity, and Mode of Operation
Committee members included representatives from industry, environmental groups, community
organizations, state and local governments, and universities. The Superfund Evaluation Committee was
chaired by Dr. John Sawhill, who initiated the discussion on changes in Superfund law.
The Committee held seven meetings between June and November 1993. The schedule for the meetings
is provided below:
June 28-29: Superfund Overview: Goals and Purposes, Long-term Outlook
July 19-21: Remedy Selection, Cleanup Standards, Speeding Cleanup, Innovative
Technology
August 16-18: Making the Liability Scheme More Fair and Efficient
September 8-10: Role of the States, Municipal Liability
September 20-21: Participation of Local Committees, Environmental Equity, Economic Equity,
Economic Redevelopment of Superfund Sites, and Voluntary Cleanup1
October 4: NACEPT Meeting: Subcommittees Present Draft Papers to the Administration
November 8: NACEPT Meeting: Subcommittees Present Conclusion Papers to the
Administration
The Committee meetings were held at various locations in the Washington, DC area. Three-day working
sessions were held for each of the five Superfund issues. The first day focused on presentations by, and
discussion with, EPA staff; the second day was open to presentations by outside groups; and the third
day provided an open forum for discussions among the Committee members. All members were
encouraged to develop written proposals for each working session to facilitate discussion and assist in
establishing positions on specific issues. During the process, the Committee decided to form Committee
subgroups to further analyze the issues and develop an issue paper that reflected the Committee's views
most succinctly, and note where consensus was not viable.
After each working session, the Committee provided the Administrator with summary reports. The
reports synthesized the presentations and discussions, and identified any administrative or legislative
options that should be considered by the Agency. At the conclusion of the working sessions, the
Committee held two roundtable discussions (October 4 and November 8) with the Administrator and
senior EPA managers to share views, critique options, and discuss possible approaches. EPA believed
that the subgroups were extremely useful and wanted to retain the option of working with them on
specific problem areas. Administrator Browner attended two Committee meetings, and Bob Sussman,
Deputy EPA Administrator at the time, attended all of them.
The Committee met one final time on February 24, 1994 to officially close itself out and address
'This meeting included a video broadcast to all ten Regions to allow local citizens to present their proposals
for improvements to community relations under the Superfund program.
2 SEC 1993-1994 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
outstanding issues.
D. Reports and Recommendations
The Superfund Evaluation Committee was organized into five subgroups that addressed the five key
Superfund reauthorization issues. Each subgroup presented a short conclusion/issue paper containing
issue options, areas of agreement, areas of disagreement, significant unanswered questions, and pros and
cons with respect to the status quo. These issue papers were presented to the Administrator at the
October 4,1993 Committee meeting and further refined in the month following the October 4 meeting.
At the final meeting on November 8,1993, subgroups presented their revised papers and received
feedback from EPA on the current status of reauthorization issues within the Agency.
The Superfund Evaluation Committee never developed or published a final document that served as the
Committee's "official" report. The Committee's findings and recommendations -- distributed informally
throughout the life of the Committee were more of a working document than a formal NACEPT
report. Below are highlights of the key recommendations or proposals that the subgroups presented,
organized in terms of the five Superfund reauthorization areas.
June 15,1999 1993-1994 SEC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chtonology
"Superfund Liability Workgroup Recommendations,9'
November 1993
Committee members held a variety of divergent views on the merits of the liability scheme. Two
proposals generated the most interest: (1) an improved allocation system, and (2) the "Soots Proposal,"
which recommended the elimination of current retroactive liability for waste that was legally disposed of
at multiparty sites prior to January 1,1987. After careful consideration of both, the majority of
Committee members supported an improved allocation system. The Committee recommended that the
major elements of the current liability scheme be retained, but an improved allocation system to reduce
transaction costs, expedite settlements, and provide greater certainty for responsible parties be
established.
Key recommendations for implementing an improved allocation system included:
Clear definition of "orphan" shares needs to be developed.
Allocation should take place as early as possible'in the site designation process.
Allocation should be streamlined, simple, and informal.
Allocations should be final and only a very limited opportunity to reopen should be provided to
responsible parties (noting that this may jeopardize an informal, simple process).
Allocation process should be used in lieu of existing contribution actions.
Responsible parties should be given the right to appeal, but such appeals should be limited.
Mechanisms should exist to assign shares not just to parties that participate, but also to those who
do not.
The government's authority under Section 106 to compel one or more responsible parties to
perform 100 percent of a site cleanup should be retained (preserve the current strict and retroactive
liability).
Waste generated by the recycling process should be subject to Superfund liability and application of
liability should differentiate between the product and waste generated by recycling.
SEC 1993-1994 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Remedy Selection Workgroup Recommendations,"
November 1993
There was general agreement among Committee members that a national standard approach may be a
viable alternative to the current remedy selection system, but there was no agreement that such national
standards would replace all other applicable, relevant, or appropriate requirements. The group discussed
the relationship between national soil and groundwater standards, the application of other environmental
laws, and more stringent state laws. Divergent views existed among the environmental community,
industrial community, and state representatives on the implementation of a national formula. Although
there was agreement that land use is an appropriate consideration in remedy selection and need not await
promulgation of a national standards formula. The group also discussed issues related to state standards,
treatment, technological feasibility, demonstrated control measures, risk assessment, clean-up levels, and
the remedy selection process.
The group had discussions and reached agreement on the following topics:
land use;
state standards;
treatment at "hot spots";
technological feasibility;
containment;
demonstrated control measures; and
risk assessment.
The group determined that further discussion was needed in the following areas:
groundwater treatment;
performance and operation requirements for technologies employed as part of the remedy selection
at each site; and
cost in the remedy selection process.
'Environmental Justice/Community Issues Workgroup Recommendations," November 1993
The group considered and made recommendations with respect to the following areas:
community participation and empowerment;
nondiscriminatory implementation and enforcement;
community-wide approach and cumulative risk;
economic restoration and redevelopment;
national Environmental Justice Model Demonstration Program; and
voluntary cleanup.
There was universal agreement on the need for meaningful community participation in Superfund
decision-making and for non-discriminatory implementation and enforcement. Additionally, the working
jroup recognized that all of the above are important and interrelated issues which can be addressed in a
significant way while retaining the basic intent of Superfund as a site-specific cleanup program. One
mechanism for addressing these issues without losing sight of Superfund objectives is through a National
Environmental justice Model Demonstration Program.
June 15,1999
1993-1994
SEC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
'State Rofe Workgroup Recommendations," November 1993
There was a general consensus that states should play a more significant role in the Superfund program,
based on the following specific premises:
The Superfund program is a long-term program and will last another 20 years or more, and die NPL
represents only a small portion of sites that need to be addressed.
The current approach, where both levels of government can play a significant role at an individual
site, is costly and inefficient.
State capacity to manage Superfund sites varies significantly.
The workgroup recommended the following dual-track approach for states to manage sites:
(1) State Authorization Track, where states with Superfund laws similar to CERCLA and fully-
functioning Superfund cleanup programs could apply to manage CERCLA cleanups under state law
using state processes and authority; and
(2) Site by Site Delegation Track, where states with less developed or less comprehensive programs, or
states without the full range of authority in CERCLA, could manage cleanups on a site-by-site basis.
Even under this program, states and EPA would be encouraged to work toward developing a state
program that would qualify for full authorization.
Under diis proposal, the workgroup also provided the options and recommendations for issues
addressing:
the National Priorities List;
federal role;
funding;
oversight; and
* voluntary cleanup.
SEC 1993-1994 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Municipal Liability Workgroup Recommendations,"
November 1993
The municipal liability reform workgroup addressed the concerns of three basic groups industry,
environmentalists, and municipalities. The municipal and environmental groups generally supported the
same positions and opposed the industry position. The municipal and environmental groups' preferred
option contained provisions similar to those of the Lautenberg bill, including:
block on third-party suits against Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) generators and transporters and
municipality owners and operators;
* four percent settlement cap on contribution of MSW generators and transporters; and
ability to pay test for settlements by municipality owners and operators.
The industry's preferred option and recommendations included:
proportional liability plus special rules for allocations involving MSW generators and transporters;
separate ability to pay determination for municipalities; and
deterrent to third-party suits.
Industry, environmentalists, and local governments all agreed that:
Creative use of in-kind services should be emphasized in settlements involving MSW sites and that
deferred payment schedules keyed to actual cleanup milestones may be appropriate once a
determination has been made concerning ability to pay.
A numeric cap on the contribution to cleanup costs of MSW generators and transporters may be
appropriate.
Municipal liability reform must incorporate an "ability to pay" determination for municipality
owners and operators.
June 15,1999
1993-1994
SEC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
E. Resulting EPA Actions
On October 4,1998, the Committee presented draft issue papers to the Administrator and key
representatives from the Superfund program. At the October meeting, representatives from the
Superfund program posed questions to each of the working groups. Based on these questions and
additional responses from the Superfund representatives, each working group addressed the questions
and updated their positions in their final conclusion papers that were presented to Administrator
Browner on November 8th.
Generally, the Superfund representatives expressed to the Committee that the program was considering
and discussing similar issues and positions that the working groups were recommending. The Superfund
program representative who presented the response to each working group's recommendations and
positions also highlighted key factors that the program was considering for Superfund reauthorization.
Specific EPA responses are outlined below, organized by working group.
Superfund Liability Workgroup. In response to the liability workgroup's recommendations, EPA stated that
it wanted to:
Streamline the enforcement process by identifying all parties at a site that should be
involved early in the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) search.
Consider possible modifications to the liability scheme to exempt parties in cases where
transaction costs are too high (e.g., de micromis parties).
Consider modifications to procedures for dealing with lenders, recyclers, and MSW
generators, whose presence in the liability scheme often causes confusion.
Reach a middle ground regarding the issue of a binding versus non-binding allocation
process.
Remedy Selection Workgroup. In response to the remedy selection workgroup's recommendations, EPA
stated that it needed to:
Address "How clean is clean?" and the remedy selection process as one issue.
Continue to conduct early actions at sites and facilitate early community involvement in
the process.
* Consider presumptive remedies and past experience instead of "reinventing the wheel"
at every site.
Consider cost and implementability in the remedy selection process.
Environmental justice/Community Issues Workgroup. In response to the environmental justice/community
issues workgroup's recommendations, EPA stated that it wanted to:
Encourage earlier and more direct community involvement, such as getting the
community involved at the site evaluation stage prior to listing.
Solicit the community preference for cleanup prior to the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RJ/FS).
Recommend the establishment of community working groups that have broad
representation of the community.
Consider extensive Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) reform, such as making the
process much simpler and available earlier.
Expand the availability of TAGs to include a broader array of activities.
SEC 1993-1994 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
State Role Workgroup. In response to the state role workgroup's recommendations, EPA indicated that it
wanted to consider:
the remedy the state chooses;
the enforcement program;
settlement tools;
state contracting and procurement abilities;
the public participation process; and
funding mechanisms.
If a state was authorked, it would at least be taking full categories of sites. A separate program would
exist for states that could not meet the full test of authorization, but could handle a limited number of
sites. EPA agreed with having some sort of public process for review of the state program.
The Committee's findings were eventually used as suggestions and guidelines to inform EPA's Superfund
Administrative Reforms, which adopted many of the concepts embodied in the Committee's
recommendations. Further, the Integrative Environmental Justice Model Demonstration Approach,
developed by SEC, was incorporated into OSWER Environmental Justice Action Agenda developed by
the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC).
June 15,1999 1993-1994 SEC 9
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Toxic Data Reporting
Committee
1993-Ongoing
Established in 1993 to address requirements in the Pollution Prevention Act to include
information on the amount of toxic chemicals leaving facility in waste on the Toxics Release
Inventory. The Committee was reconvened in 1997 to assist EPA in creating an explicit and
workable chemical reporting process that ensured the adequate protection of human health
and the environment.
Charged with forming recommendations for definitions and guidelines under the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990 from 1993 through 1995. In 1997, the Committee was charged with
developing recommendations related to EPA's proposed improvement of the TRI program.
An interim report on the Committee's progress was summarized in the December 15,1997,
Enviro-Newsbrief. In addition, the committee published:
Issues and Concerns for the Definitions and Guidance of 6607 of the
Pollution Prevention Act; Summary of Discussion of the Toxic Data
Reporting Subcommittee of the National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology January 1994
A. Why Established
In 1986, following closely on the fatal chemical release accident in Bhopal, India, the Superfund
legislation was amended to add Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know (EPCRA)
provisions intended to assure citizens that the presence, management, and routine releases of toxic
chemicals in the U.S. were well understood. Although there were facilities in the United States where the
same chemicals as those that caused the Bhopal accident were manufactured, used, and stored,
information about diese chemicals was generally not disclosed. The Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
Program under EPCRA created a national database identifying facilities, chemicals manufactured and
used at such facilities, and statistics on the releases of monitored toxic substances. From 1987 to 1990,
TRI data focused on release and transfer data for approximately 300 chemicals and 28,000 facilities.
Information on the amount of toxic materials leaving a facility in waste was added to the Inventory with
the passage of the Pollution Prevention Act in 1990. NACEPT created the Toxic Data Reporting
Committee in 1993 to develop recommendations for streamlining the toxic chemical reporting process
required by the Pollution Prevention Act.
On April 22, 1997, EPA completed a rule under EPCRA Section 313 to add seven new industry sectors
to the TRI Program. The newly added industry groups will provide significant information on TRI
chemicals and engage in activities directly related to the support of manufacturing activities already
covered under TRI. Announcing the industry expansion rule, Vice President Al Gore said that EPA
would initiate a comprehensive stakeholder process to gather information to improve the type of right-
to-know information available to communities and to help streamline right-to-know reporting to ease the
June 15,1999
1993-Ongoing
TDR 1
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
paperwork burden for businesses affected by the requirements. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the Small Business Administration (SBA) had already expressed concern on these issues and
the TRI Forms A and R used to report them. The Committee was reconvened in 1997 to assist EPA in
creating an explicit and workable chemical reporting process that ensured the adequate protection of
human health and the environment.
From 1993 through 1995, the Committee was charged with forming recommendations for definitions
and guidelines under the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990.
After the Toxic Release Inventory facility expansion rule was promulgated in April 1997, EPA sought to
make the TRI program more effective on its new broader scale by simultaneously reducing the cost of
the reporting and increasing the utility of toxic release information. The Committee was reconvened and
charged with developing recommendations related to EPA's proposed methods for improvement, which
include:
re-evaluation of current reporting forms;
re-evaluation of the information gathering practices used by businesses in completing the forms; and
re-evaluation of the methods of data presentation required to complete the forms.
C._ Membership, Dates of Acjjy^ _____________
The Toxic Data Reporting Committee included members from chemical, pharmaceutical, mining and
engineering, and automotive companies, labor unions, the military, academia, non-profit organizations,
and federal, state, and local governments.
D. Reports and Recommendations
An interim report on the Committee's progress was summarized in the December 15,1997, Enviro-
Newsbrief.
"The Toxic Data Reporting Committee advised the EPA that it should offer supplemental information
along with the data it makes available to the public each year from the Toxic Release
Inventory. The group ... called on EPA to give explanatory information, such as fact sheets or pamphlets,
along with TRI data to prevent public misinterpretation. The committee advised that EPA provide
caveats about the way the TRI uses the term 'release.' EPA does explain this in its
TRI Public Data Release document, but it is found in the fourth chapter of the lengthy publication and
could be made more prominent. Also, the committee was concerned with the press release dial is issued
announcing the TRI data release, saying that EPA should be 'highly responsible in its press package,' and
should avoid sensationalism."
2 TDK 1993-Ongoing June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
E. Resulting EPA Actions
In the December 15,1997, Enviro-Newsbrief, Maria J. Doa, chief of EPA's Toxic Release Inventory
Branch, responded that EPA could implement some of the committee's suggestions
before its next release of TRI data to die public. "We think we got some really useful ideas," said EPA's
Michelle Price, who manages the Toxic Data Reporting Committee process. Advice from die TDR
Committee has led to revisions to the form and reporting requirements associated with "Form A"of the
Toxic Release Inventory.
June 15,1999 1993-Ongoing TDR
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Total Maximum
Daily Load Committee
1996-1998
* Established to review the current Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program in order to
provide advice and consensus policy recommendations.
* Charged to develop advice on new policy and regulatory directions for the TMDL program
regarding its roles in watershed protection, the identification of impaired waters, the pace of
TMDL development, the science and tools needed to support the program, and the roles and
responsibilities of state, tribes, and EPA in implementing the program.
* Published one report:
"Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Program" (July 1998)
A. Why Established
During the past 15 years (and escalating recently), environmental public interest organizations have filed
numerous lawsuits under the Clean Water Act's citizen suit provision (505). These lawsuits allege that
EPA failed to carry out its mandatory duty to disapprove inadequate state 303(d)(l) lists and/or TMDLs,
or to carry out state program responsibilities where states failed to do so. In addition to the lawsuits filed
against EPA, the TMDL lists approved for all state in 1996 varied greatly in content and scope among
the state. The Total Maximum Daily Load Committee was established in November 1996 by the U.S.
EPA to provide advice on improving the effectiveness of state and EPA Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) under 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act. By establishing the TMDL Committee, the
Administrator gave both EPA and interested stakeholders the opportunity to review the current TMDL
program and provide advice and consensus policy recommendations to the Administrator and the
Assistant Administrator for Water.
B. Description of Charge
The Administrator charged the committee to provide EPA with a report containing recommendations
on changes and improvements to the TMDL program. EPA asked the committee to develop advice on
new policy and regulatory directions for the program regarding its roles in watershed protection, the
identification of impaired waters, the pace of TMDL development, the science and tools needed to
support the program, and the roles and responsibilities of state, tribes, and EPA in implementing the
program. In doing so, the Committee was charged to:
recommend ways to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and pace of state, tribal, and EPA TMDL
programs under 303(d) of the Clean Water Act;
identify barriers (i.e., in regulations, guidance, technical support, etc.) to success and recommend
ways to overcome them;
June 15,1999 1996-1998 TMDL 1
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
recommend the appropriate roles of state, federal agencies, tribes, and members of the Public to
achieve success; and
recommend criteria by which to measure die success of each recommendation implemented.
C. Membershjj^^^^
TMDL -was comprised of individuals with backgrounds, expertise, and perspectives on water quality
issues and knowledge of, or experience with, the Clean Water Act, TMDL issues, and/or watershed
approaches. The members include representatives from academia, community/ environmental advocacy
groups, agriculture, forestry, industry, and municipal, state, and tribal governments. Representatives of
the US Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service, the United State Forest
Service, and EPA's Office of Water served as ex officio members of die Committee and provided
information and perspectives on the issues.
The Committee met in six plenary sessions of two to three days each between November 1996 and May
1998. Meetings were held at various locations around the country in order to encourage public
participation reflecting diverse regional concerns about TMDL development and watershed
development. Meeting locations included: Herndon, VA; Galv'eston, TX; Milwaukee, WI; Pordand, OR;
Salt Lake City, UT; and Adanta, GA. All meetings were open to the public with public comment
sessions scheduled on the agenda.
In addition, the Committee established a TMDL Home Page on the Internet to maintain open and
substantive communication widi the public and committee members. The TMDL Home Page includes:
the final version of the Committee report;
the draft version of the Committee report;
issue papers developed by the Committee;
workgroup papers presented to the Committee;
the Committee's charge;
membership list;
meeting agendas and summaries; and
Federal Register notices.
In addition to the plenary sessions, the Committee established five standing workgroups which met by
teleconference on a regular basis between plenary sessions. The five workgroups were:
1. Listing: to address die process for identifying and tracking impaired waters;
2. Science and Tools: to identify priorities for strengthening the technical aspects of the TMDL
program;
3. Criteria for Approval: to address die requirements for an adequate TMDL;
4. Management and Oversight: to address roles and responsibilities of government agencies and
oversight of the program; and
5. Framework: to assure that the Committee's process would lead to a unified vision for the TMDL
program.
These workgroups and a variety of ad hoc subgroups developed issues' analyses and recommendations
for the full Committee and worked toward a consensus on specific issues primarily through telephone
conferences and exchange of draft documents. Members also worked together in small groups and
one-to-one outside formal Committee proceedings to explore issues and reach consensus.
The first four meetings focused on the Workgroup issues. At the fiftii meeting, the Committee focused
TMDL 1996-1998 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
on unresolved issues and began drafting the final report. Because of the limited time available, some
issues remained unaddressed, but a final Report was completed and approved by Committee members
on May 20,1998 and submitted to the EPA Administrator on July 28,1998.
D. Recommendations and Rgpgrts__ ____ __
The Committee presented the following report:
"Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program,"
July 28, 1998
The final report provided recommendations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of state, tribal,
and EPA programs under 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The Committee's specific recommendations
addressed the following issues in the TMDL program:
identifying impaired waters;
scheduling/priority ranking/targeting;
TMDL development;
impairments due to extremely difficult problems, atmospheric deposition, and flow modification;
public participation and stakeholder involvement;
EPA role in TMDL review and program oversight;
the role of tribes; and
coordination, technical support, and capacity-building.
For each issue, the Committee addressed numerous sub-issues. A problem statement, a summary of the
discussions, and the actual recommendations for each sub-issue were documented.
June 15,1999
1996-1998
TMDL
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chtonology
"Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program" (July 28,1998)
Identifying Impaired Waters
Data Requirements for 303(d)(l) Listing
1. The Committee recommends that EPA require and assure needed improvements in state efforts to
monitor waters to characterize the general health of aquatic systems and determine nonattainment of
any component of water quality standards, including narrative criteria and designated uses.
2. The Committee recommends that EPA encourage states to collaborate with water utilities, other
agencies, and other stakeholders to identify impaired drinking water supplies and other types of
nonattainment.
3. The Committee recommends that EPA issue guidance, providing that States base listing decisions to
the maximum extent possible on monitored and evaluated data and information gathered in
accordance with appropriate QA/QC programs and data collection and analysis protocols.
4. The Committee recommends that EPA revise Section 106 guidance, as appropriate, to reflect state
monitoring program changes needed to support 303(d)(l) listing needs.
5. The Committee recommends that EPA strongly encourage states to identify (on a separate non-
303 (d)(l) list) waters for which some data impairment (although the data are not conclusive), and to
give these waters priority for monitoring attention.
List Comprehensiveness
1. The Committee recommends that each state 303(d)(l) list identify waters not attaining water quality
standards (including narrative and numeric criteria and beneficial use designations).
2. The Committee recommends that EPA issue guidance and regulations that explain how states are to
apply narrative criteria in 303(d)(l).
3. The Committee recommends that the possibility of future standards revisions not delay TMDL
development. EPA should encourage states to conduct their review of water quality standards in a
timely manner, and in accordance with established water quality review standards.
4. The Committee recommends that EPA, in conjunction with states and tribes, develop a strategy for
addressing drinking water contaminants, especially pathogenic organism in source water, in water
quality standards, 303(d)(l) listing decision, and TMDLs.
Threatened Waters
1. The Committee recommends that EPA adopt by regulation the following definition of threatened
waters if the agency continues to require 303(d)(l) listing of these waters: "Threatened waters are
those waters that are likely to exceed water quality standards within the next two years (i.e., within
the next 303(d)(l) listing cycle). This determination should be based on data that show a statistically
significant declining trend or on agency knowledge of specific pending changes (e.g., requests for
new permits) that would adversely impact water quality."
2. The Committee recommends that EPA and state water quality programs work to protect waters in
attainment with standards from further degradation and provide incentives/disincentives to keep
waters from moving to nonattainable status. ___^___
TMDL 1996-1998 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
3. The Committee believes it would be desirable for states/tribes to deal with threatened waters in a
consistent manner.
4. The Committee recommends that threatened waters be addressed at a geographic scale that allows
the state to identify and address broadly the causes of and potential solutions to the pending water
quality nonattainment problem.
5. The Committee recommends that EPA strengthen its implementation of federal antidegradation
requirements and require full implementation of state antidegradation policies.
6. The Committee recommends that threatened waters be put on a discrete list for focused attention,
with the goal of keeping them from becoming impaired.
7. The Committee recommends that a watershed-based loadings analysis be performed for threatened
' waters as soon as possible, consistent with the state's TMDL priority list, but at a minimum before
the state issues new or modified permits that allow increased discharges to a threatened water or
allow other actions (that would contribute to increased pollution to a threatened water over which
the state has approval authority).
Source Constraints and Actions During Period Between Listing and TMDL Development
1. The Committee recommends that states fully implement and EPA enforce the current statutory and
regulatory restrictions on new or expanded discharges that will cause or contribute to a water quality
standards violation.
2. The Committee recommends that EPA issue regulations directing states to develop watershed
characterization and stabilization plans for all 303(d)(l)-listed waters.
3. The Committee recommends that the "watershed characterization" include, at a minimum, the
following information: the condition and/or perceived impairment of the watershed, significant
point and nonpoint sources contributing to the impairment, and a listing of remaining data gaps and
data sources needed for TMDL development.
4. The Committee recommends that the mandatory "stabilization plan" identify and implement
applicable/state/federal authorities that will prevent further water quality degradation.
5. The Committee recommends that EPA issue regulations also authorizing an additional optional
stabilization plan to encourage states to work with interested stakeholders to prevent worsening
water quality and possibly begin to move toward standards attainment.
6. The Committee recommends that unless a water meets water quality standards as a result of a
stabilization effort or is delisted in accordance with the recommendations in this report, it will
remain on the schedule for TMDL development.
Delisting
1. The Committee recommends that EPA revise its 303(d)(l) regulations to provide that states may
remove waters from the 303(d)(l) list only when:
the listed water has attained water quality standards; or
new information indicates that "the original basis for listing in determined to be inaccurate" (in
other words, the new information indicates that the listed water meets applicable water quality
standards).
2. The Committee recommends that states develop a procedure for submitting listing/delisting
petitions to EPA between listing cycles. The same basic criteria must be used for listing/delisting
waters.
June 15,1999
1996-1998
TMDL
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Scheduling/Priority 'Ranking/Targeting
Overall Timeframe for TMDL Development
1. The Committee recommends that EPA, by regulation, direct states to set expeditious timeframes, of
not more than 8-15 years, for states to complete their TMDL development.
2. The Committee recommends that absent one of the showings required in recommendation 3 below,
EPA disapprove any TMDL for a high priority water that is not submitted to EPA for approval
within the deadlines in recommendation 1 above.
3. The Committee recommends that a state may obtain a one-time extension for submitting a TMDL
for a high priority water to EPA for approval only if the state submits, and EPA approves, a written
request demonstrating that the state has made all best efforts to meet the deadline and that the
extension is as short as possible and:
the TMDL will be completed and submitted to EPA for approval no later than six months after
the end of the five-year timeline or will be distributed for review and public comment within two
months and will be submitted to EPA for approval within six months after the end of the public
comment period; or
new information reveals that the technical assumptions upon which the state was relying to
develop the TMDL proved to be incorrect, and that the deadline extension is necessary to rectify
the technical problems preventing timely completion of the TMDL; or
(a) the waterbody has unique physical or chemical characteristics and a broad spectrum of load
contributions from non-NPDES sources, which prevent timely completion of the TMDL; (b) the
state has prepared an initial characterization of the waterbody and has developed a workplan with
express timelines for development of the TMDL; and (c) at the time of the demonstration to
EPA, the state has met each of the timelines in the TMDL workplan.
The Committee recommends that EPA not approve extensions that exceed one year unless the state
further demonstrates that despite all best efforts it is not feasible to complete the TMDL within one
year.
4. The Committee recommends that overall TMDL development timeframes be established after the
state's 303(d)(l) list is approved by EPA and also be incorporated in the state's Performance
Partnership Agreement and/or to the appropriate workplanning agreements with EPA.
5. The Committee recommends that EPA approve 303(d)(l) lists only if the states schedule is as
expeditious as possible and its workload is generally distributed proportionally over the TMDL
development schedule.
6. The Committee recommends that a state be allowed to consider the following factors in determining
overall (8-15 year) timeframes: number of waters on the 303(d)(l) and complexity of TMDLs.
7. The Committee recommends that, secondarily, a state be allowed to consider the following factors
in determining overall timeframes for TMDL development: resources available to develop TMDLs;
availability of suitable data or models; and interest in/need for extensive public participation.
8. The Committee recommends that states provide opportunities for public review and comment on
proposed overall timeframes.
Priority Ranking, Targeting and Scheduling
1. The Committee recommends that EPA issue regulations requiring states to prepare schedules to
develop TMDLs for all waters listed pursuant to 303(d)(l).
2. The Committee recommends that EPA issue guidance for states on how to conduct priority ranking
and scheduling, using two step process. '
TMDL 1996-1998 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology * 1988-1998
3. The Committee recommends that EPA requke states to document thek priority ranking and
scheduling process and decisions. EPA should review tiiis documentation as part of its review of a
states 303(d)(l) list and priority ranking submittal.
4. The Committee recommends that EPA issue guidance instruction states to make information about
their priority ranking and scheduling decisions available for public review and comment during the
listing process and before such information is submitted to EPA.
TMDL Development
Modeling Issues/Data Needs/Uncertainty
1. The Committee recommends that EPA determine what changes in the type and extent of state and
national monitoring activity are most needed to support TMDL development.
2. The Committee recommends that EPA and states undertake efforts, including issuance of EPA
guidance on state monitoring program adequacy, to ensure that the type and quality of data
collection by state/federal agencies, local governments, stakeholders, and citizens conforms to water
quality standards and TMDL developments.
3. The Committee recommends that EPA investment in better modeling capabilities for TMDL
development to be one of its highest TMDL program priorities.
4. The Committee recommends that EPA particularly support the development and/or appropriate
application of models to assist in TMDL development for waters where wet weather flow
conditions are likely to influence the cause and nature of impairments, as well as he potential
solutions to the impairment.
5. The Committee recommends that, consistent with current EPA practice, states shall consider and
use as appropriate all existing and readily available reliable data and information.
6. The Committee recommends that EPA evaluation and develop simpler reliable analytical techniques
that require fewer data to help initiate TMDL development.
7. The Committee recommends that EPA and states help meet the need for data to develop TMDLs
by encouraging or initiating early efforts to gather and compile data, prior to scheduled TMDL
development; clarifying the type, amount, and format of data for models likely to be used in
developing the TMDL; developing work plans cooperatively to ensure that adequate data and
information are gathered; using relevant data collected by other agencies; and entering into
agreements with other data-gathering agencies and other entities so that data and information useful
in TMDL development can be acquired in a timely manner.
Geographic Scope
1. The Committee recommends that EPA include in its revised regulations basic principles defining the
appropriate size of TMDLs under various ckcumstances.
Criteria for Approval
1. The Committee recommends that EPA issue regulations and guidance requiring that, to be
approvable, each TMDL submittal must include the following interrelated components:
a. target identification
b. identification of current deviation from the target
c. source identification
June 15,1999
1996-1998
TMDL
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
d. allocation of pollution loads
e. implementation plan
f. process for follow-up monitoring and assessment of effectiveness
g. process for TMDL revision
2. The Committee recommends that the highest level of quantitative rigor currently available always
be applied to components a-d.
3. The Committee recommends that EPA apply a principle on "inverse proportionality" in
. determining the degree of rigor or specificity needed in various TMDL components.
4. The Committee recommends that when data or scientific information alone are insufficient to
determine a course of action, EPA and the states use "best professional judgement" in developing
TMDLs.
5. The Committee recommends that EPA and states provide clear information to the public about
the use of "best professional judgement" in TMDL development early on in the process, to
promote more stakeholder acceptance and commitment.
6. The Committee recommends that in some instances, EPA and the states use surrogate TMDL
development.
7. The Committee recommends that EPA support the concept that, in some instances the quantified
allocation of pollution may be expressed using units of measure other than daily loads.
8. The Committee recommends that the statutorily-prescribed "margin of safety" (MOS) be included
in the TMDL allocation.
9. The Committee recommends that EPA develop guidance and tools to ensure the hierarchy
approach to be easily applied in actual TMDL development and approval decisions.
10. The Committee recommends that EPA support pilot projects that illustrate model approaches to
TMDL development/implementation planning and disseminate information generated from these
projects to states.
The Allocation Process
1. The Committee recommends that EPA convey the following principles to assist states in making
allocation decisions.
To be approvable, a TMDL's allocation scheme must be designed to achieve water quality
standards.
EPA should encourage states, within a watershed framework, to determine an equitable allocation
of pollution control responsibilities, as long as it is clear that the allocation will achieve water
quality standards.
Although an allocation for future growth is not required, states should always consider including
future growth in allocations, and document their decisions.
States may consider innovative approaches when making allocation decisions if: (1) the TMDL
implementation plan provides reasonable assurances that allocations will be achieved and water
quality standards met when using the approach; (2) all legal requirements associated with the
allocation process are met; and (3) the TMDL implementation plan contains detailed, specific
provisions for follow-up evaluation of the innovative approach, and potential revision or
elimination of the innovative approach in favor of a more traditional approach based on that
review.
2. The Committee recommends that EPA distribute "information guidance" on allocation methods
that have been successfully used, to assist states and stakeholder groups devise and appropriate and
effective allocation scheme for specific circumstances.
TMDL 1996-1998 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
The Implementation Plan
1. The Committee recommends that EPA issue regulations requiring that an implementation plan and
schedule be prepared and submitted to EPA with each TMDL.
2. The Committee recommends that EPA issue regulations requiring that each TMDL implementation
contain all nine components below.
a. description of actions that will be implemented to achieve the TMDL;
b. a schedule for implementing specific activities;
c. the legal authorities under which the control actions will be carried out;
d. reasonable assurances;
e. an estimate of the time required to attain applicable water quality standards and a demonstration
that the standards will be met as expeditiously as practicable;
f. a monitoring plan designed to determine the effectiveness of the action implementation and
whether allocations were met;
g. measurable milestones for determining whether the implementation plan is being properly
executed, and for determining whether applicable water quality standards are being achieved;
h. the ramifications of failing to meet these milestones; and
i. a schedule for the revision (and submitting for EPA approval) of the state's CPP and applicable
(preferably sub-basin) Water Quality Management Plans to include the TMDL, and the proposed
Water Quality Plan Revisions.
Nonpoint Source Approaches
1. The Committee recommends that load allocations for nonpoint sources be established and
implemented according to the principles in this report on TMDL development.
2. The Committee recommends that, as described in this report, if the initial combination of controls
established in the TMDL implementation plan produce less water quality improvement that
expected, states modify the TMDL and/or its implementation plan to assure that the goals will be
met.
3. The Committee recommends that, in reviewing and approving TMDLs, EPA assure that the
combination of load/wasteload allocations are designed to result in water quality standards
attainment and disapprove any TMDL that is not expected to provide for attainment.
Tracking and Assessing TMDL Effectiveness; the Importance of an Iterative or Adaptive Approach
1. The Committee recommends that each TMDL contain provisions for follow-up monitoring,
evaluation, and potential revision, to allow for an iterate approach in case of uncertainty of lack of
success in achieving standards.
2. The Committee recommends that the type and extent of monitoring, evaluation, and revision
required be appropriate for die particular TMDL and watershed.
3. The Committee recommends that in addition to issuing regulations requiring and implementation
plan, EPA issue guidance on acceptable follow-up monitoring and evaluation provisions, reflecting
that each TMDL's implementation plan should describe the consequences of follow-up monitoring,
as well as the consequences of failing to undertake the follow-up activities.
June 15,1999
1996-1998
TMDL
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Impairments Due to Extremely Difficult Problems, Atmospheric Deposition, and Flow Modification
Extremely Difficult Problems
1. The Committee recommends that EPA require states to include waters impaired wholly or partially
by both categories of special challenge sources in their 303(d)(l) lists.
2. The Committee recommends that states/tribes/EPA proceed on the assumption that a feasible
TMDL can be developed for impairments involving special challenge sources.
3. The Committee recommends that, where necessary, a TMDL implementation plan involving special
challenge sources allow a relatively longer timeframe for water quality standards attainment.
4. The Committee recommends that reasonable reductions be required of existing sources in light of
the relative contribution of special challenge sources.
5. The Committee recommends that, in general, EPA require that TMDLs addressing special challenge
sources contain a high degree of specificity in their implementation plans and detailed provisions for
follow-up monitoring, since source identification and allocation for TMDLs involving these
problems may require creative solutions and a relatively longer time period for implementation.
6. The Committee recommends that as a last resort, if no strategy can be found to address the special
challenge source, states may conduct a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) in which they would be
required to justify a change in designated uses.
7. The Committee recommends that the first category of special challenge sources be given a
background allocation.
Modifications to Flow
1. The Committee recommend that EPA require states to include waters impaired wholly or partially
by modifications to instream flows on their 303(d)(l) lists.
2. In situations where modification to instream flow cause or contribute to water quality standards
violations, the Committee recognizes that because of legal, institutional, and political difficulties, in
some cases, more time for creative solutions or funding of those solutions may be needed for
TMDL development and implementation. The Committee recommends that states and EPA
consider these circumstances during die TMDL process.
3. The Committee recommends that states identify strategies to be included in TMDL implementation
plans to deal with impairments caused wholly or partly by modifications to flow.
4. The Committee recommends that federal agencies recognize their responsibility to work within
existing legal structures to address flow modification issues which fall under their jurisdiction as part
of TMDLs. EPA should assist and encourage other federal agencies to meet these responsibilities. *
5. The Committee recommends that EPA provide technical assistance, information, and data searches,
and model water use efficiency/conservation information to states, and encourage the application of
innovative approaches to addressing flow-related problems, such as water "trading" schemes that
allow the improvement of flow.
Public Participation and Stakeholder Involvement
Public Participation in 303(d)(l) listing and TMDL Development Activities
1. The Committee recommends diat states actively solicit public comment on all proposed 303(d)(l)
lists and TMDLs.
10 TMDL 1996-1998 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
2. The Committee recommends that EPA encourage states to put in place a two-step listing process to
ensure that early and informed public comment occurs on 303(d)(l) lists.
3. The Committee recommends that states consider listing waters nominated by the public and other
agencies under 303(d)(l), and must list them if supporting data indicate an impairment and meet
specified listing criteria and are reliable.
4. The Committee recommends that EPA encourage states to hold periodic information public
meetings to explain the TMDL process, and to solicit input from the public on the development and
implementation of specific TMDLs, in cases where such meetings are likely to be useful in
promoting water quality goals.
5. The Committee recommends that EPA encourage states (in guidance) to make the following
303(d)(l) list information available to the public, to provide regular updates to keep the public
informed, and to link 303(d)(l) lists to mapping programs: waterbody segment name and number;
waterbody's geographic location; standards violated; reference to data and reports used to support
listing decision; information on the severity of impairments and/or criteria exceedances; rationale
for decision to list or not to list; and priority ranking and scheduling for TMDL development.
6. The Committee recommends that states and EPA encourage and support high quality private
citizen/entity water quality monitoring and clearly communicate how and when such information
can be incorporated into TMDL development activities.
7. The Committee recommends that EPA, states, and tribes consider expanding existing efforts to
develop and distribute educational materials on water quality, including modules for school
curricula, pertaining to water quality issues as a way of stimulating public knowledge of and interest
in watershed protection and TMDL program activities.
8. The Committee recommends that EPA encourage relatively more public outreach in TMDLs where
"best professional judgement" will be more heavily relied upon.
Stakeholder Involvement in TMDL Development
1. The Committee recommends that states and EPA encourage and support a substantial role for
stakeholders in TMDL development, particularly in funding and participation in appropriate data
collection and analysis and in TMDL implementation.
2. The Committee recommends that states (or EPA) enter into a written agreement with stakeholders
when allowing stakeholders to carry out any TMDL activities.
3. The Committee recommends that states help assure objectivity in TMDL activities conducted by
stakeholders, by requiring in the written agreement that stakeholders profile information to assist in
documenting assumption, and that stakeholders consult early and often with the state and other
stakeholders on planned and ongoing activities.
4. The Committee recommends that states and EPA, as appropriate, make it clear that they are legally
responsible for interpreting water quality standards, setting targets, establishing the waterbody's total
load, allocating loadings, and assuring implementation of all appropriate requirements.
5. The Committee recommends that EPA and states make it clear that the legally responsible agency
may not delegate its role of assuring adequate public participation processes, meeting all legal
procedural requirements, and providing all interested stakeholders an opportunity to become
involved.
June 15,1999
1996-1998
TMDL
11
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
EPA's Ro/e in TMDL Review and Program Oversight
EPA Oversight/Management of the TMDL Listing and Development Process
1. The Committee recommends that EPA provides assistance to states early on and throughout the
process on 303(d)(l) list and TMDL development to ensure that state submissions will be
approvable by EPA.
2. The Committee recommends that EPA offer early and periodic review.
3. The Committee recommends that EPA's oversight and review of state TMDLs be marked by
specific milestones and progress checkpoints.
4. The Committee recommends that the degree of EPA oversight of/involvement in TMDL
development activities vary according to the degree of controversy and technical complexity; the
extent to which the TMDL is considered innovative or ground-breaking; whether the TMDL
involves multiple jurisdictions; the quality of state performance or extent of state program
experience; and the degree and balance of stakeholder involvement.
5. The Committee recommends that EPA define, in regulations and guidance, specific procedures and
criteria for preparation of TMDL, based on the approved criteria described in this report.
6. The Committee recommends that EPA incorporate into guidance a TMDL checklist that describes
the recommenced features of an approvable TMDL submission.
7. The Committee recommends that components of an existing program, or modification of such
components, may be approved as or incorporated into a TMDL if the states shows, and EPA finds,
that the state submittal meets all substantive approval requirements of a TMDL.
Assessing State Program Effectiveness: EPA's Role in Overall Program Development
1. The Committee recommends that the extent of EPA oversight of, and assistance to, overall state
TMDL programs be based on the degree of complexity and volume of state TMDL activity and past
state TMDL program performance is always necessary.
2. The Committee recommends that when assessing the overall effectiveness of a state TMDL
program, EPA consider the sufficiency of decisions, timeliness, and sufficiency of process.
3. The Committee recommends that state TMDL development of schedules be incorporated in the
state's Performance Partnership Agreement with EPA.
4. The Committee recommends that EPA use a combination of incentives and disincentives to ensure
strong state performance in the TMDL program, such as grants and published EPA reports about
program progress and results.
The Role of Tribes
1. The Committee recommends that tribes not be treated simply as members of the public who are
interested in watershed management or protecting specific waters. EPA should consider using the
mode Memorandum of Understanding project in Washington State involving tribes, EPA Region
10-, and Washington Department of Ecology as a national model for building tribal-EPA-state
partnerships.
2. The Committee recommends that EPA increase efforts to help educate tribes about die substance
and importance of the TMDL program.
3. The Committee recommends that EPA increase the financial resources it makes available to tribes
to build tribal TMDL program capacity.
4. The Committee recommends that EPA headquarters work with state and EPA Regional staff to
12
TMDL
1996-1998
June 15, 1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
ensure that the government-to-government relationship is respected during 303(d)(l) list and
TMDL development and review.
Coordination, Technical Support, and Capacity-Building
Coordinating Federal Activities for Waters not Meeting Water Quality Standards
1. The Committee recommends that EPA require states to include waters that do not meet water
quality standards that flow through or are located on federal lands in their 303(d)(l) list submittals.
2. The Committee recommends that federal land management agencies be required to monitor waters
on their land for compliance with water quality standards and/or TMDL requirements and to
regularly provide such information to EPA and/or the appropriate state environmental agency.
3. The Committee recommends that in the time between 303(d)(l) listing and TMDL development,
federal agencies use available authorities to minimize or prohibit, as appropriate, new or increased
pollution loading that will cause or contribute to water quality standards violation from point and
nonpoint sources pending the TMDLs completion.
4. The Committee recommends that EPA and states ensure that TMDL requirements are incorporated
in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for federal facilitation, that
those requirements are fully implemented, and that other Clean Water Act programs affecting
federal facilities or activities also are carried out to assure that TMDLs are effectively implemented.
5. The Committee recommends that states, EPA, and federal agencies all participate in TMDL
development on federal lands.
6. The Committee recommends that federal land managers be required to assure that allocations over
which they have oversight and authority are met.
7. The Committee recommends that permitted users of federal lands and other stakeholders be
included early on in discussions pertaining to allocation decisions.
8. The Committee recommends that EPA use its influence, to the maximum extent of its authority, to
ensure that states, federal land management agencies, and permitted user of these lands, comply with
the law and use all existing state and federal authorities to fully implement and meet the provision of
approved TMDLs.
Coordination with Other Federal Agencies
1. The Committee recommends that all federal agencies use all available authorities and take all
necessary actions to carry out the requirement to ensure that activities they conduct, authorize,
permit, or fund meet Clean Water requirements and state water quality goals. <
2. The Committee recommends that, where appropriate, federal agencies coordinate their monitoring
programs and develop consistent protocols to avoid duplication of effort and improve their ability
to obtain and transfer common information.
3. The Committee recommends that in completing and implementing TMDLs, EPA and other federal
agencies ensure that the requirement of the Endangered Species Act, the Mangnuson-Stevens
Fisheries Management and Conservation Act, and other applicable statutes are met.
4. The committee recommends that to promote federal consistency, EPA circulate all approved
303(d)(l) lists and relevant TMDLs to federal agencies.
5. The Committee recommends that EPA encourage other federal agencies to give priority to funding
projects, where appropriate, to identify and restore impaired waters listed under 303(d)(l).
June 15,1999
1996-1998
TMDL
13
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
6. The Committee recommends that EPA explore opportunities to include or build upon Habitat
Conservation Plans and Forest Management Plans in 303(d)(l) listing and TMDL development and
implementation planning activities.
Jurisdictional Coordination for Shared Pollution Problems
1. The Committee recommends that state environmental management agencies continue to coordinate
TMDL development and evaluation activities for shared pollution problems.
2. The Committee recommends that EPA synchronize TMDL scheduling, development, and/or
implementation activities for waters shared by multiple jurisdictions where this will not result in
unreasonable delays and will promote coordinated, effective solution.
3. The Committee recommends that EPA disapprove TMDLs that will cause or contribute to
violations of downstream water quality standards.
Coordination Challenges and Opportunities within EPA
1. The Committee recommends that EPA recommend states coordinate data collection activities for
the Sections 303 (d), 305 (b), and 319 programs to eliminate redundancies.
2. The Committee recommends that EPA provide guidance to NPDES permit writers on how to use
information in 303(d)(l) lists and TMDLs during review of individual permits and add location of a
source on a 303(d)(l)-listed water as a factor to consider in determining when EPA reviews state-
issued NPDES permits.
3. The Committee recommends that EPA increase its efforts to review and apply, as appropriate,
Clean Air Act authorities to address water quality impairments causes by air deposition of pollution.
4. The Committee recommends that EPA Offices of Water and Air accelerate joint efforts to
understand sources, transport and fate of airborne pollution to waters.
5. The Committee recommends that EPA use its 319 Nonpoint Source Management program
oversight authority to assure that state give funding priority to nonpoint sources causing or
contribution to impairments of 303(d)(l)-listed waters to meet TMDL implementation plan
provisions.
6. The Committee recommends that EPA remove registration on the use of 319 funds so that states
will have the flexibility to decide what percentage of these funds can be used to develop TMDLs for
waters which are significantly impaired by nonpoint sources.
7. The Committee recommends that EPA ensure that waters not attaining standards are given high
priority in relevant programs under the Clean Air Act, RCRA, CERCLA, FIFRA, and other statutes
it implements.
8. The Committee recommends that TMDL program staff in the regional EPA offices cooperate with
each other to promote consistent and equitable TMDL policies nationwide.
Technical Guidance and Assistance Needs
1. The Committee recommends that EPA continue to increase its efforts to provide comprehensive
guidance in a clear and usable format for states, EPA staff, and stakeholders to use in all TMDL
program efforts.
2. The Committee recommends that EPA's highest priorities for science and tool development include
improving monitoring and modeling capabilities, and providing related technical assistance/training.
14 TMDL 1996-1998 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
3. The Committee recommends that EPA and states/tribes support and increase current monitoring
and data gathering efforts to the fullest extent possible, because data availability is critically
important for a strong TMDL program.
4. The Committee recommends that EPA continue to support ongoing efforts to promote data
coordination among agencies and institutions, and to standardize monitoring data.
5. The Committee recommends that EPA develop guidance on TMDL development and data needs
for critical conditions associated with high flow/wet weather.
6. The Committee recommends that EPA make targeted technical assistance a high priority and, in the
spirit of partnership, work with states to provide such technical assistance when and when it is most
useful.
7. The Committee recommends that EPA explore new training techniques, such as checklists and
satellite training, to achieve technical assistance objection cost-effectively and to provide consistent
communication to and among EPA regions, states, and tribes.
EPA, State, and Tribal Capacity
1. The Committee recommends that EPA lead a national dialogue involving high level policymakers in
state and federal government, as well as local governmental and other stakeholder groups, to
promote political and fiscal commitment to attaining water quality standards and restoring impaired
waters.
2. The Committee recommends that EPA seek authorization for or reprogram increased staff and
dollars into the TMDL program at headquarters and in the regions to carry out the
recommendations in this report so that impaired waters are restored in the shortest possible time.
3. The Committee recommends that EPA and states be encouraged to review existing water quality
program guidance and requirements to identify lower priority activities that could be assigned
reduced emphasis in order to increase emphasis on TMDL efforts.
4. The Committee recommends that, in the short term, EPA seek authorization for or reprogram
increased staff and dollars to increase assistance to states for TMDL development, to perform
TMDL review and approval activities in a timely manner, and to carry out its responsibility to take
TMDL program actions where state actions are inadequate.
5. The Committee recommends that EPA seek authorization for reprogram resources into monitoring,
standards and other implementation activities as necessary to ensure that: impaired waters are more
accurately identified; TMDL development is more solidly based on quantified data and scientifically
sound analysis and standards; and implementation of the program, including full protection of
beneficial uses, is assured.
6. The Committee recommends that EPA, in cooperation with state water quality official, work with
other federal agencies to assure that they have provided for TMDL-rekted activities in their budgets
and work plan and to encourage those agencies to provide assistance to states for TMDL-related
efforts.
7. The Committee recommends that EPA foster and encourage states to seek additional funds and
staff to carry out their TMDL programs.
8. The Committee recommends that EPA increase its efforts to strengthen tribal capacity to carry out
and participate effectively in the TMDL program in accordance with this report.
9. The Committee recommends that EPA and states encourage stakeholders to participate fully in the
TMDL program and to fund watershed planning and protection activities wherever possible.
June 15, 1999
1996-1998
TMDL 15
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
D. Recommendations and Reports
EPA now recommends that states publish their methodology for TMDL listings and establish related
data quality assurance measures.
16 TMDL 1996-1998 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Tolerance
Reassessment
Advisory Committee
1998
Established to ensure the smooth implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
by determining an approach for reassessing pesticide tolerance guidelines.
Charged to provide advice and counsel to the EPA Administrator on a strategic approach for
the reassessment of organophosphate pesticide tolerance regulations.
Published several reports of its findings:
Framework for Addressing Key Science Issues Presented by the Food Quality
Protection Act (FQPA)'as Developed Through the Tolerance Reassessment
Advisory Committee (TRAC) October 1998.
Framework for Refining FQPA Science Policy October, 1998
Schedule for Release of Guidance on Science Policy Issues October, 1998
A. Why Established
As the Agency responsible for protection of the environment, EPA is charged to set and enforce
agricultural pesticide usage regulations. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also has an interest
in this issue as it is the Agency responsible for the regulation of pesticide use on food crops. Following
the passage of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) in 1996, which has an impact on both Agencies'
areas of responsibility, Vice President Gore requested that EPA and USDA work together to determine
an approach for reassessing pesticide tolerance guidelines that would ensure the smooth implementation
of the FQPA. As a result, the EPA-USDA Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee (TRAC) was
established under the auspices of NACEPT on April 30,1998.
JB.JDescription of Charge
The Tolerance Reassessment Advisory Committee was charged to provide advice and counsel to the
EPA Administrator on the development of a strategic approach for the reassessment of
organophosphate pesticide tolerance regulations. TRAC's objectives included:
« developing recommendations for the proper policy frameworks for determining scientific
information needs;
identifying ways to streamline the approval process for new pesticides meeting FQPA safety
standards;
developing common sense strategies for reducing risk to acceptable levels while retaining high-value
pesticides;
assuring that appropriate priority is given to assessing the organophosphates that are most likely to
lead to exposure in food which children eat;
June 15,1999 1998 TRAC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
fostering communication and understanding among stakeholders of the tolerance reassessment
decisions; and
assuring appropriate public participation in the Agency's decision-making.
ig.jyjembership, Pates of Activity, and Modes
TRAC was composed of experts including farmers, environmentalists, public health officials, pediatric
experts, officials from pesticide companies, food processors and distributors, representatives of public
interest groups, academicians, and representatives of tribal, state, and local governments. The TRAC was
co-chaired by EPA Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen and USDA Deputy Secretary Richard Rominger.
TRAC held five public meetings between Spring and Fall 1998. Workgroups were established to address
risk assessment and risk management issues in more depth. The findings of these workgroups, as well as
issue papers developed by EPA and USDA employees, were presented at Committee meetings for
discussion.
TRAC identified nine science policy issues that it believed to be essential to tolerance reassessment and
to the implementation of FQPA. The structure calls for EPA to provide at least one document for
public comment on each of the nine issues over the next couple of months.
Science Policy Area
Applying the FQPA
10-Fold Factor
Guidance to Be Issued
The intra-agency workgroup is drafting guidance
that will be completed and available for comment in
February 1999.
A working level "Standard Operating Procedure"
has been drafted and will be issued for public
comment in February 1999
Timing for
Revised Product
July 1999
July 1999
TRAC
1998
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Science Policy Area
Guidance to Be Issued
Timing for
Revised Product
Dietary Exposure
Assessment- Whether
and How to Use
"Monte-Carlo"
Analyses
A draft document entitled "Guidance for
Submission of Probabilistic Exposure Assessments
to the Office of Pesticides Programs' Health Effects
Division" will be issued in October 1998.
This document is intended to be used chiefly by
persons conducting probabilistic human health
exposure assessments for purposes of registration or
reregistration of pesticides.
March 1999
A draft policy paper exploring probabilistic
techniques and the 99.9th percentile will be issued in
December 1998.
This paper will provide the rationale for selection of
the regulatory percentile.
May 1999
A paper is being drafted on using composite residue
data (e.g., monitoring data) to estimate exposure that
would occur from single serving food items. A draft
will be issued in April 1999.
This piece is intended to help address a technical
statistical issue.
September 1999
June 15,1999
1998
TRAC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Science Policy Area
Guidance to Be Issued
Timing for Revised
Product
Exposure
Assessment-
Interpreting "No
Residues Detected"
A paper entitled "Threshold of Regulation" will be
issued in November 1998.
This paper will delineate when a non-detectable
residue is truly insignificant; it will allow the Agency
to focus its resources on evaluating exposures to
pesticides at levels below the LOD for which there
is potential risk of concern.
April 1999
A paper that will
describe the rationale
surrounding the use of
1/2 LOD. A draft will be
issued in November
1998.
A paper that will
describe the use of
statistical methods that
can be used in situations
where some of the
residues are non-
detectable. A draft will
be issued in November
1998.
Both papers will more
closely examine the
treatment of non-
detectable residues. This
will allow the Agency to
better estimate dietary
exposure.
Most likely, these will be
combined into a single
paper during the
Agency's comment
response period.
April 1999
4 TRAC
1998
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology*1988-1998
Science Policy Area
Guidance to Be Issued
Timing for Revised
Product
Dietary (Food)
Exposure Estimates
A brief description of the NPRD and an
'umbrella' paper that will describe how opp
assesses acute and chronic exposure to pesticides
in food and more importandy, where in the
existing guidance one can find methods for doing
such exposure assessments. Also the umbrella
paper will provide guidance on the residue data
needed to go with the usage information. The
NPRD description and a draft of the paper will
be made available in December 1998.
Both of these items are intended to provide the
regulated and environmental communities with
clarifying information on how the Agency
assesses pesticide exposure from food.
April 1999
EPA will complete matrices describing
organophosphate use and usage on individual
crops. These matrices present real-world
information on pesticide usage and the pests
which drive the usage, and are developed widi
support from the USDA and the grower
community.
December 1998
Recently gathered USDA food consumption
information and the general U.S. population is
being "translated" into a form EPA can use for
dietary risk assessment. A peer review draft will
be ready in April 1999.
USDA is collecting supplementary food
consumption data for children which EPA will
translate.
June 1999 for the
general U.S. population
data and December
1999 for the child data.
June 15,1999
1998
TRAC 5
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Science Policy Area
Guidance to Be Issued
Timing for Revised
Product
Dietary (Drinking
Water) Exposure
Estimates
A draft policy on using the "reservoir scenario"
instead of the "small field pond" scenario; and a
change in the drinking water level of concern"
terminology. This will be issued in December
1998.
May 1999
A revised policy on an approach to factoring the
percentage of land surrounding a reservoir that is
"cropped" into the screening level assessments.
This will be issued in May 1999.
October 1999
Procedural guidance for Agency scientists who
assess drinking water exposure. The first iteration
of this will be released in June 1999 and the
second in December 1999.
1st iteration: November
1999
2nd iteration: May 2000
Assessing Residential
Exposure
Residential Standard Operating Procedures,
which provide standard methods for developing
residential exposure assessments when data are
limited. A draft document will be issued in
December 1998.
A "plain English" paper on how the Agency
assesses residential exposure. The purpose of this
document is to provide the regulated and
environmental communities with a description of
how the Agency assesses exposure to pesticides
found in residential and public areas. A draft will
be issued in Dec
May 1999
May 1999
TRAC
1998
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Science Policy Area
Aggregating Exposures
from all Non-
Occupational Sources
Guidance to Be Issued
A draft aggregate exposure guidance document
will be issued in April 1999.
A Standard Operating Procedure for Agency
scientists who assess aggregate exposure will be
issued in April 1999.
Timing for Revised
Product
September 1999
September 1999
How to Conduct a
Cumulative Risk
Assessment for
Organophosphate
Insecticides or Other
Pesticides with a
Common Mechanism
of Toxicity
A document entitled "Guidance for Identifying
Pesticide Chemicals That Have a Common
Mechanism of Toxicity for Use in Assessing the
Cumulative Toxic Effects of Pesticides" was
issued in the Federal Regis :fer last August.
Cumulative Risk Assessment guidance is being
developed and will be issued in June 1999
January 1999
November 1999
Selection of
Appropriate Toxicity
Endpoints for Risk
Assessments of
Organophosphates
Guidance on the selection of appropriate toxicity
endpoints for risk assessment of
organophosphates is being developed. The SAP
paper will be issued in October 1998 and the
SAP's comments (with the Agency's response)
will be available in the public docket.
March 1999
June 15,1999
1998
TRAC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chtonology
E. Resulting EPA Actions
The framework developed by TRAC is currently being utilized by the EPA to guide its investigation of
the science policy areas related to FQPA and tolerance reassessment. The committee has continued to
meet to provide furdier advice on the implementation of the framework.
8 « TRAC
1998
June 15,1999
-------
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Waste Isolation
Pilot Plant
Review Committee
1992-Ongoing
Established to provide guidance to EPA on implementing the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant
(WIPP) Land Withdrawal Act of 1992.
Charged with providing advice on the Agency's decision to approve DOE's Test and
Retrieval Plans for the WIPP; the development of compliance criteria implementing the High
Level and Transuranic Waste Disposal Standards; and the decision to certify WIPP's
compliance with 40 CFR 191.
The Committee's recommendations were cited in the Federal Register.
"Criteria for the Certification and Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's
Compliance with the 40 CFR Part 191 Disposal Regulations, Final Rule" (February 1996)
A. Why Established
The Department of Energy (DOE) built a Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in southeastern New
Mexico in the 1980's as a permanent repository for mixed hazardous and radioactive wastes from nuclear
weapons production and destruction programs. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plan Land Withdrawal Act of
1992 established EPA as the regulatory authority responsible for developing final radioactive waste
disposal standards, implementation criteria, and on-going regulation of federal environmental and public
health and safety compliance.
The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Review Committee was established in 1992 as a subcommittee of
NACEPT's Environmental Information, Economics, and Technology (EIET) Committee to provide
guidance on implementing the Act. A reorganization of NACEPT in September, 1997, elevated the
Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Review Committee to full committee status.
B. Description of Charge
The Committee was charged with advising the Administrator on policy and technical matters arising
from EPA's regulation of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Specifically, the Committee was charged with
providing advice on:
EPA's decision to approve/disapprove DOE's Test and Retrieval Plans for the WIPP;
EPA's development of compliance criteria implementing the High Level and Transuranic Waste
Disposal Standards (40 CFR 191);
EPA's decision to certify whether or not the WIPP complies with 40 CFR 191; and
Other issues related to EPA's oversight of the WIPP as brought to the Committee by the
Administrator.
June 15, 1999 1992-Ongoing . WIPP
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
C. Membership, Pates of Activity, and Modes of Operations
Members of the Committee are recognized experts in the management of radioactive waste and have
been specifically selected because of their knowledge of New Mexico's economic, environmental, and
societal concerns. Committee members .include representatives from non-governmental organizations,
private industry, academia, and state government.
The Committee held three meetings between May, 1993, and September, 1995.
P. Reports and Recommendations
The Agency solicited the views of Committee members on the subject of release limits at the
Committee's September, 1995, meeting. The Committee members noted that radionuclides such as
plutonium, 238 would quickly decay to less than half their original number in under 100 years and would
not pose a threat for more than a small fraction of the 10,000-year regulatory time frame. As a result, the
Committee recommended the following:
Setting the release limits at later times so that the release limits would be based on longer-lived
radionuclides. Doing so would more accurately reflect the long-term hazards presented by the
waste.
Base the decision on release limits on the original intent of the disposal regulations, designed to
avoid undue influence of short-lived radionuclides on the size of the release limit.
Passive institutional controls: The subcommittee commented on the potential benefits of surface
markers in reducing intrusion and on die 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.
The Committee's recommendations were cited in EPA's "Criteria for the Certification and
Recertification of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's Compliance with the 40 CFR Part 191 Disposal
Regulations, Final Rule" published in the Federal Register on February 9,1996.
WIPP 1992-Ongoing June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
E. Resulting EPA Actions
In December 1993, EPA issued final radioactive waste disposal regulations that limit radiation releases
from facilities for disposal of radioactive waste. EPA issued formal compliance criteria for the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant in February, 1996. Public comment and suggestions from the Committee
contributed to the development of both the radioactive waste disposal regulations and the compliance
criteria. In addition, the Agency accepted the recommendations of the Committee presented at its
September, 1995, meeting and incorporated the determination of release limits based on total activity of
transuranic waste present at the time of disposal into its February, 1996, compliance criteria.
June 15,1999
1992-Ongoing
WIPP
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Environmental
Information and
Assessment Committee
1994-1996
* Formed as a result of input from Program and Regional offices that the Agency's information
management methods needed improved focus and efficiency.
* Charged to develop an implementation strategy to support the Agency's Community-Based
Environmental Protection (CBEP) initiatives.
* Provided periodic advice to the Office of Information Resources Management on the revision
of its information management processes and priorities.
* Published "Findings and Recommendations of the Ecosystems Information and
Assessments Committee" (June 1996).
A. Why Established
In the course of moving toward a cross-media approach, EPA determined that the old ways of dealing
with environmental data were fast growing obsolete. Due to the Agency's traditional regulatory-driven,
media-specific approach, anyone hoping to obtain and use comprehensive, multi-media environmental
data as a resource had to clear many hurdles to obtain and use the data (e.g., contacting multiple program
data sources), and often found weaknesses in the data once they were located.
The Agency decided that it needed to examine its information management practices, and consult with
the information management industry to set the Agency's next steps for information management. In
1994, the Environmental Information and Assessment Committee (EIAC) was formed to focus on the
Agency's ability to use its existing information systems to support the work it does as an Agency.
The Committee was formed as a result of neither policy nor legislation, but instead as the result of a
"push" from several Agency program offices and Regional offices that believed the Agency's method of
using information was not as focused or efficient as it should or could be.
B.Description of ^Charge ____ ____ _____ .____, ___m_mmm.
The EPA Administrator charged EIAC with development of a strategy to implement a Community-
Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) approach, focusing specifically on the information and science
requirements of such an approach. The Committee was asked to examine the availability, access, and use
of environmental information in support of place-based ecosystems protection, as well as how science
could be brought to bear in support of CBEP implementation.
June 15,1999 1994-1996 EIAC
-------
1988-1998 * NACEPT Chronology
Specifically, EIAC was asked to explore issues related to EPA's "Science Strategy to Support CBEP" and
"Information Dissemination Strategy to Support CBEP." EPA also asked EIAC to focus on two
additional issues:
" If EPA can only be "at the table" 20 percent of the time, what can it do to support communities the
remaining 80 percent of the time it will not be at the table?
What themes would it benefit the Agency to pursue as it works at implementing CBEP?
Another Committee charge was to consider and answer the following questions:
How can information be made an integral part of the decisionmaking process?
How can information management be elevated in status from a "back room" activity to the forefront
of Agency policy and procedures?
Because the Office of Information Resources Management (OIRM) was in the process of revising its
information management processes and priorities at the time, the Committee also periodically was
charged with providing ad hoc recommendations on that office's developing plans for changing
operations and revisions to management plans.
C. Membership, PategjoriN^^ Operation ___ ____
The Committee's membership was a group of individuals from industry, state and local environmental
programs, and information management experts.
The Committee held its first meeting on September 20, 1994, and held at least three meetings per year
for the two-year period from 1994 through 1996.
Committee members met with Agency program office representatives to discuss and provide comments
on current and planned CBEP activities. Additionally, the Committee discussed EPA's efforts to
develop an on-line environmental information service (the Government Information Locator Service, or
GILS), and development of an overall information and science strategy to support CBEP. EIAC also
provided input on CBEP implementation strategies for EPA's Senior Leadership Council Meeting in
February 1995.
At least twice per year during the life of the Committee, the Assistant Administrators, along with
Division Directors and other senior Agency management, met with the full Committee to review
Committee activities and recommendations. This provided an opportunity for dialogue with officials
who could actually initiate change within the Agency. Some of the issues discussed included the
changing view of information from highly specific, unrelated bits of information to an Agency resource;
and funding for information management activities.
A wide range of speakers was invited to speak to the Committee, including experts on information
management and public policy and experts on how state programs and industry generate and use
information.
EIAC 1994-1996 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology * 1988-1998
P. Recommendations and Reports
While the Committee provided ad hoc advice and recommendations on an ongoing basis, the Committee
prepared only one formal report: "Findings and Recommendations of the Ecosystems Information and
Assessments Committee," (June 1996). An earlier draft of this report had also been published in interim
format in January 1995.
Recommendations were issued by the Committee following each meeting. The Committee's Interim
Report summarized all of the recommendations made during the first year of the Committee's existence,
while the Final Report summarized all of the Committee's recommendations over the entire two-year
history of the Committee. The Committee's final report is summarized below.
"Findings And Recommendations of The Ecosystems information
And Assessments Committee," June 1996
In general, EIAC concluded that the Community-Based Ecosystem approach is a valid direction for EPA
to pursue and use in organizing/re-organizing itself. The EIAC concluded that, although EPA was
indeed on the right track in pursuing a CBEP approach, it needed to consider reorganizing many of its
current functions to reflect more accurately a multi-media, place-based management process. EIAC also
noted, however, that the Agency's current single-media approach has had various successes over the
years and should not be cast aside. While the Agency should make every effort to commence the process
of building an appropriate management infrastructure to support CBEP efforts, EIAC recommended
that these efforts should enhance, not supplant, its current single-media structure.
EIAC also concluded that EPA's current Science and Information Strategies are, indeed on the right
track. If communities are to succeed in implementing CBEP, the report noted, the Agency needs to
provide as many tools as possible, as well as provide technical and scientific expertise to support their
efforts.
The specific recommendations of EIAC fall into one of the following categories:
general;
constituency involvement and buy-in;
science in support of CBEP; or
information access and dissemination.
General Recommendations
To succeed in implementing a "Place-Based" approach, EPA must be willing to change its role, as
necessary, to support individual site needs.
EPA must underscore the importance of existing .single media rules and regulations.
EPA should consider a matrix management approach for supporting CBEP. i
June 15,1999 1994-1996 EIAC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
In this era of fiscal responsibility, EPA may need to streamline, but it should not sacrifice its new
CBEP initiatives to protect its base.
Constituency Involvement and Buy-In
If the CBEP approach is to work, EPA must collaborate with other federal, state, local, tribal,
public, and business organizations.
EPA should encourage public participation, because it is intrinsic to the success of a
"community-based" approach and can only enhance the process.
Environmental assessments should include some level of public participation. EPA should identify
models where this participatory process has worked.
EPA should embrace stakeholders in the design, testing, feedback and evaluation processes of
CBEP. It is critical to have hands-on users of all kinds, including industry, local government, and
grass-roots groups engaged in a formal, structural process.
EPA should follow the path, similar to the AIDS Education Campaign, of developing an education
program with a theme of "Take Care Of Your Place."
EPA should consider development of institutional role models as a theme for CBEP.
EPA should develop, or support the development, of a Handbook of CBEP methods for local use
and guidance.
EPA should develop two separate, but integrated, synergistic, and complementary CBEP
Handbooks.
EPA needs to consult with community-based practitioners in order to successfully develop a
practical, useable CBEP Handbook.
Science in Support of CBEP
EPA should establish stronger, shorter links between science and local levels.
EPA needs to develop multi-media, multi-dimensional models in support of "Place-Based"
ecosystem protection. This includes small-scale models as well as the current large-scale models such
as the Great Lakes or Chesapeake Bay models.
EPA should create incentives for private market involvement in the modeling domain.
EPA should support the development, and deployment, of multi-disciplinary teams that can assist
communities in the assessment of environmental problems and the development of strategies for
"Taking Care Of Their Places."
EIAC
1994-1996
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
EPA should consider realigning its laboratories as multi-disciplinary, or "Place-Oriented" research
institutions that would have all the necessary expertise or disciplines to successfully promote and
support "Place-Based" protection and prevention.
If "Place-Based" assessments are to succeed, EPA must involve the public in the assessment process
as well as the development of ecosystems indicators.
Information Access and Dissemination
EPA should adopt and foster the use of Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Standards to
ensure that the disparate data coordinating activities of government are in fact being properly
coordinated.
EPA needs to make sure that its proposed National Data Service (NDS) Program is refined, thought
about, and coordinated with FGDC members and others that have data dissemination plans, so it
becomes a well coordinated, non-duplicative, and well thought out tool.
EPA needs to get the data out. Issues of scale, data inaccuracies, etc., are barriers and excuses to
getting the information to communities.
EPA should assume the role of information integrator.
EPA should focus some of its efforts and resources at building capacity. The goal should be a
"democratization" of expertise, where intermediaries are used to pass on skills and knowledge.
When EPA focuses on dissemination of information to the public, it should include an evaluation of
trade secret policies that allow such dissemination unless there is evidence suggesting such
dissemination could cause an irreparable business harm.
EPA should develop a map of "places" that reflects active community groups working on CBEP, as
well as reflecting CBEP "places".
EPA's Government Information Locator Service (GILS) is a good example of EPA moving along
the right track and getting information out to the public. EPA should, however, as it continues
development of GILS:
a. Promote access through local library Internet connections. It should also consider the American
Research Libraries, which include research libraries at major universities.
b. Consider access to the public through providing a dedicated room in Washington, with support
staff available, where someone could come and interact directly. This would be a site where the
public could log onto EPA's data bases, but have support staff available to assist, as necessary.
c. Consider the use of Regional Offices as a distribution channel. Internet is one distribution
channel, but the Regional Offices Network, which EPA already owns, is one that could easily
connect to the libraries.
June 15,1999 1994-1996 EIAC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
d. Consider alternatives to direct access, as a way of educating a community on what information
and services are available. Many schools have a major environmental program starting at the
elementary level, and they all have computer labs, in one form or another. Outside of direct
connectivity, either diskettes or CDS are very good starting points for getting people familiarized
with a process and a service, including where they could get on-line access.
The Committee stated that these goals could only be accomplished by making the information
management function an equal partner in the Agency's mission (i.e., the Agency needs to provide more
than just "leftover" funding and foster a higher profile for information management within the Agency).
Several other topics not addressed in the Committee report, but which were discussed at some length
include: (1) what information should be kept public and which should be kept private; and (2) the pros
and cons of specific technologies (e.g., GIS) to help the Agency achieve its information management
goals.
6 EIAC
1994-1996
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology> 1988-1998
E. Resulting EPA Actions
The Committee's recommendations were well-received by OERM. Formal responses from the Agency
on both the interim and final reports indicated a high degree of satisfaction with the Committee's work.
OIRM management incorporated many of the Committee's suggestions into the Agency's Strategic
Management Plan. In addition, ORD was in the process of re-thinking its philosophies and priorities at
the same time the Committee was helping OIRM define a new approach to information management.
As a result, ORD developed an information management strategy for scientific data that also
incorporated many of the Committee's recommendations.
June 15,1999 1994-1996 EIAC
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Environmental
Information and
Public Access
Committee
1998
Established to accurately reflect EPA status with regard to its information management
process, and to address IRM issues that have evolved from implementation of re-invention
concepts.
Charged with examining EPA information management policy and implementation issues,
including the long-term role of the Center for Environmental Information and Statistics, the
EPA Information Resources Management Strategic Plan and the Re-Inventing
Environmental Action Plan, and the effective implementation of Environmental Monitoring for
Public Access & Community Tracking within the Agency's information management model.
A. Why Established
Since 1993, several NACEPT Committees have analyzed how EPA uses data and information, access to
information, and dissemination processes, as well as issues related to the development and use of
environmental statistics. Three separate Committees have addressed various components of EPA's
Information Resource Management (IRM) processes, while the Environmental Statistics Committee has
been providing recommendations to the Agency regarding the development, use and quality of
environmental data and statistics.
The efforts of the various NACEPT Committees regarding information management and environmental
statistics have produced recommendations for the Agency to develop and implement an Agency-wide
IRM strategic plan, Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP) strategies, and the Center for
Environmental Information and Statistics (CEIS). These Committees have been instrumental in
providing stakeholder insights and advice.
With the establishment of an IRM strategic planning process, CBEP, and the CEIS as permanent parts
of the Agency's operations, new forms of stakeholder input are required. To that end, the
Environmental Information and Public Access Committee (EIPAC) was established to more accurately
reflect where EPA currently stands with regard to its information management process, and address IRM
issues that have evolved from implementation of re-invention concepts.
June 15,1999 1998. EIPAC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
B. Description of Charge
The EIPAC is charged with examining EPA information management policy and implementation issues,
including:
The long-term role of the Center for Environmental Information and Statistics and how it fits
within the Agency's current information management model;
The EPA Information Resources Management Strategic Plan and the Re-Inventing Environmental
Action Plan, including any required updates;
The role of the Chief Information Officer in EPA; and
Effective implementation of Environmental Monitoring for Public Access & Community Tracking
within the Agency's information management model.
jg^Dates of Activity
The Committee was established in late 1997 and held its first meeting on April 22-23,1998. No
published account of that meeting is currently available. Future meetings are planned.
D. Recommendations and Rgjgorts^
The Committee has not yet developed any recommendations or reports.
2 EIPAC 1998 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Environmental
Statistics Committee
1992-1997
* Charged with providing the Agency advice on the collection and presentation of
environmental statistics, ways to make its environmental statistics available, the use of
statistics to measure environmental progress, and the development of environmental and
economic indicators of progress.
* Provided advice on the Administration's proposal to establish a Center for Environmental
Information and Statistics and to NACEPT's Environmental Measures/Chemical Accident
Prevention Committee efforts to make EPA's chemical accident prevention programs work.
* Contributed to advice and recommendations to several NACEPT reports and published
"Fiscal Year 1995 Recommendations of the Environmental Statistics Subcommittee" under
the umbrella of the Environmental Information, Economics, and Technology Committee.
A. Why Established
Environmental statistics are an integral part of the Agency's environmental protection and regulatory
efforts, particularly for the measurement and assessment of environmental progress. The Environmental
Statistics Committee was established to assist NACEPT's Environmental Measures/Chemical Accident
Prevention Committee. Subsequently, the Environmental Statistics Committee has advised the Agency
on a wide range of topics related to environmental statistics. The Committee has existed in various
forms and organizational niches within NACEPT since.
B. Description of Charge
The Committee is responsible for providing advice to EPA on ways to make its environmental statistics
available, the use of statistics to measure environmental progress, and the development of environmental
and economic indicators of progress. Specifically, the Committee examines issues associated with the
nature and quality of scientific and technical data; the methods of display and presentation of
environmental data; the appropriateness of various analytical methods used to analyze or summarize sets
of statistics; the format used to display the results of such analyses; and issues related to the
Administration's proposal to establish a Center for Environmental Information and Statistics.
C. Membershig^Dates of Activity, and Mode ofOperation __________
The Environmental Statistics Committee represents statistical information users and producers that have
interacted with the Federal government in their capacities as researchers, state government officials, non-
governmental officials, and industry representatives. Committee activity has varied throughout the
Committee's existence, typically including several meetings per year.
June 15,1999
1992-Ongoing
ESTATS
-------
1988-1998 * NACEPT Chronology
D. Recommendations and Reports
As a subcommittee to other NACEPT Committees, many of the recommendations of the
Envkonmental Statistics Committee were presented to the full Committee for approval and inclusion in
the reports of the full Committee.
While it was operating under the umbrella of the Environmental Information, Economics, and
Technology Committee, the Environmental Statistics Subcommittee developed a report; the
recommendations contained therein are presented below.
"Fiscal Year 1995 Recommendations of the Environmental
Statistics Subcommittee"
In this report, the Subcommittee recommended a number of activities EPA might pursue, including:
making fuller use of environmental data to expand fundamental knowledge and understanding of the
environment both nationally and internationally;
promoting excellence in the type and quality of environmental data collected by EPA, the states and
other federal agencies;
monitoring the state of the environment by preparing integrated assessments of environmental
conditions and trends;
compiling, analyzing, and publishing a comprehensive set of environmental statistics and indicators;
and
promoting access to and use of environmental data and statistics.
In addition, the Subcommittee made several specific recommendations regarding the Center for
Envkonmental Statistics and U.S./Mexico Border Envkonmental Statistics.
Center for Environmental Statistics. The Subcommittee recommended that the Agency establish a Center for
Envkonmental Statistics whose principal mission would be to develop statistical information needed to
make and assess envkonmental 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 envkonmental monitoring, data
collection, and processing;
coordinating with other parts of the Agency, the federal government, the states, and other countries;
working with EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) to assess and review the use of
statistical methods;
improving the accessibility of EPA envkonmental statistics; and
developing a number of more highly visible statistical products.
U.S./Mexico Border Environmental Statistics. The Subcommittee recommended that the current
U.S./Mexico border effort be institutionali2ed, elevating it to programmatic status. The Subcommittee
ESTATS 1992-Ongoing June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
also 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 mediods document to show how to combine data
from EPA databases.
June 15,1999
1992-Ongoing
ESTATS
-------
jggg-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
E. Resulting EPA Actions
The EPA established a Center for Environmental Information and Statistics (CEIS) based on the advice
of the Environmental Statistics Committee. In addition, the committee provided advice and guidance to
the Agency on the implementation and policies of CEIS.
ESTATS 1992-Ongoing June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology 1988-1998
Ecosystems Sustainable
Economies Committee
1994-1996
* Charged to examine the defining elements of sustainable economies, and identify
opportunities for harmonizing environmental policy, economic activity, and ecosystem
management.
* Published one report:
» "NACEPT Ecosystems Sustainable Economies Committee FY 1995 Activities and
Recommendations" (June 1996).
A. Why Established
Historically, economic development has tended to encroach upon, expend, or otherwise impair
environmental resources. Sustainable economies, on the other hand, allow the current generation's needs
to be met without reducing the stock and value of environmental resources for future generations.
Reaching a sustainable economic state requires successful integration of ecosystem protection into
economic activities.
In recent years, there has been considerable and increasing political pressure to move toward a more
sustainable economy. Because EPA's mission includes environmental protection for both current and
future generations, the Ecosystems Sustainable Economies Committee (ESEC) was formed to obtain
participation and feedback from representatives of industry, various levels of government, and citizens to
identify ways in which the Agency can facilitate greater implementation of a sustainable economy.
JLJPjgjK^ _____ -_^_^-__-----_--- --- ____ _ _____ _ _____ _
The Committee was charged to examine the defining elements of sustainable economies and
opportunities for harmonizing environrnental.policy, economic activity, and ecosystem management.
Specifically, the Committee was charged with examining responsibilities and opportunities related to the
following three types of activities:
consensus-building;
measurement and expansion of knowledge base; and
development of an incentive structure.
j& j*DAM9J^^
The Committee was comprised of a group of economic and environmental experts from Federal, state,
local, and tribal governments; academia; a variety of industries; and environmental justice groups.
The Committee was created in 1994. Quarterly meetings were held diroughout 1994 and 1995. The
June 15, 1999 1994-1996 ESEC
-------
1988-1998 NACEPT Chronology
Committee was disestablished in 1996.
D. Reports and Recommendations
The Committee identified several issues that it believed were essential to successful integration of
economic activity and ecosystem protection. The Committee concluded that EPA must exercise a
leadership influence beyond its primary area of responsibility (such as assisting to integrate national, state,
and local planning efforts which have potential future environmental impacts) to help bring consensus to
these areas, and to integrate sustainability into the decision-making process.
The Committee published the following report:
"NACEPT Ecosystems Sustainable Economies Committee
FY 1995 Activities and Recommendations," June 1996
The report presented considerations of the following three broad categories of activities:
consensus-building,
measurement and expansion of knowledge base; and
development of an incentive structure.
The Committee determined that the level at which these activities take pkce and the size of the affected
population would always determine the philosophy and direction of the activities. All three activities can
occur at the local, regional, national, and/or global level, and many ecosystem sustainability issues may
result because of incompatible incentives among these different levels. Since ecosystems ate multi-scale,
a multi-scale approach to place-based environmental management must be developed that integrates,
rather than isolates, these differing levels.
The Committee organized its recommendations in terms of the three major activities it examined:
Consensus Building. Ecological systems are integrated with other systems. In order to manage these
diverse systems as a whole, all stakeholders who 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. Specific recommendations included the
following:
EPA as Convenor. Although EPA must maintain and exercise the legal and moral authority to protect
the environment through regulatory means when necessary, the Agency must also develop and
expand its use of mediation and negotiation to solve environmental problems.
Ecosystem Valuation. Different constituents and stakeholders have different measurement systems for
valuing the various components of ecosystems, and the consensus building process needs to be
broadened 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 explicitly stated to facilitate linkages with the
development of environmental indicators and place-based ecosystem valuation efforts.
ESEC
1994-1996
June 15,1999
-------
JNACEPT Chronology 1988-1998
Property Eights 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.
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 of populations in its outreach efforts, and should use all available
communications technologies to facilitate informed decisions.
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. Specific
recommendations include the following:
Uncertainty and Unpredictability. Experts have come to acknowledge that environmental impacts
cannot be quantified with high precision because of the complex nature of the systems with which
they are dealing. With this acknowledgment, a shift in the burden of proof must be accepted, and
prudent steps taken 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 ensure
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.
a. National Income Accounting. Current national income accounting methodologies 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.
June 15,1999
1994-1996
ESEC
-------
1988-1998 NACEPT Chronology
b. Full Cost Accounting. The full cost of the depletion of environmental assets must be measured in both
the corporate context and the national context, including 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 also should examine its own internal accounting practices to assess the
effects they have on the behavior of state and local governments.
Incentive Structure. 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 to develop a more complete
understanding of the environmental consequences of different policy incentives, and new ways to use
incentives to promote environmental protection. Specific recommendations included the following:
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 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 environmental protection efforts. EPA must develop the analytical capacity to assess
the environmental impacts of trade policies. The Agency also must become substantively involved
in trade policy negotiations to help craft consensus-driven agreements that will achieve both
environmental protection goals and free-trade objectives.
ESEC
1994-1996
June 15, 1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology 1988-1998
At the end of FY 1995, EPA adopted the Committee's recommendation to create a guidebook to help
communities develop more sustainable economic systems. The Office of Sustainable Ecosystems and
Communities with OCEM funding as well as assistance and comment from the ESEC developed
a handbook for community-based ecosystem protection.
June 15,1999
1994-1996
ESEC
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Information
Committee
1996-1997
* Convened at the request of EPA Administrator Browner to provide advice on the Agency's
current and proposed processes for managing information resources, particularly in terms of
place-based environmental protection, the Common Sense Initiative, Performance
Partnerships, One-Stop Reporting, and Project XL.
if Published one report: "Managing Information as a Strategic Resource: Final Report and
Recommendations of the Information Impacts Committee" (January 1998).
A. Why Established
In March 1996, EPA Administrator Browner requested that NACEPT convene a committee to provide
advice on the Agency's current and proposed processes for managing information resources. As a result,
the Information Impacts Committee (IIC) was formed.
The Information Impacts Committee was a natural evolution from the Environmental Information and
Assessments Committee (EIAC), which conducted preliminary studies of Community Based
Environmental Protection (CBEP)-related information management. However, the focus of the IIC
became much more specific in terms of the information management infrastructure needed to support
place-based environmental protection.
jB^Description ofjCharge
The IIC was charged with reviewing EPA's current information management processes, and with
providing strategic and operational recommendations on Information Resource Managemnt. The
Committee addressed how EPA's information resources could be designed to support EPA initiatives
such as Community-Based Environmental Protection (CBEP), and the Common Sense Initiative,
Performance Partnerships, One-Stop Reporting, and Project XL. Specifically, the Committee was asked:
How should EPA's information resources be focused to effectively address Agency, state, local, and
tribal information requirements as CBEP and the new initiatives evolve?
How should current data collections and systems be enhanced to accomplish die goals of CBEP and
the new initiatives?
How can information resources make stronger environmental protection partnerships?
Is EPA prepared to commit to a CBEP approach Agency-wide, and if not, what does it need to do
in order to become prepared?
June 15,1999 1996-1997 IIC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
^C-JjIemberehip,PjjtesjrfActivity, and Mode o^Ojgeratjgn .____
The Committee included representatives from state, tribal, and local governments; information
management groups; academia; private industry (both large and small firms); and environmental public
interest groups.
The Committee was established in 1996 and generally held quarterly meetings over its two-year existence.
In all, the Committee met 10 times between February 1996 and July 1997. The Committee meetings
were both full and open two-day meetings or teleconference meetings to plan for the two-day meetings.
The Committee met with Agency managers, and various constituent groups across the country (e.g., state
and local governments, as well as non-government and grass-roots groups) to discuss the effectiveness of
current and planned Agency information collection, access, and dissemination tools.
JD^Recommendations and _Regort^__
The Committee produced a final report entided "Managing Information as a Strategic Resource: Final
Report and Recommendations of the Information Impacts Committee" in January 1998. This report
built on and updated the Committee's interim report submitted to EPA in January 1997 and
incorporated changes based on comments by the EPA Deputy Administrator in April 1997. Following is
a summary which presents the Committee's recommendations from its final report.
IIC
1996-1997
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
"Managing Information as a Strategic Resource: Final Report
and Recommendations of the information Impacts Committee,"
January 1998
In this report, the Committee noted that if EPA is to succeed in moving from its approach to
environmental protection from its current pollution control-oriented approach, to a place-based,
cooperative approach, it must:
formalize the use of information as a strategic mission tool
establish information policy leadership and coordination on an Agency-wide basis
integrate information across current media and program divisions
provide broader, more flexible, public access to information
assure ongoing stakeholder involvement in information policy and management
Each of these recommendations is discussed in more detail below.
Formalize the Use of Information as a Strategic Mission Tool
1. EPA must recognize the need to change its current Information Resources Management (IRM)
practices if it is to implement the Committee's recommendations and achieve its own stated goals.
2. Implementation Strategies
recognize the need to institutionalize use of information as a strategic mission tool
reallocate resources
Establish Information Policy leadership and Coordination on an Agency-Wide Basis
1. A new organization headed by a full-time, permanent Chief Information Officer (CIO) should be
charged solely with ensuring the delivery and management of the information required to
accomplish the Agency's mission. This is essential for ensuring that the Agency will be able to move
- beyond stovepipe systems to provide integrated information for the Agency's new approaches.
EPA must commit, organizationally, to establishing the appropriate leadership with the authority
and responsibility for positioning IRM to be the strategic mission tool it should be.
2. EPA's Administrator and senior leadership should:
develop an inventory of existing data resources.
« develop an overall information and data architecture.
implement an IRM program with senior executives having the responsibility and authority to
change practices.
assign the CIO and Senior Information Resource Management Officials (SIRMOs) the
responsibility and authority to coordinate IRM and related initiatives.
Ensure senior level decision makers take formal responsibility for their portion of the IRM
program.
June 15,1999 1996-1997 HC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
Integrate Information Across Current Media and Program Divisions
1. EPA should develop an information architecture that addresses information needs across media,
and other boundaries, in a comprehensive fashion. The Key Identifiers and One-Stop Reporting
Initiatives are a start at making the appropriate connections, but EPA senior management must act
forcefully to move them forward. This will require partnership with the states and other
stakeholders to establish a national facility registry. EPA's information holdings must be
restructured to permit true data integration and to enable die public to gain access to it.
2. Implementation Strategies
establish a data architecture
establish key identifier standards and definitions
promulgate data standards
transition to new architecture
Provide Broader, More Flexible, Public Access to Information
1. EPA should explore all of die various ways in which information products can be distributed,
including the worldwide web, an "800" number system, libraries and information centers, and
partnerships with state and local government, interest groups, and others. EPA must-recognize the
access and equity issues inherent in the use of today's technology and provide a range of
information access options. When providing information, EPA must be able to cross media
boundaries, link data using key identifiers, clearly define and characterize the information, and
appropriately safeguard Privacy Act and proprietary information.
2. Implementation Strategies
review best available tools for searching or requesting information
provide an electronic link
provide an "800" number
provide access to information at alternative locations
provide multi-lingual support
improve data quality
provide information on pollution prevention alternative technologies
provide saturation data
provide grants information
Assure Ongoing Stakeholder Involvement in Information Policy and Management
1. EPA should assure ongoing constructive engagement of all stakeholders in the development,
implementation, and evaluation of new information policies and mechanisms.
IIC 1996-1997 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology* 1988-1998
2. EPA should establish an on-going information user group, to include representation of major
stakeholders. This should be open to all current and potential users of EPA information (e.g., the
public, regulated industry, state and local governments, public health agencies). These
constituents must be involved on an on-going basis. EPA should establish a broad-based
information "Users' Group" to provide regular constructive advice, feedback from stakeholder
constituencies, and reactions to proposed actions and initiatives.
June 15,1999 1996-1997 HC
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
E. Resulting EPA Actions
In response to the Committee's Interim Report, Deputy Administrator Hansen cited the "outstanding
work that...Committee members dedicated to preparing this report" and stated that he was "very
encouraged by the results of the initial phase" of the Committee's work. Further, Mr. Hansen stated:
The Interim Report's focus on the infrastructure necessary to support such approaches
is well-placed. The Committee presents a clear picture of the problems that exist in the
Agency's current model for managing information. Likewise, the recommendations
depict the challenges involved in repositioning EPA's information management to
better support these evolving environmental protection approaches...! plan to ask... the
Agency's Executive Steering Committee for IRM to evaluate, and act on, as many of
these recommendations as possible, particularly with respect to improving the data we
collect, manage and make publicly accessible."
Further, EPA Deputy Administrator Hansen requested that the IIC expand on its preliminary findings
and recommendations by:
describing the advantages the Agency will derive by implementing the
recommendations;
providing a vision of success (i.e., how will the Agency know it has succeeded in
implementing the recommendations);
suggesting strategies the Agency might adopt; and
specifying a timeframe for implementation.
As a result of Committee advice, EPA has created a Chief Information Officer to oversee the Agency's
information management. In addition, die advice of the IIC has been used in the Office of Water's Data
Integration Efforts and was cited in a June 1998 Audit of these efforts.
IIC 1996-1997 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
Information Resources
Management (IBM)
Strategic Planning
Task Force
1994
Established to provide expert input on how to prioritize the Agency's information resource
management budget in support of the Agency's strategic vision, the integration of
information, and working relationships with external partners.
Worked closely with EPA's Office of Information Resources Management to conduct an
intense six-month study of key IRM strategic issues.
Published one report:
* "Using Information Strategically to Protect Human Health and the Environment:
Recommendations for Comprehensive Information Resources Management: Report of
the IRM Strategic Planning Task Force" (August 1994).
A. Why Established
Integrated information provides the basis for a better understanding of environmental issues and is a key
enabler for comprehensive approaches to environmental protection. Over the past several years, EPA
has been implementing more comprehensive approaches for protecting human health and the
environment (e.g., ecosystem protection, environmental justice). These approaches, in turn, require a
new integrated approach to managing EPA's information resources.
Specifically, the Agency was interested in receiving input on how to prioritize its budget for information
resource management (IRM). As a result, the Information Resources Management Strategic Task Force
was established to gather such input.
B. Description of Charge ______ __ _^__
The Information Resources Management (IRM) Strategic Planning Task Force was charged with
providing recommendations on the key IRM strategic issues and IRM capabilities required by the
Agency. The Task Force was asked to focus particularly on how to prioritize the Agenyc's IRM budget
in support of the Agency's strategic vision, the integration of information, and improving the working
relationships with external partners.
C. Membership, Dates of Activity, and Mode of Operation
The Task Force included members from five states, one local government, three public and
environmental interest groups, two Federal agencies, and one academic institution. The Task Force was
June 15,1999 1994 IRM
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chronology
created in January 1994 and held its seven meetings during its one-year existence.
The EPA Committee manager worked very closely with EPA's Office of Information Resources
Management (OIRM) to delineate the issues that the Committee would consider. The Committee spent
six months studying key IRM strategic issues and then focused on developing its report. EPA staff
worked closely with the Committee throughout its active life to ensure regular and meaningful Agency-
Committee collaboration.
D.Recommendations md
The Task Force published two reports: a set of interim recommendations (March 1994), and a set of final
recommendations (August 1994). For the purposes of this report, only the final recommendations are
presented because they so closely resembled the interim recommendations.
"Using Information Strategically to Protect Human Health and the
Environment: Recommendations for Comprehensive Information
Resources Management: Report of the IRM Strategic Planning
Task Force," August 1994
In this report, the Task Force expressed its belief that the management of EPA's information resources
must be aligned to support the mission of the Agency. EPA is in the midst of a profound shift from a
media-by-media approach to a more comprehensive approach to protecting human health and the
environment. This new comprehensive approach includes the following guiding principles:
Ecosystem Protection;
Environmental Justice;
Pollution Prevention;
Strong Science and Data; -
Partnerships;
Reinventing EPA Management; and
Environmental Accountability.
Implementing these principles will fundamentally alter the Agency's approach and require new thinking
in many areas, including the management of its information resources. In addition, as the Agency
realigns its strategic directions, it is also challenged by new legislative mandates and Executive Office
directions, including the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), The National Performance
Review (NPR), and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA).
Ultimately, EPA's ability to fulfill its mission depends upon how it manages its resources, including
information. EPA historically has managed its information resources in terms of its single-media
programs, such as "Air" and "Water." This heritage has resulted in a fragmented approach to managing
the Agency's information. In addition, many programs do not have sufficient data to measure their
progress toward achieving their programmatic goals, and EPA has not identified and does not collect
adequate data to measure environmental quality or trends in environmental quality.
IRM
1994
June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
The Task Force concluded that the Agency's current approach to collection and management of
information will not support the requirements of the GPRA, NPR, PPA, or the Agency's comprehensive
approach to environmental protection, and that EPA will fail to implement its guiding principles unless it
moves to a more comprehensive approach to managing the Agency's information resources.
Specifically, the Task Force made the following four recommendations in its report:
EPA Musi Use Information Strategically to Achieve the Agency's Mission. Information must be viewed and
managed as a fundamental, corporate asset to move beyond the fragmented use of information
resources. The Agency must realize that information provides the critical link to integrate programs,
empower stakeholders to accurately identify, manage, and prevent environmental problems, and promote
environmental successes. There are several elements to this recommendation, including:
use information strategically to protect human health and the environment;
manage information as an Agency asset; and
manage information as an essential element of programs.
EPA Must Actively Use Information to Empower its Partners. Information is a powerful asset. It is one asset
that all partners can share without depleting the asset, and which gains in value as it is used. These
attributes make information a critical asset in partnership building. The establishment of information-
based partnerships is one key way information can be used strategically to protect human health and the
environment. Environmental issues can be better denned and more effectively addressed through
partnerships with: local, state, tribal, and foreign governments; other Federal agencies; educational,
environmental; and community-based organizations; industries; and individuals. There are several
elements to this recommendation, including:
aggressively provide information to the public on environmental issues; and
aggressively pursue information-based partnerships with co-implementors and stakeholders.
EPA Must Establish an Integrated Information Infrastructure to Achieve a Comprehensive Approach to Environmental
Protection. Although EPA has begun to implement environmental initiatives in a manner that links and
refocuses its traditional single-media programs, the Agency's investment in and use of its information
infrastructure does not yet reflect or support this change. Instead, the existing infrastructure mirrors the
Agency's traditional single-media approach. The infrastructure comprises a series of "stovepipe"
information systems and databases that were designed solely to support specific media programs and not
to exchange or link information across programs. An integrated information infrastructure with
standardized, accurate information that spans the Agency's organizations and its partners is critical to
implementation of EPA's guiding principles. There are several elements to this recommendation,
including:
develop, immediately implement, and enforce data standards;
develop data integration policies and tools;
» define data requirements and identify gaps in the data inventory; and
reduce the burden on providers of information.
'EPA Must Establish a More Effective Organisation for Information Resources Management. The Task Force found
that EPA's existing information resources management structure is fragmented and does not provide
sufficient authority to its senior IRM official to ensure that Agency information needs are met. An
appropriate organizational structure must be created with authority and responsibility clearly aligned to
June 15,1999
1994
IRM
-------
1988-1998 » NACEPT Chtonology
manage the Agent's information resources. The management of EPA's information resources must be
championed at a senior level and receive adequate attention from all senior managers. There must be a
distinct budget for all IRM expenditures to ensure that information resource costs are accounted for like
other corporate assets. Essentially, EPA must change the general culture of its IRM management. There
are several elements to this recommendation, including:
establish a Chief Information Officer (CIO) position with mission critical responsibilities;
maintain an executive level IRM Steering Committee;
integrate the IRM planning process with the Agency's budget;
resolve the organizational fragmentation; and
strengthen program IRM implementation efforts.
IRM 1994 June 15,1999
-------
NACEPT Chronology » 1988-1998
E. Resulting EPA Actions
In April 1995 (eight months after the Task Force report), EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner issued
EPA's IRM Strategic Plan, which incorporated much of the language contained in the Task Force
recommendations. In her accompanying message, Ms. Browner stated:
"I am pleased to present EPA's IRM Strategic Plan. This plan charts a bold new course for
information management at EPA. Information has a key role in the success of the guiding
principles of the Agency's Strategic Plan: Ecosystem Protection; Environmental Justice;
Pollution Prevention; Strong Science and Data; Partnerships; Reinventing EPA Management;
and Environmental Accountability. These guiding principles are comprehensive approaches
which span the Agency's traditional programs such as air, water and waste. Essential to their
success is the ability to integrate data from across the Agency. This plan includes the foundation
necessary for integrating data across programs establishing facility identification standards and
collecting locational data . . . Information management has a vital part in environmental
protection. By harnessing the power of information, the Agency will make significant strides
toward achieving its mission."
Administrator Browner's language clearly echoed many of the key themes and concepts that comprise
the Task Force report. Indeed, at the end of the Strategic Plan, EPA noted that it gratefully
acknowledged the work of the Task Force, whose recommendations had a significant influence on the
strategies provided in the Plan.
In addition, issues raised by the IRM Strategic Task Force recommendations led directly to NACEPT's
formation of the Environmental Information and Assessments Committee to continue studying how the
Agency could improve its management of information.
June 15,1999
1994
IRM 5
------- |