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 programs—whether
    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

-------