LvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of The
Administrator
EPA 101/N-91/001
January 1991
Report And Recommendations
Of The Technology Innovation
And Economics Committee
Permitting And Compliance Policy:
Barriers To U.S. Environmental
Technology Innovation
The National Advisory Council
For Environmental Policy and Technology
NACEPT
-------
CENTER FOR TECHNOLOGY. POLICY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
E40-239
CAMBRIDGE. MASSACHUSETTS O2 I 39
April 9, 1991
To the Reader,
This report represents the first comprehensive attempt to
investigate in depth one of the major barriers to encouraging
both innovation and diffusion of technology important for
achieving better environmental control and quality. Permitting
and compliance policy, up to now a major barrier, needs to be
refocused towards these goals. In issuing this report, the
National Advisory Committee for Environmental Policy and
Technology (NACEPT), through the efforts of its Technology
Innovation and Economics Committee (TIE), has adopted a series of
recommendations to bring about significant changes in federal
environmental policy.
We would like to thank EPA's Administrator William K. Reilly
and NACEPT for giving the TIE Committee the direction to
undertake this study, and all those in industry, federal, state
and local government, academia and the environmental community
who provided information and perspective at Fact Finding
meetings, in presentations, and through other mechanisms. The
Focus Group that prepared this document deserves the highest
commendations for its contribution of time and effort, its
thoughtful deliberations, and its creative and challenging
recommendations. In particular its chair, Ed Keen, and David
Berg should be recognized for their outstanding leadership and
staff support.
This Report and Recommendations proposes a necessary and
comprehensive reform of environmental permitting and compliance
systems. The implementation of these recommendations will
encourage the development and commercialization of innovative
technology for environmental purposes.
~?6v
-------
ABSTRACT
The United States' potential to improve the environment is directly related to the nation's
ability to produce and apply technological solutions. The Technology Innovation and
Economics (TIE) Committee, a standing committee of EPA's National Advisory Council
for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), concluded that the barriers in
federal and state environmental permitting and compliance policies are slowing technology
innovation for environmental purposes. This extensive study, involving technology
developers, technology users, financiers, regulators, environmental groups, and academia,
determined the range of impacts and identified the range and practicality of potential
solutions. The report captures the Committee's analysis of six critical policy issues and the
key parameters affecting the design of permitting and compliance systems. It recommends
five major areas for improvement, including:
1. Modifying permitting systems to aid the development and testing of innovative
environmental technologies
2. Implementing permit processes to aid the commercial introduction of innovative
technologies
3. Encouraging the use of innovative environmental technologies in compliance
programs
4. Maximizing the effectiveness of permitting and compliance improvements by
supporting stakeholders
5. Identifying and removing regulatory obstacles inhibiting innovative technologies for
environmental purposes.
The report concludes that fundamental changes to the environmental regulatory system will
also be needed to create incentives encouraging the process of technology innovation.
-------
NOTICE
This report and recommendations has been written as a part of the activities of the
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), a public
advisory committee providing extramural policy information and advice to the
Administrator and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
Council is structured to provide balanced, expert assessment of policy matters related to the
effectiveness of the environmental programs of the United States. This report has not been
reviewed for approval by the EPA and, hence, the contents of this report and
recommendations do not necessarily represent the views and policies of the EPA, nor of
other agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal government, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute a recommendation for use.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Note to the Reader
I. Executive Summary
II. Members of the Technology Innovation and
Economics Committee
III. .Introduction
A. Background
B. TIE Committee's Goals and Process
IV. The Stakeholders Speak: The Findings
V. Rationale for System Changes
A. Analysis of Six Issues
B. Parameters
VI. Recommendations for Action and Commentary
Executive Summary of Recommendations
A
B
Detailed Recommendations for Action
and Commentary
Recommendation 1: Tests and Demonstrations
Recommendation 2: Early Commercial Use
Recommendation 3: Enforcement
Recommendation 4: Support
Recommendation 5: Regulatory Glitches
Appendix 1: Presenters at Fact Finding Processes
3
18
20
20
22
26
41
41
48
51
51
52
66
80
85
96
-------
-------
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Need for Innovation
The United States' potential to improve the environment is
directly related to our ability to produce and apply technological
solutions. The Technology Innovation and Economics (TIE)
Committee concludes that a national strategy is needed to enhance
our capacity to produce and use technological solutions that reduce
high priority environmental risks, particularly in concert with
improvements in the nation's productive capacity.
The increasing complexity and competition in our economy and the growth of human
populations make the challenge to improve environmental quality a continuing and uphill
struggle. As seemingly finite resources diminish, the pressure to satisfy basic human
needs and wants creates demand for advanced processes of production. Yet, opportunities
to improve economic productivity often seem in conflict with measures to improve the
environment.
The need is growing for advanced scientific gauges of the nature and degree of public
health and environmental risk, and for innovative technological solutions to evolving
environmental problems. The TIE Committee supports EPA's emphasis on the
measurement of risk and the reduction of significant risks as setting an important new
\
standard for the targeting of environmental protection programs. But the rate of technology
innovation for environmental purposes is less than required, creating a gap between our
ability to define risk and target environmental problems, and our ability to solve them.
Moreover, innovators of both manufacturing and environmental technologies frequently
operate independently, reducing our ability to simultaneously reach economic and
environmental goals.
Strong, predictable, and consistent enforcement of existing regulations, reinforcing the
impact of those regulations, defines the market for environmentally relevant technology.
On the other hand, the rate of technology innovation for environmental purposes and the
policies of the environmental regulatory system constitute a "cycle of constraints."
Environmental regulations, regulatory and,administrative processes, permit systems, and
enforcement practices directly impact the nation's ability to produce innovative
-------
technological solutions. At the same time, the rate of technology innovation limits the
range of policy options available to the nation's political, environmental, and economic
leadership. Environmental regulatory systems thus impact the rate and type of technology
innovation for environmental purposes by fostering or constraining the innovation process.
This report examines the relationship between the key regulatory administrative processes
for implementing environmental regulations — permitting and compliance policy ~ and such
innovation, recommending critical steps that should be taken now to foster innovation.
Dysfunction in the Market for Innovative Environmental Technoloev
Accelerated Development and commercialization of innovative
technology for environmental purposes is necessary to improve
environmental quality and enhance economic productivity.
Our progress over the past 20 years in protecting human health and the environment
has been enabled by the development and deployment of improved technologies for
pollution control and pollution prevention. To sustain a b'alance between environmental
and economic objectives, technology innovation for environmental purposes will have to
continue and increase. EPA information shows, however, that for at least the past decade
the rate of investment in environmental technology development and commercialization has
lagged. This lag reflects a net disincentive for technology innovation for environmental
purposes. The TIE Committee of NACEPT concludes that this net disincentive persists.
If we are to receive the full benefit of such technology innovation to reduce the risks
associated with the highest priority environmental problems, the market dysfunction
symbolized by this lagging rate of investment in technology innovationfor environmental
purposes will have to be addressed in a number of areas. These areas exist both within and
outside of the environmental regulatory system and adversely affect all groups involved in
solving environmental problems, causing tremendous uncertainty and inertia and a
perception of excess economic risk. The TIE Committee believes that these problems can
be addressed effectively while fully protecting human health and the environment. The
need to protect human health and the environment during testing and early commercial use
of any innovative technology is considered paramount by the TIE Committee. Testing or
use of an innovative technology may have to be limited, if it cannot be done safely.
-------
It should be recognized that many current environmental policies are neither helpful
nor benign with respect to technology innovation. Moreover, the philosophical neutrality
towards technology innovation for environmental purposes in statutes, legislative histories,
regulatory policy, regulations, and administrative systems is hampering national efforts to
both solve environmental problems and increase economic productivity. The Federal
Technology Transfer Act of 1986 (FTTA), which is as yet underutilized, and certain
features of the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act represent the beginning of a change
to a more helpful governmental role.
The Need for Government Action Now
The TIE Committee reiterates its January 1990 recommendations:
it is critical that EPA evaluate the effectiveness of existing
innovation programs, issue a technology innovation policy for the
environment, and develop a technology innovation strategy.
The time is right to take these steps. A growing recognition exists,
inside and outside of the EPA, that technology innovation for
environmental purposes1 is essential to the success of environmental
programs in the United States.
Governments' roles are critical. Although less than 10 percent of all U.S. investment
in technology innovation for environmental purposes is by federal and state governmental
agencies, most innovations trigger regulatory oversight during research, development,
and/or demonstration, and all require regulatory approvals for use for compliance
purposes. The governmental role as gatekeeper and overseer transcends its role as investor
in technology innovation for environmental purposes. Thus, while added government
financial support would be helpful, improved regulatory and administrative processes are
vital.
1 The term "technology innovation for environmental purposes" includes all types of technology
innovation that have a beneficial effect on the environment, i.e., pollution prevention (such as
manufacturing process changes), pollution control and remediation, information systems, and
management practices. Iri particular, however, the TEE Committee notes that it is technology
innovation involving pollution prevention and pollution control that is most affected by permitting
and compliance systems, and therefore these types are especially targeted by this document In the
interest of brevity, at times other similar phrases, such as "innovative environmental technology," are
used interchangeably.
-------
The process of technology innovation is made up of many steps, each one of which is
critical to the ultimate success or failure of a technology. Unless the environmental
regulatory system provides a constant incentive to innovate, the likelihood is increased that
worthwhile technologies will not complete the necessary steps to commercialization. It is
i
particularly important that the EPA make technology innovation a high priority, because
national policies are the model for the states and because it is at the national level that
incentive and institutional systems to foster technology innovation can be most efficient.
The TIE Committee commends the increasing number of initiatives
undertaken by EPA'and states to foster technology innovation for
environmental purposes. These include:
. • EPA's establishment of the Pollution Prevention Office and the Technology
Innovation Office (in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response)
• The steps suggested in the RCRA Implementation Study to aid the development
and use of innovative technologies for RCRA compliance purposes
• The steps outlined in the Office of Enforcement's Enforcement in the 1990s Project
on strengthening the state/EPA relationship for innovative enforcement and
remedies (including specifically acknowledging testing of new technologies as one
of the potential benefits of innovative remedies)
• The increased support by the Office of Research and Development (ORD) for the
testing and commercialization of innovative environmental technologies
• The several state integrated, or cross-media, inspection programs, and the several
state toxic use reduction programs
• The recent report of the Science Advisory Board, "Reducing Risk: Setting
Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection," which redefines how to set
priorities for solving environmental problems.
These steps, however, represent only a start in the right direction. It is now time to
increase the national capacity to develop the technologies needed to solve
the most important environmental problems.
-------
Focus on Permitting and Compliance Policy.
Permitting and compliance systems, as they function today,
discourage all stakeholder groups from taking the risks necessary
to develop innovative technologies -- whether for pollution prevention
or for pollution control - and to bring them into routine use to
solve environmental problems.
This document summarizes the TIE Committee's investigation of the
impact of the two key regulatory administrative processes of the
environmental system in the United States -- permitting and compliance -
on such technology innovation. It is based on the TIE Committee's extensive fact
finding processes to gather information from the segments of society that have the most at
stake. These "stakeholders" include regulated communities (users of technology),
regulators (federal, state, and local), providers of environmental products and services
(among whom are the technology developers), the providers' investors, and the organized
environmental community.
The recommendations herein represent the consensus of the Focus
Group that developed them and of the TIE Committee. The Focus Group had
14 expert members drawn from six state agencies, technology developers, regulated firms,
the financial community, and the organized environmental community. To further broaden
its information base, the Focus Group heard presentations from EPA's permitting and
compliance programs (air, water, and solid/hazardous wastes), held two public Fact
Finding meetings, and was supported by a small contractor effort. Twenty eight oral and
five written presentations were received at the two Fact Finding meetings, most of which
primarily addressed RCRA, and a large number of other meetings and discussions with
stakeholders were held to extend the Focus Group's investigations.
The TIE Committee wishes to emphasize that the environmental statutes
and regulations, and their enforcement, "make the market" for these very
same technologies. However, uncertainties, costs, and delays associated
with the permitting of tests and of early commercial uses of innovative
environmental technologies, and the unpredictability and inconsistency of
enforcement, are significant disincentives that discourage technology
innovation for environmental purposes. These combine to create high-risk,
-------
low-reward market conditions that need to be rectified if innovative
environmental solutions are to be found and used.
Dysfunctions in the marketplace for environmental technology and their
causes within permitting and compliance systems are the focus of this
report. It characterizes the conceptual framework of permitting and
compliance systems that would best encourage environmental innovation.
It further recommends specific changes in policy and procedure for
permitting and compliance programs that are needed to encourage
technology innovation for environmental purposes.
The Recommendations
Primary Recommendation.
The TIE Committee's primary recommendation is that the
Administrator of EPA, working within EPA, with state and local
agencies, and with the Congress, make interrelated improvements
in environmental permitting and compliance systems necessary to
foster technology innovation for environmental purposes, within
the overriding goal of protecting human health and the
environment.
Five categories of recommendations and improvements are made in this report. These
recommendations are seen by the Committee as being interrelated and synergistic. The
recommendations are as follows:
Recommendation 1.
Modify permitting systems to aid the development, testing, and
demonstration of innovative technologies for environmental purposes.
Testing and demonstration is central to the process of defining the useful range of
performance of innovative technologies. A successful program of testing and
demonstration, conducted during research and engineering on promising technologies, will
produce performance curves ("performance envelopes") and cost of performance data that
guide the future use of these technologies to solve environmental problems. The better the
-------
data, the greater the certainty that the appropriate applications of an innovative technology
can be projected. With better test and demonstration data, innovative technologies can be
introduced into commercial use for compliance purposes with greater assurance.
No viable permitting process operates under any of the media-specific environmental
statutes for testing innovative technologies for environmental purposes. The flexibility to
evaluate the capability of promising technologies under safe testing conditions is not
adequately provided under current permit and associated administrative processes related to
testing and demonstration. The Committee heard several examples where the time to test,
cost of testing, and range of testing became exaggerated by permit procedures. One
company told the Committee that it maintains a money-losing international operation
primarily because of the lack of a reasonable, predictable testing process in the U.S.
Significantly, no specific provision exists in the Clean Air Act (CAA) or the Clean
Water Act (CWA) for testing and demonstration permits. As currently interpreted, neither
statute recognizes the unique nature of testing and demonstration, and tests and
demonstrations under these statutes are conducted under ad hoc mechanisms. (Note that
this report does not consider new features of the CAA resulting from the 1990
amendments, which were passed after the completion of the report) The Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) does have a statutory provision for testing permits
("research, development, and demonstration permits"), but the program implementing the
testing provision is judged by the Committee to be ineffective. The Committee notes that
the Agency's RCRA Implementation Study drew substantially the same conclusion.
The ability to test and demonstrate technologies varies widely from state to state, and
data developed in one state is often not usable in another state, compounding the problem.
The lack of a functioning and predictable regulatory and administrative process to test and
demonstrate technology severely restricts the pipeline of innovation for environmental
purposes in the United1 States.
The Committee recommends that permitting programs be modified to
create specialized permit processes for the testing and demonstration of
innovative environmental technologies. Permitting processes for tests and
demonstrations of innovative technologies should be instituted, expanded, and streamlined,
• i . >
and designed to encourage technology innovation under each of the major "media" statutes.
i
At a minimum, existing statutory provisions should be fully employed to increase
opportunities for and flexibility in permitted tests. The Committee recommends
9
-------
coordination of these specialized permitting programs across the
environmental media. In addition, a new permitting process for tests and
demonstrations might be created under a single authority. These processes should be
designed to yield a predictable and timely process for regulatory oversight of testing, one
that protects human health and the environment and simultaneously affords flexibility to
testing programs.
Another problem is related to the lack of viable permitting processes for designated
testing and demonstration centers: there are few locations in the United States where a
series of tests of innovative technologies can be performed, except under the terms of
facility operating permits. Specialized testing centers can offer greater flexibility,
particularly during the more risky stages of technology development, while providing
safeguards to assure that testing will not endanger public health and the environment. The
Committee recommends that a system of dedicated testing centers be
established in the United States.
These specific recommendations are discussed in greater detail in Section VI,
beginning on page 52.
Recommendation 2.
Implement permitting processes that aid the commercial introduction
of innovative technologies fot environmental purposes.
The risk associated with early commercial uses for compliance purposes of an
innovative technology is greater than risks associated with using known technologies in
similar applications. Uncertainty about the capability of a newly-available innovative
environmental technology is greatest when it is first proposed for use for compliance
purposes.
At this time, permit writers and the public are unfamiliar with that technology and have
a higher level of concern than for a well-proven technology. In some cases this concern
may be well founded. In other cases, it may not be. The record shows that the lack of
public confidence and trust stands as a major impediment to the development and use of
innovative technologies. This leads to difficulty, delays, and extra expense associated with
reviews of permit applications to use these technologies for compliance purposes, problems
10
-------
made all the worse by the need to satisfy, simultaneously and without coordination
mechanisms, the requirements of various levels of government and in potentially more than
one of the environmental media.
These uncertainties combine to create a perception of excess risk that deters investors
and technology developers from developing innovative technologies and that inhibits their
introduction into commercial use. The extra cost, time, and uncertainty associated with
application drafting, negotiation of permit terms, and pre-permit data gathering for a
proposed use of an innovative technology are so excessive as to discourage innovation.
Consulting engineers and prospective users of the innovative technologies thus tend not to
recommend or use these technologies. These points, and allied factors, were repeated both
to the Focus Group on Environmental Permitting and to the Remediation Technologies
Focus Group. This is a problem that could be alleviated with effective institutional systems
enabling testing. Without better systems for testing, data gaps will continue to compound
the difficulty of introducing innovative technologies into commercial use.
The Committee makes two major recommendations aimed at reducing risk, cost, time,
and uncertainty and at involving the public effectively in the process of introducing
innovative technologies for environmental purposes. The Committee recommends
that EPA, and other environmental agencies, afford high priority to these
permit applications. Although they are the most difficult to consider, they represent the
future. The reviews ,of permit applications for newly introduced innovative technologies
should be designated high priority and should be coordinated across the environmental
1 [
media and across jurisdictions.
Secondly, the Committee recommends that a special, two-phase permit
process be introduced to streamline and make more predictable the
consideration of early compliance uses of innovative environmental
technologies and, to build public confidence, provide for early, substantive
public involvement The permit process can be streamlined by adding a first step, a
pre-permit application screening step involving the key stakeholders to. discuss the concept
of what will be proposed. At least three key groups would be involved in the screening
step: the potential applicant, the permit writers, and the public.
These specific recommendations and additional detailed recommendations are
discussed fully in Section VI, beginning on page 66.
11
-------
Recommendation 3.
Use compliance programs to encourage the use of innovative
technologies to solve environmental problems.
Strong, predictable, and consistent enforcement of existing regulations, rather than the
mere existence of regulations, is critical to the realization of planned environmental
progress. Enforcement can be a primary motivator of regulated organizations to comply,
using conventional or innovative technological solutions. Predictable and consistent
enforcement, by sharpening the timing and degree of the application of requirements,
sharpens the definition1 of markets. It is therefore critical to innovation.
The Committee makes two major recommendations. First, consistent with the
recommendations of EPA's own recent enforcement review, the Committee
recommends that EPA and the states create and reinforce the expectation of
the need to comply. Strong, predictable, 'targeted enforcement triggers a problem
solving mentality and is therefore supportive of the development and use of both pollution
control and pollution prevention technology. Such enforcement programs accomplish this
because they assure that a market for such technologies will exist and will be of predictable
size and character.
Second, EPA and state agencies should increase flexibility in
enforcement actions involving innovative technologies. A compliance based on
strong, predictable enforcement provides a basis for flexibility in the choice of remedies
during enforcement actions, aiming at encouraging the use of innovative technologies under
appropriate circumstances. Agencies can also make meaningful use of waiver provisions
and "soft landing" strategies, can make creative use of compliance penalties, and can
increase coordination in compliance programs across the environmental media and across
jurisdictional lines. These and other steps to introduce flexibility into compliance situations
are necessary when innovative technologies are involved because these technologies are
inherently less certain than conventional technologies.
These specific recommendations are discussed in greater detail in Section VI,
beginning on page 80.
12
-------
Recommendation 4.
Support regulators and other involved communities to maximize the
effectiveness of improvements recommended in permitting and
compliance systems.
Although some positive incentives and support systems exist, no important
stakeholder group is currently encouraged, in net effect, to foster innovative technologies
for environmental purposes. Recommendations 1,2, and 3 address the types of changes
that are needed to improve the institutional systems involving the development, testing,
demonstration, and introduction of innovative environmental technologies.
Recommendation 4 addresses the kinds of informational and motivational support that are
necessary if environmental professionals and the public are to embrace, or at least consider,
innovative solutions. These kinds of support are critical. The Committee's fact finding
processes revealed that even if individuals are philosophically and financially inclined to try
innovative solutions; the information and the incentives available often fall short of what is
needed to translate this inclination into success.
The Committee recommends that a system of incentives, training, and
other support be instituted to increase the retention and flexibility of permit
writers, inspectors, and other compliance staff. Specifically, the Committee
recommends the establishment of a job ladder for these officials, backed up by policy, job
standards, training, data sources, and incentives. The job ladder should be designed to
encourage cross-media expertise and the cross-media consideration of permit applications
and the cross-media review of compliance situations. The Committee bases these
recommendations on the glaring lack of systematic support that now exists. For example,
RCRA permit writers are not even credited with "beans" for acting on research,
development, and demonstration (RD&D) permits (a problem that was specifically
highlighted by the Agency's RCRA Implementation Study). Another example: the several -
states participating in the Focus Group indicated that their permit and compliance personnel
find it extremely difficult to find information about innovative technologies, information
that is critical to their ability to consideration of appropriateness, good faith effort, and
other factors.
Similarly, the Committee recommends that support be provided to
prospective innovative technology permittees, including both technology
developers and technology users. Informational programs are needed to increase
13
-------
their awareness of government's interest in innovative solutions, the existence and function
of innovation programs, and data about innovative technologies. The Committee found,
for example, a widespread ignorance of the handful of new centers at which some kinds of
innovative technologies can be tested.
The Committee recommends that EPA strive to make more systematic
i
the role of its Office of Research and Development (ORD) as a technology
consultant to permit writers and compliance staffs. ORD's clearinghouses and
data bases were seen by the Committee as helpful, but not sufficient, tools for collecting
and disseminating information about innovative technologies. Further, the Committee
recommends that a "technology advocate" function be established by EPA,
potentially in ORD, to (1) convey innovation policies, (2) serve as a point of contact on
.innovation processes under regulations and administrative systems, (3) track the progress
of permit applications involving innovative technologies, and (4) provide data about the
performance of innovative environmental technologies in tests, demonstrations, and early
commercial uses.
Critically, the Committee recommends that EPA institute systems to
provide the public with information and support related to the testing,
demonstration, and use of innovative environmental technologies. The
Committee developed the belief that one of the most significant barriers to the
implementation of innovation environmental technology is lack of public trust in the
information presented during the permit process, as well as in the actual process of permit
review and approval. To address this problem, the Committee encourages an early,
substantive role for the public in permit processes involving innovative technologies. The
two-tiered permit process described above would be one important step in the right
direction. Another is to create a paid technical and regulatory process support agent for
communities involved in proposals for testing, demonstration, or use of innovative
technologies. In this regard, the Committee supports expansion of the Technical
Assistance Grant (TAG) program under Superfund to address all proposed applications of
innovative technology. An independent foundation, co-funded by government, the private
sector, and foundations, might best fulfill this function.
These specific recommendations are discussed in greater detail in Section VI,
beginning on page 85.
14
-------
Recommendation 5.
Identify and remove regulatory obstacles which create
unnecessary inflexibility and uncertainty or otherwise inhibit
technology innovation for environmental purposes.
The Committee has noted several regulatory "glitches" that appear to inhibit the
development and introduction of innovative pollution control or pollution prevention
technologies. The glitches identified by the Committee were not the result of an exhaustive
search, but, rather, arose from its other investigations. Yet, the fact that glitches were
identified under each major media statute without a specific effort to find them gives rise to
the recommendation that EPA undertake a systematic effort to identify and remove
regulatory obstacles.
For example, the Committee notes that the delisting process under RCRA serves as a
deterrent to innovation. The delisting process is frequently undertaken to gain recognition
that treatment renders hazardous wastes non-hazardous. But application for delisting,
which is undertaken only when an. innovative treatment process has been developed, tested,
and demonstrated, takes a long time, costs a lot, and has an unpredictable outcome. The
one- to two-year delay at the end of the technology development cycle hits technology
developers hard at a critical moment. Accordingly, the Committee recommends that EPA
consider taking steps to reduce the impediment to innovation associated with this
administrative regulatory process.
These specific recommendations are discussed in greater detail in Section VI,
beginning on page 96.
Bevond Permitting and Compliance Policy
Changes to the environmental regulatory system will be needed
to create incentives encouraging the environmental technology
innovation process.
It is important to be clear that the measures recommended in this
document will not fully solve all of the fundamental problems leading to a
market dysfunction and an unsatisfactory rate of technology innovation for
15
-------
environmental purposes. To a significant degree, these problems derive from the way
the central approach to regulation in the United States -- "best available technology"-based
regulations — is frequently used today. Reliance on "best available technology"-based
regulations impedes the development and introduction of innovative technologies, in part
by "locking in" specific discharge, emission, or treatment requirements and, in part, by
lacking mechanisms to encourage and facilitate technologies. The way the regulatory
system now operates, the incentive to innovate exists primarily with respect to cost of
performance and there is little, if any, incentive or opportunity to innovate for the better
performance the nation will need, if environmental and the economic objectives are to be
harmonized. Policy .makers should reconsider the current reliance on this approach,
remove rigidity, and create opportunities to develop and use innovative technologies.
Regulatory processes should be revised to expand beyond existing encouragements for
innovation (e.g., as in water quality-based and air quality-based regulations) to create an
incentive structure that fosters technology innovation and, more broadly, encourages each
stakeholder group to contribute to the search for solutions to environmental problems. A
systematic analysis of the motivations — economic and otherwise — of each stakeholder
group will be necessary to design a complementary set of effective improvements.
Organization of the "Report and Recommendations"
The "Report and Recommendations" includes five major sections:
• Section I is this Executive Summary.
• Section II is the "Membership of the Technology Innovation and
Economics Committee."
• Section III, the "Introduction," outlines the "Background" for the
report and the "TIE Committee's Goals and Process."
• Section IV is titled "All the Stakeholders Speak: The Findings."
This section contains the findings that underpin the TIE Committee's
rationale for its recommendations to strengthen permitting and
compliance systems, and to identify and remove regulatory glitches
that impede technology innovation.
• Section V describes the Committee's "Rationale for System
Changes" -- its analysis of the key issues surrounding the
16
-------
relationship between technology innovation for environmental
purposes and permitting and compliance systems.
Section VI, "Recommendations for Action and Commentary,"
i
includes an "Executive Summary of Recommendations" and the
"Detailed Recommendations for Action and Commentary." This final
section provides a listing of each of the recommendations and
subrecommendations and analyzes each.
17
-------
II. Technology Innovation and Economics (TIE) Committee
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology
Staff:
Mr. David R. Berg, TIE Director
Mr. Morris Altschuler
Mr. Kai C. Janson
TIE Committee Members:
Dr. Nicholas A. Ashford, Chair
Mr. Thomas Devine, Vice Chair
Mr. Paul Arbesman
Dr. R. parryl Banks
Mr. William W. Carpenter
Ms. Karen Florini
Mr. James T. Hall
Mr. William M. Haney, HI
Mr. Edward S. Keen
Dr. David M. L. Lindahl
Dr. John Liskowitz
Mr. Lester H. Poggemeyer
Ms. Nancy E. Pfund
Mr. Martin E. Rivers
Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
(OCEM)
OCEM
OCEM NNEMS Fellow
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
RMT, Inc.
Allied Signal Corporation
N.Y. Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
Environmental Defense Fund
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
William Haney Associates
Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
U.S. Dept. of Energy
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Poggemeyer Design Group
Hambrecht & Quist
Air and Waste Management Association
Members of the Focus Group
Mr. Edward S. Keen, Chair
Mr. David Allen
Dr. R. Darryl Banks
Ms. Karen Florini
Mr. Michael A. Gollin
Mr. William M. Haney, HI
Ms. Jean Herb
Mr. David Morrdl
Mr. LeRoy Paddock
Mr. Larry Schmidt
Mr. John Schofield
Mr. James Slater
Mr. Lyman Wible
Mr. Tom Zosel
on Environmental Permitting:
Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
National Toxics Campaign
N.Y. Dept. of Conservation
Environmental Defense Fund
Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
William Haney Associates
N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection
EPICS International
Assistant Attorney General, Minnesota
N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection
IT Corporation
Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
Dept. of Natural Resources, Wisconsin
3M Corporation
Non-EPA Contributors to the Focus Group:
Ms. Susan April Kerr and Associates
Mr. Ed Berkey National Environmental Technology Applications
Corporation (NETAC)
Mr. Ken Hagg Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection
Mr. Bob Kerr Kerr and Associates
18
-------
Non-EPA Focus Group
Mr. Bruce Oulrey
Ms. Elissa Parker
Ms. Kathy Porter
Dr. Manik Roy
Ms. Ivy Schram
Mr. Alan Sherman
Mr. Peter Venturini
Mr. Jeff Wiegand
EPA Contributors to the
Mr. John Atcheson
Mr. Jay Benforado
Ms. Elizabeth Cotsworth
Mr. Kirt Cox
Mr. Jim Cummings
Mr. Jim Edwards
Ms. Donna Fletcher
Ms. Deborah Gillette
Mr. Mark Joyce
Mr. Ephraim King
Mr. Jim Lund
Mr. Frank McAlister
Mr. Gary McCutcheon
Mr. Mike Mastracci
Mr. Alan Morrisey
Mr. Mahesh Podar
Mr. Dale Ruhter'
Mr. Kevin Smith
Mr. Jim Yezzi
Contributors (cont.):
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Environmental Law Institute
Mass. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Formerly of the Mass. Dept. of Environmental
Protection
NETAC
Enviresponse, Inc.
CARB
Alton Geoscience
Focus Group:
Pollution Prevention Office (PPO)
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Office of Solid Waste (OSW)
: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS)
Technology Innovation Office
PPO
OCEM
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP)
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
OWEP
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
OSW
OAQPS
ORD
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
Office of Policy Analysis
OSW
OWEP
ORD
Note: See Appendix A for list of presenters at Focus Group fact finding processes.
19
-------
III. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
The environmental regulatory system in the United States was developed to protect
human health and the environment. This system has achieved significant progress toward
these goals, but much greater progress will be needed to meet both current and future
environmental objectives, while attaining sustainable economic growth.
The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
and its Technology Innovation and Economics (TIE) Committee have concluded that the
current environmental regulatory system tends to emphasize pollution abatement, rather
than pollution prevention, and offers limited encouragement to simultaneous environmental
and industrial productivity improvements. The environmental regulatory system includes
4
the development of regulations, administrative practices and policies supporting the
regulations, permitting programs, compliance and enforcement programs, and federal,
state, and local research programs supporting environmental objectives.
Technology innovation has been viewed as a secondary goal of the environmental
regulatory system. A comprehensive network of authorities, policies, and programs
designed to stimulate technology innovation for environmental purposes does not exist.
This has triggered a market failure: the investment rate for environment-related technology
innovation is so low that the national ability to make environmental improvements is limited
by a lack of technology. In fact, the investment rate for environmental control technology
lags that of the economy as a whole.
Moreover, TIE Committee Fact Finding activities have indicated that environmental
investment decisions are typically made separately from production investment decisions,
although there is a trend towards integrated decision making. This implies strongly that
pollution prevention investment, as well as pollution control investment, lags. This two-
edged market failure threatens the health of the United States economy and places the health
of the environment and the economy in opposition.
In the January 1990 "Report and Recommendations of the Technology
Innovation and Economics Committee" to the Administrator of EPA,
NACEPT concluded that the development and use of innovative
20
-------
technologies are necessary to more efficiently and simultaneously improve
the environment and enhance productivity and economic competitiveness.
Technology innovation is essential to continued progress in environmental
protection in the United States. This is the case for both improved production
processes that increase productivity and prevent pollution, such as manufacturing process
changes and modifications, and more efficient emissions control and cleanup technologies.
In the January 1990 report, NACEPT determined that a critical need exists to examine
how the environmental regulatory system impacts technology commercialization and how
factors external to the regulatory system (e.g., tax policy, corporate culture and decision
processes) compound the problem of lagging investment in technology innovation for
environmental purposes. NACEPT, based on the TIE Committee's work,
recommended that EPA assume a leadership role in fostering technology
innovation for environmental purposes and that the Administrator take three
key steps to address this market dysfunction:
• Evaluate the degree to which the implementation of U.S.
environmental programs is effective in stimulating technology
innovation
• Issue a policy statement expanding the Agency's mission to
encompass fostering technology innovation
• Develop and implement a strategy to carry out the fostering role.
To help the Agency implement these recommendations, in October 1989 the TEE
Committee established the Focus Group on Environmental Permitting to examine the
relationship between government permitting and compliance processes and the introduction
of new technologies for environmental purposes. The Committee had developed the view,
based on its investigations, that federal, state, and local permitting and compliance systems
act as important barriers to innovative technology for environmental purposes, to both
pollution prevention and pollution control technologies. These elements were seen to create
a climate that is not suitable for technological change and that contribute to the inadequacy
of market responses. The Committee asked the Focus Group to confirm or correct this
view, and to suggest modifications to permitting and compliance systems that will
encourage technology innovation without compromising the principal goal of protection of
public health and the environment,-
This document reports the results of the Focus Group's review. Other TIE Committee
activities will examine other suggested sources of market dysfunction, including regulatory
21
-------
approach, liability systems, and corporate practices. TEE Committee recommendations are
aimed at helping, EPA put in place a system of positive and negative signals that encourages
environmental problem-solving in the context of sustainable development. This, in turn,
will enhance the market for innovative technologies for environmental purposes and
improve the ability of the environmental agencies to achieve their goals.
B . TIE COMMITTEE GOALS AND PROCESS
Strategic Goals
The TIE Committee has two strategic goals which apply to all environmental
technologies. These are to:
1. Increase the development and commercialization of innovative
technologies
2. Ensure the diffusion (use) of existing and new technologies.
t
The TIE Committee believes that these goals can and must be accomplished while
maintaining the primary purpose of the system: protecting human health and the
environment. The TIE Committee recognizes a hierarchy of technological
approaches to environmental improvement. In order of desirability, these are:
technologies that prevent pollution (including waste minimization and source reduction
technologies), recycling technologies, environmental control technologies, and cleanup
technologies. To pursue these goals, the TIE Committee is examining (1) the effectiveness
of the environmental system in ensuring a suitable climate for technological change and (2)
the adequacy of market responses.
TIE Committee Process
The TEE Committee has identified impediments to environmental technology
innovation that exist within the environmental system, diminishing its effectiveness. These
impediments are regulatory, administrative, and systemic (see Findings). The Committee
is reviewing ways to alleviate these impediments and to create positive incentives. In
considering the response of the marketplace to the need for innovation in environmental
technology, the TEE Committee is:
• Identifying ways of achieving better market responses leading to the development
and use of new pollution prevention and environmental control technologies.
22
-------
• Identifying ways to remove the impediments and to assist developers of these
technologies (inventors, investors, and users).
• Reviewing ways that the public sector, the private sector, and the non-profit sector
can work, alone or together, to provide assistance.
The TIE Committee process is designed to identify the key factors that would
contribute to a climate in business and government that favors environmental problem
solving. To this end, the Committee process involves engaging and seeking the views of
all parties "at interest" These "stakeholders" include regulated communities, regulators
(federal, state, and local), providers of environmental products and services, the providers'
investors, the public, and the organized environmental community.
Charge to the Focus Group on Environmental Permitting
The Focus Group on Environmental Permitting was asked to examine the
relationship between government permitting and compliance systems
(federal, state, and local) and the process of technology innovation for
environmental purposes. This analysis is critical to understanding the climate for
technological change and the adequacy of market responses. The Focus Group was also
asked to examine the impact of regulatory "glitches" - regulatory requirements that have an
unplanned, adverse effect on technology innovation and diffusion -- on the development
and introduction of new technologies for environmental purposes. The Focus Group was
to identify steps that can alleviate impediments and create positive incentives within the
permitting and compliance systems, helping remove the existing market dysfunction.
Issues considered by the Focus Group include the following (discussed in Section V):
• Who are the major interested parties and what is their motivation with respect to the
decision to invest in developing or applying an innovative technology for pollution
prevention or for environmental control or cleanup?
• What are the resource and timing impacts on technology innovation and diffusion
of permitting reviews by federal, state, an local authorities?
• What is the importance to technology innovation and diffusion of flexibility in
permitting requirements and of cross-media consideration of environmental
impacts of innovative technology?
• What is the importance to technology innovation and diffusion of flexibility in
compliance practices?
• What is the potential to create incentives for technology innovation related to
pollution prevention in permitting and compliance systems?
23
-------
What are the concerns of the public about technology innovation for environmental
purposes?
Membership and Process of the Focus Group on Environmental Permitting
The Focus Group was comprised of 14 individuals drawn from six state agencies,
technology developers, regulated firms, the financial community, and the organized
environmental community. Most major offices of EPA participated as expert contributors.
The Focus Group met in January and March, 1990, and agreed upon its mission and the
methods to be used in accomplishing it. To broaden its information base, the Focus Group
heard presentations from EPA's permitting and compliance programs (air, water, and
solid/hazardous wastes).
The Focus Group then held two public Fact Finding meetings: May 16,1990, in San
Francisco and August 8,1990, in Washington, D.C. (These meetings were noticed in the
Federal Register and advertised in at least 12 wide-circulation periodicals. In addition, TIE
Committee staff made over 100 telephone calls to state and local officials, environmental
groups, companies and industrial groups, and trade associations.) Presenters were asked
to provide comments about any positive and negative aspects of permitting, compliance, or
regulatory processes that are believed to affect technology innovation for environmental
purposes. Illustration of the significance of these comments and suggestions was
requested using specific, real case studies.
Twenty eight (28) oral and five (5) written presentations were received at the two Fact
Finding meetings. Most provided one or more case studies. The presentations came from
technology developers and other providers of environmental products and services,
regulated communities, EPA regulatory offices and researchers, and the environmental
community (listed in declining order of the number of presentations).
In addition, the National Environmental Technology Applications Corporation
(NETAQ prepared a report that describes a framework for considering the relative
importance of the impact of potential impediments on technology innovation. The
framework describes the stages of the technology development and commercialization
process and identifies the points of interaction between that process and environmental
permitting and compliance systems.
24
-------
The Focus Group met in August, 1990, to review information available to it, make
findings, and draft preliminary recommendations. The Focus Group defined characteristics
of permitting and compliance systems that would encourage the development and diffusion
of innovative technologies. It used these as the framework for its recommendations. It also
listed the important perspectives that must be kept in mind when considering the value of
potential recommendations. The characteristics and perspectives are discussed in the
"Rationale for System Changes." The Focus Group met twice more by teleconference,
during which this report and its recommendations were discussed, revised, and approved
for presentation to the full TIE Committee. The TEE Committee approved these
recommendations at its meeting on October 23,1990.
25
-------
IV. ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS SPEAK: THE FINDINGS
The Technology Innovation and Economics (TIE) Committee has held two fact finding
processes over the past two years. One has helped build to the other.
The First "Renort and Recommendations" of the TTE Committee
The first "Report and Recommendations" examined EPA's innovation programs,
identifying the status and effectiveness of each in fostering technology innovation for
environmental purposes. Based on this examination, NACEPT issued its January 1990
"Report and Recommendations of the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee."
This document contains "Findings" that gave an overview of the critical role of technology
innovation to the nation's success in protecting human health and the environment in the
context of sustainable development, and introduced the concept that serious impediments,
different from those facing other technology fields, obstruct the market process for
technology innovation for environmental purposes. The Findings emphasized:
1. The need for federal leadership for this technology innovation
2. The need for a comprehensive policy to remove the major impediments obstructing
this technology innovation
3. The need to erect a system of incentives that address the perceptions of risk within
each stakeholder group, encouraging each to play its appropriate role in technology
innovation
4. The nature of several of the major impediments that create an atmosphere of risk-
averseness among organizations involved in technology innovation
5. The need to build a cooperative relationship among the stakeholder groups
6. The need for outreach to build the consensus that will be needed to sustain a
mutually supportive relationship.
Findings on permitting and Compliance Policy
The TIE Committee's second fact rinding process examined the relationship between
environmental permitting and compliance systems and technology innovation. The
Findings from this process and the Committee's deliberations form the basis for Section V:
Rationale for System Changes and Section VI: Recommendations and Commentary:
26
-------
Finding 1.
Technology innovation, pursued through an integrated approach, is
necessary for the achievement of environmental protection goals and
objectives.
Technology is the source of most pollution, but can be designed in a manner to
eliminate pollution or to reduce, recycle, control, or treat emissions and residues. Existing
environmentally-beneficial technologies can be used more broadly. Improved
technologies, too, can be applied to solve potential environmental problems.
Environmental and productivity considerations must be integrated into the design of new
technologies to ensure efficient, environmentally-sound production of goods and services.
Finding 2.
The federal government should assume leadership and establish
a system of incentives favoring technology innovation. The goal
of government is to build a cooperative relationship among
governments, businesses, and academia for technology innovation
for environmental purposes and for assuring sustainable development.
At the heart of this relationship is consistency in the marketplace.
Governments' roles are critical. Although less than 10 percent of all U.S. investment
in technology innovation for environmental purposes is by federal and state governmental
agencies, most innovations trigger regulatory oversight during research, development,
and/or demonstration, and all require regulatory approvals for use for compliance
purposes. The governmental role as gatekeeper and overseer transcends its role as investor
in technology innovation for environmental purposes. Thus, while added government
financial support would be helpful, improved regulatory and administrative processes are
vital.
The federal government alone is capable of this role, because the federal government
primarily determines the stringency, applicability, timing, and longevity of environmental
requirements. These requirements - and their enforcement ~ thus trigger and define the
environmental marketplace. The federal signals dominate in the minds of regulated
communities and technology developers. The process of technology innovation is made up
of many steps, each one of which is critical to the ultimate success or failure of a
technology. Unless the environmental regulatory system provides a constant incentive to
27
-------
innovate, the likelihood is increased that worthwhile technologies will not complete the
necessary steps to commercialization.
It is particularly important that the Environmental Protection Agency make technology
innovation a high priority, because (a) of the central role of regulations in triggering and
defining the market for environmental products and services and (b) it is at the national
level that incentive and institutional systems to foster technology innovation can be
addressed most efficiently. The Committee specifically endorses recommendations of the
RCRA Implementation Study that EPA encourage adoption by the states of innovation
relief mechanisms and support state adoption of technology development and
demonstration projects.
Finding 3.
Federal,,state, and local environmental permitting and compliance
programs, the primary administrative systems for implementing
environmental regulations, provide underlying impetus for the use
of environmental technologies. Administrative complexity, high
cost, duplication, and layering, however, create a severe dysfunction
in environmental technology markets. These problems, generally
present in all environmental programs in the United States, are
especially damaging to technology innovation for environmental
purposes.
Federal, state, and local government permitting and compliance policies are frequently
duplicative and confusing. There is little coordination among relevant agencies.
Traditionally, and consistent with the underlying regulations, permit and compliance
programs are specific to a single environmental medium (e.g., air, water). Movement
toward multi-media inspections and enforcement is occurring at both the state and federal
level, however. F6r example, up to 25 percent of EPA's enforcement actions during FY
1991 will be multi-media in scope, according to the Office of Enforcement's 4-year
strategic plan. It should also be noted that compliance with one permit may cause non-
compliance with other media-specific permits at operating facilities. This is particularly
damaging to both tests and early commercial uses of innovative technology.
As a result, the current system often precludes the most efficient use of environmental
resources in any given operating facility and does not encourage technology innovation and
the search for efficient solutions to environmental problems. It particularly discourages
28
-------
technology opportunities for pollution prevention and the selection of options whose
performance exceeds what is minimally required to comply.
Finding 4.
Predictable and consistent enforcement of regulations, rather than
the mere existence of regulations, creates markets for innovative
technology.
Environmental regulation is now understood as a force to internalize external costs of
production and other human activities. The environment is no longer a free good to be
used as a dumping ground for wastes, and compliance expenditures for the most part
involve the purchase and installation of environmental technologies. Critically, regulation-
related enforcement policies give greater definition to the timing and dimensions of
environmental technology markets. „ This clarity is important to increasing the predictability
of the market, a key factor to technology developers and users and to their investors.
The lack of predictable and consistent enforcement at 'all levels of government dampens
the expectation of the need to comply with environmental requirements and, therefore,
diminishes or forestalls the need to purchase environmental products and services.
Similarly, the lack of predictable enforcement discourages permittees from using innovative
technologies, which inherently expose them to greater risk, and discourages entrepreneurs
from investing money and effort in the technology innovation process.
Finding 5.
The cost, risk, and complexity of permitting systems associated
with testing and demonstrating innovative technology for
environmental purposes is excessive. There are few locations in
the United States where tests and demonstrations of innovative
technologies can be performed. No viable permitting process exists
for those few that do.
There is no functional permitting system for testing and demonstrating innovative
environmental technology. Under the Clean Air Act and.the Clean Water Act, there is no
permit for tests or demonstrations, and ad hoc processes for regulatory oversight of tests
and demonstrations have only partially filled the gap. RCRA "RD&D" permits are used
29
-------
only infrequently. In each case, the protection of human health and the environment so
dominates regulatory thinking that technology developers usually cannot define the range of
applicability of an innovative technology. A balance can be found.
Permitting processes for tests and demonstrations of innovative technologies should be
instituted, expanded, and streamlined and designed to encourage technology innovation
under each of the major media statutes. In some cases, this may require legislation.
Similarly, testing centers -- whether operated by private organizations, EPA, or other
governmental agencies -- should be encouraged and supported. Specialized permitting
processes should also be designed to ease and speed the startup and operation of these
facilities. Some might be established at existing and unused federally-owned sites.
The need to protect human health and the environment during testing, demonstration,
and early commercial use of any innovative technology is considered paramount by the TIE
Committee. However, the TEE Committee believes that this can be accomplished while-
allowing wider testing and demonstrations of innovative technologies for environmental
purposes. The Committee also believes that the potential benefits of innovative
technologies for environmental purposes counterbalance limited, temporary deviations from
standards that may occur during testing and demonstration, particularly when testing is
conducted under environmentally safe conditions.
Finding 6.
The lack of institutional recognition of the high priority of
technology innovation and the complexity of the permit application
process inhibits many technological ideas from flourishing,
causes excessive time delay, and imposes excessive costs on the
development and early commercial uses of innovative technologies.
Permit application has become an art practiced largely by consulting firms and some
staffs of major corporations, due to the complexity and conflicting nature of regulatory
requirements. The cost and time for application drafting, negotiation of permit terms, and
pre-permit data gathering are so excessive as to discourage the development, testing, and
commercial use of innovative technologies for environmental purposes. Costs associated
with preparing permit applications and filing for permits can actually exceed the cost of a
technology, thus creating significant disincentives. The Committee heard several examples
of this.
30
-------
Operating facilities with existing permits are especially discouraged from applying for
new permits based on the use of an innovative and environmentally-effective technology
for a variety of reasons. These are discussed in the Recommendations and Commentary
section of this report
Finding 7.
The risk associated with testing and early commercial uses of an
innovative technology is greater than risks associated with using
known technologies in similar applications. The record shows that
the lack of public confidence and trust stands as a major impediment
to the development and use of innovative technologies for
environmental purposes.
A key step in fostering technology innovation for environmental purposes must, of
necessity, address public concerns. Moreover, unless permitting and compliance systems
are effective, public confidence cannot be earned.
On the other hand, unless "performance envelopes" (i.e., the range of applicability of
technologies) are defined, a "Catch-22" will exist that undermines public confidence in
innovative technologies, adds to the perception of investment risk by technology
developers and the financial community, and deters potential commercial users. Engineers'
ability to determine performance envelopes during testing - and therefore to be able to
project the potential usefulness of that technology at distant sites - is critical to reducing the
risk to public health and environment associated with demonstration and subsequent use for
compliance purposes.
The solution to this dilemma can be found in redefining the purpose of permit and
compliance systems towards (a) assuring the enforceability of applicable objectives
(standards), (b) assuring that a positive record exists of facility's compliance history, (c)
developing accurate and effective self-monitoring systems (to assure compliance), and (d)
undertaking enforcement against violators, while (e) establishing a substantive process for
public involvement that can build confidence and (0 allowing sufficient flexibility for
performance envelopes to be defined. Thus, both a strong process for public involvement
and flexibility with respect to technology performance and timing of achieving compliance
(or test objectives) should be built into environmental permitting and compliance processes.
31
-------
Finding 8.
Permit and compliance personnel turnover is excessive, causing
loss of institutional memory, the use of inexperienced personnel,
and inconsistent permitting and enforcement approaches.
The high turnover rate is particularly damaging to the technology innovation process,
because the expertise required for regulatory consideration of proposed uses of innovative
techno!6gies is greater than what is required for the consideration of conventional, "best
available technology." One reason for this is the lack of training and other support for
permit and compliance personnel. When this problem is combined with the lack of
institutional policy support and guidance for the use of innovative technology and the fact
that the process of considering innovative technologies is more time consuming, the
importance of retaining permit and compliance personnel is even more apparent.
Finding 9.
Uncertainty about the timing, goals, and longevity of regulations
increases investment risk and discourages the development and use of
innovative technology for environmental purposes.
In the current regulatory system, (1) regulatory objectives and requirements remain in
flux at least until promulgation and (2) old regulations can be modified and new regulations
introduced under one or another environmental media program with little regard to creating
some predictability and stability for regulated parties. This is very damaging to innovation,
because the process of developing innovative technology generally takes ten or more years
from the point of invention until commercial introduction.
The long lead time for technology innovation conflicts sharply with the uncertainty
inherent to current regulatory practices. The inability to predict future environmental
requirements and the inability to predict the longevity of current regulations generates an
atmosphere of excessive risk and discourages investment in innovative technology for
environmental purposes. In an unstable, uncertain regulatory environment, investment in
innovation is usually delayed in favor of quick fixes with low capital costs.
32
-------
Related to this problem, confusion exists about the intent of some regulations,
especially with respect to definition of terms and interpretation of regulations and
procedures. These problems must be identified and clarified, if compliance and innovation
rates are to be increased.
Finding 10.
The current reliance on "best available technology"-based
regulations misses a major opportunity to apply incentive-based
approaches in rules and permits that can appeal to the motivations
of interested parties.
Among the incentive-based approaches that could be applied successfully to improving
environmental results and technology innovation are: (1) economic incentive tools (e.g.,
pollution fees and taxes, pollution trading, strengthening environmental technology patents
and making them easier to obtain); (2) depreciation rules, tax credits, and other tax policies;
(3) performance-based rules; (4) explicit, clear standards; (5) two-tiered regulations, which
combine a "best available technology"-based first tier, an environmental goal-based second
tier (that may be technologically or economically unattainable at the time of promulgation),
and, potentially, pollution trading and credits, (6) subsidized and facilitated research,
development, and demonstration; (7) improved technical assistance programs, and (8)
improved technology transfer programs.
In the absence of the use of such incentive-based tools, the current command-and-
control, "best available techriology"-based approach to regulation offers at best mixed
incentives for the development and use of improved environmental and production
technologies. Such technologies, which often cost more than the technology on which a
regulation is based, must await an uncertain recognition by rulemakers before their niche in
the marketplace is assured. As previously noted by the TIE Committee in the January 1990
"Report and Recommendations," "before the imposition of an environmental rule, no
incentive exists to apply an environmentally beneficial technology (other than good will or
the desire to avoid an uncertain future liability).
After regulatory requirements are imposed, compliance with B AT-based rules requires
the quick use of a technology with the requisite performance and provides no reward for
the development and use of technology offering improved performance, regardless of the
environmental and public health risk remaining after use of BAT." Only innovation with
33
-------
respect to cost of performance is encouraged. Opportunities must be put in place that create
a system of positive incentives for stakeholders to seek innovative technological solutions
to environmental problems — and then put to use -- under each of the major media statutes.
This is likely to require a mix of administrative and regulatory changes, plus legislation.
Finding 11.
Many affected and interested parties are uninformed about the
purpose and benefits of, and regulatory and administrative systems
that foster, technology innovation for the environment.
EPA and state regulatory staffs, regulated communities, technology developers and
providers, and the public need various types of information about technology innovation.
A governmental policy of fostering technology innovation will involve a significant
management change in the operation of environmental programs. As mentioned in other
findings, regulatory and other incentives will be needed. A communication strategy and
consensus-building activities will be necessary. Training and education programs and
technical assistance will be needed to increase the ability of interested parties to participate
in a technology strategy that includes innovation for pollution prevention, as well as
pollution control.
Finding 12.
The encouragement of pollution prevention has not been sufficiently
built into permitting and compliance systems.
Significant opportunities exist to build into production processes an improved
environmental result, avoiding the generation of pollution. Pollution prevention
opportunities exist in virtually every industry, but current regulatory approaches have not
been designed to foster the search for them or to foster their use. The media-specific
approach to environmental regulation appears to be a major obstacle to pollution
prevention. A lack of attention to pollution prevention is a major missed opportunity in
environmental strategy: pollution is waste and waste reduces efficiency and productivity
and, hence, profits. It is inherently in the interest of plant managers and corporate
executives to reduce waste.
34
-------
With this in mind, the TIE Committee has recognized that a hierarchy of technological
approaches to environmental improvement exists, in order of desirability: technologies that
prevent pollution, recycling technologies, environmental control technologies, and cleanup
technologies. The TIE Committee believes that the use of a combination of these
technological approaches can yield the most efficient reduction of environmental problems.
The TIE Committee also believes that the policy of automatically triggering a major permit
review when facility operators propose to introduce pollution prevention modifications to
existing permits should be reconsidered, because this policy discourages pollution
prevention and generally slows environmental improvement.
Finding 13.
Although some positive incentives exist, no important stakeholder
group is currently encouraged, in net effect, to support innovative
technologies for environmental purposes. This situation creates
the 'major market dysfunction described above that needs to be
addressed- by environmental policy makers.
The disincentives affecting the involvement of each major stakeholder group in
developing, demonstrating, and using innovative technologies, as they are seen by the TIE
Committee, are summarized below:
• Regulated Communities: Fragmentation of responsibility for permitting and
compliance across federal, state, and local jurisdictions; a lack of coordination of
permitting processes and reviews and of compliance policies and practices across
the media; a lack of permitting and compliance policies that aid the testing and
commercial introduction of innovative technology (e.g., the lack of flexibility
allowed for tests); regulatory uncertainty and risk associated with the use of
innovative technology; and the lack of adequate information and technical
assistance on permitting processes for innovative technology, on enforcement
policies related to technology innovation, and on available innovative technology.
• Regulators (Federal, State, and Local): The lack of encouragement and of
administrative regulatory systems associated with permits for technology tests and
demonstration and for test centers; professional risk in choosing an innovative
technology over a "tried and true" technology in issuing permits for its early
commercial applications (associated with the difficulty and lack of experience in
determining the appropriateness of a proposed use of an innovative technology for
compliance purposes at a particular site and with the possibility that a proposed use
may be an attempt to avoid or delay compliance); for permit writers, extra time to
consider the use of an innovative technology at a particular site without receiving
encouragement (i.e., from policy) or credit (e.g., lowered requirements for
number of permit applications processed, recognition for helping the innovation
process); difficulty in coordinating with other levels of government and other
35
-------
media-specific permit writers; lack of incentives for compliance personnel to be
flexible with early applications of innovative technologies (that may have difficulty
in "working the bugs out" on a timely basis, even in good faith efforts to do so);
lack of resources in permitting and compliance programs at all levels of
government (e.g., inadequate staff, lack of information about innovative
technologies and their previous applications); lack of institutional credit for taking
the time to consider a permit application for RD&D permits under RCRA.
Providers of Environmental Products and Services: Lack of compliance
processes that, by creating the expectation to comply, define markets and thereby
reduce the risk of technology innovation and early commercialization; the need to
satisfy, simultaneously and without coordination mechanisms, the requirements of
variousjevels of government and in potentially more than one of the environmental
media; costs and delays associated with obtaining permits for tests and
demonstrations that may be significant in the context of the entire innovation
project; the compounding of risk associated with the difficulty, expense, and
delays of getting permits to test innovative technologies and permits for their early
commercial application; uncertainty about the timing, goals, and longevity of
regulations (and, therefore, about the timing, nature, and longevity of markets);
and lack of encouragement for pollution prevention (and, therefore, about the
markets for pollution prevention solutions to environmental problems).
Investors: Lack of compliance processes that, by creating the expectation to
comply, define markets and thereby reduce the risk of technology innovation and
early commercialization; costs of testing that are magnified by the costs and time
delays associated with obtaining permits to test innovative technology; the
compounding of risk associated with the difficulty, expense, and delays of getting
permits to test innovative technologies and permits for their early commercial
application; uncertainty about the timing, goals, and longevity of regulations (and,
therefore, about the timing, nature, and longevity of markets); lack of
encouragement for pollution prevention (and, therefore, about the markets for
pollution prevention solutions to environmental problems).
The Public: The combination of hope, fear, and lack of understanding about
technology in general and innovative technologies, in particular; concern with
being the "guinea pig" that assumes all of the health risk associated with the failure
of a test or commercial use of an innovative technology without being able to reap
more than a small share of the benefit (reflected in the "not in my back yard"
[NIMBY] syndrome); the inability of regulators, technology developers, and users
of innovative technologies to assure the public that no harm to their health and
safety and that of the environment will arise from tests or early commercial uses of
these technologies (related to the problem that the public does not know who to
trust, if anyone); the fact that no study can prove the absence of an effect; the lack
of confidence that they are being fully informed about the purpose, benefits, and
potential local impacts of technology innovation.
These Findings, and the following recommendations that derive from them, describe
the TEE Committee's conclusions about the problems inherent to existing environmental
permitting and compliance systems as they relate to technology innovation for
environmental purposes and the reforms.that must be made to take advantage of
36
-------
opportunities that innovative technologies offer for environmental gain. The TIE
Committee believes that it is essential to make the reforms recommended in
this report to deliver a clear and appropriate message to governmental and
nongovernmental stakeholders that a strong market response is desired and
possible for solving environmental problems. Making these reforms will set in
motion the integration of environment into both the public policy development process and
the private investment cycle, leveraging the government's resources by encouraging
maximum public and private efforts to innovate for environmental ends and, thereby,
encouraging technology innovation for environmental purposes.
Looking Towards the Future
It is important to note that not all of these,recommendations are new and unique, even
to the TIE Committee (see the Committee's January 1990 recommendations, which overlap
with and complement these recommendations). The TIE Committee reiterates its
principal January 1990 recommendations: it remains critical to evaluate the
effectiveness of existing innovation programs, issue a technology
innovation policy for the environment, and develop a technology innovation
strategy.
The time is right to take these steps: a growing recognition exists that technology
innovation for environmental purposes is, critical to the success of environmental programs
in the United States and an increasing number of commendable initiatives have been
undertaken by EPA and states to foster technology innovation for environmental purposes.
And, the recent report of the Science Advisory Board, "Reducing Risk: Setting Priorities
and Strategies for Environmental Protection," defines how to set priorities for solving
environmental problems. It is novttime to increase the national capacity to develop the
technologies needed to solve the most important environmental problems.
There are beginning to be steps in the right direction. More EPA and state activities
than can be catalogued in this document are underway. These include:
• EPA's recent RCRA Implementation Study identifies the need for some reforms in
RCRA permitting systems to aid the development and use of innovative
technologies for RCRA compliance purposes.
37
-------
• The creation by EPA of the Pollution Prevention Office (and the dedication of EPA
resources to support pollution prevention initiative projects that can impact
positively on the prospects for fostering technology innovation for environmental
purposes) establishes an institutional point of focus for pollution prevention and
initial projects across the Agency.
• The creation by EPA of the Technology Innovation Office (in the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response) is the first institutional recognition in an EPA
regulatory office of the need to provide support to innovative technologies and to
identify barriers to the use of innovative technologies.
• Another step is the increased vigor of the technology transfer programs of the
Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the explicit support by ORD for
the testing and commercialization of innovative environmental technology at such
facilities as Center Hill in Cincinnati; the EPA Incineration Research Facility in
Pine Bluff, Arkansas; the proposed testing center at National Environmental
Technology Applications Corporation (NETAC); and the proposed Equipment
Testing and Evaluation Center (ETEC) in Edison, NJ.
• The development of an "Interpretive Rule" by the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) aims to creating a routine process for considering tests of
air pollution technology.
• Several states have instituted integrated or cross-media permitting programs that
encourage pollution prevention and co-optimization in environmental control.
• The federal Toxic Release Inventory, state toxic use reduction programs, and
support for technology development and commercialization are also hopeful
developments.
• The Office of Enforcement's (OE) "Enforcement for the 1990s Project" includes a
two-year pollution prevention project to test the incentives, disincentives, and
tradeoffs involved in utilizing pollution prevention conditions in settlements.
All of these initiatives (and others not specifically noted here) by EPA and states deserve
recognition and commendation -- and far more need to be undertaken in a coordinated,
integrated fashion.
38
-------
As the TIE Committee notes in Finding 10, however, fundamental
changes will be needed to create a comprehensive and continuous system of
incentives that systematically encourage the environmental technology
innovation process. These necessary changes will extend beyond
permitting and compliance to reach to the very basis of regulations. The
changes must clearly reduce the risks and increase the rewards associated with the process
of bringing technology into commercial use for environmental purposes, if the agency's
risk reduction-based strategy is to be successful.
Specifically, policy makers should reconsider the way "best available technology"-
based regulations are now developed and applied. Such regulations use agency established
technology-based limits and use a technology to demonstrate that these limits are
achievable. Even though these are performance-based requirements, they have a strong
tendency to lock in the technology that is used to demonstrate achievability. To some
extent, reliance on "best available technology"-based regulations impedes the development
and introduction of innovative technologies. Among the impediments are the "locking in"
effect and the lack of institutional mechanisms to encourage and facilitate technologies.
Policy makers need to be careful to provide flexibility so that other technologies that can be
used to meet the limits or to transcend them are developed and used. The way the
regulatory system now operates, the incentive to innovate exists primarily with respect to
cost of performance and there is little, if any, incentive or opportunity to innovate for the
better performance the nation will need if environmental and economic objectives are to be
harmonized. Policy makers should therefore reconsider the reliance on current approaches,
should remove rigidity, and should create opportunities to develop and use innovative
technologies. In this regard, the Committee notes that environmental regulatory
requirements are frequently limited by a technology base that is insufficient to solve
environmental problems to the degree recommended by risk analyses. In other words, the
United States' environmental program is technology limited.
While "best available technology"-based regulations are not inherently "bad," the way
they are frequently implemented creates rigidity and has an adverse affect on technology
innovation for environmental purposes. Consideration should be given to substituting
regulatory processes that create economic incentives for technology innovation. Such
regulatory processes might include performance-based standards (particularly those that •
establish requirements that meet desired environmental targets, rather than targets based on
39
-------
those that are currently achievable technically and economically), pollution fees and taxes,
emission and effluent trading, depreciation rules, tax policies, and other such techniques.
The approaches currently in use to provide support to research and development
should also be revisited, with consideration being given to techniques that provide
additional financial and other assistance to technology innovation and which leverage
governmental resources. For example, strengthening patents for environmental technology
and making them easier to obtain will increase the incentive to innovate.
As with its January 1990 recommendations, the TIE Committee
sincerely wishes to help EPA create a broad and clear strategic vision of
what is needed to energize the innovation cycle for environmental
purposes. The recommendations in this report suggest evolutionary
modifications to the present environmental regulatory system that are
designed to channel the creative and financial resources of the nation, to
expand the technology base for solving environmental problems. This is
the critical complement to EPA's risk reduction strategy for targeting
critical environmental problems. The combination of these two strategies
can increase the effectiveness of EPA in its role as the national
environmental leader.
The following sections describe the Committee's findings and rationale in terms of the
present dysfunction of markets for environmental technology, summarize the TIE
Committee's five major recommendations to, the Administrator, and provide detailed
recommendations and commentaries about their significance in overcoming impediments to
the environmental marketplace. Detailed implementation steps are included, where
appropriate.
40
-------
V. RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Environmental regulations and associated compliance programs define and drive the
marketplace for environment-related technology. Technology is the source of most
pollution, and technology improvements are needed to meet both environmental and
economic objectives. The role of regulation and enforcement is crucial, because most ;
environmental costs are economic externalities. As a result, technologies will not
frequently be used to improve the environment without clear definition of requirements and
without effective compliance programs. Indeed, without regulatory acceptance, no
technology can be developed and used to meet environmental requirements. Moreover,
successful compliance programs engender the expectation on the part of affected parties that
they are required to comply.
NACEPT, in the January 1990, "Report and Recommendations of the Technology
Innovation and Economics Committee," has concluded that the development and use of
innovative technologies is necessary to more efficiently and simultaneously improve the
environment and enhance productivity and economic competitiveness. Technology
innovation is thus essential to continued progress in environmental protection in the United
States.
The TIE Committee's aim is to increase our understanding of the incentives and
disincentives built into today's environmental regulatory system. Recommendations based
on this understanding should help the Administrator make informed policy choices, thereby
enhancing the ability of the organizations responsible for the management of environmental
quality to influence the nature and pace of technology innovation for environmental
purposes.
A. Analysis of Six Issues
The rationale for the TIE Committee's recommendations is rooted in the answers
developed by the Focus Group on Environmental Permitting's investigations of the six
issues listed in the section of this report entitled "TIE Committee Goals and Process". The
TIE Committee's analysis of these six issues follows:
41
-------
ISSUE 1.
The identification of the major interested parties -- the stakeholders — and their
motivation with respect to technology innovation.
Several categories of stakeholders are recognized by the 'LIE Committee: regulated
organizations (whether in the private or public sectors); providers of environmental
products and services; the financial community supporting the providers; regulatory
agencies, federal, state, and local; and the general public. Their motivations with respect to
technology innovation vary, and their willingness to pursue technology innovation is
impacted differently by environmental permitting and compliance systems. The
motivations include factors directly related to the features of permitting and compliance
systems and factors that are, in large part, independent of these features. Critical themes
include:
• Compliance expectation: whether regulated organizations expect to have to
comply. (The effectiveness of compliance programs determines the dimensions
and timing of markets.)
• System predictability and flexibility: whether the additional time required
to obtain permits for testing and beginning early commercial use of innovative
technologies can be predicted, and whether obtaining such permits can even be
anticipated under reasonable circumstances. (Permitting programs affect
technology developers, financiers of innovative technologies, potential users of
those technologies, and the general public.)
• Time and cost: whether the time and cost impacts of gaining permits to test
innovative technologies for environmental purposes are acceptable compared to
those associated with other investment opportunities. (Permitting programs affect
financiers of innovative technologies, technology developers, potential technology
users, and the general public.)
• Extraneous triggers: whether application for a permit to test an innovative
technology or to use it at a commercial facility triggers a new source review, a
corrective action requirement, or another environmental review extraneous to
determining the innovative technology's performance. (Permitting programs affect
facility operators, technology developers, financiers of innovative technologies,
and the general public.)
• Testing the full range of performance: whether allowable tests of
innovative technologies can fully define performance envelopes. (Permitting
programs affect technology developers, financiers of innovative technologies, and
potential users of those technologies.)
Other factors are, in large part, independent of permitting and compliance systems:
42
-------
• Certainty of Regulations: whether a stable and predictable set of regulations
applies to the facilities and!technologies potentially affected by an innovative
technology (definition and stability of the market).
• Range of requirements: whether a large or a narrow range of requirements
applies to facilities and technologies potentially affected by an innovative
technology (definition and stability of the market).
• Regulatory treatment of new, old facilities: whether regulatory
requirements affect new and old production facilities and equipment equally
(turnover rates for production facilities and equipment and, therefore, the timing,
nature, and size of markets).
• Financial policies: whether tax policy and accounting practices favor pollution
control or pollution prevention solutions (financial characteristics of the market).
i ' •
As discussed in the Findings, the TIE Committee concluded that the market signals
created by current environmental statutes and regulations, permitting systems, and
compliance programs do not, in net effect, convey to the major interested parties support
v
for the search for technological solutions to environmental problems. Importantly,
permitting and compliance systems, as they function today, discourage individuals and
firms in all categories of stakeholders from taking the risks necessary if innovative
technologies are to be routinely brought into use to solve environmental problems. As
previously noted, the rate of investment in environmental technology research and
development is relatively low, reflecting the net disincentives facing stakeholders, and the
role of the United States as leader in environmental technology has diminished. The TIE
Committee believes that uncertainties, costs, and delays associated with permitting and
compliance systems are significant factors in this market dysfunction.
ISSUE 2.
Resource and timing impacts on technology innovation and diffusion of federal, state,
and local permitting reviews.
The TEE Committee has found a complex picture, depending on:
• Whether a technology is being developed or is ready for commercial use
• The environmental medium being considered
• Whether a control technology or a pollution prevention technology is being
considered
43
-------
• The jurisdiction and the degree to which applicable requirements have been
attained in a geographic area.
In general, the resource and timing impacts of the media-specific environmental
programs appear to have a significant adverse effect on the cost and the time required to
develop and demonstrate innovative technologies for environmental purposes and to bring
them into commercial use. It appears that the environmental system under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) poses the greatest resource and timing impacts to
technology innovation for environmental purposes; that the Clean Air Act, as currently
applied, poses somewhat fewer, and that the Clean Water Act, as currently applied, poses
the fewest barriers. Both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act are being interpreted in
\
some jurisdictions and by EPA in ways that increase flexibility for testing and for applying
innovative technology, despite the limited use of statutory provisions designed for that
purpose. Moreover, there is typically no effective cross media coordination in permitting
and compliance systems. This deters technology innovation in general, and constrains
efficiency in environmental responses and to pollution prevention, in particular.
ISSUE 3.
The importance to technology innovation and diffusion of flexibility in permit
requirements and of cross-media consideration of environmental impacts of
innovative technology.
The TIE Committee has found that permitting requirements must simultaneously
protect human health and the environment, and be sufficiently flexible to (1) allow
performance envelopes (i.e., the range of acceptable performance of a technology) to be
defined during testing and (2) encourage regulated facilities to co-optimize for
environmental and productivity objectives when choosing from available technological
options for achieving compliance. Several "characteristics of permitting systems that
encourage technology innovation for environmental purposes," were identified by the
Focus Group on Environmental Permitting. These place the need for flexibility in context
with other necessary characteristics:
a. Flexibility: The regulatory system should authorize the permit writer to
incorporate a greater degree of flexibility into each permit for testing or use of an
innovative technology than is generally the present practice, if means can be found
to adequately protect human health and the environment. This is critical during the
testing of prototypes and demonstration units: the developer of innovative
technology needs sufficient flexibility to define the performance envelope of a new
44
-------
technology (that is, to realistically determine the most appropriate operating
conditions). For operating facilities, the terms Of a permit should focus on the
"result rather than the means to achieve it," encouraging the consideration of a
broader range of technology options by the owner or operator (see below). A
focus on result would provide flexibility to try innovative technologies, especially
pollution prevention options.
b. Compliance: Technology developers and users need to be confident that
compliance will be required during testing, demonstration, and early commercial
use of innovative technologies. Compliance efforts must therefore be consistent,
predictable, and systematic. This is vital to allowing markets to develop for
technologies, as well as require testers and users to operate responsibly, knowing
that enforcement programs will assure compliance.
The need to protect human health and the environment during testing and early
commercial use of any innovative technology is considered paramount by the TIE
Committee. If means to provide this protection cannot be found, testing or use of
an innovative technology will have to be limited. The TIE Committee believes,
however, that approaches are available, even within existing statutory
authorization, to allow sufficient flexibility during testing and demonstration to
define performance envelopes — while ensuring compliance. It should be noted
that once the performance envelope of an innovative technology is defined by
testing, early commercial use is less risky and, therefore, can become routine.
c. Enforceability: Permit conditions must be enforceable. Introducing flexibility
into permit conditions in the interest of technology innovation cannot be allowed to
diminish enforceability. Variances should be available for good faith efforts that
are not completely successful, if there is no significant threat to human health and
the enYironrrient.
d. Predictability: The schedule for obtaining permits for testing and early
commercial uses of innovative technologies for environmental purposes needs to
be consistent and predictable, within and across jurisdictions. The outcome of the
process of obtaining an operating permit when an innovative technology is
involved appears to be less certain, the time to obtain it longer, and the cost greater
than would be the case if a conventional technology were involved. As noted in
the Findings, this uncertainty is even greater if, as is usually the case, multiple
jurisdictions or more than one environmental medium are involved, since
coordinated permitting is not the norm.
The need to assure the protection of human health and the environment during
testing, while paramount, appears to have Overwhelmed the need for flexibility
sufficient to define performance envelopes. This is particularly so under RCRA
and, to a lesser extent, under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The
outcome of permitting processes has therefore become difficult to predict for
technology developers and time consuming and costly. In some jurisdictions,
obtaining perrnits for testing is nearly impossible. When viewed across
jurisdictional lines, the lack of predictability of permitting processes for testing
innovative technologies is striking. The lack of a predictable, working process for
permitting tests reinforces investors' perception of excess risk.
e. Claritv: Clarity in permitting processes and in permit conditions are important to
the testing and early commercial use of innovative technologies. Clarity is
45
-------
important to the technology developers, technology users, regulators, and the
public. Permit writers, especially, are assisted by clearly-stated principles.
f. Confidentiality: To encourage early discussions with regulators and other
interested parties, assurance must be provided that secret information about
innovative technologies will be protected. The expectation of confidentiality
would encourage development and commercialization of innovative technology. It
would also encourage more and earlier dialogue during technology development
and a better flow of information between technology developers, technology users,
and permit writers. Thus, a greater assurance of confidentiality would likely
shorten the time for innovative technologies to be introduced and a more efficient
use of resources by both permittee and permit writer.
ISSUE 4.
The importance to technology innovation and diffusion of flexibility in compliance
practices.
Technology developers and users need to know that requirements will be enforced
during testing, demonstration, and early commercial use of innovative technologies. A
successful compliance system will create the belief on the part of affected parties that they
are required to comply. The TIE Committee identified characteristics necessary to a
successful compliance system that encourages technology development and use:
consistency, predictability, and flexibility. Certain features of enforcement programs were
also identified.
• Consistency: Consistency in compliance within and across jurisdictions is
important to giving basic definition and size to environmental markets. The TIE
Committee concluded that, unless compliance programs are systematic and have a
significant probability of identifying non-compliers, an expectation of the need to
comply will not be created.
• Predictability: Compliance schedules and the enforcement of permit conditions
must be predictable. (Similarly, the introduction of new regulations must also be
predictable.) The TIE Committee has found that the market for innovative
technologies and the degree of risk associated with investment in technology
innovation are strongly subject to the predictability characteristic.
* Flexibility: Innovative technologies have not previously been permitted for
compliance purposes, so performance and schedules are not based upon a good
data base derived from a permitted operating facility. They therefore need flexible
targets. The need for compliance flexibility arises in two situations: (1) not all
tests can be completed according to plans, within predetermined schedules, and
fully successfully in terms of performance targets and (2) early commercial
applications of innovative technologies may not achieve compliance on a timely
basis or may never achieve full compliance. The TIE Committee believes that,
under circumstances limited by the overriding need to protect human health and the
46
-------
environment, greater effort should be made to selectively use extended compliance
schedules, and to define alternative environmental mitigation measures to provide
soft landings for limited compliance shortfalls in cases where a good faith effort
has been made to use innovative technologies. Innovative enforcement
approaches are required to encourage and promote the innovations in
environmental technology needed for long-term environmental improvement.
Such an approach could encourage greater risk-taking with respect to technological
innovation, and would be consistent with the innovative approaches recommended
in Enforcement in the 1990s.
Features of enforcement programs: Appropriate enforcement methods must
contain provisions to assure that no economic benefit obtains during periods of
non-compliance associated w.ith testing and early commercial use of innovative
technologies for environmental purposes. Enforcement programs must be seen as
strong, yet be flexible and fair. Regulated organizations misusing the flexibility
feature must be strongly penalized. The TIE Committee concluded that these
features of enforcement programs would encourage reasonable technological and
financial risk taking by technology developers, financiers, and regulated
organizations.
ISSUE 5.
The potential to create incentives for pollution prevention inpermitting and
compliance systems.
The TIE Committee has concluded that considerable potential to enhance pollution
prevention exists in both permitting and compliance systems. The potential is present in
permitting and compliance systems to design an improved approach to regulation that
increases certainty about the timing, applicability, and longevity of requirements; that
includes incentive features in regulatory design; that emphasizes performance, rather than
"best available technology"; and that decreases regulatory "glitches."
In permitting, the TIE Committee has identified several disincentives (see Findings),
including the media-specific approach to facility permitting, the multi-jurisdictional
oversight of single facilities (without coordination and, sometimes, common requirements),
the easy triggering of permit reviews (e.g., by making "significant" facility modifications),
the high cost and long delays associated with permits for research, development, and
demonstration (RD&D) tests; and the lack of a regulatory climate that encourages and
rewards experimentation. The TIE Committee believes that the potential exists under
current statutory authority to reverse most of these disincentives to pollution prevention.
Statutory modifications will be needed to address the rest of these disincentives.
47
-------
ISSUE 6.
The perspective of the general public about technology innovation for environmental
purposes. -
There exists in the public both a fear and a hope about technology. The TEE
Committee met with several senior individuals from the organized environmental
community late last year (November 30,1989) to discuss this point. Although the purpose
of the meeting was limited to exploring individuals' perspectives, a consensus emerged that
technology innovation for environmental purposes, while not an end in itself, "is a
necessary component to effectively protecting the environment now and in the future" and
that "selective policies that foster useful technology innovation should be adopted."
Moreover, there is strong support in the environmental community and in the general public
for pollution prevention, waste minimization, and recycling, all of which to a greater or
lesser extent require technology innovation.
The public appears to be cautious, properly so in the opinion of the TEE Committee,
that technology innovation for environmental purposes be approached in a manner .that does
not jeopardize human health and the environment. When the public feels that it is well
informed and properly consulted, that undue risks are not taken that pose an imminent
threat, and that assurance against unforeseen damage is provided (e.g., that corrective
action to clean up a site where testing took place is guaranteed), the public's concerns can
be vitiated.
B. Parameters Affecting the Design of Permit and Compliance Systems
In its investigation of these six issues, the TIE Committee considered six perspectives
that reflect the wide variety of forces that impinge on the design and functioning of
environmental permit and compliance systems. The six perspectives are:
a. Jurisdiction: Several levels of government necessarily are involved in decisions
about the permitting of tests and early commercial use of innovative technologies:
federal, state and local agencies. The TIE Committee recognizes that differing
viewpoints represented by agencies in the different levels of government must be
addressed in recommending improvements in permitting and compliance systems,
that increased coordination across jurisdictions is necessary, and that the roles of
different levels of government need to be reconsidered and meshed together more
effectively.
48
-------
b. Media: The three environmental media are regulated very differently. Several
federal statutes provide differing approaches to regulation, permitting, and
compliance. State and local laws further complicate the permitting and compliance
systems with which developers or users of innovative technologies must comply.
Each of these laws focuses narrowly on permitting and compliance systems
targeted on a single environmental medium. The TIE Committee is in strong
agreement that a multi-media approach is needed in the interest of resource
efficiency, to minimize cross-media shifts of pollution, and to provide incentives
for accelerated technology innovation.
c. Pollution Prevention or Pollution Control: Pollution problems can be
addressed by preventing or minimizing pollution in the first place, by controlling
pollution once it is generated, or by a combination of the two approaches. The TIE
Committee's view is that a hierarchy of technology choices exists in which
pollution prevention is preferred, all things being equal. The TIE Committee's
investigation revealed that some features of permitting and compliance systems can
affect technology choices differently, some encouraging pollution prevention and
others encouraging pollution control. Similarly, permitting and compliance
systems can encourage technology innovation to take one course or the other.
Because both pollution prevention and pollution control solutions are needed, the
TIE Committee examined the ability of existing and potential features of permitting
and compliance systems to encourage both types of technology innovation.
d. Existing oj[ New Facilities: The public's lack of trust towards both regulated
organizations and regulators is reflected in the regulatory treatment of new sources,
which is often far more stringent than that for existing sources. Such "double
standards" are evident in all three environmental media. Information gathered by
the TIE Committee shows strong agreement that it is extremely difficult to obtain
permits for new locations and relatively easier to renew permits for existing
facilities. At many locations, the difficulty of .obtaining permits for a new facility
is more important than whether a technology proposed for use there is innovative
or the standard one.
The TIE Committee heard descriptions of situations in which companies'
reluctance to become subject to permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act led
them to apply innovative technologies. Their purpose was to keep emissions
below regulatory thresholds and thereby to escape regulation. In other cases,
however, attempts to apply innovative technologies to treat hazardous wastes on-
site were abandoned by firms who did not wish to have regulatory oversight
triggered under RCRA.
The performance requirements for environmental technologies and the degree of
scrutiny given to technologies applied may differ. The triggering of a major
modification provision under the Clean Air Act can have a vast impact on a
facility's environmental requirements. Under RCRA, the choice of treating or
even storing wastes on-site can bring a facility otherwise outside the purview of
RCRA under its umbrella and can trigger a RCRA corrective action review. The
TIE Committee recognizes the variety of potential positive and negative impacts on
technology choice created by the distinction between existing and new facilities,
and considers these a major concern to the goal of encouraging technology
innovation.
e. Geographic Considerations: The location of two identical facilities in
different geographic locations may place different strains on the environment or
49
-------
may subject the company to different state laws and regulations. This may, in
turn, trigger different performance requirements and the need to use different
environmental technologies. These geographic considerations may transcend state
boundaries and are reflected in different requirements, such as attainment vs.
nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act, state to state variations in
requirements under several programs, and water quality and effluent treatment
requirements in different bodies of water. The TIE Committee recognized and
considered the need for geographic variation in environmental requirements and in
technology choice. The Committee also recognizes the importance of the state role
in assuring that site-specific considerations are addressed, and the need for
coordination to assure that information can be shared and properly applied to each
unique situation.
f. Stakeholders: As discussed earlier, the TIE Committee recognizes five
categories of stakeholders whose views and motivations must be considered if
improvements in environmental permitting and compliance systems are to occur:
regulated organizations, whether in the private or public sectors; providers of
environmental products and services; the financial community supporting the
providers; regulatory agencies, federal, state, and local; and the general public.
The TIE Committee has concluded that permitting and compliance systems, as they
function today, discourage individuals and firms in all categories of stakeholders
from taking the risks necessary if innovative technologies are to be routinely
brought into use to solve environmental problems. The TIE Committee sought to
identify and consider the motivating factors operating within each stakeholder
group relative to the development and use of innovative technology for
environmental purposes.
Overall, the TIE Committee has concluded that current permitting and
compliance systems do not create a positive incentive system. Therefore,
specific changes (or types of changes) should be undertaken by responsible
officials. These improvements are designed to address the specific market dysfunctions
described above, to encourage the efficient use of resources for technology innovation for
environmental purposes, and to increase the opportunity to use these innovative
technologies to improve the nation's ability to protect human health and the environment.
50
-------
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION AND
COMMENTARY
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Technology Innovation and Economics Committee of NACEPT
recommends that the Administrator of EPA, working within EPA, with state
and local agencies, and with the Congress, make interrelated improvements
in environmental permitting and compliance systems necessary to foster
technology innovation for environmental purposes within the overriding
goal of protecting human health and the environment. These improvements
fall into five categories:
1. Modify permitting systems to aid the development, testing, and
demonstration of innovative technologies for environmental purposes.
2. Implement permitting processes that aid the commercial introduction of
innovative technologies for environmental purposes.
3. Use compliance programs to encourage the use of innovative
technologies to solve environmental problems.
4. Support regulators and other involved communities to maximize the
effectiveness of improvements recommended in permitting and
compliance systems.
5. Identify and remove regulatory obstacles which create unnecessary
inflexibility and uncertainty or otherwise inhibit technology innovation
for environmental purposes.
51
-------
B. DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION
AND COMMENTARY
Recommendation 1:
Modify permitting systems to aid the development, testing, and
demonstration of innovative technologies for environmental purposes.
1.1 Institute a working system of specialized permits in all
media for testing and demonstrating innovative technologies.
1.2 Develop a system of dedicated centers for tests and
demonstrations of innovative environmental technologies.
1.3. Develop a system for cross-media and cross-jurisdictional
coordination of the review of permit applications.
1.1 Institute a working system of specialized permits in all
media for testing and demonstrating innovative technologies for
environmental purposes, including
a. Permits for specialized testing facilities
b. Permits for testing at other locations.
Commentary
Testing innovative technologies for environmental purposes is necessary to define their
performance curves, or envelopes (i.e., the useful range of acceptable performance of a
technology), and to develop cost of performance data. The better the data, the greater the
certainty that the appropriate applications of a technology can be projected. With better test
and demonstration data, innovative technologies can be introduced into commercial use for
compliance purposes with greater assurance. Testing may have to be conducted several
times during research, development, and demonstration, as technologies are scaled up, re-
engineered to improve performance and extend applicability, and finally demonstrated at
commercial, operating locations.
52
-------
a. THE INADEQUACY OF CURRENT PERMIT PROCESSES: The
Clean Air Act (CAA)*, the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) contain limited provisions aimed at fostering the testing of
innovative technologies for environmental purposes. As noted in NACEPTs "Report and
Recommendations of the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee" in January
1990, these provisions are few, and none has been widely used. RCRA, in Section
3005(g), provides authority for a permit process specifically for "research, development,
and demonstration" (RD&D). This provision has been narrowly construed and is little
used. The RD&D permit program has been delegated to fewer than 10 states, and only a
handful of RD&D permits have been issued by EPA and the states. To encourage greater
use of the RD&D permit program, the Agency's RCRA Implementation Study recommends
that EPA consider centralized evaluation and even issuance of RD&D permits.
Under the CAA and CWA, no equivalent permit authority exists, and ad hoc
mechanisms have evolved to create some flexibility for testing. Considerable testing is
conducted of air and water pollution control technologies, although mainly at permitted
operating facilities using the ad hoc regulatory methods. Under the CWA, for example,
most permits are written under "Best Professional Judgement" -- "BPJ" - allowing the
permit writer flexibility to consider innovative solutions and local conditions. In sum, no
viable permitting process operates under any of the media-specific environmental statutes
for testing and demonstrating innovative technologies for environmental purposes.
At a minimum, existing statutory provisions should be fully employed to increase
opportunities for and flexibility in permitted tests, and ad hoc mechanisms should be
recognized and made systematic. EPA should consider options for a more comprehensive
solution in the reauthorization processes for the environmental statutes, two of which ~ the
CWA and RCRA - are about to begin. One option that deserves serious consideration is
an omnibus testing and demonstration authority. Such an authority would bridge the
media, providing a single permit process for environmentally safe, yet flexible, testing and
demonstration of environmentally beneficial technologies.
The TIE Committee has further found that there is little cross-media coordination of
permit application reviews. This compounds the difficulty of the permitting process for
* Note: It should be reiterated that the Clean Air Act has been amended, subsequent to the
investigations and deliberations of the TIE Committee.
53
-------
technology developers. It particularly discourages tests of pollution prevention
technologies, if those tests would cross regulatory thresholds. The value of pollution
prevention technologies may be most evident when viewed in a cross-media context.
Additionally, the ability to test and demonstrate technologies varies widely from state
to state, and data developed in one state is often not usable in another state, compounding
the problem. The lack of a functioning and predictable regulatory and administrative
process to test and demonstrate technology severely restricts the pipeline of innovation for
environmental purposes in the United States.
b. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS IN PERMITS FOR TESTS
AND DEMONSTRATIONS: The Committee recommends that nermWm programs.
he modified to create specialized permit processes for the testing and demonstration of
innovative environmental technologies. Permitting processes for tests and demonstrations
of innovative technologies should be instituted, expanded, and streamlined, and designed
to encourage technology innovation under each of the major "media" statutes. At a
minimum, existing statutory provisions should be fully employed to increase opportunities
for and flexibility in permitted tests. The Committee recomm?nfa coordination of these
specialized permitting programs across the environmental media. In addition, a new
permitting process for tests and demonstrations might be created under a single authority.
These processes should be designed to yield a predictable and timely process for regulatory
oversight of testing, one that protects human health and the environment and
simultaneously affords flexibility to testing programs.
c. ^ERMITS FOR TESTING CENTERS: Testing and demonstration of
innovative technologies can take place at permitted locations specifically designed and
designated for that purpose (see recommendation 1.2) or at other locations, particularly at
permitted operating facilities. Specialized permitting processes are needed for both.
Testing center permits should be cross-media based and issued for a substantial time
period. Permit terms should be flexible enough to allow for the testing of a wide variety of
technologies at a variety of sizes ranging from bench scale potentially through full scale.
The Committee endorses seven detailed recommendations for testine faciUtVJ3ermitS^m
developed bv EPA's Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM):
1. Scope of permit defined to ensure facilities' environmental safety. Permit
application reviews for testing facilities would focus on the capability of a facility .
to safely test a proposed range of technologies, rather than the capability of every
technology tested to achieve acceptable environmental performance during testing.
Thus, the range of technologies tested would be limited to those fiiat could be
54
-------
safely tested within the facility. Scientists will then be freer to conduct tests that
define the performance limits of technologies tested, while the facility's
own structure and environmental control technology insulates the surrounding
environment and nearby communities from harm.
2. Federal program, with delegation authority. Federal regulations would establish
and guide the issuance of testing facility permits, but delegate program authority
to states accepting the program. EPA would issue permits only in states that have
not adopted the program, and then only with state concurrence. State authority to
require more stringent standards would therefore be preserved.
3. Ten-year permit duration allowed. Permits would be issued for up to a ten-year
period, with .the possibility of renewal. A description of technology categories and
testing parameters, including sufficient information to assure that the capability of
the facility to safely conduct tests would not be exceeded, would have to be
provided as a part of the application, but controlled flexibility would remain (see
#4 below). Specialized requirements ~ such as those under RCRA for a public
review process, emergencyiplans, inspections, and corrective action ~ would
apply.
4. Installation of environmental controls required. Permitted facilities would have to
have air emissions control equipment, water treatment or pretreatment equipment,
solid and hazardous waste residuals pretreatment and storage capability, and
environmental monitoring equipment sufficient to assure that public health and the
environment are protected from pollutant releases during and after tests. This
installed environmental equipment will, in essence, create a bubble of
environmental protection around equipment being tested, ensuring no violation of
applicable environmental regulations during and after testing. Without test-specific
review by responsible regulatory agencies, no test could be conducted if the
capabilities and capacities of installed environmental controls could be exceeded
during testing.
5. Cleanup requirements apply. Application of the closure and post-closure
requirements under RCRA would apply, assuring that no significant residual risk
would remain at the testing location after the useful life of the testing facility is
completed or the facility is otherwise closed down. Similarly, RCRA corrective
action requirements would apply.
Public review process. Appropriate public participation processes (see
subrecommendation 4.5) for permitting under federal and state statutes would be
applied to proposed testing facility permits. Independent scientific expertise
should be made available to the community, enabling them to evaluate the test
facility to review safety, the range of tests proposed, time limits, etc. (see
subrecommendation 4.5). tests conducted within the constraints of the terms of a
permit, once it is issued, would not be subject to individual public review,
however.
Anti-loophole provisions. Time limits would be placed on the length of testing
allowable for, any one piece of equipment. This and other requirements (e.g.,
inspections, limits on quantity and time of storage of materials for testing) will
assure that the testing facilities cannot be misused to circumvent normal
requirements on treatment, storage, or disposal facilities.
6.
55
-------
d. NEEDED FEATURES OF PERMIT PROGRAMS FOR TESTS AND
DEMONSTRATIONS: If EPA and other authorities are to facilitate such tests and
demonstrations, whether at testing facilities or at other locations, improvements will have to
be built into permitting systems and strong, positive signals will have to be issued from
regulatory agencies. It is important to note that the TIE Committee recommends that a
systematic program be instituted to encourage, support, and train permit writers involved in
permitting activities associated with tests and demonstrations (see subrecommendation 4.1
for details). Another signal could be in the form of guidance, that encourages and enables
EPA laboratories to make the fullest use of the Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) to
take advantage of existing expertise and facilities inside and outside of the government in
conducting joint testing projects.
Thp. TTE Committee recommends that several specific issues be addressed and features
be built into improved permitting programs to institute the set of needed improvements..
They include:
1. Flexibility: At a minimum, testine programs must %w? the flexibility to define
performance envelopes (the ranffe of applicability of an innovative technology for
environmental purposes). Permitting systems are needed under each of the media statutes
to allow such testing, as is coordination of media-specific permitting efforts across
jurisdictions:
RCRA: Based on the results of its Fact Finding efforts, fh^.-TfE Committee has
concluded that, at present, the greatest nr.p.d for change exists und.er RCRA. There
is effectively no RCRA permit available for locations where a variety of innovative
technologies can be tested over time (i.e., permits for testing centers) and no
effective permitting program exists for tests of single technologies (i.e., RD&D
permits under Section 3005(g) of RCRA, only fifteen of which have been issued
since July 1985). Fewer than 10 states are authorized for the RD&D permit
program.
Improvements can be accomplished by one of at least three methods, which may
require administrative policy changes, statutory changes, or both. NACEPT has
previously recommended three complementary solutions, each of which can be
accomplished under existing authorities (January 1990, TIE Committee
Recommendations 1.4.d [RD&D permit program modifications], 1.4.e
[implementation of Subpart Y regulations for testing facilities] , and 1 .4.f
[expanded use of Subpart X]). The TIE Committee compliments OSW for its
support to extending the statutory time limit for RD&D permits from one (1) to ten
(10) years. The Committee emphasizes that administrative revisions in the RD&D
permit program are also critical to allow sufficient flexibility during testing.
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has suggested that an
administrative rulemaking, called the "Subpart Y" rule, could provide an alternate
regulatory framework for testing facilities under current authorities, but no action
56
-------
on this concept has been taken after eight years. The TIE Committee urges
immediate action to address this crying need.
Additionally, the TIE Committee recommends that the treatability rule be revised
to allow, at the discretion of the permit writer, a larger volumetric treatability
exception for hazardous waste testing. The amount would be greater than 1000
kg, but less than 10,000 kg, and linked to the technology, as well as to the site.
Further, the RCRA prohibition barring technology developers from collecting
revenues for wastes treated during authorized tests should be eliminated in favor of
reporting requirements and strict compliance programs that assure that the terms of
testing, including the length of tests, are followed. Such an approach should not
create a loophole, and is very important to technology developers who must
otherwise bear the full cost of tests. See also recommendation 5 for a discussion
of several RCRA-related regulatory glitches.
• CAA: No testing permit provision exists under the CAA, prior to the 1990
amendments, but tests at small scale can be conducted without permits in most
jurisdictions. An ad hoc administrative procedure involving ORD and OAQPS,
•called the "no action assurance" letter, has been devised to allow larger tests at
operating facilities. This method does not provide sufficient predictability,
certainty, and orderliness to the process of testing innovative technology. The
procedure may be formalized by the so-called "interpretive rule," which has
recently been developed by iOAQPS to formalize current policy. The TIE .
Committee commends OAQPS and ORD for this proposal and endorses the
concept, while noting that it has not reviewed the terms in enough detail to
comment on their sufficiency as a systematic system for testing.
• CWA: No testing permit provision exists under the CWA, but considerable
testing is conducted at permitted operating facilities. The current ad hoc system
involves testing at sites permitted using the "Best Professional Judgement"
permitting program feature - "BPJ." The BPJ approach results in the granting of
significant flexibility on a case-by-case basis by permit writers, but does not
provide sufficient predictability, certainty, and orderliness to the process of testing
innovative technology. Moreover, it places the additional burden on independent
technology developers of conducting all testing at operating sites they do not
control and for which they might be responsible in case a non-compliance situation
arises during testing. Critically, BPJ cannot be used if effluent guidelines exist, as
they do for more than 30 of the major water polluting industries. The
complementary "Innovative and Alternative Technology" waiver provision (CWA
Section 301(k)) is, unfortunately, little used. The TIE Committee recommends
that an established system of testing permits be developed under the CWA. EPA
should seek to address this need in the CWA reauthorization process.
2. Compliance and Enforceability: At a minimum, revulatinns estahlixhin?
specialized permits for testing innovative
technologies for environmental purposes
must
assure that public health and the environment are protected at the same time that flexibility is
provided. The concern of the public that health and environmental quality might be
jeopardized during tests and demonstrations is a primary limiting factor to technology
innovation (see subrecommendation 4.5). This is true both for technology tests and
demonstrations which are, by their nature, being conducted expressly to prove efficacy and
57
-------
safety of individual technologies, among other factors, and for testing centers which, by
their nature, are sites where a series of tests of unrelated technologies will be conducted.
The TIE Committee recommends that testing facility permits include provisions
that minimize risk to the public and the environment and include provisions that assure their
enforceability. As noted earlier, the lack of public confidence that regulated parties will
behave responsibly with respect to the environment deters the issuance of environmental
permits at new locations, as well as those for the testing of new technologies. It must be
clear to the public that permits for testing will not become loopholes to escape the
requirements and intent of the regulations technologies must meet. In its Fact Finding
activities, the Committee was impressed that current testing programs have apparently not
been abused by technology developers or regulated parties. New provisions that offer
greater flexibility must retain such provisions as (1) limited time for tests, (2) corrective
action requirements, (3) disclosure, (4) public participation, and others that assure
necessary protection.
3. Clarity: The TIE Committee recommend* that the regulatory process for
specialized permits for tests and demonstrations of innovative technologies must be clear in
its intent and process. Likewise, permitting conditinns must be clear. Clarity, as noted
previously, is important to technology developers, technology users, regulators, and the
public. Permit writers and applicants, especially, are assisted by clearly stated principles
and by institutional support in terms of policy, guidance, and rewards for carrying out
these specialized permitting programs (see recommendation 4).
4. Confidentiality: The TIE Committee recommends that additional steps be taken
to assure the confidentiality of secret information about innovative technologies, both those
tested at permitted facilities and those tested at other sites. The expectation of
confidentiality would encourage development and commercialization of innovative
technology. And, as previously noted, it would also encourage more and earlier dialogue
during technology development and a better flow of information between technology
developers, permit writers, and technology users. Secure areas in regional offices and state
agencies should be provided for confidential discussions and storage, and penalties should
be imposed for violations of security.
58
-------
/. 2 Develop a system of dedicated centers for tests and
demonstrations of innovative environmental technologies.
Commentary
The TIE Committee found that few designated locations exist in the United States
where tests and demonstrations of innovative environmental technologies can be
performed. Furthermore, the Committee found that there is no viable permitting process
for dedicated testing centers under any environmental statute. The Committee has
recommended that such a permitting process be instituted (see subrecommendation 1.1) and
recommends that a national system of dedicated centers for tests and demonstrations be
established. Specialized testing centers can offer greater flexibility, particularly during the
more risky stages of technology development, while providing safeguards to assure that
testing will not endanger public health and the environment.
a. THE CONCEPT OF TESTING CENTERS: Within the general theme that
testing centers are facilities at which performance trials of innovative technologies are
conducted, several variations have been built or proposed. Variations can revolve around
institutional relationship and form, type of services offered, type of technology tested,
availability to unrelated parties, and stage of technology tested. In what is perhaps their
purest form, testing centers might be open door facilities, available as a fee-based service
for anyone seeking a safe place for tests and demonstrations. These might be federally-
operated, with services available under terms of the Federal Technology Transfer Act
(FTTA), or not federally-operated.
Sometimes, testing centers are located in conjunction with in-house technology
research centers, such as corporate research facilities investigating improved manufacturing
processes and government agency research facilities, such as EPA's. In other cases,
controlled condition testing could be one of the array of services offered by incubation
centers, such as is now offered by the Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute
(IITRI) and as is proposed by the National Environmental Technology Applications Center
(NETAC) in Pittsburgh. (NETAC offers other commercialization services, as well.)
Another institutional home for testing and evaluation might be provided by a university
affiliation, as is proposed at the New Jersey Institute of Technology for Edison, NJ.
59
-------
Testing centers will also vary in terms of the type of technology tested: some facilities
might be equipped to safely test all types of environmental control technologies, but most
appear likely to be targeted on a single environmental medium and even on a subset of the
technological targets within it. For example, EPA's Center Hill research facility in
Cincinnati focuses on stabilization technologies and EPA's Pine Bluff, Arkansas, research
facility focuses on incineration technologies.
Some facilities are "open to all comers," while others will be captive to a single
organization or otherwise of limited access. Examples of each exist at this time. Testing is
required at all stages of technology development and demonstration. Testing centers can
provide services at each stage. Much testing, particularly of early stage technologies, can
be conducted under existing operating facility permits, as long as existing permit conditions
are not exceeded. Tests and demonstrations at larger scale present greater permitting
difficulties, and testing centers may be particularly useful to satisfy this need.
b. THE NEED FOR TESTING CENTERS: RCRA RD&D permits are
primarily applicable to the testing of single technologies. They allow only small quantities
of waste material to be tested, are too restrictive of the range of conditions that can be
tested, and are of limited duration (i.e., RD&D permits are issued for a one-year period,
renewable for up to three times before reapplication is necessary). There are no formal
provisions for research, development, or testing permits within either the air or water
programs - all testing must be done under a facility's full operating permit or under ad hoc
mechanisms (e.g., "no action assurance" letters in the air program). The Committee heard
several industry comments during its Fact Finding Meetings (comments confirmed by state
regulators) that operating facilities, once they have obtained a RCRA, air, or water permit,
are very reluctant to conduct research and testing of new technologies, if a significant
change in emissions could result, thereby triggering a permit review. (See
subrecommendation 1.1 for further comments.)
c. A NATIONAL SYSTEM OF TESTING CENTERS: The TIE Committee
therefore recommends that a national system of permitted testing centers be created and/or
promoted. The principal characteristic of these facilities would be to allow innovators and
developers, under controlled test conditions that protect human health and the environment
during and after testing, to determine performance envelopes so that they and regulators can
project potential efficacy at commercial facilities. There are two principal benefits to the
environment: (a) testing will be environmentally safe (because testing is conducted under
controlled conditions and under the direction of professionals) and (b) information critical
60
-------
to reducing risks to public health and the environment associated with further testing and
commercial use will be developed, and information that is important for writing operating
permits and determining compliance conditions will be produced. There is also a critical
benefit for technology developers: sufficient, flexibility to test and demonstrate to the point
that performance and cost curves can be defined, under safe conditions.
To support a national system of testing centers, several issues need to be addressed to
assure that all involved parties can successfully, fulfill their, roles;
/ . Permit writers: It is important to note that the TIE Committee recommends that
a systematic program be instituted to encourage, support, and train permit writers
involved in permitting activities associated with testing centers (see
subrecommendation 4.1 for details).
2. The public: As noted in Finding 6, "(One record shows that the lack of public
confidence and trust stands as a major impediment to the development and use of
innovative technologies for environmental purposes." Public concern is
particularly evident when permits for new facilities and new technologies are
sought. It is therefore extremely important that mechanisms for early and
substantive public involvement, such as those discussed in subrecommendation
4.5. be included in the testing facility program.
3 . Testing centers: Such testing centers must go the extra mile to assure both the
regulators and the public that testing will be done in a safe, environmentally
•• protective manner. Testing centers should also:
• Be secure
• Be able to isolate tests and demonstrations from the outside environment
• Have all the necessary media monitoring and environmental controls to assure
that public health and the environment are protected during and after testing
• Be staffed by trained professionals who are expert in testing environmental
technologies and operating the on-site environmental control equipment
• Undergo scrutiny from the local community, including appropriate mechanisms
for public participation on an ongoing basis
• Have in place a RCRA corrective plan to address any potential remediation that
could be required as a result of releases or testing failures.
61
-------
4. EPA'S Office of Research and Development (ORD): The resources and
expertise of ORD should be used to assist permit writers to devise realistic and
flexible, yet fully protective, permit conditions for testing centers. ORD should
also provide technical assistance to testing center operators. ORD's own testing
facilities should be made available to testing center permittees, perhaps through
Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) agreements. A guidance document for
such facilities could be prepared by ORD. (See also subrecommendation 4.4 for
more details.)
d. LOCATION AND OPERATION OF TESTING CENTERS: EPA
should investigate the potential for establishing federal testing centers at EPA facilities and
at other federal locations, such as Department of Defense (DOD) or Department of Energy
(DOE) sites. Sites which are in isolated areas, away from vulnerable environments and
high population centers, would be most desirable. The Department of Commerce's
National Institute of Standards and Technology (the old National Bureau of Standards)
could also be a participant in establishing and guiding federal testing centers.
Testing centers could also be established under non-governmental auspices, such as
private companies, universities, and other research institutes. EPA should fully utilize the
provisions of the Federal Technology Transfer Act in setting up such centers at quasi-
public or private facilities. EPA should assure that reasonable provisions and licensing are
made for ownership and licensing of intellectual property, such as patents and trade secrets
at public and private test centers. It should also be noted here that testing centers could be
for manufacturing process innovation or for pollution control and remediation innovation.
In the former case, testing centers are likely to be operated by individual companies, by
industry associations, or by other organizations created for that purpose.
1.3. Develop a system for cross-media and cross-jurisdictional
coordination of the review of permit applications for
(a) testing facilities and (b) tests at other locations.
Commentary
The TIE Committee recommends that steps be taken to achieve coordination of testing
permit activities. Even if permitting systems for testing innovative technologies for
environmental purposes were in place in each of the media-specific programs and at the
62
-------
federal, state, and local levels, coordination would be needed to assure that they can be
used effectively. Such coordination is critical to the encouragement of innovative pollution
prevention technologies in that it is needed to achieve consistency, timeliness, efficiency,
clarity, and predictability.
a. THE NEED FOR CROSS-MEDIA, CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL
COORDINATION: The importance of this recommendation lies in the fact that the TIE
Committee has found that individuals, firms, universities, and others wishing to test
innovative environmental technologies:
• Have frequently been significantly and apparently unnecessarily slowed by
permitting processes :
• Have encountered conflicting attitudes and requirements at different levels of
government
• Have spent large sums applying for permits, perhaps unnecessarily
• Have only had mixed success in the end.
The Committee heard many case studies and examples of these problems. It can easily
cost millions of dollars to apply for the several permits necessary to conduct a test of an
innovative technology. An innovative technology itself may cost considerably less than a
million dollars to purchase. Obtaining these permits can take two years or more and
involve application to and negotiation with several agencies at more than one level of
government. Additionally, if use is proposed in another state, the entire process may have
to be undertaken again at a substantial fraction of the cost and time.
b. A PROCESS FOR ACHIEVING COORDINATION: In implementing
this recommendation, the Committee recommends that a working group be established that
includes the appropriate EPA offices, including all of the key categorical programs, plus a
number of state and local agencies. This working group should be tasked with describing
the detailed implementation steps that are necessary, including potential statutory changes.
The TIE Committee believes that this task can be completed within 9 to 12 months of its
inception. Operating guidance should be developed by EPA and provided to regional
offices and to state and local governments to encourage, if not assure, a consistent
coordination effort.
It is important that, as a part of EPA's efforts, methods be devised to assure an early
and substantive role for the public. Such an approach is necessary to building public
63
-------
confidence that public health and the environment will not be subject to unacceptable risk
when new technologies are undergoing trials and testing.
c. FEDERAL AND STATE ROLES: The TIE Committee recommends that
serious consideration should be given to new authority that divides and coordinates the
responsibility for overseeing testing among the levels of government. Under such a
division of responsibility, the federal government might appropriately develop technology-
specific permitting conditions from a national perspective, while state and local
governments might develop site-specific permitting conditions for tests proposed within
state borders. National applicability of the data could thus be assured, and data sharing
could be made easier, while state and local governments could consider the applicability of
a technology to a proposed site and site-specific risks associated with its testing
determining whether a proposed test would be allowed to proceed. National technology
permits could be modeled on those issued by EPA for TSCA mobile treatment units.
d. THE PROCESS OF PERMIT APPLICATION REVIEWS BY TEAMS:
Various mechanisms for coordinating permitting of technology tests are being tried in
several states (e.g., Massachusetts, New Jersey). These may involve coordination of the
reviews of independent permitting programs through various forms of teaming or a
combined, multi-media review by one qualified person or a small team assembled under a
special office. Other mechanisms are conceivable. The TIE Committee recommends that,
at a minimum, a team concept be adopted by EPA so that federal responsibility and
accountability for the review of permit applications for tests of innovative technology and
for testing centers is unified within the Agency and so that a single point of contact exists
for use by the involved state and local agencies. Ideally, the teams should be well-
coordinated across the levels of government and, within EPA, from region to region. This
could help alleviate the frustration and confusion mentioned frequently by the case studies
heard by the Committee during its Fact Finding process.
e. "TECHNOLOGY ADVOCATE" NEEDED: The TIE Committee
recommends that a "technology advocate" function be established. This function would
provide a single point of contact for technology developers, prospective users of innovative
technology, permit writers and compliance officers at all levels of government, and the
public. The "technology advocate" would provide four key kinds of information:
1. The policies relating to technology innovation
64
-------
2. Permitting processes relevant to proposed tests, demonstrations, or uses of an innovative
technology
3. The status of permit applications — for individual tests and demonstrations, testing centers,
and early commercial uses — at both federal and state agencies
4. The results of tests, demonstrations, and early commercial uses of innovative
technologies, including information about the performance envelopes of individual
technologies.
To be successful, the "technology advocate" will need to have the ability to work at all
levels of government — national, regional, between and within states, and locally. The
"technology advocate" function could also profitably include the ability to intervene to
encourage timely consideration of permit applications or even to mediate between permit
applicant and permit writer. (See also subrecommendation 4.4.)
Concluding Comments: Recommendation 1
The program.outlined above needs first and foremost to have as its motivating force a
strong and clear EPA policy that promoting technology innovation is apart of the Agency's
mission. NACEPT has previously recommended (January 1990, TIE Committee
Recommendation 1.1) that the Administrator of EPA develop and issue a policy statement
redefining the Agency's mission to include fostering the development and diffusion of
innovative technologies that both further the Agency's environmental objectives and
enhance the competitiveness of the United States economy. The TIE Committee reiterates
that recommendation.
65
-------
Recommendation 2:
Implement permitting processes that aid the commercial introduction
of innovative technologies for environmental purposes.
2.1 Increase the flexibility of permitting processes involved in
introducing environmentally beneficial technologies into
commercial use.
2.2 Streamline the process of reviews of permit applications
for newly introduced innovative technologies that have
environmental benefit, coordinate their review, and afford
them high priority.
2.3 Assure national consistency in the consideration of proposed
uses of innovative technologies, subject to site-specific
limitations.
2.4 Develop a system of incentives for users of commercially-
available innovative technologies.
2.1 Increase the flexibility of permitting processes involved in
introducing environmentally beneficial technologies into
commercial use.
Commentary
The Committee believes that EPA should undertake a number of measures to ensure
the necessary flexibility in permitting processes to promote environmental technology
innovation. Some of them can be accomplished under existing authorities and some will
require legislation. In summary, however, EPA and most other environmental regulatory
agencies have interpreted existing permitting and compliance authorities in a way that limits
flexibility and, thus, discourages technology innovation for environmental purposes. It
should be noted that some of these measures are more critical for pollution prevention
technology innovation, some for pollution control technology innovation, while some
would promote both. Specific measures include the following:
a. REVITALIZED WAIVER AUTHORITIES: EPA should make a policy and
organizational commitment to promote environmental technology innovation through
66
-------
revitalization of its innovation- and regulatory-waiver authorities. This step would assist in
encouraging the development of innovative pollution control technology. It could
potentially have its greatest impact, however, in removing barriers to implementation of
innovation resulting in the prevention of pollution, and the Committee strongly
recommends that EPA explore this potential. NACEPT has previously recommended
(January 1990, TIE Committee Recommendation 1.4.h) that the Administrator expand the
use of statutory provisions such as the "Innovative and Alternative Technology" waiver
under the Clean Water Act (CWA Section 301 (k)) and innovative technology waivers
(CAA Section 11 l(j)) under the Clean Air Act. The Committee reiterates this
recommendation. The effective use of these authorities could help EPA realize some of the
significant increase in flexibility required to encourage environmental innovation.
The Committee found that while EPA has had authority to grant innovation waivers
under both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act for over a decade, there has been
very limited use of these provisions. Regarding the CWA, 301(k) waivers may be used to
extend BAT technology based compliance deadlines, where the permittee proposes to use
innovative production processes or innovative control techniques to meet the applicable
control requirements. Alternatively, an ad hoc process now operates: a prospective
innovator can get a regular discharge permit, do research, and make control technology
changes "at their leisure." However, if they propose to significantly change their
production line or production process, then permit modifications may be needed. Other
variance authorities, some of which might also be useful in the context of encouraging
multi-media pollution prevention technology innovations, have also been very low on the
Agency's list of priorities. The Committee believes that, in combination, these authorities
could provide a powerful tool for encouraging plants to make environmentally-sound
decisions to cut back releases to all media. To make these statutory and regulatory
authorities an effective tool for promoting both environmental innovation and pollution
prevention, the Committee believes that EPA should take the following, interrelated steps:
- Make a high-level policy commitment to maximizing the potential for promotion
of pollution prevention innovation in current and future authorities. The
Committee commends EPA for its actions to make a commitment to pollution
prevention. These actions include establishing the Pollution Prevention Office, the
development of a pollution prevention strategy, the drafting of pollution prevention
legislation (although it should be noted that the Committee did not review its
specific terms and, therefore, is not implying its support or rejection of any
individual terms), and the initiation of several "pollution prevention initiative
projects"
67
-------
- Establish an organizational focus charged with revitalizing the Agency's powers
for promoting innovation within these programs, and involving the active
participation of individuals from the relevant programs
- Establish working groups in each region with the responsibility of integrating this
approach into regional operations, including permitting and enforcement
Develop guidance for evaluations of waiver applications, particularly in a multi-
media context and including criteria for success linked clearly to pollution
prevention objectives, and establishing a basis for performance evaluations against
those criteria at all levels within the Agency with responsibility for the effort
- Provide incentives within the Agency for individuals to work for the success of
regulatory incentives for environmental technology innovation, with special
emphasis on looking for opportunities for innovations in pollution prevention (see
recommendation 4)
- Promote joint, cooperative efforts to promote similar programs at the state level,
since active state participation and support is a prerequisite for such a program to
work
- Develop a technology transfer and outreach effort to communicate the Agency's
new objectives and programs to industry, and to emphasize that this has a high
priority at EPA.
b. CREATE A '.'SOFT LANDING" POLICY: EPA should adopt policies that
allow a "soft landing," consistent with leal and regulatory requirements to protect human
health and the environment, for good-faith efforts which fall minimally short of compliance
requirements. Such policies would complement innovation waiver programs in promoting
either pollution prevention or pollution control (see subrecommendation 3.2). Where
permits providing for innovation waivers are approved, the Committee believes that it is
important to provide for "soft landings," i.e., to avoid punishing good faith efforts. The
need for such a mechanism would occur when a permittee makes a good faith effort to use
an innovative technology to meet the permit requirements, but falls short, minimally,
resulting in no significant public health or environmental damage. In such a case, to
encourage permittees to use innovative technology, efforts should be made to minimize
penalties for non-compliance or eliminate them completely, and additional time should be
allowed to achieve compliance where possible. ("Soft landing" opportunities would not be
appropriate, however, where criminal violations are involved.)
The TIE Committee commends the concept in EPA's Enforcement in the 1990s Project
that more opportunities should be provided for the use of innovative technology in the
enforcement process, through the use of penalty reductions and extended compliance
schedules. In particular, the Committee commends the policy of allowing more time to
68
-------
come into compliance if a violation arises out of a pollution prevention activity. This
should provide more opportunity to experiment with innovative technological approaches
involving changes in the production process.
c. REPERMITTING OF FACILITY CHANGES: To the extent consistent
with its current authority, EPA should seek to reduce the permitting burden for the
introduction of new technologies (see subrecommendation 2.2) and should explore the
potential for statutory provisions which would reduce such burdens. One area of particular
concern for the Committee was the extent to which the installation of innovative technology
for either pollution prevention or pollution control at existing facilities might be discouraged
by the necessity of obtaining new permits. More-polluting older technologies are often
kept in place, even when it might be economical to replace them, simply because of the
perceived cost, complexity, and uncertainty of having to go through the permitting process
for the replacement technology.
d. CAA NEW SOURCE REVIEWS: The Committee also heard comment in its
Fact Finding activities about the perceived risk facility owners take in triggering New
Source Review (NSR) review in non-attainment areas when participating in innovative
technology demonstration projects, such as might occur in the EPA/DOE Clean Coal
Technologies Program. The Committee learned that EPA is currently preparing an
interpretive ruling which will clarify that if a source solely adds or enhances a system or
device whose primary function is the reduction of air pollution, and which is determined to
be not less environmentally beneficial, such activities do not constitute a physical or
operational change triggering new source requirements. The Committee applauds OAQPS
for initiating this interpretive ruling. It recommends, however, that more aggressive efforts
be undertaken to educate the regulated community of its existence to ensure that perceived
barriers do not prohibit facilities from demonstrating and eventually adopting innovative
and environmentally beneficial technologies.
e. CAA NETTING POLICY: The Committee has found that EPA's netting
program under the Clean Air Act (prior to passage of the 1990 amendments) can help
reduce the permitting burden for new pollution prevention or pollution control
technologies. T^ie Committee noted, however, that some states have not adopted EPA's
approach to netting in non-attainment areas. While the Committee recognizes that LAER
requiring diffusion of the most effective current control technology, the Committee feels
that netting plays a valuable role by allowing a new technology to be introduced under a
less stringent and cumbersome review process whenever the plant at which the new
69
-------
equipment is being introduced can find enough emission reductions elsewhere at the plant
to avoid significant increases in overall emissions as a result of the new equipment. The
rationale for netting is that increased emissions which do not exceed the significance levels
do not warrant the time-consuming, resource-intensive New Source Review process. For
those states which have not adopted EPA's netting program, EPA should consider
working with the states to define criteria, at a minimum, for innovative pollution prevention
technology to which the netting program would apply.
f. RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION TRIGGER: The TIE Committee
recommends that, under selected conditions, corrective action requirements not be triggered
by the application for permits under RCRA. EPA has already determined that owners and
operators who receive RD&D permits under RCRA section 3005(g) do not trigger
corrective action. This determination should, at a minimum, be extended to include the
application for permits for early commercial uses of innovative technologies. EPA should
consider this recommendation in the RCRA reauthorization process, if it concludes that it
lacks sufficient flexibility to otherwise address this need.
g. PERFORMANCE-BASED PERMITS: The TIE Committee recommends
that, within statutory constraints, the Agency should adopt regulatory changes to place all
of its permit requirements on a performance basis. In addition, statutory changes should be
considered. While most permits issued under EPA programs are stated in terms of
performance standards, even though the standards are based on estimates of the
performance capabilities of specific technologies, some standards are stated in terms of
technology requirements. The Committee believes that technology-specific requirements in
permits eliminate alternative options for meeting standards, inhibiting the development of
innovative technology.
h. SUPPORT TO PERMIT WRITERS: The TIE Committee recommends that
a systematic program be instituted to encourage, support, and train permit writers involved
in permitting activities associated with the testing of innovative environmental technologies
(see subrecommendation 4.1 for details). Without such a program, permit writers will lack
the institutional sanction and encouragement and the supporting resources necessary to
realize the benefits of the above actions. The Committee specifically endorses the RCRA
Implementation Study recommendation that the Agency should give credit in management
systems for RD&D permits.
70
-------
2.2 Streamline the process of reviews of permit applications
for newly introduced innovative technologies that have
environmental benefit, coordinate their review, and afford
them high priority.
Commentary
A streamlined permitting process is important if newly introduced innovative
technologies that have environmental benefit are to be moved more successfully from
demonstration into commercial use. The TIE Committee has concluded that an early dialog
between permit writers and the technology developer or prospective user of an innovative
technology should be encouraged to minimize misunderstanding by both parties, shorten
the permit process, and reduce costs. Equally, the Committee sees an early dialog as being
critical to effective and positive public participation in the consideration of permit
applications for innovative technologies [see subrecommendation 4.5]. These suggestions
derive from two, interlocking barriers to the use of innovative technologies: unfamiliarity
with the innovative technology by permit writers and the local community.
a. TWO-PHASE PERMIT PROCESS: The Committee recommends that
environmental policy makers, in developing a strategy for streamlining permit reviews
involving the early commercial use of innovative technologies, consider instituting one that
is comprised of two distinct phases, or tiers.
During the first phase, basic principles and parameters associated with the operation of
the proposed innovative technology would be discussed at the earliest possible time. The
permit writer would then be able to gain a better understanding from technical experts (e.g.,
from ORD) and seek answers to and resolutions of any outstanding issues (e.g., obtain
additional environmental, health, risk, or efficiency data), The permit writer would also be
able to discuss the concepts with the interested public. If no agreement is possible, this fact
can often be identified during the first phase. In this case, a decision to modify or abandon
a project could be made earlier, before regulators and applicants have expended as much
time and resources as would be needed if a complete permit application has to be provided
before consideration could begin.
During the second phase, detailed technical information would be discussed to
establish permit conditions and a compliance schedule, and to reach a conclusion about
whether a permit will actually be issued. Deliberations during this phase would not reopen
71
-------
issues covered successfully in phase 1. The public would also be deeply involved in the
second phase. ,
The goal of the TEE Committee's recommendations for a testing permit system (see
subrecommendations 1.1 through 1.3) is to remove as much uncertainty as possible about
the potential performance of a proposed operating use of a newly introduced (yet already
tested) technology. The problem addressed by this recommendation is the difficulty of
obtaining an operating permit for an already-tested innovative technology for which little
operational data exists.
b. COORDINATION, INTEGRATION OF PERMITTING PROGRAMS:
Coordinated review is especially appropriate at the time of first introduction of a new
technology, singe permit writers and the public will be unfamiliar with that technology and
have a higher level of concern than for a well-proven technology. This was recognized by
NACEPT in the TIE Committee's January 1990 recommendation 1.4.c that EPA work to
maximize coordinate^ permitting strategies across environmental media, and increase
intergovernmentally-coordinated permitting whenever possible, within the constraints of
existing statutes.
The Committee has developed a great deal of information that supports this view.
During the Committee's recent Fact Finding meetings, EPA's Office of Pollution
Prevention (OPP) gave a presentation describing the progress of EPA's "pollution
prevention through permitting" initiative. Specific case studies presented included the
project at Amoco's Yorktown, Virginia, refinery, at which a multi-media environmental
evaluation will be performed. At the state level, fact finding presentations from
Massachusetts and New Jersey described those states' multi-media pollution prevention
efforts, including integrated permitting and coordinated inspections. The Committee heard
a report on the Blackstone Project recently conducted by the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection. Under that project, multi-media inspection teams under a team
leader were assigned to inspect individual facilities. The team leader was often chosen on
the basis of the primary medium for facility releases. The state is examining the potential
for applying this process to permitting, as well. The Committee commends the Agency for
the financial'support it has provided for this innovative program under the Pollution
Prevention Incentives grant program, and urges the Agency and states to explore the wider
application of this approach.
72
-------
The Committee reiterates its recommendation that a system for coordinated and
integrated permitting be devised for easing the introduction of new technologies into the
marketplace. Major features of a program for the coordinated review of permit applications
for innovative technologies might include the following:
• A mechanism for expedited joint review across federal, state, and local authorities.
Contemporaneous public hearings would be one time- and resource-saving device.
• Permit teams that could provide "one-stop shopping" for permits across all affected
media. In addition to simplifying the often complex permit application process
(different forms and data formats, and different submission and reporting
requirements), the one-stop process would allow for careful tracking of permits.
Perhaps more importantly, the team approach also has the benefit of less disruption
when one team member leaves. The rest of the team will be able to bring the
replacement up to speed in much less time, eliminating the possibility that
applicants will have to go back to "square one."
• Use of a technical resource ombudsman as outlined in subrecommendations 1.3
and 4.4.
• Incentives for fast-track processing to assure timely response on a predictable
basis. A key element of a fast-track process is a systematic program to encourage,
support, and train permit writers involved in permitting activities associated with
testing (see subrecommendation 4.1 for details).
c. THE PERMIT TEAM CONCEPT: The TIE Committee recommends that the
permit review team concept be adopted bv EPA so that responsibility and accountability for
the review of permit applications for the use ofnew technologies is unified within the
Agency and with involved state and local agencies. EPA should encourage states to adopt
this approach. Team members should include appropriate representatives from each of the
major media program offices (RCRA, water, air, and, potentially, TSCA) at the federal,
state, and local levels. Technology expertise from ORD should also be represented,
perhaps in the role of technology ombudsman (see subrecommendation 4.4). Another
important team member would be someone with public participation expertise whose
primary role would be to assist the public if questions arise about regulatory process or
whether the new technology will be protective of human health and the environment in the
proposed use (see subrecommendation 45). One member of the team would be designated
team leader to serve as client contact (for the new technology permit applicant) and to
coordinate team efforts.
d. TOP PRIORITY STATUS FOR REVIEW OF PERMIT
APPLICATIONS INVOLVING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES: One of the
barriers to coordinated and concurrent permitting is that each single-medium statute
73
-------
contains its own individual permit requirements and compliance deadlines, along with
separate schedules for renewal or review of existing permits. For example, under many
state air pollution control programs, written approvals are required before construction of a
new source or a source modification may begin. Resulting delays of six months to a year
are frequent. Such delays may preclude innovative technologies from ever getting to
market — especially environmentally beneficial manufacturing technologies in rapidly
changing industries. The TIE Committee heard several examples where permit application
reviews for a project were completed in one or more media, but not in all media so that the
project was delayed substantially. The permit team might be given the flexibility to provide
limited modifications to nonsubstantive regulatory requirements, e.g., those involving
timing. In all cases involving technology innovation, every effort must be made to
streamline the application and permit approval process so as to not miss the narrow
"window of opportunity" during which the commercial success or failure of the
introduction of an already-tested technology is determined.
The Committee heard from many sources that permit applications involving innovative
technologies are frequently assigned lower priority than those involving well-known
solutions. The TIE Committee recommends that, either with or without the benefit of the
permit teamprogram, permit applications for the introduction of innovative environmental
technologies be given the highest priority in terms of timely review. The combination of
permitting complexity and slow permit approval causes a great barrier to the diffusion of
new technology.
e. STREAMLINED CAA SMALL SOURCE PERMIT REVIEWS: The
Committee notes another factor impeding technology innovation for environmental
purposes: permit writers in some state programs do comprehensive reviews for even small
sources of air pollution. The Committee recommends that the Agency promote streamlined
review processes for small or very small sources, and that the Agency encourage states to
give innovative proposals and prevention projects preference when scheduling reviews of
permit applications. The combination of these suggestions will increase the efficiency of
permitting programs, freeing up scarce governmental staff time for higher value uses.
Some states, including Massachusetts, have modified permit review processes to minimize
the time required to approve very small air pollution sources (0-1 tons/year, 1-5 tons/year
-- see CMR 7.02 [4][a]). Some off-the-shelf equipment may be exempted from
comprehensive review, if it meets performance standards, e.g., solvent degreasers or dry
material storage silos. This action to cut the permit review backlog supports innovation by
74
-------
reducing delays. Further, Massachusetts sources which propose innovative prevention or
control strategies can have their permit applications moved to the front of the approval
process queue.
2.3 Assure national consistency in the consideration of proposed
uses of innovative technologies, subject to site-specific
limitations.
Commentary
The TIE Committee recommends that EPA take steps to ensure, to the greatest extent
possible, consistency in the review and evaluation of proposed uses of innovative
technology, subject to site-specific variations, across jurisdictional boundaries, and within
relevant geographic units. In addition. EPA should take steps to eliminate repetitive and
potentially inconsistent repermitting requirements for mobile treatment units' non-site-
dependent features.
a. THE NEED FOR CONSISTENCY IN THE REVIEW OF PERMIT
APPLICATIONS: The information developed in the Committee's Fact Finding process
indicates that consistency in the evaluation of innovative environmental technologies is of
great importance both for pollution prevention and pollution control. Potential market size
is a critical factor in decisions about whether to invest in the development of any innovative
technology. Inconsistencies across regions or among different levels of government reduce
potential market size by increasing uncertainty among potential users of a technology that it
will actually be acceptable to permit writers.
b. AN EXAMPLE: MOBILE TREATMENT UNITS: Mobile Treatment
Units (MTUs) provide a specific example of technologies potentially subject to multiple and
inconsistent reviews of the basic technology, independent of appropriate and necessary site
specific considerations. It is generally agreed, based upon the Committee's Fact Finding
meetings, that in many cases it is environmentally preferable to move a mobile incinerator
from place to place rather than transport hazardous waste substantial distances for treatment
at a stationary incineration unit. Yet site-specific permitting militates against this.
The TIE Committee recommends that some of the current constraints on the use of
MTUs be removed. In making this recommendation, the Committee recognizes EPA's
75
-------
TSCA nationwide permits for mobile PCB incinerators. The Committee heard a
presentation from California on that state's successful permitting and utilization of MTUs,
for California's non-RCRA hazardous wastes, through the use of state-wide Permit-By-
Rule (PBR) mechanisms. California's approach is not available for RCRA wastes within
that state. The Committee recommends that EPA review the California approach, and
consider the regulatory and/or statutory changes which would be required to implement
such a system for RCRA hazardous wastes. The Offices of Solid Waste and General
Counsel might be tasked with this job.
c. THE IMPORTANCE OF EXPERT REVIEWERS OF PERMIT
APPLICATIONS: One factor the Committee believes can lead to inconsistent
consideration of innovative technologies is the lack of adequate technical expertise in each
of EPA's regions to review all the relevant technical features of a proposed innovative
technology, which may have had trials in only a few locations in the entire country. This
problem is compounded when federal and state permit writers are involved. The
recommendations in 2.1 with respect to innovation waivers are intended to address this
problem by ensuring the development of a central organizational unit with the responsibility
of providing consistent review of technical factors. The recommendations in 4.1 with
respect to support to permit writers are intended to address this problem by elevating the
priority of permits involving innovative technologies and by providing needed technical
assistance and training.
d. NATIONAL GUIDANCE TO PERMIT WRITERS: Another factor in the
inconsistency among EPA regions in evaluations of permit applications involving
innovative technologies has been the lack of any general EPA guidance on the principles
and objectives which should govern the review of permit applications requiring innovation
waivers. In the absence of such a clearly articulated national policy, each regional office,
and in fact each individual permit writer, is likely to make different determinations of the
relative environmental benefits which should be required from an innovative environmental
technology. Moreover, the lack of a strong signal from EPA has led to an inconsistent, and
generally weak, set of state policies for the use of innovative technologies.
In addition, EPA should, whenever possible, indicate geographical areas to which
common technical performance requirements are applicable. Examples of such areas might
be severe non-attainment areas or geologically sensitive areas of a large aquifer.
Identifying industry categories appropriate for new technologies might also be warranted.
76
-------
Since, decisions hv state and local jurisdictions are also vital in any effort ft? achieve
the Committee ur$es EPA tn (a] issue strong guidance encourasine the US? of
innovative technologies and fh) develop a system for working closely with .State and hcdl
jurisdictions in considering permit applications involving the use of innovative
environmental technologies. The guidance should address the need to assure substantive,
early public involvement (see subrecommendation 4.5). This guidance would also address
(a) the development, to the greatest extent feasible, of common standards for evaluating
proposed uses of innovative technologies, (b) the provision of technical assistance by EPA
to states, localities, and the public requesting technical support in the review of permit
applications proposing use of such technologies (see subrecommendations 4. 1 and 4.5),
and (c) the provision of support to both the applicants and the suppliers of innovative
technologies involved in the permit application (see subrecommendation 4.4).
e. RCRA SUBPART X, AN OPPORTUNITY: The federal RCRA Subpart X
regulation was originally intended for use in providing flexibility in the permitting of non-
conventional treatment units, such as MTUs. The lack of specific standards, however, in
the Subpart X regulation and the absence of clear guidance to permit writers have hampered
the full utilization of this authority for permitting transportable units. The RCRA
Implementation Study specifically noted the need to develop supplemental guidance for
Subpart X. In its January 1990 recommendations, the TIE Committee recommended that
EPA investigate how RCRA Subpart X regulations could be used to facilitate the use of
miscellaneous treatment technologies.
In light of the California program and EPA's own TSCA experience, the TIE
Committee recommends that EPA investigate a permit by rule (PER) mechanism, perhaps
within RCRA Subpart X, to allow the consistent nationwide utilization of MTUs where
such use is appropriate, for RCRA hazardous waste. The Committee notes that the RCRA
Implementation1 Study makes a similar recommendation and suggests that the Offices of
Solid Waste and General Counsel might be tasked with conducting this investigation and
reporting its results (and proposed recommendations to be taken on the basis of its results)
to the Administrator. The Administrator should also identify other opportunities to
introduce flexibility into permitting systems that can be applied to aid the introduction of
innovative environmental technologies and, if sufficient opportunities do not exist, should
seek additional statutory provisions, not limited to RCRA .
77
-------
2.4 Develop a system of incentives for users of commercially
available innovative technologies.
Commentary
Current statutory provisions for innovation waivers are generally designed to provide
extra time for regulated organizations using innovative technologies to come into
compliance with statutory or regulatory requirements. These provisions are thus meant to
provide an incentive (or eliminate a disincentive) for organizations to implement innovative
approaches to reducing pollution. Industry experience with federal and state
implementation of innovation waiver and variance programs, however, has resulted in
considerable skepticism about the seriousness of such efforts. In addition, if an effort to
implement innovative technology falls short of a requirement, by however narrow a
margin, EPA and states typically have not had any policy other than requiring full
implementation of the standard alternative for achieving compliance (see
subrecommendation 3.2).
a. ESTABLISH AND COMMUNICATE AGENCY SUPPORT FOR THE
WAIVER PROGRAMS: For the innovation waiver programs to work ax
-------
landings," the Committee believes that flexibility under the law is often greater than
recognized, and the real extent of statutory limitations can only be determined through a
concerted effort to utilize innovative enforcement to promote innovative technology.
c. THE ROLE OF ECONOMIC INCENTIVES FOR INNOVATION: The
Committee believes that EPA and states should consider more extensive use of economic
incentives to encourage environmental innovation. Where the cost of compliance or the
cost of using environmentally harmful materials substantially increases, industry will have
a strong incentive to invest in developing alternative technologies or materials, even in the
absence of performance-based or technology-based standards. The prohibition against land
disposal without treatment, for example, appears to have significantly encouraged industry
to innovate for pollution prevention, because of increased costs of compliance. /* is likely
that the economic factor will do more to encourage investment in innovative pollution
prevention processes than would any specific regulatory requirement applied to process
equipment. Similarly, many states are now considering taxes on volumes of chemical
releases reported in the Toxic Release Inventory. One of the objectives of such a tax is to
provide an incentive to industry to reduce the use and release of toxic chemicals.
d. RECOGNITION FOR INNOVATORS: Another incentive EPA should
consider is a special effort to recognize companies that adopt innovative environmental
technologies -- perhaps particularly in the context of pollution prevention. Such a program
is likely to be effective, if it is well conceived and run, because many corporations place
significant value on recognition for corporate activities which benefit the public and
particularly the environment. One component of a broad program to recognize companies
and other organizations that adopt innovative solutions could profitably be an awards
program, potentially one expanding on EPA's commendable pollution prevention awards.
e. INCENTIVES FOR PERMIT WRITERS: A system of incentives for
permit writers should he instituted (see subrecommendation 4.1). Such a system will
complement the system of incentives for users of innovative technologies by increasing the
receptivity of permit writers to applications proposing the use of innovative solutions.
f. INCENTIVES FOR PROSPECTIVE PERMITTEES:
Subrecommendation 4.3 discusses other types of support that would be important to
prospective innovative technology permittees. These primarily involve information
systems and technical support, but also include the ombudsman function.
79
-------
Recommendation 3:
Use compliance programs to encourage use of innovative technologies
to solve environmental problems.
3.1 Modify environmental compliance programs to create an
expectation of the need to comply.
3.2 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.
3.3 EPA, state agencies, and other regulatory authorities should
institute mechanisms to increase coordination in compliance
programs across media and across jurisdictional lines.
3.1 Modify environmental compliance programs to create an
expectation of the need to comply. This is necessary to create
markets for innovative technology.
Commentary
a. THE NEED FOR FIRM AND PREDICTABLE ENFORCEMENT: The.
Committee stresses the importance that industrial, commercial, and other facilities subject to
environmental requirements expect routine and rigorous enforcement of permit
requirements. Otherwise, most will not purchase and use innovative technologies.
Without the expectation of the need to comply with environmental permit requirements, the
market stability and consistency necessary to promote innovative environmental technology
will be lacking. Environmental compliance systems that are consistent and predictable
provide an incentive for the development of both pollution control and pollution prevention
technology because they assure that a market for such technologies will exist (and be of
predictable size and character). As is the case under EPA's current penalty policies,
penalties must be sufficient to remove any economic benefits a facility might gain from
non-compliance.
Such an approach to enforcement and compliance is fully consistent with the flexibility
inherent in providing in permit conditions limited time delays, in the form of waivers for
80
-------
genuine, good-faith efforts, to develop and implement innovative technology. But it is
important that the criteria for such waivers be clear and consistent, so that waivers cannot in
any way be used as vehicles for avoiding compliance by facilities which are not genuinely
attempting to implement an innovative approach and/or provide an overall, multi-media
environmental benefit. .
b. STATE EXPERIMENTATION WITH PREDICTABLE
ENFORCEMENT: EPA can promote the necessary market consistency both through
firm and predictable enforcement actions, and through support for and coordination with
state and local enforcement efforts. One role which EPA is in an especially strong position
to play, and which the Committee believes would be of great value, is to track innovative
state and local enforcement programs which are trying new approaches to providing
consistency, predictability, and multi-media inspection and permitting of entire facilities,
and providing information and communication between programs in different parts of the
country. A number of new experiments in enforcement are currently underway in various
states and localities, e.g., Minnesota, Massachusetts, South Coast Air Quality Management
District (in California), EPA should promote the sharing of information on the successes
and problems of these efforts.
The Committee notes that, with most compliance activities taking place at the state and
local levels, NACEPTs State and Local Programs Committee could appropriately
undertake a project leading to widespread implementation of the recommendations in 3.1.
3.2 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.
Commentary
As noted above in recommendations 3.1 and 2.4, both incentives and firm
enforcement play an important role in creating a stronger market for innovative
environmental technology. Flexibility in meeting environmental compliance requirements
is essential to provide the freedom necessary to make the'initial commercial applications of
promising innovative pollution control or pollution prevention technologies., The TIE
Committee believes strongly, however, that flexibility only works in a context of strong
81
-------
enforcement and meaningful penalties, so that there is no reward for making a perfunctory
effort to comply.
a. THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY: Within a strong enforcement context, the
Committee believes that flexibility is essential when innovative technologies are involved.
Innovative approaches which may provide long-term environmental benefits often cannot
meet short-term compliance deadlines. In addition, multi-media benefits which might result
from innovative environmental technology are not addressed by EPA's and states' media-
specific programs. Further, the potential for a risk management strategy that is multi-media
in scope can only be possible if greater flexibility is instituted in operating guidance and,
potentially, statutory language. Flexibility in compliance situations is necessary when
innovative technologies are involved because these technologies are inherently less certain
than conventional technologies.
b. MECHANISMS FOR ENFORCEMENT FLEXIBILITY: In order to deal
with these factors, it is important to have an effective program for environmental waivers
and variances (as discussed in recommendation 2.4), with provisions for soft landings and
for the creative use of compliance penalties, to the extent consistent with legal and ,
regulatory requirements to protect human health and the environment, for good-faith efforts
which fall minimally short of compliance requirements. In particular, where the Agency
and/or a state deems that an attempt to implement an innovative technology has met clearly
delineated criteria for a good-faith effort, the punitive portion of penalties might be reduced
for some predetermined period during which the facility would be required to come into
compliance by improving the performance of innovative technologies or through the use of
more traditional technologies.
c. SUPPORT: It is important that support of various types be provided to
compliance personnel in federal and state agencies. Subrecommendation 4.2 discusses a
system of support that is recommended by the TIE Committee.
82
-------
3.3 EPA, state agencies, and other regulatory authorities should
institute mechanisms to increase coordination in compliance
programs across media and across jurisdictional lines.
Commentary
EPA should work to maximize coordinated permitting strategies across environmental media,
and increase intergovernmentallv-conrdinatedpermitting whenever possible, within the constraints
of existing statutes. NACEPT has previously recommended (January 1990 TIE Committee
Recommendation 1.4.b) that EPA identify, develop, and apply ways to use compliance and
enforcement policies to encourage technology innovation, including commercial adoption of new
technologies. The Committee also supports many proposals in the Enforcement in the 1990s
Project to develop criteria and guidance for enforcement focused on multimedia and risk
management strategies, and to explore the policy and statutory revisions necessary to better realize
those approaches. The Committee urges the agency to make these efforts a high priority. Note
that this recommendation (3.3) is closely related to subrecommendation 2.3 (also previously
recommended in the January 1990 TEE Committee Recommendation 1 Ac).
a. MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTION TEAMS: A multi-media approach to compliance
would include the development of multi-media inspection teams, and the development of consent
agreements or other enforcement actions which take into account potential reductions in pollution to
all media -- not just the single medium (where that is the case) where a facility is discovered to be
in violation. The Committee notes the several state initiatives in this area. Such an approach
reduces the incidence of cross-media transfers which have often been the result of narrow
enforcement actions against single-media violations. It is also an effective means to encourage
innovations in pollution prevention technologies, since it encourages facilities to look for overall
changes in production methods and materials usage, not simply to install available add-on controls
to correct the immediate violation. Consent agreements can be designed to provide the extra
compliance time necessary to design and implement such multi-media changes. They can also be
used to require facilities to undertake multi-media pollution prevention planning. This can improve
the facility's analysis of its own future pollution prevention opportunities, whether through
innovative process or materials changes, or standard improvements in operating procedures.
b. USE OF PENALTY MONEY: In some cases, it might be appropriate to allow
monies derived from civil penalties (for compliance violations) to underwrite technology
innovation, particularly where such innovations could result in improved environmental
83
-------
performance by a significant class of industrial facilities. This has been done, for example, in
Minnesota, where a portion of the penalties for violations of pre-treatment requirements by
electroplaters and metal finishers was allocated to the development of an innovative central metals
treatment and recovery facility. In Southern California, $1 million from enforcement penalties is
being set aside as an Air Quality Assistance Fund to support innovation and to guarantee loans to
smaller businesses for installation of compliance technologies. Implementation of such an
approach at the federal level will likely require statutory changes to allow for specific allocation of
funds collected in penalties. The Committee recommends that the agency seek the requisite
statutory revisions.
c. CROSS-JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION: For efforts that attempt to use
compliance and enforcement to promote innovative pollution prevention to be successful, there
must be effective integration of efforts and approaches between all relevant governmental
jurisdictions. Without such coordinated efforts, each level of government, or each affected
geographical jurisdiction, would essentially hold veto power over any agreement to try an
innovative approach, if such changes as extension of normal compliance deadlines or alternative
allocation of enforcement penalties would be required. Moreover, support systems will be needed
for compliance personnel involved with innovative technologies (see subrecommendation 4.2).
84
-------
Recommendation 4:
Support regulators and other involved communities to maximize
the effectiveness of improvements recommended in permitting and
compliance systems.
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
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.
4.1 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.
Commentary
The TIE Committee recommends that a systematic program be instituted for the
purpose of retaining experienced permit writers, and to encourage, support, reward, and
train those permit writers to be better prepared, and more favorably disposed, to processing
permits involving testing and/or introduction of innovative technology. Both increased
continuity and specialized support and training are critical to the success of permitting
systems to encourage testing and implementation of new technologies because, at present,
85
-------
there is little or no incentive for permit writers (who often have limited experience) to take
the risk of recommending or authorizing testing or use of a new technology.
a. THE IMPORTANCE OF RETAINING PERMIT WRITERS: The TIE
Committee believes that improving the continuity of permit writers would be an important
step towards ensuring the timely and consistent permitting of innovative environmental
technologies. The Committee heard evidence of cases where, in attempting to permit a. new
technology, technology developers had to deal with a seemingly constant stream of new
permit writers. All of the hard-won verbal agreements that were reached with the old
permit writer were wiped clean when the new permit writer came on board and the
developers had to start at square one again. Other developers presented case studies of
how the rapid turnover rate of permit writers had protracted the permitting of a new
technology to such a degree that the expected market niche disappeared by the time the
technology finally received permits. Regulatory agencies indicated that the turnover rate
problem damaged their ability to consider permit applications on a timely basis, both in
terms of the adequacy of staff and the adequacy of their knowledge base.
b. ENCOURAGING FEDERAL AND STATE PERMIT WRITERS:
Comments heard during the Fact Finding meetings indicated, however, beyond the issue of
experience, that permit writers are often discouraged, by unwritten policy, by the lack of
guidance, or by other factors, from writing permits for testing and/or implementation of
new technology. The results were often counterproductive to the development and use of
innovative technology. For example, in those cases where RCRA permits were entertained
for testing new technology, the regulators pushed for full permitting ~ e.g., for RCRA
technology testing, essentially a complete Part B ~ that limited testers' ability to define
performance envelopes, restricting the value of testing and increasing its cost. This
situation must be reversed, so that permit writers are encouraged to and rewarded for
issuing permits for safe testing of innovative technology for environmental purposes.
\
It should be noted that changes at the federal level will have little actual impact if there
are not corresponding changes in state programs. State laws and regulations for the
various programs are generally modelled on those of EPA -- but there can be significant
differences, such as California's "permit by rule" for mobile treatment units for treating
non-RCR A wastes. Permit writers in state programs will also have to be brought into the
incentives "loop." State and local participation in the permit team strategy outlined in
subrecommendation 2.3 should be encouraged.
86
-------
c. INCENTIVES SUPPORTING PERMIT WRITERS: As one possible
model of an incentives program aimed at encouraging, supporting, and training permit
writers at federal, state, and local agencies, the TIE Committee recommends the following:
1. Establish a hierarchy or job ladder for permit writers and incorporate criteria in
performance evaluations along that promotional ladder to address the permit
writers' development of expertise (either single media, cross-media, or
technology-specific). The ladder might include the following elements:
• Single-media permit writers. Single media permit writers should be networked
to facilitate informatioh sharing within regions. These media representatives
could serve as team members on the coordinated permit review teams described
in subrecommendation 2.3.
• National expert single-media permit writers. A national expert permit writer
program could be established within each of the single media areas as a next
step in the ladder. National single-media experts could serve as a nationwide
information (both technical and regulatory) resource locus in dealing with
innovative technologies. They would also provide institutional memory in
cases where local conditions favor high turnover rates. (State experts might
also be eligible for this program.)
• Cross-media permitting experts within each region. A rung in the ladder could
be for permit writers who obtain expertise across the media. In designing the
cross-media permit expert role, much use could be made of the experience
gained in current EPA and state (e.g., Massachusetts, New Jersey) cross-media
inspection and integrated permitting pilot projects. Team leaders for the
coordinated permit reviews discussed in subrecommendation 2.3 should be
drawn from this pool.
• Regional liaison permit writers. Regional liaison permit writers would serve as
coordinators, facilitating access to regional and state single-media and cross-
media expertise.
2. Provide training and model templates, based on the prior testing of innovative
technologies, to all permit writers. A concise, yet comprehensive, training
program should explain the permit writers' role in fostering the successful use of
innovative technologies for environmental purposes and on information sources
and networks for identifying technical information. The training program should
also educate the regulators on how industry innovation works, and on the role of
ORD and technology groups within other federal agencies, with the goal of
improving the permit writers potential networking base for technical information.
3. Strengthen ORD's role as identifier and conveyer of technical information to permit
writers. Establish a centralized clearinghouse where permit writers can easily
access needed information. ORD should help permit writers sift through the
technical details of newly proposed technologies, explaining how, and if, the
innovation will be beneficial, and under what conditions, and help the permit
writer frame permit conditions for unfamiliar technologies. ORD might also be the
Agency lead for the ombudsman function (see subrecommendations 1.3 and 4.4).
87
-------
Establish performance evaluation standards and reward systems that promote
greater support and consideration from permit writers for innovative pollution
prevention and pollution control technologies. The first step, as mentioned
elsewhere throughout this report, would be develop a clear, strong policy
statement about EPA's role in promoting technology innovation. Other steps could
include modifying performance standards and credits ("bean counting") to reflect
the degree to which a permit writer works to achieve the goals set forth in the
technology innovation policy statement. The TIE Committee recognizes that extra
time and risk are involved in processing permit applications for innovative
alternatives, and for the risk associated with supporting approaches which involve
the uncertainties in changes in standard technologies and the uncertainties in
performance projections for innovative solutions. Financial incentives should also
be considered, as well as recognition and merit awards.
Improve data and technical information sources to aid permit writers in their job of
reviewing permit applications involving innovative technologies, perhaps through
an expansion of the "ATTIC" data base, which now contains information about
innovative remediation technologies. EPA should collect the information from
federal, state', and other sources and assemble the data and information in on-line
databases for PC/Mac users. Information should be collected and assembled in
information retrieval systems easily accessible to all permit writers. Information
should include the following:
Media affected by the technology
Emission/effluent/hazardous waste reductions achieved by the technology
Process descriptions
Location and results of tests, demonstrations, and early commercial uses
Level bf cleanup (remedial technologies) achieved
Contact persons, including owner or licensee, plus ORD technical experts
Existence of patent covering the technology and the availability of licenses
Key words; similar technologies; terms of art
Known limitations
Potential site incompatibilities.
4.2 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.
Commentary
The TIE Committee recognizes that the need to both maintain continuity of personnel
and promote a more positive approach to innovative environmental technology applies to
inspectors and compliance staff, as well as to permit writers. As a result, the TIE
Committee recommends that measures to train and support compliance and inspection
personnel be undertaken bv EPA and the states.
88
-------
a. THE SUPPORT ROLE OF FEDERAL AND STATE COMPLIANCE
POLICIES: If EPA and state agency compliance staffs and their respective compliance policies
are not supportive of measures to promote innovation in pollution prevention or pollution control
technology, compliance requirements will remain a barrier to efforts to innovate. The Committee
therefore recommends that EPA open discussions with state enforcement officials on how best to
promote such changes. Some state programs (e.g., New Jersey and Massachusetts) are already in
the first stages of implementing compliance programs to promote multi-media pollution prevention.
The Committee also recommends that EPA provide support for evaluation, implementation and
expansion of existing state efforts, and for communication between the states on the success of
alternative approaches. Coordination with state efforts to implement HSWA land disposal
phaseout provisions consistent with their SARA corrective action plan responsibilities are of
particular importance from a technological perspective.
b. THE NEED TO REFORM REWARD PRACTICES: Standard bean-counting
approaches to measuring the performance of inspection and enforcement officials are a disincentive
for these officials to support innovative responses to compliance requirements. Few compliance
officials have experience with multi-media approaches to evaluating facility compliance options. In
addition, working with facilities with the opportunity to develop or implement innovative
alternatives presents potential significant risks and few potential rewards for the compliance
official. Reviewing an innovative approach, or working with a facility to develop such an
approach, is almost certain to require more time than imposing a standard compliance requirement
and may involve increased scrutiny by managers. Evaluation of an innovative approach is
intrinsically more difficult, since operational capabilities and parameters are generally more
uncertain than standard alternatives, whether for innovative manufacturing evolutions or innovative
pollution control methods. This poses the risk that the compliance official will be held responsible
for blessing an alternative that fails.
c. ELEMENTS OF A SUPPPORT SYSTEM FOR COMPLIANCE
PERSONNEL: If compliance officials are to be willing to undertake the greater difficulties
posed bv innovative alternatives, there must be clear policy direction, support, and rewards for
their efforts. Three mutually reinforcing elements are kev:
1. First and foremost. EPA or the relevant state agency must have articulated a
compliance policy which clearly establishes promotion of environmentally
beneficial innovation as a major goal. Once such a clear policy is established,
many of the necessary tools are available, For example, the Agency could
implement more effectively the innovation waiver tools which it has largely
neglected in the past. The TIE Committee reiterates its January 1990
recommendation (1.4.h) that EPA expand the use of existing statutory provisions
89
-------
which trade compliance delays for improvements in technology (e.g., CWA
Sections 301(k) and 301(n); CAA Sections 11 l(j) and 113(d)). The Office of
Water has plans to draft revised guidance for the Section 301 (k) waiver process,
but in most cases the authorities carry little practical guidance and are seldom used.
(See a further discussion of waivers under subrecommendations 2.1 and 3.3.)
The Enforcement in the 1990s Project describes several innovative enforcement
approaches that the Committee believes are compatible with the greater risk-taking
necessary to encourage technological innovation.
2. Second, the performance evaluation and reward system must be amended to provide
special credit for the compliance official who takes the risk nf seriously evaluating and
encouraging such approaches.
;
3. Third, in order to promote attention bv compliance officials to innovative
technology alternatives and to promote the retention of inspectors and compliance
staff knowledgeable of and favorably disposed to considering the use of innovative
technologies, the TIE Committee recommends a parallel incentives program to thai
outlined above for permit writers. The major headings below identify the basic
program content (see subrecommendation 4.1 for details):
* Establish a hierarchy or job ladder for compliance staffs and incorporate criteria
in performance evaluations along that promotional ladder to address the staffs'
development of expertise (either single media, cross-media, or technology-
specific).
• Provide training and model templates, based on the prior testing of innovative
technologies, to all compliance personnel. Such training should include
explanation of the role of inspectors and compliance staff in promoting
technology innovation for environmental purposes.
* Strengthen ORD's role as identifier and conveyer of technical information to
compliance personnel.
• Improve data and technical information sources to aid compliance personnel in
compliance situations involving innovative technologies.
4.3 Provide support to prospective innovative technology
permittees (including technology developers and technology
users).
Commentary
The TIE Committee has previously recommended (January 1990, recommendations
1.2 and 1.7) that the Agency should build into its technology innovation promotion
strategies comprehensive approaches to inform regulated parties, particularly small and
medium-sized businesses, about (a) applicable environmental requirements; (b) the
advantages of developing and using innovative technologies to meet these requirements;
90
-------
and (c) EPA's specific programs to foster innovative problem solving. The current
recommendation builds on the January 1990 recommendations and provides some concrete
details on possible informational approaches, some of which are being used today and all
of which can be put to greater use in cost-effective fashion. Many of the support functions
for prospective permittees which follow might be carried out by the "technology advocate"
(see 1.3 and 4.4). These functions include the following:
1. Outreach seminars on innovative technology permit and compliance policies and
processes.
2. Information dissemination programs related to innovative technologies. These can
involve coordinated efforts by EPA offices (especially ORD [see January 1990
recommendation l.S.b]), industry associations, state agencies, economic
development authorities, local authorities, professional associations, and others.
Opportunities to assist executive branch organizations and non-governmental
organizations inform their memberships have particular potential. Examples of
potential dissemination mechanisms are:
• Newsletters
• Press releases
• Reports
• Seminars.
3. Access to the on-line database to be developed under subrecommendation 4.1 (item
9). Additional information relevant to technology users and potential permittees
might be added to the database, including permit requirements used in similar
technologies and other permit application informational needs. Technical
information might also be added to the RCRA/CERCLA "Hotline." Similar
mechanisms could also be found for water and air. Consideration should be given
to enlisting the cooperation of a private service (e.g., DIALOG) to ensure wide
access to the information. Among the advantages of an environmental technology
clearinghouse are that it would help innovators track the state of the art and it
would promote selection of appropriate technologies and invention of new ones.
4. Utilization of ORD personnel for technical assistance and subsidized testing. This
would coincide with establishing an ombudsman function, as described in
subrecommendations 1.3. and 4.4. Subsidized testing should be increased,
although note should be taken of the January 1990 recommendation l.S.a, which
calls for expanding testing protocols in the SITE program and analogous testing
efforts to. define performance envelopes.
.5. Assure that the confidentiality of applicants' trade secrets is maintained. The TIE
Committee notes that the statutory language for trade secret protection varies from
statute to statue in terms of the procedure for asserting trade secrets. This can
create confusion among technology owners, licensees, and users, and complicates
the role of permit writers and compliance personnel involved in the consideration
of tests and uses of innovative technologies. Trade secret protection information
and procedures should be readily available, and to the extent that there are
substantive differences among the environmental media statutes, these should be
normalized.
91
-------
4.4 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.
Commentary
The TIE Committee reiterates its previous recommendation (January 1990 TIE
Recommendation IS.b) that the Aeencv should investigate wavs to strengthen QRD's roles in
fostering technology innovation as (a) identifier and conveyer, with the regulatory offices, of
information about present and future technology gaps; and (b) a non-regulatory forum that works
closely with technology user communities, as in the SITE program, to evaluate and guide
technology development efforts. An analogous role for ORD within the federal government, the
need for which has become more prominent, is to maximize the flow of environmental technical
information among all parts of the government, including the Departments of Energy and Defense
and the national laboratories.
a. "TECHNOLOGY ADVOCATE": Subrecommendatlon 1.3 calls for EPA to consider
establishing a "technology advocate." Its function -would provide a single point of contact for
technology developers, prospective users of innovative technology, permit writers and compliance
officers at all levels of government, and the public so that people can find out information about:
1. The policies relating to technology innovation
2. Permitting processes relevant to proposed tests, demonstrations, or uses of an innovative
technology
3. The status of permit applications -•- for individual tests and demonstrations, testing centers,
and early commercial uses — at both federal and state agencies
4. The results of tests, demonstrations, and early commercial uses of innovative
technologies, including information about the performance envelopes of individual
technologies.
The function could also profitably include the ability to intervene to encourage timely consideration
of permit applications or even to mediate between permit applicant and permit writer.
92
-------
Currently, the EPA office most closely matching the requirements for the ombudsman role is
ORD. ORD has strengths in its knowledge of and objectivity about technology, and in its multi-
media orientation, and would need to strengthen its knowledge with respect to permit processes
and permit status.
b. ORD ROLE WITH PERMIT TEAMS: ORD also should play a complementary and
significant role in the permit team concept propounded in subrecommendations 1.3 and 2.3. Other
roles for ORD in fostering technology innovation in this document include (a) developer of
guidance documents on permitting technology testing centers and (b) collator of information (e.g.,
clearinghouses, on-line databases) discussed under incentives for permit writers and compliance
staff (subrecommendations 4.1 and 4.2). These roles should be made prominent within the ORD
system and integrated with existing technology transfer and regional scientist processes.
4.5 Institute systems to provide the public with information
and support related to the testing and use of innovative
environmental technology.
Commentary
The Committee believes that one of the most significant barriers to implementation of
innovative environmental technology is lack of public trust in the information presented
during the permitting process, as well as in the actual process of permit review and
approval. As a result, siting of new facilities, or use of new technologies in existing
facilities, often faces insurmountable public resistance.
a. THE NEED FOR AN EARLY, SUBSTANTIVE ROLE FOR THE
PUBLIC WITH RESPECT TO INNOVATION: The public concern and fear of
things that are new, whether associated with innovative technology or not, must be
understood and addressed. It is important to realize that no study can prove the absence of
an adverse effect. Every effort must be made to supply the public with as much data as is
available (with understandable explanatory information) and to involve the public in the
permitting process as early as possible. If this is done, by the time permits are issued for a
facility it may not seem as "strange" or "new" but, in fact, very familiar. In addition, for
this reason, care should be taken in the permitting processes with the designation "new",
whether with reference to entire facilities, production processes, or changes to facilities and
processes.
93
-------
b. STEPS FOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The Committee recommends
two measures which EPA should undertake to improve the quality of public participation in
permitting. Implementing these measures may involve statutory, as well as administrative,
changes:
7. Provide detailed information on all facets of a new technology for which a permit
is sought, and provide (or require the applicant to provide) substantial information
on all known risk factors relevant to any permit application.
2. Redesign permitting processes to afford the public an early and more substantive
role in the actual design requirements for facilities that affect them. An improved
use of public hearings should be considered, but it should be noted that public
involvement can occur in other ways, as well.
c. TECHNICAL SUPPORT TO LOCAL COMMUNITIES: One way
would be to address the limited resources available to communities that are wrestling with
the problem of how to respond to proposals for environmental compliance made by local
regulated organizations. In particular, communities find it difficult to obtain adequate
technical expertise to assist the community in evaluating the potential contribution of a new
technology and in developing a confident understanding of the level of safety being
provided. Communities often lack knowledge about the regulatory and administrative
processes associated with innovative technologies.
Environmental policy makers must consider how to provide neutral technological and
regulatory process advice beyond that provided by the regulated organization involved or
the governmental authorities who must approve permits. The Committee notes that some
communities are now entering into agreements to purchase neutral expert advice, using
funds provided by the regulated organization and, in some cases by governmental units.
EPA, for instance, can provide such support under the "Technical Assistance Grant"
authority of CERCLA (Superfund). Such community-chosen experts may provide the
confidence bridge necessary for having a fair and equitable decision making process. The
Committee suggests that environmental policy makers consider how to make it possible for
local communities to obtain such neutral advice as a matter of routine and on demand,
whenever the use pf an innovative technology for environmental purposes is proposed.
One suggestion to this end is that EPA consider the idea that an independent foundation be
established, with partial government funding, to provide communities with access to
independent expert technical and process support.
94
-------
d. THE TWO-TIERED PERMIT PROCESS: The two-tiered permitting
process recommended earlier could help achieve positive public involvement. Under such
a process (see subrecommendation 2.2), phase one -- a screening step -- would consider
the basic principles and parameters for a potential facility permit, and phase two - the
detailed consideration step -- would weigh detailed technical information and result in the
issuance or denial of permits. Phase two would commence on if issues identified in the
phase one have been resolved.
The public would be involved deeply in each phase. Use of the two-tiered process
could reduce the time and investment required to explore permits for innovative
technologies, either by identifying and resolving basic issues (e.g., characterization of
wastes produced, environmental and health risks, and process efficiency) early in the
process, or by reaching the point during phase one that no agreement is possible. In this
latter case, public input to the project could be made earlier, and the project modified or
abandoned before regulators, applicants, and the public have expended as much time and
resources as the.y would have to if a complete permit application has to be provided.
Importantly, by involving the public in the process early and in'a substantive way, the two-
tiered process allows all parties to build the confidence necessary for a successful dialogue.
95
-------
Recommendation 5:
Identify and remove regulatory obstacles which create
unnecessary inflexibility and uncertainty or otherwise inhibit
technology innovation for environmental purposes. Among
these are:
5.1 The Administrator should consider seeking statutory
authority allowing EPA to develop an efficient regulatory
mechanism under RCRA Subtitle C for making determinations
about the effectiveness of technologies to render wastes not
hazardous.
5.2 The Administrator should clarify a number of definitions
of terms of art under RCRA.
5.3 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.
During the course of its discussions, the Committee noted several regulatory glitches that
appear to inhibit the development of innovative pollution control or pollution prevention
technologies. What is referred to here are specific regulatory requirements, rather than the
fundamental, best available technology based regulations themselves.
The Committee did not undertake a systematic effort to seek out and analyze these glitches, but
found examples associated with each media statute. The innovative technology waiver programs
under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, for example, are not functional. The absence of
functioning processes for this purpose represents a significant difficulty to the innovation process
and, hence, the designation of these by the Committee as "regulatory glitches." Similarly, the
Committee suggests that the Agency review standards. If the Committee's fact finding processes
and discussions were in any way indicative, however, the problem of regulatory glitches is most
acute under RCRA-derived programs.
The Committee recommends that the Administrator undertake a more systematic identification
and review of such problems. The recommendations below are neither in order of priority nor in
any way complete.
96
-------
5.1 The Administrator should consider seeking statutory authority.
allowing EPA to develop an efficient regulatory mechanism under
RCRA Subtitle C for making determinations about the effectiveness
of technologies to, render wastes not hazardous.
Commentary
The current site-specific delisting process under RCRA Subtitle C is complex, time-
consuming, costly, and greatly discourages technology innovation for environmental purposes.
This process takes 1 to 2 years and accomplishes delistings through rulemakings. The Committee
recommends development of a regulatory mechanism to allow the Agency to conduct vendor-
specific reviews of a technology to determine whether the technology, when applied to a specific
waste(s), renders it non-hazardous. The Committee suggests that such a mechanism have a post-
treatment verification system to assure that the waste was, in fact, entitled to delisting.
The Committee is aware that EPA is considering approaches to specify, through a rulemaking,
certain minimum hazardous constituent concentration levels below which wastes would no longer
be hazardous, i.e., de minimus levels. Technologies which could demonstrate that they reduce
concentrations of hazardous constituents below these levels could then be marketed with more
certainty as to their applicability and benefit to users. A de minimus approach could be simpler,
since it would not require Agency review of individual technologies. The Committee did not
specifically review this concept, but believes that it may accomplish some of the objectives it
recommends.
However it is accomplished, an improved delisting process would allow technology
developers to better market their products, since it is important for them to be able to assure
potential technology users that, under specified conditions, their treatment technology will produce
a delistable waste.
5.2 The Administrator should clarify a number of definitions of terms
of art under RCRA.
Commentary
Definitions of what constitutes "recycling" and "reuse," and the impacts of regulatory concepts
such as the "derived-from" rule, have potentially significant implications for technology
97
-------
innovation. While the Agency has been constrained in its evaluations of such impacts by statutory
requirements and court interpretations, the Committee recommends that -- given the potential for
modifying such definitions in the pending RCRA reauthorization -- the Agency undertake a more
comprehensive review looking at the implications for new pollution prevention or control
technologies of alternative approaches. The Committee understands that the recent RCRA
Implementation Study recommended that EPA undertake such a review. The Committee endorses
this action.
5.3 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.
Commentary
Existing BDAT standards were established primarily to reflect the chemical and physical
properties of newly generated wastes, rather than contaminated soil and debris. As a result, BDAT
standards have not necessarily distinguished among technologies that can be applied to
contaminants found in a soil matrix and thpse for which such a matrix provides significant barriers
to performance. Such difficulties may be particularly significant in situations where current
BDATs require incineration of large quantities of soil or debris that contain low concentrations of
contaminants. The Administrator should address this problem by developing alternative BDATs
specifically designed for soils and debris-type waste that is generated during remediation and that
has low contamination levels (i.e., not "hot spots" or wastes segregated in barrels).
The Committee takes note that this is a complex, dynamic regulatory area. The RCRA
Implementation Study has made recommendations and the Office of Solid Waste is
working on BDAT for soil and debris. EPA has proposed that contaminated media be
handled differently from new RCRA wastes, but has not finalized new rules. EPA should
conclude that rulemaking. In doing so, the Committee hopes that EPA will develop a
principled basis for setting BDAT at other than incineration.
98
-------
APPENDIX 1
Names
Expert Presentations:
Company/Organization
January 27 at the first Focus Group meeting (oral presentations^:
Elizabeth Cotsworth EPA Office of Solid Waste
Ephraim King EPA Office of Water Enforcement
and Permits
Gary McCutcheon EPA Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
i
March 15 at the second Focus Group meeting (oral presentation'):
Dr. ManikRoy Mass. Dept. of Environmental
Protection
May 16 public fact finding meeting in San Francisco (oral presentations'):
Don Haney
Robert Keefer
George Lane/Frank Dixon
David Leu
Dave Morell
Peter Venturini
JeffWiegand
Region IX Panel:
Marsha Harris
Gene Herson; Maggie Johnson;
Bill Lee
Submitted papers:
Terry Galloway
James Allen
Cedar Kehoe
IT Corporation
Enviroquest
Thermal Waste Management
Mittelhauser Corp.
Epics International
California Air Resources Board
Alton Geoscience
EPA Region IX
Sanitary Fill Company
City/County San Francisco
Synthetica
CA Alternative Technology
(CA Dept. of Health and Services)
August 8 public fact finding meeting in Washington. D.C. (oral presentations'):
Jim Cummings
BillArble
Ken Hagg
Janet Friday
Dave Lachapelle
Don Currier
Larry McGeehan
Mahesh Podar & Deb Hanlon
Ben Simmons
Paul Wilkinson
Bob Olexsey
Frank Freestone
Peter Daley
Frances H. Irwin
Jack Taylor
EPA/OSWER/Tech. Innov. Office
PENNTAP
Mass. DEP
AER*X, Inc.
EPA7ORD/Air and Energy
Engineering Research Laboratory
Custom Recovery Services
NETAC
EPA/OPPE
ETICAM, Inc.
American Gas Association
EPA/ORD/Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory (RREL),
Cincinnati, OH
EPA/ORD/RREL/Edison, N.J.
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
Conservation Foundation
Virginia Power Companies
-------
August 8 Presenters (continued'):
Alfred Slowik
Frank Partee
David W. Patti
Richard Fortuna
DaveFagan
Submitted papers:
J. Kenneth Wittle
Debora Mitchell Sparks
John J. Trela
Pennsylvania Electric Company
Ford Motor Company
PA Chem. Industry Council
Haz. Waste Treatment Council
EPA/OSWER/OSW
Electro-Pyrolysis, Inc.
AMOCO Corp.
N.J. DEP
Meetings included:
September 18 meeting with representatives of the State of California. The following individuals
participated:
Jesse Diaz
Raymond Menebroker
Bemie Vlack
Dr. James Allen
Alan Ingham
Chief, Division of Water Quality
Water Resources Board
Branch Chief, Stationary Source
Division, Air Resources Board
Chief, Enforcement
Waste Management Board
Chief, Toxics Substance Control
Alternative Technology Division
Department of Health Services
Senior Waste Management Engineer
Toxic Substance Control Division
Department of Health Services
June 25 meeting sponsored by the New Jersey Institute of Technology on technology for treating
hazardous waste. Participants included NJIT, N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection, US EPA
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Lab, US Army, and 24 regulated companies, some of which
develop their own technologies.
Individuals conferred with included:
Fred Lindsay
Dag Syrrist
Correspondence:
Samuel Goldberg
Mike Bellivan
Director, Office of Environmental
Engineering and Technology Demo., ORD
Vice President, Technology Funding, Inc.
2000 Alameda de las Pulgas
San Mateo, CA
President, INCO
Program Director
Citizens for a Better Environment
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION
PAGE
1.REPORTNO.
101/N-91/001
3. Recipient'* Accession
4. Title and Subtitle
Permitting and Compliance Policy: Barriers to U.S. Environmental Technology Innovation
(subtitle) Report and Recommendations of the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee
5. Report Date
January 1991
X. Author(s)
David R. Berg, for the TIE Committee
8. Performing Organization RepL No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology
Technology Innovation and Economics Committee
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (A101F6)
499 South Capitol Street, SW '
Washington, DC 20460
10. Project/Taskwork Unit No.
11. ContraO(C) or Grant(Q) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
499 South Capitol Street, SW A-101-F6
Washington, DC 20460
13. Type of Report & Period Covered
Final
14.
16. Abstract (Limit: 200 words) '\ — — —
The United States' potential to improve the environment is directly related to the nation's ability to produce and apply technological solutions. The
Technology Innovation and Economics (TIE) Committee, a standing committee of EPA's National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology (NACEPT), concluded that the barriers in federal and state environmental permitting and compliance policies are slowing technology
innovation for environmental purposes. This extensive study, involving technology developers, technology users, financiers, regulators, environmental
groups, andacademia, determined therange of impacts andidentified the range and practicality of potential solutions. Thereport captures the Committee's
analysis of six critical policy issues and the key parameters affecting the design of permitting and compliance systems. It recommends five major areas
for improvement, including:
1. Modifying permitting systems to aid the development and testing of innovative environmental technologies
2. Implementing permit processes to aid the commercial introduction of innovative technologies
3. Encouraging the use of innovative environmental technologies in compliance programs
4. Maximizing the effectiveness'of permitting and compliance improvements by supporting stakeholders
5. Identifying and removing regulatory obstacles inhibiting innovative technologies for environmental purposes
The report concludes that fundamental changes to the environmental regulatory system will also be needed to create incentives encouraging the process
of technology innovation.
Docuement Analysis a. Docuement Discrlptors ~~~ ~~ —
permit, compliance, enforcement, testing environmental technology, testing centers, technology innovation, innovative technology,
innovative technologies, environmental technology, environmental technologies, regulatory barriers, pollution prevention, pollution
control, cross-media permits, cross-media compliance, environmental policy, incentives for innovation, regulatory incentives
b. Identifier's/Open-Ended Terms
c. COSATI Field/Group
19. Security Class (This Report)
Unclassified
20. Security Class (This Page)
Unclassified
21. No. of Pages
22. Price
*U.S. Government Printing Office : 1991 - 312-014/40021
OPTIMAL FORM 272 (4-77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Department of Commerce
-------
------- |