SUMMARY REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT:
THE PRESIDENTIAL REGULATORY
REFORM INITIATIVE
BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
June 15,1995
-------
I. AGENCY OVERVIEW
EPA is in the midst of critical changes in the way we provide environmental
protection. Since EPA was created 25 years ago, we have made substantial progress
protecting the health of all Americans and preserving natural ecosystems for future
generations. But much remains to be done.
The American people are deeply committed to strong environmental programs that
assure a dean and healthy environment for their children and communities. Over the last
25 years we have learned a great deal about how environmental management works. We
have learned that better decisions result from a collaborative process with shared
decisionmaking, rather than from an adversarial process that pits people against each
other. We have leamea that the EPA doesn't have all the answers, and much can be
gained by giving industry flexibility to achieve environmental results and by sharing
responsibility with other levels of government. We have learned that regulations that
provide flexibility - but demand accountability in achieving environmental goals - can
provide greater protection at a lower cost. We have learned that by focusing on results,
not on how results are achieved, we can tap the creativity of Americans to devise cleaner,
cheaper, smarter ways of protecting the environment.
These lessons are the bases of reinventing environmental regulations. Reinvention
at EPA has been underway since the start of the Clinton Administration, and it includes
dozens of initiatives across the Agency. Last summer, for example, Administrator Browner
announced the Common Sense Initiative, an innovative project in which all stakeholders
are looking across EPA programs to devise regulatory systems that make sense, industry
by industry. On March 16, 1995, the President announced an additional 25 high-priority
actions that will help reinvent environmental regulations at EPA.
As a part of reinventing regulations, on March 4 the President asked EPA and other
Federal agencies to review ail existing regulations and identify those that can be
eliminated because they are obsolete, those that need to be changed because they are
overly prescriptive, and those that no longer make sense. The President also directed
agencies to identify opportunities for using inclusive collaborative processes in regulatory
development. He asked that agencies involve all others who are affected by their
regulations.
This report is the result of a three-month effort by EPA in response to the
President's March 4 request EPA staff, applying the principles of common sense, shared
decisionmaking, and flexible, results-oriented regulations, have reviewed all existing EPA
regulations. We have sought the opinions of state, tribal, and local governments,
regulated industries, and community, environmental, and other interest groups.
The recommendations and actions in this report will be the basis for efforts that we
will undertake immediately and over the next few years to reinvent existing regulations and
-------
eliminate those that are unnecessary to provide sound protection for human health and the
environment. In addition, we will continue to reform our operations to focus on
environmental results and the partnership activities that will produce those results. We will
continue to expand our already extensive efforts to build partnerships with stakeholders
through community-based environmental protection, wrth industry sectors in the Common
Sense Initiative and similar programs, and through a wide variety of consensual
approaches to rulemaking.
This report is integral to continuous reinvention at EPA, a program of change that
respects the strengths of what we have in place but incorporates the lessons we have
learned over the past 25 years. Our goal is to provide greater environmental protection
for all Americans. We will achieve our goal by using common sense in everything we do,
which in turn will lead to a cleaner, cheaper, smarter environmental regulatory system.
II. ELIMINATING AND IMPROVING REGULATIONS
To conduct its line-by-line review of environmental regulations, EPA program offices
formed regulatory review teams that included senior program staff at headquarters, front
line regulators in EPA regional offices and several states, and representatives from EPA's
Offices of General Counsel (OGC) and Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA).
Every section of the regulations was reviewed for possible deletion or reform, and a
preliminary list of regulations ripe for reform was circulated to stakeholders to stimulate
discussion and suggestions.
The results of this review incorporate extensive comments from the regulated
community. The information obtained from over 75 meetings held in and outside of
Washington helped identify regulations for revision and deletion. This information is still
proving helpful in EPA's continued evaluation of its regulations.
EPA identified a total of 1,457 pages which it plans to remove from the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR). This equals about 11 percent of the Agency's total count of
12,766 pages. Some of these pages will be deleted immediately, while others will result
from efforts to restructure and simplify rules over the next year. Table 1 on the following
page illustrates the distribution of pages to be removed across the program offices.
A large page deletion is anticipated in the water program area due to the Agency's
planned restructuring next year of two major groups of water regulations - the National
Primary Drinking Water Standards and Effluent Guidelines. Both sets of regulations will
be simplified and streamlined to provide the public with easier access to information and
remove hundreds of pages from the CFR.
-------
Table 1
CFR Deletions
(Pages)
Office
Air and Radiation
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxics
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Water
Administration & Resources
Management
Other
Total
Removed
305
1
440
86
540
63
22
1,457
Total
6,195
72
2,040
2,022
2,090
305
42
12,766
Percent
Removed
5%
1%
22%
4%
26%
21%
52%
11%
One of the most significant deletions is the removal of the Comprehensive
Assessment Information Rule (CAIR) from the CFR. After the first use of CAIR in 1989,
a lawsuit stayed the effectiveness of this regulation until EPA could promulgate
amendments. Although amendments to this regulation were proposed last year, the
amendments will not be made final, and EPA will remove existing provisions from the CFR.
By withdrawing the recently proposed amendments, EPA estimates it is avoiding costs to
manufacturers, processors, and importers of approximately $3,350,000 and 140,000
burden hours.
EPA has determined that chemical test guidelines are best published as guidance,
with the test objectives set forth and the methods recommended, but not required in detail.
Originally EPA intended its chemical test guidelines to be regulations, and published
many of the guidelines in the CFR. EPA has since determined that a more flexible
approach is needed. Maximizing the many non-CFR avenues for providing testing
guidelines to the testing community, EPA believes that this new approach provides the
necessary flexibility for a more efficient and streamlined testing program which is easily
-------
adaptable for testing unusual chemicals or applications. In addition to providing flexibility
to the regulated community, EPA's actions could eventually result in elimination from the
CFR of much of the 500 pages devoted to the guidelines currently in use.
Highlights
The results of the Agency's reinvention efforts are illustrated in Table 2. They
demonstrate that of 306 CFR Parts, EPA will take actions to delete and/or modify rule
sections involving 229 Parts, approximately 75 percent. Only 77 parts, or 25 percent, will
remain unchanged at the current time. In many cases, the unchanged rules are recent
additions, EPA codifications of common rules, or rules which received broad stakeholder
support. It should also be noted that the 17 Parts (out of 44) being addressed by the
Office of Air and Radiation actually represent eighty percent of the 6195 pages addressed
by that office.
Table 2
Reinvention Summary (Parts)
Office
Air and Radiation
Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxics
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response
Water
Administration and Resources
Management
Other
Total
Reinvent
17
(39%)
2
(100%)
49
(88%)
43
(78%)
74
(80%)
42
(79%)
2
(67%)
229
(75%)
No Chanae
27
(61%)
0
(0%)
7
(12%)
12
(31%)
19
(20%)
11
(21%)
1
(33%)
77
(25%)
Total
44
2
56
55
93
53
3
306
-------
EPA is working closely with States and localities, industries, and public interest
groups to identify ways to modify existing regulations to reduce the regulatory burden
while maintaining progress toward health and environmental goals. The hundreds of
regulatory changes EPA will make as a result of the line-by-line process run the gamut
from simple clarifications to major program redirections. The largest number of changes
are relatively small ones which eliminate duplications and obsolete provisions, resolve
conflicting or unclear provisions, and provide better organized, easier to understand rules.
These good housekeeping provisions are important, however, because they save the
public and regulated community time and money, and remove potential frustrations in
achieving compliance.
Many other changes will have more substantial impacts on the regulated community
with very large savings in regulatory costs and reporting burden requirements. Since the
details of the changes will be worked out in partnerships with these groups, it is difficult
to quantify accurately the final results of these efforts. However, we are able to estimate
savings for some of the major efforts, and the ones described in this highlights section
alone account for estimated savings of more than $5 billion dollars and 2 million hours in
information collection burden.
The reinvention off existing regulations is only one part of EPA's effort to build a
better environmental management system. Some legislative changes will be needed, and
some of those changes are highlighted at the end of this section. But EPA is also
applying the common sense reinvention approach in all that we do, including the
development of new regulations, administrative improvements to the current system, and
alternative strategies and pilot projects to develop new tools for the next century.
These high priority actions were described in the Presidents's March 16 release on
"Reinventing Environmental Regulation".
As part of this broader reinvention initiative, Administrator Browner has committed
EPA to several initiatives aimed at streamlining reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
First, EPA will reduce by 25 percent existing monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. When completed in June 1996 this effort will save the regulated community
20 million reporting burden hours annually. Second, EPA will create a one-stop reporting
system for the collection of routine emissions data which will replace the multitude of
reporting forms currently required to collect data from a single facility. Third, EPA is
moving forward aggressively to enable firms to report environmental data electronically
rather than with hard copy. Finally, the Agency is taking steps to cut in half the reporting
frequency of regularly scheduled reports, as requested in the President's April 21,1995
memo.
-------
Office of Water.
EPA is streamlining four of its water-related programs to reduce burdens
associated with them and provide additional flexibility: National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System ( NPDES) permits, national primary drinking water regulations, the
pretreatment program, and water quality planning and management. Of the 93 Parts of
the CFR under the responsibility of the Office of Water, 74 (80 percent) are undergoing
change.
In the NPDES permits program (Part 122), EPA is removing outdated requirements,
streamlining permit application and modification procedures, and reducing monitoring and
reporting requirements. For example, EPA will consolidate and revise industrial and
municipal permit application requirements and forms and streamline the application
process. It will also revise the permit application requirements for municipal separate
storm water sewer systems to reduce significantly the cost and burden of reapplication for
succeeding permit terms. EPA will not require resubmission of information available from
the earlier application or which is not pertinent for the approval process. These actions
will result in shorter, easier to understand regulations and an estimated savings to the
regulated community of $23 million dollars per year, and 287,000 burden hours.
EPA is planning a major revision of the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (Part 141) which will have a number of benefits for States and the regulated
community. First, EPA will delete a number of obsolete provisions and simplify the
remaining regulations to make it easier for managers of public water systems to
understand and implement the requirements and for State officials to enforce. EPA will
also streamline the public notification requirements to allow States more flexibility to
design programs which will ensure notice to the public in a timely and effective manner.
Estimated savings to the regulated community: 1.5 million reporting burden hours
annually.
Regulations in the pretreatment program for publicly operated treatment works (Part
403) will be streamlined and revised to delete obsolete requirements, simplify program
operation, and eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements. For example, under
streamlined procedures only the most significant elements of an approved pretreatment
program would be included in a POTWs NPDES permit, eliminating the need for a permit
revision every time small changes are made to the pretreatment program. Estimated
savings to the regulated community: $13 million and 360,000 hours annually.
Part 130 contains the requirements for water quality planning and assessment and
waterbody listing requirements for State water quality management programs. EPA will
eliminate obsolete planning requirements, streamline listing requirements, and reduce
reporting from every two years to every five years. Estimated savings to the States
resulting from the reduction in reporting frequency: $1-6 million and 39,000 hours annually.
-------
Air and Radiation.
EPA is committed to using flexibility granted by the Clean Air Act to enable
companies, communities, and individuals to meet clean air goals using innovative
approaches at lower costs. In addition to deleting more than 310 pages of unnecessary
regulations, the Office of Air and Radiation is committed to nearly 200 changes in existing
rules, and is changing many forthcoming rules to reflect the common sense priority of the
reinvention effort.
EPA regulations implementing the provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act
requiring most facilities that emit air pollution to obtain an operating permit from State or
local agencies have been criticized for having a complex and prescriptive process for
revising permits. EPA has been working with stakeholders to develop a more streamlined
process for permit revisions that builds on existing successful State programs. Under the
proposed change, States would have greater flexibility to decide the amount of EPA and
public review for most permit revisions by matching the level of review to the environmental
significance of the change.
This summer EPA will propose changes to simplify and streamline the New
Source Review program, which requires newly built facilities or those undergoing major
modification to obtain a permit to ensure that emissions will not cause or contribute to air
pollution problems. The changes will provide industry with more certainty and flexibility
in complying with EPA's regulations and promote the use of technically superior and
innovative pollution control technologies while maintaining or improving air quality. This
streamlining and flexibility will help industry's ability to compete in today's fast-moving
global marketplace.
Working with States and other stakeholders, EPA is taking steps to provide
states with more flexibility in developing enhanced vehicle inspection and maintenance
programs. EPA has begun work on a revised rule which will offer more enhanced
inspection and maintenance options, including a test and repair option, for States wanting
more flexibility. In addition, EPA is delaying implementation of the waiver provisions until
1998. The Administrator recently sent letters to governors and state legislative leaders
announcing the new flexibility.
EPA is also simplifying the air toxics modification provisions (Section 112(g)),
which require any source which makes a significant change to a facility before EPA issues
an applicable air toxic rule to put stringent controls on the modification. States and
industry expressed a number of concerns about the section 112(g) rule which EPA
proposed in March 1994. EPA plans several changes to the proposed rule to simplify
implementation. For example, EPA plans to make available to industry and States the
information it is using to develop air toxics standards, reducing the burden on those groups
in making case-by-case determinations. The innovative use of Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) partnerships and streamlining will result in estimated savings
-------
to the regulated community of 56-7 million annually compared to original estimates of
implementation.
EPA is also applying common sense principles to Clean Air Act rules under
development and not yet in the CFR. For example, in response to issues raised by
industry and States about the proposed enhanced monitoring regulation, EPA is
reconsidering the proposed rule and has committed to take a fresh look at ways to design
a simpler, more flexible approach. EPA's new approach will build on requirements of
existing rules to ensure that the environmental results expected are being achieved.
Instead of requiring more expensive monitoring or monitoring protocols, this approach
would focus on ensuring that sources are properly operating and maintaining their
pollution control equipment in accordance with their pollution control requirements.
Estimated savings potential for industry compared to the proposed rule is $1 to 3 billion
over the first two years.
The current ozone control program has focused on a combination of
technology-based mandatory measures and State plans that have historically discouraged
flexible emissions trading programs. But emissions trading can reduce pollutant emissions
by applying pollutant reduction measures at the places where reductions are the most cost
effective. A facility can avoid costly compliance measures by reducing emissions at points
where it is most cost effective to do so. EPA has already issued regulations and guidance
to encourage development of economic incentive programs, helped develop an emissions
trading market in Southern California, and sponsored demonstration projects. EPA is now
developing a proposed generic trading rule for ozone-creating pollutants that will provide
far more flexibility than ever before for companies to trade emission credits without prior
state or federal approval. Estimated savings potential is up to $1 billion annually (about
10 percent of the cost of addressing nonattainment).
Prevention. Pesticides, and Toxic Substances.
After conducting a comprehensive review of its regulations, this office will be
amending or deleting 49 of 56 Parts (88 percent), and sections not requiring changes
account for only 71 pages out of a total of 2,040 pages. Major changes identified to date
will result in an estimated cost savings of more than $4.2 billion and a reporting burden
reduction of more than 250,000 hours.
Reinventing the PCB Disposal Regulations is a top priority for this program.
The first comprehensive review of this 16 year old program resulted in the proposal of
significant streamlining provisions in December 1994. The proposal provides for self-
implementation of cleanups and greater flexibility for disposal of PCBs. Active stakeholder
involvement has occurred throughout rule development. The final rule is expected in the
summer of 1996. Estimated cost savings from these amendments is $4 billion a year for
20 years. .
-------
EPA recently issued significant burden reducing amendments to the polymer
and low volume exemptions for premanufacture notifications under section 5 of Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). The polymer exemption now excludes from reporting
many low risk polymeric substances. The low volume exemption raises the annual
production ceiling to 10,000 kilograms, significantly expediting the regulatory process. The
new low release/ exposure ("LoREX") exemption- for substances with low environmental
releases and low human exposures-will provide a strong pollution prevention incentive
for chemical manufacturers. Potential reduction in PMNs is expected to be around 34%
for the polymer exemption and around 27% for the low volume exemption. Estimated cost
savings to industry of these amendments is $5.3 million to $24 million per year and a
reduced reporting and recordkeeping burden of 57,000 hours.
There are currently two separate Good Laboratory Standard Regulations,
one for pesticides under FIFRA and another for chemical substances under TSCA. EPA
will be consolidating these regulations to streamline the requirements and reduce reporting
and recordkeeping burdens for the regulated community. In addition to savings from
elimination of duplication, EPA expects to find more savings through a process of
consulting closely with industry and public interest groups.
EPA is considering several amendments related to the Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) which will reduce the reporting burden. Since the beginning of TRI, EPA
has deleted or modified 16 chemical listings, including several which were completed this
year Actions have been taken recently on copper pigments and butyl benzyl phthalate.
Additional actions are expected before the end of the year for sulfuric acid, hydrochloric
acid acetone, and ethylene glycol. EPA also intends to complete a hazard assessment
for all those chemicals on the original TRI list that was provided by Congress, deleting
those that do not meet the TRI listing criteria. In addition, there are several technical
amendments under development. These include the revision of the Form R Guidance and
Instructions and a redesign of the form. Together these amendments are expected to
reduce the overall TRI reporting burden by around 8%, with the simplification and
streamlining amendments associated with Form R possibly reducing the burden further.
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Stakeholder consultations have been and will continue to be a key element in this
program's regulatory review. These consultations have assisted the Agency in identifying
numerous opportunities to revise rules to make them clearer, less redundant, and more
flexible. The Agency intends to respond aggressively to stakeholder comments. Several
Agency projects in waste programs have the potential to reduce information collection
burdens by millions of hours annually, while maintaining the protection of human health
and the environment.
10
-------
Specifically, the Agency intends to reengineer over a period of years the complete
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulatory framework to make the
regulations more understandable, and wherever feasible, (1) eliminate redundancy with
other statutes and other regulations; (2) move towards performance-based standards, and
(3) foster self-implementation rather than prior approval.
To that end, the Agency is examining existing data needs and evaluating the utility
of current information collections under its Waste Information Needs (WIN) Initiative. The
WIN initiative will identify duplicative information collections and suggest ways to eliminate
or consolidate redundant collections. The Agency is also examining the possibility of using
electronic transfer of hazardous waste shipment information in lieu of paper manifest
forms. Elimination of this requirement alone could result in a burden reduction of millions
of hours annually.
EPA also plans to redefine solid waste under RCRA which will resolve jurisdictionai
issues over secondary materials, simplify the regulatory framework to make it easier for
both regulators and the regulated community to understand whether they are subject to
RCRA, and eliminate current disincentives to the safe recycling of hazardous waste.
In addition, the Agency plans to resolve problems with the current RCRA corrective
action program through the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR) for contaminated
media by removing large volumes of cleanup wastes from RCRA Subtitle C regulations
altogether, and by creating a more common-sense regulatory structure for those
hazardous cleanup wastes that remain regulated under Subtitle C.
EPA intends to resolve problems associated with the "mixture and derived from"
rules under RCRA. These regulations currently classify as hazardous secondary materials
with very low concentrations of hazardous constituents if these materials are derived from
the treatment of a listed hazardous waste.
The Agency will also streamline the RCRA permit process by examining and
ultimately implementing a range of options from self-implementing permits and general
facility permits to more timely RCRA treatment, storage and disposal permits.
The Agency's Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program is committed to evaluate
ways to modify the state approval process so that roadblocks to the approval of state
programs are removed. In addition, the Agency, together with its stakeholders, is
interested in exploring options for approving Native American Tribes to administer the UST
program in lieu of the Federal program. These initiatives will help empower States and
Tribes to operate programs that are tailored to their own environmental needs.
The Agency's Superfund program has identified and intends to move forward with
three initiatives that have the potential to reduce information collection burdens by
approximately 400,000 hours annually.
11
-------
In particular, the Agency is proposing to streamline the Superfund Technical
Assistance Grants (TAGs) program, which allows the Agency to gjve up to $50,000 to
citizens' groups representing populations affected by Superfund sites in their communities.
Specifically, the Agency will streamline the grant forms to simplify the grant application
process and reduce reporting burdens.
The Agency is also committed to simplifying and streamlining State and Local
Government Reimbursement forms, which will allow the Agency to reimburse State and
local governments more rapidly for emergency actions taken to respond to releases of
hazardous substances into the environment.
In addition to these efforts to reduce information collection burdens significantly,
other regulatory changes to the Superfund program may result from the enactment of new
Superfund legislation later this year. While awaiting Congressional action on a new law,
however, EPA is aggressively implementing the Superfund administrative reforms that
Administrator Browner announced in February of this year. These reforms are designed
to improve the pace, cost, and fairness of the cleanup program while expanding the
involvement of states, tribes, and local communities! The six areas of reform focus on
enforcement fairness, economic redevelopment, community involvement and outreach,
environmental justice, consistent program implementation, and state empowerment. These
reforms go a long way toward achieving the Agency's goals of a faster, fairer, and more
efficient Superfund.
The Agency's Oil Program also presents several regulatory reform opportunities.
The Agency commits not only to evaluate options for streamlining oil contingency plan
requirements to reduce reporting burden especially for small facilities, but also to consider
reducing spill contingency and countermeasures plan requirements for facilities located
in States with Federally equivalent requirements.
With regard to chemical emergency preparedness, the Agency has several
initiatives planned in response to broad and extensive stakeholder involvement by State
and local governments, industry, environmental groups, citizen and community groups,
Specifically, the Agency intends to raise the release reporting levels for over 200
chemicals under section 304 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act(EPCRA).
In addition, the Agency plans to provide State Emergency Response Commissions
with greater flexibility to determine what information needs to be submitted by reporting
facilities; and provide facilities with greater flexibility for submitting Material Safety Data
Sheets (MSDSs) under section 311 of EPCRA.
Finally, the Agency has investigated the redundancies associated with the
contingency planning requirements of various environmental regulatory programs. An
interagency workgroup has been formed to draft "one plan" guidance by this Summer. The
12
-------
goal of this effort is to develop a consolidated common sense approach to implementing
multiple contingency requirements under multiple statutes and across government
agencies.
e Changes Needed
In addition to the major regulation reform activities identified above, the Agency has
identified a number of legislative changes which, if adopted by Congress, could provide
for significant burden relief for the regulated community and economic benefit to the
nation.
Although the Agency is aggressively implementing Superfund administrative
reforms much more could be done if Congress would act on a new Superfund law. If the
Administration's bill had passed last year, common sense reforms would have provided
regulatory relief and ensured that the Superfund program was implemented in a smarter,
cleaner cheaper way. For example, the Administration's bill contained provisions which
would have reduced the cost of Superfund cleanups by 25% by eliminating the preference
for permanence, narrowing the treatment requirement to "hot spots,11 eliminating "relevant
and appropriate requirements" in ARARs, and ensuring future land use was a part of
cleanup decisions.
The Administration's bill would also enhance the role that States play in Superfund
and eliminates state-federal overlap in authority. The proposed Act would provide federal
cleanup funds for referred sites and authorized programs through a cooperative agreement
with the State. These proposals would:
o Reduce overlapping authority and responsibility by establishing the principle
that only one governmental entity would have responsibility for each site.
This would reduce the cost and duration of cleanups.
o Enhance efficiency of the program by bringing more authority to the states
who are closer to the problem and usually are first to identify the need for
action.
o Provide federal cleanup funds to the States as they assume more
responsibility.
EPA proposed the Performance Partnership Grants Act for introduction this year in
Congress. This legislation would authorize the EPA Administrator to allow States and
Indian Tribes to consolidate funds for numerous existing media-specific or multimedia
grants into one or more Performance Partnership grants.
Specifically, the Performance Partnership Grant legislation would enable States and
Indian Tribes to:
13
-------
o Shift resources as needed, to address efficiently and effectively
environmental priorities for the State or Tribe.
o Consolidate planning, monitoring and inspection activities.
o Reduce administrative requirements by permitting a single grant application
and work plan, combined State match and maintenance of effort
requirements, combined reporting requirements and simplified accounting.
Passage of this legislation would enable EPA to provide a more rational and effective State
and tribal grant program and would lead to a reinvention of the current regulations at 40
CFR Part 35, Subpart A.
One of the major initiatives of the President's "Reinventing Environmental
Regulation" plan called for the Agency to begin this Spring a multi-stakeholder process to
identify a legislative package of "rifle shot" reforms to fix provisions of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) that currently result in high costs and marginal
environmental benefit. For example, the Agency has identified RCRA land disposal
restrictions as a potential "rifle shot" reform. The land disposal restrictions prevent the
disposal of hazardous waste on the land until levels of treatment are met which ensure that
short-term and long-term threats to human health and the environment are minimized. For
some wastes, legislative requirements lead to costly treatment of the waste's hazardous
constituents to levels below those which the Agency considers necessary to protect
human health and the environment.
In addition to EPA's many regulatory reforms in areas related to the Clean Water
Act, much more could be accomplished if Congress would act on Agency
recommendations. The Administration proposed an aggressive package of Clean Water
Act Reforms to the 103rd Congress to accelerate the nation's progress towards clean
water goals while saving businesses and taxpayers billions of dollars annually when
compared to existing statutory mandates. For example, the Agency recommended a more
targeted approach to stormwater management and more flexibility to communities with
combined sewer overflows. If these statutory changes are implemented, savings to
businesses alone could be more than $15 billion.
The Agency also recommended other provisions designed to provide increased
flexibility and efficiencies, including: (1) continued funding for the State Revolving Loan
Fund and expanded use of the funds so communities could finance a broader array of
activities to protect water quality; (2) allowing States to establish new management
frameworks that focus resources on the most critical problems in priority watersheds to
achieve and maintain water quality standards; (3) consolidating most multiple water grant
authorities into a single multi-purpose water grant; and (4) allowing pollutant trading within
a watershed to achieve cost-effective attainment of water quality standards.
14
-------
The Agency's regulatory reinvention activities under the Safe Drinking Water Act
will result in a better focused, more cost effective national drinking water safety program.
However/some important reforms can be achieved only through statutory changes. The
Administration continues to strongly support balanced reforms of the Safe Drinking Water
Act, including preventive approaches that will reduce the long term cost of ensuring
drinking water safety. For example, experience shows that the cost of testing to verify
drinking water safety could be reduced by 50-90 percent in many States through statutory
changes that encourage site-specific tailoring of monitoring requirements. The State
Revolving Fund, a State operated, federally supported low-interest loan program, would
help many communities invest in treatment systems necessary to ensure drinking water
safety. The Administration also supports statutory changes that would encourage the use
of lower-cost small system technologies to achieve compliance with safety standards.
While EPA is not proposing major changes to the Toxic Substances Control Act,
the Agency did identify some areas where opportunities for reinvention may be restricted
by current statutory provisions. For example, a legislative amendment could provide
additional flexibility and cost savings in the rules that trigger notification and reporting
under TSCA Section 12 (b) Export Requirements. Although EPA will be working with
stakeholders to identify ways to reduce reporting and recordkeeping burdens under the
Records and Reporting on Adverse Reactions regulation, legislative changes are needed
to provide additional flexibility.
III. REWARDING RESULTS
Over the last several years, EPA's leadership has been challenged to "manage for
environmental results," i.e., to set goals for the environment and to assess whether we are
accomplishing them. EPA has been moving in this direction, for example, by reporting
trends in air pollution in cities, blood lead levels in children, and releases of toxic industrial
chemicals. A number of initiatives underway are intended to articulate more clearly the
problems we face, the goals we set, the strategies we use, and the environmental
measures by which progress will be judged.
In concert with its public and private sector stakeholders, EPA is developing a set
of proposed long-range national environmental goals and 10-year objectives. These goals
and measurable objectives (or milestones) emphasize environmental results rather than
actions undertaken to achieve them. Thus they are statements of intended outcomes.
While EPA is responsible for contributing to the fulfillment of these goals, others who share
responsibility must endorse them if they are to become real. EPA is seeking such
endorsements through extensive public review and discussion.
The Agency heard the goal-setting perspectives of business and agricultural
interests, environmental advocates, government officials, and other citizens in a series of
nine public roundtables in different cities in 1994. Government agencies commented on
15
-------
a summary report distributed in February 1995. A new draft now is being written to
respond to those comments. Subsequent versions of the document will be circulated
widely fof review and comment.
EPA program experts are developing and improving the environmental indicators
needed to establish baseline information needed for setting goals and for monitoring
progress toward those goals. These collaborative efforts involve EPA staff and other
governmental and nongovernmental experts with a variety of expertise and perspectives.
For example, the Office of Water is developing a core set of environmental
indicators to support the national environmental goals project and other program-specific
goals. Staff from this office have been active participants on task forces, such as the
Interagency Committee on Environmental Trends and the Intergovernmental Task Force
on Monitoring Water Quality, which address indicator and data quality concerns. They are
supporting a set of state pilot projects and testing the usefulness of a subset of these
indicators for measuring the achievement of goals at the state or watershed level. Further,
the Office of Water is sponsoring a workshop for states, tribes, other Federal agencies,
and environmental and industrial groups to supply feedback on the proposed national-level
indicators. Other EPA program offices are conducting similar efforts to define and track
environmental progress.
Various management reform initiatives, particularly the Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, support the concept of managing for environmental
results. GPRA requires federal agencies to develop a long-term strategic plan and annual
performance plans for major programs and activities consistent with the general goals
articulated in the strategic plan. These annual plans are to include annual goals and the
performance measures to be used to assess progress in attaining those goals. Outcome -
or results-oriented - measures are emphasized, although GPRA recognizes the value of
output - or activity - measures.
EPA has taken steps to ensure timely and effective implementation of this important
legislation. Along with the guiding principles articulated in 7776 New Generation of
Environmental Protection: EPA's Five-Year Strategic Plan (July 94), the measurable
environmental goals being developed through the previously-described national goals
project will serve as the core of the GPRA-mandated strategic plan. EPA's six GPRA
performance pilots will provide lessons learned in setting annual goals and monitoring
progress through a set of output and outcome measures. Other programs are being
encouraged to define program activities in the context of Agency-wide goals and principles
and to identify suitable measures of progress. For the early phases of FY 1996 budget
development, EPA used a goals-based framework to prepare program office budget
proposals, and plans to use such an approach for FY 1997.
Although performance measures development is underway in the program offices,
EPA needs to determine the Agency-wide performance measurement system for GPRA
16
-------
and other management concerns. For several years, information from various program
databases throughout the Agency was entered quarterly into the Strategic Targeted for
Results System (STARS). STARS measures, which were primarily activity/output
measures, were established by the program offices. Quarterly progress reports based on
this information provided feedback to senior Agency managers. This system was used
through FY1994, and will fc>e replaced with a system that displays environmental outcomes
as well as the traditional activity measures.
The Agency is also working to set customer service standards and measures, which
will complement the other performance measures being developed for GPRA. In
September 1994, EPA issued Putting Customers First: EPA's Report to the President,
Executive Order 12862. This document defines the vision, customer service policy, and
customer service approach and describes EPA's plan to run a set of pilot projects. The
Agency has since identified several key product lines to serve as pilots for developing
customer service standards and for measuring performance against these standards. The
pilots selected fall into several categories: responding to public inquiries; increasing public
access to information to improve environmental decisions; and strengthening our
intermediary customers' ability to protect the environment (water grants to states, the
Permits Improvement Team, and the Common Sense Initiative). The Agency also
developed a framework to ensure that all the core processes - permitting, rulemaking, etc.
~ will meet the President's requirement for having customer service standards and
measures of performance.
Punitive Performance Measures vs. Results-Based Performance Measures
Pending the finalization of Agency-level performance measures under the GPRA,
the Agency will issue guidance requiring the elimination of punitive numerical measures
from employees' FY 1996 performance agreements/plans. This guidance will be issued
this summer to coincide with other performance management reinvention activities and the
beginning of the next performance appraisal cycle. The performance appraisal cycle for
most employees is October 1 through September 30.
Based on regulatory reinvention goal-setting that already is underway across the
Agency, there exists a good understanding of our intention to achieve better accountability
and better results through a collaborative process. As performance management
systems/programs are revised, we will strengthen the linkage between organizational
goals/objectives and individual/team accountability. Agency supervisors and managers
will be responsible for fostering employee understanding of Agency strategic goals as they
relate to individual/team work assignments. Many of the performance agreements of
frontline regulators already reflect these principles.
In the reorganization of EPA's Office of Enforcement in 1994, an organizational
framework was constructed for promoting better accountability and customer service in
17
-------
enforcement and compliance activities. Memoranda of agreements (MOAs) between the
headquarters Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and regional programs
communicate expected performance outcomes for enforcement and compliance activities.
During the interim process of establishing Agency-level performance measures, these
agreements will provide the basis for establishing performance expectations that will
cascade down into organizational work plans and individual/team performance measures.
Employee Performance Measures
The Agency recently reviewed existing employee performance agreements to
identify if they included any punitive numerical measures of performance. A random
sample of performance plans for employees who met the definition of a "frontline regulator"
were collected and reviewed, revealing that few had numerical performance requirements.
Of those that did, few included measures of punitive enforcement activities (e.g., number
of permits ordered or number of inspections completed). These results are consistent with
the Agency's intention to place even greater emphasis on quality performance processes
and results and less focus on numerical achievements.
Over the last several years at EPA, there has been a shift from specific process-
driven numerical goals in performance standards. Generally, performance is defined in
terms of quality of the output. Some memoranda of agreement or organizational work
plans may include numerical performance commitments, and these documents may serve
as reference points for evaluating employees who work in the program area covered by
the documents. However, the inclusion of numerical data, including enforcement
commitments, has not resulted in numerical enforcement performance
standards/measures.
Many of the agreements for frontline regulators contain some measures of
qualitative outcomes and customer service. Although few examples of punitive numerical
performance measures were found, guidance will be issued to follow through on the
President's directive and to eliminate any future use of punitive numerical performance
measures. In June 1995, employees will be notified that punitive numerical performance
measures will be eliminated, and performance agreements reflecting this directive will be
in place at the beginning of the new EPA performance cycle in October 1995.
Timetable for Implementing New Performance Measures
The Agency's timetable for complete elimination of punitive numerical performance
measures coincides with the Agency's performance appraisal cycle (October 1 -
September 30). Over the next several months, in collaboration with our labor union
partners, work groups across the Agency will be engaged in performance management
reinvention activities to design and develop the framework for a new Agency-wide
18
-------
performance system and set the parameters for performance management programs. As
a part of that process, EPA will issue guidance on the elimination of punitive numerical
performance measures. Current performance review activities will be completed in 1995
according to the following schedule:
APR/MAY
• JUN
JUL/AUG
• SEP
• OCT
Review existing performance agreements and organizational
work plans to identify any numerical measures of punitive
activity (completed).
Notify employees of the requirement to eliminate punitive
numerical performance measures from their performance
plans/agreements.
Conduct briefings on the reinvention of performance
management, including the elimination of punitive numerical
performance measures, measures of customer service and
satisfaction, measures of individual/team results and linkage
to organizational goals, development of skills and knowledge
that increase overall organizational effectiveness, etc.
Convene work groups to identify, design, and develop
communication models and performance management tools
(e.g., sample work plans, generic performance measures,
etc.). Address modifications, if needed, to punitive and
numerical award criteria.
Conduct focus groups to discuss best practices for providing
good customer service and obtaining customer satisfaction.
Distribute final guidance on eliminating punitive performance
measures as a part of our Fall Performance Management
Planning Guide.
Implement FY 1996 performance plans/agreements without
any punitive numerical measures.
Number of Front Line Regulators
Using the definition of frontline regulator provided by the NPR, EPA human
resources and program management officials identified two categories of frontline
regulators: 1) those who interact with regulated entities as a regular part of their jobs, and
2) those who have the authority to order a corrective action or levy a fine on a business
or other government entity. As we continue our review, the number of frontline regulators
19
-------
may change. Thus far we have identified in excess of 3,300 employees who meet the
definition of frontline regulator (out of approximately 19,000 employees overall).
Examples of Employee Performance Measures to be Eliminated
As previously discussed, very few examples of punitive numerical measures have
been found in EPA employee performance plans/agreements. Most references to numbers
related to timeliness and completion of assignments. Examples of numerical performance
standards that most closely reflect punitive numerical measures are:
• Environmental Scientist
- Completes review and case development on at least 20 cases. Ninety
percent of cases follow national enforcement policy.
- Ensures timely completion of four inspections targeted by headquarters
during the fiscal year within resources provided by a workload model.
• Environmental Engineer
- Assigned state achieves 100 percent of compliance/enforcement
commitments during the fiscal year.
- 90 percent or more of milestones are met.
• OSC/OPA Coordinator
Actively participates in an average of 0.75 field activities per month.
• Architect
- Conducts at least one one-day seminar per state to explain the AHERA
policies and the ASHAA application process.
- Negotiates meaningful and priority-based asbestos grants and ensures that
100 percent of commitments are met.
Examples of Changes Made to Employee Performance Evaluations and Reward
Systems
The Agency has not yet implemented all necessary changes to employee
performance evaluations and reward processes. As previously stated, changes will not
o n
20
-------
be implemented until the start of the next performance appraisal cycle, which begins in
October 95. However, examples of existing performance measures that reflect adequate
measures of performance for frontline regulators are:
• Environmental Scientist
Successfully brings together teams composed of EPA and state staffs to
address RCRA/HSWA implementation issues. Interaction with co-workers,
states, and the regulated community promotes attainment of Agency
objectives and enhances cooperation among the parties.
• Environmental Engineer
- Class 1 violators, excluding those under state enforcement actions, are
issued enforcement actions, including penalty assessments, in accordance
with the guidelines set forth in the appropriate guidance documents.
Enforcement actions address all areas of concern and place the facility on
a realistic schedule of compliance.
~ There is a proactive effort to obtain and utilize input and feedback from
customers.
- Work processes, services, and products are evaluated continually for quality
improvements.
• OSC/OPA Coordinator
- Conducts site investigations in a cost-effective and technically sophisticated
manner. Prepares site reports in a manner to facilitate legal and technical
follow-up and eliminate re-investigation.
• Architect
- Informs affected regional community of new asbestos ban and phaseout rule
requirements. Provides quick response to schools and building owners for
assistance on asbestos abatement procedures.
- Assists in the development of an asbestos training manual for EPA/state
inspectors. Reviews training manuals and course materials developed for
EPA/state asbestos inspectors.
- Reviews efficiency and effectiveness of state asbestos control programs
funded by EPA grants. Ensures that priority situations are referred to states.
Conducts mid-year and end-of-year state grant audits. Drafts asbestos
21
-------
operating plans that incorporate Agency and regional priority asbestos
issues.
IV. CREATING GRASSROOTS PARTNERSHIPS
Stakeholder Outreach
EPA has taken an ambitious approach to the President's March 4 memorandum
directing all Federal regulatory agencies to reach outside the Washington beltway and
meet with stakeholders to discuss partnerships within the regulatory reinvention process.
Administrator Carol Browner and Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen piloted EPA's effort
with visits to five states across the country to meet with stakeholders, and the EPA regional
offices held meetings with representatives from each state on the regulatory review
process. At the request of the National Performance Review (NPR), EPA established the
prototype for Federal agency partnership with a March 2"1 meeting in Boston.
Since March, the Administrator and Deputy Administrator have met with hundreds
of stakeholders across the country, including frontline compliance workers, business
people, environmentalists, and other interested parties. They have held meetings in
Dallas, Tallahassee, Kansas City, San Francisco, and New York. At each of these
sessions they have presented an overview of the President's regulatory reinvention
initiative and EPA's 25 high-priority actions.
At the request of the National Performance Review, EPA worked with NPR and staff
from the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard to develop an effective meeting
structure that could be used as a prototype for all Federal agencies. This model was used
in modified versions in all of EPA's outreach meetings with the Administrator and the
Deputy, as well as in many regional meetings.
Administrator Browner kicked off the stakeholder meetings with a grassroots
regulatory partnership meeting in Tallahassee on March 30. Deputy Administrator Hansen
attended the second meeting in Dallas on April 6 with EPA Regional Administrator Jane
Saginaw and representatives from the environmental community, business, and state
agencies in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. The third stakeholder meeting,
hosted by EPA's Region 7 in Kansas City, MO, attracted over 60 participants, including
Deputy Administrator Hansen, Regional Administrator Dennis Grams, the director of the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, members of the Kansas City and the Missouri
State Chambers of Commerce, representatives from the business sector, the state of
Missouri, environmentalists, frontline Federal and state regulators, and other interested
parties. At the fourth stakeholder meeting, held in San Francisco on April 25 at the Fort
Mason Officers Club, over 50 stakeholders from throughout the region participated in a
roundtable discussion lead by Regional Administrator Felicia Marcus. Another
22
-------
stakeholder meeting, held in New York City on May 5 at EPA regional headquarters, was
focused on three of the 25 Presidential high- priority actions.
In addition, partnership and regulatory review efforts are underway in each EPA
region. These outreach efforts vary from region to region, with some regions hosting
meetings in every state, and others hosting a single, larger forum with participants from
the entire region. These meetings are an important means for gathering information from
stakeholders, and it gives them the opportunity to participate in the line-by-line review of
EPA regulations.
At all meetings to date, participants generally have commended the Clinton
Administration and EPA for reaching out to the stakeholders and including them in the
reinvention process. Moreover, these sessions have generated an important dialogue
among stakeholders - an essential element for a productive reinvention process.
The Administrator and Deputy Administrator are committed to ensuring that the
stakeholders are involved in every aspect of the regulatory process, and this outreach
effort was just the first step. As EPA moves forward to implement the regulatory changes
proposed in the June 1 Report to the President, the Agency will continue the dialogue with
stakeholders, seeking to obtain external views through a wide variety of information
exchange and advisory processes.
Partnership Success Stories
Over the past two years, EPA has shifted its emphasis from command-and-control
to building partnerships with stakeholders to achieve environmental results in a
cooperative manner. Examples of such partnerships are:
• The Common Sense Initiative
The Common Sense Initiative is testing a fundamentally new approach to
environmental protection, and is the centerpiece of EPA's regulatory reinvention activities.
Through this initiative, representatives from Federal, state, and local governments,
industry, community-based and national environmental organizations, environmental
justice groups, and labor have come together to examine the full range of environmental
requirements affecting six industries: automobile manufacturing, computers and
electronics, iron and steel, metal finishing, petroleum refining, and printing. For the first
time, these diverse interests are joining together with the shared goal of creating
environmental protection strategies that are cleaner for the environment and cheaper for
industry and taxpayers.
23
-------
• Project XL - Regulatory Reinvention Pilot Projects
Project XL is a series of real-world tests of innovative strategies that achieve
cleaner and cheaper results than conventional regulatory approaches. XL projects give
the regulated community the opportunity to demonstrate excellence and leadership, and
the flexibility to replace certain requirements of the current regulatory system with an
alternative strategy developed by the regulated entities. Each project will involve the
granting of regulatory flexibility by EPA in exchange for an enforceable commitment by a
regulated entity to achieve better environmental results than would have been attained
through full compliance with regulations. EPA has set a goal of implementing fifty pilot
projects in four categories: XL projects for specific facilities; XL projects across whole
industries; XL projects for communities; and XL projects for government agencies
regulated by EPA.
Each individual project will be managed by the unit of government best suited to
address the issues raised by the project. EPA will include state and tribal regulatory
agencies as full partners, and it will support projects developed by local governments,
environmental groups, and citizens organizations.
• Environmental Leadership Program (ELP)
The ELP is designed to recognize and reward companies that develop and
implement comprehensive environmental management systems that result in significant
improvements and yield outstanding compliance records. On April 7, 1995, EPA
announced selection of 12 pilot projects (from a field of 40) that focus on state-of-the-art
compliance management systems, verification procedures, management accountability
systems, and community access and participation in the compliance process. In return for
participating, pilot projects will receive public recognition and a limited period in which to
correct any violations discovered during these test periods, so long as the violations are
not criminal in nature and do not present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the
public health or environment.
• Compliance Assistance Centers
In FY1995/96, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance will establish
compliance assistance centers in four industries with a preponderance of small
businesses: metal finishers, printers, auto repair shops, and small farms. Through a
collaborative effort by EPA, states, environmental groups, industry representatives, trade
associations, and academia, these centers are expected to be in operation by September
30,1995. They will support state and local compliance assistance programs by providing
one-stop, comprehensive, multi-media "plain English" information on regulations, technical
24
-------
assistance and training on pollution prevention technologies, audit protocols, and other
compliance assistance tools.
• Partners in Protection Initiative
The Partners in Protection Initiative was begun in 1994 as one of several initiatives
the Agency undertook in response to President's Executive Order on Environmental
Justice. In FY1995, EPA is working with tribal, minority, and low-income communities at
selected sites around the nation to identify opportunities for broader citizen participation
in Agency activities. Project activities are identified by community members themselves
through a dialogue with EPA regional staff, state and local officials, and other Federal
agencies as appropriate. Activities include education in regulatory processes and the use
of compliance data, involvement in permitting processes, and outreach aimed at expanding
community understanding of environmental enforcement issues and opportunities.
• Environmental Justice Partnerships
EPA has successfully developed a broad range of environmental justice
partnerships with stakeholders including state, tribal, and local governments, and
environmental, business, civil rights, academic, and grassroots community organizations.
Partnership efforts have included creating the National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC), holding the first national public meeting on environmental justice,
developing an EPA Environmental Justice Strategy, and leading an interagency working
group with other Federal agencies under the Executive Order on Environmental Justice.
Additional partnership activities include sponsoring or attending major meetings on
environmental justice. For example, EPA representatives attended and hosted meetings
with business partners in Washington and San Diego, with indigenous grass roots groups
in Alaska, with state and local government organizations in New Orleans and Washington,
and with grassroots community organizations throughout the country. EPA also operates
successful small grants programs supporting environmental justice efforts by local
community groups, non-profit organizations, and universities.
• National Service Partnerships
EPA's National Service/AmeriCorps program focuses on creating partnerships with
local organizations to assist historically underserved, disadvantaged communities around
the country in their efforts to address some of their critical environmental needs. EPA has
helped establish over 160 partnerships that provide in-kind services, financial support, or
both. The partner organizations range from local environmental groups, service corps, and
universities, to local and State governments, businesses, and civic organizations. Their
25
-------
contributions support the environmental work of 134 AmeriCorps members in more than
25 communities across the country.
• EPA-Tribal Government Partnerships
EPA Administrator Browner established a Tribal Operations Committee (TOG) on
February 17, 1994. It is composed of 19 tribal government representatives from each of
the 10 EPA regions. The TOG actively participates in a co-responsibility function with the
Agency to promote the implementation of the 1984 EPA Indian Policy and fulfill the
Agency's Federal trust responsibility to tribes. The TOG serves as a communications link
between Federal and sovereign tribal governments for the purpose of supporting Federal
statutory environmental protection programs throughout tribal lands. The TOG does not
replace the direct partnerships between EPA and each tribal government; rather, it
enhances overall coordination and communication. The newly-formed EPA American
Indian Environmental Office and the Office of Environmental Justice also have developed
significant partnerships that support the Agency's American Indian, Alaska Native, and
indigenous environmental programs. As a result of the Agency's partnership efforts in this
area, EPA was commended at the White House American Indian meeting in April 1995.
• State/Local/Tribal Government Partnerships
EPA has had substantial success promoting partnerships among state, local, and
tribal governments. Historical adversaries in many cases, these governments are realizing
that joint ventures, particularly in the solid waste management arena, are both singularly
and jointly beneficial and can reap genuine environmental and human health results,
without any threat to or loss of sovereignty. For example, EPA has sparked a successful
partnership in support of the Cherokee/Jackson/Swain (North Carolina) Regional Waste
Management Plan. As a result of the partnership, the Cherokee tribe - with Indian Health
Service financial assistance - built a transfer station on the reservation and contracted
with a waste management company for off-site disposal at a low cost, largely because of
the volume of waste. The tribe also has joined with the counties to explore partnerships
in recycling and equipment purchase options.
• Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative
The Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative brings communities into the
decisionmaking process for cleanup of contaminated urban land. Under this initiative,
cities promote economic development of abandoned urban areas in ways that work best
for them, by bringing together residents, businesses, lenders, and developers. Three EPA
staff members have been assigned to cities to help develop Brownfields programs. Two
are assigned to Chicago and one to Detroit. This mutually beneficial arrangement
26
-------
provides cities with technical assistance, and it provides EPA staff with practical
experience. This program will be expanded to all EPA regions during 1995.
• Job Training
EPA is working with the Hazardous Materials Training and Research Institute
(HMTRI) to expand training and curriculum development to at least 20 community colleges
located near Brownfields pilots. Partnerships already have been established with
community colleges - such as the Cuyahoga Community College in Cleveland - to foster
workforce equity through environmental education, vigorous recruitment of students of
color, and high-quality worker training.
• WasteWi$e
In this voluntary program, EPA has formed partnerships with the business
community to reduce municipal solid waste through programs that businesses develop to
fit their particular operations.
• Climate Wise
Climate Wise is forming government/industry partnerships to turn energy efficiency
and pollution prevention into a corporate asset Climate Wise partner companies are
reducing energy use and pollution through comprehensive, common sense actions that are
leading to savings of more than $80 million annually by the year 2000 and emissions
reductions of 5 million metric tons of carbon equivalent. Climate Wise also promotes
partnerships within the Federal government and with state and local partners. Climate
Wise is run as a full partnership between EPA and the Department of Energy, and it is
working with the Small Business Administration to facilitate financing for small business
efficiency improvements. Climate Wise also is partnering with state and local governments
to enhance their industrial technical assistance and outreach efforts.
• Oil and Gas Extraction Wastes
As an alternative to regulating oil and gas extraction wastes under Subtitle C of
RCRA EPA has given grant money and technical assistance to states to upgrade their
programs for these wastes without Federal mandates. Over the last two years, significant
improvements have been made as 1) states shared information with each other about
successful approaches, and 2) a peer review process was created among states with
active participation by the environmental community and industry.
27
-------
• WAVE Voluntary Partnership
WAVE (Water Alliances for Voluntary Efficiency) is a voluntary partnership, created
and supported by EPA, that encourages commercial businesses and institutions to reduce
water consumption while increasing efficiency, profitability, and competitiveness. WAVE
is designed to focus attention on the value of water and the need for efficient use of this
important natural resource.
The partnership includes hotel and motel companies with an interest in reducing
water consumption and costs, water service companies, equipment suppliers,
manufacturers, municipal and state governments, and water and wastewater utilities.
Conservation-minded environmental groups and trade and professional associations are
also involved. Participants survey water-using equipment and, where profitable, install
water-efficient upgrades within a pre-arranged time frame. Members also agree to design
all new facilities with water-efficient equipment. Participants receive free water-use
analysis software, technical support, and access to a nationwide help line. EPA also helps
participants publicize their water efficiency programs. Water-efficiency measures, like
those proposed by WAVE, can reduce water and sewer costs significantly.
• Partnership for Safe Water
The Office of Water and key industry and state associations are in the process of
developing the Partnership for Safe Water. The members of the partnership will help
drinking water suppliers voluntarily optimize their existing treatment systems to help
prevent the entry of Crvptosporidium. Giardia. and other microbial contaminants into
treated drinking water. The foundation for achieving voluntary optimization will be a self-
assessment conducted by each water utility that joins the partnership. The self-
assessment will include quantifying current treatment performance levels, characterizing
existing facility capabilities, identifying possible root causes for any less-than-optimal
performance, and taking whatever corrective actions are appropriate. To ensure optimal
treatment, the water utility will arrange for an independent comprehensive performance
evaluation to identify any remaining issues preventing optimization. These will be
corrected to ensure reliable, long-term, optimized performance. An expert panel, made
up of partnership volunteers, will review the assessment and correction activities of each
water system partner. EPA, the states, and other members of the partnership will provide
technical assistance where possible.
• The 33/50 Program
The 33/50 program sets national priorities for reducing chemical emissions reported
annually in the Toxic Releases Inventory, and challenges businesses to find ways to
reduce emissions voluntarily. This five-year partnership program was started in 1990 and
28
-------
set goals of reducing 1.5 billion pounds of pollution by 33 percent by 1992 and 50 percent
by 1995. Reporting for 1993, the last year available, shows that EPA and industry already
had reached a 46 percent reduction, almost achieving the 1995 goal.
• The Safer New Chemicals Program
Working with chemical manufacturers, EPA is developing a more flexible product
stewardship approach for addressing potential risks faced by users of certain new
chemical products. In a joint effort to encourage development and marketability of safer
chemical products, the EPA/industry Product Stewardship Plan will provide a
comprehensive cradle-to-grave product management, risk mitigation, and risk
communication program that will ensure that relevant risk information is communicated to
everyone who handles the chemical substance.
• Design for the Environment Dry Cleaning Project
Since 1993 EPA has been working with the dry cleaning industry and public interest
groups to reduce exposures to dry cleaning chemicals. This work involves examining and
evaluating cleaning technologies, creating incentives for the adoption of alternative, less
polluting technologies, and educating consumers and dry cleaners about ways to reduce
risks. This project launched the first of three two-year demonstration shops in May. The
demonstration shops will provide dry cleaners an opportunity to observe alternative dry
cleaning operations under long-term, real-world conditions.
EPA Reaional Office Geographic Initiatives
• Merrimack River Initiative (Region I)
The activities under this water quality initiative have involved a partnership between
EPA, state governments, and local officials. A 25-member management committee made
up of both state and local officials acts as the governing body for the projects. Involvement
has been expanded to include partners from business and private sectors. In FY 1994 a
watershed advisory group representing various interests was formed to give feedback to
the management committee.
• Great Lakes Toxics Reduction Initiative (Region II)
As part of the Great Lakes basin-wide cleanup of toxics in New York, Region II and
the state of New York developed a partnership with three counties to underwrite the
29
-------
liability and disposal costs for the clean sweep of banned or restricted agricultural
pesticides. Over 8,000 pounds were collected and safely disposed of. There are plans to
expand this pilot into neighboring counties.
• Urban Environmental Risk Initiative (Region III)
This initiative concentrates on the cities of Baltimore and Washington, D.C.
(Anacostia Watershed). In Baltimore, a risk reduction identification and reduction project
was initiated jointly by the state of Maryland, Baltimore, and EPA Region III. The Baltimore
project is focusing on lead, indoor air quality, ozone, hazardous material incidents, and fish
consumption/toxics in Baltimore Harbor.
The Baltimore City Health Department, in an effort with EPA, has provided citizens
with cleaning kits and training in lead abatement, and is working closely with lead
abatement and treatment programs of the Kennedy-Krieger Institute. By the end of 1995,
2500 homes will have received cleaning kits and training in the cleanup of lead.
• Chesapeake Bay Habitat Restoration (Region III)
In this initiative focusing on passageways for migratory fish, private land owners are
involved in negotiations for right-of-way easements and maintenance contracts. The
negotiations involve EPA, states, local governments, and businesses in an effort to change
ownership and design the passageways. A workshop was held for local governments in
Maryland to educate them on the need for and design and construction of fish passages.
To date, 174 miles of stream spawning habitat have been opened to striped bass, shad,
and herring, and by 1988, a total of 582 miles will be opened.
In Virginia, an effort is underway to construct oyster reefs necessary for oyster
survival. Local watermen were involved in the early preparation of the sites and the
placement of the materials. All levels of government, as well as universities and citizen
groups, were involved in the development of the Chesapeake Bay Program Aquatic Reef
Habitat Plan used by the states to construct and place these reefs.
• Atlanta Olympic Urban Initiative (Region IV)
EPA Region IV has funded the Institute for Local Self- Reliance to undertake a
project with state and local government, community groups, and businesses to establish
a community-based construction and demolition debris recovery and recycling project as
part of the construction for the Atlanta Olympic games in the summer of 1996. A new and
innovative program called Partners for a Clean Environment(PACE) combines EPA's
30
-------
Greenlights, WasteWiSe, WAVE, and EnergyStar programs with state and local initiatives
to form a comprehensive approach to pollution prevention.
• South Florida Initiative (Region IV)
The South Florida Initiative is being closely coordinated with those of other federal
agencies, including the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Geological Survey, National Biological Service, the state of Florida, and the South Florida
Water Management District.
• Southeast Michigan Initiative (Region V)
This initiative began as an effort between EPA and the state of Michigan. However,
it has been expanded to include local interests. A strong commitment to public participation
drives this initiative. Region V has involved work group members who represent various
Detroit area constituencies such as neighborhood, religious, environmental, labor,
regulated, rural, academic, environmental justice, and public health interest groups.
• U.S./Mexico Border (Region VI)
EPA Region VI is working with the state of Texas, the International Boundary and
Water Commission, and the National Water Commission of Mexico to develop a work plan
for monitoring and analyzing data from the Rio Grande. This initiative is involves and effort
by the state of Texas and various Mexican institutions to develop a pollution prevention
education program for Mexican government officials and border industries, particularly
focusing on the metal finishing and electronics industries.
• Urban Lead Risk Reduction (Region VII)
As part of a region-wide effort to reduce the health risks associated with lead
exposure in urban areas, EPA Region VII negotiated informal agreements with local health
agencies in the Kansas City area, Greene County, Missouri (Springfield), Douglas County,
Nebraska (Omaha), and St. Louis County, Missouri. State health departments also are
cooperating with EPA and with local government and community organizers to collect data
that improves understanding of lead exposure risks, and to educate local communities
most affected by possible exposure. This Region VII initiative is similar to lead risk
reduction partnerships in other EPA regions.
31
-------
• Ecosystem Assessment and Protection (Region VII)
In the Platte River Watershed Program, begun in 1994, cooperative agreements
with local universities drive local research efforts. EPA Region VII also supports the
Nebraska Youth Environmental Summit to be held in July 1995. This summit will teach
young people how to take action in their own communities to protect the watershed.
• Rocky Mountain Headwaters Mining Waste Initiative (Region VIII)
This initiative incorporates innovative technology and public involvement in planning
and cleanup. The coalition-building has been the most successful aspect of this initiative.
Public forums held as part of the Clear Creek project involved local communities in the
planning process, and they helped educate the public on possible cleanup activities.
• Federal Sector Pollution Prevention Initiative (Region VIII)
This initiative began as a partnership among federal agencies to encourage
pollution prevention activities on federal lands. The initiative now has evolved to include
activities involving local problems and communities. It will build on the successes of other
community-based activities in the region. Activities initially will target assessment and
pnontization efforts as well as on-the-ground cooperative projects with partner agencies,
states, tribes, and communities that show measurable environmental results.
• Toxic Source Reduction Initiative (Region IX)
Through the MERIT Partnership, EPA Region IX has teamed up with major industry
groups in southern California to plan and execute industry sector roundtables to facilitate
pollution prevention. This initiative also focuses on lead source reduction in partnership
with state and local governments. GIS data now is being used to provide technical
assistance to three of the four states in the region. Grant funds were given to local
community groups for lead education and outreach activities.
• San Francisco Bay/Delta Initiative (Region IX)
Watershed plans are being developed for local watersheds within the San
Francisco Bay estuary. Each plan involves local watershed planning groups, with overall
coordination managed by California and EPA. In the north San Francisco Bay area, an
initiative to protect and restore area wetlands has included landowner workshops to
identify stakeholder issues and concerns. Because of the extensive agricultural community
in the San Francisco Bay area, EPA Region IX has set up partnerships with the local
32
-------
cooperating farmers to do pilot projects involving pesticide use reduction and biological
practices. A variety of outreach materials, workshops, and training have been developed
in partnership with local resource conservation districts, resource professionals, and
landowners to provide information to local stakeholders on protection and compatible
sustainable agricultural and economic development.
• 1-5 Corridor Initiative (Region X)
EPA Region X is working in partnership with the Nature Conservancy, DOE, the
state of Washington, and Thurston County to develop a model protection plan for the
diverse and threatened south Puget Sound lowland ecosystem. Along with planning
activities outreach materials are also a priority. A book designed by the partners will help
local communities plan, design, and maintain wildlife habitat in public spaces, urban and
suburban yards, farms, and other rural areas.
V. NEGOTIATE, DON'T DICTATE
The Environmental Protection Agency continues to be a leader in the Federal
government in the use of negotiated rulemaking and other intensive consultation
processes Since 1983 EPA has conducted 16 negotiated rulemakings and more than 10
formal facilitated policy dialogues. A 1987 evaluation of the first seven negotiated
rulemakings pointed out numerous strengths in the negotiated approach to rulemaking,
along with a caution that Federal agencies should employ a broad range of consensus-
building techniques, reserving full and formal regulatory negotiation for a sub-set of rules
that fulfill specified conditions. In 1993 EPA commissioned an evaluation of the nine most
recent negotiated rulemakings through the Administrative Conference of the United States.
The Agency expects a draft of the evaluation in June 1995.
In developing policies and regulations, EPA routinely evaluates the need for and
depth of appropriate consultation and negotiation with relevant stakeholders. EPA's action
development process calls for each rulemaking program to assess the level of need for
public consultation in cooperation with the Consensus and Dispute Resolution Program
(CDRP) within EPA. CDRP staff assist EPA program offices in identifying stakeholders,
evaluating appropriate public consultation methods, designing the consultation process
given the complexity and timing of the rule, and implementing the processes selected.
EPA has incorporated a range of public consultation methods into its rulemaking
procedures The spectrum illustrated in the figure on the following page lays out the range
of these methods. The particular method or combination of methods is selected on a case-
by-case evaluation of the substantive, technical, and legal aspects of the rule, the needs
of the Agency, and the needs of the affected parties. This range of processes can be
divided into three categories based upon the goals and achievable outcome possible:
33
-------
§ 2
O Q,
~ §
WD
-------
^information exchange processes, 2) advisory opinion processes, and 3) negotiation
processes.
INFORMATION EXCHANGE PROCESSES
Public meetings, single interest consultations, workshops, forums, and roundtables
result in the exchange of information and improved understanding of positions. These
processes may generate lists of issues, concerns, options and alternatives. Moreover, if
used intensively, these processes may begin to narrow the lists to those most important
to the various parties. However, even when a series of meetings are held, these
processes cannot by themselves achieve consensus. They can be used both as the
identified method of conducting public consultation for a particular rule, and as auxiliary
processes to the policy dialogues and negotiated rulemaking processes described below.
Ongoing Processes
Reassessment of the Drinking Water Program: The Office of Water (OW)
is reassessing the drinking water program to refocus it on the highest risks and
increase flexibility for the states administering the program and for drinking water
suppliers. OW is undertaking an extensive outreach effort that includes a series
of meetings with numerous stakeholders. OW is interested in the full array of
viewpoints, ideas, and concerns held by its stakeholders before making decisions
on the program's future. OW also plans to submit a draft Program Action Plan to
the National Drinking Water Advisory Council for comment before making final
decisions on future program directions and priorities.
Completed Processes
Modifications to the Definition of Solid Waste Rule: The redefinition of solid
waste rulemaking represents a true EPA/state partnership success story. This
project involves three EPA/state teams working together with either EPA or the
states having the individual lead on each of the teams. The success derives from
a commitment to achieve common goals by constant interaction through weekly
teleconference calls, periodical meetings, and meeting agreed upon milestones.
Risk Management Program Rule: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
require risk management plans (RMPs) as part of a program to prevent accidental
releases. This rulemaking would require RMPs for fixed facilities at which regulated
substances are present in more than a threshold quantity. As part of the
development of this rule, focus group meetings were held with stakeholders,
34
-------
including small business association representatives. EPA is working with these
representatives to develop model RMPs for small businesses.
Alternatives for Groundwater Monitoring at Small. Dry/Remote Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills: This rule, due to be proposed shortly, will increase flexibility
for owners and operators of small municipal solid waste landfills in dry/remote areas
by presenting alternative strategies for groundwater monitoring necessary to detect
contamination on a site-specific basis. EPA's Office of Solid Waste (OSW) held
public hearings in four locations around the country to obtain input on groundwater
monitoring options.
ADVISORY OPINION PROCESSES
Policy dialogue committees, task forces, and advisory boards are examples of
groups that must be chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) because
they are charged with making "collective recommendations" or advisory opinions to the
Agency. It is possible for these groups, which are balanced in membership, to reach
consensus on recommendations to the Agency. These recommendations are not usually
binding on the Agency or the parties, and may not offer comprehensive recommendations
to the full list of issues submitted for advice. An advisory committee is generally used
when the Agency does not think that full, binding consensus can be reached on the issues
surrounding a particular rule or policy, or when the rule or policy is not yet ripe for final
negotiations.
A unique opportunity to make use of consensual recommendations in the
development of regulations is available through the new Common Sense Initiative
described in the earlier section on partnerships. In this initiative, each industry sector is
represented by a FACA subcommittee which includes representatives from States and
localities, industry, and public interest groups. These subcommittees will play a major role
in providing consensual advisory opinions to EPA on regulations affecting the six industry
sectors.
EPA has conducted more than 10 formal facilitated dialogues on specific rules or
policies in recent years.
Active Processes
The Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue (FFERD): The
FFERD brings together Federal agencies (including DOD, DOE, NOAA, USDA,
DOI, and ATSDR), local governments, and national and community-based
environmental, labor, and environmental parties organizations. A chartered
advisory group, the FFERD provides the Federal government with
35
-------
recommendations for improving decisionmaking and involving the public in Federal
facility cleanups.
Completed Processes
Acid Rain Program: The core regulations in this groundbreaking, market-
based program were developed by the Acid Rain Advisory Committee, a body with
over 40 members from EPA, industry, environmental groups, and state and local
agencies. More than a dozen public meetings were held over a two-year period.
Meetings typically included over a hundred attendees from the general public.
Hazardous Waste Identification Rule: Waste/Contaminated Media: OSW
used a process similar to the Definition of Solid Waste EPA/state partnership for the
contaminated media and process waste portions of HWIR. The HWIR rules are
intended to correct the over-regulatory aspects of the "mixture" and "derived-from"
regulations, while putting the "appropriate regulatory" aspects on sound procedural
and policy footing.
Future Processes
RCRA Subtitle D. Industrial Wastes: EPA will initiate a process for a dialogue
with state officials, environmental groups, and industry to develop voluntary facility
guidelines for land-based disposal of industrial non-hazardous waste. EPAs Office
of Solid Waste is laying the groundwork for issues to be discussed with
stakeholders in this dialogue process that could last through June 1996.
Urban Wet Weather Flow Controls: Water quality inventories have identified
wet weather flows as the largest remaining threat to water quality, including
agricultural runoff and urban wet weather discharges. The Administration's Clean
Water Initiative focused on reducing this threat to water quality, reducing costs, and
providing states and local governments with greater flexibility to solve wet weather
problems. EPA's Office of Water (OW) plans to use a broad participatory process
and will rely on the results of the Urban Wet Weather Advisory Committee it is
establishing to ensure stakeholder participation and support in resolving a number
of wet weather flow problems.
This advisory committee will advise EPA on creating a coordinated,
comprehensive, wet weather discharge control program that achieves the goals of
the Clean Water Act in the most cost-effective manner. The advisory committee will
consider cross-cutting wet weather issues, such as control alternatives, wet
weather water quality-based requirements, flexibility for municipal entities,
monitoring, and permitting.
36
-------
NEGOTIATION PROCESSES
Negotiated rulemaking differs from the advisory opinion processes in that there are
binding commitments from the parties and from the Agency that, if agreement or
consensus is reached, each party to the agreement will implement the agreement.
Negotiated rulemaking is time and resource intensive and is mediated or facilitated by
professional mediators. Regulatory negotiations are conducted under the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act and under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The success of negotiated rulemaking lies in a comprehensive convening
assessment performed by a professional mediator. This convening assessment examines,
through interviews with the Agency and scores of potential stakeholders, the substantive
and legal issues involved in the rule, timing factors, the issues of balanced representation
of stakeholders, the needs of the stakeholders, the alternatives of the stakeholders for
resolving the issues, and the chances for a successful negotiation.
The mediator then makes a recommendation to the Agency as to whether the rule
appears to be appropriate for negotiation. Since EPA started the negotiated rulemaking
program in 1983, we have conducted more than 25 convening assessments; 16 have
resulted in formal negotiations. Rules that were not appropriate for negotiated rulemaking
frequently used some of the other processes described above to maximize the amount of
public consultation.
In the 16 regulatory negotiations, consensus or near-consensus has been reached
on 12, and one negotiation is continuing. Recent examples of EPA's negotiated
rulemaking program are described below.
Active Negotiations
Small Non-Road Engines Emissions Control: In response to Section 213 of
the Clean Air Act as amended, EPA determined that non-road mobile sources are
significant contributors to total ozone precursor and carbon monoxide emissions in
areas that have failed to attain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
ozone and CO. Control of emissions from small non-road engines is the subject of
this rulemaking, which has been divided into two phases. The Phase 1 rule
controlling near-term emissions was proposed on May 1, 1994 using the normal
EPA process and will be substantially similar to the California Air Resources Board
rules for lawn, garden, and utility engines. Phase 2 regulations will be developed
through a negotiated rulemaking process and will control emissions from non-road,
spark-ignited engines 25 horsepower and below, excluding marine propulsion and
recreational propulsion engines.
The committee was chartered September 30, 1993, and will terminate
September 30,1995. The committee consists of representatives of the small non-
road engine manufacturers, engine servicing dealers, the Natural Resources
37
-------
Defense Council, the American Lung Association, the Northeast States Coordinated
Air Use Management, the state of Wisconsin, and EPA. The negotiations are
addressing a full range of issues including, but not limited to, in-use emissions,
evaporative and refueling emissions, test procedures, and market-based incentive
programs. EPA's goals for the Phase 2 regulations are: 1) developing a more
stringent control program to be effective in the next century; 2) encouraging the
development and use of advanced technology for control of emissions from small
non-road engines; and 3) maximizing benefits from control while providing
maximum flexibility.
Recently Completed Negotiations
Wood Furniture: Under the Clean Air Act as amended, EPA must develop
rules to control substances designated as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) for
ozone-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) nationwide. EPA also must
develop a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) prescribing "reasonable available
control technology" to use in controlling VOCs in non-attainment areas.
After a thorough convening effort and several public meetings, EPA elected
to charter an advisory committee to develop a combined proposed HAP rule and
CTG. Membership included states, representatives from different sizes and types
of furniture manufacturers, environmental and public interest groups, and a group
committed to pollution prevention. The full committee met in July, August, October,
and December 199-4. In November 1994 the committee reached full consensus on
the basis of the proposed rule and the CTG.
Disinfectant Bv-Products: The Safe Drinking Water Act requires disinfection
of tap water to reduce acute health risks from microbial contamination. However,
in the course of treatment, disinfectant by-products are formed that are associated
with increased risk of cancer and other chronic illnesses. EPA's disinfectant by-
products rule will regulate the use of chemicals used to purify water and the levels
of by-products produced by disinfection. The rule will apply to thousands of
drinking water suppliers. This rule will attempt to achieve a balance between acute
and chronic risks resulting from disinfection and other water treatment processes.
This rule involves possible risk trade-offs and complex engineering and
technological issues, providing a unique opportunity for the regulatory negotiation
process. Stakeholders included water treatment system representatives, state and
local governments, and environmental, consumer, and public health interest groups.
The committee met from November 1992 through June 1993. The Committee
reached full consensus, and the proposed rule and Information Collection request
was published on July 29, 1994.
38
-------
Hazardous Waste Manifests: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) requires EPA to establish requirements for a manifest document that will
record the movement of hazardous waste from its point of origin to its final
destination at a treatment, storage, or disposal site. EPA regulations specify the
minimum data needed on the manifest. Since states are allowed to request
additional data, considerable variation in both manifest formats and procedures has
developed, making retrieval and dissemination of manifest information difficult. The
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO)
petitioned EPA in January 1990 to revise and standardize the manifest. In July
1992 EPA decided to conduct a regulatory negotiation based on this petition.
Parties to the negotiation include states, generators, transporters, disposal
facilities, unions, and environmental groups.
The negotiation began in October 1992 and ended successfully in December
1993. The committee transmitted an outline of the substantive portions of the rule
and a format for the new manifest to Agency management. EPA expects to publish
the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the fall of 1995.
Potential Negotiations
Amendments to Confidential Business Information Regulations: This
proposed rule is a comprehensive rewrite of EPA's confidentiality regulations at 40
CFR Part 2 and elsewhere in Title 40 of the CFR. In response to requests for a
regulatory negotiation, EPA will begin the convening phase of the negotiation in
order to ascertain whether there are issues about which a balanced FACA
committee can be assembled.
VI. AUTHORITY TO WAIVE PENALTIES AND CUT THE FREQUENCY OF REPORTS
Implementation of Executive Memorandum: Waiver of Penalties Against Small
Businesses
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) is developing an
Interim Policy on Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses. This policy is intended to
promote environmental compliance among small businesses by providing incentives for
participation in compliance assistance programs:
This policy implements the April 21, 1995, Executive Memorandum on Waiver of
Penalties against small businesses. The policy affirms that EPA has discretion to mitigate
penalties or refrain from initiating an enforcement action seeking civil penalties whenever
a small business makes a good faith effort to comply with environmental requirements.
39
-------
In addition, the policy creates special incentives for small businesses to request
compliance assistance from the government. This aspect of the policy implements
Initiative Number 13 of the Reinventing Environmental Regulation efforts announced by
the President on March 16, 1995. Specifically, EPA is providing small businesses with a
"grace" period to correct violations without any penalty.
The policy applies to a person, corporation, partnership or other entity who employs
100 or fewer individuals (on a company wide basis). The policy provides that EPA will
eliminate or reduce the civil penalty based on the following criteria:
1) The small business has made a good faith effort to comply with applicable
environmental requirements as demonstrated by receiving compliance assistance from
a non-confidential government or government-supported program and the violations are
detected during the compliance assistance.
2) First violation: The small business was not subject to a warning letter, notice of
violation, citation or other enforcement action for violation of that requirement in the past
five years and has not been subject to multiple enforcement actions for violations of
environmental requirements.
3) The policy does not apply if:
a) The violation has caused actual serious harm to public health, safety, or the
environment, or
b) The violation may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the
public health or the environment; or
c) The violation otherwise presents a significant health, safety, or environmental
threat.
4) The violation does not involve criminal conduct.
5) The business corrects the violation and remedies any harm associated with the
violations within six months of its discovery. Small businesses may have an additional six
months, if necessary, to correct the violation if pollution prevention technologies will be
used.
If a small business satisfies all the criteria, EPA will eliminate the entire civil penalty.
If a small business meets all of the criteria, except it needs a longer correction period than
provided by criterion 5, EPA will waive up to 100 percent of the gravity component of the
penalty, but may seek the full amount of any economic benefit associated with the
violations. If a small business has not met all of the criteria above, but has otherwise
made a good faith effort to comply, EPA will exercise its discretion not to file an
40
-------
enforcement action seeking civil penalties or to mitigate its demand for penalties to the
maximum extent appropriate.
EPA will defer to State actions that are generally consistent with the policy.
EPA announced this interim policy on June 14, and will publish it in the Federal
Register shortly. The interim policy will be effective immediately. After considering public
comment, EPA will finalize this policy, with appropriate revisions, later this year.
Small businesses can also benefit from EPA's recent Interim Revised Supplemental
Environmental Projects (SEP) Policy issued on May 8, 1995. SEPs are environmentally
beneficial projects which a defendant agrees to undertake in settlement of an
environmental enforcement action, but which it is not otherwise legally required to perform.
In return, some percentage of the cost of the SEP is considered as a factor in establishing
the appropriate settlement penalty paid by the defendant. The new revised policy provides
that for small businesses, or for projects which implement pollution prevention, up to 100
percent of the cost of the SEP may be applied towards mitigation of the penalty. EPA
believes this revised policy will not only continue to deter violations of federal
environmental laws, but will focus the attention of defendants on actively enhancing the
quality of the environment.
Frequency of Reporting
Virtually all EPA programs require regulated entities to undertake environmental or
process monitoring, maintain records, and periodically report information to EPA. The
information generated by these requirements is used to determine what pollution controls
are necessary, ensure compliance with pollution control requirements, and obtain
information on the impact of pollution and pollution controls on the environment.
Most of EPA's information collection requirements have been developed at separate
times over many years to meet the needs of individual environmental programs. As a
result, some of the requirements may not have kept pace with the latest developments in
monitoring techniques, environmental management, and information collecting and
reporting technology, such as electronic reporting. To ensure that EPA's requirements are
appropriate and effective, Administrator Browner has committed EPA to several initiatives
aimed at streamlining reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
First, EPA will seek to reduce by 25 percent the burden imposed by existing
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. In conjunction with the President's
line-by-line review of regulations, EPA has been conducting a review of all paperwork
requirements to determine which requirements should be revised or eliminated and what
types of revisions are appropriate within the constraints of our responsibility to protect the
environment and ensure full and fair enforcement of the law. The Agency's objective is to
41
-------
identify and complete all administrative and regulatory changes necessary to meet the 25
percent reduction goal by June 30,1996. This effort would save the regulated community
approximately 20 million reporting burden hours annually.
Second, to replace the multitude of reporting forms currently required for the
different types of pollution discharged from a single facility, EPA will create a "one-stop"
reporting system for the collection of routine emissions data. Since this objective will
require a fundamental change in how EPA, the states, and the regulated community
manage information, this initiative will be developed in stages. Eventually, this new system
will create a common set of basic information for all programs, starting with unified facility
identification information and a common chemical nomenclature. The easy public access
and consolidated reporting provided by the one-stop system will improve environmental
information management and save time and money for all reporters and users of
environmental information.
Third, EPA is moving forward aggressively to enable firms to report environmental
data electronically rather than with hard copy. Current pilot efforts include information on
transboundary transmission of hazardous waste, discharge monitoring reports under the
National Pollutant Discharge Monitoring System, reporting requirements for manufacturers
of reformulated gas, air emissions inventory reporting, Safe Drinking Water Laboratory
Reporting, and work with specific sectors under the Common Sense Initiative. In addition,
EPA anticipates significant long-term reductions in the reporting burden when electronic
data interchange is implemented for reports from grantees and contractors.
Finally, in support of the President's April 21, 1995, memo, EPA also is examining
ways to reduce the frequency of regularly scheduled reports. Each program has examined
all active Information Collection Requests (ICRs) to identify periodic reports and place
them in one of three categories: change, no change with justification, or further study as
part of the broader 25 percent reduction. The further study category is necessary because
EPA is engaging in discussions with stakeholders concerning major revisions of its
information collections, including its largest collections (e.g., the Discharge Monitoring
Reports required under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System). While the
Agency is committed to major reductions in large paperwork requirements, the nature and
frequency of the reduction will not be resolved until the stakeholder discussions are
concluded later this year. In addition, EPA notes that many reporting requirements are
already on an incident (or exceptions) basis rather than regularly scheduled periods.
To date, EPA has identified 39 instances where we plan to change the reporting
frequency from quarterly to semi-annually, semi-annually to annually, or annually to longer
periods. Thirty-one of these changes are in the air program, and most involve changing
reporting periods from quarterly to semi-annually. The largest burden reductions will
come from cutting the frequency of emissions and monitoring system reports for industrial,
commercial, and institutional steam generating units, for which the change will save about
42
-------
42,000 reporting burden hours. All the other reporting frequency changes for the air
program will total about 8,000 hours saved.
>
The water program has identified seven quarterly reports in the underground
injection control program that will be changing from quarterly to semi-annual or annual
reports, and the Superfund program will be changing its Technical Assistance Grant
reporting frequency from quarterly to semi-annual. Both these programs are conducting
major efforts with stakeholders to review other reporting areas, including the public
drinking water supply program and the discharge monitoring reports in water, and the
Waste Information Needs Initiative led by the waste program.
The Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances has no periodic
reporting requirements with frequencies less than a year, and some annual reports, such
as Toxic Chemical Release Reporting and reports from pesticide producing
establishments, are mandated by statute. This office is working with stakeholders to
review all its existing reporting requirements.
EPA will complete its review of reporting frequency requirements by July 1, 1995,
and will identify for the Administrator by that date any periodic reports not included in the
broader 25 percent reduction effort that should be maintained at the current frequency.
By the end of July, the Agency will have in place work plans to support our effort to
achieve the 25 percent overall burden reduction. Most of the regulatory changes needed
to achieve this objective will be proposed by December 31,1995, and made final by June
30, 1996. Taken together, we expect EPA's initiatives to streamline reporting and
recordkeeping will save businesses and government an estimated 20 million burden hours,
simplify the reporting process by taking advantage of modem technologies, and provide
the public with improved access to environmental data.
43
------- |