V
00
OPTIONS FOR
IMPROVING THE STATE-EPA
PARTNERSHIP
U.S. Environmental Protection Agenc:;
Librar-'. ^oom 2404 PM-211-A
401 f^ Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
State-Federal Roles Task Force
September, 1983
-------
OPTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE
STATE-EPA PARTNERSHIP
Table of Contents
Paqe
CHAPTER I.
CHAPTER II.
CHAPTER III
CHAPTER IV.
OVERVIEW 1
BACKGROUND 9
OPTIONS FOR STATE-EPA 18
RELATIONSHIPS
OPTIONS FOR STATE-EPA 22
RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Direct Program Administration 23
and Enforcement
B. Technical Support 30
C. State Program Approval 33
and Oversight
D. Standard Setting 38
E. Research 40
F. National Information Collection 42
G. External Funding 44
-------
CHAPTER I: OVERVIEW
-------
A.
-2-
OVF.RVIEW
Introduction to the State-Federal Roles Task Force
THE CHARTER; TO SORT OUT STATE-FEOFRAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
States and EPA have been operating under uncertainty about
which level of government is responsible for what functions.
Both President Reagan and Administrator Ruckelshaus have
recently expressed concern about the need for more clarity
and less redundancy in State and Federal responsibilities for
environmental programs. The Deputy Administrator charged this
task force to develop, evaluate and present a set of options
for sorting out the roles which EPA could adopt to reduce
confusion about its environmental responsibilities in the
Federal/State system. The focus of the task force has been on
programs which have been delegated to States or will be delegated
in the near future.
THE MODE OF OPERATION; STATE-EPA COOPERATION
The work of the task force was guided by a Steering Committee
composed of senior EPA managers, top State officials, and a
representative from the National Governors' Association. The
Steering Committee composition reflects the Administator's
philosophy that the sorting out of roles and responsibilities
can best be done through joint State-EPA discussions held in a
spirit of cooperation. Staff work, including the development
of special studies and background reports, was provided by
EPA's Office of Management Systems and Evaluation.
B. Major Findings
States are, in a broad sense, the implementation arm for
the Federal programs; without them EPA cannot achieve its
goal of environmental results.
While each member of the State-Federal Roles Task Force
might describe the State-EPA partnership differently, all agree
that the key point to keep in mind is this: We cannot get the
job done without each other. If the States do not succeed out
on the front lines, EPA cannot succeed. If EPA fails to meet
its commitments to the States, there will be no real progress
toward our ultimate goal. This conclusion is the common
thread underlying the seven major findings outlined below.
These findings are based both on the background studies and
the task force's deliberations.
-------
-3-
1. THERE IS STRONG AGREEMENT ON LEAD AND SUPPORTING ROLES FOR
MOST ACTIVITIES
The task force was nearly unanimous in its view as to
who, the States or EPA, should have the lead role for the
seven functional categories.
o For direct program administration and enforcement,
States should have the lead role, EPA the supporting
role.
o For research, oversight, standard setting, technical
support and national information collection, EPA should
have the lead role, the States the supporting role.
o The task force divided on the funding issue, with one-
half viewing it as a joint role, and the others
viewing it as either an EPA lead role or a State
lead role.
These results are consistent with the views found in
the survey of State, public interest group, and industry
leaders.
2. WITH THE LEAD ROLE FOR DIRECT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND
ENFORCEMENT, THE STATES ARE THE OPERATIONAL ARM FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Rough estimates suggest that States have twice as many
employees engaged in environmental protection as EPA, and 4
to 5 times as many involved in direct operations. In the
long run, the success of national environmental goals depends
upon the ability of States to implement programs and of EPA
to provide States the necessary support. States expect that
EPA's direct intervention in decisions affecting individual
sources will be reduced to a bare minimum, with criteria for
such intervention established clearly beforehand.
In carrying out Federal environmental statutes, States
accept responsibility for progress in achieving environmental
results. The State responsibility in the partnership includes
ensuring that pollution sources comply with applicable national
standards, reporting accurately on progress, meeting commitments
on use of grant funds, and maintaining high quality decision-
making, which stands up to public and peer review. State
officials also must organize to provide effective participation
in major EPA decisions (regulations, strategies, and policies)
affecting program operations.
-------
-4-
3. EPA MUST TAKE ITS ROLE OF SUPPORTING STATES MORE SERIOUSLY
The task force believes that EPA must translate its lead
role for technical support and its 'Supporting role for direct
program administration into a stroijg commitment to this work
and must provide adequate resources. There is wide agreement
that technical support is not simply desirable, but is crucial
for successful programs which achieve environmental results.
The complex nature of some operating issues requires a
national resource of highly skilled and accessible experts,
particularly as States and EPA deal with new environmental
problems requiring state-of-the-art scientific knowledge.
Further, oversight without technical support is merely a
fault-finding exercise without a mechanism for serious follow-
through.
Technical support is viewed as a "risky" budgetary item;
questions were continually raised about the likelihood of
obtaining adequate funding.
4. EPA SHOULD ESTABLISH A CLEAR AND CONSISTENT OVERSIGHT EFFORT
There is a need for the Agency to clearly define its over-
sight responsibilities for delegated programs. The focus of
review and evaluation should be on improving the performance
of State programs, not typically on State decisions regarding
individual sources.
Although EPA must be willing to take back a delegated
program if a State is consistently unwilling or unable to
carry out its responsiblities, EPA and the States should
work together to develop a clearly defined set of oversight
responses (for example, training or technical support) short
of taking back the program.
5. EPA SHOULD FOCUS ON IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF OVERSIGHT AND
SUPPORT TO THE STATES
We must begin by recognizing that the success of environ-
mental protection depends on the success of the "field units,"
the States.
o EPA Headquarters, Regions and States need to agree
on the functions, methods and follow-up of EPA
oversight.
o EPA should increase on-going support to States in the
form of training of State personnel, travel to State
offices for consultation, and problem-solving and
technical support.
-------
-5-
o EPA should expand its capacity to provide quality
support through:
increasing the operational field experience
of EPA staff who provide technical assistance;
improving the access of States to EPA's expertise;
and
- improving the quantity and quality of EPA expertise.
6. IMPROVING RELATIONSHIPS REQUIRES MORE TRUST AND A BETTER
MECHANISM FOR INVOLVING STATES IN MAJOR DECISIONS
The quality of EPA-State relationships depends both upon
attitudes and upon actions. Mutual respect and trust are just
as important as established institutional practices to ensure
frequent communication that will promote understanding of
State and EPA priorities and problems.
Recognition that States have the lead role for direct
program administration and enforcement shows that environmental
protection is truly a joint effort. States believe that a
true "partnership" would involve much greater State partici-
pation in the development of major strategies, policies, and
regulations. In practice, this would involve extensive
consultation, negotiation and joint efforts with States
throughout a wide range of EPA activities.
7* FUNDING OF STATE PROGRAMS IS A CRITICAL ISSUE, AND NEEDS
FURTHER EXAMINATION
Both the appropriate level and the form of EPA funding
for State programs are crucial factors in States' ability to
carry out their responsibilities. State representatives
believe that an assurance of long term commitment to Federal
funding of environmental programs is critical. This paper
presents a range of general options without attempting a
detailed costing out of the implications of each. The
consensus of the task force was that a detailed analysis of
these alternatives should follow the sorting out of appropriate
roles and responsibilities for EPA and States under the
other activities. This has been accomplished through the
proposals in the options paper.
C. The Task Force Developed Options to Address Critical
Issues in Each Functional Area
Chapter IV contains options for each functional area,
such as direct program administration and standard setting,
and the implications of each option. The options were
developed to focus on the critical issues raised by the task
force. The kinds of issues identified were:
-------
-6-
o How should EPA and States work together to achieve
environmental goals?
o How should EPA fulfill its responsibilities to assist
States?
o How should EPA conduct oversight of State programs
while minimizing involvement in individual State
decisions?
o How can EPA assure itself that States are meeting the
intent of Federal statutes?
o What should EPA do if a State is not performing
adequately?
The options are organized in seven functional areas that
focus on the real work of environmental protection at the
Federal and State levels. For each activity the task force
examined the question of who, EPA or States, should have the
lead role, and who should have the supporting role. The
task force also identified what responsibilities are associated
with lead and supporting roles for each activity. A separate
set of options (Chapter III) addresses the issue of the general
relationship between EPA and the States. Concern for the
way that EPA and the States deal with each other generated
many suggestions for improving State-EPA relationships across
all activities.
Task Force Conclusion:
State-Federal Relationships Must Change in Response to Program
Delegation
In the past few years EPA has made great strides towards
delegating responsibility for major environmental programs to
States. In some programs delegation is nearly complete, while
in others, such as RCRA, rapid delegation in the near future
is anticipated. As a result, EPA will be conducting fewer
day-to-day operations and will need to find new ways to
ensure that national environmental laws are being implemented,
while at the same time minimizing the extent of intervention
in the details of individual State program operations. This
means that we anticipate a change in EPA activities, and a
need to forge new State-EPA relationships, based on changing
roles for each. This provides an opportunity to set new
directions and establish a new era in State-Federal relation-
ships.
D. Investing In States; A Strategic Choice
While this task force was asked to look at the issue of
State-EPA roles and responsibilities, the findings have
implications for the future direction of the entire Agency.
-------
-7-
The common theme throughout the task force has been that
States are, in a broad sense, EPA's implementation arm.
Therefore, EPA needs to take its support role in direct
program administration and its lead role for technical support
seriously. Investing in this area has implications both for
how the Agency performs other functions as well as for which
functions the Agency performs. The fact that resources are
limited means a decision to invest in the State-EPA partnership
may require a decision not to invest in some other areas.
The section that follows highlights the strategic choice
that the Agency faces.
A STRATEGIC CHOICE FOR EPA's FUTURE
OPTION 1; MAINTAIN CURRENT DIRECTION
EPA attempts to improve its performance equally in all
of its current activities. The Agency's primary objective
would be to ensure that it implements the full range of
statutory responsibilities, thus serving, to some extent,
the spectrum of interested parties.
Implications:
o EPA would continue to satisfy minimally all internal
and external constituencies, but would not focus
resources on one or two "key" objectives.
o Does not require EPA to explicitly stop pursuing
certain activities that are important to groups
essential to EPA's functions.
o Does not enable EPA to take advantage of its particular
strengths, and may prevent the Agency from achieving
excellence in any area.
OPTION 2; FOCUS ON IMPROVING EFFORTS TO ENSURE THE SUCCESS
OF STATE PROGRAMS
Recognizing that States are the implementation arm for
environmental programs, EPA would minimize its activities
in direct program administration, and focus on developing
a comprehensive approach to improving the overall per-
formance of State programs. EPA would improve its
efforts in three major areas:
(1) EPA would develop a comprehensive system of review
and evaluation, training, and technical support to
provide States with the tools they need to carry
out the day-to-day operations of environmental
protection.
-------
-8-
(2) EPA would ensure that regulations and standards are
both scientifically sound and capable of being
implemented. The agency would need, at times, to
emphasize ease of implemeritation over sophisticated
technical solutions.
(3) EPA would improve its research and scientific
capabilities not only for developing better
regulations but for serving as a national source of
information on state-of-the-art science and technology
in the environmental area. EPA would achieve standing
at the forefront of science and technology, and
would serve States, localities and others as a needed
source of information in many areas of environmental
risk assessment and management.
Implications:
o Recognizes that the success of environmental protection
depends on the capability and willingness of States to
develop and maintain strong programs of their own.
o Emphasizes EPA efforts in areas where it has the lead
role and relies on States where they are most capable.
o Would improve EPA's regulatory and scientific
credibility.
o Requires some retooling on EPA's part to build up needed
capability and capacity.
o Takes EPA out of traditional role as regulator/enforcer.
o May generate public concern about a weakened watchdog
role for EPA because of diminished role in direct
enforcement and permitting.
-------
CHAPTER II: BACKGROUND
-------
-10-
BACKGROUND
introduction
The issue of the appropriate roles of State and Federal
governments in the protection of the nation's environment
has been a particularly troubling one in recent years. Up
until the 1950's and 1960's, activities to protect human
health and the environment were concentrated almost exclusively
in the hands of State and local governments. The pressures
of growing urbanization and industrialization created a
rising public concern about the unintended consequences
which these developments were having on the nation's natural
resources. In addition, there was growing concern about the
health consequences of chemicals in the environment, and
the public exposure of pollutants whose health effects were
largely unknown.
These concerns generated increasing pressure for Federal
action. Starting with early Federal legislation in the
1950's, Congress passed a number of laws on environmental
protection throughout the 1960's, culminating with the passage
of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969, the Clean
Air Act in 1970, and the Clean Water Act in 1972. These
statutes marked a watershed in State-Federal relations
because they were expected to correct, through strong Federal
action, the perceived failure of State and local government
in the environmental area. Other Federal laws followed,
covering additional sources of pollution, such as hazardous
waste disposal sites.
In passing these laws, Congress gave the Federal govern-
ment strong new authorities to take direct action against
individual sources of pollution. Yet, these same laws pro-
claimed in statements of purpose that State and local govern-
ments should have primary responsibility for protecting our
nation's resources. The statutes required significant actions
by State and local governments to achieve the successful
implementation of pollution control programs.
It is an accepted truth that while the Federal role is
critical, the environment cannot be successfully protected
without the direct involvement of State and local agencies.
While this principle has been accepted, its implications for
the "real work" of both EPA and State environmental agencies
remain in dispute even after thirteen years of "State-EPA
partnership."
State officials have been particularly dissatisfied with
the condition of this "partnership." Such terms as "second-
guessing," "bean counting," and "second-class citizen treatment"
have been used at various times to describe their view of
EPA's impact on the activities of their agencies. States
believe EPA officials question their commitment to environ-
mental protection and do not trust them to implement the
Federal laws.
-------
-11-
EPA Administrator Ruckelshaus spoke to these concerns in
his confirmation testimony. He stated his belief that "too
much time is spent by one level of government overseeing the
work of the other," and went on to say that:
With a more clear definition and understanding of
who is supposed to do what and who pays for it,
we could eliminate much of the public and private
frustration over environmental laws. That is a
tall order in our Federal system, but with a joint
effort by the EPA, the Congress and the States, more
clarity and less redundancy is possible.
THE STATE-FEDERAL ROLES TASK FORCE
With these thoughts in mind, Deputy Administrator Al
Aim, established the State-Federal Roles Task Force in June,
1983. The charge of the task force was to develop a set of
options for consideration by the Administrator and the
Deputy Administrator on what appropriate State and Federal
roles might be in implementing environmental programs.
The task force was comprised of two groups: a Steering
Committee of senior EPA managers and State officials; and
staff from the Office of Management Systems and Evaluation
in EPA. The members of the Steering Committee and their
affiliations are:
Lewis Crampton, Chairman
Bob Arnott
Ron Brand
Richard Carlson
Tony Cortese
Tom Curtis
Don Ehreth
Bill Eichbaum
Rebecca Hanmer
Charles Jeter
Leonard Ledbetter
Sheldon Meyers
Don Moos
Sam Schulhof
John Skinner
Glenn Unterberger
Dick Whittington
Gerald Yamada
EPA-Office of Management
Systems and Evaluation
State of Colorado
EPA-Office of the Deputy
Administrator
State of Illinois
State of Massachusetts
National Governors'
Association
EPA-Office of Research
and Development
State of Maryland
EPA-Office of Water
EPA-Region IV Administrator
State of Georgia
EPA-Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
State of Washington
EPA-Regional Operations
EPA-Office of Solid Waste
EPA-Office of Enforcement
Counsel
EPA-Region VI Administrator
EPA-Office of General Counsel
-------
-12-
WORK OF THE TASK FORCE
Background Studies
The task force produced several background documents in
response to the Administrator's charge. One study profiled
EPA's current activities and presented a baseline of infor-
mation on precisely the kind of work EPA does now. Another
presented the results of of interviews with representatives
from industry, public interest groups and State and local
groups on their perceptions of EPA's current strengths and
weaknesses as an organization, and on the proper role of EPA
and the States in conducting specific activities.
Two oversight studies were conducted. One focused on
how EPA currently carries out this activity. The second
analyzed the oversight systems of selected public and private
organizations which perforn activities similar, but not
identical, to EPA oversight. Two additional studies analyzed
long range environmental trends and different theoretical
perspectives on the general questipn of State-Federal
relations. The najor findings of each study are summarized
below. The final reports for all these studies are available
as appendices to this report.
SUMMARY FINDINGS OF BACKGROUND STUDIES
Internal Study Shows Current EPA ActivitiesAre
Not Highly Focused
A functional profile of current Agency work conducted
for this task force suggests that KPA responds to external
demands by "doing a little bit of everything." For example,
between 10-15% of EPA workyears are spent on each of the
following: direct program administration, enforcement,
research, technical support to States, delegation and over-
sight activities, and standard setting.
o A relatively small percentage (estimated at 15%) of
the current agency work is potentially delegable, but
delegation requires increased investment in other
areas such as technical support and oversight.
Current EPA Approaches To Oversight Of State Programs
Are Inconsistent and Short-Sighted
A study conducted for the task force found great
variability among Headquarters programs and Regional Offices
in terms of oversight purposes, policies and procedures.
There is no Agencywide direction and no consistent EPA approach
in dealing with States.
-------
-13-
o Over half of EPA's programs do not have a policy
or written guidance on conducting State oversight.
o The lack of a consistent national policy or guidance
was identified by 85% of the program offices as the
weakest aspect of EPA oversight.
o EPA's oversight focuses on review and evaluation
rather than on assisting States to solve problems
through training, technical assistance, or other
means.
o EPA does not train Regional staff for conducting
oversight.
Si 'vey Shows EPA's Constitutents Want a Strong,
Ci idible EPA, but Criticize Agency's Current Performance
State, public interest group, and industry leaders said
EF i has responsibility for establishing credibility and
ta ing a strong lead role for: setting national standards,
cc ducting research in a number of areas, providing technical
su port to State and local governments, conducting oversight
of State programs, and developing national information systems.
I o For each of these activities a majority of respondents
identified weaknesses in EPA's performance and suggested
ways the Agency could improve.
o Setting environmental standards is viewed as the most
critical of EPA's activities.
o Technical assistance is considered crucial to EPA's
job of aiding State implemention of environmental
programs.
Eff ctive Oversight Depends On A Supportive "Central Office"
A study of six private sector firms and two Federal
age jcies found that the role of the central office is to
ena le and encourage the operating field units to succeed.
The accomplish this role through leadership, motivation,
and provision of direct assistance.
o Clear roles and expectations are set for the central
office and the field units. This ensures operational
efficiency and prevents unnecessary intrusion on
local autonomy.
o The central office is effective in providing leader-
ship, motivation and assistance because its personnel
have both specific expertise and extensive field
experience.
-------
-14-
This study shows oversight works only when it is part
of a comprehensive system of support and motivation for field
units. This comprehensive approach weaves together a number
of separate activities such as tracking and monitoring,
formal review and evaluation ("oversight"), training, constant
communication, on-site consultation, technical assistance,
personnel loans, and financial assistance. The function of
review and evaluation is to improve the field operations by
identifying and correcting patterns of problems, not by
focusing on individual mistakes. Two of the key tenets of
this system are:
o There must be follow-up action by the central office
to help solve problems identified.
o Contact by the central office with field units is so
frequent as to be almost continuous. On-site liaison
efforts are seen as key to ensuring quality control
and the success of field units.
Growing Environmental Problems and Scarce Government Resources
Will Require Careful State/Federal Coordination
Many environmental problems are increasing in importance
and new problems have been emerging faster than institutions
can respond. Environmental programs will need to be designed
with sufficient flexibility to accommodate to these constant
shifts in problems and priorities.
All levels of government have faced declining resources
and purchasing power at the same time that demands on government
increased. Environmental programs will continue to compete
with other social programs for increasingly scarce resources.
This suggests that priority-setting and the clear delineation
of implementing State and Federal roles will increase in
importance.
The relationships between the States and the Federal
government will need to be dynamic and interactive to keep up
with changing problems, perceptions, and capabilities.
Survey of the Literature Found Models Which
Emphasize State Lead in Program Administration
The models we found which delineated activities in the
seven functional categories envisioned State lead in direct
program administration, unless the State is unable or unwil-
ling to carry out the program. These models support the find-
ings of other task force studies by giving EPA the lead in State
program approval and oversight, research, national information
collection and technical support. The models did not agree
on where to place responsibility for standard setting and
funding.
-------
-15-
TASK FORCE MEETINGS
The Steering Committee and the staff held their first
meeting on June 29th. At that meeting, the members of the
Steering Committee identified the key concerns they wanted
the task force to address, and agreed to an analytic framework
using roles, responsibilities, and relationships as the
basis for devising options.
At the second meeting, on July 14, task force members
were briefed on the studies on EPA's current activities and
outside perceptions of the Agency. The task force discussed
lead and supporting roles for each activity and identified
specific responsibilities for EPA and States.
During the third meeting, on August 18, members heard
the results of the two oversight studies and critiqued a
staff draft of the task force's report to the Administrator.
The report was then revised to incorporate the concerns
raised by the Steering Committee. The final report was
approved for transmission to the Administrator at the final
meeting on September 8.
THE REPORT
In developing the task force report, two organizing
principles were used:
o focus on activities, and
o identify roles/responsibilities/relationships.
Activities
While the concept of a "Federal/State partnership" in
environmental protection provides an overall common vision
to which Federal and State officials aspire, the task force
believes that we must go beyond this to develop real options
for restructuring and improving current State-Federal relations,
All too often, those who have heard the rhetoric proclaiming
this partnership have come away with the conclusion that
either there is no follow to put the principle into practice
or that different individuals are using the same language to
refer to totally different ideas. Neither of these outcomes
has been helpful to generating constructive State-Federal
relations in the environmental area.
With this in mind, the task force has followed a different
approach. Its deliberation focused on activities of work,
rather than general concepts. Seven categories, listed
below, were identified into which the task force divided all
of the activities conducted by EPA, State and local agencies
to protect the environment. These categories represent an
aggregation of 23 activities which were developed to profile
what kinds of work EPA now conducts.
-------
-16-
Categories of Activity
Direct Program Administration and Enforcement
Technical Support
State Program Approval and Oversight
Standard Setting
Research
National Information Collection
External Funding
Chapter IV presents options for each of the categories
of activity and the implications of each option. These
options are preceded by a review of the major issues in each
category, as identified by the members of the task force.
In most cases, the options are not mutually exclusive:
rather, they present a menu of possible responses to the
issues.
The main objective of the task force, in this paper,
is to present real options among which real choices can be
made. The task force did not attempt to develop consensus
around any one set of options. The task force recognizes
that all the options have both advantages and drawbacks. It
was their judgment that the interests of decision-makers in
general, and the Administrator in particular, are best served
if an accurate accounting of the implications associated
with each option was presented.
Roles, Responsibi1ities, Re1at ionships
In examining each activity, the task force first deter-
mined whether there was consensus on which level of
government — State or Federal — should have the lead role
in conducting each activity. "Lead role" was defined as the
level of government which would have the principal responsi-
bility for taking action. The task force identified also
recognized that none of the categories was reserved exclusively
to either the States or EPA. Therefore, in each area a
"supporting role" was identified.
The task force found that there was consensus on lead
and supporting roles for six of the seven categories of
activities that comprise the real work of environmental
protection. The task force agreed that States should have I
the lead role in direct program administration (including I
enforcement) while EPA should have the lead role in technical
support, research, standard setting, oversight, and national
information collection. The majority of task force members
said that funding should be a joint State-EPA responsibility,
while others divided equally in supporting State and EPA
lead.
-------
-17-
One area which received special attention was tech-
nical support. There was widespread agreement on the task
force that technical support is essential for making program
delegation and oversight successful. The task force believes
that this responsibility has been neglected for some years
and that a re-emphasis is needed.
Consensus on lead roles represents a first and important
step. The work which follows that consensus, however, is the
specification of the responsibilities which accompany both
lead and supporting roles for each activity. The task force
found that there is less agreement on what specific responsi-
bilities should accompany a State lead/EPA support or an EPA
lead/State support role in each area. This report, therefore,
presents options which EPA could select to carry out the
responsibilities associated with its lead or supporting role
in each area.
It is the task force's contention that relationships can
be usefully addressed only after roles and responsibilities
have been thought through. "Relationships" do not exist in a
vacuum, but rather appear in connection with specific tasks
which must be performed. If each of the contributors to a
task understand their role and responsibility to other members
of the task group, then it is likely that the relationships
will develop smoothly. State-EPA relations in the past have
suffered from fundamental misunderstandings of who is supposed
to do what. The State-Federal Roles Task Force makes the
beginning of a joint effort to rebuild that relationship.
While the report identifies generic roles/responsibilities/
relationships for all of EPA's programs, the task force recognizes
that these will vary among programs. This variation may be, to
some degree, a function of the "maturity" of the different
programs or of statutory definitions of "delegation" or
"authorization". For example, EPA-State roles and responsi-
bilities may not be the same in a program with a long, established
history as in one which has been recently authorized and is
still experiencing growth pains. Similarly, the statutory
requirements surrounding some programs may present unique
complexities. The Clean Water Act 404 program, for example,
involves the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife
Service, as well as EPA, in permit reviews.
The analysis which follows is based on the two principles
described previously. Chapter IV spells out the major options
which exist for carrying out the mutual responsibilities of
the Federal and State governments in each area. Chapter III
discusses current relationships issues and decribes a foundation
for improving the State-Federal relationship.
-------
CHAPTER III: OPTIONS FOR STATE-EPA RELATIONSHIPS
-------
-19-
STATE-EPA RELATIONSHIPS
While roles and responsibilities can be sorted into
concrete tasks, "relationships" refers to the way EPA and
the States deal with each other in a general sense as each
carries out their lead and supporting roles. Because the
success of each activity depends on both lead and supporting
actors, the development of a strong working relationship is
crucial to the success of the nation's environmental programs.
The objectives of this section are to identify current relation-
ship issues, discuss factors promoting and limiting good
relationships, and identify options for resolving issues.
What does "Partnership" Mean?
The term "partnership" is used regularly by both EPA
and the States to describe their preferred relationship.
In practice, however, this term has different meanings for
different people. In particular, States believe they have
become "forgotten partners" with little say in the policies
and regulations they are responsible for implementing. While
each member of the task force might describe the partnership
between the States and EPA differently, there is one point on
which all members agree: the States are, in a broad sense,
the implementation arm for federal programs; without them
theEPA cannot achieve its goal of environmental results.
The quality of the partnership depends on attitudes as
well as actions. Attitudes are reflected in the degree of
trust/ co-operation, and mutual respect between EPA and the
States. Actions refer to the institutional practices that
ensure frequent communication and understanding of the
priorities and problems of each. Both aspects are crucial:
trust without a means of providing input is hollow, and a
work group without mutual respect will be ineffective.
Because attitude is such an important aspect of relation-
ships it is difficult to provide a set of distinct, clearly
defined options. However, there are three basic models
which illustrate ways that the Agency might change its behavior
in order to establish a new pattern of communication and
interaction with States in the policy formulation process.
o Notification - EPA continues to treat States as an "outside
interest group", with the same status as environmental groups,
industry, and the public and limits their input to federal
policy to review and comment.
o Consultation - EPA continues to have primary responsibility
for setting policy and developing regulations but the
Agency consults with States, and receives their views
before making policy and regulatory decisions.
-------
-20-
o Joint Review and Planning - EPA treats States as "part of
the organization", involving them in all major policy and
regulatory decisions, through negotiation and participation
on work groups as co-workers.
A Foundation for Relationships
The task force is in agreement on a number of areas that
serve as the foundation for deciding which relationship is
most appropriate. It is important to reiterate that it may
be appropriate for the relationship between EPA and the
States to vary depending on the capability of each State and
the specific program. The basic assumptions that guide the
State-federal relationship are:
1. States and localities do most of the front-line work
Dealing with pollution sources. State and local
employees in environmental protection far outnumber
Federal employees. This makes EPA increasingly
dependent upon States for successful implementation
of national goals.
2. Federal environmental statutes recognize that States
have the primary role for direct program administra-
tion, including enforcement. As more States accept
delegation, they will probably expect a greater
role in formulating national policy.
3, Historically, it has been the constitutional role
of States to protect the hfealth, welfare and safety
of the publictThe Federal roleTnimplementation
can be seen as a temporary period to establish
programs during a time of rapid change.
4. States' expertise increases as, over time, they gain
more experience administering programs. The role
of the Federal government is to work with States to
develop their capabilities.
5. States share with EPA many professional goals in
addition to the general goal of protecting public
health and the environment. These include reporting
accurately on progress, applying the best scientific
procedures and technologies, ensuring that programs
are cost-effective, and maintain a high degree of
quality decision-making, which stands up to public
and peer review.
6. Much of the irvteraction between EPA and the States
concerns operational matters involving implementation
of statutes or regulations. Because States must
operate many EPA programs, their sense of whether
certain regulatory options can be implemented is
important.
-------
-21-
Federal environmental statutesrecognize that EPA is
ultimately responsible for progress toward statutory
environroenta1 goals. Since Congress holds EPA account-
able for progress toward goals, it also holds EPA account-
able for decisions on national policies and strategies.
EPA and States should work together to broaden the
Congressional focus to consider the performance of
both EPA and the States. However, current regulations,
statutes and attitudes may limit the extent of joint
State-EPA decision making.
It is critical that EPA's oversight role be clearly
articulated, so EPA and States both "understand the
rules" and can work together with a common understanding
of their individual responsibilities. EPA is responsible
for evaluating State program performance and taking
corrective actions, including sanctions if necessary
to ensure States are making acceptable progress toward
statutory goals.
The level of trust between States and EPA results from a
commitment by both parties to help each other pursue the common
goal of protecting the environment. For EPA, this implies a
willingness to respond to State requests for assistance, even
in areas of local concern. For the States it means providing
EPA the information necessary to assess the progress of environ-
mental programs nation-wide.
The States and EPA are now in the process of building mutual
trust. Perhaps the single most important concept to make that
process work is for EPA and the States (and industry, environmental,
public interest groups and the general public) to understand that
EPA and the States are co-workers. Clearly there will be cases
where State programs are not adequate under federal law. In those
cases, it is EPA's job to work with those States. Ultimately, if
a State is not interested in pursuing federal environmental policies,
then EPA will need to operate the program. The main point is that
both EPA and the states will occasionally fall short of their
goals, and it is the job of each to support the other in pursuit
of the common objective.
-------
CHAPTER IV: OPTIONS FOR EPA AND STATE RESPONSIBILITIES
-------
-23-
A. DIRECT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
Definition
Direct program administration refers to all activities
which directly affect individual sources of pollution or
manufacturers of substances with the potential to threaten
public health and the environment. This category includes
both regulatory and enforcement actions such as: the issuance
of permits; engineering and environmental impact reviews;
the review, registration, or certification of certain products
before they can be offered for sale to the public; environ-
mental monitoring and data collection; the evaluation of
compliance status of an individual source or company (including
inspections, testing and monitoring of sources; review of
self-monitoring reports and laboratory analysis of collected
samples); hazardous substance emergency response; all adminis-
trative or judicial enforcement actions; and policy development
and interpretation for day-to-day administration.
Role
The task force reached a consensus that the lead role
should be taken by the States in all areas where the statutes
permit them to assume this responsibility. In the remaining
program areas, such as new chemical reviews under TSCA, the
lead role should remain with EPA.
The task force emphasized the importance of EPA's sup-
porting role in direct program administration. EPA should
play a strong supporting role through the provision of technical
assistance, through the maintenance of national information
systems and by taking action in enforcement cases when the
States request EPA involvement.
There is also a recognition that in certain programs
it is necessary to specify particular State and Federal
program responsibilities in greater detail. For example,
task force members indicated a concern for a clearer
specification of roles for States and EPA in handling
environment emergencies and cleaning up abandoned hazardous
waste sites.
Another area where EPA needs to specify its policies
more clearly is in defining in what situations the national
interest is at stake, resulting in EPA action in a State
with an authorized or delegated program.
Issues
The options address three major issues:
1) How can EPA effectively support States in their;
implementation of environmental, jprograms?
-------
-26-
In examining the options for each of the three issues
that follow, it is important to look at their implications.
For example, one option included under both Issues #2 and #3
is that EPA will only conduct "post hoc" audits of State
actions and will have no involvement in day-to-day decisions.
This may mean EPA needs to be willing and able to actually
take programs back from States that cannot run them effectively,
EPA could choose to pursue different options under the
category of direct program administration depending on the
Agency's assessment of the quality of a State program. To be
effective, this assessment would have to be reached through a
clearly articulated process and announced formally. This sort
of process would enable the EPA to tie its level of review
to the effectiveness of a State program.
-------
-24-
2) How can EPAassure itself that State programs meet
the intentof federal environmental statutes?
3) In what situations, if any, should EPA be involved
in enforcement actions in States with an authorized
or delegated program?
It is important to understand the concerns underlying
each of these three issues. Issues $2 and #3 are discussed
together since they both deal with how and when EPA should
be involved in State programs.
SPA Should Support State Programs
The task force's central concern is the need for EPA to
translate its supporting role in direct program administration
(and its lead role for technical support) into a strong
commitment to provide technical support and to allocate
resources adequate for the job. There is wide agreement on
the task force that technical support is not simply desirable,
but is crucial for making program implementation effective
and for ensuring that delegation and oversight work in
practice -- not just as concepts.
The task force view is supported by major findings from
two of the background studies. In both the External Views
and the Alternative Oversight Methods studies, a major finding
was that successful oversight seems to be inextricably linked
to aggressive technical support. Without technical support,
oversight is primarily a matter of review and evaluation.
Similarly, criticism of EPA's standards from outside experts
focused on the fact that often States and industry, who are
the ultimate implementors of federal regulations, either do
not know what is technically required by the regulations, or
understand the requirements but do not know how to comply
with them.
Perhaps the strongest argument supporting an increase
and improvement in EPA's technical support to States steins
from the roles and responsibilities each has in the Federal
system. The States are responsible for the implementation
of environmental programs; if they are not successful, then
EPA is not successful. Success does not result from promulga-
tion of a regulation, but from effective implementation of
the regulation, whether it be through a permit, a warning
label or an enforcement action. When States need EPA
assistance to implement Agency rules and policy, it only
does the Agency and the public a disservice not to provide
that support.
-------
-25-
While there is agreement on the need for EPA to increase
and improve its technical support tq State and local agencies,
there is also skepticism whether any strategy to increase
the level of Agency attention to technical support could be
carried out successfully. Staff discussions with Regional EPA
personnel revealed that technical support is viewed as valuable
but risky because items labeled "technical support" in the
budget have been cut sharply in the past.
How and When Should EPA Be Involved in State Programs?
The second and third issues focus on how and when EPA
should be involved in authorized or delegated State programs.
Issue #2 refers to day-to-day program administration, while
issue #3 focuses specifically on the issue of EPA enforcement
actions in State programs.
The question of how EPA can assure itself that State
programs are adequate under the statute is related to
State program approval decisions, oversight, and direct
program administration. In the area of direct program
administration the concern is whether EPA should ever become
involved in an individual decision in an authorized/delegated
State program. There are different views on this, some
directly tied to specific statutory language.
A central concern is the criteria by which EPA deter-
mines that State action is insufficient or not timely and
that Federal action is needed. What steps should be taken
before EPA becomes involved? The criteria must be objective
and clear so that EPA does not engage in second-guessing on
a systematic basis. while there is no consensus among task
force members regarding whether or when EPA's statutory
responsibilities require Agency action, there is agreement
that EPA's criteria for acting be clearly articulated.
State representatives are particularly concerned that EPA
criteria for action and review focus on substantive issues
(e.g., a non-complying source) and not on procedural issues.
In the past EPA has often focused on process at the expense
of substance. It is important to remember that the operating
assumption behind the issue of EPA involvement in individual
State actions is that the occurrence is an exception and not
the rule.
This issue results in especially heated discussion when
the focus is narrowed to enforcement actions and to activities
designed to determine if a source or company is in compliance.
There is general agreement that EPA's supporting role in
enforcement may mean that in some cases the Federal government
will inspect sources and bring enforcement actions against
them when States fail to act. At issue, however, is when is
EPA involvement appropriate? Does it extend to all sources
potentially out of compliance or sone subset of sources such
as "major problems", however defined?
-------
-27-
DIRECT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
1. How can EPA effectively support the States in
efforts to implement environmental programs?*
their
OPTIONS**
IMPLICATIONS
(i) EPA consults with States on
individual decisions/
actions.
(ii) EPA provides official
interpretation of general
Agency policy and legal
requirements.
(iii) EPA serves as a consultant
to States on scientific
issues.
(iv) EPA serves as a broker to
disseminate information
on what other States are
doing.
(v) EPA provides direct ser-
vices, such as laboratory
assistance, expert wit-
nesses, and emergency
response teams.
(vi) EPA provides "continuous"
training to State agency
employees.
Provides States with needed advice
in difficult, sophisticated or
controversial situations.
May get EPA involved in some
controversial political situations,
Consistent with current EPA role.
May not provide States with infor-
mation necessary to implement
regulations effectively.
- Requires EPA to maintain (or have
access to) scientific experts.
- Might require additional resources.
- Might require EPA to conduct more
"health" based and risk assessment
research.
- Fulfills EPA function of central
focus for environmental protection.
- Might require sophisticated infor-
mation "system".
- Enables States to find out how other
States deal with similar issues.
- Would result in EPA having a good
picture of how State implementation
varies.
- Would result in EPA giving States
services they do not have.
- EPA would have to respond to State
requests for assistance.
- Requires resources.
- Would keep State personnel informed
about state-of-the-art techniques.
- Would require that EPA be current
on techniques.
- Would require additional resources.
* This support would apply to all areas, including enforcement.
** These options are not mutually exclusive. Specific options
for delivering technical support are discussed in the technical
support section later in this chapter.
-------
-28-
DIRECT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
2. How can EPA assure itself that the intent of the
environmental statutes are being met through State
implementation of these laws?
OPTIONS
IMPLICATIONS
(i) EPA performs post hoc audit
of State actions. No EPA
involvement in "real-time"
decisions.
(ii) EPA evaluates State program
on basis of post hoc re-
view, but participates in
public comment on individ-
ual State actions.
(iii) EPA retains ability to
intervene in individual
State actions, according
to specified criteria
(such as a targeted
category).
(iv) EPA retains unlimited
discretion to intervene
in real-time actions.
Clarifies State responsibility.
Restricts EPA's ability to address
"political" problems.
EPA gives up a strong tool
currently used.
Requires active response to audit
results.
Eliminates "second-guessing" on
real-time basis.
To be effective, threat of program
reversion may, in some cases,
have to be used.
Sets timing/limits on EPA role.
States make final decisions, but
EPA can object publicly.
Public EPA-State disputes can
damage credibility of both.
Earlier EPA involvement could
avoid later problems.
EPA and States would have to
be able to define the appropriate
criteria.
Specified EPA role.
Allows EPA to assure consistency
of State actions in target
category.
Target category may not be where
environmental impact is greatest.
High EPA flexibility.
Permits rapid EPA correction of
unsound or illegal actions.
EPA "second-guessing" likely.
Leaves authority/responsibility
unclear.
Takes away incentive for State
to run program.
Results in mixed signals to sources
and public.
Encourages sources to go around
States or EPA to other level of
government to get "desired
answer".
-------
-29
DIRECT PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT
3. In what situations, if any, should EPA be involved in
enforcement actions in States with an authorized or
delegated programs?
OPTIONS
IMPLICATIONS
(i) EPA audits enforcement
actions; takes no independ-
ent direct action in
authorized/delegated
States. EPA may respond
to State requests.
(ii) EPA takes enforcement
related actions in
authorized/delegated
States in all cases when
States requests, but other-
wise takes no direct
act ion.
(iii) EPA takes enforcement
action only where (1) State
fails to act expeditiously,
and (2) significant threat
to public health or
environment exists.
(iv) EPA takes enforcement
action only in cases where
more than one States'
interests are involved.
(v) EPA defines some category
of sources/situations
where direct federal action
is allowed.
(vi) EPA can inspect/enforce
without prior notice to
a State.. EPA and States
exercise concurrent,
independent authorities.
EPA can assess State performance.
Clear State lead in the enforce-
ment area.
Results in different treatment
of States with "primacy" for
environmental programs.
EPA serves in support role to
States.
Minimizes EPA action.
Clearly defines State-EPA role.
Constrains EPA ability to intervene.
May require EPA resources and
involvement in areas which are not
high priority for EPA.
Minimizes EPA involvement.
Allows EPA to take action in
critical situations.
Would require explicit definition
of when EPA action is appropriate.
Less clear EPA-State roles.
EPA resources applied to most
significant situations
Minimized EPA action.
Clear State-EPA roles.
Fulfills role of "federal"
interest.
States know in advance what sources/
situations are subject to EPA action.
Reflects EPA focus on priority areas.
Mixed signals/"second guessing"
problems.
Implies that priority areas aren't
State responsibility and that only
EPA priority areas are important
for environmental quality.
Changes in EPA priorities may
create confusion.
Enables EPA to move quickly.
Matches EPA's authority under
some Federal law.
Mixed signals to sources and public.
EPA "second guessing" likely.
Makes delegation of program
less complete.
May take away incentive for States
to take program.
Requires more EPA resources.
-------
-30-
B. TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Definition
Technical support refers to the development and provision
of assistance to groups or individuals outside the Agency
including States, localities, industries, and public interest
groups. Its purpose is to ensure the success of State programs,
but it differs from oversight and regulatory activities in that
its use is voluntary.
Role
The task force agreed that EPA has the lead role for
providing technical support, although States also have an
important role in providing assistance to localities and
industries within their jurisdiction.
Issue
The central concern voiced by the task force is the
degree to which EPA translates its lead role for technical
support into a strong commitment to provide resources adequate
for the job.
What delivery systems are most appropriate for providing
technical support to the States?
The aim of the task force is to identify methods which
would best support a strong EPA role in providing technical
support as part of a comprehensive oversight system. The
options address the issue of how to provide the most efficient
and effective delivery system(s) for technical support. The
options are not mutually exclusive; due to resource limitations,
however, priorities need to be set.
The delivery systems outlined here present a range of
services, from technical/scientific information to personnel
training, which EPA could provide to the States. One option,
which calls for the private sector to provide these services
did not draw any task force support. The remaining options
are designed to meet the need for technical support in an
institutionalized way: EPA would systematically respond to
needs and problems identified through review and evaluation.
-------
-31-
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
1. What delivery systems are most appropriate for providing
technical support to the States?
OPTIONS
(i) EPA provides expert services
such as consultation and
complex lab work in areas
of national concern.
(ii) EPA provides information on
the best available science
and technology. Could
expand service to facilitate
information transfer on
successful State programs
and advice on areas not
currently covered by EPA
regulations.
(iii) EPA establishes "centers
excellence" and targets
development of Agency
scientific expertise to
high priority areas.
Centers serve as national
resources on selected
environmental problems.
of
IMPLICATIONS
Increases State/Federal
cooperation.
Focuses on areas where EPA
has a comparative advantage.
Requires investment to develop
experts and make services
available.
Benefits are largely intangible
and difficult to defend, although
widely regarded as important.
Provides centralized source of current
scientific/technological information.
Emphasizes EPA's function as provider
of scientific/technological informatior
Requires EPA investment in the
means to provide up-to-date
information (computer or hard
copy).
Locates needed scientific
expertise within EPA.
Emphasizes EPA lead role developing
up-to-date scientific information.
Attracts high quality scientists
to EPA.
Requires investment in human and
capital resources.
Targets EPA investment to high
priority areas.
-------
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
-32-
(iv) EPA provides training to
State and local agency
staff.
(v) EPA emphasizes private
sector provision of
technical support. De-
velops a directory of
private sector firms from
which services could be
purchased or makes national
contracts available to
States.
Builds expertise at the State
and local level? raises overall
program quality.
Could help address problems of
turnover and salary structure
in State government.
Emphasizes the assisting function
of EPA.
Requires training of EPA staff
to function in new roles.
Focuses efforts in an area where
EPA has been identified as
effective and where there is a
large need.
Provides intangible benefits which
are difficult to quantify and defend,
Private sector response to
market demand.
Enables EPA to concentrate scarce
budget resources elsewhere.
Fails to respond to an
expressed State/local need
for EPA technical support.
Differs from approach taken
by successful private sector
firms, which links effective
oversight to strong in-house
technical support.
EPA short of technical experts
to deal with emergencies.
Cost borne primarily by States.
Contracts are frequently more
costly than in-house provision
of services.
Hinders State-Federal cooperation.
State-of-the-art information may
be available primarily from
sources regulated by EPA.
-------
-33-
C. STATE PROGRAM APPROVAL AND OVERSIGHT
Definition
State program approval refers to the review and "approval"
or "authorization" process through which EPA grants State authority
to operate a program mandated by Federal statute.
Oversight of State programs by EPA refers at a minimum to
program audits and other means for evaluation of State program
performance. A broader view, proposed here, envisions oversight
as a system of mutual support and assistance of which review
and evaluation is only a part.
Role
EPA has the lead role for these activities.
Tissues
Task force concerns about State program approval and
oversight outnumbered those in any other area. Many task
force members recognized the importance of developing criteria
for defining an adequate State program and for defining when
EPA's intervention in a State program is appropriate.
Task force members agreed on three general principles:
A) The Agency should view State success in achieving
environmental goals as the definition of EPA success;
and
B) A strong EPA commitment to oversight, technical
support, and training is needed when programs are
delegated to the States.
C) EPA and States should develop clear criteria.
The two major issues are:
1. What criteria should EPA use _tp_as_se_ss the adequacy of
a State program to meet federal statutory and regulatory
requirements?
2. How should EPAconduct oversight and what should be
EPA's response to inadequate State performance?
-------
-34-
State Program Approval
Flexibility of criteria for delegation and the definition
of State program equivalence were areas of prime concern for
the task force.
There are many views about how EPA should exercise its
national responsibility for reviewing State programs for
approval. Some believe that the Agency's statutes and
regulations provide little flexibility, and that States must
have technical and administrative procedures identical or
nearly identical to EPA's. In this case, "equivalent programs"
refers to procedures as well as results. Others feel that
more legal flexibility exists, and that what is important is
that comparable sources in different States have to meet
comparable standards. In this sense, equivalent programs are
defined in terms of equivalent environmental results. This
concern was also reflected in the ta^sk force by requests for
,more flexible and more "realistic" requirements for delegation
of programs.
It should be noted that there may be a trade-off between
flexible criteria for delegation and the extent of oversight
required for State programs. More inflexible criteria for
delegation, placing more detailed requirements on a State
program initially, may imply less detailed oversight.
In considering these issues, the task force held to its
charge, which was to develop broad options applicable to
all programs rather than focus on tl)e details of specific
program delegation, which may vary depending on statutory
language.
Oversight Issue
In this section, oversight refers to an assessment of
overall State program performance. The options for EPA
intervention in individual sources, at State request or in
exceptional cases, are addressed in the section on Direct
Program Administration.
The task force also recognizes the need for EPA and the
States together to develop a clearly defined set of oversight
responses, short of taking back the program. Depending on
the option chosen, these responses might include training,
on-site technical support, management studies, or even real-
time reviews in problem areas for a specified period of
time. In addition, the conditions for taking back a program
should also be clearly specified.
-------
-35-
There is also a concern, particularly on the part of the
States, that EPA will respond to perceived State inadequacies
by a subtle process of "creeping de-delegation". "Creeping
de-delegation" refers to a process by which EPA gradually
reclaims authorities by intervening in specific program
areas, short of formally taking a program back. The concern
is that this would occur incrementally, apart from a formal
oversight process and a legal decision to rescind delegation.
Both EPA and the States have identified a clear need for
a consistent national oversight policy, with predictable EPA
follow-up. The options below describe a range of potential
approaches to oversight. An underlying assumption is that,
under each option, EPA must be willing and capable of taking
back a program if a State consistently does not carry out
its responsibilities adequately. The appropriateness of the
options may vary depending on statutory language for individual
programs.
-------
-36-
STATS PROGRAM APPROVAL
1. What criteria should EPA use to assess the adequacy of a
State program to meet federal statutory and regulatory
requirements?
OPTIONS
IMPLICATIONS
(i) EPA applies relatively
specific criteria for
delegation, and requires
State programs to be
"equivalent" in both
substance and procedure.
(ii) EPA applies more flexible
criteria, targeted to
achieve "equivalent re-
sults," consistent with
statutory requirements.
Standards for equivalent
results are developed with
State officials on a program
by program basis.
Specific requirements for
acceptable State program are
clear up front.
Minimizes chance of
inappropriate delegation.
Encourages development of
State autonomy once program
is delegated.
Program adequacy would be
easier to define.
Inflexible criteria may create
problems for States (e.g.,
conflict with State law).
Increased flexibility and focus
on results would address State
concerns.
Up-front involvement by States
in determining oversight criteria.
Care needed to avoid overstepping
statutory constraints on flexibility,
Standards for "equivalent results"
may be difficult to develop and
implement.
-------
-37-
OVERSIGHT
2. How should EPA insure that States implement effective programs?
OPTIONS
EPA performs oversight
through annual audits, and
provides relatively little
technical support.
(ii)
EPA oversees State programs
through periodic assessments
and site visits. Technical
support, though sometimes
provided, is not viewed as
an integral part of over-
sight .
(iii) EPA develops a comprehensive
oversight system which
includes technical support.
Federal and State officials
are in constant contact.
Innovative approaches such
as peer involvement in
oversight and location of
EPA offices in States are
possibilities under this
option.
IMPLICATIONS
Requires relatively few
resources.
Enables measurement of
performance against
objectives.
Focuses on problem identification
rather than follow-up and
assistance.
Focuses on ensuring compliance
with environmental laws and
regulations.
Other successful organizations
do not rely solely on audits.
Requires no increase in resources
or change in current methods.
Provides some assistance when
available, if a problem is
discovered.
Inadequately addresses expressed
State need for technical support.
Technical support will not be
consistently provided.
Oversight process used to identify
solutions as well as problems.
States become partners in oversight.
Increases responsibility of States
and increases accountability.
Similar model used by other success-
ful public and private sector
organizations.
Requires dramatic changes in EPA's
methods of operation, possibly
including personnel policies,
office locations, and staff
recruitment and training. Some
disruption will inevitably accompany
such charges.
May result in public concern about
weakened watchdog role for EPA,
unless accompanied by public
education effort.
-------
-38-
STANDARD SETTING
Definition
Standard setting includes regulations, rules, and standards
for Federal statutes and programs. Standard setting activities
include the assessment of regulatory alternatives, the develop-
nent of a regulatory package, and the review of that package
prior to promulgation.
Hole
The task force recognizes that when the statute provides
for national standards, EPA has the primary role for their
development and promulgation. Many task force members agree
tfcat the States should play a very strong support role that
includes earlier and greater participation than currently
practiced, since they have primary responsibility for
direct program administration and enforcement. Task force
•embers also emphasized that it is important that EPA and the
States focus on the development of a strong working relationship,
as they function in their respective roles.
Issue
What shou_ld^be the extent and nature of State involvement
in the regulatory development process?
Since States have the lead role in direct program admini-
stration and enforcement, they have a special relationship
with EPA in developing standards and regulations. This
special relationship means that EPA should ensure that the
States are able to have substantial participation in the
early stages of formulating regulations. This is necessary
in order to ensure that standards arid procedures promulgated
by EPA will pass operational tests in the field.
-------
-39-
STANDARD SETTING
1. What should be the extent and nature of State involvement
in the regulatory development process?
OPTIONS
(i) States comment on proposed
regulations during the formal
public comment period and
EPA takes particular time
and attention to respond
to State concerns.
(ii) EPA circulates drafts of
regulations to States and
receives comments prior to
formal Notice of Proposed
Rule Making.
(iii) States comment on proposed
regulations after the comment
period has ended and before
the final rules are pro-
mulgated.
(iv) State representatives are
included as members of formal
EPA working groups which are
developing specific regula-
tions prior to internal
(Red Border) EPA review.
IMPLICATIONS
Requires no change in current
laws, regulations or procedures.
Can be implemented immediately.
Many key decisions affecting
States are already made by the time
regulations are proposed.
Tends to treat States as "just
another group".
Poses few legal problems.
Allows for early involvement by
States.
States not involved in the very
early conceptual stage of rule
development.
If States wish to speak effectively
with one voice, State environmental
officials must develop well-organized
forums for resolving policy
differences.
Many crucial issues resolved during
this period.
Regulated community will object to
this procedure.
Supports the principle of State-
Federal partnership.
Ex_ parte procedures may be
viewed as burdensome by
EPA programs.
Provides for the most timely
involvement by States in
developing regulations.
Assists EPA in brokering the
various concerns of different
States.
Requires increased organization
by State environmental officials
so that differences are resolved
and State representatives can
function effectively in working
groups.
Will need to have States exempted
from the Federal Advisory Committee
Act.
-------
-40-
E. RESEARCH
Definition
Research refers to all activities that produce information
improving the scientific or technical basis for making decisions
at EPAf in other levels of government, or in the private
sector. It includes exploratory research, health effects
studies, and research in support of technical assistance,
as well as research directly in support of standard setting.
Role
Task force members agreed that the lead role should be
taken by EPA because of its greater expertise in most areas,
and to avoid duplication by fifty different State research
programs.
Issue
Should EPA expand its research work in support of specific
State needs?
Some task force members, as well as some respondents to
the external views survey, believe EPA should increase its
investment in exploratory research and applied research.
They think EPA should increase its work in such areas as:
o health effects information for particular pollutants;
o risk assessment for particular pollutants;
o technical assistance on unique or complex issues (e.g.,
synergistic effects);
o tools for complex monitoring or laboratory work; and
o control technology pilots.
More State involvement in planning is needed if EPA's
research effort is to include an expanded emphasis on technical
assistance and developing a scientific basis for exercising
judgment in areas with incomplete health and risk information.
States must play an active rather than reactive role in
providing information about their needs early in the process
of drafting Agency research strategies and budgets. (The
generic issue of State involvement in EPA decision/policy
making is discussed in the section on relationships.)
-------
-41-
RESEARCH
1. Should EPA expand its research work in support of specific
State needs?
OPTIONS
(i) EPA focuses primarily on
research to support
standards.
(ii) EPA expands exploratory
research capabilities in
anticipation of future
State needs.
(iii) EPA expands applied
research to aid State
program implementation.
IMPLICATIONS
Essential to a primary EPA lead role,
As a spin-off, provides the
States useful technical infor-
mation.
EPA can fail to anticipate new
problems if focus is too narrow.
Lack of in-house exploratory
research capability threatens
ability to interpret work of
others.
Important.work for EPA to be ready
for the "future".
States lack capability; already
depend on EPA for this.
Research could support State
initiatives which might decrease
need for national regulatory action.
Reliable system for ascertaining
State needs must be developed.
Capabilities may be available in
universities or other private
institutions.
Trade-off with standard-setting
work if no increase in research
funds.
States must develop and communi-
cate their needs to EPA.
EPA must develop a reliable system
for incorporating State needs into
research plans and budget.
Trade-off with other research
efforts if there is no budget
increase.
Increasing focus on managing for
environmental results requires
better monitoring tools.
Complexity in dealing with hazardous
waste calls for more advanced
technology.
-------
-42-
F, NATIONAL INFORMATION COLLECTION
Definition
Through national information collection procedures,
data regarding overall quality of the environment is gathered.
The data is used to assess progress toward federal environ-
mental goals and to plan future regulatory needs. Occasionally
certain programs require a special "one-time only" assemblage
of information.
Role
Most of the task force members agree that EPA has
the lead role in national information collection. A sizable
minority believe information collection is a shared, State-EPA
activity.
Issue
How can information collection efforts be better linked
to reporting progress toward goals?
The States and EPA want to have the capability to mea-
sure progress toward environmental goals as a result of
permit, enforcement and construction activities. A concern
is that sometimes EPA collects all the data possible from
every source instead of gathering the minimum information
needed to satisfy specific reporting objectives. Task force
members identified a need to make the reporting mechanisms
more concise and focused on environmental results.
-------
-43-
NATIONAL INFORMATION COLLECTION
1. How can information collection efforts be better linked
to reporting progress toward goals?
OPTIONS
IMPLICATIONS
(i) Initiate a State-EPA effort
in each program to stream-
line current system by
reducing or eliminating cer-
tain information require-
ments, by focusing on a more
limited set of data for which
EPA can demonstrate a
specific need and use, and by
improving the handling
system to ensure proper
utilization of the infor-
mation.
(ii) Replace much of current re-
porting system, which looks
at data on individual pollu-
tion sources, with one pri-
marily focusing on ambient
data on environmental
quali ty.
Avoids disruptions to ongoing
system. Focuses on stream-
lining collection requirements.
Approach appears to be working
in the Office of Water.
Will require time and management
attention to be successful.
Substantial reporting burden on
the States is likely to persist.
EPA will receive less data than
it now requires.
May need to improve or make better
use of statistical sampling
techniques.
Most likely to result in real
reporting reductions.
Most consistent with philosophy
that the EPA's primary concern
should be with the results of
State programs.
Some areas may require increased
reporting.
Since most ambient measures change
slowly over time, decisions need
to be made concerning what interim
measures of program effectiveness
to track.
Requires development of guidelines
or definitions on how to measure
environmental results adequately
and fairly.
-------
-44-
G. FUNDING OF STATE PROGRAMS
Definition
Funding of State programs refers to who pays the actual
operating expenses for State environmental programs. This
category includes EPA grants and State budgetary resources,
whether from a general fund or a dedicated fee system.
Role
There is no consensus in the task force regarding who
should have the lead role for this Activity, but there is
strong support for the idea that funding should be a joint
responsibility. Half of the members believe funding should
be a joint activity, while the other half is split equally
among those who favor a lead role by the States and those
who prefer an EPA lead role. A wide range of opinion appears
also in our interviews with twenty-eight leaders of environ-
mental, industry, and State and local groups. This is the
only functional area where general agreement on lead role is
not found.
Issue
What is the appropriate level and form of EPA funding for
State programs?
o Funding level
One perspective is that the level of grant funding should
be related to the cost of carrying out State responsibilities
under Federal laws. A second, and conflicting, view is that
funding is a short term effort designed to build up State
capability. From this perspective, as States assume program
responsibilities, they are expected to increase their own
sources of funding as Federal funds decrease.
o Funding form
There is concern that the current categorical grant
system does not provide the States enough flexibility for
managing their own environmental needs and priorities. One
potential solution is to establish "environmental block
grants" which might provide the States some flexibility.
The States need greater certainty in funding. Because
of year-to-year variations in the Federal budget (coupled
with the late passage of the budget in recent years), the
States have difficulty planning their programs. With more
accurate funding information, the States can plan what future
funding resources will be necessary based upon a long-term
needs projection, and better articulate those needs before
the appropriate budgetary groups in Congress and the
Administration.
-------
-45-
FUNDINGOF STATE PROGRAMS
1. What is the appropriate level and form of EPA funding for
State programs?
OPTIONS
(i) EPA "pays for services"
proportional to what EPA
would require to run
programs.
(ii) EPA pays (either 100% or on
a split percentage arrange-
ment, such as 50-50, with the
States), for that portion of
State programs which is
responsive to national
requirements and interests
as established by Federal
statutes and regulations.
(iii) EPA reduces grant support to
States over an extended
period while fostering the
development of user fee or
State tax-based substitutes
for funding.
(iv) EPA gives environmental
"block grants"
IMPLICATIONS
Recognizes predominant State
role in direct program adminis-
tration and enforcement.
Unlikely that EPA could ever
get funding to run programs
effectively itself.
Commits Federal government to
long-term contribution to State
programs.
Determining the level of appro-
priate payment will be difficult.
Limits EPA's responsibility for
funding to national requirements.
Establishes principle that if the
Federal government establishes
requirements, it should be pre-
pared to fund them.
Implies long-term Federal contri-
bution to funding.
Determination of "what States
would do without Federal require-
ments" will vary among States,
creating equity problems.
Federal funding reduced over
time to a core level.
Greater emphasis on user fees/
State taxes without expecting
States to fund entire program.
Equity problems in States which
do not adopt fees/taxes.
Principles for establishing
"core" grants unclear.
May result in dramatic increase
in State flexibility.
States can use funds to address
greatest needs.
Negative Congressional reaction
likely.
Some national programs would
benefit while others would
suffer; threatens national
balance.
-------
-46-
FUNDING OF STATE PROGRAMS
OPTIONS
IMPLICATIONS
(v) EPA gives block grants but
with greater restrictions on
allocations among media
programs.
(vi) Continue present categorical
grant arrangements, but
project needs and establish
appropriations over a longer
term to allow for imporved
program planning.
Increased State flexibility,
though less than Option 4.
Addresses concern about "national
balance" of programs.
Lukewarm Congressional reaction
likely.
Addresses "stability of funding"
issue.
Improves Federal/State ability to
plan for future program changes.
Congressional reaction uncertain.
EPA-State negotiations needed
over duration of grant funds and
other grant terms.
-^v:on
::!].-A
DC 20460
------- |