National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and
Technology
October 24,1990 'Madison Hotel •Washington, D.C.
"• Printed on Recycled Paorr
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
Full Council Meeting
October 24, 1990
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Agenda
Minutes ~
Tabl
Tab 2
Tab 3
Tab 4
Tab5
Tab 6 ~
Tab?
Tab8
Tab 9
Tab 10 ~
March 28, 1990
New Insight Issue #1: Permitting and Compliance Policy
New Insight Issue #2: Accounting for the Environment
National Environmental Education and Training Foundation
Environmental Education and Training Committee
State and Local Programs Committee
Technology Innovation and Economics Committee
International Environment Committee
Chemical Accident Prevention Committee
Environmental Financial Advisory Board
NACEPT Bylaws
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
FULL COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 24,1990
THE MADISON HOTEL
15TH AND M STREETS, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
- Dolley Madison Room -
AGENDA
I. 8:00am - 8:30am
H. 8:30am - 9:00am
9:00am - 9:30am
IV. 9:30am - 10:30am
Coffee and Rolls Available
Welcome, Member Introductions, Approval
of Minutes and Review of NACEPT Agenda
Discussion with F. Henry Habicht, n
Deputy Administrator, U.S. EPA
New Insight Issue #1— Presentation and Discussion
Topic: Permitting and Compliance Policy — Barriers to
U.S. Environmental Technology Innovation
1. Mr. Edward S. Keen
President
Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
2. Dr. R. Darryl Banks
Deputy Commissioner
New York Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
3. Mr. David R. Berg
Director
Technology Innovation and
Economics Committee, NACEPT
-------
V. 10:30am - 10:45am
VI. 10:45am-12:15pm
VH. 12:15pm-12:30pm
VIE. 12:30pm- l:30pm
IX. l:30pm-3:00pm
X. 3:00pm - 3:30pm
Break
New Insight Issue #2 - Presentation and Discussion
Topic: Accounting for the Environment --
Reaching a Common Framework
1. Mr. John O'Connor (Panel Facilitator)
Chief
Socioeconomic Data Division
World Bank
2. Dr. Carol Carson
Deputy Director
Bureau of Economic Analysis
U.S. Department of Commerce
3. Dr. Robert Repetto
Senior Economist
World Resources Institute
4. Dr. Robert Costanza
Associate Professor
University of Maryland
National Environmental Education and
Training Foundation
Presentation ~ Ms. Kate Connors
Lunch (NACEPT Members and Staff Only)
Harvest Restaurant, Washington Vista Hotel
1400 M Street, N.W. -- Upstairs 1 Flight
(1 Block East of Madison Hotel on M Street)
Committee Reports (15 minutes each)
Environmental Education and Training
State and Local Programs
Technology Innovation and Economics
International Environment
Chemical Accident Prevention
Environmental Financial Advisory Board
New Council Business
Bylaws Discussion
Meeting Schedule
Issue: New Insight Suggestions
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
-MEETING MINUTES-
MARCH 28, 1990
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
WASHINGTON, B.C.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
I. WELCOME, INTRODUCTIONS AND PRELIMINARY BUSINESS 3
II. INSIGHTS ON EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 3
ffl. INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COMMITTEE 5
IV. STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE 7
V. ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD 9
VL EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMITTEE 11
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS COMMITTEE 13
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 14
IX. NEW BUSINESS 15
-------
T TffKI.C.OME. INTRODUCTIONS AND PRELIMINARY BUSINESS
A. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
1. Dr. Wesley Posvar, Chairman of the Council, convened the third plenary meeting of the
National Advisory Council for Environmental Technology Transfer (NACETT) and welcomed
the Council members and observers. Dr. Posvar noted that there had been a few changes in
membership since the last meeting in October due to some members completing terms or
changing employment and the addition of new members. He also noted the absence of the
Designated Federal Official, R. Thomas Parker, due to illness and identified Mr Robert
Hardaker who would act for Mr. Parker. Dr. Posvar expressed his and the members pleasure
with the progress that had been made by the committees. He provided a brief overview of the
day's agenda, noting the address by Karl deWaal from The Netherlands, the committee
reports, and die discussion of long range planning to be addressed by the committees and the
full Council.
2. Dr. Posvar asked each of the members to introduce themselves and to provide brief
background information for the benefit of the new members. He then asked selected
contributors to the Council, various official guests, and staff of the EPA Office of Cooperative
Environmental Management to introduce themselves. The attendance list is attached,
B. STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Dr. Posvar provided a report to the members on the status of the formal Reports and
Recommendations from three Committees: Education and Training, Technology Innovation
and Economics and State and Local Programs. Dr. Posvar indicated that the draft reports had
been approved by the members through the formal 30 day NACETT review process and had
been transmitted to the Administrator in February 1990. He referred to the Deputy
Administrator's luncheon presentation on the preceding day at which the Deputy noted that the
reports and recommendations were currently undergoing review by senior managers
throughout the Agency with comments expected shortly.
C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Dr. Posvar asked for a motion to approve the Minutes of the October 25,1989 Council
meeting. Mr. O'Connor moved to approve, seconded by Mr. Looby. The minutes were
approved unanimously.
IL INSIGHTS ON EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ISSUES
A. INTRODUCTION
Dr. Posvar noted that, beginning with this meeting, highly recognized officials from various
domestic and international organizations would be invited to provide insights to the Council on
key environmental management topics. He asked Mr. Sam Schulhof, Co-Chair of the
International Technology Transfer Committee to introduce the day's speaker. Mr. Schulhof
introduced Mr. Karl deWaal, Deputy Director of the Division of Technology for Society of
TNO, The Netherlands. Mr. deWaal's division is responsible primarily for environmental and
energy activities. He noted that TNO is the largest research organization in The Netherlands
and is funded by both the public and private sectors.
-------
B. PRESENTATION
1. Mr. deWaal described both the theoretical organization and actual operation of the 12
member European Community (EC). The EC is managed by a Council with representation by
each country's portfolio ministers, an elected Parliament, a Commission, and approximately
17,000 civil servants. The Commission is the principal operational arm, initiating plans and
proposals which are reviewed and approved by the Council. Although the Council must vote
unanimous approval of "codes of directives", which are then transmitted to each member
country for enactment into national laws, approximately 30 new directives are now voted
annually. Enforcement is provided by the European Court of Justice. Industry participates
actively and works within the organization to maintain a balance between environmental
controls and employment Mr. deWaal noted that the chemical manufacturers association in
Europe (CEPHIQ maintains stricter environmental control rules than are promulgated by the
EC.
2. Mr. deWaal discussed some specific environmental issues and activities in The Netherlands.
He noted that The Netherlands has the highest environmental stress factors in the EC resulting
in very strong public support for environmental programs. This has resulted in broad based
negotiation of a very stringent and expensive Dutch National Environmental Policy Plan,
covering cleanup, clean technologies, and changes in public and private management systems.
He stressed their focus on pollution prevention. Mr. deWaal noted several research and
development programs that provide scientific and technical support for the EC programs.
3. Mr. deWaal discussed the very severe environmental problems in the Eastern European
bloc. East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary have applied for EC membership
and are expected to receive major assistance from existing EC countries.
4. Mr. deWaal closed by describing two specific technology transfer examples, one involving
transfer from the U.S. to Europe for wastewater treatment (Carver-Greenfield), and one
involving transfer from the EC to the U.S. for removing odors and volatile organic chemicals
(biofiltration).
5. Dr. Posvar thanked Mr. deWaal for his excellent presentation and suggested that EPA staff
develop a matrix comparing U.S. regional environmental stress factors similar to that presented
by Mr. deWaal for the EC countries.
C. DISCUSSION
Dr. Posvar opened the floor for questions. Mr. Looby asked Mr. deWaal if the environmental
situation in Eastern Europe is as bad as portrayed by the American press. Mr deWaal indicated
that it is, noting mat air emissions in the German Ruhr Valley are five percent of those in
Silesia in Poland, the existence of several "dead" rivers, significantly reduced life spans, and
serious retardation in children due to lead poisoning. Mr. Keen asked about the possibilities for
increased enforcement across the EC. Mr. deWaal noted that it was coming but that existing
national boundaries and varying statutes would delay this process. Mr. Joeres asked about the
possibility of increased EC and bilateral economic cooperation on environmental issues. Mr.
deWaal indicated that this was increasing. Ms. de Larderel noted the creation of the European
Bank which will contribute to development and pollution control projects, including assistance
to Eastern Europe. Mr. Barber noted the use of negotiated solutions with industry in Europe
versus the reliance on litigation in the United States. He asked Mr. deWaal how European
environmental organizations (Greens) viewed these negotiations. Mr. deWaal characterized the
"Greens" as wary of cooperation with industry but also very concerned with possible increased
unemployment
-------
TTT INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COMMITTEE
A. INTRODUCTION
Dr. Posvar introduced the Chair, Mr. John O'Connor, the Co-Chair, Mr. Sam Schulhof; and
the Staff Director, Ms. JanMcAlpine.
B. COMMITTEE REPORT
1. Mr. O'Connor opened his remarks by posing two questions to the Council members:
1) Is it realistic to expect that the Administrator/U.S. Secretary of Environment could or should
take a leading, rather than a supportive, role in the international transfer of environmental
technology?; and 2) How can we get U.S. business to speak with a concerted voice on
international technology transfer applied to the environment?
2. The Chair discussed the difficulty in setting the scope of the Committee given that its generic
issues appear in each of the other committees but expressed the Committee's interest in
focusing the very broad issues in order to develop something that is analytically relevant Mr.
O'Connor discussed his views on ongoing processes of change and their implications in the
international situation. He reiterated his conviction that "command and control" approaches
were even more likely to fail in international relationships and that financial relationships were
being relied on more. He noted that during the Committee's first year, external events had
changed the issues and that the Committee itself had undergone major internal change. Mr
O'Connor discussed the four cross-cutting aspects of technology transfer into which the
Committee was looking: technology itself, process changes in environmentally-oriented
activities, movement of information, and the dynamics of technology transfer. He indicated that
the committee has been considering issues including criteria and standards, obstacles,
monitoring and evaluation, and public/private interfaces.
3. The Chair identified the three work groups that the International Committee has formed:
Technology Transfer and Training, chaired by Eugene Tseng; Technology Transfer Issues in
the European Community, chaired by Sam Schulhof; and Economics and the Environment,
chaired by John McGlennon. The work groups represent the "targets of opportunity" for
technology transfer outside the U.S., into the U.S., and from the U.S. Each group has
developed several strategic issues which represent the major focus for future Committee
activity. Mr. O'Connor highlighted the strategic issues for each group.
4. The Technology Transfer and Training group is addressing needs to a) bring about
institutional changes in training programs because of omissions and barriers in the existing
education and training programs available internationally, b) dispel the "myth of the machines",
i.e., that environmental problems require expensive solutions and big institutions and promote
development and application of appropriate technologies; c) establish a "network of networks"
of education and training programs; d) development of environmentally competent managers;
e) continuity in and monitoring of existing education and training related materials; and f)
integrated, experienced-based training and infusion of 'applied' experience into education and
training programs.
5. The group addressing Technology Transfer in the European Community is focusing on
needs to: a) facilitate the development of health-based goals and standards for environmental
issues; b) include consideration of geographic, cultural and economic differences among
countries when evaluating feasibility of micro and macro environmental technology-transfer, c)
maintain permanent, interactive information systems and special events for networking
technology transfer programs; d) create technology transfer incentives for industry placing the
focus on the use of integrated systems, i.e., low waste and recycling systems; e) establish
-------
common standards and regulations between international governments and non-government
organizations to support the free-flow of technology; and f) increase focus on innovation of
existing technologies as well as search for new technology
6. The Economics and the Environment group is emphasizing needs to: a) devise a measure to
gauge the international market for environmental technology transfer, as well as the United
States' potential share of that market; b) consider the concept of providing a model program of
coordination between U.S. and international agencies, businesses and non governmental
organizations through formulation of regional teams for each of the four less developed
country areas: Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America which would work to develop
regional strategies for economic and environmental solutions; and c) develop mechanisms for
measuring values of natural resources, and for integrating "the global common" (such as
oceans) into that system.
7. Mr. O'Connor assured the Council that the International Committee is in close coordination
with other EPA groups so to ensure that there will not be a duplication of efforts, in areas such
as Global Warming and CFC emissions.
8. Mr. O'Connor returned to his early questions to the Council With respect to the question of
EPA's lead role, he noted three issues: the conflict with EPA's role as regulator, domestic
versus international issue demands, and EPA's and the U.S.'s limited ability to make a
financial commitment relative to other countries. With respect to the second question, Mr.
O'Connor noted the importance of attracting private sector resources and on increasing
industry's voice in macro and micro technology and investment decision-making.
C DISCUSSION
1. Dr. Posvar thanked Mr. O'Connor for the presentation and opened the floor to comments.
Dr. Posvar posed the first question: Does die information presented today supercede the draft
report that the International Committee put forward for review in October? Mr. O'Connor
responded that it did and that the draft recommendations were a necessary step in the process
of moving toward the current recommendations.
2. Mr. Looby asked if the Committee intended on extending beyond the European Community
focus and address other areas such as the Pacific Rim. Mr. O'Connor assured Mr. Lobby that
in the future its focus would broaden, however current developments in Europe and the EC
have created major targets of opportunity which the Committee was pursuing.
3. Dr. Ashford was skeptical that other countries would be interested in US technology, given
their own progress in innovation and application of new technologies. He also noted that the
U.S. is ahead in the area of toxic use reduction and sharing this information could reduce U.S.
competitive advantage. Mr. O'Connor responded by noting the Committee's intention to look
at market issues very broadly, to address changing the incentive structure and moving "up the
pipe," and to try to identify what is really transportable into the international context Mr.
Schulhof added that the Committee's direction is really oriented to low or no waste
technologies and energy efficiency. The U.S., he believes, has a lot to learn from other
countries, such as The Netherlands, who have been emphasizing these approaches. Dr.
Posvar added that the Europeans have had a much greater need to move ahead in these areas
and have been much more successful at attracting needed investment capital.
-------
TV STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS rOMMTTTEE
A. INTRODUCTION
Dr. Posvar introduced the Chair, Mr. Terry Novak; the Co-Chair, Mr. Walter Barber, and the
Staff Director, Mr. Robert Hardaker.
B. COMMITTEE REPORT
1. Mr. Novak referred the Council to a matrix contained in their information packets describing
the current implementation status in the Agency of each of the Committee's recommendations.
He expressed his view that the Committee's success to date was due in part to its emphasis on
"plain language" and its focus on real people and real places.
2. Mr. Novak noted that the Committee's recommendations were being reviewed in the Agency
and restated the Committee's support for a) issuance of a policy urging a change in the
Agency's organizational culture away from its traditional command and control orientation to
one emphasizing cooperative relationships with states and local governments recognizing that
we are each members of the family of governments; b) the need to prioritize Agency efforts
from the bottom up, responding to the environmental needs and priorities of the states and EPA
regions; c) the need to empower local governments to take action locally and to listen to local
concerns; and d) the need to share data and information freely among the family of
governments.
3. Mr. Novak discussed the Committee's work with EPA's new Small Community
Coordinator, Ann Cole, and efforts to improve implementation of the 1980 Regulatory
Flexibility Act to assure more sensitive development and implementation of regulations
affecting small communities. He noted the Committee's creation of a new Small Communities
Subcommittee to address these and other issues identified in the last year's Committee Report
and Recommendations. Mr. Novak indicated that the Committee may recommend that EPA test
the impact of proposed regulations in a statistical sample of small communities, a proposal put
forward by Mr. Barber.
4. Mr. Novak briefed the members concerning the mid-December recycling/reuse panel
sponsored by NACETT and chaired by the committee, noting that its report and
recommendations had been favorably received by the Administrator. He expressed his hope
that this would assist the Agency in development of amendments to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act and formulation of a Pollution Prevention Bill
5. The Chair described the testimony provided by several local and state officials at the
preceding day's committee meeting. Each of the three communities have municipal landfills that
have been designated as Superfund sites and each municipality has been designated a
Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) for cleanup. He specifically discussed Hastings,
Nebraska, a community of 23,000 people that has five Superfund sites. He indicated that two
state officials had also met with the committee to provide their views concerning EPA's recent
Interim Municipal Settlement Policy, their enforcement /delegation relationships with EPA, and
their states' views on municipal Superfund compliance.
6. The Chair and Co-Chair both discussed the negative impact of the current Agency
accountability system and tracking measures on achieving positive changes in the Agency
culture and EPA/state relationships. Mr. Novak drew an analogy to oversight of performance
of local police departments, noting that community officials judge effectiveness by
"community-oriented policing" and crime prevention rather than use of a nightstick or the
number of criminals arrested per year. He urged that the number of enforcement actions not be
-------
a key measure of the Agency's success, that prevention of violations be rewarded, and that
"bean count" performance tracking systems should assign credit to both EPA and states for
individual facilities compliance. He cited support for this approach in the draft EPA study
"Enforcement in the 1990's." He noted apparent support for the Committee's
recommendations by the Administrator and Deputy Administrator and the need to transfer this
message clearly to die Agency's employees. Mr. Barber added that an EPA regional
administrator should obtain equal credit for taking a needed enforcement action as for assuring
that a state takes it. He also expressed his view that measures of performance are critical, but
that the measures should contribute to cleaning up the environment and should especially not be
counter-productive to that goal. He urged that measures be identified that contribute to mutual
respect among the parties. He noted that while senior officials express support for a policy of
cooperation and mutual respect, the lack of real implementation continues to contribute to
extremely poor relations. Mr. Novak noted that EPA's approach to implementation of Clean
Air Act Amendments will be viewed by the states and local governments as an "acid test" of
EPA's sincerity about "partnership."
7. Mr. Novak noted the committee's recommendations for increased municipal environmental
auditing and for expanded development of regional and state risk analyses and risk-based
priority setting. He expressed support for the Agency's decisions to accelerate these processes
in Regions and to increase flexibility to re-allocate resources based on identified environmental
risks.
8. Mr. Novak expressed the committee's support for maintaining technical assistance and peer
matching projects with the National Governors Association, International City Management
Association, and the Self-Help program with the Rensselaerville Institute in New York State.
He also indicated that NACETT would be creating a Pollution Prevention Coordinating
Committee involving members from each committee.
C DISCUSSION
1. Mr. Novak and Mr. Barber offered three key questions to members of the Council for
discussion: 1) What can be done to implement the partnership concept to make it real?; 2)
Should we change the evaluation measures in the Agencys accountability system with regional
officials to more effectively promote state delegations and cooperations?; and 3) Could we
develop a protocol for municipalities to evaluate their problems and priorities, and could we
enlist pro bono assistance from universities and local professionals to help them complete it?
2. Mr. Liskowitz supported the feasibility of the third approach by noting a checklist prepared
by his institute that is targeted to helping local officials make decisions about construction of
municipal incinerators. Responding to the first question, Mr. Cortese referred to a 1984 EPA
study of several decentralized organizations which concluded that successful organizations
involved field units in policy development and relied on "carrots" versus "sticks", the opposite
of EPA's traditional approach. He added that distrust was still pervasive and that clearly EPA
had not changed. He also indicated that the Education and Training Committee was addressing
aspects of these same problems. Mr. Barrack, representing EPA Region n, suggested that pan
of the problem is the rate of staff turnover and the number of inexperienced people in very
sensitive jobs. Mr. Barber agreed with the issue but responded that the problem re-emphasizes
the need for continual restatement of expectations and ongoing training and education. Ms.
Turner reiterated the importance of expanding industry's role in helping municipalities.
3. Dr. Posvar asked for discussion of the role of regional institutes that are currently being
established with EPA help, especially in EPA Regions 3,6 and 9. Mr. Hardaker described the
specific needs being addressed and the general framework of each of the three EPA-sponsored
organizations. He added that other regions were also expressing interest in creating institutes.
8°
-------
He also noted a project currently underway in his office to document and disseminate
information concerning over 100 university-based environmental technology research centers.
4. Referring to problems in his own State of Pennsylvania. Dr. Posvar asked what might be
done to help fill the "vacuum of political structure" between the state and county and city levels,
especially with respect to planning and sharing of services. Mr. Hardaker described the
existence of a number of municipal and county-level councils of government and special
districts that have operated successfully, but currently lack resources needed to exercise
significant coordination and leadership for environmental or other planning.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD
A. INTOODUCTION
Dr. Posvar introduced Mr. Herbert Barrack, Executive Director of the Board.
B. BOARD REPORT
1. Mr. Barrack described the mission of the Board as helping the Administrator and the Agency
respond to innovative and creative ways to finance infrastructure into the 1990's, prompted
primarily by the phaseout of the wastewater treatment construction grants program and the
passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. He noted that the previous availability of enormous
grant program funds had not required EPA previously to "be a player" in the private financing
markets. In order to help EPA carve out a reasonable, balanced position now, the Board is
comprised of 33 officials representing a full cross-section of decision makers. Mr. Barrack
identified four work groups that have been created to deal with the major emphasis issues
distilled from the Board's first meeting in October a) environmental tax policy, b) small
community financing strategies, c) public sector financial options, and d) private sector
incentives.
2. With respect to tax policy issues, Mr. Barrack indicated that the Board plans to recommend
legislative changes to the Administrator to address state and local governments' ability to use
tax exempt bonds, reclassification to remove volume caps, alternative minimum taxes, retention
of interest earned on tax exempt bonds and, referencing Mr. Ashford's proposals, pollution
prevention-related tax incentives. Mr. Barrack emphasized the Board's efforts to define policies
and recommendations that are realistic and attainable and that will contribute to enhanced
productivity.
3. Concerning small community financing issues, Mr. Barrack noted inter-relationships with
the State and Local Programs Committee recommendations and activities. He cited examples
of some possible recommendations including State Revolving Fund set asides for small
communities, assistance programs such as the Rensselaerville Institute Self-
Help project, grants, and bond banks to underwrite low- or no-interest loans.
4. In the area of public sector financing options, Mr. Barrack indicated that the Board is
looking at recommendations related to increased funding as well as possible operations
management changes to State Revolving Funds. States have expressed strong support for
increasing their ability to draw down funds more quickly and to leverage the funds more
heavily. In addition, they are looking at bond banks and expanding the revolving fund
approach to helping meet other infrastructure needs such as drinking water, solid waste and
hazardous waste.
5. In terms of increasing private sector involvement, Mr. Barrack discussed various
approaches, including additional legislative changes to permit private ownership in federally
-------
assisted wastewater projects, expanded use of "turnkey" projects, increased cost recovery for
environmental services, and dealing with massive liability and insurance issues for
environmental cleanup.
6. Mr. Barrack ended by expressing his belief that support for changes of these types existed
in the administration and that the Board's efforts to work more closely with industry and the
financial community were greatly assisting the debate and development of feasible proposals.
C. DISCUSSION
1. Mr. Novak asked if the Board was addressing the problems small communities face in
obtaining municipal bond insurance. Mr. Barrack indicated that those were largely SEC
requirements and were not yet being addressed. Ms. Florini cited local difficulties associated
with financing municipal incinerators versus recycling facilities, i.e., "lack of a level playing
field" and the need to help level the field. Mrs. Pfund, a Board member, noted that the private
sector financing group had been focusing on municipal issues and traditional pollution control
infrastructure financing questions and had not yet moved aggressively into industrial and
pollution prevention incentive opportunities.
2. Mr. Ashford raised his concerns that the Board, while addressing real world problems
facing states and communities today, n6t lose sight of long term needs and opportunities for the
pollution prevention transformation we are trying to effectuate. He added his concerns that, for
example, assisting incineration reduces the incentive for industry to prevent and that the Board
was overemphasizing public sector financing and was not organized to emphasize non-
traditional solutions. Mr. Barrack responded that the Board was sensitive to these issues and
was trying to address tax law changes as a primary initial focus.
3. Mr. Kotas urged the Board to consider recommendations with respect to shifting more
Highway Trust funds to mass transit. Mr. Looby expressed his view that the public sector
group needs to focus on augmenting work done in the water quality program to develop better
data on scope of the total problem and funding needs in all media areas. He also indicated that
more money, including more federal money, will be needed.
4. Ms. Alois! de Larderel stressed the need for two complementary objectives: to use market
forces to shift consumers to less polluting products and to find the funds to pay for cleaning
up. She expressed concern that work on the first objective was not evident in die presentation.
Mr. Barrack responded that the Board intended to deal with these questions, but that it was
focused now on trying to develop feasible tax reform proposals to stimulate needed public and
private investments. Mr. Ashford reiterated that the Board should, while addressing its shorter
term municipal financing priorities, also focus on creating financial and regulatory waste
reduction and prevention incentives at all governmental levels and in the private sector. Mr.
Barber added his support for reducing subsidies as quickly as possible and assuring full cost
recovery from the users of environmental services. Mr. Looby urged boldness but also
continued pragmatism on the part of the Board and Council; he noted that even a 50% reduction
in waste generation would still require siting and paying for landfills and incinerators.
5. Mr. Devine cited the serious problems that are developing for businesses unable to obtain
loan financing due to potential or actual environmental liabilities. Mr. Ashford and Dr. Posvar
both noted the value of identifying and reporting liabilities to encourage improved risk
management and cleanup. Mr. Keen asked if the Board was addressing the related issue of
environmental liability reporting on corporate balance sheets. Mr. Barrack responded that the
Board was awaiting a decision by the national Financial Accounting Standards Board.
10
-------
6. Mr. Power asked if the Board intended to submit recommendations through the Council or
directly to the Administrator. Mr. Barrack committed that all recommendations will follow the
formal NACETT review process.
The Council adjourned for Lunch.
VI. EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMITTEE
A. INTRODUCTIONS
Dr. Posvar introduced Dr. Erhard Joeres, Acting Co-Chairman, and Kate Connors, Staff
Director. Neither Dr. Hendee, the Chair, nor Mr. Herbst, the Co-Chair could attend the
meeting.
B. COMMITTEE REPORT
1. Dr. Joeres described the Committee as becoming more concrete in its vision of how to
develop and measure environmental literacy and in setting time horizons for moving to the
goal. He expressed the Committee's view that EPA cannot lead this effort or be an effective
educator until it has proven credibility including, for example, recycling, energy conservation,
water conservation. EPA and other agencies, as well as the Congress, should lead by example.
2. Dr. Joeres asked Kate Connors to discuss the status of implementation within EPA of the
Committee's recommendations. With respect to the need for Presidential leadership, Ms.
Connors noted a mention in the State of the Union address and expected recognition in
formation of a Cabinet agency. The recommendation dealing with expanded delivery networks
is being implemented, largely through the TVA-EPA agreement leading to formation of an
expected 100 centers by 1995. Creation of an EPA Office of Environmental Education was
recommended; internal Agency planning is well along. The same recommendation addressed
creation of a public/private foundation to fund environmental education and training. The Co-
Chair, Bob Herbst, has been actively involved in developing its framework and legislative
support for the foundation concept With respect to improved Federal agency coordination,
Agency staff and NACETT representatives have met with representatives of 14 agencies to
establish an ongoing forum for communication and action. Finally, the Committee
recommended development of a longer-term strategy for public education; a draft is expected
within a month or so.
3. Dr. Joeres discussed the Committee's efforts to begin to establish a concrete framework of
activities and projects on its philosophical base of "Environmental Stewardship." From this
base, the committee intends to identify or develop education and training systems focusing on:
a) pollution prevention, environmental preservation, and environmental restoration; b)
economics and the environment; and c) environmental and public health. Dr. Joeres identified
the individual members and contributors who will participate in each of the focus groups. Dr.
Joeres also discussed the general time table for the work groups leading to recommendations
back to the Committee in June.
4. Dr. Joeres asked Dr. Cortese to discuss specific plans for the pollution prevention group.
Dr. Cortese provided the rationale for establishing a pollution prevention group: we need to
change management systems away from command and control, to develop cross-trained
agency staffs and to expand the number of universities teaching pollution prevention as part of
their core curriculum. Dr. Cortese offered three strategies: a) to train new environmental
management specialists in all technical disciplines with a pollution prevention mind set; b) to
inculcate educational systems and curricula with a broader environmental consciousness—to
develop the same concept of responsibility for environmental protection in other-than-
11
-------
environmental engineering students; and c) to educate industry to the economic benefits of
pollution prevention, Le, minimizing consumption of resources, minimizing pollution, and
sustainable development This will be implemented initially through an international round
table of university presidents. In addition, the committee is considering recommending a
pollution prevention orientation program for all EPA employees—from new staff through senior
managers. Third, the committee is considering proposing a recognition program for academic
institutions that act as models of environmental responsibility. Dr. Cortese noted that the way
education occurs is as important as the content Dr. Cortese also expressed support for Mr.
Barber's suggestion that universities provide assistance to their local communities. Dr. Joeres
cited the pollution prevention example as a possible paradigm for other environmental
education delivery priority areas.
5. Dr. Joeres asked Ms. Connors to discuss the Committee's activities, especially those of Mr.
Herbst, in creating a public/private environmental education and training foundation. Ms.
Connors described work done to date to develop background materials and proposed legislative
language for ultimate consideration by the Congress. This proposal is considered by the
Committee as a mechanism for leveraging limited public funds and as a more viable alternative
to a controversial fines-based approach. The proposed section 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
is modeled on the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and would have a board of directors
appointed by the Administrator. A key conceptual element is that private sector contributors
would provide not only financial resources but also intellectual resources dedicated to improved
environmental education and training. The concept has the Agency's support and is currently
being considered on the HilL
C. DISCUSSION
Dr. Posvar opened the floor to questions and discussion. Mr. Kotas, head of EPA's Pollution
Prevention Office, expressed his interest and support for energizing leadership in the
universities, for assisting small communities, and for integrating pollution prevention into all
curricula. Mr. Kotas noted that an EPA staff training program was already under development,
but should be expanded to new employee orientation as well. In addition, he cited a major K-
12 curriculum development project underway and invited NACETT participation in its
development Dr. Ashfbrd added a request that the Committee support changes in university
engineering curricula to assist design of new technologies, not simply copying of old plants.
Ms. Florini added a suggestion that NACETT itself act as a better pollution prevention model
by avoiding use of disposable pens, bleached paper and single-sided copies, and so on. Ms.
Florini also suggested that the Committee look at the connections between industrial waste
streams and consumer products. Dr. Cortese agreed with die need for looking not only at
industry but at consumers' personal responsibilities as well He added that the "three R's" in
school need to be expanded to "reduce, reuse and recycle." Responding to Ms. Pfund's
question on the scope of the international university president's meeting agenda, Dr.Cortese
expressed his view that the emphasis should be on convincing the presidents to infuse
environmental examples into all curricula. Dr. Posvar expressed his concern with the relying
on the presidents to mandate these changes. He encouraged efforts to energize students and
faculty groups—bottom up—to promote and demand changes.
12
-------
VTT TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS COMMITTEE
A. INTRODUCTIONS
Dr. Posvar introduced the Chair, Mr. William Carpenter; the Co-Chair, Dr. Nicholas Ashford,
and the Staff Director, Mr. David Berg.
B. COMMITTEE REPORT
1. Mr. Carpenter indicated that the report would cover the status of the focus group on
permitting, discuss formation of four additional focus groups, and propose a recommendation
that the Council formally review a legislative proposal dealing with creation of a new national
environmental research institute.
2. Mr. Carpenter noted with pleasure that various activities are currently underway in the
Agency related to Committee recommendations. He added, however, mat EPA still lacks an
environmental technology innovation policy and strategy, representing a basic defect and a
challenge to the Agency and Committee. He indicated that the Committee is targeting on how to
make useful suggestions for an aggressive action on incentives to encourage all stakeholders to
help identify more innovative technologies. He added that he was encouraged mat two of the
new focus groups are being formed at the request of Agency program offices reflecting the
increasing support and institutionalization of NACETT in the Agency; that the Agency was
about to create a Bureau of Environmental Statistics to help the Agency better gauge risks and
target responses; that the Agency had created a Technology Innovation Office and that it would
be working with the Committee.
3. Mr. Carpenter noted that the Permitting Focus Group had met twice and that the members
were very optimistic about it as well as the Liability focus group. He indicated he anticipated
proposing recommendations by the fall meeting. The Permitting Group is looking at permitting
processes, the relationship of compliance to technology solutions, and inconsistencies among
programs.
4. Discussing new focus groups, Mr. Carpenter identified the first as Remediation Technology
(working with Martin Rivers and Walt Kovalick of the Technology Innovation Office)
designed to foster innovative remediation technologies for Superfund sites. It is expected to
move very quickly to develop networks to help accelerate transfer of information—to link up
the source of technology with the person who applies it with the person making the remedial
decision. With respect to the new Liability group, Dr. Ashford noted that liability issues are
linked up with a complex mix of regulatory, insurance, and right to know requirements. He
asked the Council members for information on successful and unsuccessful technology
development to help identify the most important issues for the focus group. Mr. Carpenter
indicated that a focus group on a water quality based pollution prevention initiative was being
established at the request of the Office of Water. The last new focus group will examine EPA's
practices with respect to funding technology research and development and providing for
implementation of the new technologies: the key question is whether all of the good ideas
being generated being used.
C. DISCUSSION
Dr. Posvar opened the floor for questions and discussion. Mr. O'Connor asked what the
committee saw as incentives for diffusion of new, potentially proprietary, technologies.
Mr. Carpenter indicated that the focus was on technologies developed by the government, to
identify if the right forcing functions, encouragements and incentives were in place and to see if
there are cultural impediments to working with industry. Dr. Joeres asked how the committee
13
-------
was addressing the needed transition to performance-based standards and regulations. Dr.
Ashford indicated that ultimately a package of proposed innovation waivers, performance
standards, specification standards will be developed through a later regulatory strategies focus
group. Mr. Barber identified a growing issue whereby companies are claiming ownership of all
technologies developed in site cleanup, even where they are entirely site specific. Mr. Barber
also asked for clarification of the scope of the Liability Focus Group. Dr. Ashford indicated
that it was inclusive. He stated that the objective was not to assign liability, but to identify the
influences of liability on development and adoption of technology. Dr. Ashford assured Ms
Aloisi de Larderel that the liability group would address potential liability issues from
production process through consumer exposure stages. Mr. Lindahl provided a brief rationale
for the Office of Water technologies focus group: the Water Office, faced with a nearly
impossible task of reevaluating and reissuing a large number of effluent guidelines, wants to
work with industry and other stakeholders, through NACETT, to determine how to do it
more effectively, including "up the pipe" pollution prevention approaches.
D. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Mr. Carpenter proposed that the Council establish an ad hoc committee to review a federal
legislative proposal to establish a National Environmental Research Institute (NERI). He noted
that the concept had been brought to the attention of the Committee by the House of
Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology (CSS&T). Mr. Carpenter
introduced Ms. Laura Bryant, senior staffer for Congressman Saxton, to discuss the NERI
concept, and to pose the questions that the congressional committee would like NACETT to
address. Ms. Bryant characterized NERI as meeting a perceived need for basic environmental
non-health research. The Institute would address problems holistically, invest in needed long
horizon innovation, work with industry, act as a data bank sharing information across all
segments, and serve as a public and professional educational resource. The CSS&T is
currently looking at the National Institutes of Health as an organizational model. Dr. Posvar
asked if the Agency had yet taken a policy position on the legislative proposal; Mr. Berg
indicated that it had not Mr. Carpenter asked Ms. Bryant to specify, if possible, the questions
NACETT was being asked to address. Ms. Bryant indicated that the CSS&T had not narrowed
the options significantly at this time and was receptive to a range of input Mr. Busch asked if
the institute was intended to be independent from EPA; Ms. Bryant indicated that it likely
would be. Mr. Busch indicated that Dr. Liskowitz would take the lead for developing
NACETT comments. Mr. Barber urged that review of the proposal be handled informally by
the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee rather than create another ad hoc body.
Dr. Posvar agreed that the questions and range of issues being presented were very broad and
complex. Given the complexities and the limited time remaining at this meeting, Dr. Posvar
asked Mr. Carpenter to have the committee prepare more information and an action proposal to
be discussed at the next Executive Committee meeting.
Mr. Carpenter announced that he was stepping down as Chair of the Committee, that Dr.
Ashford would assume the chairmanship and mat Mr. Thomas Devine would become vice
chair. Mr. Carpenter indicated that he would continue to work on the Committee.
VIII.SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Dr. Posvar provided a brief overview of the day's discussions and noted that NACETT had
completed an extremely productive year. He added that each of the committees were now
working at the "action level where things can happen in viable groups" and that he expected the
committee interactions to continue to expand. He expressed his sense of the need for NACETT
to continue to build trust among all parties and to be as hard-headed and realistic as possible to
impress industry, in particular, with the possibilities for cooperation.
14
-------
IX. NEW BUSINESS
A. PQLLUTIONPREVENTIQN COORDINATING COMMITTEE
Mr. Hardaker discussed formation of a coordinating group, comprised of two representatives
from each standing committee, to assure communication and coordination on the increasing
number of NACETT pollution prevention issues and activities. Mr. Hardaker indicated that the
group would likely be led by the State and Local Programs Committee. He asked the chairs of
each committee to identify representatives and to report on respective committee activities at the
next Executive Committee meeting.
B. NEXT MEETING
The next scheduled meeting of the full Council will be October 23 and 24, 1990, at the
Madison Hotel, Washington, D.C. Further information will be forthcoming.
C. COMMITTEE PLANNING
Dr. Posvar asked Mr. Hardaker to speak to longer-term planning objectives for NACETT. Mr.
Hardaker noted that the International Committee had enlisted the help of a facilitator at its last
meeting and was developing a very effective longer term view for committee objectives and
activities. He indicated that each committee is being asked to develop a longer term, i.e.,
through 1992, strategic plan to identify overall direction, financial support needs and cross
committee coordination issues. He noted the increasing connections among each of the
committees' agendas and the role of the Executive Committee in providing cross-committee
communication. •
D. INSIGHTS PRESENTATIONS
Dr. Posvar restated the intention to continue to bring in external speakers to provide insights on
various important domestic and international topics. The Chair asked members to identify
proposed topics and speakers for future meetings to the staff.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The Chair asked for a motion to adjourn. The motion was moved, seconded, and the meeting
was adjourned at 4:05 p JD,
Respectfully Submi
.obert L. Hardaker, Acting Director
15
-------
Issue #1
-------
National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology
NEW INSIGHT ISSUE
Presentation and Discussion
Topic #1
Permitting and Compliance Policy
Barriers to U. S. Environmental
Technology Innovation
Full Council Meeting
October 24th, 1990
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
AND TECHNOLOGY
Permitting and Compliance Policy:
Barriers to U.S. Environmental
Technology Innovation
Report and Recommendations of the
Technology Innovation and
Economics Committee
October 1990
-------
DRAFT
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Man's continuing challenge to the environment varies with the growth of human
populations and with changes in economic activity, complexity, and competition. As
Seemingly finite resources diminish, the pressm* fa satisfy ha$ic human need$ fliyj wants
creates demand for advanced processes of production. In turn, the need grows for
advanced scientific gauges of the nature and degree of public health and environmental
stress, and tor inrravative technological solutions to evolving environmental problems. If
the rate of technology innovation fo environmental purposes is kss than required, a gap is
created between our ability to define and target eavironiuental problems, and our ability to
solve them.
EPA's emphasis on the measurement of risk and the reduction of •
significant risks sets an important new standard for the targeting of .
environmental protection programs. Equally, the national capacity to
reduce these high priority environmental risks is directly related to our
ability to produce technological solutions.
The rate of technology innovation for environmental purposes thus limits the range of
policy options available to the-nation's political and environmental leadership. Our
regulations, administrative processes, permit systems, and enforcement practices are
directly impacted by the nation's ability to produce innovative technological solutions. In
turn, these environmental systems impact the rate of technology innovation for
environmental purposes by fostering or constraining the innovation process.
The progress we have made over the past 20 years in protecting human health and the
environment has been enabled by the development and deployment of then-innovative
technologies for pollution control and pollution prevention. If we are to sustain a balance
between environmental and economic objectives, technology innovation for environmental
purposes will have to continue and increase. EPA information shows, however,
that for at least the past decade the rate of investment in environmental
technology development and commercialization has lagged. This reflects a net
disincentive, one which persists, for technology innovation for environmental purposes.
The Technology Innovation and Economics (TIE) Committee of.
NACEPT concludes that accelerated development and commercialization of
innovative technology for environmental purposes is necessary to improve
environmental quality and enhance economic productivity. If we are to receive
the full benefit of such technology innovation to reduce me risks associated wim ate Mghest
priority environmental problems, the market dysfunction symbolized by this
lagging rate of investment in technology innovation for environmental
purposes will have to be addressed in a number of areas, without losing
sight of the primary objective of protecting human health and the
environment These areas exist both within and outside of the
environmental regulatory system. It should be recognized that current policies are
neither helpful nor benign and that the philosophical neutrality of statutes, legislative
histories, regulatory policy, and regulations is hampering national efforts to both solve
environmental problems and increase economic productivity. The Federal Technology
Transfer Act of 1986 (FTTA), which is as yet underutilized, represents the beginning of a
change to a more helpful governmental role.
-------
DRAFT
This document summarizes the TIE Committee's investigation of the
impact of two key elements of the environmental regulatory system in the
United States — permitting and compliance — on such technology
innovation. The TIE Committee has completed an extensive fact finding process which
gathered information from the segments of society mat have the most at stake. These
"stakeholders" include regulated communities, regulators (federal, state, and local),
providers of environmental products and services, the providers' investors, and the
organized environmental community.
The TEE Committee concludes that permitting and compliance systems,
as they function today, discourage all stakeholder groups from taking the
risks necessary to develop innovative technologies — .whether for pollution
prevention or for pollution control — and to bring them into routine use to
solve environmental problems. The Committee concludes that
uncertainties, costs, and delays associated with the permitting of tests and
of early commercial uses of innovative environmental technologies, and the
unpredictability and inconsistency of enforcement, are significant
disincentives that discourage technology innovation for environmental
purposes. These combine to create a high-risk, low-reward situation that
needs to be rectified if more opportunities for environmental technology
innovation are to be realized for solving environmental problems.
At the same time, the TIE Committee has reinforced the notion that the
environmental statutes and regulations, and their enforcement, "make the
market" for these very same technologies. Rigorous enforcement of existing
regulations and requirements is critical to the realization of already-planned environmental
progress. Enforcement could be a primary motivator of regulated organizations to comply,
using conventional and innovative technological solutions.
This report documents the dysfunction in die marketplace for environmental
technology and its causes within permitting and compliance systems, and characterizes the
conceptual framework of permitting and compliance systems mat would best encourage
environmental innovation. It further recommends specific changes in policy and procedure
for permitting and compliance programs that will correct the market dysfunction and
thereby maximize die possibility of technology innovation for environmental purposes.
The TIE Committee's primary recommendation is that the Administrator
of EPA, working within EPA, with state and local agencies, and with the
Congress, make interrelated improvements in environmental permitting and
compliance systems necessary to foster technology innovation for
environmental purposes 'within the overriding foal of protecting human
health and the environment These recommendations and improvements, which fall
into five categories, are to:
1. Modify permitting systems to aid the development and testing of
innovative technologies for environmental purposes.
1.1 Institute a working system of specialized permits in all media for testing innovative
technologies for environmental purposes, including
a. Permits for specialized testing facilities.
b. Permits for testing at other locations.
-------
DRAFT
1.2 Develop a system of dedicated centers for the testing of innovative environmental
technologies.
1.3 Develop a system for cross-media and cxpss-jurisdictional coordination of the review
of permit applications for (a) testing facilities and (b) tests at other locations.
2. Implement permitting processes that aid the commercial introduction of
innovative technologies for environmental purposes.
2.1 Increase the flexibility of permitting processes involved in introducing environmentally
beneficial technologies into commercial use.
2.2 Streamline the process of reviews of permit applications for newly introduced
innovative technologies that have environmental benefit, coordinate their review, and
afford them high priority.
2.3 Assure national consistency in the consideration of proposed uses of innovative
technologies, subject to site-specific limitations.
2.4 Institute a system of incentives for users of innovative technologies.
3. Use compliance programs to encourage the use of innovative
technologies to solve environmental problems.
3.1 Modify environmental compliance programs to create an expectation of the need to
comply. This is necessary to create markets for innovative technology.
3.2 EPA and state agencies should practice and encourage flexibility in the choice of
remedies during enforcement actions, aiming at encouraging the use of innovative
technologies under appropriate circumstances.
3.3 EPA, state agencies, and other regulatory authorities should institute mechanisms to
increase coordination in compliance programs across the media and across
jurisdictional lines.
4. Support regulators and other involved communities to maximize the
effectiveness of improvements recommended in permitting and compliance
systems.
4.1 Institute a system of incentives, training, and support to retain experienced federal and
state permit writers who participate in permitting decisions involving the testing or
early commercial use of innovative environmental technologies.
4.2 Institute a system of incentives, training, and support to retain experienced federal and
state inspectors and compliance staff who participate in decisions involving
innovative environmental technologies.
4.3 Provide support to prospective innovative technology permittees (including technology
developers and technology users).
4.4 Emphasize the role of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) as
consultant to federal, state, and local government permit writers and inspectors to
provide information on innovative technologies for environmental purposes.
-------
DRAFT
4.5 Institute systems to provide the public with information and support related to the
testing and use of innovative environmental technology.
5. Identify and remove regulatory obstacles which create unnecessary
inflexibility and uncertainty or otherwise inhibit technology innovation for
environmental purposes.
5.1 The Administrator should revise delisting regulations under RCRA Subtitle C to allow
process-specific, rather man site-specific, delisting decisions.
5.2 The Administrator should revise the hazardous waste (RCRA Subtitle Q regulations to
include special provisions for small quantity generator hazardous wastes, taking into
account their unique case.
5.3 The Administrator should clarify a number of definitions of terms of art under RCRA.
5.4 The Administrator should revise regulations to direct permits to describe the
performance requirements of the technology on which they are based, but not to
prescribe a specific technology.
5.5 The Administrator should direct that users of mobile treatment units (MTUs) be
exempt from HSWA Corrective Action triggers and further mat EPA allow national,
regional, and state permits for MTUs, with an opportunity for local community input
and for consideration of site-specific factors.
5.6 The Administrator should direct that RCRA land ban treatment standards based on
incineration as BDAT should not automatically be applied to all site remediation
technologies.
The TIE Committee has also concluded that fundamental changes to the
environmental regulatory system will be needed to create incentives
encouraging the environmental technology innovation process. It is
important to be clear that the measures recommended in this document will
not fully solve all of the fundamental problems leading to a market
dysfunction and an unsatisfactory rate of technology innovation for
environmental purposes. These problems derive from the way the central approach to
regulation in the United States — "best available technology"-based regulations — is
frequently used today. Policy makers should reconsider the current reliance on this
approach, remove rigidity, and create opportunities to develop and use innovative
technologies. To do this, they should revise regulatory processes to create an incentive
structure that fosters technology innovation and, more broadly, encourages each
stakeholder group to contribute to the search for solutions to environmental problems. A
systematic analysis of the motivations - economic and otherwise — of each stakeholder
group will be necessary to design a complementary set of effective improvements.
The " Report and Recommendations" includes five major sections:
• Section I is this Executive Summary.
• Section n, the "Introduction," outlines the "Background" for the
report and the "TIE Committee's Goals and Process."
-------
DRAFT
Section III contains the "Findings" that underpin the TIE
Committee's rationale for its recommendations to strengthen
permitting and compliance systems, and to identify and remove
regulatory glitches that impede technology innovation.
Section IV describes the Committee's "Rationale for System
Changes" — its analysis of the key issues surrounding the
relationship between technology innovation for environmental
purposes and permitting and compliance systems.
Section V, Recommendations for Action and Commentary," includes
an "Executive Summary of Recommendations" and the "Detailed
Recommendations for Action and Commentary". This final section
provides a listing of each of the recommendations and
subrecommendations and analyzes each.
-------
National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology
NEW INSIGHT ISSUE
Presentation and Discussion
Topic #2
Accounting for the Environment:
Reaching a Common Framework
Full Council Meeting
October 24th, 1990
-------
Issue #2
-------
NACEPT ISSUE DISCUSSION-BACKGROUND PAPER
Accounting for the Environment:
Reaching a Common Framework
Integrating environmental degradation and natural resource depletion into national
and global economic accounting mechanisms is the focus of a mainstream debate over the
relationship between economics and the environment A subject long discussed by
economists, the issue has become a major conference theme during tile last few years. It
was spurred on by the Brundtland Report, which called for far-ranging international
economic action for environmental protection, and by the leadership of the United Nations
in reaching international agreements such as the Montreal Protocol
The NACEPT panel of speakers, chaired by John O'Connor, Chief of the
Socioeconomic Data Division at the World Bank, will present an overview of key issues
surrounding the debate for the Council This will be followed by a discussion with the
Council.
The panel speakers represent three of the major sectors taking part in the debate.
Dr. Carol Carson, Deputy Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department
of Commerce, will discuss the opportunities and barriers connected with integrating
environment into the GNP of the United States. Dr. Robert Repetto, Senior Economist and
Program Director for the World Resources Institute, noted for his bold reassessment of
traditional national income accounting methods, will discuss the issues surrounding that
approach. Finally, Dr. Robert Costanza, Associate Professor, University of Maryland,
will address the view of the ecological community and its conflicts in bridging the gap
between economist's valuation approaches and its own needs and values.
Background
There are many ecological dynamics that cannot be quantified by traditional
economic means. However, these same dynamics affect and are affected by economic
activity.
Given the difficulties in "folding" environmental factors into an assessment of
economic activity, economists, historically, have relegated the study of environmental
degradation as an "externality" or a "tragedy of the commons." They have tended to view
its destruction as unquantifiable, and therefore, impossible to assess in an economic sense.
Ecologists~on the other hand-traditionally have underscored the premise that
economic development and ecological sustainability are mutually exclusive phenomena. As
a result of the different approaches to what—for all intents and purposes—is the same issue,
both economics and ecologists have tended to end up ignoring—or at best, overly
discounting-each other's viewpoints.
Both groups are attempting to develop a common conceptual framework where the
relationship between environmental degradation and economic activity can be observed,
assessed, and evaluated. With a common framework, public policymakers could base
economic and resource allocation decisions on broader, more complete models which
would account for both environmental and economic dynamics.
—com.—
-------
Accounting for the Environment—2
NACEPT Discussion
The purpose of this panel presentation and discussion is to have NACEPT, with its
diverse sectoral and disciplinary representation, focus on the issues it considers key in an
environmental world that includes business and industry, academia, local government and
the international community—many of which have been absent from this debate.
Questions die Council could consider include:
•How does this seemingly academic debate effect the business and industry sector?
•How has the current definition used by national governments created limitations
for environmental solutions?
•Should current models be thrown out completely to work more effectively for the
sectors they impact?
•What are the implications of this debate on U.S. and international environmental
policy?
-------
THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
FOUNDATION: A RATIONALE
AUGUST 1990
-------
THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
EDUCATION AND TRAINING FOUNDATION:
CREATING A PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP
This paper provides background on die problems and the search for solutions leading
to the establishment of the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation.
The Problem:
Over the past decade, the American public has witnessed the unravelling of its three most
critical and cherished systems: the environment, the economy and education. We have diligently
struggled to right each of these separate sectors, but with little success. Only recently have we
begun to recognize that .these three — the environment, the economy and education — arc
inextricably-connected an(l must be addressed together. These linkages are embodied in the
concept of ''sustainabl&deveippmcnti" that Is, development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.
Environmentally, from the pollution of the deepest ground water supplies to the depletion of the
protective ozone layer of the upper atmosphere, threats to the fragile system which supports life as
we know it on this planet are quickly outstripping our ability to address them. Economically, we
have come to realize that the United States no longer holds the wide lead in the global economic
market we once took for granted. As our own natural resource supply becomes tighter, and the
costs of pollution control eat away at profit margins, we find ourselves simply one competitor
among many in the world market. We must now sharpen our wits and our production processes to
compete successfully.
To make matters worse, our current scientific and technical workforce is reaching retirement
age just at the same time that our education system is least able to insure quality replacements.
Within our educational institutions, student interest and capability in science, mathematics and
engineering are dwindling. Increasing numbers of our colleges and universities are becoming
dependent upon foreign students and faculty. While in one sense, this can be seen as a cultural
benefit, it also means that dollars invested in education here often are reaping their results
elsewhere. Even our primary and secondary education systems are suffering. Studies have shown
that in the areas of math, science and engineering, our students are no longer competitive with
those in other industrialized nations. In fact, in a recent report, the United States scored on a par
with Third World countries in those subjects, a sobering note.
We are dealing here with the bedrock of our societal systems — the environment, the economy
and education. Saving any one of them requires saving them all The task is a formidable one,
perhaps the greatest one facing this nation since its inception. We need leadership at the highest
levels, committing this country, in the next decade and beyond, to environmentally sustainable
development
The Search for Solutions:
As a key part of its cooperative environmental management effort, in 1988 the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the National Advisory Council for
1
-------
wational Environemntal
Education & Trng Foundation
-------
generation, management and disposal. Such reform will depend on the availability of an
environmentally astute and well-trained workforce, and we must focus on assuring their
availability.
Finally, fundamental changes must be made in our underlying societal attitudes and values.
Such fundamental changes come about slowly, and necessarily involve the education and
sensitizing of our young people. To achieve this goal means involving teachers, administrators,
textbook publishers, as well as mothers and fathers, and requires a long-term, dedicated effort at
the community level. In brief, what is needed is a national and, ultimately, an international
mission, implemented at the grass-roots level — that is —Think globally, act locally!"
The Need to Network
Through its extensive research, the Committee also found that a tremendous amount of
information and quality environmental education and training resources already exists. Materials,
courses and programs have been created by universities, public interest groups, environmental
organizations, businesses and industries, and state, local and Federal government agencies. The
best of these incorporate excellent strategies, use interesting materials that span many non-
technical subject areas, provide hands-on real-life application of the knowledge acquired,
emphasize problem-solving, train teachers to use resources, and follow up with continuing
training and support Entire curricula have been developed addressing many of the current
environmental issues and problems.
Unfortunately, with few exceptions, communication and coordination among the various
developers and providers of environment-related infonnatipn are scarce or totally lacking. There
is no clearinghouse or catalogue of these materials, no nationwide contact lists, and no network
through which these important contributors to the environmental education and training system
can keep in touch. Lacking an adequate communication system, these providers themselves are
often unaware of excellent work already created on a particular subject, and go on to develop
redundant programs. This results in a substantial waste of scarce resources, both of dollars and
of the time and energy of the developers.
Additionally, the lack of an effective network impacts the potential audience or client for
existing materials. There is virtually no way for a teacher, a local elected official, or a production
line supervisor in industry to find out what courses, classes, or curricula might be available to
him/her. Access is hit or miss, and the effort required to locate information is sometimes nearly
equal to the effort required to recreate it
Given the wealth of available information, the scarcity of funds, the need to avoid reinventing
the wheel, and the availability of low cost, user-friendly electronic communications technologies,
environmental education and training resource identification and sharing must be a goal
The Environmental Education and Training Committee of NACEPT identified the
institutionalization of a national, and ultimately an international, network for environmental
education and training providers as a high priority need. To be effective, a national and
international environmental education and training initiative would have to involve and connect all
the players, including universities, training centers, corporations, museums, civic organizations,
local elected officials, public and private school systems, environmental organizations, as well as
government entities, acknowledging the valuable contributions and special skills of each in the
overall success of the effort.
This network will require an easily recognizable national point of access which would serve as
the "hub" for the wheel of resource centers, facilitating the "partnering" of the multiple developers,
providers and clients. This "hub" would provide the broad range of environmental education and
training institutions with a communications infrastructure, with national and international
-------
visibility, consistent access to high quality technical information resources, and the funding
potential necessary to "seed" new and innovative ideas, and to implement, evaluate, replicate and
disseminate successful projects and programs globally. Out of this recognition of the need for and
the potential for such an institution was bom the concept of the National Environmental Education
and Training Foundation.
The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation: A Public/Private
Partnership
Despite almost universal acknowledgement of their value in affecting necessary changes in
individual and organizational behavior, environmental education and training have historically been
undervalued, and therefore underfunded across the public sector institutions, at all levels. In part,
this has been true because very little immediate, measurable result was identified to justify capital
and personnel resource outlay. In addition, large bureaucracies such as government institutions are
more often than not caught up in attending to the "immediate crisis." Longer-term projects which
have more "out-year" value rather than generate instant results are difficult to maintain through
multiple budget cycles, let alone across changes in government administrations. For such reasons,
government/public sector funding for environmental education and training has been sporadic and
insufficient to the task. A prime example of this was the 1970 version of the National
Environmental Education Act, which was supposed to be funded at some $15 million per year, but
actually received less than $4 million a year for three years and then was "zeroed out" entirely.
Despite these shortcomings, however, the "public will" expressed through government approval
and attention brings a unique focus and collective strength to the actions of individuals.
In contrast, private sector businesses and industrial entities have been steadily increasing their
funding of local, regional and sometimes even national environmental education and training
projects. This may be, in part, a function of their greater level of control over their own budget
processes. However, as several representatives of corporations have told the NACEPTs
Environmental Education and Training Committee there is a connection between economic
competitiveness of companies and their ability to run a "clean production process" (Le., less profit
having to be diverted to waste treatment and disposal costs, long-term liability insurance, loss of
production due to worker illness due from toxic exposure, etc.). For these forward-thinking
companies, it "pays" to invest in the education and training of a workforce which will then value
and implement a cleaner, and therefore more profitable, production process. Here, then, in the
private sector, mere are individual instances of excellent ideas and actions, which while worthy in
themselves, require a public platform from which they might provide example and inspiration.
It became evident to the Committee that only a marriage of these two sectors, public and
private, will provide the strong and effective base from which to operate a national/international,
long-term, creative, and well-financed environmental education and training program. The
Committee formally recommended the creation of the National Environmental Education and
Training Foundation.
Exploring Existing Models
In its research, the Committee was made aware of an existing public/private partnership
associated with the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service. An extremely
creative non-profit foundation was created by Federal statute, the board of directors of which,
while appointed by the Secretary of the Interior using statutorily pro-specified criteria, brought
together highly prominent and effective members of the public and private sectors with an interest
in and a will to act on behalf of fish and wildlife preservation, conservation and management This
"National Fish and Wildlife Foundation," as a non-profit, tax exempt organization, has the
authority to receive both public and private funding, and to partner the best efforts of interested and
affected parties in very effective jointly created and jointly funded programs and projects. The
-------
foundation, while only four years old , has enjoyed resounding success, winning praise from both
the Congress and the Executive Branch; so much so that the foundation's original mandate has
been broadened to include international efforts among other new programs, and its spending
ceiling has been raised.
Given the success of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the desire to create a
true public/private partnership to foster environmental education and training, a determination was
made to use the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation as a model to establish the new National
Environmental Education and Training Foundation. The Foundation has been incorporated and will
receive its Federal charter with passage of JLR. 3684, the National Environmental Education Act
of 1990. [Full text of this legislation is enclosed.]
The EPA, other Federal Government agencies, the United States Congress and the private
sector have responded enthusiastically to this concept, and the process is well underway. With the
strong support and commitment of each of us, the National Environmental Education and Training
Foundation can become a unique and effective tool. With it, we can "change the world."
-------
NACEPT
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMITTEE
DRAFT AGENDA
October 23,1990
The Madison Hotel
15th and M Sts. NW
Washington, DC
8:30 - 8:45 A.M. Welcome and Introduction of Members and Contributors
Dr. William Hendee, Chairman
8:45 - 9:00 A.M. Approval of March 27,1990 Committee Minutes
9:00 - 10:30 P.M Update: Ongoing Projects based on 1990 Recommendations
1. National Environmental Education Foundation— Mr. Robert Herbst/
Ms. Kate Connors (Foundation and Legislative Update)
2. Alliance for Environmental Education/TV A—Mr. John Paulk
(Environmental Education Center Network Expansion)
3. Management Institute for Environment and Business— Mr. Matt Arnold
(Environmental Literacy in the Business Community)
10:30 - 12:00 Discussion: Environmental Literacy—Is it an attainable goal??
1. Pollution Prevention Focus Group—Dr. Anthony Cortese
(Pollution Prevention Task Force and University Presidents Roundtable)
2. Environment and Economics Focus Group— Dr. Erhard Joeres
(Consumer Education issues and Labelling Conference)
3. Environmental Health Focus Group— Dr. William Hendee
(Conference on Behavioral Change)
Discussion: How do we mobilize target audiences for action??
1. Urban/minorities Environmental Education— Ms. Lolette Guthrie/Rory Verrett
(A study with recommendations: where do we go from here?)
2. Student environmental education and outreach — Ms. Beth Binns/Brad Crabtree
(Ecomedia, SEAC, a Green Youth Corps)
12:00 - 1:00 P.M. LUNCH
1:00 - 4:45 P.M. Discussion continued: Mobilization of Target Audiences
3. The Senior (Older American—Over 50) Community— Dr. John Grupenhoff
(Senior Environment Corps)
Discussion: Tactics: Present and Future
1. New Recommendations and Next Steps
llr:45 P.M. Concluding Remarks
II 5:00 P.M. Adjournment
-------
NACEPT EDUCATION AND TRAINING
October 1990 Member and Contributor List
MEMBERS
Dr. William T. Engel, Jr.
Dr. Howard G. Adams Director
Executive Director South Carolina Environmental Training
National Consortium for Graduate Center
Degrees for Minorities in Engineering, Inc. 506 N. Guignard Drive
P.O. Box 537 Sumter Area Technical College
Notre Dame, IN 46556 Sumter, SC 29150-2499
219/239-7183 803/778-1961 FAX 803/773-4859
Dr. David Allen Mr. David Engleson
Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering Supervisor for Environmental Education
Room 5331, Boelter Hall Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
University of California-Los Angeles PO Box 7841
Los Angeles, CA 90024 Madison, WI 53707-7841
213/825-2046 FAX 608/267-9266
Dr. John J. Boland
Professor of Geography and Environmental
Engineering
The Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21218
301/338-7103
Dr. Kofi B. Bota
Vice President for Research and
Sponsored Programs
Clark Atlanta University
223 James P. Brawley Drive SW
Atlanta, GA 30314-4391
404/880-8595
Dr. Quincalee Brown
Executive Director
Water Pollution Control Federation
601 Wythe Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-1994
703/684-2400 FAX 703/684-2492
Dr. Anthony Cortese
Director
Center for Environmental Management
Tufts University
Curtis Hall
474 Boston Avenue
Meford,MA 02155
617/381-3486 FAX 617/381-3084
Dr, Robert L. Ford
Director
Center for Energy and Environmental Studies
Southern University
14061 Derby Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70816
504/771-3723
Dr. William R. Hendee, Chair
Vice President
Science and Technology
American Medical Association
535 N. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60610
312/464-5334 FAX 312/464-5841
Mr. Robert L. Herbst, Co-Chair
Executive Director
Trout Unlimited
501 Church Street North East
Vienna, VA 22180
703/281-1100 FAX 703/281-1825
Dr. Erhard F. Joeres, Co-Chair
Chair, Water Resources Management
Program
Institute for Environmental Studies
1269 Engineering Building
University of Wisconsin—Madison
Madison, WI 53706
608/262-3883 FAX 608/262-6707
-------
Gail Mayville
Director of Environmental Awareness
Ben and Jerry's, Inc.
Route 100 Box 240
Waterbury.VT 05676
(802)244-5641 ext 215
Mr. Jeffrey M. Moritz
President
NCTV
114 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10011
212/689-0088 FAX 212/689-4121
Mr. Martin E. Rivers
Executive Vice President
Air and Waste Management Association
Three Gateway Center, Four West
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
412/232-3444 FAX412-255-3632 OR 3832
Dr. Brad Smith
Professor of Environmental Studies
Delta College
6 Lexington Street
Midland, MI 48640
517/686-9259 FAX517/686-8736
Miss Beth Turner
Environmental Consultant
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc.
Past President, WPCF
P.O. Box 80721
Wilmington, DE 19880-0721
302/999-5277 FAX 302/366-4123
Mr. William Willis
Chief Operating Officer and
Executive Vice President
ET 12B16B
TVA
400 Summit Hill Drive
Knoxvbille, TN 37902-1499
NACETT COMMITTEE CONTRIBUTORS
Mr. Matt Arnold
Management Institute for Environment and
Business
PO Box 12208
Arlington, VA 22209
703/535-1133 FAX 703/247-8343
Mr. Tom Benjamin
Alliance for Environmental Education
10751 Ambassador Drive
Suite 201
Manassas.VA 22110
703/335-1816 FAX 703/631-1651
Beth Binns
ECO-Media
PO Box 3123
St. Augustine, FL 32085
(904)826-0421 FAX(904) 826-0325
Mr. Joel Charm
Director, Product Safety and Integrity
Allied Signal Corporation
Morristown, NJ 07960
(201)455-4057 FAX (201)455-4835
Ms. Kate Connors
Executive Director
National Environmental Education and
Training Foundation
(703)247-8316
Dr. Laurence Evans
President, Laurence Evans & Assoc.
SPARK Environment Industry Champion
3658 Loraine Ave.
North Vancouver, BC
CANADA V7R 4B8
A.J. Grant, President
(Sending Bruce White)
Environmental Communication Associates,
Inc.
1881 9th. Street
Suite 200
Boulder, CO 80302
303/444-1428 FAX 303/444-9128
Mr. Joel Hirschhorn
President - EnviroSearch- East
2400 Virginia Ave, NW
: Suite 103
Washington, DC 20037
Mr. Lynn M. Hodges
Program Manager, Environmental Education
Tennessee Valley Authority
Forestry Building
Norris,TN 37828
615/632-1640 FAX 615/632-1612
-------
Dr. George Hulsey, Chairman
National Wildlife Federation
502 South Crawford
Norman, Oklahoma 73069
405/329-2333
Mr. Steven C. Kussmann
President
The Alliance for Environmental Education
2111 Wilson Blvd.
Suite 751
Arlington, VA 22201
703/841-8670 FAX 703/631-1651
Bob Johnson-Y(Beth O'Toole)
Executive Vice President
Air and Waste Management Association
Three Gateway Center, Four West
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
412/232-3444 FAX412-255-3632OR3832
Alan Kay
American Talks Security
83 Church Street
Unit 17
Winchester, MA 01890
617/721-0266
Mr. Mort Mullins
Director of Governmental Affairs
Monsanto Corp.
700 24th. Street Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
202/783-2460 FAX 202/783-2468
John Paulk
TVA
LB IN 100C-K
415 Walnut Street
Knoxville,TN 37902-1499
615/632-3474 FAX 615/632-2291
Mr. Winfred Peterson, Pres/CEO
Metcalf and Eddy Services
30 Harvard Mill Square
PO Box 4043
Woburn.MA 01888-4043
617/245-8200 FAX 617/246-4621
Ms. Susan Prestwich, Acting Director
Educational Program Development
Office of Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management, EM-521
US Department of Energy
12800 Middlebrook Road, Suite
Germantown, MD 20874
301/427-1685
Mr. C.L. Richardson
Executive Director
The National Environmental Training
Association
8687 Via de Ventura
Suite 214
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
602/951-1440 FAX 602/483-0083
Mr. Jack Taub
Chairman of the Board
The National Information and Education
Utility Corporation
2041 Gallows Tree Court
Vienna, VA 22180
703/893-3237
Dr. Lynn M. Waishwell
Associate Professor
Director, Health Education Program
103 Moulton Hall
Normal, Illinois 61761-6901
(309) 438-8329
EXPERTS
Ms. Ann Chabot
Center for Environmental Management
Curtis Hall
Tufts University
Medford,MA 02155
617/391-3531
Dr. John Grupenhoff
Grupenhoff Communications, Inc.
6410 Rockledge Dr., Suite 203
Bethesda,MD 20817
(301) 571-9790 FAX (301) 530-8910
Mr. Gary Heath
Specialist in Environmental Education
Maryland State Department of Education
200 West Baltimore Street
5th Floor-Division of Instruction
Baltimore, MD 21201
(301)333-2318 FAX (301)333-2379
Sue Kemnitzer
Deputy Dir. Infrastructure Division
National Science Foundation
Washington, DC 20550
202/786-9631 FAX 202/786-9652
-------
Environmental Education
and Training Committee
-------
NACEPT EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMITTEE
IMPLEMENTATION TO DATE OF 1990 RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION 1:
Recommend that the EPA Administrator request that President Bush
announce a " call to action" for effective environmental education and
training in the United States, to serve as a global role model for sustainable
development balanced with economic competitiveness.
ELEMENT:
Expand the visibility of the importance of environmental education and training.
IMPLEMENTATION TO DATE:
• The proposed bill to elevate the Environmental Protection Agency to full cabinet status,
thereby expanding its mandate beyond regulation to include environmental education
and training is still pending. NACEPT members and contributors commend this effort
and have gone on record in support of this bill.
• The National Environmental Education Act is still pending. NACEPT members and
contributors commend this effort as well and have gone on record in support of this bill
in its final House form which includes language supporting a National Environmental
Education and Training Foundation.
ACTION STEPS FOR THE FUTURE:
• President Bush and Administrator Reilly should issue a statement in support of
environmental education and training and indicate EPA's lead responsibility in
promoting environmental education and training activities at the Federal level.
- This statement could coincide with the announcement of the passage of the Bill to
elevate the EPA to full cabinet status.
• Mr. Reilly should announce the creation of an EPA Office of Environmental Education
and training at the time of the announcement of the passage of The National
Environmental Education Act. He should further articulate EPA's view that
environmental education is a key element in the management of all environmental
programs.
RECOMMENDATION 2:
Recommend that the EPA Administrator redefine the Agency's mission to
encompass a broad environmental education and training mandate to
emphasize the importance of national and international networks to address
the following issues:
-------
a. Improvement of teacher training, curriculum development and public
participation.
b. Coordination of environmental training institutions to increase the
quality and quantity of environmental professionals.
c. Empowerment of the environmental education and training
institutions in these networks through the use of interactive
electronic technologies.
ELEMENT:
Expand the Agency's mission to include environmental education and training networks as
an essential tool for environmental protection.
IMPLEMENTATION TO DATE:
• Currently joint efforts are underway with EPA, TVA, The Alliance for Environmental
Education, other Federal Agencies and other interested organizations to expand this
network effort. AEE has reported that 55 centers have joined so far and they have
working agreements with EPA, DOD, TVA, and OECD as well as regional
governmental agencies. Initial efforts are underway to obtain a working agreement
with DOE. The network is expected to include 100 centers across the nation by 1991.
• Currently joint efforts are underway with ECO-Media and The Management Institute
for Environment and Business (MIEB) to improve environmental education networks
within the college student community. Eco-Media is a non-profit Delaware
Corporation, incorporated in December 1989 whose mission is to address the urgent
environmental problems of this decade by working with media to foster a new
environmental ethic on our nation's college campuses. Eco-Media will create a
comprehensive communications campaign aimed at America's 14 million college
students to enhance their environmental literacy and knowledge of what students can do
to become responsible environmental citizens. The MIEB is a non-profit Delaware
Corporation, designed to offer curriculum development assistance to business
educators, and provide training to corporations on such issues as organizational change
and environmental management, environmental auditing, environmental performance
assessment, etc. in order to assist business educators to integrate environmental issues
into their curricula.
ACTION STEPS FOR THE FUTURE:
• EPA should expand joint national and international efforts with EPA, TVA, The
Alliance for Environmental Education, other Federal Agencies and other interested
organizations which have environmental education and training centers to continue the
expansion of a national and international network of environmental education and
training centers and efforts.
• To reinforce the Agency's commitment to global environmental education and training,
the EPA Administrator should include references to the importance of global networks
and partnerships in the Agency's new mission statement.
• EPA should build into its internal strategic planning a system of planning and
coordination with other agencies and organizations which are actively involved in
environmental education and training.
-------
RECOMMENDATION 3:
Recommend that an Office of Environmental Education and Training be
established within EPA's Office of the Administrator to provide [both
national and international]* leadership in environmental stewardship.
a. The functions of this Office should include:
1) Development of a National Environmental Education and Training
Policy.
2) An associated short and long-term implementation plan.
3) An annual report on national (and international)* environmental
literacy and behavior,
b. Creation of a national public/private foundation to fund environmental
education and training.
c. Convene annual roundtables with national (and international)* leaders
of industry and business, government, academia, professional
associations, training centers, the media, environmental and public
interest groups, minority groups, religious organizations and other
appropriate groups to address, synergistically, the imperative for a
national environmental ethic.
ELEMENT:
Place the Office of Environmental Education where it can positively impact the strategic
planning, pollution prevention programming and cross-media decision making of the
Agency.
IMPLEMENTATION TO DATE:
• Currently S-1076 has been favorably heard in the Senate. The House introduced a
companion bill, HR-3684, The National Environmental Education Act, which has
passed the full House of Representatives in an amended form. Currently staffs are
meeting to negotiate these language differences.
• The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation is now incorporated as
a non-profit and its status as a 501-(c)(3) is pending. Its Board of Directors is nearly
complete, legislation to provide a Federal charter and an annual appropriation is before
Congress, and EPA and its sister Federal agencies will be providing seed money for
start-up.
- OCEM has given over 1 FTE and is providing seed grant money to (NEETF).
OCEM is currently pursuing office space to be approved and supported by EPA
following approval of the legislation; staffing will be provided through OCLA.
-------
• In October an international University Presidents Roundtable will be held held in
France which will address the inclusion of environmental literacy issues at the post-
secondary level. This is being supported by a $27,000 EPA grant.
ACTION STEPS FOR THE FUTURE:
• An Office of Environmental Education be placed within EPA in a highly visible
location, other than the Office of Communications and Public Affairs, where it will be
viewed in a context broader than only as an element of public relations and
communications. In order to be viewed as a high priority of the Administrator, an
Office of Environmental Education must be located in an office which sends the
Administrator's signal to incorporate education and training strategies to all of the
programs of the agency. NACEPT therefore urges that the new Office of
Environmental Education be placed under a Presidentially appointed Assistant
Administrator in the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Administration and
Resources Management, or Research and Development.
• The concept of environmental education be viewed as an important tool to be woven
into the fabric of EPA and that it must go beyond K-12 to include university, graduate
and professional schools and continuing education and training programs.
• EPA's Environmental Education Task Force complete the development of a strategic
plan for the proposed Office of Environmental Education which addresses these issues
in a holistic and integrated manner.
- OCEM and NACEPT have participated in reviewing and critiquing this plan, and
will continue to do so as requested.
• Support future national Roundtables to address environmental literacy in institutions of
higher learning including, a US University Presidents Roundtable, and Roundtables for
College and for Technical and Community College leaders.
• Address in its environmental education and training plan how to positively impact the
environmental education needs of the minority/urban.
• Support joint efforts with other agencies and organizations to address the need for
effective environmental health education, and to implement an effective public
environmental education campaign similar to non-smoking or public safety campaigns.
RECOMMENDATION 4:
Recommend that the EPA assume a leadership role in coordinating
environmental education and training activities among federal and state
agencies and departments.
ELEMENT:
Through the proposed Office of Environmental Education and Training, increase
communication and coordination among federal and state environmental education and
training offices
-------
IMPLEMENTATION TO DATE:
• An initial meeting of representatives of 12 Federal Agencies and Departments involved
in environmental education was held to begin partnership building. Enthusiasm is high
for cooperative efforts.
• Language has been inserted into the Environmental Education Act which would make
federal interagency communication an integral function of the proposed Office of
Environmental Education.
ACTION STEPS FOR THE FUTURE:
• Develop a synopsis of what Federal Departments and Agencies are doing.
- OCEM provided support to CEQ which wrote a report assessing Federal
environmental education activities and strategies.
• Convene federal departments and agencies which carry out environmental education
and training efforts in a new ongoing communication and coordination process.
• Convene the States in a cooperative process of building coordinated environmental
education and training activities.
RECOMMENDATION 5:
Recommend that EPA Administrator develop a strategic plan for a long-term
public education program to encourage environmental responsibility.
ELEMENT:
The EPA Administrator should initiate the development of a strategic plan which would
address environmental education from a broad perspective including k-12, post secondary
education institutions, technical colleges, and professional education and training efforts.
IMPLEMENTATION TO DATE:
• A preliminary effort at developing a strategic plan for environmental education and
training has been undertaken by members of the Agency's Office of Education Task
Force. This strategy has been reviewed by OCEM and the NACEPT EET Committee.
Our understanding is that that because of negative reactions from Public Affairs
reviewers, among others, this strategy has been withdrawn and is being rewritten and
is scheduled to be complete in September.
ACTION STEPS FOR THE FUTURE:
• Create a high level working group to monitor the development of a strategic plan. This
group could be comprised of 2-3 AAs, RAs, DAAs, or DRAs, plus members of the
NACEPT Education and Training Committee who have contacts with environmental
education and training institutions.
-------
NACEPT EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMITTEE
NEW MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES
DR. DAVID T. ALLEN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES
Dr. Allen's research focuses on the characterization, kinetics and thermodynamics of
mixtures containing hundreds to thousands of components, particularly fuels, air pollutants and
hazardous wastes. He has taught a variety of undergraduate and graduate courses including
pollution control technology. Dr. Allen has served as a consultant to several private firms, and he is
a member of the American Institute for Pollution Prevention (U.S. EPA). He has authored two
books, many papers and is developing pollution prevention curricula for engineering students.
DR. JOHN J. BOLAND, PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
BALTIMORE, MD.
A faculty member at Johns Hopkins, Dr. Boland is a professor in the Dept. of Geography
and Environmental Engineering, a lecturer in the G.W.C. Whiting School of Engineering and a
faculty associate at the Institute for Policy Studies. He was also a visiting professor at the
University of New South Wales, Australia and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. Dr.
Boland has conducted sponsored research for many state and federal agencies, and he has worked
extensively as a consultant to private firms and municipal, state, national and international agencies.
DR. KOFI B. BOTA.PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY
CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Dr. Bota is currently Vice President for Research and Sponsored Programs and a professor
of Chemistry at Vice President for Research and Sponsored Programs at Clark Atlanta University,
formerly Atlanta University. During his tenure at Clark Atlanta University, he has devoted his
energies to the growth of research in energy technologies, third world development, and
environmental science and technology programs. Dr. Bota is active with issues concerning
minority students and Historically Black Colleges and Universities and is currently director of the
HBCU-MI Consortium. He has served as a consultant to U.S. AID, U.S. DOE, UNEP, UNDP
and Volunteers in Technical Assistance (VITA).
MR. DAVID C. ENGLESON, CONSULTANT
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
MADISON, WISCONSIN
Mr. Engleson has served as an environmental education consultant to the Wisconsin
Department of Public Instruction since 1967. In addition, he is an adjunct associate professor at the
University of Wisconsin's College of Natural Resources at Stevens Point and provides professional
services to the Wisconsin Environmental Education Board. Mr. Engleson is an author and editor of
-------
many papers and books on environmental education, and he has acted as a consultant, coordinator
and participant in many environmental education initiatives and conferences.
DR. ROBERT L. FORD, DIRECTOR
CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY
BATON ROUGE, LA
A professor of Chemistry at Southern University, Dr. Ford is director of the Center for
Energy and Environmental Studies and a marketing consultant for the NASA Industrial Applications
Center. Among many professional activities, he has worked as a curriculum
developer.environmental writer, computer applications consultant, environmental trainer and
environmental consultant Dr. Ford has worked throughout his career on issues which concern
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and promoted black leadership in science.
MS.GAILMAYVILLE
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS
BEN AND JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC.
WATERBURY, VT
Ms. Mayville coordinates Ben and Jerry's Green Team which develops, coordinates and
implements the company's environmental program. Its goal is 100 percent participation in
recycling, conservation, source reduction, and avoiding disposables. Ms. Mayville's work focuses
on environmental improvements in products and packaging, the company wastestream and energy
conservation. She and her staff also engage in environmentally-oriented community outreach in
Vermont and elsewhere.
MR. WILLIAM F. WILLIS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
KNOXVILLE.TN
Mr. William F. Willis joined the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1960 and has served as
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Tennessee Valley Authority since May
1988. He is deeply involved in the effort to improve technical education and promote research and
development in the Tennessee Valley. Mr. Willis is a member of Mississippi State University's
Engineering Advisory Committee and the President's Roundtable of Knoxville College. He
presently sits on the board of directors of the Pellissippi State Foundation, Tennessee Center for
Research and Development, And the International Fertilizer Development Center.
-------
To: NACEPT Education and Training Committee
From: Anthony D. Cortese, Sc. D.
Subject: "Environmental Resource Management: Educating
the Business Leaders of Tomorrow"
Date: October 16, 1990
An international conference on integrating environmental
management education and research into schools of management and
business was held at INSEAD in Fontainebleau, France on October 11
and 12, 1990. The conference of deans and faculty from academic
institutions, industry, government and environmental experts was
cosponsored by INSEAD, the Management Institute for Environment
and Business (MIEB), UNEP Industry and Environment Office and
Tufts University and was done in cooperation with the International
Chamber of Commerce. A copy of the conference program is
attached. A report of the conference is expected in the next 2-3
months.
The conference explored the current and future roles of
environmental management in business school and executive
education, the integration of environmental management into the
business schools, and research priorities for environment and
business . Based on a recommendation by the University Presidents
Conference in Talloires, France, October 4-7, 1990, this was the
first attempt at strategy development.
Hugh.Faulkner, former Secretary General of the ICC, gave the
keynote address and set the tone for the conference of 50
participants. He noted that the concern about environmental issues
has shifted from environmental pollution to that of economic and
societal sustainability. He also stated his belief that the business
community, aware of the relevancy of this shift, views these issues
as fundamental to the survival of business and industry. Integration
of these concerns into the line management and culture of business
and industry is essential. Integration must also occur in the
education and training programs of schools of business and
engineering for the cultural shift to take place. This theme was
echoed by the other business and industry participants.
The conference included some frank discussions about the
needs of business in the areas of environmental management
education and training for future graduates and practicing
professionals. Also discussed were the barriers to developing
-------
increased capability of business schools to supply the education and
training. New resources for curriculum development and research
are essential to shift priorities in business schools toward
environmental management. In addition, business and industry must
create a real demand for graduates with environmental sensitivity
and training in order to get a significant shift in the interest in and
the teaching of these issues.
The conference led to several outputs and recommendations:
1. Several examples of new educational strategies to integrate
environmental issues throughout the curricullum were discussed and
documented :
new elective environmental courses sponsored by the National
Wildlife Federation Corporate Conservation Council,
INSEAD's environmental courses and
Tufts Environmental Literacy Institute..
2. Research ideas and priorities for environment and business were
developed. There was discussion of the role of MIEB in taking the
next step in research, needs development, and in providing the
support for research.
3. There was a strong expression of interest in a network for
exchange of research information, educational programs and
materials and for people involved in environmental management
education and research. There was discussion of the role of MIEB in
establishing the network.
4. There was discussion of options for developing the capability of
faculty in business and engineering schools to teach about
environmental management - e.g., faculty workshops, curriculum
materials development.
5. There was discussion of the need for business schools to be
linked with the international institutions that are dealing with
environment and development issues (e.g., UNEP, UNCED, ICC, GEMI).
ICC asked for several of the participants to work on environmental
management education issues for the April 1991 World Conference
on Industry and Environmental Management being held to prepare for
the Brazil 1992 World Conference on Environment and Development.
-------
6. The group recommended the development of a process for
business school faculty to get the first hand perspective of
developing countries on the role of business in environment and
development issues and problems.
7. Several participants indicated the desire of business and
academic leaders from business and engineering schools to engage in
a frank discussion of the need for environmental management
specialists and environmentally literate and responsible graduates
from these institutions, as well as the strategies necessary to make
this happen.
-------
Environmental Resource Management: Educating
Business Leaders of Tomorrow
The Management Institute for Environment and Business
-------
The Management Institute for
Environment and Business
OVERVIEW
Context:
The continuing challenge for business is to develop new products, methods of
production, management practices and human resources which can meet higher demand
and also achieve ambitious environmental goals. A great deal of uncertainty still exists
about how to change management systems and operations to optimize environmental
performance without sacrificing quality and competitiveness. To reduce this uncertainty,
firms require rigorous analysis of environmental performance, and assistance in
developing management systems which are responsive both to the environmental
impacts of business decisions and to the business impacts of environmental decisions.
Mission:
The Management Institute for Environment and Business is a newly formed non-profit
applied research group striving to improve corporate environmental performance through
partnerships between academia, industry and providers of environmental training. MEB
will enlist leading academic institutions and research organizations to provide critical
answers to business' increasing environmental demands. The applied research group
of MEB will help lay a foundation for sound corporate environmental resource
management in the 1990's. In addition, MEB will forge a working partnership with multi-
national corporations, industry associations and the small business community to
service their needs in achieving excellence in corporate environmental resource
management. MEB will enlist providers of education and training to offer guidance to
research projects and to channel the applied research back to industry in the form of
consulting and training programs.
Goals:
MEB aims to establish environmental competence as a standard prerequisite for
corporate employees and university graduates, and to enhance corporate environmental
policy and the allocation of resources to maintain a healthy and productive environment.
MEB will improve .corporate environmental operational performance with respect to the
environment by providing firms with the most advanced and relevant information on
corporate environmental resource management
Support
The Management Institute has received endorsements from several major corporations
including Allied-Signal, AT&T, Du Pont, Occidental Petroleum and Union Carbide; several
universities, including Stanford, Berkeley, INSEAD. UCLA, Tufts and Boston University;
and the National Wildlife Federation, the President's Council on Environmental Quality and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
P.O. Box 12208 Phone: (703)525-1133
Arlington. Viigtala 22209 Fax: (703) 247-8343
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENTS
Educating the Business Leaders of Tbmorrow
An international conference representing leading academic institutions,
industry, government and environmental experts
11 and 12 October 1990
at INSEAD in Fontainebleau, France
Co-Sponsors:
INSEAD
The Management Institute for Environment
and Business (MEB)
Tufts University
United Nations Environment Program, Industry and
Environment Office (UNEP/IEO)
in cooperation with:
The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)
-------
INSEAD + MEB 4> Tufts University 4> UNEP/EEO
Overview
Rapid increases in population and economic output are making environmental management
one of the most important issues for business and society in the 1990's and the 21st century.
Business is dependent on an adequately trained and healthy work force and a healthy,
productive environment which supplies all the raw materials for economic activity. Deple-
tion of natural resources and pollution of the environment around the world are having
important impacts on business and industry. Thus, the integration of sound environmental
practices into business operations has become an important priority.
New strategies, technologies and management systems to promote this integration are
resulting in fundamental changes in the way many firms operate. The majority of
professional managers are unprepared to meet this new challenge. Moreover, current
graduates of business schools receive little education on the importance to business of sound
environmental management This is why INSEAD, MEB, Tufts University, and UNEP/IEO
have joined forces to organize this conference. The goals of the conference are to:
Ua define the role of and objectives for graduate
business schools in environmental management educa-
tion and research.
2« develop strategies, programs and materials for pro-
ducing the necessary human resources for addressing
environmental management
$• outline the first phases of a critical research agenda
on business and the environment
4* identify the institutional collaborations that can
address barriers and can create incentives for devel-
oping environmental management priorities in
business schools and in business.
-------
Description of Workshops:
Session 1: Objectives and Priorities in Graduate Business and Executive Education: the
Importance of Environmental Management.
This beginning session will lay the foundation for the role of business schools in educating
managers about environmental management. Questions to be addressed include: Where
does and should environmental management fall as a priority in business education? Is there
increasing interest in this area? What should and can business schools expect to accomplish?
Session 2: Integration of Environmental Management into Business Schools.
This session will cover pedagogical philosophy, e.g. module topics, required versus elective
courses for use in MBA and executive training programmes. How can faculty integrate
environmental issues into courses in marketing, finance, and production? Test cases will
be presented as to their demand, and effectiveness. In addition, this session will review
current curriculum materials for individual courses, modules and executive management
courses. An assessment will be made of their successes and plans for development.
Questions include: What are the strategies for integrating new curriculum into business
education? Is a training program desirable for faculty? What inducements can be used to
encourage faculty to develop an environmental management focus in teaching and research?
Session S: Environment and Business Research Priorities.
Formulating a research agenda is a critical step in ensuring ongoing faculty and student
attention to environmental resource management issues. What are the fundamental needs
for each management discipline? What are corporate research priorities? How can the
resources and needs of business schools and corporations be linked to enhance research and
improve corporate environmental performance?
Session 4: Future Strategies for Integrating Environmental Management into Business
School Education and Research.
This panel discussion will focus on the strategies, programs and funding mechanisms for
increasing business school attention to environmental issues. Areas of collaboration could
include government, foundation, industry and university partnerships. Additionally, busi-
ness schools could consider partnerships with public administration schools, co-creating
curriculum materials, and co-sponsoring executive management programs. What is needed
to create an international educational outreach program for environmental resource man-
agement? How do we exchange information and strengthen the links of communication?
How do we encourage publication in this field? What are some institutional mechanisms for
funding in this area?
-------
Programme
Thursday Morning, October 11
10:00-11:00 Opening of the workshop: Prat. EL Landis Gabel, INSEAD
Welcome to INSEAD: Prof, Ludo Van der Heyden, Dean of INSEAD
Keynote speakers: Mr. Hugh Faulkner, Former Secretary General, ICC
Agenda Overview: Missions and Goals for the Conference
Jacqueline Aloici de Larderel. Director UNEP/IEO
Dr. Anthony Corteae, Dean, Environmental Programs
Matthew Arnold, Executive Director, MEB
11:00-11:30 Break
11:30-12:45 SESSION 1:
"Objectives and Priorities in Graduate Business and Executive Education::
The importance of Environmental Management.'
Chairmen: Prot H. Landia Gabel
Mr. BLJ. Kraativeld, Health, Safety, and Environmental
Division, Shell International Petroleum
12:45-14:00 Lunch offered by INSEAD
Thursday Afternoon
14.-00-15.-00 Rapporteurs' and open discussions of Session No. 1.
15:00-15:15 Break
15:15-16:30 SESSION 2
"Integration of Environmental Management into Business Schools."
Chairmen: Pro! R. A. Buchholz, Loyola University of New Orleans
Prof, Alfred Marcus, University of Minnesota, Carlson
School of Business
Mr. Leon de Roaen, Senior Advisor to UNEP/IEO
1630-16:45 Break
16:45-17:45 Rapporteurs' reports and open discussion of Session No. 2.
19:30 Cocktails offered by UNEP
20:00 Dinner offered by Tufts University
-------
Programme (continued)
Friday Morning, October 12
9:00-10:30 SESSION 3 - Part I
"Environment and Business Research Priorities: A Brainatorming Session."
Chairmen: Prof. Thomas Gladwin, New York University
Pro! James Patell, Assoc. Dean, Graduate School of
Business, Stanford University
1030-10:45 Break
10:45-1130 Rapporteurs' reports and open discussion of Session No. 3.
1130-11:45 Break
11:45-13:00 SESSION 3 - Part II
"Environment and Business Research Priorities: Linking Corporations and
Business Schools."
Chairmen: Matthew B. Arnold, MEB
Industry Representative to be determined
13:00-14:15 Lunch offered by INSEAD
Friday Afternoon
14:15-15:15 SESSION 4: Panel Discussion
"Future Strategies for Integrating Environmental Management into Business
School Education and Research."
Chair: Dr. Anthony Cortese
Panel: Mr. Jan WUlums, ICC
Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel, Director UNEP/IEO
Prof. H. Landis Gabel, INSEAD
Industry Representative to be determined
15:15-1530 Break
1530-16:00 Summary and Closure
-------
Co-Sponsors
INSEAD (The European Institute of Business Administration) was created as a private
independent business school in 1959 when Europe as a political and economic entity was just
beginning to take shape. Its objective has been, from the very beginning, to educate present
and future managers operating in European and International contexts. Entering the
1990's, INSEAD is ranked among the top business schools world-wide, with an enrollment
of 480 students from 30 countries in its one-year programme and more than 2400 executives
attending shorter executive development programmes each year.
The MER (Management of Environmental Resources) Programme at INSEAD was
started in 1989 with a grant from the Otto Group of West Germany. The programme is
focused on teaching, curriculum material development, and research.
The Management Institute for Environment and Business is a newly
formed non-profit research group, established with a grant from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, aiming to improve corporate environmental performance through part-
nerships between academia, industry, and providers of environmental training. MEB's
applied research agenda is set by a research advisory committee of corporate managers,
academics, professional environmentalists, and government representatives.
Tufts University, located in eastern Massachusetts, is integrating environmental con-
siderations into the curriculum of all of its departments and professional schools. An Envi-
ronmental Literacy Institute has been developed to help existing faculty from all disciplines
in the integration process. Graduate degrees with an environmental focus are available in
the Department ofUrban and Environmental Policy, and the Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, which has an environmental engineering concentration and a Hazardous Materials
Management program. In addition, a concentration in environmental policy is being
developed at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.
The Industry and Environment Office (IEO) was established by the United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in 1975 to bring industry and govern-
ment together for environmentally sound industrial development Its office is located in
Paris. The goals of the IEO are to: encourage the incorporation of environmental criteria in
industrial development plans; facilitate the implementation of procedures and principles for
the protection of the environment; promote the use of safe and "clean" technologies; stimulate
the exchange of information and experience throughout the world.
To achieve these goals, UNEP/IEO provides access to practical information and develops co-
operative on-site action and exchange backed by regular follow-up and assessment
In Cooperation with:
"The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is a non-governmental or-
ganization serving world business. ICC membership extends into over 100 countries, com-
prising tens of thousands of business organizations and enterprises with international
interests. Its four principal functions are: to represent the business community at
international levels, especially as business spokesman to the United Nations and specialized
intergovernmental agencies; to promote world trade and investment based on free and fair
competition; to harmonize trade practices and formulate terminology and guidelines for im-
porters and exporters; to provide practical services to businessmen."
-------
University Presidents Roundtable
-------
To: NACEPT Education and Training Committee
From: Anthony D. Cortese, Sc.D.
Subject: University Presidents Conference on Environmental
Management and Sustainable Development
Date: October 16, 1990
With the support of NACEPT, EPA ORD, the Rockefeller Foundation and the
MacArthur Foundation, Tufts University President Jean Mayer hosted a conference of
university presidents from October 4-7,1990 to discuss the role of universities in
environmental management and sustainable development The conference, held at the
Tufts European Center in Talloires, France, was attended by 22 university presidents,
rectors and vice chancellors (including NACEPT chairman, Dr. Wesley Posvar)
representing every major region of the world. Participants are listed in the joint declaration
issued by them (copy attached). An international group of environmental leaders enhanced
the discussions, helped in framing the issues and offered innovative suggestions. They
included:
Margarita Marino de Botero, President, Collegio Verde, Colombia and former
member, World Commission on the environment and Development
Russell Peterson, former Chairman, CEQ, president, National Audubon
society,Governor of Delaware
David Brower, President, Earth Island Institute
Dr. Alvaro Umana, former Minister of Natural Resources, Costa Rica
Dr. Nay Htun, Special Advisor to the Secretary General, UN Conference on
Environmental and Development
The conference, which was opened by Dr. Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the
UN Conference on Environment and Development to be held in Brazil in June, 1992,
explored the role of universities and, specifically, the role of university presidents in
environment and development education and research. A copy of the agenda, declaration
and a press release from the conference are attached. A report of the deliberations,
strategies for actions, including ideas for institutional change will be forthcoming in
November 1990.
The conference was extremely successful in exchanging views on the nature of
environment and development problems; around the world, the role of universities have
played in the current state of affairs and what universities can do to encourage an
environmentally sustainable future. Since a majority of the presidents were from
developing countries.concerns about resource depletion , poverty and the need for
substantial assistance from the developing countries received equal attention with local,
regional and global pollution problems.
The presidents believe that society must move quickly to deal with problems of
pollution, resource destruction and depletion and the loss of biodiversity being caused by
rapid growth in population and even greater growth in industrialization. They pledged to
increase the training of specialists and to initiate programs for environmental literacy for all
graduates, increase research and help with education at primary and secondary school
levels to increase public awareness and education. They pledged their leadership by setting
an example of environmental responsibility at their own universities (e.g., energy
conservation and recycling), speaking out on these issues to government, industry,
-------
foundations and the public and by convening deans of appropriate schools to develop the
specific environmental research and education programs.
The presidents would like to establish a steering committee and a secretariat at Tufts to
continue this momentum by getting other university presidents to sign the declaration and to
inform and support each others efforts in innovative education and research. Moreover, the
presidents will work with the UN organizations such as UNEP and the UNCED to get
policy makers at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil in 1992 to
build support for a worldwide educational effort toward a sustainable future.
The next steps are to send out the declaration to 200 other university presidents and to
obtain support for the steering committee and the secretariat to advance these efforts.
Also, I have been invited to speak at a conference of 83 college and university presidents in
Brazil in December on the building of the education and research capacity of universities to
address population, environment and development issues to have a sustainable future.
-------
TALLOIRES
THE PRESIDENTS
CONFERENCE
UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE
- THE TALLOIRES DECLARATION -
OCTOBER 1990
-------
We, the presidents, rectors and vice chancellors of universities from all regions of
the world are deeply concerned aJbout the unprecedented scale and speed of
environmental pollution and degradation and the depletion of natural resources.
Local, regional and global air and water pollution, accumulation and distribution of
toxic wastes, destruction and depletion of forests, soil and water, depletion of the
ozone layer and emission of greenhouse gases threaten the survival of humans and
thousands of other living species, the integrity of the earth and its biodiversity,
the security of nations and the heritage of future generations. These environmental
changes are caused by inequitable and unsustainable production and consumption
patterns which aggravate poverty in many regions of the world.
We believe that urgent actions are needed now to address these fundamental problems
and reverse the trends. Stabilization of human population, adoption of and
dissemination of industrial and agricultural technologies which minimize resource
depletion, pollution and waste, promotion of reforestation and ecological restoration
are crucial elements in creating an equitable and sustainable future for all
humankind in harmony with Nature. Universities have a major role in education,
research, policy formation and information exchange to make these goals possible.
University heads must provide the leadership, motivation and support to promote,
foster and facilitate the mobilization of internal and external resources necessary
for their institutions to respond to this urgent challenge. We, therefore, agree to
take the following actions:
1. Use every opportunity to raise public, government, industry, foundation and
university awareness by publicly addressing the urgent need to move toward an
environmentally sustainable future.
2. .Encourage, both at our universities and in collaboration with other universities,
education, research, policy formation and information exchange on population,
environment and development to move toward a sustainable future.
-------
3. Establish programs to produce the needed expertise in environmental management,
economic development, population and related fields to ensure that all university
graduates are environmentally literate and responsible citizens.
4. Foster programs to develop the capability of university faculty to teach
environmental literacy and responsibility to all undergraduate, graduate and
professional school students.
5. Set an example of environmental responsibility by establishing programs of
resource conservation, recycling and waste reduction at the universities.
6. Work on expanding the involvement of government, foundations and industry in
supporting university research, education, policy formation and information exchange
in environmentally sustainable development. Expand work with government at all
levels and non-governmental organizations to assist in finding solutions to
environmental problems.
7. Convene deans of appropriate schools and environmental practitioners to develop
research, policy and information exchange programs and educational curricula for an
environmentally sustainable future.
8. Establish partnerships with primary and secondary schools to help develop the
capability of their faculty to teach about population, environment and development
issues.
-------
9. Work with the UN Conference on .Environment and Development, with the United
Nations .Environment Programme and other national and international organizations to
promote a worldwide university effort toward a sustainable future.
10. Establish a steering committee and a secretariat to continue this momentum and
inform and support each other's efforts in carrying out this declaration.
BY
Pablo Area, Vice Chancellor
Central American Autonomous University, Costa Rica
L. Ayo Banjo, Vice Chancellor
University of Ibadan, Nigeria
Boonrod Binson, Chancellor
Chulalongkorn University, Thailand
Robert W. Charlton, Vice Chancellor and Principal
University of Hitvatersrand, Union of South Africa
Constantino W. Curris, President
The University of Northern lova, USA
Michele Gendreau-Massaloux, Rector
1 'Academie de Paris, Franca
Jean Mayer, President & Conference Convener
Tufts University, USA
Adamu Nayaya Mohammed, Vice Chancellor
Ahmadu Bailor University, Nigeria
Augusto Frederico Muller, President
Fundacao Universidade Federal de Mate Grosso, Brazil
Mario Ojeda Gomez, President
Colegio de Mexico
Calvin H. Plimpton, President Emeritus
American University of Beirut, Lebanon
Wesley Posvar, President
University of Pittsburgh, USA
T. Navaneeth Rao, Vice Chancellor
Osmania University, India
Moonis Raza, Vice Chancellor Emeritus
University of Nev Delhi, India
Pavel D. Sarkisov, Rector
Mendeleev Institute of Chemical Technology, USSR
Stuart Saunders, Vice Chancellor and Principal
University of Cape Tovn, Union of South Africa
Akiiagpa Sawyerr, Vice Chancellor
University of Ghana
Carlos Vogt, President
Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil
David Hard, Vice Chancellor
University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
Xide Xie, President
Fudan University, People's Republic of China
-------
The Washington, D.C.
Urban Environmental Education
Report
prepared by:
Rory E. Verrett
Patricia Roberts Harris Public Affairs
Howard University
for
The National Advisory Council on
Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
Committee on Education and Training
The United Stales Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM)
401 M Street, SW A-101-F6
Washington, DC 20460
-------
INTRODUCTION:
Purpose:
This report will attempt to assess the environmental education efforts in
Washington D.Cthat are sponsored by various sectors of the community including the
federal government, non-government organizations, and community groups. This report
will be a segment of a national project that will assess environmental education and training
programs in several urban areas across the United States. These cities, intended to
represent a cross-section of ethnic and geographic diversity, will be similarly studied. By
first taking a microscopic view of environmental programs in one community, the report
will identify some effective methods for urban environmental education and training, and
thus serve as a starting point for similar studies in the other urban areas.
The complete Urban Environmental Education Report will serve as a tool for
discussion for the Education and Training Committee of the National Advisory Council on
Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). With the report as a starting point, the
Committee can discuss methods for successfully reaching out to urban/minority
communities and other currently disenfranchised groups with environmental and training
programs. Ultimately, the report should provide the Committee with some basis for
adopting recommendations to die Administrator of EPA concerning what role the Agency
should play in urban environmental education and training on a national level.
Definition:
The ultimate goal of any environmental education program is the formation of an
enlightened citizenry that is committed to preserving and protecting our natural
environment Ideally, it would be desirable to have pervasive environmental education
efforts both longitudinally as well as laterally; that is, environmental education that reaches
from our youngest to our senior citizens and spans every cultural, ethnic, and socio-
economic level To achieve this, environmental education programs must be as innovative
as they are comprehensive and as easily understandable as they are profound in their
treatment of environmental issues. To be sure, organizations concerned with urban
environmental education must be willing to abandon traditional methods of education and
training for more innovative techniques. Moreover, urban communities must be made to
realize the connection between local environmental concerns and global environmental
issues. Environmental education and training programs must, however, meet the specific
needs of the particular community. Therefore, any attempt to educate or train an
urban/minority community toward responsible environmental stewardship mandates the
establishment of effective linkage mechanisms-ones that link the local issue to die global
perspective, the community organizer to the environmental policymaker.
This linkage process, however, is tremendously enigmatic. As community
concerns reach up the ladder of influence and national policies attempt to embrace the
disenfranchised, the realization of mis often distant relationship is hazy, ambiguous, and
promotes ineffective decisions from which neither side truly benefits. Government still
seems to operate from an ivory tower and community concerns dissolve before diey reach
policymakers. The environmental crisis plaguing our urban communities requires not only
prioritized attention, but demands clarity and consistency in this linkage process. No
longer can die environmental movement confine itself to certain ethnic and economic
constituencies while claiming to chart a global campaign to save the planet Seemingly,
those most impacted by environmental hazards are those least knowledgeable and involved
in environmental policies and programs. The Urban Environmental Education Report
-------
seeks to link the government to the urban community by assessing successful strategies in
environmental education and training. The report has, as its primary focus, the realization
of the Environmental Protection Agency's potential role in urban environmental education
and training.
Scope:
As it is enigmatic to define what is and what is not to be considered environmental
education, so too is it problematic to define "urban environmental education." There exists
a broad array of activities that are intended to promote the responsible stewardship,of urban
minorities toward the environment Yet, this report does not intend to be too narrow nor
too general in its classification of urban environmental education. While a minority
internship program at a national science observatory might introduce minority students to
research careers in geology, it may not be appropriate to include such (nonetheless
worthwhile) educational programs in an assessment of Washington, DC urban
environmental education and training programs. Contrastingly, it would be appropriate to
consider a music video about global warming, which was produced by a District
environmental organization for minority communities, as an example of an urban
environmental education program. For definitive purposes, an effort will be considered
"urban environmental education or training" if it satisfies one or more of the following
stipulations:
o it informs an urban minority audience about the specific environmental
risks in their particular community;
o it educates an urban minority audience on global environmental issue(s) or
establishes a connection between local and global environmental issuers);
o it suggests specific actions that can be taken by community residents to
affect/change their immftHiarf. and/or global surroundings.
Moreover, when such a definition is placed in context of existing programs in the
Washington DC area, this report establishes dear parameters for the classification of urban
environmental education and training. Only programs with strategies transferable to an
urban minority audience (Washington DC, for instance) will be similarly included.
Content:
The Washington D.C Urban Environmental Education Report intends to answer
the following questions:
1. Is the D.C community actively seeking ways to educate minorities on local and
and national environmental concerns? What organizations are involved?
Are there any coordinated efforts among organizations? Are there any national
programs (outside of the District) that could be considered?
2. Do the existing programs address all of the minority community's environmental
concerns?
3. Do the existing programs administer to all of the community's needs for the
successful implementation of the program? Is training provided? Are the
programs offered in languages other than English?
-------
suS|e5,tlons for improving urban environmental education efforts
,
At°n aC 5°™™"^ W^1 role sh°«W the Environmental
wotec&on Agency play in urban environmental education in Washington
U*x^« •
-------
WASHINGTON, DC URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION REPORT
Outline
L What Is Needed: An Urban Perspective on Obstacles and Issues
A. Obstacles
B. Issues
L Energy Conservation
2. Water Quality
3. Air Pollution
4. Toxic Waste
5. Toxic Chemicals in Homes
n. What Is Being Done: Samples of Urban Environmental Education Programs
A. Federal Government Programs
B. Non-Federal Programs
DDL What Can/Should Be Done: EPA's Role in Urban Environmental Education
-------
AN URBAN PERSPECTIVE* ON OBSTACLES AND ISSUES:
In order to be truly successful in urban environmental education, interested groups must
first gain an understanding of the vantage point from which an urban population views the
environment Similarly, it is crucial to grasp how these communities perceive the
environmental movement, as well as certain environmental organizations, including the
EPA. Before any suggestions can be offered concerning the role of the EPA in urban
environmental education, these key perceptions held by many urban residents should be
first considered. They are not necessarily viewpoints of Washington DC residents only,
but reflect a somewhat national consistency of urban perceptions of die environmental
movement, issues and participants. Once these perceptions are fully understood, the
Agency will be able to effectively organize an appropriate strategy in urban environmental
education that is truly beneficial and productive to all parties involved.
Obstacles:
Many of the perceptions of urban residents on the environment are rooted in their inability
to meet some of the basic requirements for normal living. That is, the environment, as a
separate issue, is not embraced until the essentials of health, housing, food, and safety are
met. Unfortunately in many urban communities, many of these basic needs remain
unfulfilled. Poverty, racial discrimination, poor housing, financial insecurity, and violence
are all barriers to the achievement of what is considered a normal standard of living. Thus,
the environment is viewed as a superfluous topic; other topics, which are viewed as more
important than environmental issues, occupy the daily agendas of urban residents.
Moreover, the seemingly evident environmental crises facing these urban communities—
problems of lead poisoning, weatherization, and asbestos—are not confronted as
environmental problems; rather, they are realized as health and housing issues. Thus,
many organizations that address the environmental concerns of these communities are often
organizations such as housing agencies or social justice groups, reflecting the growing
sentiment in urban communities that the current status of the urban environment is a result
of racial and socio-economic injustice.
These community organizations have taken on tremendous responsibilities as voices of
urban residents, providing numerous mobilizational measures including protests, marches,
boycotts, community meetings, and local, as well as national lobbying. These
organizations are quite confident of their own ability to address the community's concerns.
This community self-reliance is a result, organizers say, of the resource mobilizational
strength of community organizations. For instance, social justice groups that organize out
of churches point to the fact that the church provides a consistent audience through worship
services and offers facilities that are readily available to the community. Few, if any,
organizations can claim to have a more, consistent assembly than a church, community
residents claim. Sermons, they add, are effective mechanisms to instill environmental
awareness; ministers urge environmental protection as one of mankind's responsibilities to
the Creator. As a result of these and other mobilizational strategies, organizers argue,
community organizations are "in the trenches," and constantly aware of the needs of
urban/minority citizens. Comparatively, government agencies are perceived as operating
from an "ivory tower," far removed the immediate urban crises. This perceived contrast in
the proximities of government versus community organizations to urban environmental
needs is one of the central obstacles that must be overcome if the development of a
productive, working relationship is to occur between these groups. Certainly then, these
perceptions deserve elaboration.
-------
Community Perceptions: Federal Government
As many local organizations feel confident in their ability to meet the community's needs
for environmental programs, these groups view some of the environmental education
attempts by the federal government with disdain and caution. Community leaders are
skeptical of the motive behind government environmental education programs. Organizers
propose that the government is suddenly reaching out to embrace urban environmental
concerns now that the environment is a popular issue; that me recent attention directed
toward urban environmentalism is political in nature and is not necessarily rooted in
genuine concern. Many community leaders recanted incidents in which the federal
government attempted to "introduce" environmentalism to urban residents through short-
lived program*? that appeared to fulfill a bureaucratic munAttt^. rather than realistically
educate minorities on environmental protection. Thus, community organizations largely
feel that they must bear the responsibility to educate the community.
These are not the only reservations that the urban community has with the government
Some minority communities that have battled against the siting of toxic facilities in their
communities allege that the EPA is allied with many toxic polluters. This government—
industrial complex has, they maintain, led to the placement of many toxic facilities in
minority areas. Community leaders point to emerging studies which hold that the racial
composition of the community is the greatest common denominator of communities near
hazardous waste sites. With scarce numbers of minorities at the EPA and few, if any, on
local toxic waste site boards, many in minority communities conclude that the growing
number of toxic sites in minority communities is no coincidence. To guard against the
disproportionate numbers of hazardous waste sitings in minority areas, community leaders
urge agencies like the EPA, as well as national environmental groups, to increase minority
recruitment
Having significant numbers of minorities employed at these environmental organizations
will dp more than protect minority communities from toxic waste placement, these
organizers argue: it would hopefully be one significant step in catapulting urban
environmentalism to the national forefront Specifically, community organizers hold that
national environmental organizations need "translators" that will be able to effectively
communicate with urban minorities. One of the biggest obstacles to community
organizations educating urban citizens is the lack of technical information on the
environment Moreover, to many minority communities, national policymakers are
seemingly unaware of urban environmental needs. These translators could facilitate the
effective exchange of information between, for instance, the EPA and an urban minority
community. In mis manner, the government would be constantly aware of urban
environmental concerns while offering concrete assistance toward urban environmental
education.
Issues:
Therefore, to fully comprehend the environmental crises facing an inner-city community, it
is necessary to confront the issues from a non-traditional perspective. Too often, analyzing
urban environmental concerns from a bureaucratic vantage point yields a perspective that is
both narrow and shallow. It becomes increasingly difficult to grasp the complexity, if not
the origin, of urban environmental problems when the issues are treated separately, apart
from their relationship to other urban frustrations. To be sure, the environmental issues in
the inner-city cannot be studied unless the complex entirety of inner-city life is embraced.
-------
That is to say, the issues of economics, race, health, education, and environment are all
inextricably bound.
The inner-city resident does not view a problem like poor water quality as an environmental
issue—it is realized as a mixture of many issues—health, economic, and educational to state
a few. The resident initially confronts the quality of his/her water when usage/consumption
becomes unhealthy. The issue is addressed when, for instance, a family member, say a
small child, develops an adverse reaction to the water. Further, if adopting the necessary
measures to improve the quality of water were financially feasible, and if the tenant were
aware of the means to correct his condition, then he/she would probably change the
situation. However, with limited financial means, little, if any, education on the hazardous
effects of lead-ridden water and what can be done to improve it, the urban resident is
powerless. Thus, to equip the urban resident with environmental education is to catalyze
individual behavioral changes that will ultimately instill a sense of environmental
stewardship toward an individual's irnmerfi^ and global environment. Consequently,
effective urban environmental education programs should:
1) Inform the resident about the specific environmental risks in the particular
community;
2) Establish a connection between local and global environmental issues;
3) Suggest specific actions that can be taken by community residents to affect/
change their immediate surroundings.
Though environmental needs differ from community to community, there are certain
common environmental concerns mat are prevalent in many of the District's urban areas:
A. Energy Conservation:
Most of Washington's urban population live in houses that are over fifty years old.
Many urban families cannot afford necessary weatherization measures, such as energy
efficient doors and windows, to insulate homes from Washington's harsh seasonal
temperatures. As a result, these urban families face uncomfortable living conditions as well
as abnormally high energy bills. Proper efforts must be undertaken to provide these
residents with a comprehensive strategy to weatherize their homes.
B. Water Quality
Dilapidated plumbing systems in Washington homes cany poor quality water that
contains abnormally high levels of lead and other toxic chemicals. A study issued by the
Agency for Toxics and Disease Registry reported that an alarming 44% of urban African-
American children are at risk from lead poisoning-four times the rate of Caucasian
children. Low-level lead intoxication is known to have caused a range of impairments,
including IQ reduction and mild mental retardation. Since a significant number of District
residents in urban areas do not own their homes, they heavily rely on landlords/building
managers to renovate the dilapidated water systems. Efforts must be made to educate these
residents on the importance of quality water sources, as well as measures to promote the
consumption of alternative water sources until efficient plumbing systems can be
constructed.
-------
C. Air Quality
Due to the proximity to factories and intense automobile congestion, urban
communities are most impacted by industrial and vehicle emissions. Unable to drift farmer
away, these toxic gases become concentrated between buildings and create a carcinogenic
breeding ground in the District's urban areas. While environmentalists urge residents to
use public transportation to decrease the volume of vehicle emissions, urban residents are
confronted with a troubling dilemma. Since the District's Metro subway transportation
system seems to have bypassed service to many urban/minority areas of the city, increasing
numbers of District residents are forced to use automobiles more often, which, in turn,
contributes to the toxic ah* quality that is daily ingested. It is imperative that urban/minority
residents be informed of measures to improve air quality. Of particular importance is the
formation of a working strategy to encourage individual efforts to improve air quality.
D. Toxic Waste
Some recent studies have shown that the racial composition of the particular
community, rather than any other factor, including income level and property value, has
been the prevailing common denominator in communities near hazardous waste faculties.
(W. Wilson, 1989). To worsen matters, these communities are rarely informed of the
hazardous dangers that they face as residents living near a toxic waste site. Contrastingly,
Northwest Washington residents recently organized, with the help of several community
organizations, a resistance to the siting of the Pepco Benrting Road incinerator. In this
case, educational information was provided beforehand on the possible dangers of the toxic
waste site. Once cognizant of the toxic potential of such a facility, area residents were able
to organize to oppose the siting. The Benning Road case provides an excellent example of
the merits of urban environmental education. Specifically, it illustrates the resource
mobilization strength of an urban community once an educational foundation has been
provided.
EL Toxic Chemicals in Homes
Lead buildup in soil, resulting from old, chipped household paint and gasoline, is
another silent hazard that plagues many urban District residents. Moreover, many are
unaware of the toxic makeup of their yards and nearby playgrounds. Educational efforts,
as well as programs designed to improve die soil quality, are greatly needed. Such projects
could serve as excellent opportunities for local residents to actively interact with their
immediate environment in an effort to establish and maintain healthy land areas.
Asbestos fibers from insulation dissolve into dust particles that become part of
urban residents'air content. This is a common situation in the District; the heavy reliance
on poor quality construction materials, such as the insulation found in many homes,
contributes to a hazardous atmosphere. Residents need to be informed as to what
individual measures can be taken to reduce the ingestion of asbestos. As well,
organizations with such technical information could supply data on potential alternative
sources of insulation.
-------
URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION: The Federal Government
Over the past two decades, environmentalism has evolved from an issue into a global
crisis. Environmental advocates, who quickly realized the potential, irreparable effects of
rapid technological expansion and resource mismanagement, theorized that one of the most
effective ways of protecting our environment was to educate citizens on environmental
issues—to demonstrate how "special interest" issues like smog, ozone depletion, wildlife
preservation affected every citizen. Thus, as the environmental movement has expanded in
its scope and constituency, so have environmental education and training efforts.
Recently, the Center for Environmental Quality produced a report, "Environmental
Education in the Federal Government: An Assessment of Activities and Strategies." The
report outlined how the federal government has engaged in a plethora of environmental
education efforts including pilot projects, academic grants/internships, technical assistance
to curriculum-based programs, and youth projects. However, when compared to other
environmental education programs, there seems to be little effort directed specifically
toward urban environmental education and training. The compendium of nearly 50 federal
environmental education efforts contained only two programs that specifically targeted
urban minority audiences (Appendix A). Whik the Washington DC Urban Environmental
Education Report discovered slightly more federal activity in urban environmental
education than the CEQ Assessment, it still appears mat while general environmental
education programs have steadily increased, in number and scope over the past two .
decades, the amount of comparative federal activity toward urban environmental education
and training has been minimal.
The proposed Office of Environmental T*ducatk*», as well as the National Environmental
Education and Training Foundation would increase attention to environmental eduction
generally, and possibly boost education and training programs for minority/urban
populations. Pnth organizations w»H ajdmyt the issne of environmental education and
extension for urban minority audiences. Below is a sampling of some various types of
federal environmental education and training programs that specifically target
minority/urban populations or programs that include strategies that could be transferable to
a minority/urban audience. Included at the end of the report is a more comprehensive
catalog of Minority Support Programs within the Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Research and Development (Appendix B).
Department of Interior: Take Pride in America
Take Pride in America is a national campaign to increase awareness of the need for
wise use of the nation's natural and cultural resources, encourage an attitude of stewardship
and responsibility toward public resources, and promote volunteer!sm. Supported by a
partnership of 12 federal agencies, 48 states, and many private sector organizations, the
campaign annually sponsors a national awards ceremony to recognize those who have
made outstanding contributions to protecting and enhancing public resources. Award
categories are: constituent organizations; businesses and corporations; youth groups, civic
and citizen organizations; media; educational institutions; individuals; public-private
partnerships; local governments; state governments; federal agencies; and, private lands.
US Department of A griculture' Cooperative Extension System
CES sponsors youth education and 4-H programs to teach rural and urban youth about
natural resource conservation in summer camps around the country. Additional emphasis
is placed on global climate change education.
-------
//.
-------
US Environmental Protection AsencvlCoak Colleger pLtcov^rv Prof ram
Discovery is an academic enrichment and apprenticeship program designed to offer
minority and disadvantaged students with ararf^mir promise an introduction to college
study and careers in science and technology. Discovery is a comprehensive and residential
five-week summer program for rising high school juniors and seniors. It includes
academic, apprenticeship, and residential components, which offer students a range of
activities including SAT preparation, hands-on research experience, and cultural
perspective seminars. The US EPA, which financially supports the program, provides
student apprenticeships that involve water sample collection, activities from boats and
helicopters, sample analysis in sanitary chemistry and microbiological sample analysis.
US Environmental Protection Afencv/Baclais Junior Hifh School
In the Fall 1988, EPA headquarters formed a partnership with Bertie Backus Junior
High School in Washington, DC, a predominantly minority school. The objectives in the
partnership are:
o to stimulate students' interest in studying mathematics and science at the
high school level and beyond;
o to inform students about careers at EPA and elsewhere for those with
appropriate scientific and technical training; and
o to educate students about environmental issues that impact their daily lives.
Programs included:
o a recycling project for white waste paper;
o classroom participation by 20 members of the EPA's Speaker Bureau in
which specialists in forestry, computers, toxic waste, air pollution, an
other fields addressed as many as three classes a day on environmental
issues;
o selection of three Backus teachers and two students for summer internships
atEPA;
o a "mentor shadowing" experience for 10 students who observed Agency
managers in action;
o frequent visits to the school by the EPA chorus and steps toward creating
a Backus chorus;
o Participation by 30 students in the Agency's observance of the Martin
Luther King, Jr. federal holiday.
o a "town meeting," in which students were made aware of conflicting forces
in environmentally-related decision-making in the development of a
community.
-------
US Environmental Pratecrinn Afencv: Minority Institutions Assistance Program (MIA)
The US EPA, through its Office of Exploratory Research (OER), operates a special
assistance program to provide federal assistance to minority institutions. The Minority
Institutions Assistance Program was initiated in 1981 in response to an Executive Order to
increase support for eligible minority institutions and to provide fellowships for students
attending these institutions. The objectives of the program arc:
o to identify existing and potential environmental research capability
within minority institutions and to assist mem in participating in
EPA research activity;
o to help minority institutions to become more competitive with other
institutions for federal funds;
o to provide an opportunity for minority students to gain research
experience in environmental science fields; and
o to promote good working relationships between the Agency and
participating institutions.
US Environmental Protection Agencv/DC Public Schools: Superfund Seniors
Summer Enrichment Project
Superfund Seniors is a joint venture between the EPA and DC Public Schools that attempts
to foster career awareness and student involvement in science and technology fields. The
Summer Enrichment Project is a pilot 6 week summer program for 10 gifted high school
juniors to learn about environmental issues and the role of Superfund in toxic waste
cleanups. Students produce public awareness campaign literature and support materials
(videos, pamphlets, coloring and comic books, etc.).
US Environmental Protection A yencv: Region II (New York}
The EPA's Region n held a "Rap and Rock" contest for students in grades 7 through 12 in
both New Jersey and New York. Music and lyrics were all developed around the contest's
theme, "Pollution Prevention: You Can Make a Difference," Winners were honored at
Region Us Earth Day Festival in late April and were also invited to participate in EPA's
20th annual celebration in December, 1990.
US Environmental Protection Agencv: National Network For Environmental Education
The Agency is working to expand the National Network For Environmental Education
(NNEE), a network of interactive centers across the country serving as regional centers for
teacher training, community outreach, and environmental research. As the Network
reaches its full potential, these centers will serve as environmental education and
information resources for grass-roots America. EPA is now working with other
government agencies and departments interested in contribution to and accessing the
Network.
Smithsonian Institution: The Oakland Museum
The Oakland Museum, a Smithsonian member, sponsors the ScienceReach Program,
which consists of a visit to the Oakland Museum's Natural Sciences Gallery, a discussion
-------
with a professional in the field of resource conservation, and a classroom slide show The
program attempts to familiarize high school students to concepts such as adaptation.
community, and interdependence. Of particular importance is the efforts ofrnc
SaenccReach program to make minority students aware of how issues like animal
extinction affect urban residents.
US Department Of Entrrv/Center For gm/iron^nr. Commerce. and Entry
Urban Weathenzatian Project - •
The Center For Environment, Commerce, and Energy and the Department of Energy have
established a partnership to wcatherize 40 urban District homes. As of July, 1990 20
homes have been weatherized with energy-efficient doors and windows.
-------
URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION:
District Programs, Curriculum-Based Programs, Environmental Advocacy
Organizations, Community Organizations:
While the federal government is currently expanding its role in urban environmental
education, there exists a multitude of organizations that have been engaged in urban
environmental education for some time. Many of these organizations are community-
based, organizing and educating large numbers of urban minorities toward establishing an
environmental ethic. In many of these urban communities, there exists no formal grievance
mechanism to represent local residents' needs. As a result, these urban citizens resort to
churches and housing agencies—groups with which urban minorities are in frequent, if not
constant contact, to voice their concerns. These local groups, often understaffed
organizations with limited financial resources, are, nonetheless, engaged in a myriad of
mobilizational activities including boycotts, marches, letter-writing campaigns, and
lobbying.
The rising grassroots environmental movement is also beginning to embrace the area of
urban environmental education. Indeed, mere are a rising number of environmental
advocacy groups that specifically target urban minority issues. As well, these newly-
established organizations offer some of the most innovative strategies for urban
environmental education. Below is a sampling of some types of urban environmental
education programs mat are sponsored by various organizations.
District Government:
District of Columbia Asbestos Removal Prof ram
The District reviews demolition and renovation plans to ensure asbestos will be removed in
a way that will protect the health of the construction workers and the public. Asbestos
removal must be done by qualified workers, and their safety equipment is inspected before
removal begins. To protect the public, access to the building is limited. The District
monitors disposal of asbestos to make certain it is properly packaged and sent to an
approved disposal site. Approximately 372 asbestos removal projects were completed in
the District in 1987.
District of Columbia Soil and Water Conservation District
The Soil and Water Conservation District provides educational materials to the public, such
as the "Homeowners Urban Guide on Ground Maintenance for Washington, DC" This
guide discuses soil erosion, drainage, and landscaping and is available at libraries, garden
clubs, and the SWCD.
District of Columbia Soil and Water Conservation District: Thomas L. Avers
Outdoor Classroom Program
The Thomas L. Ayers Outdoor Classroom Program is designed to integrate various
curricula such as science, geography, mathematics, social studies, and language arts in an
outdoor setting. This experience offers urban youth a hands-on approach to learning
activities. The District is one of three co-sponsors of the Ayers Program, The two
remaining co-sponsors are the DC Public Schools-Science Department, and the Soil and
Water Conservation Society-DC Chapter.
-------
Environmental Advocacy Organizations:
Center For Environment. Commerce, and Energy: Minority Environmental
Internship Program,
In 1988, the Center For Environment, Commerce, and Energy Minority Environmental
Internship Program sponsored fourteen (14) interns and one volunteer at thirteen (13)
environmental organizations and Maryland Governor Donald Shaefer's Environment
Office. The objective of the program is to increase the number of minority participants in
the environmental sector. The program is also intended to provide students with the
analytical and technical skills necessary to better their understanding of the environmental
policy-making processes through a paid internship with various environmental, energy,
wildlife, and natural resource organizations.
Environmental Action Foundation
Environmental Action, Inc. is a national membership-based organization which works for
strong state and federal environmental laws. The Foundation uses its educational, legal,
technical and organizing capabilities to promote environmental protection and assist
grassroots organizations. Environmental Action:
o promotes alternatives to incineration and landfills through waste
reduction programs that minimize waste production and maximi7.c
recycling and composting;
o champions energy efficiency as the most immediate and cost-
effective response to global warming;
o helps citizens learn about toxic hazards;
o educates citizens on alternatives to chemical pesticides and helps
them oppose the use of chemical pesticides in their communities.
The Morning Star Foundation
The Morning Star Foundation is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization promoting Native
American cultural rights. In 1989, the Foundation established a headquarters office in
Washington, DC, and developed an in-house program of educational and cultural
advocacy. The Foundation also provides organizational sponsorship for Native Children's
Survival, which is international in scope and devoted to youth education and participation
in environmental protection. Native Children's Survival is sponsoring a series of music
videos; the first two of the series deal with missing children and the world environment
The Natural Guard^
The Natural Guard is a new national, non-profit, environmental education, service, and
advocacy organization designed for school age youth. Through education and
involvement, the organization hopes to inspire young people to recognize and solve
environmental problems. The Natural Guard's five major goals are to:
o Instill in young people a better understanding of and appreciation
for the local environment and, in turn, the world around them;
-------
o Generate service projects-such as recycling, pollution patrols,
litter clean-up, energy conservation, wildlife habitat enhancement,
tree-planting, park and monument carctaking, urban trailbuilding—
designed to protect and enhance the environment, provide benefits
for the entire community, and develop leadership skills in young
people;
o Instill a sense of advocacy, and teach the skills necessary to achieve
the goals of environmental protection and enjoyment;
o Institute a supervised exchange program among chapters that provides
opportunities for outdoor exploration of different environments; and
o Emphasize career opportunities in the environment, conservation,
and related fields.
Within the next twelve to eighteen months, the Natural Guard plans to establish a chapter
in Washington DC, as well as several other urban areas. The organization hopes to appeal
to young people from many geographic, economic, and ethnic backgrounds. Special
emphasis will be placed on communities that are not being reached by other environmental
education programs. The newly established environmental advocacy group plans to target
the increasing number of communities where the primary language is Spanish;
accordingly, appropriate staff, educational materials, and brochures will be bilingual.
National Toxics Campaign
The National Toxics Campaign, headed in Boston, Massachusets, is a grassroots
organization that helps to organize citizens in toxic neighborhoods to win relocation,
cleanup and fair compensation. A coalition of over 1000 grassroots groups, NTC
publishes "Fighting Toxics," a 500-page manual for protecting citizens from toxic hazards.
National Wildlife Federation: Cool It! Pro frams
The National Wildlife Federation's Cool It! programs encourage college students to launch
local projects that attack the pollution causing global warming. Some campus projects may
double or triple the size of existing recycling programs. Other campuses may promote
public transportation, energy efficiency, bike paths and walkways, or try to persuade local
food establishments to switch from plastic packaging to biodegradable paper cups and
plates. Cool It! emphasizes supporting projects initiated by culturally diverse groups.
Organizers are assisting college students from diverse communities who are not
traditionally active in environmental issues to play an active role in solving environmental
programs.
Curriculum-Based Programs:
Greenpeace Environmental Education Pilot Proieci
The Greenpeace organization produces a student-directed, process-oriented curriculum that
is used in 18 schools across the world, two of which are predominantly minority schools in
the US. The curriculum focuses on the environmental issues of the local community, rather
-------
than environmental science in general Instead of the traditional textbook learning
method, the students coordinate research and site visits with local environmental
organizations and agencies. After field research, the students initiate their own projects that
are designed to encourage responsible environmental behavior.
Thames Science Center: Watershed Worlds
Watershed Worlds is an environmental science program for teacher enhancement and
development of teaching materials. Based on a pilot project, the program (grades 6-10)
will be developed and disseminated in a three-year project involving 495 teachers and their
students at 65 pilot sites in the nation. An additional 1350 teachers will be introduced to the
program through in-service programs. The curriculum aims to engage teachers' and
students' interest in a series of investigatory activities exploring current environmental
problems and concerns. At the same time, participants explore concepts and theories of the
planet's environmental systems and analyze the cumulative human impact upon them.
These scientific investigations are highly relevant to the students' everyday lives as they
employ and compare local and global databases. The Watershed Worlds curriculum offers
a thematic and sequential presentation of science concepts that crosses boundaries in all
science disciplines normally taught in secondary schools. It is designed to serve all
students.
Community Organizations:
The Center For Community Action: Robeson County. NC
The Environmental Protection and Policy Project of the Center For Community Action was
formed in 1984 in order to develop creative strategies for the promotion of environmental
protection in Southeastern North Carolina. The Center seeks to:
o organize citizen participation in environmental concerns among the
majority Native American and African-American populations of
Robeson County; and
o provide programs and trainings to increase public education and
analysis on issues of hazardous and solid waste management,
facility site selection processes and the role of race and economics
in the selection process, waste reduction and disposal methods,
recycling, landfill contamination, and the role of religious
communities in environmental protection.
Christadora Foundation: Monies Education Center
The Christadora Foundation operates in the city of New York as a grant-giving institution.
The Foundation's grants focus on environmental education. The common ground of all
Christadora grants is that they enable underprivileged city children to better understand and
value the environment that surrounds them. Funded programs often bear an essential
relationship to the Manice Education Center. The primary goals of the Center are to:
o introduce students to the world of nature, stimulating their enthusiasm
for learning in the outdoors;
o nurture sensitivity to and understanding of the human place within
natural ecosystems;
-------
o develop students' capacity for leadership, self-reliance, and group
cooperation;
o instill in students an appreciation for the natural world, the value
of conservation and to help promote minority participation and
leadership in the conservation movement and in the sciences
in general
Students and classes are carefully selected from New York City public schools, grades 6-
10, to attend the Center.
The United Methodist Church: General Board of Church and Society:
For: Our Children Video
The United Methodist Church's General Board of Church and Society, a member of the
Eco-Justice Working Group, a network of onmnmniiy environmental jnsrice organizations,
produces a video, "For Our Children" and an accompanying 40 page manual that
discusses grassroots environmental organizing and issues. The video, which is about a
half-hour long, contrasts community points of view with corporate concerns in an attempt
to demonstrate the problematic nature of commercial incineration of hazardous waste. It
also raises the fundamental question of mankind's relationship to nature. The video packet
is intended to promote discussion of the presented topics and is suggested for use in adult
or youth Church classes.
The United Methodist Church: The Greenhouse Crisis FofflKfafion
The Eco-Justice Working Group of die National Council of Churches and the Joint
Strategy and Action Committee produces a guide on ways that individuals and church
congregations can begin to take to save die earth. The "101 Ways to Help Save die Barm"
manual presents specific actions mat individuals can take to change their daily habits. It
also includes a section, "52 Weeks of Congressional Activities to Help Save die Earth" that
urges activities from tree donation drives to energy efficiency seminars.
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS: The Environmental Protection Agency's Role in
Urban Environmental Education
As a result of the research gathered for the Washington, DC Urban Environmental
Education Report, the following recommendations for the US Environmental Protection
Agency's role in urban environmental education have been developed:
Partnerships:
Some of die most effective environmental education programs in the Washington, DC
community are partnerships between various organizations. This working relationship
provides organizations with the opportunity not only to pool resources, but to share
perspectives on environmental issues and strategies.
Action: The Environmental Protection Agency nny<»nsidcr expanding existing
partnerships and establishing new ones with urban schools, as well as
<-mmrmnv»nfal advocacy gmnpg and local community orgnniratioos that
are involved in urban environmental education.
Technical Assistance:
A significant obstacle to the success of many urban environmental education programs
(ones not sponsored by government agencies) is the lack or deficiency of technical
information on environmental issues. Moreover, while many local organizations represent
community concerns when a cnsfc situation results (e.g. the siffaff8 of municipal solid
waste incinerators, waste-to-energy facilities, and solid hazardous waste incinerators lead
to the formation of toxic waste prevention organizations), many times these groups need to
be able to "translate" technical information on the environment into understandable terms to
an urban audience.
Action: The EPA may consider publishing fact sheets on urban environmental issues
like air pollution, energy efficiency, incineration facilities, and general toxic
issues. These handy information sheets could provide easy insertion into
existing curricula while also promoting adult literacy on environmental issues
that directly impact urban areas.
Recognize/Award Existing Programs:
Much of the effective work on urban environmental education goes unnoticed, resulting in
the duplication of many environmental programs. Furthermore, organizations concerned
with urban environmental education should be aware of successful programs so that similar
efforts may be considered in their particular community.
Action: The EPA may consider instituting an environmental awards program
(similar to the Department of Interior's Take Pride In America program)
that recognizes and applauds the variety of environmental education programs
that are produced by environmental advocacy groups, local community
organizations, and other governmental agencies.
-------
Teacher Recognition;
One tremendous barrier to the implementation of environmental curricula in schools is the
reluctancy of teachers, either because of time constraints, lack of interest in environmental
issues, or poor reception by school administrators, to undertake environmental education in
their schools. Those teachers that do decide to participate in environmental education
programs should be rightfully acknowledged as innovators in education.
Action: EPA may consider instituting an Environmental Education Award specifically
for teachers who initiate or actively encourage environmental education in
their respective schools.
Act as Clearinghouse/Coordinator for Environmental Education Programs:
There are many strategies and programs mat operate in a vacuum; that is, successful
methods for urban environmental extension are often not shared, but rather localized to
specific communities. There is a strong need for a national organization to act as
networking center to facilitate the exchange of information among groups, as well as
existing as a catalyst for the formation of partnerships between various organizations.
Action: The EPA is in a unique position to act as a national clearinghouse for
the sundry environmental education programs that currently exist
The Agency may consider extensively researching urban environmental
education programs that currently exist so that it may provide concerned
organizations with appropriate program information and contacts. As
well, the Agency may consider coordinating federal efforts at urban
environmental education en route to establishing an comprehensive
strategy for federal participation in urban environmental education.
Establish Pilot Programs:
One of the most innovative strategies in environmental education is die hands-on approach
of environmental education pilot programs. Urban youth are more likely to become
interested in environmental issues if programs allow actual participation and provide
information and solutions to issues that directly impact their daily lives. Many urban youth
do not realize the intexconnectedness of many environmental issues. As a result, they are
unlikely to devote much attention to programs that discuss "foreign" topics. Developing
innovative urban pilot projects could be tremendously effective in introducing and instilling
an environmental ethic in today's urban youth.
Action: EPA may consider developing pilot projects that are geared
specifically toward urban minority children and the issues that directly
affect them. Also, programs that connect global environmental issues
to local concerns would bring environmentalism "closer to the urban home."
Regional Publications:
EPA Headquarters cannot bear the responsibility of investigating urban environmental
concerns for every urban community in the country; EPA Regional offices, located in cities
-------
with significant minority populations, could bear some of the responsibility for localizing
urban environmental education efforts.
Action: Regional offices may consider acting as liaison between various urban
communities and EPA Headquarters, providing information on current
environmental concerns in local urban communities.
Historically Black College and University (HBCID Research Budget:
Most, if not all of our nation's HBClTs are active in great numbers of community service
projects, many of which include environmental education programs for minority
communities. To support these institutions with significant funding is to feed money into
these already existing environmental education programs.
Action: EPA may consider increasing research funding to HBClTs that are engaged
in urban environmental education. Moreover, the Agency may seek to
initiate programs through partnerships at universities without
environmental education projects.
-------
Environmental Health and Industry
-------
HSAMH FQCPfi QROPP
NACKPT EDUCATION & TRAl'MIHO STAMP IMS
The following items are a colitejction of preliminary ideas
about how to get the private sector involved in environmental
education with special emphasis!: on environmental health
issues. The ideas are not exhaustive and may already have
been implement ad in the U.S. They are put forward as 'food
for thought1 in anticipation ori the next meeting of the focus
group .
1. Conduct a survey of companies which have successfully
implemented environmental ({education) programs within
their own organization-, ftrjeas to to be --considered might
include, how companies encourage an environmentally aware
ethic within their organisation, strategies for changing
behaviours/ encouraging people to produce innovative
waste reduction techniquea/technologies/processes, etc.
This may be done through a ponsult ing study or by
encouraging EPA's regions !tb submit names of companies
about which they have information.
2. Once companies are : identified provide support to one or
two businesses (demonstration) in each region to ensure
their experience and methodology is
transmitted/translated to:ojj:her companies /communities.
This may be done by encouraging such companies to give
talks at local chamber's of i commerce and other business
organizations' meetings.
3. Explore the use of social marketing to encourage
environmentally sound behaviours. Examine such social
marketing programs as Canada's Participation (fitness),
Break Free (anti-smoking), Jdrug addiction, seat-belt use,
" • etc. ''.''.•" ". . ' '•'•'•.. ' ' ' ': ./
4. Create one or more social ^marketing programs targetted on
high risk issues related tjol environmental health. Such
programs could be funded in;i part by corporations which
could in turn use them withjLn their own organizations.
Unions should not Joe Cof^OU!{L«« 0.0 puaalblc
5. Identify basic principles of behaviour change programming
(social marketing) which could be put into a handbook for
companies .
6. Explore the possibility of getting a large
advertising/marketing firm to donate all or a part of
their time to a social marketing project on the
environment .
-------
7. Identify and/or encourage tjhe creation/development of
childrene.' environmental organizations. Encourage them
to create presentations with slides, visual aids etc.
Invite them to make presentations to their parent's
companies or to local business service organizations. An
example of this Activity exists in Vancouver, B.C.
8» Create an environment success story data bank with 'how
to' briefings. Market the sip success stories as examples
of how progress Is being njiade and how others can get
involved.. Environment Canada has such a program with
over 100 examples (see attached brochure).
9. Foster the creation of a philanthropic fund for
environmental education, Spe attached advertisement for
Canada Trust as an innovative example of how the banking
community can act as vehiclie for generating funds for
environmental projects.
10, Pick one or more, community 'demonstration, projects in
which local corporations {ejmployees and management) or
industry public service organizations take on an
environmental problem and work towards its solution.
Ensure the project gets hi'gn public profile.
Prepared by;
Laurence Evans
Contributor; Environmental Health Focus Group
October 11, 1990
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
FY 1991 NACEPT COMMITTEE AGENDA
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMITTEE
Pollution Prevention. Environmental Preservation and Restoration
—Focusing on developing creative ways to educate society about how to proactively protect the
environment, including redirecting people away from current end-of-the-pipe, reactive approaches.
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Complete implementation of Administrator's Office Pollution
Prevention Education Task Force report and recommendations, complete implementation of
Management Institute for Environment and Business and Eco-Media, conduct University
President's Roundtable (domestic and international), develop Community College Roundtable,
complete urban/minority environmental research project, and define expanded NNEMS program.
Chair, Dr. Tony Cortese, Tufts University. Participants include representatives from Delta
College, South Carolina Environmental Training Center, Air and Waste Management Association,
National Environmental Training Association, Oberlin College, UCLA, EnviroSearch Inc.,
Alliance for Environmental Education.
Environmental Consumer Education
—Developing strategies and initiatives to educate consumers about how their purchasing practices
impact the environment and effect change.
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Potential conference on environmental labelling.
Chair, Dr. Erhard Joeres, University of Wisconsin. Participants include representatives from Small
Business Development Consulting, Johns-Hopkins University, Allied Signal, Environmental
Communication Associates, American Talks Security, Ben and Jerry's Inc., Monsanto, TV A,
Metcalf and Eddy, Green Seal, Delta College, and EPA Offices of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
and Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
Environmental Health
-Focusing on improving citizen understanding of the linkage of environment and public health.
-Studying how people make environmental management decisions.
—Working on improving cross-disciplinary networking, cooperation with the health care commuity
and environmental NGO's, motivating increased industry involvement, and seeking expanded role
by EPA Radon Program and Interagency Task Force on Environmental Cancer/Heart Lung Disease
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: In cooperation with American Medical Association, plan to sponsor
environmental human behavior symposia to consider issues and successful behavior modification
program approaches.
Chair, Dr. William Hendee, American Medical Association, with representatives from Alliance for
Environmental Education, Illinois State University, National Wildlife Federation, SPARK,
Canada; Water Pollution Control Federation, Sierra Club, National Collegiate Television, EPA
Region V.
-------
AGENDA
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
National Advisory Council
for Environmental Policy and Technology
Madison Hotel, Washington, D.C.
October 23, 1990
8:00 am Coffee and Breakfast Rolls Available
8:30 am Welcome. Introductions. Review of Agenda ,
Approval of 7/18-19/90 Minutes ~ Terry Novak, Chair
8:45 am Implementation of Committee Recommendations —
Donna Fletcher, Director
—Status of Followup Items
—Recommendations Implementation Plan
Discussion
Next Steps
9:10 am Committee Networking Opportunities
Relationship to State-EPA Committee — Tom Looby, Vice Chair
Urban Consortium Environmental Task Force — George Britton, Member
Discussion
Next Steps
9:30 am Committee Projects: Building State and Local
Environmental Management Capacity
Environment Program — Cindy Kelly, International City
Managers Association
State Strategic Planning — John Thomasian, National
Governors Association
Self-Help Program — Jane Schautz. Rensselaerville Institute
Discussion
Next Steps
10:15 am BREAK
10:30 am State and Local Governments in EPA'n Strategic
Planning Process — Facilitator Tom Looby
Strawman Recommendations
Discussion
Action on Recommendations
Next Steps
-------
11:00 am Consideration of the Special Needs nf Small Communities --
Facilitator Tim Power. Chair. Small Communities Subcommittee
Referral Recommendations from Subcommittee
Discussion
Action on Recommendations
Next Steps
11:30 am Local Governments as Supgrfund PRPs « Facilitator Terry Novak
Analysis of Comments: Donna Fletcher
Strawman Recommendations
Discussion
12:00 noon LUNCH ON YOUR OWN
1:00 pm Local Governments as Superfund PRPs (continuation')
Discussion
Action on Recommendations
Next Steps
2:00 pm Subtitle D Municipal Solid Waste Program --
EPA Panel; Bruce Weddle. Director, Municipal Solid Waste
Program; Truett Degeare, Planning Implementation Group
Overview of Final Subtitle D Regulations
Proposed State Implementation Rule
Proposed 25% Waste Reduction Requirement
Technical Assistance and Training Plans
3:00 pm BREAK
3:15 pm Response to EPA Panel on Municipal Solid Waste
Jim Power, State of Kansas
George Britton, Phoenix. AZ
Larry Cole, Beaverton, OR
Discussion
Next Steps
4:00 pm Future Committee Projects — Donna Fletcher, Director
L Community Environmental Assessment
2. Strategies for Reaching Local Governments
4:30 pm Agenda for Next Meeting — Terry Novak. Chair
Other Business
5:00 pm ADJOURN
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY (NACEPT)
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
Chairperson:
Mr. Terry Novak. Ph.D.* (90)
City Manager
808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd.
Spokane, WA 99201
Designated Federal Official:
Ms. Donna Fletcher
U.S. EPA (A-101 F6) Comm. Dir.
Office of Cooperative Environmental
Management
401 M St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Phone: (202) 245-3883
Members:
Mr. George W. Britton* (92)
Deputy City Manager
City of Phoenix
251 West Washington Street, 8th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mr. Larry Cole* (93)
Mayor
City of Beaverton
P.O. Box 4755
Beaverton, OR 97076
Mr. Scott E. Fore* (93)
Vice President
Environmental, Health and Safety
Safety Kleen Corp.
777 Big Timber Road
Elgin, IL 60123
Mr. J. William Futrell, Esq.* (93)
President
Environmental Law Institute
1616 P Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
* Denotes NACEPT member
Terms expire September 30
Vice Chairperson:
Mr. Tom Looby* (93)
Assistant Director for Health
and Environmental Protection
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
Ms. Robin Cornwell
U.S. EPA (A-101 F6) Comm. Dep. Dir.
Office of Cooperative Environmental
Management
401 M St.. S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 245-3889
Ms. Lillian Kawasaki* (93)
General Manager
Department of Environmental Affairs
City of Los Angeles
200 North Main Street (MS 177)
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Mr. James Power, Jr.* (92)
Director
Division of Environment
Departmemt of Health & Environment
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620-0001
Mr. Don Richardson* (93)
Mayor, Clinton, Arkansas
c/o Arkansas Association of Conservation
Districts
No. 1 Capitol Mall, Suite 2D
Little Rock, AR 72201
-------
-------
Clarify the shared
environmental
management
responsibilities of
EPA, States, and local
governments and
EPA's responsibilities
in providing
enabling assistance,
information,
and education.
Issue national
policy on
Federal-State
relations.
Conducted 1984 oversight
policy implementation
study, Enforcement
in the 1990s project,
RCRA Implementation
Study; each concludes
that EPA has not made
the culture change
necessary to implement
the policy.
There is effort now to
"take stock" of
oversight practices to
determine needed
changes.
1987 policy memo on
community relations
asks forincorporation of
community relations
training into EPA
Institute, but it was not
implemented.
Issue statement
regarding oversight
policy: oversight includes
clear guidance, direct tech-
nical assistance, and train-
ing; programs are expected
to develop training and
technical assistance
as part of regulatory devel-
opment activities;
increase communication,
consultation, on-site visits,
and personnel exchanges.
seui igo^tof refo^rms^and
provements, and sets
Institute programs for
improving State-EPA
mutual understanding,
such as expanding use of
IPAs and short-term ssign-
ments, training programs
on intergovernmental
relations.
AND TECHNOLOO(
-------
Clarify shared
environmental
management
responsibilities of
States and EPA
(continued)
Hold senior managers
accountable for State
capacity building and
improving EPA-State
relations.
1987 policy memo on
community relations asks
for measure to be
developed, bu it has not
yet been implemented.
Include a measure in
performance standards
of Headquarters and
Regional managers for
State capacity building and
improving EPA-State
relations.
Accelerate use of
risk and problem
assessment for
planning, managing,
and allocating
resources for
environmental
programs.
Accelerate development
of baseline risk in
Regions.
Comparative risk projects
in all 10 Regions; several
pilot State projects; NGA
project to study State envi-
ronmental planning ap-
proaches and potential
integration with EPA
planning.
Assess strengths and
.* %V* X/ sffa' > ••< > "\M * 4 •>
assessment
Support NGA project to
study State planning
approaches.
Increase Regional and
State flexibility to
reallocate resources.
30% flexibility to shift re-
sources across programs
and within programs avail-
able to Regions, but limited
shifting has occurred;
States are not yet seeing
any flexibility.
flexibility in resource
iive~Rffs aulEbTity to"
make multi-media
grants to States.
Shift accountability
measures to measures of
environmental
progress.
Guidance on strategic
planning and STARS
encourage progress
measures; programs
attempting to define
environmental measures,
but with limited success
experimentation
iiches fo measuring
evaluate,
Select an experimental
Region and State to be
released from current
accountability measures
in exchange for an alterna-
tive progress reporting
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR ENVinoWMFNTM oni i/w
-------
State and Local
Programs Committee
-------
Increase emphasis on
building the environ-
mental management
capacity of local
government.
Issue national
policy on EPA's role
in enabling local
governments to
carry out their
environmental
management
responsibilities.
Maintain formal
mechanisms to
identify local
government needs
and assure delivery
of information and
assistance to them.
EPA responsibilities to local
governments still unclear;
some informal consultation
with local governments
takes place; some peer match
and technical assistance
efforts reach locals. Top
management's support
for such activities is not
known. Assistance
efforts are generally
not coordinated among
the programs.
Grant with ICMA provides
peer matches and informa-
tion transfer to local
governments and means for
soliciting local government
perspectives. Several
other programs
provide information and
technical assistance to local
governments, but there is
no central list of such
activities oranalysis of
their effectiveness.
Issue policy explaining
EPA's responsibility to
foster improved environ-
mental management
capacity at the local level;
requires EPA programs
and Regions to consult
with local governments;
sets out expectations re-
garding implementation
of the local government
aspects of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act; establishes
opportunities for EPA staff
to visit very small towns,
and details support for
technical assistance to
local governments.
te conical as sis tan c e
Vtt&h&ttlriU &ldU.
drinking water-waste
water coordination of
information and
^echlcaJL.assistance.,,
Contlaue aa3 expand""
• su .^.^ **•.*•& Xv%> fv. . % s Vk *
raflt program to
governments
_
SlriUngthis n T lies to
USDA's Extension
Service to educate/train
local j^yemmejnts. _____
"Explore potential use "61
fire /health depart-
ments as educators*'
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
-------
Build environmental
management capacity
of local government.
(continued)
Build local govern-
ment capacity for
environmental
self-evaluation so
they can develop
and implement
sound environ-
mental manage-
ment plans.
Expand networks
and EPA resources
to deliver
information,
training, and
assistance to
States.
Auditing is becoming routine
in private sector but in
limited use by local govern-
ments. Preliminary dis-
cussions with ICMA on devel-
opment of a "green book" on
environmental management,
and with Extension Service
to develop environmental
assessment program for
small communities.
Small communities and
affordability work groups
are looking at cumulative
impacts of regulations on
communities; ability to
comply now assessed
regulation-by-regulation
without regard to costs of
complying with other
regulations.
NGA grant produced report
on alternative financing,
implementation of CAA
permit fee proposals, and
study of State strategic plan-
ning processes; other organi-
zations representing execu-
tive branch agencies are
funded by and have
working relationships
with EPA.
Fund a cooperative
agreement with ICMA
for development of a
"green book" on
environmental
h manajeme^nt..^ ^ ^ __ ^
Develop an environ-
mental auditing
protocol for, local gov-
ernments. Explore use
of Extension network
to disseminate to small
Develop a small
communities
compliance policy that
bases compliance efforts
on a cross-program plan
developed as a result of an
environmental audit, risk
assessment, and
affordability analysis.
Continue support for
NGA program :
providing peer
matches, information
exchange, and other,
assistance to States;
continue to support pther
State executive branch
STATE A
NATIONA
CCAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
liSORY COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
-------
Build environmental
management capacity
of local government.
(continued)
Expand networks
and EPA resources
to deliver informa-
tion, training, and
assistance to
States.
(continued)
Little EPA planning yet for
State (and local) training
either by EPA Institute or
EPA enforcement academy.
Assure that planners for the
EPA Institute and en-
forcement academy
adequatey consider
State and local training
needs in the design
of their programs.
Initiate a study of the
status of State (and
local) training forenvi-
rotti&entoJl agency person*
nel as a first step in a
loagei^ii* strategy for
meeting their training
'
Improve delivery of
information and
assistance to State and
local governments.
Help States and
local goyerments
expand in-State
technical assis-
tance, training,
and information
transfer.
EPA is funding Rensselaer-
ville Institute to expand its
model local "self-help" pro-
gram to other States. Other
organizations providing
technical assistance to local
governments (e.g., Small
Flows Clearinghouse, Rural
Communities Assistance Cor-
poration) also receive limited
EPA support.
Continue and expand
EPA' s peer match
and information dis-
semination program
with ICMA.
program for drinking
other States and add a solid
Expand support to other
organizations giving
technical assistance to small
cize
successful State assist-
ance programs, hot-
lines, clearinghouses;
help establish inter-
state networks,
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
-------
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
ANDSUPERFUND
sz
Po«cy and Techno.ogy
Prepared for:
and Local Programs Committee
-------
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND SUPERFUND
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
AND
'STRAWMAN' RECOMMENDATIONS
stemming from
ICMA FOCUS GROUP REPORT
The State and Local Programs Committee of the National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) has been examining the
impact on local governments of being named potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) at Superfund sites and other local government issues associated with
implementation of CERCLA. Under Committee auspices, the International City
Managers Association (ICMA) convened a focus group of local officials whose
communities had been named PRPs to share experiences and identify ways the
process could be made easier for other communities. Since the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) bad only recently completed
development of a municipal settlement policy for Superfund after months of
deliberation and analysis of the statute, the participants were asked not to
re-open this issue but rather to focus on improvements that could be made
within the current statutory structure and general policy.
A focus group participation presented the group's suggestions to the
Committee at its July meeting. The Committee took the suggestions under
advisement and will decide at its upcoming meeting (10/23), what
recommendations, if any, to make formally to the Agency. To help in making
this decision, the Committee solicited the views of key organizations
representing State and local governments.
This paper contains "strawman" language for recommendations based on the
comments along with a discussion of issues associated with each; summaries of
associated comments are also presented. The recommendations are grouped in
the following categories:
1. Notification
2. Procedures when Local Governments Involved as PRPs
3. Role of Local Governments
4. General CERCLA Policy
5. Other Issues Affecting Local Governments
6. Local Government Capacity Building
7. ICMA Focus Group Proposals for Statutory Changes
The "strawman" recommendations are only intended to facilitate discussion
leadinf to the development of recommendations that will fo through the
format NACEPT process.
Prepared for:
State and Local Programs Committee
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology
October 1990
-------
GENERAL COMMENTS I
The primary function of local governments is the protection of the public,
safety, health, and welfare. Local governments implement public policy in a
wide range of environmental areas. They want to be good partners with States
and EPA. There are several impediments to cost effective, efficient, and timely
cleanups of hazardous waste sites. We have collectively developed
recommendations to improve hazardous waste cleanup in ways that also
enhance the role of local governments. (ICMA focus group)
There are over 39.000 general purpose local governments in the United States.
More than 85% are small, serving populations under 10,000. Each of these
small governments is limited in its financial resources, staff expertise, and
access to consultants. "General purpose governments" include cities, counties,
towns, and townships; the recommendations should apply to all, not just to
"cities." (National Association of Towns and Townships/NATaT)
Local governments need to be treated as equal partners in environmental
protection. Local governments are there to protect the health, safety, and the
environment for all their citizens. (NATaT)
One cannot help but support recommendations for greater consistency, cven-
handedness. and efficiency as well as better information sharing and
technology transfer. However, our reviewers did find possible points of
friction between current statutory requirements and some of the report's
recommendations. (Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials/ASTSWMO)
Both the U.S. Constitution and CERCLA set forth the relationship between
Federal and State governments, and, by extension, the relationship with local
governments. The delineation of these relationships plays a large part in the
procedures designed to implement Supcrfund. While better involvement of
local governments is desirable, it should not replace, circumvent, or disrupt
these basic Constitutional and statutory Federal/State relationships.
(ASTSWMO)
The issues that arise when cities are involved in Federal Superfund or State
cleanups are extremely complex and involve not only cities, but also lenders,
buyers, generators, and owners of property. The issues which need to be
addressed include such things as: innocent landowners, de minimus
settlements, environmental assessments, lender liability, site registry, and
liability insurance. The ICMA proposal is too narrow in scope; we need to take
a look at a number of issues confronting municipalities when contaminated
sites are identified within their communities. (See also recommendations)
(Jim Power.KS)
An important part of the community's responsibility is not only the past, but
also the future. Cities experiencing ground-water contamination problems are
facing the high financial liabilities of expenditures for cleanup and
remediation and loss of tax income due to real estate devaluation. Prime real
estate is not selling because of ground-water contamination. Even the threat
-------
of potential contamination has stopped many real estate transactions. The
challenge is to find a way to share or manage liability for contaminated real
estate to ensure usable, income-producing property for long-range
community development. I have long recommended environmental audits
prior to all real estate transactions. In the future, communities need to be
proactive in limiting future liability for ground-water contamination.
(See also specific recommendations) (Power, KS)'
II 1. NOTIFICATION
I 1-a PROMOTE INFORMATION SHARING AMONG MUNICIPALITIES I
EPA should facilitate sharing of lessons learned and advice from
local governments that have had experience as PRPs with other
local governments through dissemination of information kits,
peer matches, seminars, and publications.
Local governments generally lack the sophisticated legal and technical
expertise needed to cope with being named a Superfund PRP. EPA could help
them through this difficult situation by fostering development of information
kits explaining the process, sponsoring peer exchanges among local officials
with experience dealing with Superfund, fostering the development of
networks of local officials, and providing training materials and workshops.
(ICMA focus group)
EPA Headquarters should develop networks, information exchanges,
workshops, and training for local officials and implement them through EPA
Regional offices. EPA may also wish to work with national
organizations/associations to get the word out. (NATaT)
I 1-b EARLY NOTIFICATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS - ALL SITES I
Local government officials should be notified immediately
when EPA suspects that any site in the community -- privately or
publicly owned or operated - may be a potential CERCLA site.
If a site is suspected of presenting a health or environmental risk such that it
warrants investigation as a potential Superfund site, local officials should be
notified immediately. This will allow them to take any actions necessary to
limit access to the site and stop inappropriate activities there; the information
can also be factored into community planning efforts. (ICMA focus group)
Notice should be provided at the same time as: EPA Regional offices are
informed by Headquarters staff of a potential action, or a decision is made by
Regional officials to undertake an enforcement action or site investigation.
(NATaT)
-------
I l-c NOTIFY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OF ALL ACTIONS \
EPA should inform the local government of any investigations or
enforcement actions within its jurisdiction.
Because of secrecy requirements, criminal investigations should be excluded
from the notice requirement. (EPA)
Appropriate timing for notification should be clarified. (EPA)
Should notice apply just to Supcrfund, or to all programs? If local
governments should be informed about all actions, is this an appropriate role
for EPA, or more appropriate for the States since they take most of the
enforcement actions? (EPA)
I l-d NOTIFY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS - MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS I
EPA should immediately notify local governments directly and in
writing of initial investigation steps begin taken under CERCLA
involving a landfill site owned or used by local governments.
Local governments need to know right away if a landfill they own or use is a
potential CERCLA site so that they can discontinue sending waste there and
begin cooperating with State and Federal officials. The notification should be
in writing directly to local governments, and not through State agencies
which may delay notifying them. If local governments continue to use
landfills suspected of being Superfund sites, additional environmental damage
as well as economic liability could result. (ICMA focus group)
Initial notice should be given via a phone call followed up by a written notice
sent to the locality's Chief Elected Official and Chief Administrative Officer.
Publication in the Federal Register should not be considered notice. (NATaT)
The appropriate timing for such notification is unclear. (EPA)
Which local officials should be notified —city/town/township, county, or
both — is unclear. (EPA)
I 1-e PROVIDE INFORMATION KIT WITH NOTICE I
EPA should include an information kit with the PRP notice to help
guide local government officials through the Superfund process.
Most local officials will have limited or no understanding of the Superfund
process and their responsibilities and liabilities as PRPs. EPA should provide
an information kit that explains the process and suggests what steps they
should take. Local officials who have experience as PRPs should be involved
in identifying the types of information needed and in developing the content
of the materials.
-------
I l-f NOTIFY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BEFORE THE PRESS OR PUBLIC I
EPA should make no public pronouncement of a local government's
involvement in a Superfund investigation until after the local
government has been notified directly.
Local officials sometimes first learn about the government's involvement in a
potential Superfund site from the press. (ICMA focus group)
EPA often informs the press prior to informing the local government. This
places a community official in an intolerable position. (NATaT)
i 2. PROCEDURES WHEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS INVOLVED AS PRPS II
I 2-a GIVE DEADLINE EXTENSION IF EPA RESPONSE IS SLOW I
If EPA fails to respond expeditiously to a local government's
request for information about a CERCLA matter such that the local
government is unable to meet an EPA deadline for comments or
other action, EPA should automatically extend the deadline.
Often, EPA does not respond promptly to a local government's inquiry about a
CERCLA matter, yet EPA's deadline for receiving comments from the local
government do not change. This leaves the local government inadequate time
to prepare. If EPA does not respond to a local government within 10 days of a
deadline for comments, the deadline should automatically be extended for 60
days. (ICMA focus group)
NATaT strongly believes that EPA needs to respond expeditiously to all requests
for information. We have no position on the time frame nor the automatic
extension. (NATaT)
I 2-b LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD ENTER INITIAL CONSENT DECREE I
Local governments that are PRPs should be given the opportunity
to enter into the initial consent decree.
Current EPA practice is to notify and provide an opportunity for settlement
first to the ten largest PRPs at a Superfund site. Typically, a local
government's contribution to a site would place it much farther down the list
of PRPs, so the local government does not learn about its involvement in the
site until after the initial consent decree has already been negotiated. By not
being a party to the initial consent decree, the local government can be sued
for cleanup costs by the parties who did sign. EPA should notify all local
governments involved when the first round of PRP notices go out so they can
enter the initial consent decree, get de minimus settlements as appropriate,
and be shielded from further lawsuit by other PRPs. (ICMA focus group)
Some group members who had worked with EPA from the beginning had mixed
feelings about this suggestion. They said the process was so cumbersome and
-------
some requirements made by EPA so inappropriate for a local government that
they wondered whether they would have been better off taking their chances
of being sued by other PRPs. (ICMA focus group)
2-c ACCOMMODATE LEGAL PROCEDURAL OBLIGATIONS OF LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS
EPA should accommodate the legal procedural obligations that
local governments must comply with before they can enter into
consents or formal agreements.
Follow the letter and spirit of Superfund and regulations applicable to local
governments, as clarified in the interim Municipal Settlement Policy. Assure
that Regional personnel, contractors, and others performing work associated
with local government involvement in Superfund sites understand and
implement relevant provisions. (ICMA focus group)
Local governments are often restricted by State law in the development of
legally binding agreements and taxing authority. EPA should take this into
consideration when developing consent or formal agreements the local
government must sign. (NATaT)
Although most State program offices empathize with local governments'
need to consider their own legal and procedural constraints imposed by local
laws (e.g., fiscal year cycles, loss-of-job evaluations), such constraints should
not be expected to outweigh the selected remedy, and its attendant cost, as
defined by a scientifically based record of decision. (ASTSWMO)
I 2-d KEEP, EXPAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT "IN KIND" WORK OPTIONS I
EPA should maintain and expand the use of "in kind" work options
available under the Municipal Settlement Policy.
The use of "in kind" services is one way local governments can meet their
environmental cleanup responsibilities. With limited budgets and very limited
taxing authority, this is a viable approach and should be encouraged by EPA.
(NATaT)
I 2-e DO NOT USE MUNICIPAL SITES FOR EXPERIMENTAL CLEANUPS I
Discontinue using municipal sites as theoretical or experimental
cleanup sites.
Focus on responsible, pragmatic cleanup programs that restore sites to an
environmentally sound and usable state. Discontinue using municipal sites as
theoretical or experimental cleanup sites because using new approaches
causes too many delays in the process and difficulties with the public. (ICMA
focus group)
It is unclear whether the ICMA focus group objects to using municipal sites in
the SITE program, as part of research and development efforts, and/or for use
of new technology. Since a common goal is to develop cost-effective
technologies for cleanup, exclusion of municipal sites from participating in
-------
research and demonstration programs might be counterproductive. A
recommendation to improve the process for using new technologies or
participating in experimental sites might be more appropriate. (EPA)
2-f AGREEMENTS SHOULD REFLECT UNDERSTANDING OF MUNICIPAL
FINANCE
Structure settlement agreements which reflect an understanding
of municipal finance and local economic constraints.
Small local governments are limited in their ability to finance bonds, raise
taxes, and increase user fees. Their ability to cover the cost of cleanup is very
limited and often is passed on to the citizens of the community. EPA needs to
understand that, unlike industry, local governments cannot raise prices.
Often a new tax or change in the government's budget must be approved by
the public. (NATaT)
Funding cleanups is complicated by CERCLA Sec.l04(c)(3)(C), which specifies
the percentage of a site's remedial costs for which a State is liable. Under this
section, a State's liability depends in pan on the liability of its political
subdivisions. Consequently, States have an important stake in the manner in
which the liability of local governments is resolved. The State program office
must therefore be deeply involved in the PRP settlement process. (ASTSWMO)
2-g ADOPT PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING FINANCIAL STATUS THAT
ARE APPROPRIATE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Superfund financial analyses should be performed using
methodologies that are appropriate to assessing the financial
health of local governments.
The Superfund program does not now have a standard procedure for
evaluating the financial status of local governments. Financial analyses of
local governments are conducted by staff and/or contractors without
appropriate guidance. Many examples exist of studies of local government
finances that were performed using methods appropriate for businesses but
not for governments. EPA should develop and assure use of standard methods
— drawing on methods for municipal bond rating and other standard
approaches to assessing municipal financial health -- when conducting
financial analyses of local governments.
• 3. ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
3-a INCLUDE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN SITE PLANNING, OVERSIGHT,
ENFORCEMENT
Include local governments in discussions between EPA and the
State regarding Superfund sites, recognizing their potential role
in enforcement and oversight.
Local governments involved in municipal settlements as PRPs are in the
awkward position of having an inherent conflict of interest that probably
precludes them from participation in oversight or enforcement at many sites.
-------
Also, State experience in building regulatory and financing infrastructures to
support remedial actions has shown that these are resource intensive efforts.
(ASTSWMO)
\ 3-b UTILIZE EXPERTISE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF I
Make better use of local government staff experienced in
environmental public safety and intergovernmental relations who
can make meaningful contributions to technical issues,
discussions, and decisions.
Making use of local government staff is an important key in meeting
environmental mandates. Since many small governments don't have this
expertise, EPA should develop a peer match program to share expertise
between large and small governments. (NATaT)
I 3-c ASSIGN OVERSIGHT TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS I
Where possible, EPA should assign oversight of Superfund
cleanups to the State agency or to a local government.
Assignment of responsibility must take into consideration staff expertise and
community resources. Many small communities do not have the appropriate
expertise and knowledge to manage the cleanup of a Superfund site. (NATaT)
I 3-d LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT AGENCY I
EPA should enter into agreements with qualified local
governments as designated Superfund local management and
oversight agencies. EPA should begin a pilot program to identify
appropriate parameters for these agreements.
NATaT supports the concept of local management of Superfund sites. Because
of limited expertise and resources, many small governments could not/should
not play an oversight role. Small local governments should be invited,
however, to participate as an observer in such oversight activities. (NATaT)
i 4. GENERAL CERCLA POLICY B
I 4-a APPLY REGULATIONS, MANAGEMENT PROCESSES CONSISTENTLY I
EPA should apply regulations and management processes
consistently nationwide.
There are considerable variations in management processes and in the way
regulations are applied at Superfund sites, even within the same EPA Region.
This is ultimately unfair. (ICMA focus group)
Consistency is needed, but it will require strong management guidance from
EPA Headquarters. (NATaT)
-------
I 4-b IMPROVE SELECTION. OVERSIGHT OF CONTRACTORS
EPA should carefully select and screen prime contractors for
RI/FS and remedial activities and avoid duplicative oversight
contractors.
The current contracting system often has different contractors performing
various stages of site assessment and remediation activities. Often, costs rise
and delays occur because each succeeding new contractor finds it necessary to
"re-do" the work of the previous contractor. EPA certification of contractors
would be helpful. EPA should also assign cleanup activities under a more
cooperative oversight program. (ICMA focus group)
The intent of "a more cooperative oversight program" is unclear. (EPA)
I 4-c AGGRESSIVELY PURSUE NONSIGNATORY PRPs ~|
EPA should pursue nonsignatory PRPs more agressively, providing
local governments more leverage with other responsible parties.
This recommendation is not clear. EPA should always pursue nonsignatory
PRPs; this would reduce the cost of cleanup and other actions. (NATaT)
While expedited cleanup is preferable to interminable litigation, ASTSWMO
advocates a vigorous "enforcement first" settlement approach to ensure that
cleanups are undertaken quickly, while conserving the CERCLA trust fund for
sites where PRPs are recalcitrant or unidentifiable. This is an equitable policy
that should apply to all PRPs. (ASTSWMO)
S. OTHER ISSUES AFFECTING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
S-a CONTINUE TO IDENTIFY, RESOLVE ISSUES AFFECTING LOCAL
GOVERNMENTS
EPA should continue working to identify and resolve Superfund
issues affecting local governments.
Local governments are affected both directly and indirectly when a
contaminated site is identified in the community; so too are lenders, buyers,
generators, and property owners. Local economies can suffer, property
transactions can stop. EPA must continue to examine such issues as:
oo Innocent landowners
oo De minimus settlements
oo Environmental assessments
oo Lender liability
oo Site registry
oo Liability insurance
-------
6. LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITY BUILDING
I 6-a PROMOTE INFORMATION SHARING AMONG MUNICIPALITIES I
EPA should facilitate sharing of lessons learned and advice from
local governments that have had experience as PRPs with other
local governments through dissemination of information kits,
peer matches, seminars, and publications.
Local governments generally lack the sophisticated legal and technical
expertise needed to cope with being named a Superfund PRP. EPA could help
them through this difficult situation by fostering development of information
kits explaining the process, sponsoring peer exchanges among local officials
with experience dealing with Superfund. fostering the development of
networks of local officials, and providing training materials and workshops.
(ICMA focus group)
EPA Headquarters should develop networks, information exchanges,
workshops, and training for local officials and implement them through EPA
Regional offices. EPA may also wish to work with national
organizations/associations to get the word out. (NATaT)
I 6-b HELP LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ASSESS AND ADDRESS PROBLEMS I
EPA should develop a program to assist local governments in
assessing and addressing environmental problems systematically.
Local governments face a wide range of environmental problems and must
comply with multiple regulatory requirements. A systematic assessment of
environmental assets and potential problems ("environmental audit") would
aid communities in setting rational priorities for addressing them according to
the risk they present, rather than according to how and when individual
problems are discovered. (several commenters)
I 6-c PROMOTE PREVENTION ACTIVITIES I
EPA should encourage local governments to undertake prevention
activities that limit future liability for ground-water
contamination.
Local governments should be encouraged to take steps to prevent future
liability. Examples include:
oo Require stricter monitoring of underground storage tanks, oil storage
facilities, and industrial waste disposal sites.
oo Prohibit landfills within city limits.
oo Require annual monitoring of landfills.
oo Find alternative funding for redevelopment of real estate with low-level
contamination.
10
-------
oo Require soil and water testing prior to issuing building permits.
oo Monitor for toxic chemicals in water supplies more frequently.
oo Recommend that counties form consortiums to plan for future waste
disposal.
oo Combine resources and hire experts to create plans for ground-water
protection.
oo Develop plans for greater wellhead protection.
oo Include costs of cleanup for soil and water contamination in
redevelopment costs.
oo Monitor abandoned wells and their cross-connections with private
wells.
oo Set aside funds for prevention and remediation of ground-water
contamination, as well as for future soil and water monitoring.
oo Carefully represent instances of ground-water contamination to the
public to prevent unnecessary perceptions of property devaluation.
oo Redevelop industrial properties through public/private partnerships.
(Powers, KS)
6-e LOCAL GOVERNMENT/INDUSTRY COOPERATIVE PREVENTION
EFFORTS '
Local governments and industry should be encouraged to work
more closely together to limit liability for ground-water
contamination.
To limit liability for ground-water contamination, businesses should:
oo Increase the monitoring of disposal, storage, and delivery procedures
for hazardous waste on company property.
oo Conduct environmental reviews of property history, and perform soil
and ground-water testing prior to all real estate transactions.
oo Conduct environmental reviews and monitoring on all waste disposal
sites they own.
oo Consider ground-water protection in the design and installation of
new manufacturing processes and facilities.
oo Institute internal waste minimization procedures and oversee their
own waste disposal.
11
-------
oo Develop policies for limiting future liability by becoming more
conscious of operating practices that have the potential to adversely
change ground-water quality.
oo Train personnel better and document procedures for quick response
action.
oo Conduct regular environmental audits to assess potential
environmental hazards.
oo Explore alternatives to landfilling wastes.
(Powers, KS)
7. ICMA FOCUS GROUP PROPOSALS FOR STATUTE CHANGES
The ICMA focus group suggested several statutory changes to
CERCLA, shown in unedited form below.
1. Local governments should be responsible only for hazardous wastes
generated by its own operations. There should be no local government
liability for the wates generated by households, businesses, or industry
within its jurisdiction.
2. Because of cities' responsibility for the public health, they should not
be penalized for collecting household waste. The definitions of
"transport." "arrange." etc., should be changed to be limited to
commercial trash producers and carriers.
3. Publication in the Federal Register shall not constitute legal
notification to a local government under CERCLA. Legal notice should
be a written document to the Chief Elected Official and Chief
Administrative Officer.
4. Make amendments so as to shift the emphasis from litigation to cleanup
of sites.
5. Consider the relative risks to human health and the environment from
all sources in setting priorities for legislative action and funding.
6. Funding for Superfund is inadequate. A mechanism is needed which
will provide resources to clean up sites within a reasonable time.
7. Clarify definitions so that toxicity, not volume of waste, is the standard
in determining how municipal solid waste and sewage sludge should be
considered under Superfund.
12
-------
[Comments received on the ICMA proposals are presented below. I
ASTSWMO Comments:
While it is axiomatic to say that human health and the environment should be
the primary consideration in the Superfund program, the statutory
recommendation to use toxicity rather than waste volume for determining
local governments' liability for sewage sludge and municipal solid waste
requires much broader consideration than is provided here. Besides the
critical impact such a recommendation would have on Superfund's strict, joint
and several liabiolity standard, it appeared to some of our reviewers that
liability assessments for sludge and municipal solid waste should be based on
all appropriate factors contributing to their relative risk.
The statutory recommendations for liability exemptions related to wastes
generated by households, businesses, and industry, as well as to exemptions for
certain transporters, represent a profound change to the strict, joint and
several liability standard, and should be studied closely for its impact on
overall funding and for equity among responsible parties. An exemption for
any PRP that would otherwise be normally liable inevitable creates a shortfall
in the total level of cleanup resources.
While expedited cleanup is preferable to interminable litigation, ASTWMO
advocates a vigorous "enforcement first" settlement approach to ensure that
cleanups are undertaken quickly, while conserving the CERCLA trust fund for
sites where PRPs are recalcitrant or unidentifiable. This is an equitable policy
that should apply to all PRPs.
NATaT Comments
NATaT expressed agreement with all proposals. They point out that EPA can
shift the emphasis from litigation to cleanup of sites without legislative
change (4).
With regard to setting priorities according to risk (5), they note:
Legislative changes to implement this recommendation would be
required under all environmental statutes. Though we agree that
relative risks to human health should be considered across all media
before regulatory actions are undertaken, this issue/approach needs to
be explored as to its feasibility before legislative changes are
recommended.
13
-------
NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES
Comments on ICMA Focus Group Suggestions
Local Governments and Superfund
Comments on the ICMA focus group suggestions on local governments and
Superfund were received from the National League of Cities (NLC) too late to
be incorporated into the summary. The League's comments are summarized
below.
I NEW; EPA COMMENDED FOR MUNICIPAL SETTLEMENT POLICY I
EPA is commended for issuing the Interim Municipal Settlement
Policy which provides significant relief to local governments
faced with potential Superfund liabilities.
EPA should be praised for issuing the Interim Municipal Settlement Policy last
December. That policy deals with perhaps the most important issue faced by
local governments under Superfund: the extent to which they will be held
liable for the generation and transportation of ordinary garbage found at
Superfund sites....The Policy states that EPA will not take enforcement action
against local governments when their only involvement with a site is as a
generator or transporter of municipal solid waste. The only exception to this
rule is when site-specific evidence indicates that the local government also
hauled hazardous waste generated by an industrial process to the site.
In light of the increasing efforts of corporate defendants to shift billions of
dollars in Superfund liability onto the backs of local governments, the EPA
policy represented a significant victory for municipalities. We feel it is
important, . therefore, that the local government community continue to
reinforce the Agency's position on this key issue, both to show gratitude for
the Agency's stand and to forestall any retreat by EPA on this critical issue.
Since the policy is only a statement of how EPA will exercise its enforcement
authority, the Policy does not prevent private lawsuits against local
governments; it leaves local government exposed to claims for contribution
based on the volume of garbage they contributed to the site; and it does not
address in any detail how local governments will be treated when they are
PRPs at Superfund sites (either because they own or operate the site or
because they generated and transported clearly hazardous waste.)
I AGENCY-WIDE RISK ASSESSMENT I
NOTE: The, original ICMA focus group report included a suggestion that EPA
"re-examine its enforcement priorities through an Agency-wide risk
assessment." Because the State and Local Programs Committee is addressing the
whole issue of strategic planning in another set of recommendations, it has
been dropped from the Superfund recommendations. NLC's comments on the
recommendation are similar to others received on this issue, and are therefore
summarized below.
We assume that what is meant by "Agency-wide risk assessment" if a re-
evaluation of all of the nation's environmental programs in order to
-------
determine which ones address the most serious public health risks. We do not
object to that kind of process, but we are not clear about why such a global
recommendation belongs in comments designed to address specific problems of
Superfund. If the point is that Superfund should not be a top priority for the
Agency, EPA staff correctly believe that Congress has instructed the Agency to
make Superfund cleanup and enforcement a priority and that it has little
discretion to ignore that mandate. If local governments are concerned that
Superfund is receiving inordinate attention, we need to raise those issues with
the Congress, not EPA.
I 4-b IMPROVE SELECTION, OVERSIGHT OF CONTRACTORS I
EPA should carefully select and screen prime contractors for RI/FS and
remedial activities and avoid duplicative oversight contractors.
This comment seems to confuse the identify of "prime" contractors who
actually do the cleanup work and "oversight" contractors who are hired by
EPA (not by the "prime" contractor) to oversee the cleanup activities. While
there may in fact be waste in the contracting program, EPA's use of oversight
contractors is the only way that the Agency can monitor the progress and
efficiency of cleanup work. Some have suggested that the Agency hire
sufficient staff to conduct this monitoring function itself rather than paying
top dollar to one consultant to look over the shoulder of another consultant.
This alternative approach has considerable merit and should be mentioned, at
least, in the recommendations.
I 6-a PROMOTE INFORMATION SHARING AMONG MUNICIPALITIES \
EPA should facilitate sharing of lessons learned and advice from
local governments that have had experience as PRPs with other
local governments through dissemination of information kits,
peer matches, seminars, and publications.
We hope that the Agency gives strong emphasis to meeting the Superfund
training, technical assistance, and information needs of local governments.
We hope also that the Agency will continue and expand its use of existing
associations like ICMA and NLC, which are known and trusted sources of
information for local leaders, as vehicles for meeting those needs.
I NEW; ASSURE REGIONS UNDERSTAND, IMPLEMENT CHANGES I
EPA Headquarters must communicate Superfund implementation
procedures clearly to Regional offices in writing and through
training programs, and assure that they are implemented.
EPA national and Regional office communication has caused unnecessary
confusion and problems in the implementation of other environmental
programs. Once a set of Superfund implementation procedures have been
agreed upon at the national Agency level, it is critical that procedures and
instructions be clearly communicated, both in writing and through training
programs, to the EPA Regional office staff.
-------
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
State and Local Programs Committee
Meeting
July 18-19, 1990
MINUTES
The meeting was convened by Terry Novak, Committee Chair, at 1:30 PM on
Wednesday, July 18. A copy of the meeting agenda and a list of meeting
attendees is attached.
Report on the NACEPT Executive Committee Meeting
Dr. Novak provided an overview of the July 11-12 NACEPT Executive Committee
meeting. He had reported to the Executive Committee about the State and Local
Program Committee's current activities: establishment of the Small
Communities Subcommittee; examination of Superfund liability and other
issues affecting municipalities; and continuation of grant activities with the
International Cities Managers Association, National Governors Association, and
Rensselaerville Institute. He also noted disappointment at the lack of action on
the Committee's recommendations, a desire for EPA to move further toward
risk-based decision-making, concern about the lack of accessibility of EPA
Regional offices, and the view that compliance rather than enforcement
should be the focus of EPA's programs.
Dr. Novak reported several key actions of the Executive Committee, including
establishment of a subcommittee on the Bureau of Environmental Statistics
under the State and Local Programs Committee and the separation from
NACEPT ~ but with continued close ties — of the Environmental Financial
Advisory Board (EFAB).
Report From the State-EPA Operations Committee Meeting
Tom Looby provided an overview of the July 17-18 meeting of the State-EPA
Operations Committee, of which he is also a member. Among the topics
discussed were the State role in ground-water protection and drinking water
programs, integrated environmental management, stormwater permitting,
the RCRA program, Federal facilities, and amendments to the Clean Air Act.
Mr. Looby also mentioned that there are some issues of common interest to
both the State-EPA Operations Committee and the NACEPT State and Local
Programs Committee, and that more interface and cooperation between the two
committees would be desirable. The Committee then discussed potential areas
and projects of joint interest.
-------
Action Items.
oo Mr. Looby will work with Donna Fletcher, Director of the State and
Local Programs Committee, and Paul Guthrie, who manages the State-
EPA Operations Committee, to develop a process and procedures for
greater information-sharing and cooperation between the committees.
oo Mr. Looby will draft a letter from the Committee to the Deputy
Administrator expressing the members' concern about compliance
at Federal facilities and State and local government views on the
proposed Sovereign Immunity Act.
oo Ms. Fletcher will ask the Deputy Administrator to include Committee
members in the review process for the ground-water protection
policy papers now under development.
oo Ms. Fletcher will send Committee members, for their review and
comment, copies of the RCRA Reauthorization papers developed by the
State-EPA Operations Committee.
oo Ms. Fletcher will explore the potential for joint efforts with the
State-EPA Operations Committee on implementation of stormwater
permitting and analysis of organizational structures State and local
governments use to do integrated environmental management.
Three Studies on Federal-State Relations
The Committee's first formal recommendation asked EPA to clearly articulate
an oversight policy which sets out the shared environmental management
responsibilities of EPA, States, and local governments as well as EPA's
responsibility for providing assistance, information, and education that will
help State and local governments improve their environmental management
capacity.
In line with the Committee's recommendation, the issue of Federal-State
relations has been receiving considerable management attention in EPA.
Recently, three separate EPA studies looked at Federal-State relations and
implementation of the 1984 oversight policy that had been developed after
extensive research and debate by a State-Federal Task Force in 1984.. Each of
these studies represented a different perspective, but all three studies had
similar findings. Managers of each of these studies presented their findings
and recommendations to the Committee.
State Delegation and Oversight Policy Review
Paul Guthrie of EPA's Office of Regional Operations and State/Local Relations,
described his review of EPA's State delegation and oversight policies and
studies of their implementation. Generally, he found that the policies have not
been implemented. He noted that he has presented his findings to the Deputy
-------
Administrator, who has asked for actions to take stock of the current oversight
situation and dramatic steps to achieve better implementation of the policies.
In his presentation, Mr. Guthrie noted that the growing responsibilities of EPA
and the States cover an increasingly large and diverse universe of sources and
facilities, often requiring site-specific actions. This presents enormous
managerial challenges to EPA. He also pointed out the EPA is a multi-faceted
organization, and the different facets do not always work together effectively.
Most regulatory takes place on a media-specific basis, but most problems are
cross-media, and current structures are not well equipped to address them.
Mr. Guthrie reported that the issue of oversight and delegation of authority
has been studied extensively. Many policies exist; most have merit but
sometimes work at cross purposes. EPA needs to figure out what the guiding
principles and framework are for policies, practices, and procedures affecting
States, such as the State program approval process, delegations and oversight
policies, State-EPA agreements, and the performance-based assistance policy.
He noted that current EPA management themes of strategic planning and total
quality management may work together through implementation of the
oversight policy.
Discussion
Mr. Barber suggested that it is EPA's responsibility to make sure that there is
an adequate State program, but it is not EPA's responsibility to run State
programs.
RCRA 90-Day Study
Suzanne Rudzinski, Chief of the State Programs Branch in EPA's Office of Solid
Waste, made a presentation on the State-Federal relationships chapter of the
90-Day Study of RCRA Subtitle C.
A central finding of the study was that the EPA/State relationship does not live
up to the promise of a partnership, and that in appropriate expectations are
generated by the use of the partnership term. Dual implementation of RCRA
by Regions and States strains the State-EPA relationship. The study also found
that EPA needs a more effective and efficient mechanism to differentiate
treatment of "good" versus deficient State programs.
The study found that different entities within EPA do not appear to share a
common focus regarding the goals and priorities of the RCRA program.
Further, States and EPA Regional offices feel they have limited opportunity to
impact planning, and feel that Headquarters priorities do not reflect the real
problems they face. Of particular interest with regard to State-Federal
relations, there is no agreement on the importance of achieving delegation to
the States. EPA is seen as not fully committed to complete program
implementation by the States. The authorization process is a lightning rod for
friction in the State/Federal relationship and is also difficult because of
RCRA's ever changing and prescriptive nature.
EPA does not forthrightly acknowledge what can and cannot be accomplished
under RCRA, the study found. This can lead to cynicism, given the limited
-------
resources available and the growing number of requirements States are being
asked to implement. Finally, the failure of EPA and the States to collectively
define success for RCRA is responsible, in part, for Congressional micro-
management and negative public perceptions.
Discussion
During the discussion, it was pointed out that EPA's oversight policy must be
implemented throughout the management chain. Senior managers may be
aware of the policy, but it has not yet filtered down to the day-to-day
operations of the Agency.
The Agency should build a management infrastructure to encourage different
ways of evaluating success in environmental management. For example,
visible or measurable environmental improvement would be a better measure
that numbers of enforcement actions.
Realistic expectations of what can be done under RCRA should be articulated
and communicated to all entities involved in RCRA implementation.
Enforcement in the 1990's Project
Donna Fletcher was Program Manager for Compliance and Enforcement
Assistance prior to assuming the position of Committee Director of the State
and Local Programs Committee. She was a key participant in the recently-
completed Enforcement in the 1990's Project and served as team leader for the
State-EPA Relationships portion. She presented an overview of the whole
project and findings and recommendations of the State-Federal relationships
portion.
The project began with interviews of more than 80 individuals representing
Congress; business; various Federal, State, and local agencies; and
environmental organizations. From the initial interviews, six topics were
selected for further study: measures of success, Federal-State relations,
rulemaking, compliance incentives, innovative enforcement, and local
government role. Ms. Fletcher noted that as a result of the project, a shift in
enforcement policy was likely over time in which companies would be
expected to have environmental management programs in place as a standard
of "due diligence".
Key findings of the State-Federal portion of the study are summarized below.
o Effective enforcement by EPA and the States is essential. Clearer
understanding and acceptance of each other's roles and responsibilities
will improve relations and make more efficient use of limited resources.
o The 1984 EPA oversight policy is still considered valid. However, the
culture change needed at both the State and Federal levels to put it into
practice has not yet occurred.
o EPA must be ready and able to enforce when a State is unable or
unwilling to act, or national issues are involved.
-------
o EPA should withdraw program approval if a State has a consistently
inadequate enforcement program.
o The potential for overfiling provides essential leverage in assuring
adequate State enforcement.
o Differences in enforcement approach between EPA and States —
particularly with regard to economic penalties -- are often a source of
conflict.
o Establishing greater trust between States and EPA is the key to a
successful partnership.
The study makes recommendations in two basic areas:
o EPA should work to build successful State programs as a primary means
of achieving effective enforcement. Recommendations in this area
clarify the respective roles and responsibilities of States and EPA
for environmental enforcement and suggest steps for achieving a
more constructive relationship.
o EPA should use strategic planning as a means for providing greater
flexibility to States. These recommendations suggest steps for
involving States in planning and implementing strategic plans
for enforcement.
Discussion
The Cooperative Extension Service and local fire departments are grass roots
organizations that could be used to disseminate information pertaining to
compliance. The Extension Service, in particular, however, would not wish to
get involved in enforcement activities. Local governments need a practical
place to go for information on environmental management without fear of
enforcement action.
An enforcement action is appropriate only after steps have been taken to
encourage compliance. As an example, Colorado's compliance and
enforcement strategy has four graduated levels of response: education,
evaluation, incentives, and enforcement. There should be economic
incentives for compliance, a potential issue for EFAB.
Action Items.
oo Ms. Fletcher and Committee staff will follow implementation of
recommendations from the three studies and raise issues as needed for
Committee discussion and/or action.
oo Ms. Fletcher will ask the EFAB to consider including study
of economic incentives for compliance as part of its activities.
oo Ms. Fletcher will ask the Assistant Administrator for Compliance
and Enforcement to distribute the complete Enforcement in the
1990's Project studies to the Committee for review and comment.
-------
oo Ms. Fletcher will express the Committee's interst in having EPA do
further study of the potential for a local role in enforcement to the
Office of Enforcement.
The Committee adjourned for the day at 5:00 pm and re-convened at 8:00 am on
Thursday. July 19.
State Involvement in Strategic Planning
The second major recommendation of the State and Local Programs Committee
encouraged EPA to increase risk-based management of environmental
programs, and provide greater flexibility in planning, priority setting,
resource allocation, and oversight measures. These potential for these
concepts to improve Federal-State relations was highlighted in the findings of
the three studies discussed in the Wednesday session. Efforts by EPA and States
to implement strategic planning, which is designed to address many of these
concepts, were the subject of the Thursday morning presentations and
discussion.
Strategic Planning and Management Reforms in EPA
Bob Currie, Director of the Strategic Planning and Management Systems
Division of EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, described the
Agency's efforts to implement Strategic Planning and Management Reforms.
In describing the context for EPA's efforts, he noted that the focus in EPA has
been on the number of permits and enforcement actions, rather than on the
end result: how much cleaner the environment is. Activities at EPA are
generally media-specific; this sometimes results in pollutants being moved
around at great cost without actually cleaning anything up. Also contributing
to this problem is the fact that EPA's budget process is annual, and
environmental problems are long term. Mr. Currie stresses that EPA needs to
stop looking in the rear view mirror, the Agency needs to figure out where it
wants to be, then strategize about how to get there, and plan for that end goal.
The variation in levels of risk and risk reduction potential from different
environmental problems has been recognized by the Agency, but it has not
addressed this fact directly.
When all 10 Regions agree on the importance of a problem, it is a national
issue. When they do not agree on the importance of an issue, they should
individually have the flexibility to address the problems that are most
important to them. Mr. Currie feels that the Regional offices should follow a
similar model with their States. However, Mr. Currie also stresses that the
agendas of Regional offices and States must be based on analysis that shows
what their priorities are and why. Mr. Currie's group is trying to encourage
EPA to distribute resources based on analysis rather than political perception.
EPA has started asking the Regional Offices to prioritize their environmental
problems, with the expectation that some shifts in activities would result. As
now planned. Regions would have up to 30 percent flexibility to shift
-------
resources around, both within and across programs. In the three Regions
with pilot efforts this year, however, little cross-program shifting is
occurring. Mr. Currie pointed out that shifting will happen gradually,
perhaps at about 5 percent a year, but there will be progress over time. He
noted there are statutory constraints that limit flexibility.
Discussion
Mr. Looby, whose State of Colorado is a pilot State, pointed out that the
availability of flexibility across program areas is not visible at the State level.
Mr. Currie feels that this is an issue that needs to be addressed by Congress.
Strategic Planning; a State Perspective
Bob MacPherson, Manager of the Planning Section, Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control, made a presentation on
Delaware's strategic planning process. He described a multiple-step process in
which the State's plan was developed, with widespread participation. In
January of 1988, the Governor of Delaware received a report detailing a
diverse set of environmental problems, including air, water, waste
management, shore line stabilization, and freshwater wetlands management as
well as the need for environmental education and building the environmental
awareness of county councils and other local governments. The State is now
working to implement the program activities suggested by the report.
Mr. MacPherson pointed out that, like Colorado, Delaware has not found EPA to
be flexible in providing resources to address the priority problems the State
identified.
State Strategic Planning: Experiences of a Pilot State
Colorado is one of the States that received EPA funding to develop a pilot State
strategic environmental plan. Tom Looby, Assistant Director for Health and
Environmental Protection, Colorado Department of Health, made a presentation
about his experience with the State's strategic planning efforts.
The purpose of Colorado's strategic planning project, Colorado Environment
2000 (CE 2000), is to create a vision and a set of goals for Colorado's
environmental programs, to formulate action plans for accomplishing these,
and to achieve constituency enhancement (to improve environmental
awareness in the State). Key players in ED 2000 are the Governor,
representatives of the Health and Natural Resources Departments, a technical
advisory committee, and a citizens' advisory committee.
After evaluation of their relative risks and other relevant factors, the State
decided to focus on 11 environmental issues. CE 2000 calls for the study of
trends and shifts in environmental quality; the development of goals for State
environmental programs for the year 2000 and beyond; and development of
action plans for citizens, businesses, communities, and State government. Next
steps include distribution of a citizen handbook, development of State work
plans and grants, development of a handbook for businesses and local
governments, and use of CE 2000 to drive Region 8 EPA's strategic plan.
-------
Comments From the Local Perspective
Larry Rice, City Manager of Elgin, Illinois, made a short presentation on his
experience with environmental planning for Elgin and his earlier
involvement in the Denver area planning effort. Mr. Rice noted that the
citizens of Elgin are in support of efforts to protect the environment; in fact,
they are demanding that the city's actions be environmentally responsible.
Mr. Rice also mentioned that fire departments do a lot of inspections for code
violations at the local level, and that in the future they may be the lead
organizations for environmental management at the local level.
Mr. Rice outlined a proposal for having his city designated as the local
enforcement agency for environmental laws. Elgin needs the support of State
government as well as the U.S. EPA to move forward in its local environmental
management efforts. Mr. Rice suggests that Elgin could be the site of a pilot
effort for local implementation of environmental laws. There was general
support for this idea. Ms. Fletcher expressed concern about how local
governments could be delegated the necessary legal authority for enforcing
national environmental laws, noting that the authority to inspect is derived
from the individual statutes and formally delegated to EPA inspectors from the
President and/or EPA Administrator. State authority to inspect is similarly
derived from State law, and structural arrangements between State and local
governments vary from State to State.
Discussion
Mr. Power pointed out that there is no way States can deal with all
environmental issues. The idea of local enforcement of environmental
statutes may be an issue for future consideration by the Committee.
Lessons Learned
Eva Ring, a Senior Analyst in the Regional and State Planning Branch of EPA's
Strategic Planning and Management Systems Division, described the pilot
strategic planning efforts her office funded in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and
Louisiana. The purpose of the project was to build consensus in States about
environmental priorities, to help States have more say in how EPA devotes its
resources, and to help States build support for addressing priority
environmental problems. The experiences gained in the three pilot States,
according to Ms. Ring, lead to the following conclusions about State strategic
planning:
o Top management support is critical to the success of the project.
o Continuous follow-up is necessary to implement and institutionalize
strategic plans.
o The staff involved in the project will continue to make connections
across programs and in budget and policy areas, not just in the analysis
involved in the beginning of the process.
-------
Discussion
The strategic planning efforts to date are encouraging, but it will probably
take very dramatic steps to implement. Barriers to implementation include the
constraints on grants, the management accountability system, and program
managers and staff who have vested interests in the current approaches. One
suggestion is to foster more pilots, perhaps selecting a State and Region to be
released — as an experiment — from all "beans" to implement their strategy.
Action Items.
oo At its next meeting, the Committee will develop formal recommendations
commending the strategic planning efforts to date and asking for
implementation of one or more pilots to be conducted and evaluated.
oo The Committee supports EPA funding of the National Governors
Association to study, hold a symposium, and develop information
materials on how States plan environmental programs.
oo Ms. Fletcher will explore the potential for a pilot project on local
government environmental enforcement.
Environmental Regulations and Local Government
Small Communities Activities
Ann Cole, EPA's Small Community Coordinator, gave a status report on what her
office is doing. Through her office, she hopes to change the Agency's
approach to small communities, improve Agency implementation of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, and heighten the visibility for the Agency's
commitment to small community concerns. A first step toward achieving these
goals will be compiling a cross-media list of all regulations affecting small
communities and generating the ability to measure the cumulative, cross-
media costs of environmental regulations for all communities. Ms. Cole also
outlined plans to achieve better use of the Regulatory Flexibility Act to be sure
that small community concerns are addressed in the regulatory development
process.
Ms. Cole serves as Director of the new Small Communities Subcommittee of the
State and Local Programs Committee. Jim Power, Director, Division of
Environment, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, is the Chair. Mr.
Power and Ms. Cole are planning an organizational meeting of the
subcommittee on August 2-3, 1990. The meeting will focus on orientation of
members, setting priorities among issues, and defining proposed products.
Discussion
Committee members commended the compilation of regulations affecting local
governments as a good idea, but cautioned that this is a very ambitious project.
-------
Local Governments as PRPs at Supgrfund Sites
On June 25, a focus group of city managers from communities named as
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) at Superfund sites met to discuss ways
the process could be made easier for other communities facing this situation.
The focus group was organized by ICMA under its grant with the Office of
Cooperative Environmental Management to follow up on the Committee's
interest in this issue.
Larry Rice, City Manager of Elgin, Illinois, provided an overview of the June
25 meeting. The focus group developed suggestions for procedural and other
changes that can be implemented by EPA as well as several statutory
recommendations which would need to be addressed legislatively. The group
presented its findings and suggestions on EPA internal changes informally to
senior managers in the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, where
they were well-received. A copy of the focus group's report is attached to
these minutes.
Discussion
Committee members expressed their appreciation for the work of the focus
group, and will review the group's report to decide which of the suggestions
the group developed should be submitted to the Agency as formal
recommendations from NACEPT. Some concern was expressed about the
appropriateness, in particular, of the suggestions for legislative changes;
these should be addressed separately from those which EPA can implement
more directly. Committee members also want to solicit the views of key
organizations of State and local government officials before deciding which
suggestions to pass along formally.
Action Items.
oo Ms. Fletcher will ask key organizations to review and comment on the
suggestions for procedural and legislative changes and provide these
comments to the Committee before the October meeting.
oo The Committee will review the suggestions and be prepared to develop
specific recommendations at its October meeting.
Guidebook on Environmental Management for Local Governments
Barbara Moore and Jerry Hoetmer of ICMA spoke briefly about the idea of
developing a Green Book on environmental management. ICMA's Green Book
series has been an authoritative source on local government management for
practitioners, teachers, and students for many years.
Discussion
Following Ms. Moore's and Mr. Hoetmer's presentation, the Committee agreed to
endorse the Green Book idea and to recommend that EPA find funding for a
cooperative agreement with ICMA to undertake the project. Further, the
10
-------
members said the Green Book should be a project of the State and Local
Programs Committee of NACEPT, with seats on the book's advisory committee
for the Committee Director and one or more Committee members.
Action Item.
oo Committee staff should pursue the funding and awarding of a
cooperative agreement with ICMA for the development of a Green
Book on environmental management.
Future Work; State__and_Lgcal_ Programs Committee
The Committee discussed the major topics and issues it would like to place on
the agenda for the next two meetings.
October meeting:
Develop recommendations on local governments as PRPs
Develop recommendations on strategic planning
Panel discussion on RCRA Subtitle D
Winter meeting:
Education and training for local governments, possibly as joint project with
Education and Training Committee
Panel on drinking water compliance, how small communities are considered
in regulation development
Meeting Schedule
1990
October 23 — State and Local Programs Committee Meeting
October 24 -- Full NACEPT Meeting
1991
January 22/23 -- NACEPT Executive Committee Meeting
Winter (January/February) — State and Local Programs Committee Meeting
May 22 — State and Local Programs Committee Meeting
May 23 -- Full NACEPT Meeting
July 10/11 - NACEPT Executive Committee Meeting
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 PM. The next meeting of the Committee is
scheduled for October 23, 1990, in conjunction with the full NACEPT meeting
scheduled for October 24.
ectfully submitted.
fna A. Fletcher, Director
State and Local Programs Committee
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology
October 1, 1990
11
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
FY 1991 NACEPT COMMITTEE AGENDA
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
Small Communities Subcommittee
--Focuses on the special problems of very small communities in addressing environmental
problems including assessing the impact of regulatory programs on small communities,
implementing regulatory flexibility opportunities, adopting performance-based standards,
improving participation of local governments in policy development, and improving delivery of
information and technical and financial assistance to small communities.
The Subcommittee is managed in cooperation with EPA's Small Community Coordinator in the
Office of Regional Operations and State/Local Relations.
Chair, James Power, Jr., State of Kansas. Participants include local officials from Michigan, New
Hampshire, and Texas, as well as representatives from National Governors Association, Office of
Management and Budget, Rural Community Assistance Corporation, National Rural Water
Association.
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Will be examining such issues as the cumulative impact of EPA rules
on small communities and using risk-based priority setting for addressing local problems.
Environmental Management Capacity Building
The Committee is supporting several capacity-building demonstration/pilot projects.
-Several EPA program offices (including OW-ODW, OMPC, OGWP; OSW--OMSW; OPPE--
OPP;) have joined in supporting Committee projects designed to assist State and local
governments in building their capacity to address environmental problems.
—The National Governors Association (NGA) produced a national report on how States use
alternative financing mechanisms for environmental programs and conducted peer matches on such
topics as hazardous and solid waste management, pollution prevention, and geographic
information systems.
-The International City Management Association (ICMA) develops and disseminates new
information materials and assists local-to-local peer matches on topics including wastewater,
ground water, solid waste management, and chemical accident prevention.
~A special focus group of local officials who have dealt with being potentially responsible parties
at a Superfund site shared experiences and developed suggestions for the Committee to consider as
recommendations to EPA to improve current policies and procedures on this matter.
-The Rensselaerville Institute in New York is working with State officials in several additional
States in an effort to extend the Self-help program concept through which small communities plan,
design, and construct cost-effective wastewater or drinking water facilities.
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Peer matching, information dissemination, and special focus group
activities of NGA and ICMA will continue. NGA is planning seminars and developing educational
materials on State strategic planning and how it can fit with EPA's planning process. ICMA
-------
efforts will cover a broad range of issues, including implementation of Subtitle D rules. A special
project is planned to develop a "green book" designed for city managers and other public
administrators on local environmental management The Self-Help project will move into the
demonstration phase with assistance provided to selected towns; the Ford Foundation is expected
to provide a low-interest revolving fund to aid with construction costs. The Committee is also
planning a cooperative project with USDA's Extension Service and other interested organizations
to train local officials in smaller communities in how to assess and address environmental assets
and problems. Other Federal agencies with an interest in community development are being invited
to become official contributors to the Committee, which may lead to additional cooperative efforts
(FmHA, HUD, EDA, HHS).
State-EPA Operations Committee
The State and Local Programs Committee (SLPC) is providing logistical support to and
coordinating closely with the State-EPA Operations Committee managed by Paul Guthrie, Office of
Regional Operations and State/Local Relations. Tom Looby, State of Colorado, sits on both
committees.
—The committees exchange information, products, and reports for review and, where appropriate,
endorsement or other action; a recent example is the State-EPA Operations Committee's RCRA
reauthorization policy draft. When possible, the committees try to schedule so they "piggyback"
one another to facilitate attendance.
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: The committees plan even greater coordination, such as through
setting agendas that complement each other's efforts on selected issues of priority concern to both
committees. The SLPC may provide staff support and/or access to use of grantee organizations; a
current example is strategic planning. State-EPA Operations Committee members will be invited to
participate or assign staff to participate on relevant SLPC focus groups.
-------
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS
COMMITTEE OF NACEPT
OCTOBER 23, 1990
MADISON HOTEL
WASHINGTON, D.C.
- DRAFT AGENDA -
9:00 a.m. Convene, Welcome, Introductions Nicholas Ashford, Chair &
of New Members, Review of Tom Devine, Vice Chair
Agenda, Comments of the Chairs,
& Approval of March 1990 Minutes
9:45 -12:15 Permitting Focus Group: Ed Keen, Chair
Status Report and Discussion David Berg, TIE Committee Director
12:15- 1:30 Lunch
1:30 - 2:30 TIEC Strategic Direction Nick Ashford & Tom Devine
Discussion:
• Implementation of Recommendations
• TIEC Plans for 1991 and Beyond
2:30 - 3:00 Water Pollution Prevention Jim Lund
Project Focus Group
3:00 - 3:30 Liability Focus Group: Nick Ashford
Status Report and Discussion
3:30 - 4:00 Diffusion FOCUS Group: Bill Carpenter
Status Report and Discussion
4:00 - 4:45 Focus Group on Remediation Martin Rivers, Chair &
Technology Walt Kovalick, Director, OSWER
Technology Innovation Office
4:45 - 5:00 New Business Tom Devine
5:00 - 5:15 Summary of Action Items
5:15 p.m. Adjourn
-------
October
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
(NACEPT)
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS
COMMITTEE
Chairman:
Dr. Nicholas A. Ashford*
Associate Professor of Technology and Policy
Center for Technology, Policy & Industrial
Development
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (E40-239)
1 Amherst Street, Room 239
Cambridge, MA 02139
Phone:(617)253-1664
Fax:(617)253-7140
Vice Chairman:
Mr. Thomas Devine*
Corporate Vice President
Regulatory Affairs
RMT, Inc.
100 Verdae Boulevard
Greenville.SC 29607
Phone:(803)281-0030
Fax:(803)281-0288
Designated Federal Officials:
Director
Mr. David R. Berg
Office of Cooperative Environmental
Management
EPA (A-101F6)
499 South Capitol Street, S.W., Room 115
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 382-3153
Fax: (202) 245-3882
Members:
Mr. Paul Arbesman*
Corporate Director for Pollution Control
Health, Safety & Environmental Services
Allied Signal Corporation
P.O. Box 1013 R
Morristown, NJ 07960
Phone: (201)455-4286
Fax: (201)455-4835
Dr. R. Darryl Banks*
Deputy Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
State of New York
50 Wolf Road
Abany, NY 12233-0001
Phone: (518) 457-5768
Fax:(518)457-1088
Deputy Director
Mr. Morris Attschuter
Office of Cooperative Environmental
Management
EPA (A-101F6)
499 South Capitol Street. S.W., Room 115
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 475-6139
Fax: (202) 245-3882
Members:
Dr. Pamela Bridgen*
Executive Director
Association of Biotechnology Companies
Suite 1330
1666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009-1039
Phone: (202) 234-3330
Fax: (202) 234-3565
Dr. Paul Busch*
President
Malcolm-Pimie. Inc.
2 Corporate Drive
Box 751
White Plains, NY 10602
Phone:(914)694-2100
Fax: (914) 694-9286
* Denotes NACEPIjnember
Pagel
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
(NACEPT)
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS
COMMITTEE
Members:
Mr. William W. Carpenter*
Vice President
Technology Applications
Martin Marietta Energy Systems. Inc.
P.O. Box 2009
104 Union Valley Road
Oak Ridge. TN 37831-8005
Phone: (615) 576-8368
Fax:(615)574-1011
Ms. Karen Ftorini
Senior Attorney
Environmental Defense Fund
1616 P Street. N.W.
Washington. DC 20030
Phone: (202) 387-3500
Fax: (202) 234-6049
Mr. James Hall*
Technology Transfer Coordinator
USDA-ARS OCI
Building 205, Room 403
BARC-West
Beltsville. MD 20705
Phone:(301)344-4045
Fax:(301)344-3191
Mr. William M. Haney III*
William Haney Associates
427 Newberry St.
Boston. MA 02115
Phone:(617)267-3366
Fax: (617) 267-3404
Members:
Dr. David M. L. Lindahl*
Director
Office of Alcohol Fuels
Department of Energy
Room5G086 (CE-50)
1000 Independence Avenue, S.E.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: (202) 586-9791
Fax:(202)586-8134
Dr. John W. Liskowrtz*
Executive Director
Hazardous Waste Institute
New Jersey Institute of Technology
323 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Newark. NJ 07102
Phone: (201) 596-3234
Fax:(201)596-1525
Gen. James McCarthy*
Deputy Director
Engineering and Services
HQ-USAF/LEE
Pentagon
Washington. DC 20330-5130
Phone: (703) 679-9221
Fax:(703)614-7572
Ms. Nancy E. Pfund*
General Partner
Hambrecnt & Quist
1 Bush Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 576-3310
Fax: (415) 576-3621
Denotes NACEPT member
Page 2
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
(NACEPT)
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS
COMMITTEE
Members:
Dr. Walter Quanstrom*
Vice President
Environmental Affairs and Safety
Mail Code 4905A
Amoco Corporation
200 East Randolph Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 856-2506
Fax:(312)616-0197
Dr. Robert Repetto*
Senior Economist and Program Director
World Resources Institute
Suite 700
1709 New York Avenue. N.W.
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 638-6300
Fax: (202) 638-0036
Members:
Mr. Martin E. Rivers*
Executive Vice President
Air and Waste Management Association
Three Gateway Center, Four West
Pittsburgh. PA 15222
Phone:(412)232-3444
Fax: (412) 255-3832
Mr. Shelby Yastrow*
Senior Vice President
McDonald's Coporation
One McDonald's Plaza
Oak Brook, IL 60521
Phone:(708)575-6178
Fax: (708) 575-6941
Contributors: -
Mr. Jack Adams 4
Vice President
Marketing and Financial Services
National Environmental Technology
Applications Corporation (NETAC)
University of Pittsburgh Applied Research
Center
615 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh. PA 15238
Phone:(412)826-5511
Fax: (412) 826-5552
Mr. David Allen'
Director
Pollution Prevention Project
National Toxics Campaign
P.O. Box 945
Cambridge. MA 02140
Phone: (617) 628-5441
Contributors:
Dr. Ed Berkey '
Executive Vice President
NETAC
University of Pittsburgh Applied Research
Center
615 William Pitt Way-
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Phone:(412)826-5511
Fax:(412)826-5552
Denotes NACEPT membership
Indicates Focus Group Members:
1 Environmental Permitting
2 Liability
3 Remediation Technologies
4 Technology Diffusion
Page 3
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
(NACEPT)
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS
COMMITTEE
Contributors:
Mr. Arthur Bryant2
Executive Director
Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 100
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202)797-8600
Fax: (202) 232-7203
Mr. MikeCrossner3
Donohue & Associates
4738 North 40th Street
Sheboygan, Wl 53083
Phone:(414)458-8711
Fax:(414)458-0537
Mr. Les Cheek 2
Crum and Forster
1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Suite 414
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 296-5850
Fax: (202)775-2639
Mr. Richard Conway
Senior Corporate Fellow
Union Carbide Corporation
P.O. Box 8361
3200 Kanawha Turnpike
South Charleston, WV 25303
Phone: (304) 747-4016
Fax: (304) 747-5430
Dr. Randall Curiee
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Building 4500-N, MS 6205
P.O. Box 2008
Oak Ridge. TN 37831
Phone: (615)576-4864
Fax: (615)574-8884
Contributors:
Mr. Peter S. Daley3
Senior Director
Research & Development
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
Geneva Research Center
1950 S. Batavia Avenue
Geneva, IL 60134-3310
Phone: (708)513-4500
Fax:(708)513-0087
Mr. Daniel M. Darraugh3
Attorney at Law
Saperson and Day, P.C.
GoWome Center
One Fountain Plaza
Buffalo. NY 14203-5400
Phone:(716)856-5400
Fax:(716)856-0139
Mr. Blake Early2
Director, Pollution and Toxics
Sierra Club
330 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington, DC 20002
Phone:(202)547-1141
Fax: (202)547-6009
Ms. Lois Epstein, P.E.3
Environmental Engineer
Environmental Defense Fund
1616 P Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 387-3500
Fax: (202) 234-6049
Denotes NACEPT membership
Indicates Focus Group Members:
1 Environmental Permitting
2 Liability
3 Remediation Technologies
4 Technology Diffusion
Page 4
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
(NACEPT)
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS
COMMITTEE
Contributors:
Mr. Richard Fortuna 3
Executive Director
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
1440 New York Avenue. N.W.
Washington. DC 20005
Phone: (202) 783-0870
Fax: (202) 737-2038
Mr. Sanford Gaines2
University of Houston
Environmental Liability Law Program
Law Center
4800 Calhoun Street
Houston. TX 77204-6381
Phone: (713) 749-1393
Fax: (713) 749-2567
Mr. Charles Goddard3
Department of Environmental Conservation
State of New York
50 Wolf Road
Albany. NY 12233-0001
Phone: (518) 457-0730
Fax:(518)457-1088
Mr. Michael A. Gollin'
Sive, Paget & Riesel. P.C.
460 Park Avenue
New York. NY 10022-1906
Phone:(212)421-2150
Fax:(212)421-1891
Mr. Tom Grumbiy ^*
President
Clean Sites. Inc.
1199 North Fairfax
Alexandria. VA 22314
Phone: (703) 683-8522
Fax: (703) 548-8773
Contributors:
Ms. Jean Herb1
Director
Office of Pollution Prevention
NJ Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
7th Ftoor - East Wing
Trenton. NJ 08625
Phone: (609) 984-5339
Fax: (609) 984-3962
Mr. Robert L. Herbst*
President
Lake Superior Center
700 Lonsdale Building
Duluth. MN 55802
Phone: (218) 722-0861
Fax:(218)722-9568
Mr. Joseph C. Hovious, P.E.3
Assistant Director, Environmental Affairs/
Chemicals and Plastics
Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics
Company, Inc.
39 Old RkJgebury Road
Danbury, CT 06817-0001
Phone: (203) 794-5193
Fax: (203) 794-5275
Mr. Robert J. Johnson3
Director of Outreach Programs
Air and Waste Management Association
P.O. Box 2861
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
Phone:(412)232-3444
Fax: (412) 232-3450
Denotes NACEPT membership
Indicates Focus Group Members:
1 Environmental Permitting
2 Liability
3 Remediation Technologies
4 Technology Diffusion
PageS
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
(NACEPT)
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS
COMMITTEE
Contributors:
Dr. Swiatoslav Kaczmar3
O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
5000 Brittonfiekj Parkway
P.O. Box 4873
Syracuse, NY 13221
Phone: (3150 437-6100
Fax: (315) 463-7554
Mr. Edward S. Keen '
President
Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
50 Beale Street
P.O. Box 3965
San Francisco, CA 94105-1895
Phone: (415) 768-0236
Fax: (415) 768-0360
Ms. Meryl Lieberman 2
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz. Edelman & Dicker
420 Lexington Avenue
New York. NY 10170
Phone: (212) 490-3000. X2759
Fax: (212) 490-3038 or (212) 557-7810
Mr. David Morell'
EPICS International
1410 Jackson Street
Oakland. CA 94612-4010
Phone: (415) 891-9794. x22
Fax: (415) 839-3846
Dr. Gerald Nehman *
Director
Environmental Institute for Technology
Transfer
The University of Texas at Arlington
Box 19050
Arlington. TX 76019-0050
Phone: (817)273-2300
Fax:(817)794-5653
Contributors:
Mr. LeRoy Paddock1
Assistant Attorney General
State of Minnesota
102 State Capitol
St. Paul. MN 55155
Phone: (612) 296-6597
Dr. EdRepa3
Director of Technical Research
National Waste Manufacturers Association
Suite 1000
1730 Rhode Island Avenue. N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 659-4613
Fax: (202) 775-5917
Dr. Jack Sanderson *
Vice President for Corporate Technology
Asea Brown Boveri
900 Long Ridge Road
P.O. Box 9304
Stamford. CT 06904
Phone: (203) 328-2284
Fax: (203) 328-2352
Mr. Larry Schmidt'
Director
Office of Program Coordination
NJ Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
7th Floor
Trenton. NJ 08625
Phone: (609) 292-2662
Fax: (609) 292-0988
* Denotes NACEPT membership
Indicates Focus Group Members:
1 Environmental Permitting
2 Liability
3 Remediation Technologies
4 Technology Diffusion
Page 6
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
(NACEPT)
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS
COMMITTEE
Contributors:
Mr. John Schofield'
Senior Vice President
Pollution Control
IT Corporation
312 Directors Drive
Knoxville. TN 37923
Phone:(615)690-3211
Fax:(615)690-3626
Ms. Claire H. Sink
Chief, Technology Integration Branch
Division of Educational Program Development
U.S. Department of Energy
EM-521.GTN
Washington, DC 30545
Phone:(301)427-1685
Fax:(301)427-1600
Mr. James Slater'
Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
50 Beate Street *
P.O. Box 193965
San Francisco, CA 94119-3965
Phone: (415) 768-5643
Fax: (415) 768-0360
Mr. William Sonntag4
National Association of Metal Finishers
1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone:(202)857-1127
Fax: (202) 223-4579
Mr. Robert Stone *
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Center for Technology, Policy & Industrial
Development
1 Amherst Street, Room 238
Cambridge. MA 02139
Phone: (617)253-1654
Fax: (617) 253-140
Contributors:
Dr. Russell H. Susag. P.E.3
Director
Environmental Regulatory Affairs
3M Environmental Engineering & Pollution
Control
Building 21-2W-07
St. Paul, MN 55133-3331
Phone:(612)778-4468
Fax: (612) 778-7203
Mr. Lyman Wible'
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707-7921
Phone:(608)266-1099
Fax: (609) 267-3579
Dr. J. Kenneth Wtttte4
Vice President
Etectro-Pyrolysis, Inc.
Suite 1118
996 Old Eagle School Road
Wayne, PA 19087
Phone: (215) 687-9070
Fax:(215)964-8570
Mr. Tom Zosel'
3M Corporation
BWg. 21-2W-06
P.O. Box 3331
St. Paul, MN 55133
Phone:(612)778-4805
Fax: (612) 778-7203
Denotes NACEPT membership
Indicates Focus Group Members:
1 Environmental Permitting
2 Liability
3 Remediation Technologies
4 Technology Diffusion
Page 7
-------
Technology Innovation and
Economics Committee
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
AND TECHNOLOGY
Permitting and Compliance Policy:
Barriers to U.S. Environmental
Technology Innovation
Report and Recommendations of the
Technology Innovation and
Economics Committee
October 1990
-------
DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Executive Summary Page 3
II. Members of the Technology Innovation and Page 9
Economics Committee
III. Introduction Page 11
A. Background Page 11
B. TIE Committee's Goals and Process Page 12
IV. The Stakeholders Speak: The Findings Page 15
V. Rationale for System Changes Page 23
VI. Recommendations for Action and Commentary Page 31
A. Executive Summary of Recommendations Page 31
B. Detailed Recommendations for Action Page 32
and Commentary
Recommendation 1 Page 32
Recommendation 2 Page 41
Recommendation 3 Page 50
Recommendation 4 Page 53
Recommendation 5 Page 61
Appendix A: Presenters at Fact Finding Processes Page
-------
DRAFT
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Man's continuing challenge to the environment varies with the growth of human
populations and with changes in economic activity, complexity, and competition. As
seemingly finite resources diminish, the pressure to satisfy basic human needs and wants
creates demand for advanced processes of production. In turn, the need grows for
advanced scientific gauges of the nature and degree of public health and environmental
stress, and for innovative technological solutions to evolving environmental problems. If
the rate of technology innovation for environmental purposes is less than required, a gap is
created between our ability to define and target environmental problems, and our ability to
solve them.
EPA's emphasis on the measurement of risk and the reduction of
significant risks sets an important new standard for the targeting of
environmental protection programs. Equally, the national capacity to
reduce these high priority environmental risks is directly related to our
ability to produce technological solutions.
The rate of technology innovation for environmental purposes thus limits the range of
policy options available to the nation's political and environmental leadership. Our
regulations, administrative processes, permit systems, and enforcement practices are
directly impacted by the nation's ability to produce innovative technological solutions. In
turn, these environmental systems impact the rate and type of technology innovation for
environmental purposes by fostering or constraining the innovation process*.
The progress we have made over the past 20 years in protecting human health and the
environment has been enabled by the development and deployment of then-innovative
technologies for pollution control and pollution prevention. If we are to sustain a balance
between environmental and economic objectives, technology innovation for environmental
purposes will have to continue and increase. EPA information shows, however,
that for at least the past decade the rate of investment in environmental
technology development and commercialization has lagged. This reflects a net
disincentive, one which persists, for technology innovation for environmental purposes.
The Technology Innovation and Economics (TIE) Committee of
NACEPT concludes that accelerated development and commercialization
of innovative technology for environmental purposes is necessary to
improve environmental quality and enhance economic productivity.
If we are to receive the full benefit of such technology innovation to reduce the risks
associated with the highest priority environmental problems, the market dysfunction
symbolized by this lagging rate of investment in technology innovation for
environmental purposes will have to be addressed in a number of areas,
without losing sight of the primary objective of protecting human health
and the environment. These areas exist both within and outside of the
environmental regulatory system. It should be recognized that current policies are
neither helpful nor benign and that the philosophical neutrality of statutes, legislative
histories, regulatory policy, and regulations is hampering national efforts to both solve
environmental problems and increase economic productivity. The Federal Technology
Transfer Act of 1986 (FTTA), which is as yet underutilized, represents the beginning of a
change to a more helpful governmental role.
-------
DRAFT
It is important to note that not all of these recommendations are new and unique to the
TIE Committee (see the Committee's January 1990 recommendations, which overlap with
and complement these recommendations). The TIE Committee reiterates its
January 1990 recommendations: it is critical to evaluate the effectiveness
of existing innovation programs, issue a technology innovation policy for
the environment, and develop a technology innovation strategy.
The time is right to take these steps: a growing recognition exists,
inside and outside of the EPA, that technology innovation for
environmental purposes1 is essential to the success of environmental
programs in the United States. The TIE Committee commends the
increasing number of initiatives undertaken by EPA and states to foster
technology innovation for environmental purposes. These include EPA's
establishment of the Pollution Prevention Office and the Technology Innovation Office (in
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response), the steps suggested in the RCRA
Implementation Study to aid the development and use of innovative technologies for RCRA
compliance purposes, the increased support by the Office of Research and Development
(ORD) for the testing and commercialization of innovative environmental technologies, the
several state integrated and cross-media permitting programs, and the several state toxic use
reduction programs. Further, the recent report of the Science Advisory Board, "Reducing
Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection," defines how to set
priorities for solving environmental problems. It is now time to increase the
national capacity to develop the technologies needed to solve the most
important environmental problems.
This document summarizes the TIE Committee's investigation of the
impact of two key elements of the environmental regulatory system in the
United States — permitting and compliance — on such technology
innovation. The TIE Committee has completed an extensive fact finding process which
gathered information from the segments of society that have the most at stake. These
"stakeholders" include regulated communities, regulators (federal, state, and local),
providers of environmental products and services, the providers' investors, and the
organized environmental community.
The TIE Committee concludes that permitting and compliance systems,
as they function today, discourage all stakeholder groups from taking
the risks necessary to develop innovative technologies — whether for
pollution prevention or for pollution control — and to bring them into
routine use to solve environmental problems.
Uncertainties, costs, and delays associated with the permitting of tests
and of early commercial uses of innovative environmental technologies, and
the unpredictability and inconsistency of enforcement, are significant
disincentives that discourage technology innovation for environmental
1 The term "technology innovation for environmental purposes" includes all types of technology
innovation that have a beneficial effect on the environment, i.e., pollution prevention (such as
manufacturing process changes), pollution control and remediation, information systems, and
management practices. In particular, however, the TIE Committee notes that it is technology
innovation involving pollution prevention and pollution control that is most affected by permitting
and compliance systems, and therefore these types are especially targeted by this document. In the
interest of brevity, at times other similar phrases, such as "innovative environmental technology." are
used interchangeably.
-------
DRAFT
purposes. These combine to create a high-risk, low-reward situation that
needs to be rectified if more opportunities for environmental technology
innovation are to be realized for solving environmental problems.
At the same time, the TIE Committee has reinforced the notion that the
environmental statutes and regulations, and their enforcement, "make
the market" for these very same technologies.
Rigorous enforcement of existing regulations and requirements is critical to the
realization of already-planned environmental progress. Enforcement could be a primary
motivator of regulated organizations to comply, using conventional and innovative
technological solutions.
This report documents the dysfunction in the marketplace for environmental
technology and its causes within permitting and compliance systems, and characterizes the
conceptual framework of permitting and compliance systems that would best encourage
environmental innovation. It further recommends specific changes in policy and procedure
for permitting and compliance programs that will correct the market dysfunction and
thereby maximize the possibility of technology innovation for environmental purposes.
The TIE Committee's primary recommendation is that the Administrator
of EPA, working within EPA, with state and local agencies, and with the
Congress, make interrelated improvements in environmental permitting and
compliance systems necessary to foster technology innovation for
environmental purposes, within the overriding goal of protecting human
health and the environment. These recommendations and improvements, which fall
into five categories, are to:
1. Modify permitting systems to aid the development and testing of
innovative technologies for environmental purposes.
1.1 Institute a working system of specialized permits in all media for testing innovative
technologies for environmental purposes, including
a. Permits for specialized testing facilities.
b. Permits for testing at other locations.
1.2 Develop a system of dedicated centers for the testing of innovative environmental
technologies.
1.3 Develop a system for cross-media and crpss-jurisdictional coordination of the review
of permit applications for (a) testing facilities and (b) tests at other locations.
2. Implement permitting processes that aid the commercial introduction of
innovative technologies for environmental purposes.
2.1 Increase the flexibility of permitting processes involved in introducing environmentally
beneficial technologies into commercial use.
2.2 Streamline the process of reviews of permit applications for newly introduced
innovative technologies that have environmental benefit, coordinate their review, and
afford them high priority.
-------
DRAFT
2.3 Assure national consistency in the consideration of proposed uses of innovative
technologies, subject to site-specific limitations.
2.4 Institute a system of incentives for users of commercially-available innovative
technologies.
3. Use compliance programs to encourage the use of innovative
technologies to solve environmental problems.
3.1 Modify environmental compliance programs to create an expectation of the need to
comply. This is necessary to create markets for innovative technology.
3.2 EPA and state agencies should practice and encourage flexibility in the choice of
remedies during enforcement actions, aiming at encouraging the use of innovative
technologies under appropriate circumstances.
3.3 EPA, state agencies, and other regulatory authorities should institute mechanisms to
increase coordination in compliance programs across the media and across
jurisdictional lines.
4. Support regulators and other involved communities to maximize the
effectiveness of improvements recommended in permitting and
compliance systems.
4.1 Institute a system of incentives, training, and support to retain experienced federal and
state permit writers who participate in permitting decisions involving the testing or
early commercial use of innovative environmental technologies.
4.2 Institute a system of incentives, training, and support to retain experienced federal and
state inspectors and compliance staff who participate in decisions involving
innovative environmental technologies.
4.3 Provide support to prospective innovative technology permittees (including technology
developers and technology users).
4.4 Emphasize the role of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) as
consultant to federal, state, and local government permit writers and inspectors to
provide information on innovative technologies for environmental purposes.
4.5 Institute systems to provide the public with information and support related to the
testing and use of innovative environmental technology.
5. Identify and remove regulatory obstacles which create unnecessary
inflexibility and uncertainty or otherwise inhibit technology innovation
for environmental purposes. .
5.1 The Administrator should revise deh'sting regulations under RCRA Subtitle C to allow
process-specific, rather than site-specific, delisting decisions.
.2 The Administrator should revise the hazardous waste (RCRA Subtitle C) regulations to
include special provisions for small quantity generator hazardous wastes, taking into
account their uniaue case.
5
account their unique case
-------
DRAFT
5.3 The Administrator should clarify a number of definitions of terms of art under RCRA.
5.4 The Administrator should revise regulations to direct permits to describe the
performance requirements of the technology on which they are based, but not to
prescribe a specific technology.
5.5 The Administrator should direct that users of mobile treatment units (MTUs) be
exempt from HSWA Corrective Action triggers and further that EPA allow national,
regional, and state permits for MTUs, with an opportunity for local community input
and for consideration of site-specific factors.
5.6 The Administrator should direct that RCRA land ban treatment standards based on
incineration as BDAT should not automatically be applied to all site remediation
technologies.
The TIE Committee has also concluded that changes to the
environmental regulatory system will be needed to create incentives
encouraging the environmental technology innovation process.
It is important to be clear that the measures recommended in this document
will not fully solve all of the fundamental problems leading to a market
dysfunction and an unsatisfactory rate of technology innovation for
environmental purposes. These problems derive from the way the central approach to
regulation in the United States — "best available technology"-based regulations ~ is
frequently used today. Policy makers should reconsider the current reliance on this
approach (to the extent that reliance on "best available technology"-based regulations
impedes the development and introduction of innovative technologies), should remove
rigidity, and should create opportunities to develop and use innovative technologies. To do
this, they should revise regulatory processes to create an incentive structure that fosters
technology innovation and, more broadly, encourages each stakeholder group to contribute
to the search for solutions to environmental problems. A systematic analysis of the
motivations — economic and otherwise — of each stakeholder group will be necessary to
design a complementary set of effective improvements.
The "Report and Recommendations" includes five major sections:
• Section I is this Executive Summary.
• Section n is the "Membership of the Technology Innovation and
Economics Committee."
• Section III, the "Introduction," outlines the "Background" for the
report and the "TIE Committee's Goals and Process."
• Section IV is titled "All the Stakeholders Speak: The Findings."
This section contains the findings that underpin the TIE Committee's
rationale for its recommendations to strengthen permitting and
compliance systems, and to identify and remove regulatory glitches
that impede technology innovation.
• Section V describes the Committee's "Rationale for System
Changes" — its analysis of the key issues surrounding the
-------
DRAFT
relationship between technology innovation for environmental
purposes and permitting and compliance systems.
Section VI, "Recommendations for Action and Commentary,"
includes an "Executive Summary of Recommendations" and the
"Detailed Recommendations for Action and Commentary." This final
section provides a listing of each of the recommendations and
subrecommendations and analyzes each.
8
-------
DRAFT
II. Technology Innovation and Economics (TIE) Committee
of the
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and
Technology
Staff:
Mr. David R. Berg, TIE Director
Mr. Morris Altschuler
Mr. Kai C. Janson
TIE Committee Members:
Dr. Nicholas A. Ashford, Chair
Mr. Thomas Devine, Vice Chair
Mr. Paul Arbesman
Dr. R. Darryl Banks
Mr. William W. Carpenter
Ms. Karen Florini
Mr. James T. Hall
Mr. William M. Haney, HI
Mr. Edward S. Keen
Dr. David M. L. Lindahl
Dr. John Liskowitz
Mr. Lester H. Poggemeyer
Ms. Nancy E. Pfund
Mr. Martin E. Rivers
Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
(OCEM)
OCEM
OCEM NNEMS Fellow
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
RMT, Inc.
Allied Signal Corporation
N. Y. Dept. of Environmental Conservation
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
Environmental Defense Fund
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
William Haney Associates
Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
U.S. Dept. of Energy
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Poggemeyer Design Group
Hambrecht & Quist
Air and Waste Management Association
Members of the Focus Group
Mr. Edward S. Keen, Chair
Mr. David Allen
Dr. R. Darryl Banks
Ms. Karen Florini
Mr. Michael A. Gollin
Mr. William M. Haney, m
Ms. Jean Herb
Mr. David Morrell
Mr. LeRoy Paddock
Mr. Larry Schmidt
Mr. John Schofield
Mr. James Slater
Mr. Lyman Wible
Mr. Tom Zosel
on Environmental Permitting:
Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
National Toxics Campaign
N.Y. DepL of Conservation
Environmental Defense Fund
Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
William Haney Associates
N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection
EPICS International
Assistant Attorney General, Minnesota
NJ. Dept. of Environmental Protection
IT Corporation
Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
Dept. of Natural Resources, Wisconsin
3M Corporation
Non-EPA Contributors to the Focus Group:
Ms. Susan April Kerr and Associates
Mr. Ed Berkey National Environmental Technology Applications
Corporation (NETAC)
Mr. Ken Hagg Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection
Mr. Bob Kerr Kerr and Associates
-------
DRAFT
Mr. Bruce Oulrey California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Ms. Elissa Parker Environmental Law Institute
Ms. Kathy Porter Mass. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Dr. Manik Roy Formerly of the Mass. Dept. of Environmental
Protection
Focus Group Contributors (cont.):
Ms. Ivy Schram NETAC
Mr. Alan Sherman Enviresponse, Inc.
Mr. Peter Venturini CARB
Mr. Jeff Wiegand Alton Geoscience
EPA Contributors to the Focus Group:
Mr. John Atcheson Pollution Prevention Office (PPO)
Mr. Jay Benforado Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Ms. Elizabeth Cotsworth Office of Solid Waste (OSW)
Mr. Kirt Cox Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS)
Mr. Jim Cummings Technology Innovation Office
Mr. Jim Edwards PPO
Ms. Donna Fletcher OCEM
Ms. Deborah Gillette Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP)
Mr. Mark Joyce Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
Mr. Ephram King OWEP
Mr. Jim Lund Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Mr. Frank McAlister OSW
Mr. Gary McCutcheon OAQPS
Mr. Mike Mastracci ORD
Mr. Alan Morrisey Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
Mr. Mahesh Podar Office of Policy Analysis
Mr. Dale Ruhter OSW
Mr. Kevin Smith OWEP
Mr. Jim Yezzi ORD
Note: See Appendix A for list of presenters at Focus Group fact finding processes.
10
-------
DRAFT
III. INTRODUCTION
A. BACKGROUND
The environmental regulatory system in the United States was developed to protect
human health and the environment. This system has achieved significant progress toward
these goals, but much greater progress will be needed to meet current and future
environmental objectives, while attaining sustainable economic growth.
The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
and its Technology Innovation and Economics (TIE) Committee have concluded that the
current environmental regulatory system tends to emphasize pollution abatement, rather
than pollution prevention, and offers limited encouragement to simultaneous environmental
and industrial productivity improvements. The environmental regulatory system includes
the development of regulations, administrative practices and policies supporting the
regulations, permitting programs, compliance and enforcement programs, and federal,
state, and local research programs supporting environmental objectives.
Technology innovation has been viewed as a secondary goal of the environmental
regulatory system, and a comprehensive network of authorities, policies, and programs
designed to stimulate technology innovation for environmental purposes does not exist.
This has triggered a market failure: the investment rate for environment-related technology
innovation is so low that the national ability to make environmental improvements is limited
by a lack of technology. In fact, the investment rate for environmental control technology
lags that of the economy as a whole. Moreover, lit Committee Fact Finding activities
have indicated that environmental investment decisions are typically made separately from
production investment decisions, although there is a trend towards integrated decision
making. This implies strongly that pollution prevention investment, as well as pollution
control investment, lags. This two-edged market failure threatens the health of the United
States economy and places the health of the environment and the economy in opposition.
In the January 1990 "Report and Recommendations of the Technology
Innovation and Economics Committee" to the Administrator of EPA,
NACEPT concluded that the development and use of innovative
technologies are necessary to more efficiently and simultaneously improve
the environment and enhance productivity and economic competitiveness.
Technology innovation is essential to continued progress in environmental
protection in the United States. This is the case for both improved production
processes that increase productivity and prevent pollution, such as manufacturing process
changes and modifications, and more efficient emissions control and cleanup
technologies*.
In this report, NACEPT determined that a critical need exists to examine how the
environmental regulatory system impacts technology commercialization and how factors
external to the regulatory system (e.g., tax policy, corporate culture and decision
processes) compound the problem of lagging investment in technology innovation for
environmental purposes. NACEPT, based on the TIE Committee's work,
recommended that EPA assume a leadership role in fostering technology
innovation for environmental purposes and that the Administrator take three
key steps to address this market dysfunction:
11
-------
DRAFT
• Evaluate the degree to which the implementation of U.S.
environmental programs is effective in stimulating technology
innovation
• Issue a policy statement expanding the Agency's mission to
encompass fostering technology innovation
• Develop and implement a strategy to carry out the fostering role.
To help the Agency implement these recommendations, in October 1989 the TIE
Committee established the Focus Group on Environmental Permitting to examine the
relationship between government permitting and compliance processes and the introduction
of new technologies for environmental purposes. The Committee had developed the view,
on the basis of its investigations, that federal, state, and local permitting and compliance
systems contain elements that act as important barriers to innovative technology for
environmental purposes, both pollution prevention and pollution control technologies.
These elements were seen to create a climate that is not suitable for technological change
and that contribute to the inadequacy of market responses. The Committee asked the Focus
Group to confirm or correct this view, and to suggest modifications to permitting and
compliance systems that will encourage technology innovation without compromising the
principal goal of protection of public health and the environment.
This document reports the results of the Focus Group's review. Other TIE Committee
activities will examine other suggested sources of market dysfunction, including regulatory
approach, liability systems, and corporate practices. TIE Committee recommendations are
aimed at helping EPA put in place a system of positive and negative signals that encourages
environmental problem-solving in the context of sustainable development. This, in turn,
will enhance the market for innovative technologies for environmental purposes and
improve the ability of the environmental agencies to achieve their goals.
B. TIE COMMITTEE GOALS AND PROCESS
The TIE Committee has two strategic goals which apply to all environmental
technologies. These are to:
1. Increase the development and commercialization of innovative
technologies
2. Ensure the diffusion (use) of existing and new technologies.
The TIE Committee believes that these goals can and must be accomplished while
maintaining the primary purpose of the system: protecting human health and the
environment. The TIE Committee recognizes a hierarchy of technological
approaches to environmental improvement. In order of desirability, these are:
technologies that prevent pollution (including waste minimization and source reduction
technologies), recycling technologies, environmental control technologies, and cleanup
technologies. To pursue these goals, the TIE Committee is examining (1) the effectiveness
of the environmental system in ensuring a suitable climate for technological change and (2)
the adequacy of market responses.
The TIE Committee has identified impediments to environmental technology
innovation that exist within the environmental system, diminishing its effectiveness. These
impediments are regulatory, administrative, and systemic (see Findings). The Committee
12
-------
DRAFT
is reviewing ways to alleviate these impediments and to create positive incentives. In
considering the response of the marketplace to the need for innovation in environmental
technology, the TIE Committee is:
• Identifying ways of achieving better market responses leading to the development
and use of new pollution prevention and environmental control technologies.
• Identifying ways to remove the impediments and to assist developers of these
technologies (inventors, investors, and users).
• Reviewing ways that the public sector, the private sector, and the non-profit sector
can work, alone or together, to provide assistance.
The TIE Committee process is designed to identify the key factors that would
contribute to a climate in business and government that favors environmental problem
solving. To this end, the Committee process involves engaging and seeking the views of
all parties "at interest" These "stakeholders" include regulated communities, regulators
(federal, state, and local), providers of environmental products and services, the providers'
investors, the public, and the organized environmental community.
The Focus Group on Environmental Permitting was asked to examine the
relationship between government permitting and compliance systems
(federal, state, and local) and the process of technology innovation for
environmental purposes. This analysis is critical to understanding the climate for
technological change and the adequacy of market responses. The Focus Group was also
asked to examine the impact of regulatory "glitches" — regulatory requirements that have an
unplanned, adverse effect on technology innovation and diffusion — on the development
and introduction of new technologies for environmental purposes. The Focus Group was
to identify steps that can alleviate impediments and create positive incentives within the
permitting and compliance systems, helping remove the existing market dysfunction.
Issues considered by the Focus Group include the following:
• Who are the major interested parties and what is their motivation with respect to the
decision to invest in developing or applying an innovative technology for pollution
prevention or for environmental control or cleanup?
• What are the resource and timing impacts on technology innovation and diffusion
of permitting reviews by federal, state, an local authorities?
• What is the importance to technology innovation and diffusion of flexibility in
permitting requirements and of cross-media consideration of environmental
impacts of innovative technology?
• What is the importance to technology innovation and diffusion of flexibility in
compliance practices?
• What is the potential to create incentives for technology innovation related to
pollution prevention in permitting and compliance systems?
• What are the concerns of the public about technology innovation for environmental
purposes?
The Focus Group was comprised of individuals drawn from six state agencies,
technology developers, regulated firms, the financial community, and the organized
13
-------
DRAFT
environmental community. Most major offices of EPA participated. The Focus Group met
in January and March, 1990, and agreed upon its mission and the methods to be used in
accomplishing it To broaden its information base, the Focus Group heard presentations
from EPA's permitting and compliance programs (air, water, and solid/hazardous wastes).
The Focus Group then held two public Fact Finding meetings: May 16,1990, in San
Francisco and August 8, 1990, in Washington, D.C. (These meetings were noticed in the
Federal Register and advertised in at least 12 wide-circulation periodicals. In addition, TIE
Committee staff made over 100 telephone calls to state and local officials, environmental
groups, companies and industrial groups, and trade associations.) Presenters were asked
to provide comments about any positive and negative aspects of permitting, compliance, or
regulatory processes that are believed to affect technology innovation for environmental
purposes. Illustration of the significance of these comments and suggestions was
requested using specific, real case studies.
Twenty eight (28) oral and five (5) written presentations were received at the two Fact
Finding meetings. Most provided one or more case studies. The presentations came from
technology developers and other providers of environmental products and services,
regulated communities, EPA regulatory offices and researchers, and the environmental
community (listed in declining order of the number of presentations).
In addition, the National Environmental Technology Applications Corporation
(NETAC) prepared a report that describes a framework for considering the relative
importance of the impact of potential impediments on technology innovation. The
framework describes the stages of the technology development and commercialization
process and identifies the points of interaction between that process and environmental
permitting and compliance systems.
The Focus Group met in August, 1990, to review information available to it, make
findings, and draft preliminary recommendations. The Focus Group defined characteristics
of permitting and compliance systems that would encourage the development and diffusion
of innovative technologies. It used these as the framework for its recommendations. It also
listed the important perspectives that must be kept in mind when considering the value of
potential recommendations. (The characteristics and perspectives are discussed in the
"Rationale for System Changes.") The Focus Group met twice more by teleconference,
during which this report and its recommendations were discussed, revised, and approved
for presentation to the full TIE Committee. [The TIE Committee approved these
recommendations at its meeting on October 23,1990].
14
-------
DRAFT
IV. ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS SPEAK: THE FINDINGS
The Technology Innovation and Economics (TIE) Committee has held two fact finding
processes over the past two years. One has helped build to the other. The first examined
EPA's innovation programs, identifying the status and effectiveness of each in fostering
technology innovation for environmental purposes. Based on this examination, NACEPT
issued its January 1990 "Report and Recommendations of the Technology Innovation and
Economics Committee." This document contains "Findings" that gave an overview of the
critical role of technology innovation to the nation's success in protecting human health and
the environment in the context of sustainable development, and introduced the concept that
serious impediments, different from those facing other technology fields, obstruct the
market process for technology innovation for environmental purposes. The Findings
emphasized:
1. The need for federal leadership for this technology innovation;
2. The need for a comprehensive policy to remove the major impediments obstructing
this technology innovation;
3. The need to erect a system of incentives that address the perceptions of risk within
each stakeholder group, encouraging each to play its appropriate role in technology
innovation;
4. The nature of several of the major impediments that create an atmosphere of risk-
averseness among organizations involved in technology innovation;
5. The need to build a cooperative relationship among the stakeholder groups; and
6. The need for outreach to build the consensus that will be needed to sustain a
mutually supportive relationship.
The second fact finding process of the TIE Committee, which examined the
relationship between environmental permitting and compliance systems and technology
innovation, built on the first. The Findings of the second TIE Committee process are now
the basis for the Rationale for System Changes (Section V) and the Recommendations
delineated in Section VI. Following are these Findings:
1. Technology innovation, pursued through an integrated approach, is
necessary for the achievement of environmental protection goals and
objectives. Technology is the source of most pollution, but can be designed in a
manner to eliminate pollution or to reduce, recycle, control, or treat emissions and
residues. Existing environmentally-beneficial technologies can be used more broadly.
Improved technologies, too, can be applied to solve potential environmental problems.
Environmental and productivity considerations can be integrated into the design of new
technologies to ensure efficient, environmentally-sound production of goods and
services.
15
-------
DRAFT
2. The federal government should assume leadership and establish a
system of incentives favoring technology innovation. The goal of
government is to build a cooperative relationship among governments,
businesses, and academia for technology innovation for environmental
purposes and for assuring sustainable development. At the heart of this
relationship is consistency in the marketplace. The federal government alone
is capable of this role, because the federal government primarily determines the
stringency, applicability, timing, and longevity of environmental requirements, and its
signals dominate in the minds of regulated communities and technology developers.
The process of technology innovation is made up of many steps, each one of which is
critical to the ultimate success or failure of a technology. Unless the environmental
regulatory system provides a constant incentive to innovate, the likelihood is increased
that worthwhile technologies will not complete the necessary steps to
commercialization. It is particularly important that the Environmental Protection
Agency make technology innovation a high priority, because it is at the national level
that incentive and institutional systems to foster technology innovation can be
addressed most efficiently.
3. Federal, state, and local environmental permitting and compliance
programs provide underlying impetus for the use of environmental
technologies, but administrative complexity, high cost, duplication, and
layering create a severe dysfunction in environmental technology
markets. This problem, generally applicable to all environmental
programs in the United States, is especially damaging to technology
innovation for environmental purposes. Federal, state, and local government
permitting and compliance systems for both tests and early commercial uses of
innovative technology are in some cases duplicative and in many cases confusing.
There is little coordination among relevant agencies. In addition, nearly all are specific
to a single environmental medium (e.g., air, water). Compliance with a specific
permit may cause non-compliance with other media-specific permits at operating
facilities. The current system often precludes the most efficient use of resources in any
given operating facility and does not encourage technology innovation and the search
for efficient solutions to environmental problems. It particularly discourages
technology opportunities for pollution prevention.
4. Predictable and consistent enforcement of regulations, rather than the
mere existence of regulations, creates markets for innovative
technology. The lack of predictable and consistent enforcement at all levels of
government precludes the expectation of the need to comply with environmental
requirements and, therefore, the need to purchase environmental products and
services. Similarly, the lack of predictable enforcement discourages permittees from
using innovative technologies, which inherently expose them to greater risk, and
discourages entrepreneurs from investing money and effort in the technology
innovation process.
5. The cost, risk, and complexity of permitting systems associated with
testing innovative technology for environmental purposes is excessive.
There are few locations in the United States where tests of innovative
technologies can be performed. No viable permitting process exists for
those few that do. The functional purpose of permitting systems related to testing
innovative technology is not being met This is to protect human health and the
environment while allowing technology developers to define the range of applicability
of an innovative technology. Permitting processes for tests of innovative technologies
16
-------
DRAFT
should be instituted, expanded, and streamlined and designed to encourage technology
innovation - and then put to use ~ under each of the major media statutes. In some
cases, this may require legislation. Similarly, testing centers ~ whether operated by
private organizations, EPA, or other governmental agencies — should be encouraged
and supported. Specialized permitting processes should also be designed to ease and
speed the start of these facilities. Some might be established at existing and abandoned
federally-owned sites. The need to protect human health and the environment during
testing and early commercial use of nay innovative technology is considered
paramount by the TIE Committee. However, the TIE Committee also believes that the
potential benefits of innovative technologies for environmental purposes
counterbalance limited, temporary deviations from standards that may occur during
testing projects.
6. The lack of institutional recognition of the high priority of technology
innovation and the complexity of the permit application process inhibits
many technological ideas from flourishing, causes excessive time
delay, and imposes excessive costs on the development and early
commercial uses of innovative technologies. Permit application has become
an art practiced by consulting firms as a response to the complex and conflicting
requirements imposed. The cost and time required to the permittee for application
drafting, negotiation of permit terms, and pre-permit data gathering are so excessive as
to discourage the development, testing, and commercial use of innovative technology
for environmental purposes. Costs associated with preparing permit applications and
filing for permits can actually exceed the cost of a technology, thus creating significant
disincentives. Operating facilities with existing permits are especially discouraged
from applying for new permits based on the use of an innovative and environmentally-
effective technology.
7. The risk associated with testing and early commercial uses of an
innovative technology is greater than risks associated with using known
technologies in similar applications. The record shows that the lack of
public confidence and trust stands as a major impediment to the
development and use of innovative technologies for environmental
purposes. A key step in fostering technology innovation for environmental
purposes must, of necessity, address the public concern. Moreover, unless permitting
and compliance systems are effective, public confidence cannot be earned. Unless
performance envelopes (i.e., the range of applicability of technologies) are defined, a
"Catch-22" will exist that undermines public confidence in innovative technologies,
adds to the perception of investment risk by technology developers and the financial
community, and deters potential commercial users. Engineers' ability to determine
performance envelopes during testing — and therefore be able to project the potential
efficacy of that technology if it was later used at distant sites - is critical to reducing
the risk to public health and environment associated with testing and subsequent use
for compliance purposes. The solution to this dilemma can be found in redefining the
purpose of permitting and compliance systems towards (a) assuring the enforceability
of applicable objectives (standards), (b) assuring that a positive record exists of
facility's compliance history, (c) developing accurate and effective self-monitoring
systems (to assure compliance), and (d) undertaking enforcement against violators,
while (e) establishing a substantive process for public involvement that can build
confidence and (f) allowing sufficient flexibility for performance envelopes to be
defined. Thus, both a strong process for public involvement and flexibility with
respect to technology performance and timing of achieving compliance (or test
objectives) should be built into environmental permitting and compliance processes.
17
-------
DRAFT
8. Permit and compliance personnel turnover is excessive, causing loss of
institutional memory, the use of inexperienced personnel, and
inconsistent permitting and enforcement approaches. One reason for this is
the lack of training and other support for permit and compliance personnel. The high
turnover rate is particularly damaging to the technology innovation process, because
the expertise required for regulatory consideration of innovative technologies is greater
than what is required for the consideration of conventional, "best available
technology"-based approaches. When this problem is combined with the lack of
institutional policy support and guidance for the use of innovative technology and the
fact that the process of considering innovative technologies is more time consuming,
the importance of retaining permit and compliance personnel is even more apparent
9. Uncertainty about the timing, goals, and longevity of regulations
increases investment risk and discourages the development and use of
innovative technology for environmental purposes. In the current regulatory
system, (1) regulatory objectives and requirements remain in flux at least until
promulgation and (2) old regulations can be modified and new regulations introduced
under one or another environmental media program with little regard to creating some
stability for regulated parties. The process of developing innovative technology
generally takes ten or more years from the point of invention until commercial
introduction. This long lead time for technology innovation conflicts sharply with the
uncertainty inherent to current regulatory practices. The inability to predict future
environmental requirements and the inability to predict the longevity of current
regulations generates an atmosphere of excessive risk and discourages investment in
innovative technology for environmental purposes. Related to this problem, confusion
exists about the intent of some regulations, especially with respect to definition of
terms and interpretation of regulations and procedures. These problems must be
identified and clarified, if compliance and innovation rates are to be increased.
10. The current reliance on "best available technology "-based regulations
misses a major opportunity to apply incentive-based approaches in rules
and permits that can appeal to the motivations of interested parties.
Among the incentive-based approaches that could be applied successfully to improving
environmental results and technology innovation are: (1) economic incentive tools
(e.g., pollution fees and taxes, pollution trading, strengthening environmental
technology patents and making them easier to obtain); (2) depreciation rules, tax
credits, and other tax policies; (3) performance-based rules, (4) explicit, clear
standards, and (5) two-tiered regulations, which combine a "best available
technology"-based first tier, an environmental goal-based second tier (that may be
technologically or economically unattainable at the time of promulgation), and,
potentially, pollution trading and credits. In the absence of the use of such incentive-
based tools, the current command-and-control, "best available technology"-based
approach to regulation offers at best mixed incentives for the development and use of
improved environmental and production technologies. Such technologies, which often
cost more than the technology on which a regulation is based, must await an uncertain
recognition by rulemakers before their niche in the marketplace is assured. As
previously noted by the TIE Committee in the January 1990 "Report and
Recommendations," "before the imposition of an environmental rule, no incentive
exists to apply an environmentally beneficial technology (other than good will or the
desire to avoid an uncertain future liability). After regulatory requirements are
imposed, compliance with BAT-based rules requires the quick use of a technology
with the requisite performance and provides no reward for the development and use of
technology offering improved performance, regardless of the environmental and public
health risk remaining after use of BAT." Opportunities must be put in place that create
18
-------
DRAFT
a system of positive incentives for stakeholders to seek innovative technological
solutions to environmental problems — and then put to use — under each of the major
media statutes. In some cases, this may require legislation.
11. Many affected and interested parties are uninformed about the purpose
and benefits of, and approaches to technology innovation on the
environment. EPA and state regulatory staffs, regulated communities, technology
developers and providers, and the public need various types of information about
technology innovation. A technology innovation strategy will involve a significant
management change in the operation of environmental programs. Consensus-building
activities will be necessary, as will training and education programs to increase the
ability of interested parties to participate in a technology innovation strategy that
includes pollution prevention, as well as pollution control, technologies.
12. The encouragement of pollution prevention has not been sufficiently
built into permitting and compliance systems. Great opportunities exist to
build into production processes an improved environmental result, avoiding the
generation of pollution. Pollution prevention opportunities exist in virtually every
industry, but current regulatory approaches have not been designed to foster the search
for them or to foster their use. With this in mind, the TIE Committee has recognized
that a hierarchy of technological approaches to environmental improvement exists, in
order of desirability: technologies that prevent pollution, recycling technologies,
environmental control technologies, and cleanup technologies. The TIE Committee
believes that the use of a combination of these technological approaches can yield the
most efficient reduction of environmental problems. Further, the policy of
automatically triggering a major permit review when facility operators propose to
introduce pollution prevention modifications to existing permits should be modified.
13. Although some positive incentives exist, no important stakeholder
group is currently encouraged, in net effect, to support innovative
technologies for environmental purposes. This situation creates the
major market dysfunction described above that needs to be addressed
by environmental policy makers. The disincentives affecting the involvement of
each major stakeholder group in developing, demonstrating, and using innovative
technologies, as they are seen by the Tit Committee, are summarized below:
• Regulated Communities: Fragmentation of responsibility for permitting and
compliance across federal, state, and local jurisdictions; a lack of coordination of
permitting processes and reviews and of compliance policies and practices across
the media; a lack of permitting and compliance policies that aid the testing and
commercial introduction of innovative technology (e.g., the lack of flexibility
allowed for tests); regulatory uncertainty and risk associated with the use of
innovative technology; and the lack of adequate information and technical
assistance on permitting processes for innovative technology, on enforcement
policies related to technology innovation, and on available innovative technology.
• Regulators (Federal, State, and Local): Professional risk in choosing an
innovative technology over a "tried and true" technology in issuing permits for its
early commercial applications (associated with the difficulty and lack of experience
in determining the appropriateness of a proposed use of an innovative technology
for compliance purposes at a particular site and with the possibility that a proposed
use may be an attempt to avoid or delay compliance); for permit writers, extra time
to consider the use of an innovative technology at a particular site without receiving
encouragement (i.e., from policy) or credit (e.g., lowered requirements for
19
-------
DRAFT
number of permit applications processed, recognition for helping the innovation
process); lack of institutional credit for taking the time to consider a permit
application for RD&D permits under RCRA; difficulty in coordinating with other
levels of government and other media-specific permit writers; problems associated
with permitting test centers; lack of incentives for compliance personnel to be
flexible with early applications of innovative technologies (that may have difficulty
in "working the bugs out" on a timely basis, even in good faith efforts to do so);
lack of resources in permitting and compliance programs at all levels of
government (e.g., inadequate staff, lack of information about innovative
technologies and their previous applications).
• Providers of Environmental Products and Services: Lack of compliance
processes that, by creating the expectation to comply, define markets and thereby
reduce the risk of technology innovation and early commercialization; the need to
satisfy, simultaneously and without coordination mechanisms, the requirements of
various levels of government and in potentially more than one of the environmental
media; costs associated with obtaining permits for testing that may be significant in
the context of the entire innovation project; the compounding of risk associated
with the difficulty, expense, and delays of getting permits to test innovative
technologies and permits for their early commercial application; uncertainty about
the timing, goals, and longevity of regulations (and, therefore, about the timing,
nature, and longevity of markets); and lack of encouragement for pollution
prevention (and, therefore, about the markets for pollution prevention solutions to
environmental problems).
• Investors: Lack of compliance processes that, by creating the expectation to
comply, define markets and thereby reduce the risk of technology innovation and
early commercialization; costs of testing that are magnified by the costs and time
delays associated with obtaining permits to test innovative technology; the
compounding of risk associated with the difficulty, expense, and delays of getting
permits to test innovative technologies and permits for their early commercial
application; uncertainty about the timing, goals, and longevity of regulations (and,
therefore, about the timing, nature, and longevity of markets); lack of
encouragement for pollution prevention (and, therefore, about the markets for
pollution prevention solutions to environmental problems).
• The Public: The combination of hope, fear, and lack of understanding about
technology in general and innovative technologies, in particular, concern with
being the "guinea pig" that assumes all of the health risk associated with the failure
of a test or commercial use of an innovative technology without being able to reap
more than a small share of the benefit (reflected in the "not in my backyard"
[NIMBY] syndrome); the inability of regulators, technology developers, and users
of innovative technologies to assure the public that no harm to their health and
safety and that of the environment will arise from tests or early commercial uses of
these technologies (related to the problem that the public does not know who to
trust, if anyone); the fact that no study can prove the absence of an effect; the lack
of confidence that they are being fully informed about the purpose, benefits, and
potential local impacts of technology innovation.
These Findings, and the following recommendations that derive from them, describe
the TEE Committee's conclusions about the problems inherent to existing environmental
permitting and compliance systems as they relate to technology innovation for
environmental purposes and the reforms that must be made to take advantage of
20
-------
DRAFT
opportunities that innovative technologies offer for environmental gain. The TIE
Committee believes that it is essential to make the reforms recommended in this report to
deliver a clear and appropriate message to governmental and non-governmental
stakeholders that a strong market response is desired and possible for solving
environmental problems. Making these reforms will set in motion the integration of
environment into both the public policy development process and the private investment
cycle, leveraging the government's resources by encouraging maximum public and private
efforts to innovate for environmental ends and, thereby, encouraging technology
innovation for environmental purposes.
Looking Towards the Future
It is important to note that not all of these recommendations are new and unique to the
TIE Committee (see the Committee's January 1990 recommendations, which overlap with
and complement these recommendations). The TIE Committee reiterates its
principal January 1990 recommendations: it remains critical to evaluate the
effectiveness of existing innovation programs, issue a technology
innovation policy for the environment, and develop a technology innovation
strategy. The time is right to take these steps: a growing recognition exists that
technology innovation for environmental purposes is critical to the success of
environmental programs in the United States and an increasing number of commendable
initiatives have been undertaken by EPA and states to foster technology innovation for
environmental purposes. And, the recent report of the Science Advisory Board, "Reducing
Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection," defines how to set
priorities for solving environmental problems. It is now time to increase the national
capacity to develop the technologies needed to solve the most important environmental
problems.
There are beginning to be steps in the right direction. EPA's recent RCRA
Implementation Study, for example, identifies the need for some reforms in RCRA
permitting systems to aid the development and use of innovative technologies for RCRA
compliance purposes. More EPA and state activities than can be catalogued in this
document are underway. Among them are the creation by EPA of the Pollution Prevention
Office (and the dedication of EPA resources to support pollution prevention initiative
projects that can impact positively on the prospects for fostering technology innovation for
environmental purposes) and the Technology Innovation Office (in the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response). Another is the increased vigor of the technology
transfer programs of the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the explicit
support by ORD for the testing and commercialization of innovative environmental
technology at such facilities as Center Hill in Cincinnati; the EPA Incineration Research
Facility in Pine Bluff, Arkansas; the National Environmental Technology Applications
Corporation (NETAC); and the Equipment Testing and Evaluation Facility in Edison, N.J.
Yet another is the development of an "Interpretive Rule" by the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) aimed at creating a routine process for considering tests
of air pollution technology. Several states have instituted integrated or cross-media
permitting programs that encourage pollution prevention and co-optimization in
environmental control. State toxic use reduction programs and support for technology
development and commercialization are also hopeful developments. All of these initiatives
(and others not specifically noted here) by EPA and states deserve recognition and
commendation — and far more need to be undertaken in a coordinated, integrated fashion.
As the TIE Committee notes in Finding 10, however, fundamental
changes will be needed to create a comprehensive and continuous system of
21
-------
DRAFT
incentives that systematically encourage the environmental technology
innovation process. These necessary changes will extend beyond
permitting and compliance to reach to the very basis of regulations. The
changes must clearly reduce the risks and increase the rewards associated with the process
of bringing technology into commercial use for environmental purposes, if the Agency's
risk reduction-based strategy is to be successful. Specifically, policy makers should
reconsider "best available technplogy"-based regulations, which use agency established
technology-based limits and which use a technology to demonstrate that these limits are
achievable. Even though these are performance-based requirements, they have a strong
tendency to lock in the technology that is used to demonstrate achievability. Policy makers
need to be careful to provide flexibility so that other technologies that can be used to meet
the limits or to transcend them are developed and used. In this regard, the Committee notes
that environmental regulatory requirements are frequently limited by a technology base that
is insufficient to solve environmental problems to the degree recommended by risk
analyses. In other words, the United States' environmental program is
technology limited.
While "best available technology "-based regulations are not inherently "bad," the way
they are frequently implemented creates rigidity and has an adverse affect on technology
innovation for environmental purposes. Consideration should be given to substituting
regulatory processes that create economic incentives for technology innovation. Such
regulatory processes might include performance-based standards (particularly those that
establish requirements that meet desired environmental targets, rather than targets based on
those that are currently achievable technically and economically), pollution fees and taxes,
emission and effluent trading, depreciation rules, tax policies, and other such techniques.
In addition, the approaches currently in use to provide support to research and development
should be revisited, with consideration being given to techniques that provide additional
financial and other assistance to technology innovation and which leverage governmental
resources. For example, strengthening patents for environmental technology and making
them easier to obtain will increase the incentive to innovate.
As with its January 1990 recommendations, the TIE Committee
sincerely wishes to help EPA create a broad and clear strategic vision of
what is needed to energize the innovation cycle for environmental
purposes. The recommendations in this report suggest evolutionary
modifications to the present environmental regulatory system that are
designed to channel the creative and financial resources of the nation, to
expand the technology base for solving environmental problems. This is
the critical complement to EPA's risk reduction strategy for targeting
critical environmental problems. The combination of these two strategies
can increase the effectiveness of EPA in its role as the national
environmental leader.
The following sections summarize the TIE Committee's five major recommendations
to the Administrator, describe the Committee's findings and rationale in terms of the
present dysfunction of markets for environmental technology, and provide detailed
recommendations and commentaries about their significance in overcoming impediments to
the environmental marketplace. Detailed implementation steps are included, where
appropriate.
22
-------
DRAFT
V. RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Environmental regulations and associated compliance programs define and drive the
marketplace for environment-related technology. Technology is the source of most
pollution, and technology improvements are needed to meet both environmental and
economic objectives. The role of regulation and enforcement is crucial, because most
environmental costs are economic externalities. As a result, technologies will not
frequently be used to improve the environment without clear definition of requirements and
without effective compliance programs. Indeed, without regulatory acceptance, no
technology can be developed and used to meet environmental requirements. Moreover,
successful compliance programs engender the expectation on the part of affected parties that
they are required to comply.
NACEPT, in the January 1990 "Report and Recommendations of the Technology
Innovation and Economics Committee," has concluded that the development and use of
innovative technologies is necessary to more efficiently and simultaneously improve the
environment and enhance productivity and economic competitiveness. Technology
innovation is thus essential to continued progress in environmental protection in the United
States.
The TIE Committee's aim is to increase our understanding of the incentives and
disincentives built into today's environmental regulatory system. Recommendations based
on this understanding should help the Administrator make informed policy choices, thereby
enhancing the ability of the organizations responsible for the management of environmental
quality to influence the nature and pace of technology innovation for environmental
purposes.
The rationale for the TIE Committee's recommendations is rooted in the answers
developed by the Focus Group on Environmental Permitting's investigations of the six
issues listed in the section of this report entitled "TIE Committee Goals and Process". The
TIE Committee's analysis of these six issues follows:
1. The first question concerns the identification of the major interested ponies — the
stakeholders — and their motivation with respect to technology innovation.
Several categories of stakeholders are recognized by the TIE Committee: regulated
organizations (whether in the private or public sectors); providers of environmental
products and services; the financial community supporting the providers; regulatory
agencies, federal, state, and local; and the general public. Their motivations with respect to
technology innovation vary, and their willingness to pursue technology innovation is
impacted differently by environmental permitting and compliance systems. The
motivations include factors directly related to the features of permitting and compliance
systems and factors that are, in large part, independent of these features. Critical themes
include:
• Compliance expectation: whether regulated organizations expect to have to
comply. (The effectiveness of compliance programs determines the dimensions
and timing of markets.)
• System predictability and flexibility: whether the additional time required
to obtain permits for testing and beginning early commercial use of innovative
23
-------
DRAFT
technologies can be predicted, and whether obtaining such permits can even be
anticipated under reasonable circumstances. (Permitting programs affect
technology developers, financiers of innovative technologies, potential users of
those technologies, and the general public.)
• Time and cost: whether the time and cost impacts of gaining permits to test
innovative technologies for environmental purposes are acceptable compared to
those associated with other investment opportunities. (Permitting programs affect
financiers of innovative technologies, technology developers, potential technology
users, and the general public.)
• Extraneous triggers: whether application for a permit to test an innovative
technology or to use it at a commercial facility triggers a new source review, a
corrective action requirement, or another environmental review extraneous to
determining the innovative technology's performance. (Permitting programs affect
facility operators, technology developers, financiers of innovative technologies,
and the general public.)
• Testing the full range of performance: whether allowable tests of
innovative technologies can fully define performance envelopes. (Permitting
programs affect technology developers, financiers of innovative technologies, and
potential users of those technologies.)
Other factors are, in large part, independent of permitting and compliance systems:
• Regulation certainty: whether a stable and predictable set of regulations
applies to the facilities and technologies potentially affected by an innovative technology
(definition and stability of the market).
• Range of requirements: whether a large or a narrow range of requirements
applies to facilities and technologies potentially affected by an innovative
technology (definition and stability of the market).
• Regulatory treatment of new, old facilities: whether regulatory
requirements affect new and old production facilities and equipment equally
(turnover rates for production facilities and equipment and, therefore, the timing,
nature, and size of markets).
• Financial policies: whether tax policy and accounting practices favor pollution
control or pollution prevention solutions (financial characteristics of the market).
As discussed in the Findings, the TIE Committee concluded that the market signals
created by current environmental statutes and regulations, permitting systems, and
compliance programs do not, in net effect, convey to the major interested parties support
for the search for technological solutions to environmental problems. Importantly,
permitting and compliance systems, as they function today, discourage individuals and
firms in all categories of stakeholders from taking the risks necessary if innovative
technologies are to be routinely brought into use to solve environmental problems. As
previously noted, the rate of investment in environmental technology research and
development is relatively low, reflecting the net disincentives facing stakeholders, and the
role of the United States as leader in environmental technology has diminished The TIE
Committee believes that uncertainties, costs, and delays associated with permitting and
compliance systems are significant factors in this market dysfunction.
24
-------
DRAFT
2. The second question concerns the resource and timing impacts on technology
innovation and diffusion by federal, state, and local permitting reviews.
The TIE Committee has found a complex picture, depending on:
• Whether a technology is being developed or is ready for commercial use
• The environmental medium being considered
• Whether a control technology or a pollution prevention technology is being
considered
• The jurisdiction and the degree to which applicable requirements have been
attained in a geographic area.
In general, the resource and timing impacts of the media-specific environmental programs
appear to have a significant adverse effect on the cost and the time required to develop and
demonstrate innovative technologies for environmental purposes and to bring them into
commercial use. It appears that the environmental system under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) poses the greatest resource and timing impacts to technology
innovation for environmental purposes; that the Clean Air Act, as currently applied, poses
somewhat fewer, and that the Clean Water Act, as currently applied, poses the fewest
barriers. Both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act are being interpreted in some
jurisdictions and by EPA in ways that increase flexibility for testing and for applying
innovative technology, despite the limited use of statutory provisions designed for that
purpose. Moreover, there is typically no effective cross media coordination in permitting
and compliance systems. This deters technology innovation in general, and constrains
efficiency in environmental responses and to pollution prevention, in particular.
3. The third question concerns the importance to technology innovation and diffusion of
flexibility in permitting requirements and of cross-media consideration of
environmental impacts of innovative technology.
The TIE Committee has found that permitting requirements must simultaneously
protect human health and the environment, and be sufficiently flexible to (1) allow
performance envelopes (i.e., the range of acceptable performance of a technology) to be
defined during testing and (2) encourage regulated facilities to co-optimize for
environmental and productivity objectives when choosing from available technological
options for achieving compliance. Several "characteristics of permitting systems that
encourage technology innovation for environmental purposes," were identified by the
Focus Group on Environmental Permitting. These place the need for flexibility in context
with other necessary characteristics:
a. Flexibility: The regulatory system should authorize the permit writer to
incorporate a greater degree of flexibility into each permit for testing or use of an
innovative technology than is generally the present practice, if means can be found
to adequately protect human health and the environment. This is critical during the
testing of prototypes and demonstration units: the developer of innovative
technology needs sufficient flexibility to define the performance envelope of a new
technology (that is, to realistically determine the most appropriate operating
conditions). For operating facilities, the terms of a permit should focus on the
"result rather than the means to achieve it," encouraging the consideration of a
broader range of technology options by the owner or operator (see below). A
25
-------
DRAFT
focus on result would provide flexibility to try innovative technologies, especially
pollution prevention options.
b. Compliance: Technology developers and users need to be confident that
compliance will be required during testing, demonstration, and early commercial
use of innovative technologies. Compliance efforts must therefore be consistent,
predictable, and systematic. This is vital to allowing markets to develop for
technologies, as well as require testers and users to operate responsibly, knowing
that enforcement programs will assure compliance.
The need to protect human health and the environment during testing and early
commercial use of any innovative technology is considered paramount by the TIE
Committee. If means to provide this protection cannot be found, testing or use of
an innovative technology will have to be limited The TIE Committee believes,
however, that approaches are available, even within existing statutory
authorization, to allow sufficient flexibility during testing and demonstration to
define performance envelopes — while ensuring compliance. It should be noted
that once the performance envelope of an innovative technology is defined by
testing, early commercial use is less risky and, therefore, can become routine.
c. Enforceabilitv: Permit conditions must be enforceable. Introducing flexibility
into permit conditions in the interest of technology innovation cannot be allowed to
diminish enforceability. Variances should be available for good faith efforts that
are not completely successful, if there is no significant threat to human health and
the environment.
d. Predictability: The schedule for obtaining permits for testing and early
commercial uses of innovative technologies for environmental purposes needs to
be consistent and predictable, within and across jurisdictions. The outcome of the
process of obtaining an operating permit when an innovative technology is
involved appears to be less certain, the time to obtain it longer, and the cost greater
than would be the case if a conventional technology were involved. As noted in
the Findings, this uncertainty is even greater if, as is usually the case, multiple
jurisdictions or more than one environmental medium are involved, since
coordinated permitting is not the norm.
The need to assure the protection of human health and the environment during
testing, while paramount, appears to have overwhelmed the need for flexibility
sufficient to define performance envelopes. This is particularly so under RCRA
and, to a lesser extent, under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The
outcome of permitting processes has therefore become difficult to predict for
technology developers and time consuming and costly. In some jurisdictions,
obtaining permits for testing is nearly impossible. When viewed across
jurisdictional lines, the lack of predictability of permitting processes for testing
innovative technologies is striking. The lack of a predictable, working process for
permitting tests reinforces investors' perception of excess risk.
e. Claritv: Clarity in permitting processes and in permit conditions are important to
the testing and early commercial use of innovative technologies. Clarity is
important to the technology developers, technology users, regulators, and the
public. Permit writers, especially, are assisted by clearly-stated principles.
f. Confidentiality: To encourage early discussions with regulators and other
interested parties, assurance must be provided that secret information about
26
-------
DRAFT
innovative technologies will be protected. The expectation of confidentiality
would encourage development and commercialization of innovative technology. It
would also encourage more and earlier dialogue during technology development
and a better flow of information between technology developers, technology users,
and permit writers. Thus, a greater assurance of confidentiality would likely
shorten the time for innovative technologies to be introduced and a more efficient
use of resources by both permittee and permit writer.
The fourth question concerns the importance to technology innovation and diffusion of
flexibility in compliance practices.
Technology developers and users need to know that the compliance requirement will
be enforced during testing, demonstration, and early commercial use of innovative
technologies. A successful compliance system will create the belief on the part of affected
parties that they will be required to comply. The TIE Committee identified characteristics
necessary to a successful compliance system that encourages technology development and
use: consistency, predictability, and flexibility. Certain features of enforcement programs
were also identified.
• Consistency: Consistency in compliance within and across jurisdictions is
important to giving basic definition and size to environmental markets. The TIE
Committee concluded that, unless compliance programs are systematic and have a
significant probability of identifying non-compliers, an expectation of the need to
comply will not be created.
• Predictability: Compliance schedules and the enforcement of permit conditions
must be predictable. (Similarly, the introduction of new regulations must also be
predictable.) The TIE Committee has found that the market for innovative
technologies and the degree of risk associated with investment in technology
innovation are strongly subject to the predictability characteristic.
• Flexibility: Innovative technologies have not previously been permitted for
compliance purposes, so performance and schedules are not based upon a good
data base derived from a permitted operating facility. They therefore need flexible
targets. The need for compliance flexibility arises in two situations: (1) not all
tests can be completed according to plans, within predetermined schedules, and
fully successfully in terms of performance targets and (2) early commercial
applications of innovative technologies may not achieve compliance on a timely
basis or may never achieve full compliance. The TIE Committee believes that,
under circumstances limited by the overriding need to protect human health and the
environment, selective, temporary, and minimal non-compliance must be tolerated.
• Features of enforcement programs: Appropriate enforcement methods must
contain provisions to assure that no economic benefit obtains during periods of
non-compliance associated with testing and early commercial use of innovative
technologies for environmental purposes. Enforcement programs must be seen as
strong, yet be flexible and fair. Regulated organizations misusing the flexibility
feature must be strongly penalized. The TIE Committee concluded that these
features of enforcement programs would encourage reasonable technological and
financial risk taking by technology developers, financiers, and regulated
organizations.
27
-------
DRAFT
5. The fifth question concerns the potential to create incentives for pollution prevention in
permitting and compliance systems.
The TIE Committee has concluded that considerable potential to enhance pollution
prevention exists in both permitting and compliance systems. The potential is present in
permitting and compliance systems to design an improved approach to regulation that
increases certainty about the timing, applicability, and longevity of requirements; that
includes incentive features in regulatory design; that emphasizes performance, rather than
"best available technology"; and that decreases regulatory "glitches."
In permitting, the TIE Committee has identified several disincentives (see Findings),
including the media-specific approach to facility permitting, the multi-jurisdictional
oversight of single facilities (without coordination and, sometimes, common requirements),
the easy triggering of permit reviews (e.g., by making "significant" facility modifications),
the high cost and long delays associated with permits for research, development, and
demonstration (RD&D) tests; and the lack of a regulatory climate that encourages and
rewards experimentation. The TIE Committee believes that the potential exists under
current statutory authority to reverse most of these disincentives to pollution prevention.
Statutory modifications will be needed to address the rest of these disincentives.
6. The sixth question concerns the perspective of the general public about technology
innovation for environmental purposes.
There exists in the public both a fear and a hope about technology. The TIE
Committee met with several senior individuals from the organized environmental
community late last year (November 30,1989) to discuss this point Although the purpose
of the meeting was limited to exploring individuals' perspectives, a consensus emerged that
technology innovation for environmental purposes, while not an end in itself, "is a
necessary component to effectively protecting the environment now and in the future" and
that "selective policies that foster useful technology innovation should be adopted."
Moreover, there is strong support in the environmental community and in the general public
for pollution prevention, waste minimization, and recycling, all of which to a greater or
lesser extent require technology innovation.
The public appears to be cautious, properly so in the opinion of the TIE Committee,
that technology innovation for environmental purposes be approached in a manner that does
not jeopardize human health and the environment. When the public feels that it is well
informed and properly consulted, that undue risks are not taken that pose an imminent
threat, and that assurance against unforeseen damage is provided (e.g., that corrective
action to clean up a site where testing took place is guaranteed), the public's concerns can
be vitiated.
In its investigation of these six issues, the TIE Committee considered six perspectives
that reflect the wide variety of forces that impinge on the design and functioning of
environmental permitting and compliance systems. The six perspectives are:
a. Jurisdiction: Several levels of government necessarily are involved in decisions
about the permitting of tests and early commercial use of innovative technologies:
federal, state and local agencies. The TIE Committee recognizes that differing
viewpoints represented by agencies in the different levels of government must be
addressed in recommending improvements in permitting and compliance systems,
that increased coordination across jurisdictions is necessary, and that the roles of
28
-------
DRAFT
different levels of government need to be reconsidered and meshed together more
effectively.
Media: The three environmental media are regulated very differently. Several
federal statutes provide differing approaches to regulation, permitting, and
compliance. State and local laws further complicate the permitting and compliance
systems with which developers or users of innovative technologies must comply.
Each of these laws focuses narrowly on permitting and compliance systems
targeted on a single environmental medium. The TIE Committee is in strong
agreement that a multi-media approach is needed in the interest of resource
efficiency, to minimize cross-media shifts of pollution, and to provide incentives
for accelerated technology innovation.
Pollution Prevention QL Pollution Control: Pollution problems can be
addressed by preventing or minimizing pollution in the first place, by controlling
pollution once it is generated, or by a combination of the two approaches. The TIE
Committee's view is that a hierarchy of technology choices exists in which
pollution prevention is preferred, all things being equal. The TIE Committee's
investigation revealed that some features of permitting and compliance systems can
affect technology choices differently, some encouraging pollution prevention and
others encouraging pollution control. Similarly, permitting and compliance
systems can encourage technology innovation to take one course or the other.
Because both pollution prevention and pollution control solutions are needed, the
TIE Committee examined the ability of existing and potential features of permitting
and compliance systems to encourage both types of technology innovation.
Existing O£ New Facilities: The public's lack of trust towards both regulated
organizations and regulators is reflected in the regulatory treatment of new sources,
which is of ten far more stringent than that for existing sources. Such "double
standards" are evident in all three environmental media. Information gathered by
the TIE Committee shows strong agreement that it is extremely difficult to obtain
permits for new locations and relatively easier to renew permits for existing
facilities. At many locations, the difficulty of obtaining permits for a new facility
is more important than whether a technology proposed for use there is innovative
or the standard one.
The TIE Committee heard descriptions of situations in which companies'
reluctance to become subject to permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act led
them to apply innovative technologies. Their purpose was to keep emissions
below regulatory thresholds and thereby to escape regulation. In other cases,
however, attempts to apply innovative technologies to treat hazardous wastes on-
site were abandoned by firms who did not wish to have regulatory oversight
triggered under RCRA.
The performance requirements for environmental technologies and the degree of
scrutiny given to technologies applied may differ. The triggering of a major
modification provision under the Clean Air Act can have a vast impact on a
facility's environmental requirements. Under RCRA, the choice of treating or
even storing wastes on-site can bring a facility otherwise outside the purview of
RCRA under its umbrella and can trigger a RCRA corrective action review. The
TIE Committee recognizes the variety of potential positive and negative impacts on
technology choice created by the distinction between existing and new facilities,
and considers these a major concern to the goal of encouraging technology
innovation.
29
-------
DRAFT
e. Geographic Considerations: The location of two identical facilities in
different geographic locations may place different strains on the environment or
may subject the company to different state laws and regulations. This may, in
turn, trigger different performance requirements and the need to use different
environmental technologies. These geographic considerations may transcend state
boundaries and are reflected in different requirements, such as attainment vs.
nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act, state to state variations in
requirements under several programs, and water quality and effluent treatment
requirements in different bodies of water. The TIE Committee recognized and
considered the need for geographic variation in environmental requirements and in
technology choice. The Committee also recognizes the importance of the state role
in assuring that site-specific considerations are addressed, and the need for
coordination to assure that information can be shared and properly applied to each
unique situation.
f. Stakeholders: As discussed earlier, the TIE Committee recognizes five
categories of stakeholders whose views and motivations must be considered if
improvements in environmental permitting and compliance systems are to occur
regulated organizations, whether in the private or public sectors; providers of
environmental products and services; the financial community supporting the
providers; regulatory agencies, federal, state, and local; and die general public.
The TIE Committee has concluded that permitting and compliance systems, as they
function today, discourage individuals and firms in all categories of stakeholders
from taking the risks necessary (f innovative technologies are to be routinely
brought into use to solve environmental problems. The TIE Committee sought to
identify and consider the motivating factors operating within each stakeholder
group relative to the development and use of innovative technology for
environmental purposes.
Overall, the TIE Committee has concluded that current permitting and compliance
systems do not create a positive incentive system. Therefore, specific changes (or types of
changes) should be undertaken by responsible officials. These improvements are designed
to address the specific market dysfunctions described above, to encourage the efficient use
of resources for technology innovation for environmental purposes, and to increase the
opportunity to use these innovative technologies to improve the nation's ability to protect
human health and the environment
30
-------
DRAFT
VI. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION AND
COMMENTARY
A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Technology Innovation and Economics Committee of NACEPT
recommends that the Administrator of EPA, working within EPA, with state
and local agencies, and with the Congress, make interrelated improvements
in environmental permitting and compliance systems necessary to foster
technology innovation for environmental purposes within the overriding
goal of protecting human health and the environment. These improvements
fall into five categories:
1. Modify permitting systems to aid the development and testing of
innovative technologies for environmental purposes.
2. Implement permitting processes that aid the commercial introduction of
innovative technologies for environmental purposes.
3. Use compliance programs to encourage the use of innovative
technologies to solve environmental problems.
4. Support regulators and other involved communities to maximize the
effectiveness of improvements recommended in permitting and
compliance systems.
5. Identify and remove regulatory obstacles which create unnecessary
inflexibility and uncertainty or otherwise inhibit technology innovation
for environmental purposes.
31
-------
DRAFT
B . DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION
AND COMMENTARY
RECOMMENDATION 1:
Modify permitting systems to aid the development and testing of innovative
technologies for environmental purposes.
1.1 Institute a working system of specialized permits in all media
for testing innovative technologies for environmental purposes,
including.
a. Permits for specialized testing facilities
b. Permits for testing at other locations
Commentary
Testing innovative technologies for environmental purposes is necessary to define their
performance envelopes (i.e., the range of acceptable performance of a technology). Such
testing may have to be conducted several times during research, development, and
demonstration, as technologies are scaled up, re-engineered to improve performance and
extend applicability, and finally demonstrated at commercial, operating locations.
The Clean Air Act (CAA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) contain some provisions aimed at fostering the
testing of innovative technologies for environmental purposes. As noted in NACEPTs
"Report and Recommendations of the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee"
in January 1990, these provisions are, however, limited and none has been widely used
Under the CAA and CWA, ad hoc mechanisms have evolved to create some flexibility for
testing. Under the CWA, for example, most permits are written under "best engineering
judgement" — "BEJ" — allowing the permit writer flexibility to consider innovative
solutions and local conditions. This is not the case under RCRA. NACEPT recommended
that, at a minimum, existing statutory provisions be fully employed to create added
opportunities for and flexibility in permitted tests.
Information collected by the TIE Committee suggests that the permitting of testing is
difficult under RCRA and limited under other statutes. The TIE Committee has found that
considerable testing is conducted of air and water pollution control technologies, although
mainly at permitted operating facilities using the ad hoc regulatory methods. Existing
provisions under RCRA are narrowly construed and little used or not fully deployed.
Moreover, the TIE Committee has found that there is little cross-media coordination of
permit application reviews, compounding the difficulty of the permitting process for
technology developers and discouraging some tests of pollution prevention technologies,
the value of which may be most evident when viewed in a cross-media context
32
-------
DRAFT
Testing of innovative technologies can take place at permitted locations specifically
designed and designated for that purpose (see recommendation 1.2) or at other locations,
particularly at permitted operating facilities. Specialized permitting processes are needed
for such testing centers. These permits should be cross-media based and issued for a
substantial time period. Permit terms should be flexible enough to allow for the testing of a
wide variety of technologies at a variety of sizes ranging from bench scale potentially
through full scale. The Committee endorses seven detailed recommendations for testing
facility permits developed bv EPA's Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
(OCEMY.
a. Scope of permit defined to ensure facilities' environmental safety. Permit
application reviews for testing facilities would focus on the capability of a facility
to safely test a proposed range of technologies, rather than the capability of every
technology tested to achieve acceptable environmental performance during testing.
Thus, the range of technologies tested would be limited to those that could be
safely tested within the facility. Scientists will then be freer to conduct tests that
define the performance limits of technologies tested, while the facility's
own structure and environmental control technology insulates the surrounding
environment and nearby communities from harm,
b. Federal program, with delegation authority. Federal regulations would establish
and guide the issuance of testing facility permits, but delegate program authority
to states accepting the program. EPA would issue permits only in states that have
not adopted the program, and then only with state concurrence. State authority to
require more stringent standards would therefore be preserved.
c. Ten-year permit duration allowed. Permits would be issued for up to a ten-year
period, with the possibility of renewal. A description of technology categories and
testing parameters, including sufficient information to assure that the capability of
the facility to safely conduct tests would not be exceeded, would have to be
provided as a part of the application, but controlled flexibility would remain (see
#4 below). Specialized requirements « such as those under RCRA for a public
review process, emergency plans, inspections, and corrective action — would
apply.
d. Installation of environmental controls required. Permitted facilities would have to
have air emissions control equipment, water treatment or pretreatment equipment,
solid and hazardous waste residuals pretreatment and storage capability, and
environmental monitoring equipment sufficient to assure that public health and the
environment are protected from pollutant releases during and after tests. This
installed environmental equipment will, in essence, create a bubble of
environmental protection around equipment being tested, ensuring no violation of
applicable environmental regulations during and after testing. Without test-specific
review by responsible regulatory agencies, no test could be conducted if the
capabilities and capacities of installed environmental controls could be exceeded
during testing.
e. Cleanup requirements apply. Application of the closure and post-closure
requirements under RCRA would apply, assuring that no significant residual risk
would remain at the testing location after the useful life of the testing facility is
completed or the facility is otherwise closed down.
f. Public review process. Appropriate public participation processes (see
subrecommendation 4.5) for permitting under federal and state statutes would be
33
-------
DRAFT
applied to proposed testing facility permits. Independent scientific expertise
should be made available to the community, enabling them to evaluate the test
facility to review safety, the range of tests proposed, time limits, etc. (see
subrecommendation 4.5). Tests conducted within the constraints of the terms of a
permit, once it is issued, would not be subject to individual public review,
however.
g. Anti-loophole provisions. Time limits would be placed on the length of testing
allowable for any one piece of equipment This and other requirements (e.g.,
inspections, limits on quantity and time of storage of materials for testing) will
assure that the testing facilities cannot be misused to circumvent normal
requirements on treatment, storage, or disposal facilities.
If EPA and other authorities are to facilitate such testing, whether at testing facilities or
at other locations, improvements will have to be built into permitting systems and strong,
positive signals will have to be issued from regulatory agencies. It is important to note that
the TIE Committee recommends that a systematic program be instituted to encourage,
support, and train permit writers involved in permitting activities associated with testing
(see subrecommendation 4.1 for details). Another signal could be in the form of guidance
that encourages and enables EPA laboratories to make the fullest use of the Federal
Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) to take advantage of existing expertise and facilities
inside and outside of the government in conducting joint testing projects. The TIE
Committee recommends that several specific issues be addressed and features be built into
improved permitting programs to institute the set of needed improvements. They include:
1. Flexibility: At a minimum, testing programs must have the flexibility to define
performance envelopes (the range of applicability of an innovative technology for
environmental purposes). Permitting systems are needed under each of the media statutes
to allow such testing, as is coordination of media-specific permitting efforts across
jurisdictions:
• RCRA: Based on the results of its Fact Finding efforts, the TIE Committee has
concluded that, at present, the greatest need for change exists under RCRA. There
is effectively no RCRA permit available for locations where a variety of innovative
technologies can be tested over time (i.e., permits for testing centers) and no
effective permitting program exists for tests of single technologies (i.e., RD&D
permits under Section 3005(g) of RCRA, only fifteen of which have been issued
since July 1985). Most states are not authorized for the RD&D permit program,
for example.
Improvements can be accomplished by one of at least three methods, which may
require administrative policy changes, statutory changes, or both. NACEPT has
previously recommended three complementary solutions, each of which can be
accomplished under existing authorities (January 1990, TIE Committee
Recommendations 1.4.d [RD&D permit program modifications], 1.4.e
[implementation of Subpart Y regulations for testing facilities], and 1.4.f
[expanded use of Subpart X]). The TIE Committee compliments OSW for its
support to extending the statutory time limit for RD&D permits from one (1) to ten
(10) years, but the Committee notes that administrative revisions in the RD&D
permits program are also critical to allow sufficient flexibility during testing.
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has suggested that an
administrative rulemaking, called the "Subpart Y" rule, could provide an alternate
regulatory framework for testing facilities under current authorities, but no action
34
-------
DRAFT
on this concept has been taken after eight years. The TIE Committee urges
immediate action to address this crving need.
Additionally, the TIE Committee recommends that the treatability rule be revised
to allow, at the discretion of the permit writer, a larger volumetric treatability
exception for hazardous waste testing. The amount would be greater than 1000
kg, but less than 10,000 kg, and linked to the technology, as well as to the site.
Further, the RCRA prohibition barring technology developers from collecting
revenues for wastes treated during authorized tests should be eliminated in favor of
reporting requirements and strict compliance programs that assure that the terms of
testing, including the length of tests, are followed. Such an approach should not
create a loophole, and is very important to technology developers who must
otherwise bear the full cost of tests. See also recommendation 5 for a discussion
of several RCRA-related regulatory glitches.
• CAA: No testing permit provision exists under the CAA, but tests at small scale
can be conducted without permits in most jurisdictions. An ad hoc administrative
procedure involving ORD and OAQPS, called the "no action assurance" letter, has
been devised to allow larger tests at operating facilities. This method does not
provide sufficient predictability, certainty, and orderliness to the process of testing
innovative technology. The procedure may be formalized by the so-called
"interpretive rule," which has recently been formally proposed by OAQPS. The
TIE Committee commends OAQPS and ORD for this proposal and endorses the
concept, while noting that it has not reviewed the terms in enough detail to
comment on their sufficiency as a systematic system for testing.
• CWA: No testing permit provision exists under the CWA, but considerable
testing is conducted at permitted operating facilities. The current ad hoc system
involving the granting of significant flexibility on a case-by-case basis by permit
writers does not provide sufficient predictability, certainty, and orderliness to the
process of testing innovative technology. This ad hoc system involves the
issuance of permits written under the "best engineering judgement" permitting
program feature — "BEJ." The "Innovative Technology" variance provision
(CWA Section 301(k)) is, unfortunately, little used. The TIE Committee
recommends that a systematic system of testing permits be developed under the
CWA.
2. Compliance and Enforceability: At a minimum, regulations establishing
specialized permits for testing innovative technologies for environmental purposes must
assure that public health and the environment are protected at the same time that flexibility is
provided. The concern of the public that health and environmental quality might be
jeopardized is a primary limiting factor to technology innovation (see subrecommendation
4.5). This is true both for technology tests which are, by their nature, being conducted
expressly to prove efficacy and safety of individual technologies, among other factors, and
for testing centers which, by their nature, are sites where a series of tests of unrelated
technologies will be conducted.
The TIE Committee recommends that testing facility permits include provisions
that minimize risk to the public and the environment and include provisions that assure their
enforceability. As noted earlier, the lack of public confidence that regulated parties will
behave responsibly with respect to the environment deters the issuance of environmental
permits at new locations, as well as those for the testing of new technologies. It must be
clear to the public that permits for testing will not become loopholes to escape the
requirements and intent of the regulations technologies must meet. In its Fact Finding
35
-------
DRAFT
activities, the Committee was impressed that current testing programs have apparently not
been abused by technology developers or regulated parties. New provisions that offer
greater flexibility must retain such provisions as (1) limited time for tests, (2) corrective
action requirements, (3) disclosure, (4) public participation, and others that assure
necessary protection.
3. Clarity: The TIE Committee recommends that the regulatory process for
specialized permits for testing innovative technologies must be clear in its intent and
process. Likewise, permitting conditions must be clear. Clarity, as noted previously, is
important to technology developers, technology users, regulators, and the public. Permit
writers and applicants, especially, are assisted by clearly stated principles and by
institutional support in terms of policy, guidance, and rewards for carrying out these
specialized permitting programs (see recommendation 4).
4. Confidentiality: The TIE Committee recommends that additional steps be taken
to assure the confidentiality of secret information about innovative technologies, both those
tested at permitted facilities and those tested at other sites. The expectation of
confidentiality would encourage development and commercialization of innovative
technology. And, as previously noted, it would also encourage more and earlier dialogue
during technology development and a better flow of information between technology
developers, permit writers, and technology users. Secure areas in regional offices and state
agencies should be provided for confidential discussions and storage, and penalties should
be imposed for violations of security.
1.2 Develop a system of dedicated centers for the testing of innovative
environmental technologies.
Commentary
The TIE Committee found that few locations exist in the United States where testing of
innovative environmental technologies can be performed. Furthermore, the Committee
found that there is no viable permitting process for dedicated testing centers under any
environmental statute. The Committee has recommended that such a permitting process be
instituted (see subrecommendation 1.1).
Within the general theme that testing centers are facilities at which performance trials of
innovative technologies are conducted, several variations have been built or proposed.
Variations can revolve around institutional relationship and form, type of services offered,
type of technology tested, availability to unrelated parties, and stage of technology tested.
Iii what is perhaps their purest form, testing centers might be open door facilities, available
as a fee-based service for anyone seeking a safe testing place. These might be federally-
operated, with services available under terms of the Federal Technology Transfer Act
(FTTA), or not federally-operated. Sometimes, testing centers are located in conjunction
with in-house technology research centers, such as corporate research facilities
investigating improved manufacturing processes and government agency research facilities,
such as EPA's. In other cases, controlled condition testing could be one of the array of
services offered by incubation centers, such as is now offered by the Illinois Institute of
Technology Research Institute (11'1'Kl) and as is proposed by the National Environmental
Technology Applications Center (NETAC) in Pittsburgh. (NETAC offers other
commercialization services, as well.) Another institutional home for testing and evaluation
might be provided by a university affiliation, as is proposed at the New Jersey Institute of
Technology for Edison, N.J.
36
-------
DRAFT
Testing facilities will also vary in terms of the type of technology tested: Some
facilities might be equipped to safely test all types of environmental control technologies,
but most appear likely to be targeted on a single environmental medium and even on a
subset of the technological targets within it For example, EPA's Center Hill research
facility in Cincinnati focuses on stabilization technologies and EPA's Pine Bluff, Arkansas,
research facility has historically focused on incineration technologies.
Some facilities are "open to all comers," while others will be captive to a single
organization or otherwise of limited access. Examples of each exist at this time. Testing is
required at all stages of technology development and demonstration. Testing centers can
provide services at each stage. Much testing, particularly of early stage technologies, can
be conducted under existing operating facility permits, as long as existing permit conditions
are not exceeded. Testing at larger scale presents greater permitting difficulties, and testing
facilities may be particularly useful to satisfy this need.
RCRA RD&D permits are primarily applicable to the testing of single technologies.
They allow only small quantities of waste material to be tested, are too restrictive of the
range of conditions that can be tested, and are of limited duration (i.e., RD&D permits are
issued for a one-year period, renewable for up to three times before reapplication is
necessary). There are no formal provisions for research, development, or testing permits
within either the air or water programs — all testing must be done under a facility's full
operating permit or under ad hoc mechanisms (e.g., "no action assurance" letters in the air
program). The Committee heard several industry comments during its Fact Finding
Meetings (comments confirmed by state regulators) that facilities, once they have obtained a
RCRA, air, or water permit, are very reluctant to conduct research and testing of new
technologies, if a significant change in emissions could result, thereby triggering a permit
review.
The TIE Committee therefore recommends that a national system of permitted testing
centers be created and!or promoted. The principal characteristic of these facilities would be
to allow innovators and developers, under controlled test conditions that protect human
health and the environment during and after testing, to determine performance envelopes so
that they and regulators can project potential efficacy at commercial facilities. There are two
principal benefits to the environment: (a) testing will be environmentally safe (because
testing is conducted under controlled conditions and under the direction of professionals)
and (b) information critical to reducing risks to public health and the environment
associated with further testing and commercial use will be developed, and information that
is important for writing operating permits and determining compliance conditions will be
produced. It is important to note that the TIE Committee recommends that a systematic
program be instituted to encourage, support, and train permit writers involved in permitting
activities associated with testing centers (see subrecommendation 4.1 for details).
As noted in Finding 6, "(t)he record shows that the lack of public confidence and trust
stands as a major impediment to the development and use of innovative technologies for
environmental purposes." Public concern is particularly evident when permits for new
facilities and new technologies are sought It is therefore extremely important that
mechanisms for early and substantive public involvement, such as those discussed in
subrecommendation 45.be included in the testing facility program. In addition, it is
critical that such facilities should also:
• Be secure;
• Be isolated from the outside environment;
37
-------
DRAFT
• Have all the necessary media monitoring and environmental controls to assure that
public health and the environment are protected during and after testing;
• Be staffed by trained professionals who are expert in testing environmental
technologies and operating the on-site environmental control equipment;
• Undergo scrutiny from the local community, including appropriate mechanisms for
public participation on an ongoing basis;
• Have in place a RCRA corrective plan to address any potential remediation that
could be required as a result of releases or testing failures.
Such testing centers must go the extra mile to assure both the regulators and the public
that testing will be done in a safe, environmentally protective manner.
The resources and expertise ofORD should be used to assist permit writers to devise
realistic and flexible, yet fully protective, permit conditions for testing centers. ORD
should also provide technical assistance to testing center operators. ORD's own testing
facilities should be made available to testing center permittees, perhaps through Federal
Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) agreements. A guidance document for such facilities
could be prepared by ORD. (See also subrecommendation 4.4 for more details.)
EPA should investigate the potential for establishing federal testing centers at EPA
facilities and at other federal locations, such as Department of Defense (DOD) or
Department of Energy (DOE) sites. Sites which are in isolated areas, away from vulnerable
environments and high population centers, would be most desirable. The Department of
Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (the old National Bureau of
Standards) could also be a participant in establishing and guiding federal testing centers.
Testing centers could also be established under non-governmental auspices, such as
private companies, universities, and other research institutes. EPA should fully utilize the
provisions of the Federal Technology Transfer Act in setting up such centers at quasi-
public or private facilities. EPA should assure that reasonable provisions and licensing are
made for ownership and licensing of intellectual property, such as patents and trade secrets
at public and private test centers. It should also be noted here that testing centers could be
for manufacturing process innovation or for pollution control and remediation innovation.
In the former case, testing centers are likely to be operated by individual companies, by
industry associations, or by other organizations created for that purpose.
1.3. Develop a system for cross-media and crpss-jurisdictional
coordination of the review of permit applications for (a) testing
facilities and (b) tests at other locations.
Commentary
The TIE Committee recommends that steps be taken to achieve coordination of testing
permit activities. Even if permitting systems for testing innovative technologies for
environmental purposes were in place in each of the media-specific programs and at the
federal, state, and local levels, coordination would be needed to assure that they can be
used effectively. Such coordination is critical to the encouragement of innovative pollution
prevention technologies in that it is needed to achieve consistency, timeliness, efficiency,
clarity, and predictability.
38
-------
DRAFT
In implementing this recommendation, the Committee recommends that a working
group be established that includes the appropriate EPA offices, including all of the key
categorical programs, plus a number of state and local agencies. This working group
should be tasked with describing the detailed implementation steps that are necessary,
including potential statutory changes. The TIE Committee believes that this task can be
completed within 9 to 12 months of its inception. Operating guidance should be developed
by EPA and provided to regional offices and to state and local governments to assure a
consistent coordination effort It is important that, as a part of this effort, methods be
devised to assure an early and substantive role for the public. Such an approach is
necessary to building public confidence that public health and the environment will not be
subject to unacceptable risk when new technologies are undergoing trials and testing.
The importance of this recommendation lies in the fact that the TIE Committee has
found that individuals, firms, universities, and others wishing to test innovative
environmental technologies
• have frequently been significantly and apparently unnecessarily slowed by
permitting processes,
• have encountered conflicting attitudes and requirements at different levels of
government,
• have spent large sums applying for permits, perhaps unnecessarily, and
• have only had mixed success in the end.
The Committee heard many case studies and examples of these problems. It can easily cost
millions of dollars to apply for the several permits necessary to conduct a test of an
innovative technology that itself may cost considerably less than a million dollars to
purchase. Obtaining these permits can take two years or more and involve application to
and negotiation with several agencies at more than one level of government. Additionally,
if use is proposed in another state, the entire process may have to be undertaken again at a
substantial fraction of the cost and time.
The TIE Committee recommends that serious consideration should be given to new
authority that divides and coordinates the responsibility for overseeing testing among the
levels of government. Under such a division of responsibility, the federal government
might appropriately develop technology-specific permitting conditions from a national
perspective, while state and local governments might develop site-specific permitting
conditions for tests proposed within state borders. National applicability of the data could
thus be assured, and data sharing could be made easier, while state and local governments
could consider the applicability of a technology to a proposed site and site-specific risks
associated with its testing determining whether a proposed test would be allowed to
proceed. National technology permits could be modeled on those issued by EPA for TSCA
mobile treatment units.
Various mechanisms for coordinating permitting of technology tests are being tried in
several states (e.g., Massachusetts, New Jersey). These may involve coordination of the
reviews of independent permitting programs through various forms of teaming or a
combined, multi-media review by one qualified person or a small team assembled under a
special office. Other mechanisms are conceivable. The TIE Committee recommends that,
at a minimum, a team leader concept be adopted by EPA so that federal responsibility and
accountability for the review of permit applications for tests of innovative technology and
for testing centers is unified within the Agency and so that a single point of contact exists
39
-------
DRAFT
for use by the involved state and local agencies. Ideally, the teams should be well-
coordinated across the levels of government and, within EPA, from region to region. This
could help alleviate the frustration and confusion mentioned frequently by the case studies
heard by the Committee during its Fact Finding process.
The TIE Committee recommends that a technology Innovation ombudsman function be
established. This function would provide a point of contact for technology developers,
prospective users of innovative technology, permit writers and compliance officers at all
levels of government, and the public so that people can find out information about (1) the
status of permit applications for individual tests and testing centers, (2) the permitting
process, (3) the policies relating to technology innovation, and (4) test results, including
information about the performance envelopes of individual technologies. To be successful,
the ombudsman will need to have the ability to work at all levels of government - national,
regional, between states, within states, and locally. The ombudsman function could also
profitably include the ability to intervene to encourage timely consideration of permit
applications or even to mediate between permit applicant and permit writer. (See also
subrecommendation 4.4.)
Concluding Comments: Recommendation 1
The program outlined above needs first and foremost to have as its motivating force a
strong and clear EPA policy that promoting technology innovation is a part of the Agency's
mission. NACEPT has previously recommended (January 1990, TIE Committee
Recommendation 1.1) that the Administrator of EPA develop and issue a policy statement
redefining the Agency's mission to include fostering the development and diffusion of
innovative technologies that both further the Agency's environmental objectives and
enhance the competitiveness of the United States economy. The TIE Committee reiterates
that recommendation.
40
-------
DRAFT
RECOMMENDATION 2:
Implement permitting processes that aid the commercial introduction of
innovative technologies for environmental purposes.
2.1 Increase the flexibility of permitting processes involved in
introducing environmentally beneficial technologies into commercial
use.
Commentary
The Committee believes that EPA should undertake a number of measures to ensure
the necessary flexibility in permitting processes to promote environmental technology
innovation. Some of them can be accomplished under existing authorities and some will
require legislation. In summary, however, EPA and most other environmental regulatory
agencies have interpreted existing permitting and compliance authorities in a way that limits
flexibility and, thus, discourages technology innovation for environmental purposes. It
should be noted that some of these measures are more critical for pollution prevention
technology innovation, some for pollution control technology innovation, while some
would promote both. Specific measures include the following:
a. Revitalized waiver authorities: EPA should make a policy and organizational
commitment to promote environmental technology innovation through revitalization of its
innovation- and regulatory-waiver authorities. While this would certainly assist in
encouraging the development of innovative pollution control technology, it could
potentially have its greatest impact in removing barriers to implementation of innovations in
pollution prevention, and the Committee strongly recommends that EPA explore this
potential. NACEPT has previously recommended (January 1990, TIE Committee
Recommendation 1.4.h) that the Administrator expand the use of statutory provisions such
as the Clean Water Act's "Innovative Technology" variance (CWA Section 301 (k)) and
"Fundamentally Different Factors" variance (CWA Section 301 (n)), and innovative
technology waivers (CAA Section 11 l(j)) under the Clean Air Act. Through effective use
of these authorities, EPA may be able to realize significant increases in the regulatory and
permitting flexibility required to encourage environmental innovation.
The Committee found that while EPA has had authority to grant innovation waivers
under both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act for over a decade, there has been
very limited use of these provisions. Other variance authorities, some of which might also
be useful in the context of encouraging multi-media pollution prevention technology
innovations, have also been very low on the Agency's list of priorities. The Committee
believes that, in combination, these authorities could provide a powerful tool for
encouraging plants to make environmentally-sound decisions to cut back releases to all
media. To make these statutory and regulatory authorities an effective tool for promoting
both environmental innovation and pollution prevention, the Committee believes that EPA
should take the following, interrelated steps:
- Make a high-level policy commitment to maximizing the potential for promotion
of pollution prevention innovation in current and future authorities. The
41
-------
DRAFT
Committee commends EPA for its actions to make a commitment to pollution
prevention. These actions include establishing the Pollution Prevention Office, the
development of a pollution prevention strategy, the drafting of pollution prevention
legislation (although it should be noted that the Committee did not review its
specific terms and, therefore, is not implying its support or rejection of any
individual terms), and the initiation of several "pollution prevention initiative
projects;"
Establish an organizational focus charged with revitalizing the Agency's powers
for promoting innovation within these programs, and involving the active
participation of individuals from the relevant programs;
- Establish working groups in each region with the responsibility of integrating this
approach into regional operations, including permitting and enforcement;
Develop guidance for evaluations of waiver applications, particularly in a multi-
media context and including criteria for success linked clearly to pollution
prevention objectives, and establishing a basis for performance evaluations against
those criteria at all levels within the Agency with responsibility for the effort;
Provide incentives within the Agency for individuals to work for the success of
regulatory incentives for environmental technology innovation, with special
emphasis on looking for opportunities for innovations in pollution prevention (see
recommendation 4);
Promote joint, cooperative efforts to promote similar programs at the state level,
since active state participation and support is a prerequisite for such a program to
work; and
Develop a technology transfer and outreach effort to communicate the Agency's
new objectives and programs to industry, and to emphasize that this has a high
priority at EPA.
b. Create a ""soft landing" policy: EPA should adopt policies that allow a "soft
landing," consistent with leal and regulatory requirements to protect human health and the
environment, for good-faith efforts which fall minimally short of compliance requirements.
Such policies would complement innovation waiver programs in promoting either pollution
prevention or pollution control (see subrecommendation 3.2). Where permits providing for
innovation waivers are approved, the Committee believes that it is important to provide for
"soft landings," i.e., to avoid punishing good faith efforts. The need for such a
mechanism would occur when a permittee makes a good faith effort to use an innovative
technology to meet the permit requirements, but falls short, minimally, resulting in no
significant public health or environmental damage. In such a case, to encourage permittees
to use innovative technology, efforts should be made to minimize penalties for non-
compliance or eliminate them completely, and additional time should be allowed to achieve
compliance where possible.
c. Repermitting of facility changes: To the extent consistent with its current
authority, EPA should seek to reduce the permitting burden for the introduction of new
technologies (see subrecommendation 22) and should explore the potential for statutory
provisions which would reduce such burdens. One area of particular concern for the
Committee was the extent to which the installation of innovative technology for either
pollution prevention or pollution control at existing facilities might be discouraged by the
necessity of obtaining new permits. More-polluting older technologies are often kept in
42
-------
DRAFT
place, even when it might be economical to replace them, simply because of the perceived
cost, complexity, and uncertainty of having to go through the permitting process for the
replacement technology.
d. CAA New Source Reviews: The Committee also heard comment in its Fact
Finding activities about the perceived risk facility owners take in triggering New Source
Review (NSR) review in non-attainment areas when participating in innovative technology
demonstration projects, such as might occur in the EPA/DOE Clean Coal Technologies
Program. The Committee learned that EPA is currently preparing an interpretive ruling
which will clarify that if a source solely adds or enhances a system or device whose
primary function is the reduction of air pollution, and which is determined to be not less
environmentally beneficial, such activities do not constitute a physical or operational change
triggering new source requirements. The Committee applauds OAQPSfor initiating this
interpretive ruling. It recommends, however, that more aggressive efforts be undertaken to
educate the regulated community of its existence to ensure that perceived barriers do not
prohibit facilities from demonstrating and eventually adopting innovative and
environmentally beneficial technologies.
e. CAA netting policy: The Committee has found that EPA's netting program under
the Clean Air Act can help reduce the permitting burden for new pollution prevention or
pollution control technologies. The Committee noted, however, that some states have not
adopted EPA's approach to netting in non-attainment areas. Netting allows a new
technology to be introduced under a less stringent and cumbersome review process
whenever the plant at which the new equipment is being introduced can find enough
emission reductions elsewhere at the plant to avoid significant increases in overall
emissions as a result of the new equipment The rationale for netting is that increased
emissions which do not exceed the significance levels do not warrant the time-consuming,
resource-intensive New Source Review process. For those states which have not adopted
EPA's netting program, EPA should consider working with the states to define criteria, at
a minimum.for innovative pollution prevention technology to which the netting program
would apply.
f. RCRA corrective action trigger: The TIE Committee recommends that, under
selected conditions, corrective action requirements not be triggered by the application for
permits under RCRA. These conditions should, at a minimum, include the application for
permits for testing of innovative technologies.
g. Performance-based permits: The TIE Committee recommends that, within
statutory constraints, the Agency should adopt regulatory changes to place all of its permit
requirements on a performance basis. In addition, statutory changes should be considered.
While most permits issued under EPA programs are stated in terms of performance
standards, even though the standards are based on estimates of the performance capabilities
of specific technologies, some standards are stated in terms of technology requirements.
The Committee believes that technology-specific requirements in permits eliminate
alternative options for meeting standards, inhibiting the development of innovative
technology.
h. Support to permit writers: The TIE Committee recommends that a systematic
program be instituted to encourage, support, and train permit writers involved in permitting
activities associated with the testing of innovative environmental technologies (see
subrecommendation 4.1 for details). Without such a program, permit writers will lack the
institutional sanction and encouragement and the supporting resources necessary to realize
the benefits of the above actions.
43
-------
DRAFT
2.2 Streamline the process of reviews of permit applications for newly
introduced innovative technologies that have environmental benefit,
coordinate their review, and afford them high priority.
Commentary
A streamlined permitting process is important ifnewty introduced innovative
technologies that have environmental benefit are to be moved more successfully from
demonstration into commercial use. The TIE Committee has concluded that an early dialog
between permit writers and the technology developer or prospective user of an innovative
technology should be encouraged to minimize misunderstanding by both parties, shorten
the permit process, and reduce costs. Equally, the Committee sees an early dialog as being
critical to effective and positive public participation in the consideration of permit
applications for innovative technologies [see subrecommendation 4.5]. These suggestions
derive from two, interlocking barriers to the use of innovative technologies: unfarniliarity
with the innovative technology by permit writers and the local community.
Two-phase permit process: The Committee recommends that environmental
policy makers, in developing a strategy for streamlining permit reviews involving the earlv
commercial use of innovative technologies, consider instituting one that is comprised of
two distinct phases, or tiers. During the first phase, basic principles and parameters
associated with the operation of the proposed innovative technology would be discussed at
the earliest possible time. The permit writer would then be able to gain a better
understanding from technical experts (e.g., from ORD) and seek answers to and
resolutions of any outstanding issues (e.g., obtain additional environmental, health, risk,
or efficiency data). The permit writer would also be able to discuss the concepts with the
interested public. If no agreement is possible, this fact can often be identified during the
first phase. In this case, a decision to modify or abandon a project could be made earlier,
before regulators and applicants have expended as much time and resources as would be
needed if a complete permit application has to be provided before consideration could
begin. During the second phase, detailed technical information would be discussed to
establish permit conditions and a compliance schedule, and to reach a conclusion about
whether a permit will actually be issued. Deliberations during this phase would not reopen
issues covered successfully in phase 1. The public would also be deeply involved in the
second phase.
The goal of the TIE Committee's recommendations for a testing permit system (see
subrecommendations 1.1 through 1.3) is to remove as much uncertainty as possible about
the potential performance of a proposed operating use of a newly introduced (yet already
tested) technology. The problem addressed by this recommendation is the difficulty of
obtaining an operating permit for an already-tested innovative technology for which little
operational data exists.
Coordination, integration of permitting programs: Coordinated review is
especially appropriate at the time of first introduction of a new technology, since permit
writers and the public will be unfamiliar with that technology and have a higher level of
concern than for a well-proven technology. This was recognized by NACEPT in the TIE
Committee's January 1990 recommendation 1.4.c that EPA work to maximize coordinated
permitting strategies across environmental media, and increase intergovemmentally-
coordinated permitting whenever possible, within the constraints of existing statutes.
The Committee has developed a great deal of information that supports this view.
During the Committee's recent Fact Finding meetings, EPA's Office of Pollution
44
-------
DRAFT
Prevention (OPP) gave a presentation describing the progress of EPA's "pollution
prevention through permitting" initiative. Specific case studies presented included the
project at Amoco's Yorktown, Virginia, refinery, at which a multi-media environmental
evaluation will be performed. At the state level, fact finding presentations from
Massachusetts and New Jersey described those states' multi-media pollution prevention
efforts, including integrated permitting and coordinated inspections. The Committee heard
a report on the Blackstone Project recently conducted by the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection. Under that project, multi-media inspection teams under a team
leader were assigned to inspect individual facilities. The team leader was often chosen on
the basis of the primary medium for facility releases. The state is examining the potential
for applying this process to permitting, as well. The Committee commends the Agency for
the financial support it has provided for this innovative program under the Pollution
Prevention Incentives grant program, and urges the Agency and states to explore the wider
application of this approach.
The Committee reiterates its recommendation that a system for coordinated and
integrated permitting be devised for easing the introduction of new technologies into the
marketplace. Major features of a program for the coordinated review of permit applications
for innovative technologies might include the following:
• A mechanism for expedited joint review across federal, state, and local authorities.
Contemporaneous public hearings would be one time- and resource-saving device.
• Permit teams that could provide "one-stop shopping" for permits across all affected
media. In addition to simplifying the often complex permit application process
(different forms and data formats, and different submission and reporting
requirements), the one-stop process would allow for careful tracking of permits.
Perhaps more importantly, the team approach also has the benefit of less disruption
when one team member leaves. The rest of the team will be able to bring the
replacement up to speed in much less time, eliminating the possibility that
applicants will have to go back to "square one."
• Use of a technical resource ombudsman as outlined in subrecommendations 1.3
and 4.4.
• Incentives for fast-track processing to assure timely response on a predictable
basis. A key element of a fast-track process is a systematic program to encourage,
support, and train permit writers involved in permitting activities associated with
testing (see subrecommendation 4.1 for details).
The permit team concept: The TIE Committee recommends that the permit
review team concept be adopted by EPA so that responsibility and accountability for the
review of permit applications for the use of new technologies is unified within the Agency
and with involved state and local agencies. EPA should encourage states to adopt this
approach. Team members should include appropriate representatives from each of the
major media program offices (RCRA, water, air, and, potentially, TSCA) at the federal,
state, and local levels. Technology expertise from ORD should also be represented,
perhaps in the role of technology ombudsman (see subrecommendation 4.4). Another
important team member would be someone with public participation expertise whose
primary role would be to assist the public if questions arise about regulatory process or
whether the new technology will be protective of human health and the environment in the
proposed use (see subrecommendation 45). One member of the team would be designated
team leader to serve as client contact (for the new technology permit applicant) and to
coordinate team efforts.
45
-------
DRAFT
Top priority status for reviews of permit applications: One of the barriers
to coordinated and concurrent permitting is that each single-medium statute contains its own
individual permit requirements and compliance deadlines, along with separate schedules for
renewal or review of existing permits. For example, under many state air pollution control
programs, written approvals are required before construction of a new source or a source
modification may begin. Resulting delays of six months to a year are frequent. Such
delays may preclude innovative technologies from ever getting to market ~ especially
environmentally beneficial manufacturing technologies in rapidly changing industries. The
TIE Committee heard several examples where permit application reviews for a project were
completed in one or more media, but not in all media so that the project was delayed
substantially. The permit team might be given the flexibility to provide limited
modifications to nonsubstantive regulatory requirements, e.g., those involving timing. In
all cases involving technology innovation, every effort must be made to streamline the
application and permit approval process so as to not miss the narrow "window of
opportunity" during which the commercial success or failure of the introduction of an
already-tested technology is determined.
The Committee heard from many sources that permit applications involving innovative
technologies are frequently assigned lower priority than those involving well-known
solutions. The TIE Committee recommends that, either with or without the benefit of the
permit team program, permit applications for the introduction of innovative environmental
technologies be given the highest priority in terms of timely review. The combination of
permitting complexity and slow permit approval causes a great barrier to the diffusion of
new technology.
Streamlined CAA small source permit reviews: The Committee notes another
factor impeding technology innovation for environmental purposes: permit writers in some
state programs do comprehensive reviews for even small sources of air pollution. The
Committee recommends that the Agency promote streamlined review processes or
exemptions for small or very small sources, and that the Agency encourage states to give
innovative proposals and prevention projects preference when scheduling reviews of permit
applications. The combination of these suggestions will increase the efficiency of
permitting programs, freeing up scarce governmental staff time for higher value uses.
Some states, including Massachusetts, have modified permit review processes to minimize
the time required to approve very small air pollution sources (0-1 tons/year, 1-5 tons/year
— see CMR 7.02 [4] [a]). Some off-the-shelf equipment may be exempted from
comprehensive review, if it meets performance standards, e.g., solvent degreasers or dry
material storage silos. This action to cut the permit review backlog supports innovation by
reducing delays. Further, Massachusetts sources which propose innovative prevention or
control strategies can have their permit applications moved to the front of the approval
process queue.
2.3 Assure national consistency in the consideration of proposed uses of
innovative technologies, subject to site-specific limitations.
Commentary
The TIE Committee recommends that EPA take steps to ensure, to the greatest extent
possible, consistency in the review and evaluation of proposed uses of innovative
technology, subject to site-specific variations, across iurisdictional boundaries, and within
relevant peopraohic units In addition EPA should take stenv to eliminate renetitive and
46
-------
DRAFT
potentially inconsistent repermitting requirements for mobile treatment units' non-site-
dependent features.
The information developed in the Committee's Fact Finding process indicates that
consistency in the evaluation of innovative environmental technologies is of great
importance both for pollution prevention and pollution control. Potential market size is a
critical factor in decisions about whether to invest in the development of any innovative
technology. Inconsistencies across regions or among different levels of government reduce
potential market size by increasing uncertainty among potential users of a technology that it
will actually be acceptable to permit writers.
Mobile Treatment Units (MTUs) provide a specific example of technologies potentially
subject to multiple and inconsistent reviews of the basic technology, independent of
appropriate and necessary site specific considerations. It is generally agreed, based upon
the Committee's Fact Finding meetings, that in many cases it is environmentally preferable
to move a mobile incinerator from place to place rather than transport hazardous waste
substantial distances for treatment at a stationary incineration unit. Yet site-specific
permitting militates against this.
The TIE Committee recommends that some of the current constraints on the use of
MTUs be removed. In making this recommendation, the Committee recognizes EPA's
TSCA nationwide permits for mobile PCB incinerators. The Committee heard a
presentation from California on that state's successful permitting and utilization of MTUs,
for California's non-RCRA hazardous wastes, through the use of state-wide Permit-By-
Rule (PER) mechanisms. California's approach is not available for RCRA wastes within
that state. The Committee recommends that EPA review the California approach, and
consider the regulatory and/or statutory changes which would be required to implement
such a system for RCRA hazardous wastes. The Offices of Solid Waste and General
Counsel might be tasked with this job.
One factor the Committee believes can lead to inconsistent consideration of innovative
technologies is the lack of adequate technical expertise in each of EPA's regions to review
all the relevant technical features of a proposed innovative technology, which may have had
trials in only a few locations in the entire country. This problem is compounded when
federal and state permit writers are involved. The recommendations in 2.1 with respect to
innovation waivers are intended to address this problem by ensuring the development of a
central organizational unit with the responsibility of providing consistent review of
technical factors. The recommendations in 4.1 with respect to support to permit writers are
intended to address this problem by elevating the priority of permits involving innovative
technologies and by providing needed technical assistance and training.
Another factor in the inconsistency among EPA regions in evaluations of permit
applications involving innovative technologies has been the lack of any general EPA
guidance on the principles and objectives which should govern the review of permit
applications requiring innovation waivers. In the absence of such a clearly articulated
national policy, each regional office, and in fact each individual permit writer, is likely to
make different determinations of the relative environmental benefits which should be
required from an innovative environmental technology. Moreover, the lack of a strong
signal from EPA has led to an inconsistent, and generally weak, set of state policies for the
use of innovative technologies.
In addition, EPA should, whenever possible, indicate geographical areas to which
common technical performance requirements are applicable. Examples of such areas might
47
-------
DRAFT
be severe non-attainment areas or geologically sensitive areas of a large aquifer.Designation
of industry categories appropriate for new technologies might also be warranted
Since decisions bv state and local jurisdictions are alsp vital in any effort to achieve
consistency, the Committee urges EPA to (a] issue strong guidance encouraging the use of
innovative technologies and (b) develop a system for working closely with state and local
Jurisdictions in considering permit applications involving the use of innovative
environmental technologies. The guidance should address the need to assure substantive,
early public involvement (see subrecommendation 4.5). This guidance would also address
(a) the development, to the greatest extent feasible, of common standards for evaluating
proposed uses of innovative technologies, (b) the provision of technical assistance by EPA
to states, localities, and the public requesting technical support in the review of permit
applications proposing use of such technologies (see subrecommendations 4.1 and 4.5),
and (c) the provision of support to both the applicants and the suppliers of innovative
technologies involved in the permit application (see subrecommendation 4.4).
The federal RCRA Subpart X regulation was originally intended for use in providing
flexibility in the permitting of non-conventional treatment units, such as MTUs. The lack
of specific standards, however, in the Subpart X regulation and the absence of clear
guidance to permit writers have hampered the full utilization of this authority for permitting
transportable units. In its January 1990 recommendations, the TIE Committee
recommended that EPA investigate how RCRA Subpart X regulations could be used to
facilitate the use of miscellaneous treatment technologies. In light of the California program
and EPA's own TSCA experience, the TIE Committee recommends that EPA investigate a
PBR mechanism, perhaps within RCRA Subpart X, to allow the consistent nationwide
utilization of MTUs where such use is appropriate, for RCRA hazardous waste. The
Committee notes that the RCRA Implementation Study makes a similar recommendation
and suggests that the Offices of Solid Waste and General Counsel might be tasked with
conducting this investigation and reporting its results (and proposed recommendations to be
taken on the basis of its results) to the Administrator. The Administrator should also
identify other opportunities to introduce flexibility into permitting systems that can be
applied to aid the introduction of innovative environmental technologies and, if sufficient
opportunities do not exist, should seek additional statutory provisions, not limited to
RCRA.
2.4 Develop a system of incentives for users of commercially-available
innovative technologies.
Commentary
Current statutory provisions for innovation waivers are generally designed to provide
extra time for regulated organizations using innovative technologies to come into
compliance with statutory or regulatory requirements. These provisions are thus meant to
provide an incentive (or eliminate a disincentive) for organizations to implement innovative
approaches to reducing pollution. Industry experience with federal and state
implementation of innovation waiver and variance programs, however, has resulted in
considerable skepticism about the seriousness of such efforts. In addition, if an effort to
implement innovative technology falls short of a requirement, by however narrow a
margin, EPA and states have typically not had any policy other than requiring full
implementation of the standard alternative for achieving compliance (see
subrecommendation 3.2).
48
-------
DRAFT
For the innovation waiver program to work as an effective incentive, the TIE
Committee recommends that EPA and states communicate to industry and other regulated
organizations that anv regulatory flexibility effort designed to promote environmental
technology innovation is the result of a top-level decision, that there are clear criteria, for
evaluating the chances of success of an application, and that the responsible Agency has
assigned adequate resources to carry through on its objectives.
EPA should design approaches for "soft landings" for good-faith efforts to implement
innovative alternatives that fall marginally short of regulatory objectives. EPA should work
with regional offices and state agencies to implement these approaches. The Committee
believes that, in many cases, the ability to institute such approaches already exists within
the Agency's statutory authority and, in some case, regulatory repertoire. For example, in
certain cases the emissions trading and offset programs could be used to create a bubble,
enabling facilities that would otherwise fall marginally short of meeting such requirements
at the conclusion of innovation waiver compliance delays to meet these regulatory
requirements. In other cases, new authority may be needed.
The Committee also believes that EPA and states should consider more extensive use
of economic incentives to encourage environmental innovation. Where the cost of
compliance with environmental requirements or the cost of using environmentally
detrimental materials substantially increases, industry will have a strong incentive to invest
in developing alternative technologies or materials, even in the absence of performance-
based or technology-based standards. The prohibition against land disposal without
treatment, for example, appears to have had a significant role in promoting industry efforts
to find innovative approaches to pollution prevention, because of the enormously increased
costs of compliance with the new regulations. It is likely that the economic factor will do
more to encourage investment in innovative pollution prevention processes than would any
specific regulatory requirement applied to process equipment. Similarly, many states are
now considering taxes on volumes of chemical releases reported in the Toxic Release
Inventory. One of the objectives of such a tax is to provide an incentive to industry to
reduce the use and release of toxic chemicals.
Another incentive EPA should consider is a special effort to recognize companies that
adopt innovative environmental technologies — perhaps particularly in the context of
pollution prevention. Such a program is likely to be effective, if it is well conceived and
run, because many corporations place significant value on recognition for corporate
activities which benefit the public and particularly the environment. One component of a
broad program to recognize companies and other organizations that adopt innovative
solutions could profitably be an awards program.
It should be reiterated that a system of incentives for permit writers should be instituted
(see subrecommendation 4.1). Such a system will complement the system of incentives for
users of innovative technologies by increasing the receptivity of permit writers to
applications proposing the use of innovative solutions.
Subrecommendation 43 discusses other types of support that would be important to
prospective innovative technology permittees. These primarily involve information
systems and technical support, but also include the ombudsman function.
49
-------
DRAFT
RECOMMENDATION 3:
Use compliance programs to encourage use of innovative technologies to
solve environmental problems.
3.1 Modify environmental compliance programs to create an expectation
of the need to comply. This is necessary to create markets for
innovative technology.
Commentary
The Committee stresses the importance that industrial, commercial, and other facilities
subject to environmental requirements expect routine and rigorous enforcement of permit
requirements. Otherwise, most will not purchase and use innovative technologies.
Without the expectation of the need to comply with environmental permit requirements, the
market stability and consistency necessary to promote innovative environmental technology
will be lacking. Environmental compliance systems that are consistent and predictable
provide an incentive for the development of both pollution control and pollution prevention
technology because they assure that a market for such technologies will exist (and be of
predictable size and character). Penalties must be sufficient to remove any economic
benefits a facility might gain from non-compliance.
Such an approach to enforcement and compliance is fully consistent with the flexibility
inherent in providing waivers for genuine, good-faith efforts to develop and implement
innovative technology. But it is important that the criteria for such waivers be clear and
consistent, so that waivers cannot in any way be used as vehicles for avoiding compliance
by facilities which arc not genuinely attempting to implement an innovative approach and/or
provide an overall, multi-media environmental benefit.
EPA can promote the necessary market consistency both through firm and predictable
enforcement actions, and through support for and coordination with state and local
enforcement efforts. One role which EPA is in an especially strong position to play, and
which the Committee believes would be of great value, is to track innovative state and local
enforcement programs which are trying new approaches to providing consistency,
predictability, and multi-media inspection and permitting of entire facilities, and providing
information and communication between programs in different parts of the country. A
number of new experiments in enforcement are currently underway in various states and
localities, e.g., Minnesota, Massachusetts, South Coast Air Quality Management District
(in California). EPA should promote the sharing of information on the successes and
problems of these efforts.
The Committee notes that, with most compliance activities taking place at the state and
local levels, NACEPTs State and Local Programs Committee could appropriately
undertake a project leading to widespread implementation of the recommendations in 3.1.
50
-------
DRAFT
3.2 EPA and state agencies should practice and encourage flexibility in
the choice of remedies during enforcement actions, aiming at
encouraging the use of innovative technologies under appropriate
circumstances.
Commentary
As noted above in recommendations 3.1 and 2.4, both incentives and firm
enforcement play an important role in creating a stronger market for innovative
environmental technology. Flexibility in meeting environmental compliance requirements
is essential to provide the freedom necessary to experiment with initial commercial
application of promising innovative pollution control or pollution prevention technologies.
The TIE Committee believes strongly, however, that flexibility only works in a context of
strong enforcement and meaningful penalties, so that there is no reward for making a
perfunctory effort to comply.
Within a strong enforcement context, the Committee believes that flexibility is
essential. Innovative approaches which may provide long-term environmental benefits
often cannot meet short-term compliance deadlines. In addition, multi-media benefits
which might result from innovative environmental technology are not addressed by EPA's
and states' media-specific statutes. Further, the potential for a risk management strategy
that is multi-media in scope can only be possible if greater flexibility is instituted in
operating guidance and, potentially, statutory language.
In order to deal with these factors, it is important to have an effective program for
environmental waivers and variances (as discussed in recommendation 2.4), with
provisions for soft landings, to the extent consistent with legal and regulatory requirements
to protect human health and the environment, for good-faith efforts which fall minimally
short of compliance requirements. In particular, where the Agency and/or a state deems
that an attempt to implement an innovative technology has met clearly delineated criteria for
a good-faith effort, penalties might be reduced for some predetermined period during which
the facility would be required to come into compliance by improving the performance of
innovative technologies or through the use of more traditional technologies.
// is important that support of various types be provided to compliance personnel in
federal and state agencies. Subrecommendation 4.2 discusses a system of support that is
recommended by the TIE Committee.
3.3 EPA, state agencies, and other regulatory authorities should institute
mechanisms to increase coordination in compliance programs across media
and across jurisdictional lines.
Commentary
EPA should work to maximize coordinated permitting strategies across environmental media.
and increase intergovernmentallv-coordinated permitting whenever possible, within the constraints
of existing statutes. NACEPT has previously recommended (January 1990 TIE Committee
Recommendation 1.4.b) that EPA identify, develop, and apply ways to use compliance and
enforcement policies to encourage technology innovation, including commercial adoption of new
technologies. This recommendation (3.3) is closely related to Subrecommendation 2.3 (previously
recommended in the January 1990 TIE Committee Recommendation 1.4.c).
51
-------
DRAFT
A multi-media approach to compliance would include the development of multi-media
inspection teams, and the development of consent agreements or other enforcement actions which
take into account potential reductions in pollution to all media - not just the single medium (where
that is the case) where a facility is discovered to be in violation. Such an approach would reduce
the incidence of cross-media transfers which have often been the result of narrow enforcement
actions against single-media violations. It would also be an effective means to encourage
innovations in pollution prevention technologies, since it would encourage facilities to look for
overall changes in production methods and materials usage, not simply to install available add-on
controls to correct the immediate violation. Consent agreements could be designed to provide the
extra compliance time necessary to design and implement such multi-media changes. They could
also be used to require facilities to undertake multi-media pollution prevention planning. This
could improve the facility's analysis of its own future pollution prevention opportunities, whether
through innovative process or materials changes, or standard improvements in operating
procedures.
In some cases, it might be appropriate to allow monies derived from civil penalties (for
compliance violations) to underwrite technology innovation. This has been done, for example, in
Minnesota, where a portion of the penalties for violations of pre-treatment requirements by
electroplaters and metal finishers was allocated to the development of an innovative central metals
treatment and recovery facility. In Southern California, $1 million from enforcement penalties is
being set aside as an Air Quality Assistance Fund to guarantee loans to smaller businesses for
installation of compliance technologies.
For efforts that attempt to use compliance and enforcement to promote innovative pollution
prevention to be successful, there must be effective integration of efforts and approaches between
all relevant governmental jurisdictions. Without such coordinated efforts, each level of
government, or each affected geographical jurisdiction, would essentially hold veto power over
any agreement to try an innovative approach, if such changes as extension of normal compliance
deadlines or alternative allocation of enforcement penalties would be required. Moreover, support
systems will be needed for compliance personnel involved with innovative technologies (see
subrecommendation 4.2).
52
-------
DRAFT
RECOMMENDATION 4:
Support regulators and other involved communities to maximize the
effectiveness of improvements recommended in permitting and compliance
systems.
4.1 Institute a system of incentives, training, and support to retain
experienced state and federal permit writers who participate in
permitting decisions involving the testing or early commercial use of
innovative environmental technologies.
Commentary
The TIE Committee recommends that a systematic program be instituted for the
purpose of retaining experienced permit writers, and to encourage, support, reward, and
Train those permit writers to be better prepared, and more favorably disposed, to processing
permits involving testing and/or introduction of innovative technology. Both increased
continuity and specialized support and training are critical to the success of permitting
systems to encourage testing and implementation of new technologies because, at present,
there is little or no incentive for permit writers (who often have limited experience) to take
the risk of recommending or authorizing testing or use of a new technology.
The TIE Committee believes that improving the continuity of permit writers would be
an important step towards ensuring the timely and consistent permitting of innovative
environmental technologies. The Committee heard evidence of cases where, in attempting
to permit a new technology, technology developers had to deal with a seemingly constant
stream of new permit writers. All of the hard-won verbal agreements that were reached
with the old permit writer were wiped clean when the new permit writer came on board and
the developers had to start at square one again. Other developers presented case studies of
how the rapid turnover rate of permit writers had protracted the permitting of a new
technology to such a degree that the expected market niche disappeared by the time the
technology finally received permits. Regulatory agencies indicated that the turnover rate
problem damaged their ability to consider permit applications on a timely basis, both in
terms of the adequacy of staff and the adequacy of their knowledge base.
Comments heard during the Fact Finding meetings indicated, however, beyond the
issue of experience, that permit writers are often discouraged, by unwritten policy, by the
lack of guidance, or by other factors, from writing permits for testing and/or
implementation of new technology. The results were often counterproductive to the
development and use of innovative technology. For example, in those cases where RCRA
permits were entertained for testing new technology, the regulators pushed for full
permitting -- e.g., for RCRA technology testing, essentially a complete Pan B — that
limited testers' ability to define performance envelopes, restricting the value of testing and
increasing its cost This situation must be reversed, so that permit writers are encouraged
to and rewarded for issuing permits for safe testing of innovative technology for
environmental purposes.
53
-------
DRAFT
It should be noted that changes at the federal level will have little actual impact if there
are not corresponding changes in state programs. State laws and regulations for the
various programs are generally modelled on those of EPA - but there can be significant
differences, such as California's "permit by rule" for mobile treatment units for treating
non-RCRA wastes. Permit writers in state programs will also have to be brought into the
incentives "loop." State and local participation in the permit team strategy outlined in
subrecommendation 2.3 should be encouraged.
As one possible model of an incentives program aimed at encouraging, supporting,
and training permit writers at federal, state, and local agencies, the TIE Committee
recommends the following:
a. Establish a hierarchy or job ladder for permit writers and incorporate criteria in
performance evaluations along that promotional ladder to address the permit
writers' development of expertise (either single media, cross-media, or
technology-specific). The ladder might include the following elements:
• Single-media permit writers. Single media permit writers should be networked
to facilitate information sharing within regions. These media representatives
could serve as team members on the coordinated permit review teams described
in subrecommendation 2.3.
• National expert single-media permit writers. A national expert permit writer
program could be established within each of the single media areas as a next
step in the ladder. National single-media experts could serve as a nationwide
information (both technical and regulatory) resource locus in dealing with
innovative technologies. They would also provide institutional memory in
cases where local conditions favor high turnover rates. (State experts might
also be eligible for this program.)
• Cross-media permitting experts within each region. A rung in the ladder could
be for permit writers who obtain expertise across the media. In designing the
cross-media permit expert role, much use could be made of the experience
gained in current EPA and state (e.g., Massachusetts, New Jersey) cross-media
inspection and integrated permitting pilot projects. Team leaders for the
coordinated permit reviews discussed in subrecommendation 2.3 should be
drawn from this pool.
• Regional liaison permit writers. Regional liaison permit writers would serve as
coordinators, facilitating access to regional and state single-media and cross-
media expertise.
b. Provide training and model templates, based on the prior testing of innovative
technologies, to all permit writers. A concise, yet comprehensive, training
pogram should explain the permit writers' role in fostering the successful use of
innovative technologies for environmental purposes and on information sources
and networks for identifying technical information. The training program should
also educate the regulators on how industry innovation works, and on the role of
ORD and technology groups within other federal agencies, with the goal of
improving the permit writers potential networking base for technical information.
c. Strengthen ORD's role as identifier and conveyer of technical information to permit
writers. Establish a centralized clearinghouse where permit writers can easily
54
-------
DRAFT
access needed information. ORD should help permit writers sift through the
technical details of newly proposed technologies, explaining how, and if, the
innovation will be beneficial, and under what conditions, and help the permit
writer frame permit conditions for unfamiliar technologies. ORD might also be the
Agency lead for the ombudsman function (see subrecommendations 1.3 and 4.4).
d. Establish performance evaluation standards and reward systems that promote
greater support and consideration from permit writers for innovative pollution
prevention and pollution control technologies. The first step, as mentioned
elsewhere throughout this report, would be develop a clear, strong policy
statement about EPA's role in promoting technology innovation. Other steps could
include modifying performance standards and credits ("bean counting") to reflect
the degree to which a permit writer works to achieve the goals set forth in the
technology innovation policy statement The Tit Committee recognizes that extra
time and risk are involved in processing permit applications for innovative
alternatives, and for the risk associated with supporting approaches which involve
the uncertainties in changes in standard technologies and the uncertainties in
performance projections for innovative solutions. Financial incentives should also
be considered, as well as recognition and merit awards.
e. Improve data and technical information sources to aid permit writers in their job of
reviewing permit applications involving innovative technologies. EPA should
collect the information from federal, state, and other sources and assemble the data
and information in on-line databases for PC/Mac users. Information should be
collected and assembled in information retrieval systems easily accessible to all
permit writers. Information should include the following:
Media affected by the technology;
Emission/effluent/hazardous waste reductions achieved by the technology;
Process descriptions;
Location and results of tests, demonstrations, and early commercial uses;
Level of cleanup (remedial technologies) achieved;
Contact persons, including owner or licensee, plus ORD technical experts;
Existence of patent covering the technology and the availability of licenses;
Key words; similar technologies; terms of art;
Known limitations; and
Potential site incompatibilities.
4.2 Institute a system of incentives, training, and support to retain
experienced state and federal inspectors and compliance staff who
participate in decisions involving innovative environmental
technologies.
Commentary
The TIE Committee recognizes that the need to both maintain continuity of personnel
and promote a more positive approach to innovative environmental technology applies to
inspectors and compliance staff, as well as to permit writers. As a result, the TIE
Committee recommends that measures to train and support compliance and inspection
personnel be undertaken bv EPA and the states.
If EPA and state agency compliance staffs and their respective compliance policies are not
supportive of measures to promote innovation in pollution prevention or pollution control
55
-------
DRAFT
technology, compliance requirements will remain a barrier to efforts to innovate. The Committee
therefore recommends that EPA open discussions with state enforcement officials on how best to
promote such changes. Some state programs (e.g., New Jersey and Massachusetts) are already in
the first stages of implementing compliance programs to promote multi-media pollution prevention.
The Committee also recommends that EPA provide support for evaluation, implementation and
expansion of existing state efforts, and for communication between the states on the success of
alternative approaches. Coordination with state efforts to implement HSWA land disposal
phaseout provisions consistent with their SARA corrective action plan responsibilities are of
particular importance from a technological perspective.
Standard bean-counting approaches to measuring the performance of inspection and
enforcement officials are a disincentive for these officials to support innovative responses to
compliance requirements. Few compliance officials have experience with multi-media approaches
to evaluating facility compliance options. In addition, working with facilities with the opportunity
to develop or implement innovative alternatives presents potential significant risks and few
potential rewards for the compliance official. Reviewing an innovative approach, or working with
a facility to develop such an approach, is almost certain to require more time than imposing a
standard compliance requirement and may involve increased scrutiny by managers. Evaluation of
an innovative approach is intrinsically more difficult, since operational capabilities and parameters
are generally more uncertain than standard alternatives, whether for innovative manufacturing
evolutions or innovative pollution control methods. This poses the risk that the compliance official
will be held responsible for blessing an alternative that fails.
If compliance officials are to be willing to undertake the greater difficulties posed bv
innovative alternatives, there must be clear policy direction, support, and rewards for their efforts.
Three mutually reinforcing elements are ke\:
a. First and foremost. EPA or the relevant state agency must have articulated a
compliance policy which clearly establishes promotion of environmentally
beneficial innovation as a major goal. Once such a clear policy is established,
many of the necessary tools are available. For example, the Agency could
implement more effectively the innovation waiver tools which it has largely
neglected in the past The TIE Committee reiterates its January 1990
recommendation (1.4.h) that EPA expand the use of existing statutory provisions
which trade compliance delays for improvements in technology (e.g., CWA
Sections 301(k) and 301(n); CAA Sections 11 l(j) and 113(d)). The Office of
Water has plans to draft revised guidance for the Section 301 (k) waiver process,
but in most cases the authorities carry little practical guidance and are seldom used.
(See a further discussion of waivers under subrecommendations 2.1 and 3.3.)
b. Second, the performance evaluation and reward system must be amended to provide
special credit for the compliance official who takes the risk of seriously evaluating and
encouraging such approaches.
c. Third, in order to promote attention by compliance officials to innovative
technology alternatives and to promote the retention of inspectors and compliance
staff knowledgeable of and favorably disposed to considering the use of innovative
technologies, the TIE Committee recommends a parallel incentives program to that
outlined above for permit writers. The major headings below identify the basic
program content (see subrecommendation 4.1 for details):
• Establish a hierarchy or job ladder for compliance staffs and incorporate criteria
in performance evaluations along that promotional ladder to address the staffs'
56
-------
DRAFT
development of expertise (either single media, cross-media, or technology-
specific).
• Provide training and model templates, based on the prior testing of innovative
technologies, to all compliance personnel. Such training should include
explanation of the role of inspectors and compliance staff in promoting
technology innovation for environmental purposes.
• Strengthen ORD 's role as identifier and conveyer of technical information to
compliance personnel.
• Improve data and technical information sources to aid compliance personnel in
compliance situations involving innovative technologies.
4.3 Provide support to prospective innovative technology permittees
(including technology developers and technology users).
Commentary
The TIE Committee has previously recommended (January 1990, recommendations
1.2 and 1.7) that the Agency should build into its technology innovation promotion
strategies comprehensive approaches to inform regulated parties, particularly small and
medium-sized businesses, about (a) applicable environmental requirements; (b) the
advantages of developing and using innovative technologies to meet these requirements;
and (c) EPA's specific programs to foster innovative problem solving. The current
recommendation builds on the January 1990 recommendations and provides some concrete
details on possible informational approaches, some of which are being used today and all
of which can be put to greater use in cost-effective fashion. These include the following:
a. Outreach seminars on innovative technology permit and compliance policies and
processes.
b. Information dissemination programs related to innovative technologies. These can
involve coordinated efforts by EPA offices (especially ORD [see January 1990
recommendation l.S.b]), industry associations, state agencies, economic
development authorities, local authorities, professional associations, and others.
Opportunities to assist executive branch organizations and non-governmental
organizations inform their memberships have particular potential. Examples of
potential dissemination mechanisms are:
• Newsletters;
• Press releases;
• Reports; and
• Seminars.
c. Access to the on-line database to be developed under subrecommendation 4.1 (item
9). Additional information relevant to technology users and potential permittees
might be added to the database, including permit requirements used in similar
technologies and other permit application informational needs. Technical
information might also be added to the RCRA/CERCLA "Hotline." Similar
mechanisms could also be found for water and air. Consideration should be given
to enlisting the cooperation of a private service (e.g., DIALOG) to ensure wide
access to the information. Among the advantages of an environmental technology
57
-------
DRAFT
clearinghouse are that it would help innovators track the state of the art and it
would promote selection of appropriate technologies and invention of new ones.
d. Utilization of ORD personnel for technical assistance and subsidized testing. This
would coincide with establishing an ombudsman function, as described in
subrecommendations 1.3. and 4.4. Subsidized testing should be increased,
although note should be taken of the January 1990 recommendation l.S.a, which
calls for expanding testing protocols in the SITE program and analogous testing
efforts to define performance envelopes.
e. Assure that the confidentiality of applicants' trade secrets is maintained. The TIE
Committee notes that the statutory language for trade secret protection varies from
statute to statue in terms of the procedure for asserting trade secrets. This can
create confusion among technology owners, licensees, and users, and complicates
the role of permit writers and compliance personnel involved in the consideration
of tests and uses of innovative technologies. Trade secret protection information
and procedures should be readily available, and to the extent that there are
substantive differences among the environmental media statutes, these should be
normalized.
4.4 Emphasize the role of EPA's Office of Research and Development
(ORD) as consultant to federal, state, and local government permit
writers and inspectors to provide information on innovative
technologies for environmental purposes.
Commentary
The TIE Committee reiterates its previous recommendation (January 1990 TIE
Recommendation 1 S.b) that the Agency should investigate wavs to strengthen ORD's roles in
fostering technology innovation as (a) identifier and conveyer, with the regulatory offices, of
information about present and future technology gaps; and (b) a non-regulatory forum that works
closely with technology user communities, as in the SITE program, to evaluate and guide
technology development efforts. An analogous role for ORD within the federal government, the
need for which has become more prominent, is to maximize the flow of environmental technical
information among all parts of the government, including the Departments of Energy and Defense
and the national laboratories.
Subrecommendation 1.3 calls for EPA to consider establishing a technology "Ombudsman".
Its function would provide a point of contact for technology developers, prospective users of
innovative technology, permit writers, and compliance officers at all levels of government, and the
public so that people can find out information about (a) the status of permit applications for
individual tests and testing centers, (b) the permitting process, (c) the policies relating to
technology innovation, and (d) test results, including information about the performance envelopes
of individual technologies. The function could also profitably include the ability to intervene to
encourage timely consideration of permit applications or even to mediate between permit applicant
and permit writer. Currently, the EPA office most closely matching the requirements for the
ombudsman role is ORD. ORD has strengths in its knowledge of and objectivity about
technology, and in its multi-media orientation, and would need to strengthen its knowledge with
respect to permit processes and permit status.
ORD also should play a complementary and significant role in the permit team concept
propounded in subrecommendations 13 and 23. Other roles for ORD in fostering technology
innovation in this document include (a) developer of guidance documents on permitting technology
58
-------
DRAFT
testing centers and (b) collator of information (e.g., clearinghouses, on-line databases) discussed
under incentives for permit writers and compliance staff (subrecommendations 4.1 and 4.2).
These roles should be made prominent within the ORD system and integrated with existing
technology transfer and regional scientist processes.
4.5 Institute systems to provide the public with information and
support related to the testing and use of innovative environmental
technology.
Commentary
The Committee believes that one of the most significant barriers to implementation of
innovative environmental technology is lack of public trust in the information presented
during the permitting process, as well as in the actual process of permit review and
approval. As a result, siting of new facilities, or use of new technologies in existing
facilities, often faces insurmountable public resistance.
This public concern and fear of things that are new, whether associated with
innovative technology or not, must be understood and addressed. It is important to realize
that no study can prove the absence of an adverse effect Every effort must be made to
supply the public with as much data as is available (with understandable explanatory
information) and to involve the public in the permitting process as early as possible. If this
is done, by the time permits are issued for a facility it may not seem as "strange" or "new"
but, in fact, very familiar. In addition, for this reason, care should be taken in the
permitting processes with the designation "new", whether with reference to entire facilities,
production processes, or changes to facilities and processes.
The Committee recommends two measures which EPA should undertake to improve
the quality of public participation in permitting. Implementing these measures may involve
statutory, as well as administrative, changes:
a. Provide detailed information on all facets of a new technology for which a permit
is sought, and provide (or require the applicant to provide) substantial information
on all known risk factors relevant to any permit application.
b. Redesign permitting processes to afford the public an early and more substantive
role in the actual design requirements for facilities that affect them. An improved
use of public hearings should be considered, but it should be noted that public
involvement can occur in other ways, as well.
One way would be to address the limited resources available to communities that
are wrestling with the problem of how to respond to proposals for environmental
compliance made by local regulated organizations. In particular, communities find it
difficult to obtain adequate technical expertise to assist the community in evaluating the
potential contribution of a new technology and in developing a confident understanding of
the level of safety being provided. Environmental policy makers must consider how to
provide neutral technological advice beyond that provided by the regulated organization
involved or the governmental authorities who must approve permits. The Committee notes
that some communities are now entering into agreements to purchase neutral expert advice,
using funds provided by the regulated organization. Such community selected expertise
may provide the confidence bridge necessary for having a fair and equitable decision
making process. The Committee suggests that environmental policy makers consider how
to make it possible for local communities to obtain such neutral advice as a matter of routine
59
-------
DRAFT
and on demand, whenever the use of an innovative technology for environmental purposes
is proposed.
The two-tiered permitting process recommended earlier could help achieve positive
public involvement. Under such a process (see subrecommendation 2.2), phase one - a
screening step ~ would consider the basic principles and parameters for a potential facility
permit, and phase two — the detailed consideration step — would weigh detailed technical
information and result in the issuance or denial of permits. Phase two would commence on
if issues identified in the phase one have been resolved. The public would be involved
deeply in each phase. This could reduce the time and investment required in exploring
permits for innovative technologies, either by resolving basic issues (e.g., characterization
of wastes produced, environmental and health risks, and process efficiency) early in the
process, or by reaching the point during phase one that no agreement is possible. In this
latter case, public input to the project could be made earlier, and the project modified or
abandoned before regulators and applicants have expended as much time and resources as
they would have to if a complete permit application has to be provided
60
-------
DRAFT
RECOMMENDATION 5:
Identify and remove regulatory obstacles which create unnecessary
inflexibility and uncertainty or otherwise inhibit technology innovation for
environmental purposes.
During the course of its discussions, the Committee has reviewed certain regulatory glitches
which appear to inhibit the development of innovative pollution control or pollution prevention
technologies. This has not been a systematic effort, and the recommendations below are neither in
order of priority nor in any way complete. The Committee recommends that the Administrator
undertake a more systematic identification and review of such problems.
5.1 The Administrator should revise delisting regulations under RCRA Subtitle
C to allow process-specific, rather than site-specific, delisting decisions.
Commentary
The current delisting process under RCRA Subtitle C is complex, time-consuming, costly,
and greatly discourages technology innovation for environmental purposes. This sharply inhibits
the development of "land ban" technologies. The TIE Committee suggests that delisting
procedures be simplified in order to encourage the development of treatment technologies that
remove hazardous constituents from waste streams. A process-specific delisting mechanism
should be investigated whereby, for certain wastes, using a given technology under specified
condition will produce a delistable waste. Site-specific factors need not be considered in the
determination. This would allow technology developers to better market their products, since it is
important for them to be able to assure potential technology users that, under specified conditions,
their treatment technology will produce a deli stable waste.
5.2 The Administrator should revise the hazardous waste (RCRA Subtitle C)
regulations to include special provisions for small quantity generator
hazardous wastes, taking into account their unique case.
Commentary
The TIE Committee received comments from Region 9 and the City of San Francisco that the
cost and complexity of analyzing infrequently-generated, heterogeneous, very small quantity waste
streams from household hazardous waste, small-quantity generators, and one-time sources
discourages compliance. The specific problem noted was with the requirement to use standard
waste testing and hazardous constituent analysis as outlined in the federal SW-846 methodologies.
The City had come up with innovative testing procedures, but they were not deemed equivalent to
SW-846, and therefore not allowed in the City's Part B permit for their small quantity generator
and household hazardous waste staging and treatment facility.
More flexibility is needed in the regulations to take into account the special nature of small
quantity generator wastes. Having too strict and unreasonable a regulation only promotes
improper disposal. As noted by San Francisco, much of the waste that they would like to take at a
61
-------
DRAFT
permitted facility winds up in municipal garbage and/or the city sewers. The original Subtitle C
requirements were designed for large quantity generators and industrial sources. The TIE
Committee recommends that these regulations be revisited in light of the unique situation of small
generator hazardous waste components.
5.3 The Administrator should clarify a number of definitions of terms of art
under RCRA.
Commentary
Definitions of what constitutes "recycling" and "reuse," and the impacts of regulatory concepts
such as the "derived-from" rule, have potentially significant implications for technology
innovation. While the Agency has been constrained in its evaluations of such impacts by statutory
requirements and court interpretations, the Committee recommends that — given the potential for
modifying such definitions in the pending RCRA reauthorization - the Agency undertake a more
comprehensive review looking at the implications for new pollution prevention or control
technologies of alternative approaches. The Committee plans to review this issue more carefully in
the future. For example, definitions and exclusions should clearly describe their entire range of
use, and should be quantitatively and technically based whenever possible.
5.4 The Administrator should revise regulations to direct permits to describe
the performance requirements of the technology on which they are based,
but not to prescribe a specific technology.
Commentary
Many water, air, and even RCRA standards are performance-based, and are not necessarily
technology-specific. The TIE Committee recommends that EPA and states encourage permit
writers to focus on performance when writing permit conditions. The TIE Committee believes that
there may be an over-zealousness on the part of some permit writers to dictate "every nut and bolt"
of environmental technologies. Permit writers should be directed to concern themselves with
whether or not a given technology will meet its performance requirements. This would provide a
flexible environment that allows for alternative solutions giving rise to technology innovation.
Having an overly prescriptive permit ties the hands of technology developers and users in making
any improvements.
5.5 The Administrator should direct that users of mobile treatment units
(MTUs) be exempt from HSWA Corrective Action triggers and should
further direct that EPA allow national, regional, and state permits for
MTUs, with an opportunity for local community input and for
consideration of site-specific factors.
Commentary
Many hazardous waste treatment technologies are well suited for use as mobile treatment units
(MTUs; in California they are called TTUs, transportable treatment units). The TIE Committee
heard presentations that use of MTUs has been discouraged by EPA because of the federal
requirement to have each site where an MTU will be used apply for a full RCRA Part B permit.
Small facilities and industries that generate one-time or batch waste streams are
particularly impacted by this strict interpretation of permitting regulations.
62
-------
DRAFT
California, on the other hand, has successfully utilized a Permit-By-Rule system to allow state-
wide use of MTUs (see subrecommendation 2.2).
The major drawback to requiring MTU users to apply for Part Bs is the HSWA requirement
that owner/operators seeking a permit are responsible for corrective action. Corrective action
requires that the site be investigated and any releases of hazardous waste, regardless of the time
when the release occurred must be identified. A corrective action plan must be developed before
EPA can grant the permit. The site investigation itself might be too costly and time consuming to
justify short-term or infrequent use of an MTU. Discouraged by this approach, generators avoid
the Part B permitting process altogether and continue to ship their waste off-site (generally to
landfills rather than to off-site treatment). Thus, the corrective action trigger a Part B
application entails creates a significant barrier to the utilization of MTUs.
5.6 The Administrator should direct that RCRA land ban treatment standards
based on incineration as BDAT should not automatically be applied to all
site remediation technologies.
Commentary
This is important in promoting the use of innovative bioremediation technologies which
destroy organic compounds but not at the level achieved by incineration. Treatment standards for
RCRA waste are based on the Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT). In many cases,
these standards are based on incineration. Incineration can effectively destroy organic hazardous
compounds to media-specific levels that are extremely difficult to achieve using other technologies.
Biological treatment, for example, may remediate a site at a much lower cost than other cleanup
technologies. Biotechnology may not, however, meet incineration-based treatment standards.
Consequently, for Superfund NPLs where RCRA land disposal restrictions are deemed to be
applicable, bioremediation may have to be ruled out. A mechanism exists whereby site-specific
treatability variance applications can be sent to EPA in Washington for approval, but the process is
lengthy and time-consuming. The TIE Committee recommends that this situation be
investigated and that relief processes be simplified and expedited.
63
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
FY 1991 NACEPT COMMITTEE AGENDA
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS COMMITTEE
Environmental Permitting
—Examining relationship between the introduction of new environmental technologies and
permitting and compliance systems, and impact of specific regulatory requirements that have an
unplanned adverse effect on technology development and introduction.
—Evaluating permitting technology tests, permitting early comercial uses of newly proven
technologies, resource and timing relationships, cross-media issues, compliance practices,
pollution prevention incentives in permitting and compliance systems, regulatory flexibility, waiver
processes and general public concerns related to environmental technology innovation and
diffusion.,
—Developed findings and five major recommendations based on fact finding meetings
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Implementation of recommendations adopted following consideration
of report at the October meeting.
Chair, Edward Keen, Bechtel Environmental. Participants include representatives from States of
California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin; Environmental
Defense Fund, National Toxics Campaign, William Haney Associates, IT Corporation, 3M
Corporation, NETAC, Kerr and Associates, and EPA Offices of Policy Planning and Evaluation
(Pollution Prevention Office, Policy Analysis Office), Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring,
Solid Waste, Water Enforcement and Permits, Air and Radiation (Immediate Office, Air Quality
Planning and Standards), and Research and Development.
Liability
—Will address the effects of liability on the innovation and diffusion of environmentally relevant
technologies. Liability with respect to manufacturers, users, the public, and developers of new
technologies will be considered.
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Initiating a literature review and review of arguments concerning
effects of liability issues. Develop recommendations to mitigate problems associated with adverse
effects of liability.
Chair, Dr. Nicholas Ashford, MIT. Participants include representatives from Allied Signal, Trial
Lawyers for Public Justice, Crum and Forster, Sierra Club, University of Houston Law Center,
Kerr and Associates, a major law firm, and EPA Offices of Policy Analysis, Technology
Innovation, Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention, Waste Programs Enforcement,
Solid Waste, Toxic Substances, and Underground Storage Tanks (OUST). We have obtained
agreement with the Director of OUST for this Focus Group to be managed on a day to day basis by
Sam Ng.
-------
Diffusion
--Will examine why much of the best environmentally-helpful technology (whether EPA-owned,
privately-owned, or university-developed) is not moving from the point of origin to the point of
need.
--Will consider what can be done by EPA, other government entities, and the private sector to
encourage the movement of innovative environmental technology in the private sector as well as
the movement of EPA research and development products from point of origin to point of need.
—Examining barriers and incentives in statutes and in EPA contract and grant policies and language
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Disseminate report on U.S. university-based environmental technology
research centers; complete study of regulatory impacts on patenting, and develop case studies of
EPA R&D diffusion and private sector technology movement. Will develop recommendations to
encourage diffusion of innovative technology, both wider applications and additional uses.
Chair, William Carpenter, Martin-Marietta Energy Systems. Participants include representatives
from University of Texas, Electro-Pyrolysis, Clean Sites, Combustion Engineering, National
Association of Metal Finishers, Texas Instruments, Tennessee Eastman, NETAC, Thermo-
Electron, and U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Remediation Technologies
—Created to support the Technology Innovation Office of OSWER.
—Currently focusing on four issues associated with fostering innovative remediation technologies:
remediation contractor awareness, market assessment, identifying vendors of innovative
technologies, and the needed capabilities of "incubator facilities" for supporting the development of
hazardous waste treatment technologies.
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Conduct remediation contractor outreach to identify strategies to
upgrade engineering awareness and use of innovative technology information, conduct an
assessment of the market for innovative remediation technologies, assist development of vendor
identification information formats, and sponsor a workshop with various institutions.
Chair, Martin Rivers, Air and Waste Management Association. Participants include representatives
from National Solid Waste Management Association, Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, Clean
Sites, RMT, Inc., Environmental Defense Fund, New York State, New Jersey Institute of
Technology, EMS, Inc., Donohue and Associates, O'Brien and Gere Associates, and EPA Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response's Office of Technology Innovation.
Pollution Prevention Project
—Created to support the Office of Water's "2% set-aside" Project, which is designed to incorporate
pollution prevention into the industrial effluent guidelines development process and to reach out to
industry and the consuming public to establish and implement the pollution prevention ethic.
—The Project is intended to help develop more collaborative approaches to development and
dissemination of pollution prevention-oriented solutions.
-The Project currently involves EPA representatives from the Offices of Water, Toxic Substances;
Solid Waste; Air and Radiation; Policy, Planning and Evaluation; General Counsel; and
Cooperative Environmental Management.
-------
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Conduct studies of historical processes, statutes, international
experience and incentives, consider report of Continuous Quality Improvement Team, and develop
draft Effluent Guideline Process Manual.
-------
International Environment
Committee
-------
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
OF
NACEPT
October 23,1990
Madison Hotel, 15th and M Street
Washington, D.C.
AGENDA
8:30 AM-9:00 AM Plenary Committee Session—Drawing Room in, IV
Welcome: John O'Connor, Chair
Jan McAlpine, Director
Ginger Wandless, Deputy Director
Introduction of New Committee Chair Sam Schulhof,
Vice Chair Jon Plaut. Discussion of Agenda, Working Groups
and plans for the upcoming year.
9:00 AM-2:30 PM Concurrent Subcommittee Meetings
(See Attached Subcommittee Agendas)
The three Subcommittees will meet concurrently in three
different rooms. A lunch is included for Committee members
and expert guests.
I. Economics & Financing Subcommittee —
Drawing Room HI, IV
John O'Connor, Chair
The subcommittee serves to identify and assess impacts on
economic activity and seeks to work out innovative solutions
for financing mechanisms and programs to facilitate environmental
improvement.
•Environmental Markets
•Global Environmental Indicators
-------
n. Strategic Planning Subcommittee—Drawing Room I
John McGlennon, Chair
The subcommittee focus is on assessing environmental policies in
an international context in order to facilitate such programs as the
establishment of priority international principles, guidelines and
standards or the enhancement of mechanisms by which technology
transfer occurs.
•Global Environmental Standards
•Process and Institutional Issues for Technology
Transfer
*Report on Wild Ocean Reserves
IE. Technical Assistance & Training—Drawing Room II
Paul Kaplow, Chair
The subcommittee identifies opportunities and develops mechanisms
for the international exchange of technical assistance and training.
•Standards and Criteria for Training
*Applied Technical Assistance and Training
*Industry Peer Match
•Information Networks
2:45PM-5:OOPM. Plenary Committee Session—International Energy Issues
Drawing Room HI, IV
Panel—
Chair—Dr. Wilbur Steger,
President and Chairman of the Board
Consad Research Corporation
Co-Chair—David J. Bardin,
Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin and Kahn
• Ted Williams, Director-Environmental Analyses,
Office of Policy, Planning and Analysis,
U.S. Department of Energy
—International Aspects of the National Energy Strategy
• Adam Sieminski, Washington Analysis Corporation
—The Mideast, Oil, and our Energy Future(s)
• Richard Lawson, President,
National Coal Association
—Coal in the 1990s
-------
International Environment Committee Participants
Economics and Financing Subcommittee
Drawing Room in and IV
Chair: John O'Connor
Members
Peter Emerson
Robert Hahn
Jeffrey Leonard
John Liskowitz
Sandra Panem
Martyn Riddle
lona Sebastian
Harvey Yakowitz
Konrad von Moltke
Expert Committee Guests
Randall Curlee
(Oakridge Nat'l Labs) TIE Member
Kirn Devonald
(EPA,Policy, Planning and Evaluation)
Leo Goldstone (World Statistics Ltd)
Paul Cough
(EPA, International Activities)
Michael Hoffman (Saloman Brothers)
Patrick Lennon
(Canada, Science and Technology)
James Morant
(EPA, Center for Environmental
Statistics)
Phil Ross
(EPA, Center for Environmental
Statistics)
Jeff Schweitzer
(AID, Science and Technology)
Tim Titus
(EPA, Policy, Planning and Evaluation)
Dan Tunstall
(World Resources Institute)
-------
Strategic Planning Subcommittee
Drawing Room I
Chair: John McGlennon
Members Expert Committee Guests
Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel Maureen Breitenberg (Commerce)
Sylvia Earle Renata Carlin (Shell Oil Company)
James Retcher Eric Christiansen (NRDC)
Edward McCord Catharine de Lacy (Occidental Petroleum)
John Rasmusson Raj Schellaraj
Karel de Waal (EPA, Office of International Activities)
Technical Training and Assistance Subcommittee
Drawing Room II
Chair: Paul Kaplow
Members Expert Committee Guests
William Carroll Lou Bramsford (Public Service Satellite
Barclay Hudson Consortium)
Walter Jackson John Harris (INEP)
Antony Marcil Frank Priznar (Institute for Environmental
Gerard Meyer Auditing)
John Palmisano Barbara Rodes, (WWF)
Ann Rappaport Linda Spencer (EPA, OARM)
Margaret Seminario Peter Thacher (WRI)
Eugene Tseng John Waugh (IUCN)
-------
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
NACEPT
Committee Chairman:
Mr. John C. O'Connor*, Chief
Socioeconomic Data Division
International Economics Department
Room S 7131
World Bank
1818H. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20433
tel/ (202) 473-3805. fax/ (202) 477-0661
Committee Vice Chairman:
Mr. Samuel A. Schulhof, Director
Environmental Research Center
General Electric Corporate Research and
Development
Research and Development Center
P.O. Box 8
Schenectady, NY 12301
tel/ (518) 387-5353, fax/ (518) 387-5324
For direct mail:
River Road
Building K1
Room A5A7
Committee Director:
Ms. Jan McAlpine
U.S. EPA. A-101F6
Office of Cooperative Environmental
Management
401 M Street. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
tel/ (202) 382-2477, fax/ (202) 245-3882
Committee Deputy Director:
Ms. Ginger Wandless
U.S. EPA. A-101F6
Office of Cooperative Environmental
Management
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
tel/ (202) 475-9477, fax (202) 245-3882
Committee Members:
Ms. Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderef, Director
Industry and Environmental Office
United Nations Environmental Program
Tour Mirabeau
39-43, Quai Andre Citroen
75739 Paris cedex 15
France
tel/011-33-1-40-58-88-58
fax/ 011 -33-1 -40-58-88-88
Mr. William J. Carroll
Chairman of the Board
James Montgomery Engineers
250 N. Madison Ave
P.O. Box 7009
Pasadena, CA 91109-7009
tel/(818) 796-9141. fax/(818) 449-3741
Dr. Sylvia Alice Earle*
Fellow and Research Biologist
California Academy of Sciences
President and Chief Executive Officer
Deep Ocean Engineering, Inc.
1431 Doolittle Drive
San Leandro, CA 94577
tel/ (415) 562-9300, fax/ (415) 430-8249
Dr. Peter Emerson, Vice President
Wilderness Society
1400 Eye Street N.W. 10th floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
tel/ (202) 833-2300, fax/ (202) 429-3959
Dr. James Fletcher, Senior Fellow
Institute for Technology and Strategic Research
600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 480
Washington. D.C. 20037
tel (202) 965-0211, fax/ (202) 965-0228
Mr. Frank B. Friedman, Vice President
Health, Environment and Safety
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
10889 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90024
tel (213) 208-8800/ (213)443-6161
fax/ (213) 443-6688
Approved IEC 10/12/90
-------
Dr. Robert W. Hahn, Professor
Carnegie Mellon Resident Scholar
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
1150 Seventeenth Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
tel/(202) 862-5909
fax/(202) 862-7178
Mr. Barclay Hudson
EcoSource
921 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 224
Los Angeles, CA 90024
tel/ (213) 208-1887, fax/(213) 208-8823
Dr. Walter E. Jackson, Director
Environmental Legislation and Regulation
Environmental Affairs
USS Technical Center
4000 Tech Center Drive
Monroeville, PA 15146
tel/ (412) 825-2943, fax/(412) 825-2494
Mr. Paul Kaplow, Director
Health, Safety and Environmental Services
Aristech Chemical Corporation
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
tel/ (412) 433-7865, fax/ (412) 433-7753
Dr. H. Jeffrey Leonard, Vice President
Conservation Foundation
1250 24th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037
tel/ (202) 778-9569, fax/ (202) 293-9211
Dr. John W. Liskowrtz*. Executive Director
Hazardous Waste Institute
New Jersey Institute of Technology
323 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Newark, NJ 07102
tel/ (201) 596-3234. fax/ (201) 802-1946
Mr. Edward L. McCord, Ph. D., Associate
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay
435 Sixth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15230-2009
tel/ (412) 288-3131, fax/ (412) 288-7200
Mr. John McGlennon, President
ERM, New England
205 Portland St.
Boston, MA 02114
tel/ (617) 742-8228. fax/ (617) 720-5742
Mr. Antony Marcil, President
World Environment Center
419 Park Avenue South
Suite 1404.
New York, NY 10016
tel/ (212) 683-4700, fax (212) 683-5053
fax/ (718)459-3513
Dr. Gerard Meyer, Executive Director
EuroAmerica Business Network Institute
1 Oxford Center
Suite 3140
Pittsburgh. PA 15219
tel/(412) 391-2911. fax/(412) 391-2912
Dr. Konrad von Moltke, President
Bioprime, Ltd.
P.O. Box 716
Harriet Partridge House
Main Street
Norwich. VT 05055
tel/ (802) 649-2227, fax/ (802) 649-3539
Mr. John Palmisano*, President
AER'X
1990 M Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
tel/ (202) 463-6909. fax/ (202) 872-9185
Dr. Sandra Panem, Vice President
Salomon Brothers Venture Capital
Two New York Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10004
tel/ (212) 747-7506, fax/ (212) 747-4340
Mr. Jonathan Plaut, Director
Environmental Compliance
Health, Safety and Environmental Sciences
Allied Signal, Inc.
P.O. Box 1013 R
Morristown, NJ 07960
tel/ (201) 455-6570, fax/ (201) 455-4835
Ms. Ann Rappaport
Center for Environmental Management
Tufts University, Curtis Hall
474 Boston Avenue
Medford, MA02155
tel/ (617) 381 -3486, fax/ (617) 381 -3084
Dr. John Rasmusson, Research Professor
Director of Energy Studies
Institute for Technology and Strategic Research
The George Washington University
600 New Hampshire Avenue N.W., Suite 480
Washington. D.C. 20037
tel/ (202) 965-0211, fax/ (202) 965-0228
994-7131
-------
Mr. Martyn Riddle, Senior Environmental Advisor
International Finance Corporation
1818 H Street N.W.
10-145
Washington, D.C. 20433
tel/ (202) 473-0661. fax/ (202) 334-8705
Ms. lona Sebastian, Economist
Environment Division
The World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20433
tel/ (202) 473-3238. fax /(202) 477-0968
Ms. Margaret Seminario*. Director
Occupational Safety and Health
AFL-CIO
815 16th Street N.W., Room 303
Washington, D.C. 20006
tel/ (202) 637-5366, fax/ (202) 637-5058
Dr. James Selover, Vice President and Manager
Marketing and Business Development
Bechtel Corporation
50 Beale Street
San Francisco, California 94105
tel/ (415) 768-2548, fax/ (415) 768-0360
Mr. Eugene Tseng*. J.D.
EcoSource
921 Wesiwood Boulevard, Suite 224
Los Angeles, CA 90024
tel/ (213) 208-1887, fax/(213) 208-8823
Dr. Karel de Waal, Deputy Director
Division of Technology for Society (TNO)
P.O. Box 342
7300 AH Apeldoorn
The Netherlands
tel/ 011 -31 -55-493493. fax/ 011 -31 -55-419837
Mr. Harvey Yakowrtz, Senior Consultant
Environment Directorate (Annexe Maillot)
Organization for Economic Cooperation
and Development
2, rue Andre Pascal
Paris, France 75775 - Cedex 16
tel/ 011 -33-1 -45247880, fax/ 011 -33-1 -45247876
home 011 -33-1 -45004680
* Indicates membership on the National Advisory Council
for Environmental Policy and Technology as well as par-
ticipation in the International Committee.
Staff Assistants:
Mr. Thomas M. Kearney
U.S. EPA. A-101F6
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington. D.C. 20460
tel/ (202) 382-3198, fax/ (202) 245-3882
Mr. Timothy J. Jennison
U.S. EPA. A-101F6
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
tel/ (202) 245-3937, fax/ (202) 245-3882
-------
ECONOMICS AND FINANCING SUBCOMMITTEE
I. ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETS WORKING GROUP. 9:00-11:45 AM.
1. Introduction
Working Group Co-Chairs: Leo Goldstone (World Statistics Ltd.), Sandra Panem (IEC member).
Welcome, introduction, introduction of experts, speakers. Jan McAlpine (IEC Director). EC
organization/overview, scope of work. 5 mins.
2. Presentations
a) Staff Report
Tim Jennison (IEC staff). Presentation of "framework for discussion." 10 mins.
b) Working Group Member Reports
Reports on ongoing and completed market studies and on the field in general by
representatives of interest groups involved in environmental market assessment
• Patrick Lennon, Director, Environmental Industries Sector Initiative,
Industry, Science and Technology Canada (ISTC).
• Harvey Yakowitz, Environment Directorate, OECD (EEC Committee
member).
• John Palmisano, President, AER*X
3. First Issues Sandra Panem (Working Group Co-Chair)
a) Market Characteristics Discussion
The Working Group will discuss, from options presented, characteristics of the global
environmental market (i.e. what constitutes an environmental good or service?).
b) Discussion on Market Assessment Studies
i The Working Group will discuss areas of possible market research.
*
4. Further Issues/Next Steps
a) Discussion of Market Drivers (phenomena that influence spending on environmental
goods and services).
Topics might include:
• Regulation and Standards, which are directly related to industry investment in
pollution control equipment
• The relationship between installation of sophisticated environmental
technology and cost effectiveness.
• Consumer behavior and awareness of the environment, corporate image and
the promotion of "environmentally friendly" products.
• Subsidization of industry to encourage compliance with standards.
• Economic indicators/structural economic change and the market for
environmental technology.
• Technology innovation and spending on environmental protection.
• Multilateral institutions (GATT, etc.) and the transfer of environmental
technology across borders.
• Regional economic integration (EC) and its relation to market growth.
• Awareness of the market itself and what it is comprised of.
b) Other
John Liskowitz (IEC Committee member). Presentation of NJTT/NSF study. 10 mins.
Discussion will follow.
5. Wrap-Up/Next Steps
Goldstone, 5 mins.
|Set date for next Working Group meeting.
-------
ECONOMICS AND FINANCING SUBCOMMITTEE
II. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS WORKING GROUP
12:30-2:30
1. Introduction:
Working Group Chair: John O'Connor (IEC member).
Welcome, introductions, introduction of speakers, experts. Jan McAlpine (IEC Director). BBC
Organization/overview, scope of work.
2. Presentations:
a) Staff Report
Tom Kearney (IEC staff). Presentation of "framework for discussion."
b) Working Group/Expert Reports
Reports on current work on global environmental indicators issues.
• Kim Devonald, Chief, Environmental Measures and Forecasting Branch,
Strategic Planning and Management Systems Divisions, Office of Pollution
Prevention, OPPE, US EPA. "The US EPA and Global Environmental Indicators"
• Jonathan Plaut, Director, Environmental Compliance, Health, Safety, and
Environmental Sciences, Allied Signal, Inc. "Industry and Global Environmental
Indicators."
• Daniel B. Tunstall, Senior Associates, World Resource Institute. "Recent
Work in the Environmental Indicators Field"
• N. Phillip Ross, Director, Center for Environmental Statistics Development Staff,
Office of Regulatory Management and Evaluation, OPPE, EPA. "The Center for
Environmental Statistics and Environmental Indicator Issues"
3. Issue Discussion:
a) Global Environmental Indicators and Policymaking Discussion. The working
group will discuss the current issues surrounding global environmental indicators and
their current and potential uses by national policymakers.
Some questions that can be addressed during this discussion:
• How can environmental indicators be developed by different policymaking sectors?
—industry
-government
-international organizations
• What are their potential uses for these sectors?
• What kinds of policymaking decisions can be assisted by a set of
environmental indicators?
• What are global indicator issues?
• What are international and transnational indicator issues?
• What are the barriers to indicator use?
-technological and institutional
-information gaps
4. Further Issues/Next Steps;
a) Discussion of Planned Conference: Global Environmental Indicators for U.S.
Policymakers. Drawing upon the results from the preceding discussion, some questions
that can be addressed during this could consist of the following:
• What issues would such a conference need to address?
• Can Global Environmental Indicators become a useful policy tool?
• What policymaking sectors should participate in this meeting?
• How large should this conference be?
This discussion would serve as a basis for agenda-setting, work plan organizations,
and determination of the exact date for the Global Environmental Indicators Conference
5. Wrap-up and Review of Work Plan:
John O'Connor. Set date for next Working Group meeting.
-------
STRATEGIC PLANNING SUBCOMMITTEE
I. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS, 9:00-11:45
1. Introduction
Sub-Committee Chair: John McGIennon
Welcome, introduction, introduction of experts, speakers. Tom Kearney (IEC Staff)
IEC organization/overview, scope of work.
2. Presentations
a) Staff Report
Ellen Lawson (IEC staff). Presentation of "framework for discussion".
b) Working Group Member Reports
Speakers come from different sectors and will provide a variety of
perspectives on the standards issue.
• Eric Christiansen, Natural Resources Defense Council
• Stan Warshaw, Department of Commerce, National
Institute of Standards and Technology
Karel de Waal, TNO, The Netherlands
3, Issues for Discussion:
• What are criteria for setting standards (i.e. effectiveness, easily monitored etc...)?
• What types of international environmental standards need to be increased? What are
the potential impacts of these standards on the environment?
• What impact would international environmental standards have on: trade, technology
innovation, labor, competition etc...?
• If standards are pursued, what types would be less controversial and therefore, more
easily implementable?
• Should a global, regional, a site-specific, or a standard-specific approach to standards be
taken?
• If a regional approach is taken, should it be between developed countries or developed
and developing countries?
• What role would the IEC recommend for EPA's Administrator in regards to the standards
issue?
4. Wrap-up/Next Steps
McGIennon, 5 rnins.
-Development of "next steps" for the Subcommittee and IEC staff.
—Define the pieces and distribute the work assignments along with timelines for progress.
-------
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING
SUBCOMMITTEE
I. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR TRAINING WORKGROUP
9:00-11:45
1. INTRODUCTION
Working Group Chair: Paul Kaplow (EEC member), Moderator: Barclay Hudson (IEC member)
Welcome, introductions, introduction of experts/speakers. Ginger Wandless (EEC Deputy Director)
EEC organization/overview, scope of work. 5 mins.
2. PRESENTATIONS
a) Issue Report
Barclay Hudson (EEC member). Presentation of "framework for discussion".
b) Working Group Member Reports
The speakers will provide examples of international technical assistance programs
that have been successful in the past
Barclay Hudson, Program Director, EcoSource International. 10 mins.
• Eugene Tseng, Executive Director, EcoSource International. 10 mins.
• Tony Marcil, President, World Environment Center. 10 mins.
c) Work Group Report
Tim Jennison (EEC staff). Presentation of the "Peer Match" project developed for
EPA Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation and the Republic of Poland.
3. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION:
Topics for discussion might include:
What are the criteria for setting standards (effectiveness, easily monitored, etc)
What types of international or national standards for technical assistance already
exist? Are they used uniformally or consistently and by whom?
Where are the gaps in standards for technical assistance?
What are the institutional issues involved in setting standards?
What infrastructure issues need to be resolved?
4: WRAP-UP/NEXT STEPS
Kaplow, 10 mins.
Set date for next meeting.
-------
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING
SUBCOMMITTEE
II. INFORMATION NETWORKS WORKING GROUP, 12:30-2:30
1. Introduction
Working Group Chair: Paul Kaplow (EC member).
Welcome, introductions, introduction of experts, speakers. Ginger Wandless (EC Deputy Director)
DEC organization/overview, scope of work. 5 mins.
2. Presentations
a) Staff Report
Ellen Lawson (EEC staff). Presentation of "framework for discussion". 10 mins
b) Working Group Member Reports
Peter Thacher, World Resources Institute. 10 mins.
• John Harris, International Network of Environmental Policy. 10 mins.
Linda Spencer, INFOTERRA-U.S. National Focal Point, U.S. EPA. 10 mins
3. Issues for Discussion (45 minutes)
• Which option(s), if any, seems most viable to the subcommittee?
• What standards and criteria would need to be developed for an
environmental information system:
—types and quality of information
—organization and maintenance
—information transfer etc...
—accessibility to system
4. Wrap-Up/Next Steps (10 minutes)
Kaplow, 10 mins.
Set date for next Working Group meeting.
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
FY 1991 NACEPT COMMITTEE AGENDA
INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
Global Environmental Economic Indicators
-Addressing ways to integrate environmental costs and benefits into the mainstream of
international economic programs. The problem is how to include ecological as well as
environmental economic indicators into traditional national economic practices including GNP,
National Accounts or Satellite Accounts, and the lending practices of Multilateral Development
Banks.
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Sponsor an interdisciplinary, cross-sector workshop for US-based
policy makers who influence global environmental indicator decisions to discuss the merits and
difficulties of using environmental indicators in policymaking. The Committee believes it will be
able to make early recommendations concerning the cross-over between ecological and economic
indicator data, its maintenance and use.
Financing Solutions
—Focusing on how capital formation, lending policies and market incentive approaches add to or
detract from achieving global environmental quality.
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Early planning for an international conference (involving development,
commercial, and investment banks) to develop environmental guidelines for investment and
economic development for those communities.
Markets for Environmental Goods and Services
-Focusing on identifying the U.S. portion of the world market and approaches or "levers" which
could enhance the world environmental goods and services.
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Publish phase 1 of a report identifying the U.S. share of the global
market for environmental goods and services. Consider official "classification" for environmental
goods and services in order to better quantify size and trends.
The above Working Groups operate under the Economics and Financing Subcommittee.
Chair John O'Connor, World Bank. Participants include representatives from the Wilderness
Society, American Enterprise Institute, Dartmouth College, Salomon Brothers, World Bank,
Bechtel Corporation, World Resources Institute, the United Nations Development Programme, and
OPPE at EPA.
Global Environmental Principles. Guidelines, and Standards
-Addressing institutions and mechanisms that influence or are affected by international
environmental principles, guidelines, and standards and the impact of international standards on
trade, development, capital exchange, environment, and technology innovation.
-Will consider potential categories of standards, criteria for the development of standards and
identify associated opportunities and problems.
-------
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Meeting of experts to assess the potential role that standards might
play in international environmental and economic policymaking and develop recommendations for
further action and evaluation of standards issue.
Legal and Intellectual Property Issues for Technology Transfer
—Will address the extent to which legal and intellectual property barriers to international technology
transfer can be removed or revised.
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Beginning committee work on this issue in FY 91.
Process and Institutional Mechanisms for Technology Transfer
—Examining the institutions and processes by which technology transfer occurs internationally.
How does the structure, role and purpose of the international institution enhance or inhibit
technology transfer? What processes support the transfer? What changes need to occur to enhance
technology transfer?
—The study being completed by IETTAB on the U.S. agencies programs to support technology
transfer will be included as a major component
-Sponsoring a Wild Ocean Reserves project concerning the establishment of a protected area in the
high seas in international waters.
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Continuation of Wild Ocean Reserves study with potential publication
of phase one report.
The above Working Groups operate under the Strategic Planning Subcommittee. Chair John
McGlennon, ERM New England. Participants include representatives from the United Nations
Environment Programme, NOAA, Institute for Technology and Social Research, Occidental
Petroleum, Conservation Foundation;Reed, Smith, Shaw and McClay Esquire; AER*X
Corporation, Allied-Signal, George Washington University, TNO-The Netherlands, OECD, and
The EPA Office of Water and OPPE.
Application of Training and Technical Assistance
—Identifying and documenting successful approaches for delivering international training and
assistance to address the concerns of lesser-developed countries that the most appropriate person
or team is sent to help them address their environmental problems.
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Continued sponsorship of a "peer-match" initiative requested by OPPE
and the Ministry of Environment for the Republic of Poland. Development of a strategy to expand
the concept into other Eastern European countries and to expand into other industries within Poland
with environmental concerns.
Training Standards and Criteria
-Addressing the development of common standards and criteria for training and applied technical
assistance programs. The group seeks to incorporate the expertise of organizations currently
involved in technical assistance (e.g., VITA, the World Environment Center, and the World Bank)
into a criteria document that can be used in conjunction with the applied technical assistance
initiatives being discussed by the previous group.
-------
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Develop a criteria document to be used for applied technical assistance
initiatives and develop a work-study program with Johns Hopkins School of Advanced
International Studies (SAIS) to demonstrate the need for cross-disciplinary education.
International Environmental Information Networks
—Addressing the preponderance of international environmental information that is not being
transfered efficiently or effectivly.
—Will examine existing networks, databases and structures such as INFOTERRA and develop a
strategy to increase the transfer of information within and between countries.
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Co-sponsor a workshop with World Resources Institute to develop a
strategy for the Internationl Information Conference in Canada in May of 1991 addressing
international information networks.
The above Working Groups operate under the Technical Assistance and Training Subcommittee.
Chair Paul Kaplow, Aristech Chemical Co. Participants include representatives from James M.
Montgomery Engineers, UCLA, USX Corporation, New Jersey Institute Of Technology, World
Environment Center, EuroAmerica Institute, Tufts University, AFL-CIO, EcoSource
International, and OPPE at EPA.
-------
Chemical Accident
Prevention Committee
-------
CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION COMMITTEE
MEETING AGENDA — 23 October. 1990
THE MADISON HOTEL
15TH AND M STREETS, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
Mt. Vemon Room, Salon B
1. 8:30am — 9:15am Welcome remarks by Chair/Vice Chair and introductions
Mr. Walt Barber, Chair
Dr. A. Wayne Tamarelli, Vice Chair
n. 9:15am — 10:30am Who we are and what it is about: the reason for creating a CAP
committee
Remarks and discussion by Mr. Jim Makris, Director
EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention program
Basic purpose and goals of CAP committee
Background, history, and philosophy of chemical accident
prevention
Stakeholder concept; relationship of CAP to EPA
Recommendations for useful CAP undertakings
m. 10:30am—10:45am Break
FV. 10:45am — 12:00pm Discussion of draft mission statement: where we want to go
V. 12:00pm — 1:15pm Lunch (Vista Hotel for CAP members and NACEPT staff)
VI. 1:15pm — 2:30pm Implementing goals: how to get there
A. Issues we want to address, short term and long term (discussion based on a list
of issues prepared and distributed before meeting)
B. Setting priorities
C. Structure/roles/responsibilities
VH. 2:30pm — 3:30pm Next steps: goals for FY '91
A. Desired accomplishments
-------
B. Desired outputs/products
VIE. 3:30pm — 3:45pm Break
IX. 3:45pm — 4:30pm Preparations for next committee meeting
B. Expectations for May '91 meeting
C. Necessary accomplishments/outputs between October 23 and May
X. 4:30pm — 4:45pm Review of NACEPT timeline and procedures
Mr. David Graham, Committee Director
Mr. Adam Sutkus, Committee Deputy Director
XI. 4:45pm—5:00pm Review
Adjourn
-------
CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION COMMITTEE
Draft Mission Statement
The overall goal of the Chemical Accident Prevention Committee is:
* to work toward a national consensus for prevention of major chemical
industrial accidents
* to recommend ways to implement that consensus
The means that the Chemical Accident Prevention Committee will use to reach that goal include:
* examine commonly accepted prevention practice, technologies, and principles
as well as current programs and policies
* define roles and responsibilities of stakeholders (*)
* learn what research is currently being done and determine how results can be
made most useful; identify areas where additional research and development is
needed and then find ways to stimulate it
* identify information needs of each sector of prevention stakeholders and explore
effective means of sharing information
* identify technology transfer needs and recommend appropriate mechanisms for
such a transfer
* identify ways to increase accountability of industry
* encourage improvement in state of prevention practice throughout industry
*NOTE
Stakeholders include:
industry — large, medium, and small
government — federal, state, local
trade associations and professional societies
labor
academia
scientific and technological community
medical profession
insurance/legal/financial fields
media
environmental organizations
fire services and emergency services
general public
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION COMMITTEE
Chairperson:
Mr. Walter Barber
President and Chief Executive Officer
Groundwater Technology, Inc.
220 Norwood Park South
Norwood, MA 02062
(617) 769-7600 FAX (617) 769-7992
Vice Chairperson:
Dr. A. Wayne Tamarelli
Chairman
Dock Resins
1512 W. Elizabeth Avenue
Linden, NJ 07036
(201) 862-2351
Designated Federal Official:
Mr. David Graham, Committee Director
Office of Cooperative Environmental
Management
EPA (A-101 F6)
401 M Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475-9743 FAX (202) 245-3882
NACEPT Members:
Mr. R. Nick Odom, Jr.
Director
Environmental Services
Springs Industries
205 North White Street
Fort Mill, SC 29715
(803) 547-3601
Dr. Lawrence L. Ross
Director
Center for Waste Reduction Technologies
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
345 E. 47th Street
New York, NY 10017
(212) 705-7407 FAX (212) 752-3297
Mr. Adam Sutkus, Comm. Deputy Director
Office of Cooperative Environmental
Management
EPA (A-101 F6)
401 M Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 245-3752 FAX (202) 245-3882
-------
Chemical Accident Prevention
Committee Contributors:
Mr. D. Wayne Bissett
Chief, Prevention
Env. Emergencies Branch
Conservation and Protection
Environment Canada
Hull, Quebec K1A OH3
(819) 953-8257
Mr. Ray L. Brandes
Director
Safety and Industrial Hygiene
ICI Americas Inc.
Wilmington, DE 19897
(302) 886-5501
Mr. Michael Callan
Captain
Wallingford Fire Department
293 Bee SL
Meriden, CT 06450
(203) 238-2023
Mr. David D. Doniger
Senior Attorney
Natural Resources Defense Council
1350 New York Ave., N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 783-7800
Dr. David McLoughlin
Consultant
Rt. 1, Box 306
Forest, VA 24551
(804) 525-0365
Mr. James Morrow
President
Morrow & Associates
581C Country Club Dr.
Newark, OH 43055
(614) 344-5915
W. J. Mottel
Director,
Safety & Occupational Health
N11543
E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co.
Wilmington, DE 19898
(302) 773-4190
Stan Schecter
Rohm & Haas
Engineering Division
P.O. Box 584
Bristol, PA 19007
(215) 785-7340
Dr. Klaus D. Timmerhaus
Professor & Presidential Teaching
Scholar
University of Colorado, Boulder
Department of Chemical Engineering
Campus Box 424
Boulder, CO 80309-0424
(303) 492-7680
Dr. Jack Walker
Chairman
Kansas State Emergency Response
Commission (SERC)
109 SW 9th St., Suite 501
Topeka, KS 66612
(913)296-1690
Mr. Mike Wright
Director
Safety and Health
Steel Workers of America
5 Gateway Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
(412)562-2581
-------
Questions for a Consensus-Building Process
on a National Chemical Accident Prevention Strategy
1. Is the approach of focusing on' management practices rather than technologies a good basis for
addressing chemical process safety issues?1
Are the key management elements appropriate and are there others that should be added?
Should these management practices apply to every facility or do they need to be adjusted for small
facilities, producers vs. users, etc, and, if so, how?
Potential Discussion Papers
Expanded description of the proposed elements
Applicability of elements to various industry sectors
Advantages and disadvantages of a management-directed approach
2. How can facilities be encouraged to go beyond minimal compliance with the regulations, codes, and
standards?
Are there economic incentives that can be exploited to promote improved practices?
Can potential liability for the consequences of accidents be used as an incentive?
What are the technical, social, and economic barriers that need to be overcome to promote safety
and how can they be overcome?
Potential Discussion Papers
Insurance and financial instruments as key influences of chemical safety practices
Institutional and economic barriers and how to overcome them
Economic incentives for going beyond minimum standards and improving prevention
practices
3. How can information about risk management practices, hazard identification, and technologies be
collected and shared?
Who should collect and manage the information?
What role should industry, the federal government, trade associations, professional organizations,
and state and local governments play to ensure that information reaches downstream users and
others?
Are there existing transfer mechanisms that can be better utilized?
Are federal or other clearinghouses useful and cost effective?
Are there institutional, economic, or technical barriers to information and technology transfer that
need to be addressed?
l. See attached list of management practices.
-------
2
How can the concept of product stewardship be used to improve information transfer?
What other initiatives should industry undertake to reach downstream users?
Potential Discussion Papers
Product stewardship as a means of information transfer
Alternative approaches to packaging information — for example, sharing information on
hazards or chemicals rather than process-specific data
The role of local organizations (e.g., Chamber of Commerce, state trade groups, etc) in
information transfer
Successful programs — case studies
Barriers to technology transfer and ways to overcome them
Incidents vs near misses as a source of information
Sharing* incident investigation results vs. liability concerns
4. How can state and local communities help promote adoption of a holistic approach to chemical
accident prevention, as outlined in the section 3QS(b) report?
How can industry, trade associations, the federal government, etc, facilitate state and local
interactions with facilities?
Are there state or local programs that can be adopted to promote the risk management program
elements?
How can Title III entities (SERCs and LEPCs) be used to encourage and promote cnemical safety
at facilities in their area? How can they keep the public informed of chemical risk?
How are existing codes and regulations used to promote safety and prevention? Are they
effective?
Potential Discussion Papers
Using data provided under Title III to gather prevention information
The effect of the New Jersey and California programs
Local case studies
Uniform fire and electrical codes, building codes as prevention tools
Using the public health and safety mandate to foster prevention activities — the role of
zoning and transportation routing in prevention
5. How can public participation be enhanced?
What are the roles of environmental groups and how can their participation be enhanced?
How can public interest be mobilized?
What kinds of public education programs are needed and who should provide them?
Potential Discussion Papers
Successful programs — case studies
-------
6. What should the role of governments be?
Are additional regulations needed or appropriate and, if so, by what level of government and in
which areas?
What kind of coordination is required among existing government prevention-related programs?
If regulations are proposed, what else can the government do to promote safety practices among
facilities not covered?
Potential Discussion Papers
Pros and cons of various regulatory and voluntary compliance options
Review of current federal programs related to prevention
Potential coordination mechanisms
7. What can labor do to improve safety at facilities?
How can labor work with management to implement a risk management plan?
Are there barriers to labor involvement that need to be overcome?
Potential Discussion Papers
Labor and the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard
Labor involvement in plant safety — case studies
8. What technologies need to be developed or improved?
The section 305(b) review identified the following technologies as needing additional research:
chemical-specific detectors, laser-based, remote sensing systems, and mitigation technologies for
liquid, liquid/vapor, and solid releases. Are there other technologies in monitoring and mitigation
that should be targeted?
The section 305(b) review indicated that data are needed on source characterization, human health
effects, equipment failure rates, and human error rates. Are there other related data that should
be developed?
Should particular chemicals, hazards, or industries be targeted?
How can the federal government enhance cooperation and technology transfer with the states?
How can the federal government help overcome barriers to technology sharing?
What research is under development?
What are the roles of industry, professional organizations, academic institutions, health
professionals, and government in technology development?
What are the economic incentives/disincentives for R & D?
-------
Potential Discussion Papers
Technological problem areas
Economic incentives for R & D
Review of current research being conducted by government and industry
Pros and cons of targeting a limited number of chemicals, hazards, etc
Information clearinghouses — case studies
-------
ATTACHMENT
Key Elements in Management Programs
Several organizations, both professional and industrial, have
outlined programs to define good management practices for the
construction and design of facilities, and for production, processing,
use, and storage of hazardous substances. The components of such
programs include, among others, the following items:
1. Capital project review and design process review should be
conducted to analyze all designs for safety problems
before they are approved; this can include preliminary
hazard assessments as well as pre-start-up safety
inspections. Human factors, such as the ease of operating
equipment, should be considered in the design of the
system.
2. Management must recognize that compliance with standards
and codes of industry, associations, and laws of
governments is a minimum, and the intent of these
standards must be applied on a case-by-case basis.
Compliance with standards alone does not ensure a safe
operation.
3. Process safety information should be documented to provide
identification of the hazards, a description of key design
data, and technical specification of each step of the path
to a safe operation. This document should include rules
and procedures for a safe operation.
4. Accountability of personnel involved in the operation of
the facility should be defined.
5. Risk management should include identification and
evaluation of potential hazards using valid hazard
evaluation techniques. These must be regularly scheduled
hazard evaluations involving key personnel, not just
weekly or monthly inspections.
€. All process and facility changes should be evaluated for
their impact on safety; each process or facility change
should be subjected to the same rigorous review as would
be applied to a new process. Authorization for change
should include new operating procedures, training, and
maintenance schedules.
7. Process and equipment integrity should be checked by
periodic testing and inspection; this includes quality
assurance.
8. Prompt investigation of all serious and potentially
serious incidents should determine the cause(s) of the
incident. The investigators should make recommendations
for corrective actions.
9. Training, including testing and refresher courses, should
be provided to all workers.
-------
10. Audits of key elements should be conducted by technically
qualified personnel; deficiencies and corrective actions
should be documented.
11. The facility should have methods to enhance its knowledge
of process safety; that is, the facility should have a
method to increase knowledge about the processes and
equipment.
12. Emergency procedures should be in place to respond to a
release and to contact the local community. The facility
should also have ongoing programs of communications with
the community.
(Attachment From: REVEW OF EMERGENCY SYSTEMS, REPORT TO CONGRESS,
Section 30S(b) Title m Supeifund Amendments and Reauthorization Act,of 1986. final Report, pg.
16, June 1988 USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Wash. D.C 20460)
-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
FY 1991 NACEPT COMMITTEE AGENDA
CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION COMMITTEE
The new Chemical Accident Prevention Committee is intended to develop mechanisms to identify
needs, prioritize them, focus resources and consensus building to address the needs; to identify
and focus attention on areas where opportunities exist to improve prevention practices; and to
enhance capabilities for development, evaluation and exchange of information on existing and new
practices.
No Focus Groups have been established yet.
-------
Environmental Financial
Advisory Board
-------
8:30
9:00
9:00
9:15
Environmental Financial Advisory Board
EFAB
Hotel Washington
15th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20004
October 23, 1990
Agenda
Registration
Opening Remarks
Park View Room
Herb Barrack
Executive Director
Welcome
Introduction of New Members
Overview of Day's Activities
Approval of Minutes
9:15 - 9:45 Future Directions for 1991
Organizational
EFAB Independence
Procedures for Board Operations
EFAB Executive Committee
Focus of Recommendations
Administrator's Direction
Congressional Interests
Scope of Issues
Roy Torkelson
Chairman
9:45 - 10:45
Environmental Tax Policy
Statement
Roy Torkelson
10:45 - 11:00 Review Workgroup Status
11:00 - 11:45 Concurrent Workgroup Meetings
Goal: To Develop Proposed
Recommendations and Reach
Consensus for Directions
in 1991
Private Sector Incentives
Public Sector Financing
Small Community Strategies
Environmental Tax Policy
Workgroup Chairs
Council Room
Capitol Room
Federal Room
Park View Room
-------
-2-
11:45 - 1:00 Lunch
Charles L. Grizzle, EPA
Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resources Management
and
Dr. William Cooper, Chairman
of the Zoology Department,
Michigan State University
Sky Room
1:00 - 3:30 Continue Concurrent Workgroup
Meetings
3:30 - 4:00 Workgroup Sessions Summaries
of Proposals for 1991
4:00 - 4:15 Closing Remarks and
Administrative Matters
Workgroup Chairs
Park View Room
Roy Torkelson
Herb Barrack
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD (EFAB)
MEMBERSHIP ROSTER
EFAB Chair
Mr. Richard Torkelson
Deputy Commissioner for Administration
New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
EFAB Vice Chair
Ms. Frieda K. Wallison
Partner
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue
1450 G. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-2088
EFAB Designated Federal Official
Mr. Herbert Barrack
Assistant Regional Administrator
for Policy and Management
U.S. EPA Region 2
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
Congressional
Honorable Beryl Anthony, Jr.
U.S. Representative
U.S. House of Representatives
1117 LHOB
Washington, DC 20515
Honorable Pete V. Domenici
U.S. Senate
434 SDOB
Washington, DC 20510
State Officials
Mr. Shockley D. Gardner, Jr.
Executive Director
Virginia Resources Authority
P.O. Box 1300
Richmond, VA 23210
-------
-2-
Honorable Anne Meagher Northup
Kentucky State Legislator
Kentucky State Legislature
3340 Lexington Road
Louisville, KY 40206
Mr. Richard Torkelson
Deputy Commissioner for Administration
New York State
Dept. of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233
Local Officials
Mr. Jack Bond
County Manager
Durham County Judicial Building, 6th Fl.
201 E. Main Street
Durham, NC 27701
Mr. Thomas Christensen
Supervisor
Charter Township of Ironwood
N. 15516 Black River Road
Ironwood, MI 49938
Mr. John Gunyou
City Finance Officer
Finance Department
331 City Hall
Minneapolis, MN 55415-1379
Honorable William H. Hudnut, III
Mayor of Indianapolis
2501 City-County Building
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Honorable Rolland W. Lewis
Mayor of Mount Vernon
P.O. Box 641, City Hall
Mount Vernon, IL 62864
Academia
Dr. William Fox
Associate Director
University of Tennessee
Center for Business & Economic Research
1000 Volunteer Blvd., Suite 100, Glocker Bldg.
Knoxville, TN 37996-4170
-------
-3-
Associations and Organizations
Ms. Heather L. Ruth
President
Public Securities Association
40 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004-2373
Ms. Roberta H. Savage
Executive Director
Association of State & Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators
444 North Capitol Street NW, Suite 330
Washington, DC 20001-1512
Mr. Douglas P. Wheeler
Executive Vice President
The Conservation Foundation
1250 Twenty-Fourth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
Ms. Elizabeth Ytell
Director, Water-Wastewater Division
Rural Community Assistance Corporation
2125 19th Street, Suite 203
Sacramento, CA 95818
Federal Agencies
Mr. John C. "Mac" McCarthy
State Director
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Farmers Home Administration
3727 Government Street
Alexandria, LA 71302
Business and Industry
Mr. J. James Barr
Vice President and Treasurer
American Water Works Company, Inc.
1025 Laurel Oak Road
P.O. Box 1770
Voorhees, NJ 08043
Mr. David W. Gilbert
Vice President
Envirotech Operating Services
P.O. Box 101
Birmingham, Al 35201
-------
-4-
Mr. Harvey Goldman
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Air and Water Technologies Corporation
P.O. Box 1500
Somerville, N.J. 08876
W. Jack Hargett
Vice President Government Relations
The Parsons Corporation
1133 Fifteenth St., N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
Banking. Finance, and Legal
Mr. William H. Chew
Senior Vice President
Municipal Finance Department
Standard & Poor's Corporation
25 Broadway, 22nd Floor
New York, New York 10004
Mr. Roger D. Feldman, P.C.
Partner
McDermott, Will & Emery
1850 K. Street, N.w.
Washington, DC 20006-2296
Dr. Richard Fenwick, Jr.
Vice President, Corporate Economist
CoBank National Bank for Cooperatives
National Credit Services Division
P.O. Box 5110
Denver, CO 80217
Mr. William B. James
Associate Director
Prudential-Bache Capital Funding
Public Finance Department
100 Gold Street
New York, NY 10292
Mr. Robert F. Mabon Jr.
Morgan Stanley and Company, Inc.
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 39th Floor
New York, NY 10020
Mr. Marlin L. Mosby, Jr.
Managing Director
Public Financial Management, Inc.
4735 Spottswood Avenue, Suite 105
Memphis, Tennessee 38117
-------
-5-
Mr. George A. Raftelis
Partner
Ernst & Young
1500 Independence Center
Charlotte, NC 28246
Mr. Joseph Rosenblum
Vice President and Managing Director
Moody's Investors Service
Public Finance Department
99 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
Mr. Warren W. Tyler
Vice President
State Savings Bank
20 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH 43215
Ms. Frieda K. Wallison
Partner
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue
1450 G. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-2088
-------
By-Laws
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
BYLAWS
ARTICLE T; NAME
Section 1. The name of the organization shall be the National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology (NACEPT).
ARTICLE TT! AUTHORITY
The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) is
established within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of the Administrator,
under a Charter approved by the Deputy Administrator and by the U.S. General Services
Administration. NACEPT advises the Administrator of EPA consistent with its approved Charter
and the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Statutory requirements
provide for reconsideration of this Council every two years.
ARTICLE TTT; MISSION AND SCOPE
Founded in 1988, NACEPT is EPA's national advisory committee for the formulation of policy
and technology recommendations concerning the problems and opportunities shared among
business and industry, government, academia, and non-governmental organizations such as
professional and trade associations, environmental groups, and labor organizations. The Council
is national and international in scope and consensus-building in nature. Its purpose is to provide a
forum for debate and independent advice and counsel to the EPA Administrator on Agency
progress in designing, developing, and implementing the environmental management programs
that it administers.
NACEPTs mission is to help EPA improve the design and implementation of environmental
programs by fostering more effective use of the financial and intellectual resources of all
institutions involved in management of the environment. NACEPT is designed to promote
continuing consultation and cooperation among representatives of institutional participants to
ensure a shared understanding of the differing perspectives, concerns, and needs of each.
NACEPTs activities are directed to:
1. Create a broad understanding in EPA and throughout the world of the full range of the
institutions implementing roles in environmental pollution protection, preservation, and
prevention;
2. Promote continuing consultation and debate to ensure mutual understanding of each
institution's needs and concerns;
3. Through cooperation and consensus-building actions, maximize the extent to which each
institutional participant understands, accepts, and fulfills its environmental protection
responsibilities;
-------
4. Facilitate broad public sharing of information on environmental problems, alternative
approaches, and implementation strategies for addressing them; and
5. Promote consideration by EPA of all potential sources of financing in developing
leveraging and institutional strategies to address environmental needs.
ARTICLE IV: MEMBERSHIP
Section 1: Representation of Sectors
A. The Council membership shall have approximately equal representation by volunteers from
Government, Business and Industry, Academia, and Nongovernmental Organizations such as
professional and trade associations, environmental groups, and labor organizations.
B. Representation shall not be limited to citizens of the United States.
Section 2: Classes of Participation
A. Members shall be volunteers named by the EPA Deputy Administrator to occupy one of
approximately 50 designated seats. Members shall have full voting rights in all Council and
Committee actions.
B. Contributors shall be volunteers designated by the Chair of NACEPT or a standing
Committee as a full participant in deliberations of designated Committees. Contributors may be
permitted to vote with Members at the Committee level, but may not vote in plenary meetings
of NACEPT.
C. Experts shall be volunteers who are invited by the Chair of NACEPT or a standing
Committee chairperson to provide specialized information or assistance to NACEPT.
Experts have no voting rights.
Section 3: Terms
A. NACEPT Members shall be appointed by the EPA Deputy Administrator for terms not to
exceed 3 years.
B. A NACEPT Member may be reappointed by the EPA Deputy Administrator for a second
consecutive term not to exceed 3 years.
Section 4: Methodology for Appointment
A. Nominations to fill expiring terms, or other vacancies as described in Section 5, shall be
solicited annually by publication in the Federal Register. Nominations will be solicited from
the sectors listed in Article 4, Section I.A., and from the public at large. The Council may
also use other informal approaches in order to identify potential new NACEPT Members.
B. All seats on the Council are filled by formal appointment by EPA's Deputy Administrator.
Section 5: Termination of Membership
A. Members missing two consecutive plenary meetings of the Council may be removed by the
Chair unless they provide an acceptable written excuse.
-------
B. Members who change their employment status may be removed in order to maintain balance
among the sectors of membership.
C. Members may be removed for cause, as determined by EPA's Deputy Administrator, when
they arc determined to have violated the Ethics in Government Act or when their continued
participation would reflect unfavorably on the overall actions of the Council.
Section 6: Compensation
A. As voluntary advisors to EPA, NACEPT Members, Contributors, and Experts are limited to
reimbursement for travel expenses only, subject to federal travel requirements.
ARTICLE V: OFFICERS
Section It Council Chair
A. The Council shall have a chairperson selected from among the Members. The Chair shall be
appointed by the Deputy Administrator.
B. The Chair shall serve a 2-year term of office. The Chair may be reappointed to consecutive
terms not to exceed 6 years.
Section 2: Council Vice Chair
A. The Council shall have a Vice Chair, selected from among the Members. The Vice Chair shall
be appointed by the Deputy Administrator.
B. The Vice Chair shall serve in the absence of the Chair and undertake other ongoing
responsibilities as determined with the EPA Designated Federal Official and the Chair.
C. The Vice Chair shall serve a 2-year term of office, coterminous with that of the Chair. The
Vice Chair may be reappointed to consecutive terms not to exceed 6 years.
Section 3: Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs
A. Each standing Committee shall have a Chair and Vice Chair appointed by the Council Chair.
B. Each Committee Chair and Vice Chair shall serve a 2-year term of office coterminous with that
of the NACEPT Chair. Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs may be reappointed to consecutive
terms not to exceed six years.
C. The terms of the Committee Chair and Vice Chair shall coincide to the maximum extent
possible.
Section 4: Designated Federal Officials
A. The Director of EPA's Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM) shall be the
Designated Federal Official for NACEPT. The Designated Federal Official or the Deputy
Designated Federal Official serves as Executive Director for NACEPT and supervises the EPA
committee management staff.
B. Each standing Committee shall have a Designated Federal Official who shall serve as
Committee Director.
-------
ARTICLE VI: COMMITTEES
Section 1: Creation of Committees
A. The number, designation, mission, scope, and membership of standing or special Committees
at any time shall be subject to agreement between the Executive Committee and the NACEPT
Designated Federal Official.
B. The Council shall operate principally through use of standing Committees. The full Council
generally shall not act unless proposals have been evaluated through established standing or
special Committee processes.
Section 2: Executive Committee
A. There shall be a NACEPT Executive Committee consisting of the NACEPT Chair and Vice
Chair, and the Ckair and Vice Chair of each standing Committee.
B. The Executive Committee shall be responsible for strategic planning and for coordination of
activity among Committees. The Executive Committee shall assure that multi-year strategic
plans are developed and maintained for each Committee and for the Council as a whole.
C. The Executive Committee shall be empowered to act for the Council, subject to the advice and
consent of the Members. Any actions taken shall be presented to the Members at the next
NACEPT meeting.
Section 3: Full Council Meetings
A. The Council shall meet in plenary session at least semiannually.
B. Plenary meetings shall be held between the October-January and March-May time periods of
each fiscal year.
Section 4: Committee Meetings
A. The Executive Committee shall meet at least semiannually, to the extent possible at a point
midway between plenary Council meetings. These meetings shall be at the call of the
NACEPT Chair, a majority of the Chairs of standing Committees, or a majority of the
NACEPT Council, subject to the administrative approval of the Designated Federal Official.
B. Standing Committees and their subcommittees (focus groups or working groups) shall meet as
needed at the call of the Committee Chair or a majority of the Committee membership, subject
to administrative approval of the Designated Federal Official.
Section 3: Special Meetings of NACEPT
A. A special meeting may be scheduled for any purpose as needed. Special meetings must involve
at least two NACEPT Members, including a designated chairperson, and be subject to the
administrative approval of the Designated Federal Official.
Section 6: Notice of Meetings
A. It shall be the policy of NACEPT to encourage maximum public participation and to operate in
accordance with the FACA open meeting rule.
-------
B. A notice inviting public comments and attendance shall be published in the Federal Register by
the Designated Federal Official not less than 15 days before a meeting of NACEPT or of any of
its standing Committees.
C. This requirement shall apply to other NACEPT activities, including meetings of the Executive
Committee and subcommitees (woricing groups and focus groups of standing Committees), at
the option of the responsible Chair or Designated Federal Official.
Section 7: Sunshine Rule
A. All meetings held under the auspices of NACEPT shall be open to attendance by the general
public.
Section 8: Minutes
A. Minutes shall be taken at sal meetings.
B. Meeting Minutes shall be submitted by the Designated Federal Official to the membership for
its approval at the next scheduled meeting.
C. The need for a verbatim transcript of any meeting shall be determined by the Designated
Federal Official.
D. Minutes, once approved by a Committee or the Council, shall be signed as a true copy by the
Chair and made available for public information.
E. A true copy of the Minutes of any meeting shall be provided to the public on request A copy
of the Minutes of all meetings of NACEPT and its Committees shall be available for review
during regular business hours at the office of the Designated Federal Official.
Section 9: Quorum
A. Members attending a meeting shall constitute a quorum for transaction of business.
ARTICLE VII: RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 1: Approval bv Committee
A. A proposed recommendation may be brought forward by a Committee at any time.
B. A majority vote by Members present at a Committee meeting shall be sufficient to forward a
proposed recommendation to the full Council.
Section 2: Approval bv Council
A. A proposed recommendation shall be accepted for formal review if approved by a majority vote
of those present at a meeting of the full Council or by mail to the full Council.
B. Each accepted draft recommendation shall be mailed to all Members for review for a minimum
of 30 days. A Member shall be assumed to approve the recommendation if no comment is
received by the Designated Federal Official at the end of the 30-day period.
-------
C. A recommendation shall be transmitted to the Administrator if a majority of all members
approve. Significant minority views may be transmitted with an approved recommendation at
the option of the NACEPT Chair.
D. Final Council action on a proposed Committee recommendation shall be completed within a
maximum of 90 calendar days.
E. The Chair shall transmit an approved recommendation directly to the EPA Administrator and
the Deputy Administrator within 10 working days of its approval by the Council.
F. The Council expects that the Administrator shall respond to recommendations in a timely
manner. The Chair shall request responses and status reports from the Agency, as appropriate.
ARTICLE VIII: RULES OF ORP^R
Roberts Rules of Order and Procedure shall govern at all meetings on all matters relating to order
and procedure.
ARTICLE IX: AMENDMENTS
These Bylaws may be added to, amended, or repealed in whole or in part by a vote of at least two-
thirds of the Members at any regular meeting, provided that notice of intention to do so shall have
been given to each Member at least 30 days preceding such meeting.
------- |