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. ------- //. Denartment nfA ?rjr.ultwre- Th* National Arboretum The National Arboretum created the Urban Gardening Demonstration on its grounds in Washington, DC. Funded by Friends of the National Arboretum (FONA), the National Country Garden is a three-acre demonstration area that shows people how to grow then- own food and flowers in such unlikely places as roofs, decks, and vacant lots. The demonstration garden, which reached over one million people between 1984 and 1986, illustrates many techniques useful for urban beaurification. The US Fish and Wildlife Service The US Fish and Wildlife Service developed and produced a series of educational packages to provide teachers and other educators with factual information about wildlife, habitat, and resource management. The material was designed for use in fourth through seventh grades. Department of the Armv' Corps of Engineers The Army Corps of Engineers conducts a variety of special events, programs, and projects at Crooked Creek Lake in Ford City, Pennsylvania. There are numerous environmental educational programs and resource conservation activities to encourage citizens to accept their responsibility as public land owners. The Corps' staff influences thousands of citizens each year from pre-schoolers to senior citizens, and encourages active participation from all segments of the population. The variety of special events has resulted in a local populace keenly aware of the environment and their responsibility toward it. The lands reclaimed and recreation areas created are a result of cooperative volunteer efforts and have instilled a pride of "ownership" in area residents. US Department of Health and Human Services: Public Health Service—Afencv for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). ATSDR proposed a minority environmental health initiative to examine current science issues in three main areas: demographics, health perspectives (e.g., nutritional status, lifestyle and socio-economic influences, and psychosocial impacts), and health communication/health education. With this conference, ATSDR will bring together knowledgeable experts to discuss these areas. The objectives of this conference are to: o present information on the public health implications of exposures to environmental contamination o identify data gaps or problems associated with determining/evaluating and disseminating such information o recognize the challenges of addressing the health concerns of minorities living and working near hazardous waste cites or other sources of environmental contamination ASTDR invites submission of papers that focus on the main conference topics: demographics, health perspectives, and health communication/health education. The conference will also sponsor a student poster/essay competition. Ten poster competition finalists and five essay competition finalists, selected from the students submitting abstracts on their research, will receive awards covering travel and per diem (lodging/meal) expenses. ------- 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. ------- |