National Advisory Council for
  Environmental Policy and
         Technology
 October 24,1990 'Madison Hotel •Washington, D.C.
                          "• Printed on Recycled Paorr

-------
           NATIONAL  ADVISORY COUNCIL
                             FOR
  ENVIRONMENTAL  POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
                    Full Council  Meeting
                      October 24, 1990
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
Agenda

Minutes   ~

Tabl

Tab 2

Tab 3

Tab 4

Tab5

Tab 6     ~

Tab?

Tab8

Tab 9

Tab 10   ~
March 28, 1990

New Insight Issue #1: Permitting and Compliance Policy

New Insight Issue #2: Accounting for the Environment

National Environmental Education and Training Foundation

Environmental Education and Training Committee

State and Local Programs Committee

Technology Innovation and Economics Committee

International Environment Committee

Chemical Accident Prevention Committee

Environmental Financial Advisory Board

NACEPT Bylaws

-------
                   NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
                                 FOR
            ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY

                      FULL COUNCIL MEETING
                          OCTOBER 24,1990

                         THE MADISON HOTEL
                      15TH AND M STREETS, N.W.
                       WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005

                         - Dolley Madison Room -

                               AGENDA
I.    8:00am - 8:30am
H.   8:30am - 9:00am
     9:00am - 9:30am
IV.   9:30am - 10:30am
Coffee and Rolls Available

Welcome, Member Introductions, Approval
  of Minutes and Review of NACEPT Agenda

Discussion with F. Henry Habicht, n
  Deputy Administrator, U.S. EPA

New Insight Issue #1— Presentation and Discussion

Topic: Permitting and Compliance Policy — Barriers to
  U.S. Environmental Technology Innovation

              1.  Mr. Edward S. Keen
                President
                Bechtel Environmental, Inc.

              2.  Dr. R. Darryl Banks
                Deputy Commissioner
                New York Dept. of Environmental
                 Conservation

              3.  Mr. David R. Berg
                Director
                Technology Innovation and
                 Economics Committee, NACEPT

-------
V.    10:30am - 10:45am

VI.   10:45am-12:15pm
VH.  12:15pm-12:30pm
VIE.  12:30pm- l:30pm
IX.   l:30pm-3:00pm
X.    3:00pm - 3:30pm
Break

New Insight Issue #2 - Presentation and Discussion

Topic:  Accounting for the Environment --
       Reaching a Common Framework
        1. Mr. John O'Connor (Panel Facilitator)
          Chief
          Socioeconomic Data Division
          World Bank

        2. Dr. Carol Carson
          Deputy Director
          Bureau of Economic Analysis
          U.S. Department of Commerce

        3.  Dr. Robert Repetto
           Senior Economist
           World Resources Institute

        4.  Dr. Robert Costanza
           Associate Professor
           University of Maryland

National Environmental Education and
 Training Foundation

 Presentation ~ Ms. Kate Connors

Lunch (NACEPT Members and Staff Only)

 Harvest Restaurant, Washington Vista Hotel
 1400 M Street, N.W. -- Upstairs 1 Flight
 (1 Block East of Madison Hotel on M Street)

Committee Reports (15 minutes each)
 Environmental Education and Training
 State and Local Programs
 Technology Innovation and Economics
 International Environment
 Chemical Accident Prevention
 Environmental Financial Advisory Board

New Council Business
  Bylaws Discussion
  Meeting Schedule
  Issue:  New Insight Suggestions

-------
     NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
               FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
         -MEETING MINUTES-

           MARCH 28, 1990

  AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
         WASHINGTON, B.C.

-------
                            CONTENTS



                                                          Page



I.    WELCOME, INTRODUCTIONS AND PRELIMINARY BUSINESS         3



II.   INSIGHTS ON EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES               3



ffl.   INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COMMITTEE            5



IV.   STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE                     7



V.   ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD                 9



VL   EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMITTEE                       11



     TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS COMMITTEE         13



     SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS                               14



IX.   NEW BUSINESS                                           15

-------
 T TffKI.C.OME.  INTRODUCTIONS  AND PRELIMINARY BUSINESS

    A. WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

    1. Dr. Wesley Posvar, Chairman of the Council, convened the third plenary meeting of the
    National Advisory Council for Environmental Technology Transfer (NACETT) and welcomed
    the Council members and observers. Dr. Posvar noted that there had been a few changes in
    membership since the last meeting in October due to some members completing terms or
    changing employment and the addition of new members. He also noted the absence of the
    Designated Federal Official, R. Thomas Parker, due to illness and identified Mr Robert
    Hardaker who would act for Mr. Parker. Dr. Posvar expressed his and the members pleasure
    with the progress that had been made by the committees. He provided a brief overview of the
    day's agenda, noting the address by Karl deWaal from The Netherlands, the committee
    reports, and die discussion of long range planning to be addressed by the committees and the
    full Council.

    2. Dr. Posvar asked each of the members to introduce themselves and to provide brief
    background information for the benefit of the new members. He then asked selected
    contributors to the Council, various official guests, and staff of the EPA Office of Cooperative
    Environmental Management to introduce themselves. The attendance list is attached,

    B. STATUS OF RECOMMENDATIONS

    Dr. Posvar provided a report to the members on the status of the formal Reports and
    Recommendations from three Committees: Education and Training, Technology Innovation
    and Economics and State and Local Programs. Dr. Posvar indicated that the draft reports had
    been approved by the members through the formal 30 day NACETT review process and had
    been transmitted to the Administrator in February 1990. He referred to the Deputy
    Administrator's luncheon presentation on the preceding day at which the Deputy noted that the
    reports and recommendations were currently undergoing review by senior managers
    throughout the Agency with comments expected shortly.

    C. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

    Dr. Posvar asked for a motion to approve the Minutes of the October 25,1989 Council
    meeting. Mr. O'Connor moved to approve, seconded by Mr. Looby. The minutes were
    approved unanimously.

IL INSIGHTS ON  EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT  ISSUES

    A. INTRODUCTION

   Dr. Posvar noted that, beginning with this meeting, highly recognized officials from various
   domestic and international organizations would be invited to provide insights to the Council on
   key environmental management topics. He asked Mr. Sam Schulhof, Co-Chair of the
   International Technology Transfer Committee to introduce the day's speaker. Mr. Schulhof
   introduced Mr. Karl deWaal, Deputy Director of the Division of Technology for Society of
   TNO, The Netherlands. Mr. deWaal's  division is responsible primarily for environmental and
   energy activities. He noted that TNO is the largest research organization in The Netherlands
   and is funded by both the public and private sectors.

-------
 B. PRESENTATION

 1. Mr. deWaal described both the theoretical organization and actual operation of the 12
 member European Community (EC). The EC is managed by a Council with representation by
 each country's portfolio ministers, an elected Parliament, a Commission, and approximately
 17,000 civil servants. The Commission is the principal operational arm, initiating plans and
 proposals which are reviewed and approved by the Council. Although the Council must vote
 unanimous approval of "codes of directives", which are then transmitted to each member
 country for enactment into national laws, approximately 30 new directives are now voted
 annually. Enforcement is provided by the European Court of Justice. Industry participates
 actively and works within the organization to maintain a balance between environmental
 controls and employment Mr. deWaal noted that the chemical manufacturers association in
 Europe (CEPHIQ maintains stricter environmental control rules than are promulgated by the
 EC.

 2. Mr. deWaal discussed some specific environmental issues and activities in The Netherlands.
 He noted that The Netherlands has the highest environmental stress factors in the EC resulting
 in very strong public support for environmental programs. This has resulted in broad based
 negotiation of a very stringent and expensive Dutch National Environmental Policy Plan,
 covering cleanup, clean technologies, and changes in public and private management systems.
 He stressed their focus on pollution prevention. Mr. deWaal noted several research and
 development programs that provide scientific and technical support for the EC programs.

 3. Mr. deWaal discussed the very severe environmental problems in the Eastern European
 bloc. East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary have applied for EC membership
 and are expected to receive major assistance from existing EC countries.

 4. Mr. deWaal closed by describing two specific technology transfer examples, one involving
 transfer from the U.S. to Europe for wastewater treatment (Carver-Greenfield), and one
 involving transfer from the EC to the U.S. for removing odors and volatile organic chemicals
 (biofiltration).

 5. Dr. Posvar thanked Mr. deWaal for his excellent presentation and suggested that EPA staff
 develop a matrix comparing U.S. regional environmental stress factors similar to that presented
 by Mr. deWaal for the EC countries.

 C. DISCUSSION

 Dr. Posvar opened the floor for questions. Mr. Looby asked Mr. deWaal if the environmental
 situation in Eastern Europe is as bad as portrayed by the American press. Mr deWaal indicated
 that it is, noting mat air emissions in the German Ruhr Valley are five percent of those in
 Silesia in Poland,  the existence of several "dead" rivers, significantly reduced life spans, and
 serious retardation in children due to lead poisoning. Mr. Keen asked about the possibilities for
 increased enforcement across the EC. Mr. deWaal noted that it was coming but that existing
 national boundaries and varying statutes would delay this process. Mr. Joeres asked about the
 possibility of increased EC and bilateral economic cooperation on environmental issues. Mr.
deWaal indicated that this was increasing. Ms. de Larderel noted the creation of the European
 Bank which will contribute to development and pollution control projects,  including assistance
to  Eastern Europe. Mr. Barber noted the use of negotiated solutions with industry in Europe
versus the reliance on litigation in the United States. He asked Mr. deWaal how European
environmental organizations (Greens) viewed these negotiations. Mr. deWaal characterized the
 "Greens" as wary of cooperation with industry but also very concerned with possible increased
unemployment

-------
TTT INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER COMMITTEE

   A. INTRODUCTION

   Dr. Posvar introduced the Chair, Mr. John O'Connor, the Co-Chair, Mr. Sam Schulhof; and
   the Staff Director, Ms. JanMcAlpine.

   B. COMMITTEE REPORT

   1. Mr. O'Connor opened his remarks by posing two questions to the Council members:
   1) Is it realistic to expect that the Administrator/U.S. Secretary of Environment could or should
   take a leading, rather than a supportive, role in the international transfer of environmental
   technology?; and 2) How can we get U.S. business to speak with a concerted voice on
   international technology transfer applied to the environment?

   2. The Chair discussed the difficulty in setting the scope of the Committee given that its generic
   issues appear in each of the other committees but expressed the Committee's interest in
   focusing the very broad issues in order to develop something that is analytically relevant Mr.
   O'Connor discussed his views on ongoing processes of change and their implications in the
   international situation. He reiterated his conviction that "command and control" approaches
   were even more likely to fail in international relationships and that financial relationships were
   being relied on more. He noted that during the Committee's first year, external events had
   changed the issues and that the Committee itself had undergone major internal change. Mr
   O'Connor discussed the four cross-cutting aspects of technology transfer into which the
   Committee was looking: technology itself, process changes in environmentally-oriented
   activities, movement of information, and the dynamics of technology transfer. He indicated that
   the committee has been considering issues including criteria and standards, obstacles,
   monitoring and evaluation, and public/private interfaces.

   3. The Chair identified the three work groups that the International Committee has formed:
   Technology Transfer and Training, chaired by Eugene Tseng; Technology Transfer Issues in
   the European Community, chaired by Sam Schulhof; and Economics and the Environment,
   chaired by John McGlennon.  The work groups represent the "targets of opportunity" for
   technology transfer outside the U.S., into the U.S., and from the U.S. Each group has
   developed several strategic issues which represent the major focus for future Committee
   activity.  Mr. O'Connor highlighted the strategic issues for each group.

  4. The Technology Transfer and Training group is addressing needs to a) bring about
  institutional changes in training programs because of omissions and barriers in the existing
  education and training programs available internationally, b) dispel the "myth of the machines",
  i.e., that environmental problems require expensive solutions and big institutions and promote
  development and application of appropriate technologies; c) establish a "network of networks"
  of education and training programs; d) development of environmentally competent managers;
  e) continuity in and monitoring of existing education and training related materials; and f)
  integrated, experienced-based training and infusion of 'applied' experience into education and
  training programs.

  5. The group addressing Technology Transfer in the European Community is focusing on
  needs to: a) facilitate the development of health-based goals and standards for environmental
  issues; b) include consideration of geographic, cultural and economic differences among
  countries when evaluating feasibility of micro and macro environmental technology-transfer, c)
  maintain permanent, interactive information systems and special events for networking
  technology transfer programs; d) create technology transfer incentives for industry placing the
  focus on the use of integrated systems, i.e., low waste and recycling systems; e) establish

-------
  common standards and regulations between international governments and non-government
  organizations to support the free-flow of technology; and f) increase focus on innovation of
  existing technologies as well as search for new technology

  6. The Economics and the Environment group is emphasizing needs to: a) devise a measure to
  gauge the international market for environmental technology transfer, as well as the United
  States' potential share of that market; b) consider the concept of providing a model program of
  coordination between U.S. and international agencies, businesses and non governmental
  organizations through formulation of regional teams for each of the four less developed
  country areas: Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America which would work to develop
  regional strategies for economic and environmental solutions; and c) develop mechanisms for
  measuring values of natural resources, and for integrating "the global common" (such as
  oceans) into that system.

 7. Mr. O'Connor assured the Council that the International Committee is in close coordination
 with other EPA groups so to ensure that there will not be a duplication of efforts, in areas such
 as Global Warming and CFC emissions.

 8. Mr. O'Connor returned to his early questions to the Council With respect to the question of
 EPA's lead role, he noted three issues: the conflict with EPA's role as regulator, domestic
 versus international issue demands, and EPA's and the U.S.'s limited ability to make a
 financial commitment relative to other countries. With respect to the second question, Mr.
 O'Connor noted the importance of attracting private sector resources and on increasing
 industry's voice in macro and micro technology and investment decision-making.

 C DISCUSSION

 1. Dr.  Posvar thanked Mr. O'Connor for the presentation and opened the floor to comments.
 Dr. Posvar posed the first question: Does die information presented today supercede the draft
 report that the International Committee put forward for review in October? Mr. O'Connor
 responded that  it did and that the draft recommendations were a necessary step in the process
 of moving toward the current recommendations.

 2. Mr. Looby asked if the Committee intended on extending beyond the European Community
 focus and address other areas such as the Pacific Rim.  Mr. O'Connor assured Mr. Lobby that
 in the future its focus would broaden, however current developments in Europe and the EC
 have created major targets of opportunity which the Committee was pursuing.

 3. Dr. Ashford was skeptical that other countries would be interested in US technology, given
 their own progress in innovation and application of new technologies. He also noted that the
 U.S. is ahead in the area of toxic use reduction and sharing this information could reduce U.S.
 competitive advantage. Mr. O'Connor responded by noting the Committee's intention to look
 at market issues very broadly,  to address changing the incentive structure and moving "up the
 pipe," and to try to identify what is really transportable into the international context Mr.
 Schulhof added that the Committee's direction is really oriented to low or no waste
 technologies and energy efficiency. The U.S., he believes, has a lot to learn from other
countries, such as The Netherlands, who have been emphasizing these approaches. Dr.
Posvar added that the Europeans have had a much greater need to move ahead in these areas
and have been much more successful at attracting needed investment capital.

-------
TV STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS rOMMTTTEE

   A. INTRODUCTION

   Dr. Posvar introduced the Chair, Mr. Terry Novak; the Co-Chair, Mr. Walter Barber, and the
   Staff Director, Mr. Robert Hardaker.

   B. COMMITTEE REPORT

   1. Mr. Novak referred the Council to a matrix contained in their information packets describing
   the current implementation status in the Agency of each of the Committee's recommendations.
   He expressed his view that the Committee's success to date was due in part to its emphasis on
   "plain language" and its focus on real people and real places.

   2. Mr. Novak noted that the Committee's recommendations were being reviewed in the Agency
   and restated the Committee's support for a) issuance of a policy urging a change in the
   Agency's organizational culture away from its traditional command and control orientation to
   one emphasizing cooperative relationships with states and local governments recognizing that
   we are each members of the family of governments; b) the need to prioritize Agency efforts
   from the bottom up, responding to the environmental needs and priorities of the states and EPA
   regions; c) the need to empower local governments to take action locally and to listen to local
   concerns; and d) the need to share data and information freely among the family of
   governments.

   3. Mr. Novak discussed the Committee's work with EPA's new Small Community
   Coordinator, Ann Cole,  and efforts to improve implementation of the 1980 Regulatory
   Flexibility Act to assure more sensitive development and implementation of regulations
   affecting small communities. He noted the Committee's creation of a new Small Communities
   Subcommittee to address these and other issues identified in the last year's Committee Report
   and Recommendations. Mr. Novak indicated that the Committee may recommend that EPA test
   the impact of proposed regulations in a statistical sample of small communities, a proposal put
  forward by Mr. Barber.

  4. Mr. Novak briefed the members concerning the mid-December recycling/reuse panel
  sponsored by NACETT and chaired by the committee, noting that its report and
  recommendations had been favorably received by the Administrator. He expressed his hope
  that this would assist the Agency in development of amendments to the Resource Conservation
  and Recovery Act and formulation of a Pollution Prevention Bill

  5. The Chair described the testimony provided by several local and state officials at the
  preceding day's committee meeting. Each of the three communities have municipal landfills that
  have been designated as Superfund sites and each municipality has been designated a
  Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) for cleanup. He specifically discussed Hastings,
  Nebraska, a community of 23,000 people that has five Superfund sites. He indicated that two
  state officials had also met with the committee to provide their views concerning EPA's recent
  Interim Municipal Settlement Policy, their enforcement /delegation relationships with EPA, and
  their states' views on municipal Superfund compliance.

  6. The Chair and Co-Chair both discussed the negative impact of the current Agency
  accountability system and tracking measures on achieving positive changes in the Agency
  culture and EPA/state relationships. Mr. Novak drew an analogy to oversight of performance
  of local police departments, noting that community officials judge effectiveness by
  "community-oriented policing" and crime prevention rather than use of a nightstick or the
  number of criminals arrested per year.  He urged that the number of enforcement actions not be

-------
  a key measure of the Agency's success, that prevention of violations be rewarded, and that
  "bean count" performance tracking systems should assign credit to both EPA and states for
  individual facilities compliance. He cited support for this approach in the draft EPA study
  "Enforcement in the 1990's." He noted apparent support for the Committee's
  recommendations by the Administrator and Deputy Administrator and the need to transfer this
  message clearly to die Agency's employees. Mr. Barber added that an EPA regional
  administrator should obtain equal credit for taking a needed enforcement action as for assuring
  that a state takes it. He also expressed his view that measures of performance are critical, but
  that the measures should contribute to cleaning up the environment and should especially not be
  counter-productive to that goal. He urged that measures be identified that contribute to mutual
  respect among the parties. He noted that while senior officials express support for a policy of
  cooperation and mutual respect, the lack of real implementation continues to contribute to
  extremely poor relations. Mr. Novak noted that EPA's approach to implementation of Clean
  Air Act Amendments will be viewed by the states and local governments as an "acid test" of
  EPA's sincerity about "partnership."

  7. Mr. Novak noted the committee's recommendations for increased municipal environmental
  auditing and for expanded development of regional and state risk analyses and risk-based
  priority setting. He expressed support for the Agency's decisions to accelerate these processes
  in Regions and to increase flexibility to re-allocate resources based on identified environmental
 risks.

 8. Mr. Novak expressed the committee's support for maintaining technical assistance and peer
 matching projects with the National Governors Association, International City Management
 Association, and the Self-Help program with the Rensselaerville Institute in New York State.
 He also indicated that NACETT would be creating a Pollution Prevention Coordinating
 Committee involving members from each committee.

 C DISCUSSION

 1. Mr. Novak and Mr. Barber offered three key questions to members of the Council for
 discussion: 1) What can be done to implement the partnership concept to make it real?; 2)
 Should we change the evaluation measures in the Agencys accountability system with regional
 officials to more effectively promote state delegations and cooperations?; and 3) Could we
 develop a protocol for municipalities to evaluate their problems and priorities, and could we
 enlist pro bono assistance from universities and local professionals to help them complete it?

 2. Mr. Liskowitz supported the feasibility of the third approach by noting a checklist prepared
 by his institute that is targeted to helping local officials make decisions about construction of
 municipal incinerators. Responding to the first question, Mr. Cortese referred to a 1984 EPA
 study of several decentralized organizations which concluded that successful organizations
 involved field units in policy development and relied on "carrots" versus "sticks", the opposite
 of EPA's traditional approach. He added that distrust was still pervasive and that clearly EPA
 had not changed. He also indicated that the Education and Training Committee was addressing
 aspects of these same problems. Mr. Barrack, representing EPA Region n, suggested that pan
 of the problem is the rate of staff turnover and the number of inexperienced people in very
 sensitive jobs. Mr. Barber agreed with the issue but responded that the problem re-emphasizes
 the need for continual restatement of expectations and ongoing training and education. Ms.
 Turner reiterated the importance of expanding industry's role in helping municipalities.

 3. Dr. Posvar asked for discussion of the role of regional institutes that are currently being
 established with EPA help, especially in EPA Regions 3,6 and 9.  Mr. Hardaker  described the
 specific needs being addressed and the general framework of each of the three EPA-sponsored
organizations. He added that other regions were also expressing interest in creating institutes.


                                          8°

-------
    He also noted a project currently underway in his office to document and disseminate
    information concerning over 100 university-based environmental technology research centers.

    4. Referring to problems in his own State of Pennsylvania. Dr. Posvar asked what might be
    done to help fill the "vacuum of political structure" between the state and county and city levels,
    especially with respect to planning and sharing of services. Mr. Hardaker described the
    existence of a number of municipal and county-level councils of government and special
    districts that have operated successfully, but currently lack resources needed to exercise
    significant coordination and leadership for environmental or other planning.

V. ENVIRONMENTAL  FINANCIAL  ADVISORY BOARD

   A. INTOODUCTION

   Dr. Posvar introduced Mr. Herbert Barrack, Executive Director of the Board.

   B. BOARD REPORT

    1. Mr. Barrack described the mission of the Board as helping the Administrator and the Agency
   respond to innovative and creative ways to finance infrastructure into the 1990's, prompted
   primarily by the phaseout of the wastewater treatment construction grants program and the
   passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. He noted that the previous availability of enormous
   grant program funds had not required EPA previously to "be a player" in the private financing
   markets. In order to help EPA carve out a reasonable, balanced position now, the Board is
   comprised of 33 officials representing a full cross-section of decision makers. Mr. Barrack
   identified four work groups that have been created to deal with the major emphasis issues
   distilled from the Board's first meeting in October a) environmental tax policy, b) small
   community financing strategies, c) public sector financial options, and d) private sector
   incentives.

   2. With respect to tax policy issues, Mr. Barrack indicated that the Board plans to recommend
   legislative changes to the Administrator to address state and local governments' ability to use
   tax exempt bonds, reclassification to remove volume caps, alternative minimum taxes, retention
   of interest earned on tax exempt bonds and, referencing Mr. Ashford's proposals, pollution
   prevention-related tax incentives. Mr. Barrack emphasized the Board's efforts to define policies
   and recommendations that are realistic and attainable and that will contribute to enhanced
   productivity.

   3. Concerning small community financing issues, Mr. Barrack noted inter-relationships with
   the State and Local Programs Committee recommendations and activities. He cited examples
   of some possible recommendations including State Revolving Fund set asides for small
   communities, assistance programs such as the Rensselaerville Institute Self-
   Help project, grants, and bond banks to underwrite low- or no-interest loans.

   4. In the area of public sector financing options, Mr. Barrack indicated that the Board is
   looking at recommendations related to increased funding as well as possible operations
   management changes to State Revolving Funds. States have expressed strong support for
   increasing their ability to draw down funds more quickly and to leverage the funds more
   heavily. In addition, they are looking at bond banks and expanding the revolving fund
   approach to helping meet other infrastructure needs such as drinking water, solid waste and
   hazardous waste.

  5. In terms of increasing private sector involvement, Mr.  Barrack discussed various
  approaches, including additional legislative changes to permit private ownership in federally

-------
  assisted wastewater projects, expanded use of "turnkey" projects, increased cost recovery for
  environmental services, and dealing with massive liability and insurance issues for
  environmental cleanup.

  6. Mr. Barrack ended by expressing his belief that support for changes of these types existed
  in the administration and that the Board's efforts to work more closely with industry and the
  financial community were greatly assisting the debate and development of feasible proposals.

  C. DISCUSSION

  1. Mr. Novak asked if the Board was addressing the problems small communities face in
 obtaining municipal bond insurance. Mr. Barrack indicated that those were largely SEC
 requirements and were not yet being addressed. Ms. Florini cited local difficulties associated
 with financing municipal incinerators versus recycling facilities, i.e., "lack of a level playing
 field" and the need to help level the field. Mrs. Pfund, a Board member, noted that the private
 sector financing group had been focusing on municipal issues and traditional pollution control
 infrastructure financing questions and had not yet moved aggressively into industrial and
 pollution prevention incentive opportunities.

 2. Mr. Ashford raised his concerns that the Board, while addressing real world problems
 facing states and communities today, n6t lose sight of long term needs and opportunities for the
 pollution prevention transformation we are trying to effectuate. He added his concerns  that, for
 example, assisting incineration reduces the incentive for industry to prevent and that the Board
 was overemphasizing public sector financing and was not organized to emphasize non-
 traditional solutions. Mr. Barrack responded that the Board was sensitive to these issues and
 was trying to address tax law changes as a primary initial focus.

 3. Mr. Kotas urged  the Board to consider recommendations with respect to shifting more
 Highway Trust funds to mass transit. Mr. Looby expressed his view that the public sector
 group needs to focus on augmenting work done in the water quality program to develop better
 data on scope of the total problem and funding needs in all media areas. He also indicated that
 more money, including more federal money, will be needed.

 4. Ms. Alois! de Larderel stressed the need for two complementary objectives: to use market
 forces to shift consumers to less polluting products and to find the funds to pay for cleaning
 up. She expressed concern that work on the first objective was not evident in die presentation.
 Mr. Barrack responded that the Board intended to deal with these questions, but that it  was
 focused now on trying to develop feasible tax reform proposals to stimulate needed public and
 private investments. Mr. Ashford reiterated that the Board should, while addressing its shorter
 term municipal financing priorities, also focus on creating financial and regulatory waste
 reduction and prevention incentives at all governmental levels and in the private sector. Mr.
 Barber added his support for reducing subsidies as quickly as possible and assuring full cost
 recovery from the users of environmental services. Mr. Looby urged boldness but also
 continued pragmatism on the part of the Board and Council; he noted that even a 50% reduction
 in waste generation  would still require siting and paying for landfills and incinerators.

 5. Mr. Devine cited the serious problems that are developing for businesses unable to obtain
 loan financing due to potential or actual environmental liabilities. Mr. Ashford and Dr. Posvar
 both noted the value of identifying and reporting  liabilities to encourage improved risk
management and cleanup. Mr. Keen asked if the Board was  addressing the related issue of
environmental liability reporting on corporate balance sheets. Mr. Barrack responded that the
Board was awaiting a decision by the national Financial Accounting Standards Board.
                                          10

-------
   6. Mr. Power asked if the Board intended to submit recommendations through the Council or
   directly to the Administrator. Mr. Barrack committed that all recommendations will follow the
   formal NACETT review process.

   The Council adjourned for Lunch.

VI. EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMITTEE

   A. INTRODUCTIONS

   Dr. Posvar introduced Dr. Erhard Joeres, Acting Co-Chairman, and Kate Connors, Staff
   Director. Neither Dr. Hendee, the Chair, nor Mr. Herbst, the Co-Chair could attend the
   meeting.

   B. COMMITTEE REPORT

   1. Dr. Joeres described the Committee as becoming more concrete in its vision of how to
   develop and measure environmental literacy and in setting time horizons for moving to the
   goal. He expressed the Committee's view that EPA cannot lead this effort or be an effective
   educator until it has proven credibility including, for example, recycling, energy conservation,
   water conservation. EPA and other agencies, as well as the Congress, should lead by example.

   2. Dr. Joeres asked Kate Connors to discuss the status of implementation within EPA of the
   Committee's recommendations. With respect to the need for Presidential leadership, Ms.
   Connors noted a mention in the State of the Union address and expected recognition in
   formation of a Cabinet agency. The recommendation dealing with expanded delivery networks
   is being implemented, largely through the TVA-EPA agreement leading to formation of an
   expected 100 centers by 1995. Creation of an EPA Office of Environmental Education was
   recommended; internal Agency planning is well along. The same recommendation addressed
   creation of a public/private foundation to fund environmental education and training. The Co-
   Chair, Bob Herbst, has been actively involved in developing its framework and legislative
   support for the foundation concept With respect to improved Federal agency coordination,
   Agency staff and NACETT representatives have met with representatives of 14 agencies to
   establish an ongoing forum for communication and action. Finally, the Committee
   recommended development of a longer-term strategy for public education;  a draft is expected
   within a month or so.

   3. Dr. Joeres discussed the Committee's efforts to begin to establish a concrete framework of
   activities and projects on its philosophical base of "Environmental Stewardship." From this
   base, the committee intends to identify or develop education and training systems focusing on:
   a) pollution prevention, environmental preservation, and environmental restoration; b)
   economics and the environment; and c) environmental and public health. Dr. Joeres identified
   the individual members and contributors who will participate in each of the focus groups.  Dr.
  Joeres also discussed the general time table for the work groups leading to recommendations
   back to the Committee in June.

  4. Dr. Joeres asked Dr. Cortese to discuss specific plans for the pollution prevention group.
  Dr. Cortese provided the rationale for establishing a pollution prevention group:  we need to
  change management systems away from command and control,  to develop cross-trained
  agency staffs and to expand the number of universities teaching pollution prevention as part of
  their core curriculum. Dr. Cortese offered three strategies: a) to train new environmental
  management specialists in all technical disciplines with a pollution prevention mind set; b) to
  inculcate educational systems and curricula with a broader environmental consciousness—to
  develop  the same concept of responsibility for environmental protection in other-than-


                                          11

-------
 environmental engineering students; and c) to educate industry to the economic benefits of
 pollution prevention, Le, minimizing consumption of resources, minimizing pollution, and
 sustainable development This will be implemented initially through an international round
 table of university presidents. In addition, the committee is considering recommending a
 pollution prevention orientation program for all EPA employees—from new staff through senior
 managers. Third, the committee is considering proposing a recognition program for academic
 institutions that act as models of environmental  responsibility. Dr. Cortese noted that the way
 education occurs is as important as the content Dr. Cortese also expressed support for Mr.
 Barber's suggestion that universities provide assistance to their local communities. Dr. Joeres
 cited the pollution prevention example as a possible paradigm for other environmental
 education delivery priority areas.

 5. Dr. Joeres asked Ms. Connors to discuss the  Committee's activities, especially those of Mr.
 Herbst, in creating a public/private environmental education and training foundation. Ms.
 Connors described work done to date to develop background materials and proposed legislative
 language for ultimate consideration by the Congress. This proposal is considered by the
 Committee as a mechanism for leveraging limited public funds and as a more viable alternative
 to a controversial fines-based approach. The proposed section 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
 is modeled on the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and would have a board of directors
 appointed by the Administrator. A key conceptual element is that private sector contributors
 would provide not only financial resources but also intellectual resources dedicated to improved
 environmental education and training. The concept has the Agency's support and is currently
 being considered on the HilL

 C. DISCUSSION

 Dr. Posvar opened the floor to questions and discussion. Mr. Kotas, head of EPA's Pollution
 Prevention Office, expressed his interest and support for energizing leadership in the
 universities, for assisting small communities, and for integrating pollution prevention into all
 curricula. Mr. Kotas noted that an EPA staff training program was already under development,
 but should be expanded to new employee orientation as well. In addition, he cited a major K-
 12 curriculum development project underway and invited NACETT participation in its
 development Dr. Ashfbrd added a request that the Committee support changes in university
 engineering curricula to assist design of new technologies, not simply copying of old plants.
 Ms. Florini added a suggestion that NACETT itself act as a better pollution prevention model
 by avoiding use of disposable pens, bleached paper and single-sided copies, and so on. Ms.
 Florini also suggested that the Committee look at the connections between industrial waste
 streams and consumer products. Dr. Cortese agreed with die need for looking not only at
 industry but at consumers' personal responsibilities as well He added that the "three R's" in
 school need to be expanded to "reduce, reuse and recycle."  Responding to Ms. Pfund's
 question on the scope of the international university president's meeting agenda, Dr.Cortese
 expressed his view that the emphasis should be on convincing the presidents to infuse
environmental examples into all curricula. Dr. Posvar expressed his concern with the relying
on the presidents to mandate these changes. He encouraged efforts to energize students and
faculty groups—bottom up—to promote and demand changes.
                                         12

-------
VTT TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS COMMITTEE

   A. INTRODUCTIONS

   Dr. Posvar introduced the Chair, Mr. William Carpenter; the Co-Chair, Dr. Nicholas Ashford,
   and the Staff Director, Mr. David Berg.

   B. COMMITTEE REPORT

   1.  Mr. Carpenter indicated that the report would cover the status of the focus group on
   permitting, discuss formation of four additional focus groups, and propose a recommendation
   that the Council formally review a legislative proposal dealing with creation of a new national
   environmental research institute.

   2. Mr. Carpenter noted with pleasure that various activities are currently underway in the
   Agency related to Committee recommendations. He added, however, mat EPA still lacks an
   environmental technology innovation policy and strategy, representing a basic defect and a
   challenge to the Agency and Committee. He indicated that the Committee is targeting on how to
   make useful suggestions for an aggressive action on incentives to encourage all stakeholders to
   help identify more innovative technologies. He added that he was encouraged mat two of the
   new focus groups are being formed at the request of Agency program offices reflecting the
   increasing support and institutionalization of NACETT in the Agency; that the Agency was
   about to create a Bureau of Environmental Statistics to help the Agency better gauge risks and
   target responses;  that the Agency had created a Technology Innovation Office and that it would
   be working with the Committee.

   3. Mr. Carpenter noted that the Permitting Focus Group had met twice and that the members
   were very optimistic about it as well as the Liability focus group. He indicated he anticipated
   proposing recommendations by the fall meeting. The Permitting Group is looking at permitting
   processes, the relationship of compliance to technology solutions, and inconsistencies among
   programs.

   4. Discussing new focus groups, Mr. Carpenter identified the first as Remediation Technology
   (working with Martin Rivers and Walt Kovalick of the Technology Innovation Office)
   designed to foster innovative remediation technologies for Superfund sites. It is expected to
   move very quickly to develop networks to help accelerate transfer of information—to link up
   the source of technology with  the person who applies it with the person making the remedial
  decision. With respect to the new Liability group, Dr. Ashford noted that liability issues are
  linked up with a complex mix of regulatory, insurance, and right to know requirements. He
  asked the Council members for information on successful and unsuccessful technology
  development to help identify the most important issues for the focus group. Mr. Carpenter
  indicated that a focus group on a water quality based pollution prevention initiative was being
  established at the request of the Office of Water. The last new focus group will examine EPA's
  practices with respect to funding technology research and development and providing for
  implementation of the new technologies: the key question is whether all of the good ideas
  being generated being used.

  C. DISCUSSION

  Dr. Posvar opened the floor for questions and discussion. Mr. O'Connor asked what the
  committee saw as incentives for diffusion of new, potentially proprietary,  technologies.
  Mr. Carpenter indicated that the focus was on technologies developed by the government, to
  identify if the right forcing functions, encouragements and incentives were in place and to see if
  there are cultural impediments to working with industry. Dr. Joeres asked how the committee


                                          13

-------
     was addressing the needed transition to performance-based standards and regulations. Dr.
     Ashford indicated that ultimately a package of proposed innovation waivers, performance
     standards, specification standards will be developed through a later regulatory strategies focus
     group. Mr. Barber identified a growing issue whereby companies are claiming ownership of all
     technologies developed in site cleanup, even where they are entirely site specific. Mr. Barber
     also asked for clarification of the scope of the Liability Focus Group. Dr. Ashford indicated
     that it was inclusive. He stated that the objective was not to assign liability, but to identify the
     influences of liability on development and adoption of technology. Dr. Ashford assured Ms
     Aloisi de Larderel that the liability group would address potential liability issues from
     production process through consumer exposure stages. Mr. Lindahl provided a brief rationale
     for the Office of Water technologies focus group: the Water Office, faced with a nearly
     impossible task of reevaluating and reissuing a large number of effluent guidelines, wants to
     work with industry and other stakeholders, through NACETT, to determine how to do it
     more effectively, including "up the pipe" pollution prevention approaches.

     D. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE

     Mr. Carpenter proposed that the Council establish an ad hoc committee to review a federal
     legislative proposal to establish a National Environmental Research Institute (NERI). He noted
     that the concept had been brought to the attention of the Committee by the House of
     Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology (CSS&T). Mr. Carpenter
     introduced Ms. Laura Bryant, senior staffer for Congressman Saxton, to discuss the NERI
    concept,  and to pose the questions that the congressional committee would like NACETT to
    address. Ms. Bryant characterized NERI as  meeting a perceived need for basic environmental
    non-health research. The Institute would address problems holistically, invest in needed long
    horizon innovation, work with industry, act as a data bank sharing information across all
    segments, and serve as a public and professional  educational resource. The CSS&T is
    currently looking at the National Institutes of Health as an organizational model. Dr. Posvar
    asked if the Agency had yet taken a policy position on the legislative proposal; Mr. Berg
    indicated that it had not Mr. Carpenter asked Ms. Bryant to specify, if possible, the questions
    NACETT was being asked to address. Ms. Bryant indicated that the CSS&T had not narrowed
    the options significantly at this time and was receptive to a range of input Mr. Busch asked if
    the institute was intended to be independent from EPA; Ms. Bryant indicated that it likely
    would be. Mr. Busch indicated that Dr. Liskowitz would take the lead for developing
    NACETT comments. Mr. Barber urged that review of the proposal be handled informally by
    the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee rather than create another ad hoc body.

    Dr. Posvar agreed that the questions and range of issues being presented were very broad and
    complex. Given the complexities and the limited time remaining at this meeting, Dr. Posvar
    asked Mr. Carpenter to have the committee prepare more information and an action proposal to
    be discussed at the next Executive Committee meeting.

    Mr.  Carpenter announced that he was stepping down as Chair of the Committee, that Dr.
    Ashford would assume the chairmanship and mat Mr. Thomas Devine would become vice
    chair. Mr. Carpenter indicated that he would continue to work on the Committee.

VIII.SUMMARY  AND  CONCLUSIONS

    Dr. Posvar provided a brief overview of the day's discussions and noted that NACETT had
    completed an extremely productive year. He added that each of the committees were now
    working at the "action level where things can happen in viable groups" and that he expected the
    committee interactions to continue to expand. He expressed his sense of the need for NACETT
    to continue to build trust among all parties and to be as hard-headed and realistic as possible to
    impress industry, in particular, with the possibilities for cooperation.


                                             14

-------
 IX.  NEW BUSINESS

    A. PQLLUTIONPREVENTIQN COORDINATING COMMITTEE

    Mr. Hardaker discussed formation of a coordinating group, comprised of two representatives
    from each standing committee, to assure communication and coordination on the increasing
    number of NACETT pollution prevention issues and activities. Mr. Hardaker indicated that the
    group would likely be led by the State and Local Programs Committee. He asked the chairs of
    each committee to identify representatives and to report on respective committee activities at the
    next Executive Committee meeting.

    B. NEXT MEETING

    The next scheduled meeting of the full Council will be October 23 and 24, 1990, at the
    Madison Hotel, Washington, D.C. Further information will  be forthcoming.

    C. COMMITTEE PLANNING

    Dr. Posvar asked Mr. Hardaker to speak to longer-term planning objectives for NACETT. Mr.
    Hardaker noted that the International Committee had enlisted the help of a facilitator at its last
    meeting and was developing a very effective longer term view for committee objectives and
    activities. He indicated that each committee is being asked to develop a longer term, i.e.,
    through 1992, strategic plan to identify overall direction, financial support needs and cross
    committee coordination issues. He noted the increasing connections among each of the
    committees' agendas and the role of the Executive Committee in providing cross-committee
    communication.  •

    D. INSIGHTS PRESENTATIONS

    Dr. Posvar restated the intention to continue to bring in external speakers to provide insights on
    various important domestic and international topics. The Chair asked members to identify
    proposed topics and speakers for future meetings to the staff.

X. ADJOURNMENT

    The Chair asked for a motion to adjourn. The motion was  moved, seconded, and the meeting
    was adjourned at 4:05 p JD,
                                              Respectfully Submi
                                               .obert L. Hardaker, Acting Director
                                           15

-------
Issue #1

-------
    National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology
          NEW INSIGHT ISSUE
        Presentation and Discussion
               Topic #1
       Permitting and Compliance Policy
        Barriers to U. S. Environmental
           Technology Innovation
            Full Council Meeting
             October 24th, 1990

-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
               AND TECHNOLOGY

          Permitting and Compliance Policy:
             Barriers to U.S. Environmental
                   Technology Innovation
                     Report and Recommendations of the
                         Technology Innovation and
                           Economics Committee
                               October 1990

-------
                                                               DRAFT
                      I.  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY

     Man's continuing challenge to the environment varies with the growth of human
 populations and with changes in economic activity, complexity, and competition. As
 Seemingly finite resources diminish, the pressm* fa satisfy ha$ic human need$ fliyj wants
 creates demand for advanced processes of production. In turn, the need grows for
 advanced scientific gauges of the nature and degree of public health and environmental
 stress, and tor inrravative technological solutions to evolving environmental problems. If
 the rate of technology innovation fo environmental purposes is kss than required, a gap is
 created between our ability to define and target eavironiuental problems, and our ability to
 solve them.

     EPA's emphasis on the measurement of risk and the reduction of •
 significant risks sets an important new standard for the targeting of      .
 environmental protection programs.  Equally, the national capacity  to
 reduce these high priority environmental risks is directly related to our
 ability to produce technological  solutions.

     The rate of technology innovation for environmental purposes thus limits the range of
 policy options available to the-nation's political and environmental leadership. Our
 regulations, administrative processes, permit systems, and enforcement practices are
 directly impacted by the nation's ability to produce innovative technological solutions. In
 turn, these environmental systems impact the rate of technology innovation for
 environmental purposes by fostering or constraining the innovation process.

     The progress we have made over the past 20 years in protecting human health and the
 environment has been enabled by the development and deployment of then-innovative
 technologies for pollution control and pollution prevention. If we are to sustain a balance
 between environmental and economic objectives, technology innovation for environmental
 purposes will have to continue and increase. EPA information shows, however,
 that for at least  the past decade the rate of investment in environmental
 technology development and commercialization has lagged.  This reflects a net
 disincentive, one which persists, for technology innovation for environmental purposes.

     The Technology Innovation and Economics (TIE) Committee of.
 NACEPT concludes that accelerated development and commercialization of
 innovative technology for environmental  purposes is necessary  to improve
 environmental quality and enhance economic productivity.  If we are to receive
 the full benefit of such technology innovation to reduce me risks associated wim ate Mghest
 priority environmental problems, the market dysfunction  symbolized by this
 lagging rate of investment in technology innovation for environmental
 purposes will have to be  addressed  in a number of areas, without losing
 sight of the primary objective of protecting human health and the
 environment  These areas exist both within and outside of the
 environmental regulatory system. It should be recognized that current policies are
 neither helpful nor benign and that the philosophical neutrality of statutes, legislative
 histories, regulatory policy, and regulations is hampering national efforts to both solve
environmental problems and increase economic productivity. The Federal Technology
Transfer Act of 1986 (FTTA), which is as yet underutilized, represents the beginning of a
change to a more helpful governmental role.

-------
                                                              DRAFT


     This document summarizes the TIE  Committee's investigation of the
 impact of two key elements of the environmental regulatory system in the
 United States — permitting and  compliance — on  such technology
 innovation. The TIE Committee has completed an extensive fact finding process which
 gathered information from the segments of society mat have the most at stake. These
 "stakeholders" include regulated communities, regulators (federal, state, and local),
 providers of environmental products and services, the providers' investors, and the
 organized environmental community.

     The TEE Committee concludes that permitting and compliance systems,
 as they function today, discourage all stakeholder groups  from taking the
 risks necessary to develop innovative technologies — .whether for pollution
 prevention or for  pollution control — and to bring them into routine use to
 solve environmental problems.  The Committee concludes that
 uncertainties, costs, and delays associated with the  permitting of tests and
 of early commercial uses of innovative environmental technologies, and the
 unpredictability and inconsistency of enforcement, are significant
 disincentives that  discourage technology  innovation for environmental
 purposes.  These combine to create a high-risk, low-reward situation that
 needs to be rectified if more opportunities for environmental  technology
 innovation are to  be realized for solving environmental problems.

     At the same time,  the TIE Committee has reinforced the notion that the
 environmental statutes and regulations, and their enforcement, "make the
 market" for these very same technologies.  Rigorous enforcement of existing
 regulations and requirements is critical to the realization of already-planned environmental
 progress. Enforcement could be a primary motivator of regulated organizations to comply,
 using conventional and innovative technological solutions.

    This report documents the dysfunction in die marketplace for environmental
 technology and its causes within permitting and compliance systems, and characterizes the
 conceptual framework of permitting and compliance systems mat would best encourage
 environmental innovation. It further recommends specific changes in policy and procedure
 for permitting and compliance programs that will correct the market dysfunction and
 thereby maximize die possibility of technology innovation for environmental purposes.

    The TIE Committee's primary recommendation is that the  Administrator
 of EPA, working  within EPA,  with state  and local agencies, and with the
 Congress, make interrelated improvements in environmental permitting  and
 compliance systems necessary  to foster technology innovation for
 environmental purposes 'within the overriding foal of protecting human
 health and the environment  These recommendations and improvements, which fall
 into five categories, are to:

 1.  Modify permitting  systems to aid the development and testing of
innovative  technologies for environmental purposes.

 1.1 Institute a working system of specialized permits in all media for testing innovative
    technologies for environmental purposes, including

    a.  Permits for specialized testing facilities.
    b.  Permits for testing at other locations.

-------
                                                                 DRAFT


 1.2 Develop a system of dedicated centers for the testing of innovative environmental
     technologies.

 1.3 Develop a system for cross-media and cxpss-jurisdictional coordination of the review
     of permit applications for (a) testing facilities and (b) tests at other locations.

 2.  Implement  permitting processes that aid  the commercial introduction of
 innovative  technologies for environmental purposes.

 2.1 Increase the flexibility of permitting processes involved in introducing environmentally
     beneficial technologies into commercial use.

 2.2 Streamline the process of reviews of permit applications for newly introduced
     innovative technologies that have environmental benefit, coordinate their review, and
     afford them high priority.

 2.3 Assure national consistency in the consideration of proposed uses of innovative
     technologies, subject to site-specific limitations.

 2.4 Institute a system of incentives for users of innovative technologies.

 3.  Use  compliance programs to encourage the  use of innovative
 technologies  to solve  environmental problems.

 3.1  Modify environmental compliance programs to create an expectation of the need to
     comply.  This is necessary to create markets for innovative technology.

 3.2  EPA and state agencies should practice and encourage flexibility in the choice of
     remedies during enforcement actions, aiming at encouraging the use of innovative
     technologies under appropriate circumstances.

 3.3  EPA, state agencies, and other regulatory authorities should institute mechanisms to
     increase coordination in compliance programs across the media and across
    jurisdictional lines.

 4.  Support regulators and other involved communities to maximize the
 effectiveness of improvements  recommended  in  permitting  and compliance
 systems.

 4.1 Institute a system of incentives, training, and support to retain experienced federal and
    state permit writers who participate in permitting decisions involving the testing or
    early commercial use of innovative environmental technologies.

 4.2 Institute a system of incentives, training, and support to retain experienced federal and
    state inspectors and compliance staff who participate in decisions involving
    innovative environmental technologies.

4.3 Provide support to prospective innovative technology permittees (including technology
    developers and technology users).

4.4 Emphasize the role of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) as
    consultant to federal, state, and local government permit writers and inspectors to
    provide information on innovative technologies for environmental purposes.

-------
                                                                DRAFT
 4.5 Institute systems to provide the public with information and support related to the
     testing and use of innovative environmental technology.

 5.  Identify and remove  regulatory obstacles which create unnecessary
 inflexibility and uncertainty or otherwise inhibit technology innovation for
 environmental  purposes.

 5.1 The Administrator should revise delisting regulations under RCRA Subtitle C to allow
     process-specific, rather man site-specific, delisting decisions.

 5.2 The Administrator should revise the hazardous waste (RCRA Subtitle Q regulations to
     include special provisions for small quantity generator hazardous wastes, taking into
     account their unique case.

 5.3 The Administrator should clarify a number of definitions of terms of art under RCRA.

 5.4 The Administrator should revise regulations to direct permits to describe the
     performance requirements of the technology on which they are based, but not to
     prescribe a specific technology.

 5.5 The Administrator should direct that users of mobile treatment  units (MTUs) be
     exempt from HSWA Corrective Action triggers and further mat EPA allow national,
     regional, and state permits for MTUs, with an opportunity for local community input
     and for consideration of site-specific factors.

 5.6 The Administrator should direct that RCRA land ban treatment standards based on
     incineration as BDAT should not automatically be applied to all site remediation
     technologies.


     The TIE Committee has also concluded that fundamental changes to the
 environmental regulatory  system will  be needed  to  create  incentives
 encouraging the  environmental technology innovation process.  It is
 important to be clear that the measures recommended in  this document  will
 not fully solve all of the fundamental  problems leading to a market
 dysfunction and  an unsatisfactory rate of technology innovation for
 environmental purposes. These problems derive from the way the central approach to
 regulation in the United States — "best available technology"-based regulations — is
 frequently used today. Policy makers should reconsider the current reliance on this
 approach, remove rigidity, and create opportunities to develop and use innovative
 technologies. To do this, they should revise regulatory processes to create an incentive
structure that fosters technology innovation and, more broadly, encourages each
stakeholder group to contribute to the search for solutions to environmental problems. A
systematic analysis of the motivations - economic and otherwise —  of each stakeholder
group will be necessary to design a complementary set of effective improvements.

    The " Report and Recommendations" includes five major sections:

    • Section I  is this  Executive  Summary.

    • Section n, the "Introduction," outlines the "Background" for the
      report and the "TIE Committee's Goals and Process."

-------
                                                     DRAFT
Section III contains the "Findings" that underpin the TIE
Committee's rationale for its recommendations to strengthen
permitting and compliance systems, and to identify and remove
regulatory glitches that impede technology innovation.

Section IV describes the  Committee's  "Rationale for System
Changes" — its analysis of the key issues  surrounding  the
relationship between technology innovation for environmental
purposes and  permitting  and compliance systems.

Section V, Recommendations for Action and Commentary," includes
an "Executive Summary of Recommendations"  and the  "Detailed
Recommendations for Action and Commentary". This  final section
provides a listing of each of the recommendations and
subrecommendations and analyzes each.

-------
    National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology
         NEW INSIGHT ISSUE
        Presentation and Discussion
               Topic #2
       Accounting for the Environment:
       Reaching a Common Framework
            Full Council Meeting
             October 24th, 1990

-------
Issue #2

-------
      NACEPT  ISSUE  DISCUSSION-BACKGROUND  PAPER


                      Accounting for the Environment:
                      Reaching a Common Framework

        Integrating environmental degradation and natural resource depletion into national
 and global economic accounting mechanisms is the focus of a mainstream debate over the
 relationship between economics and the environment A subject long discussed by
 economists, the issue has become a major conference theme during tile last few years.  It
 was spurred on by the Brundtland Report, which called for far-ranging international
 economic action for environmental protection, and by the leadership of the United Nations
 in reaching international agreements such as the Montreal Protocol

        The NACEPT panel of speakers, chaired by John O'Connor, Chief of the
 Socioeconomic Data Division at the World Bank, will present an overview of key issues
 surrounding the debate for the Council This will be followed by a discussion with the
 Council.

        The panel speakers represent three of the major sectors taking part in the debate.
 Dr. Carol Carson, Deputy Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department
 of Commerce, will discuss the opportunities and barriers connected with integrating
 environment into the GNP of the United States. Dr. Robert Repetto, Senior Economist and
 Program Director for the World Resources Institute, noted for his bold reassessment of
 traditional national income accounting methods, will discuss the issues surrounding that
 approach. Finally, Dr. Robert Costanza, Associate Professor, University of Maryland,
 will address the view of the ecological community and its conflicts in bridging the gap
 between economist's valuation approaches and its own needs  and values.

 Background

        There are many ecological dynamics that cannot be quantified by traditional
 economic means. However, these same dynamics affect and are affected by economic
 activity.

        Given the difficulties in "folding" environmental factors into an assessment of
 economic activity, economists, historically, have relegated the study of environmental
 degradation as an "externality" or a "tragedy of the commons." They have tended to view
 its destruction as unquantifiable, and therefore, impossible to assess in an economic sense.

        Ecologists~on the other hand-traditionally have underscored the premise that
 economic development and ecological sustainability are mutually exclusive phenomena. As
 a result of the different approaches to what—for all intents and purposes—is the same issue,
 both economics and ecologists have tended to end up ignoring—or at best, overly
 discounting-each other's viewpoints.

        Both groups are attempting to develop a common conceptual framework where the
relationship between environmental degradation and economic activity can be observed,
assessed, and evaluated. With a common framework, public policymakers could base
economic and resource allocation decisions on broader, more complete models which
would account for both environmental and economic dynamics.

                                                                        —com.—

-------
Accounting for the Environment—2
NACEPT Discussion


       The purpose of this panel presentation and discussion is to have NACEPT, with its
diverse sectoral and disciplinary representation, focus on the issues it considers key in an
environmental world that includes business and industry, academia, local government and
the international community—many of which have been absent from this debate.

       Questions die Council could consider include:

       •How does this seemingly academic debate effect the business and industry sector?

       •How has the current definition used by national governments created limitations
for environmental solutions?

       •Should current models be thrown out completely to work more effectively for the
sectors they impact?

       •What are the implications of this debate on U.S. and international environmental
policy?

-------
THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
  EDUCATION AND TRAINING
 FOUNDATION: A RATIONALE
                   AUGUST 1990

-------
                    THE NATIONAL  ENVIRONMENTAL
              EDUCATION AND TRAINING  FOUNDATION:
             CREATING A PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP

         This paper provides background on die problems and the search for solutions leading
      to the establishment of the National Environmental Education and Training Foundation.
 The  Problem:

    Over the past decade, the American public has witnessed the unravelling of its three most
 critical and cherished systems: the environment, the economy and education. We have diligently
 struggled to right each of these separate sectors, but with little success.  Only recently have we
 begun to recognize that .these three — the environment, the economy and education  — arc
 inextricably-connected an(l must be addressed together.  These linkages are embodied in the
 concept of ''sustainabl&deveippmcnti" that Is, development that meets the needs of the present
 without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs.

    Environmentally, from the pollution of the deepest ground water supplies to the depletion of the
 protective ozone layer of the upper atmosphere, threats to the fragile system which supports life as
 we know it on this planet are quickly outstripping our ability to address them. Economically, we
 have come to realize that the United States no longer holds the wide lead in the global economic
 market we once took for granted. As our own natural resource supply becomes tighter, and the
 costs of pollution control eat away at profit margins, we find ourselves simply one competitor
 among many in the world market.  We must now sharpen our wits and our production processes to
 compete successfully.

    To make matters worse, our current scientific and technical workforce is reaching retirement
 age just at the same time that our education system is  least able to insure quality replacements.
 Within our educational institutions, student interest and capability in science, mathematics and
 engineering are dwindling.  Increasing numbers of our colleges and universities are becoming
 dependent upon foreign students and faculty.  While in one sense, this can be seen as a cultural
 benefit, it also means that  dollars  invested in education here often are reaping their results
 elsewhere. Even our primary and secondary education systems are suffering. Studies have shown
 that in the areas of math,  science and engineering, our students are no longer competitive with
 those in other industrialized nations.  In fact, in a recent report, the United States scored on a par
 with Third World countries in those subjects, a sobering note.

   We are dealing here with the bedrock of our societal systems — the environment, the economy
 and education.  Saving any one of them requires saving them all  The task is a formidable one,
 perhaps the greatest  one facing this nation since its inception.  We need leadership at the highest
 levels,  committing this country, in the next decade and beyond, to environmentally sustainable
 development


The Search for Solutions:

   As a key part of its cooperative environmental management effort, in 1988 the United States
Environmental Protection Agency  (EPA) established the  National Advisory Council for

                                   1

-------
   wational Environemntal
Education & Trng Foundation

-------
  generation, management and disposal.  Such reform will depend on the  availability of an
  environmentally astute  and well-trained  workforce, and we must  focus on assuring their
  availability.

     Finally, fundamental changes must be made in our underlying societal attitudes and values.
  Such fundamental changes come about slowly, and necessarily involve the education and
  sensitizing of our young people. To achieve this goal means involving teachers, administrators,
  textbook publishers, as well as mothers and fathers, and requires a long-term, dedicated effort at
  the community level. In brief, what is needed is a national and, ultimately, an international
  mission, implemented at the grass-roots level —  that is —Think globally, act locally!"


  The Need to Network

    Through its extensive research, the  Committee also found that a tremendous amount of
  information and quality environmental education and training resources already exists. Materials,
  courses and programs have been created by universities, public interest groups, environmental
  organizations, businesses and industries, and state, local and Federal government agencies. The
  best of these incorporate excellent strategies, use interesting materials that span many non-
  technical subject areas, provide hands-on real-life application of the knowledge acquired,
  emphasize problem-solving, train teachers to use resources, and follow up with continuing
  training and support  Entire curricula have been developed addressing many of the current
  environmental issues and problems.

    Unfortunately, with few exceptions,  communication and coordination among the various
  developers and providers of environment-related infonnatipn are scarce or totally lacking. There
  is no clearinghouse or catalogue of these materials, no nationwide contact lists, and no network
  through which these important contributors to the environmental education and training system
  can keep in touch. Lacking an adequate communication system, these providers themselves are
  often unaware of excellent work already created on a particular subject, and go on to develop
  redundant programs. This results in a substantial waste of scarce resources, both of dollars and
  of the time and energy of the developers.

    Additionally, the lack of an effective network impacts the potential audience or client for
  existing materials. There is virtually no way for a teacher, a local elected official, or a production
  line  supervisor in industry to find out what courses, classes, or curricula might be available to
  him/her. Access is hit or miss, and the effort required to locate information is sometimes nearly
  equal to the effort required to recreate it

    Given the wealth of available information, the scarcity of funds, the need to avoid reinventing
  the wheel, and the availability of low cost, user-friendly electronic communications technologies,
  environmental education and training resource identification and sharing must be a goal

    The  Environmental  Education and Training Committee of  NACEPT  identified the
 institutionalization  of a national, and ultimately an international,  network  for environmental
 education and training providers  as  a high priority need. To be effective, a national and
 international environmental education and training initiative would have to involve and connect all
 the players, including universities, training centers, corporations, museums, civic organizations,
 local elected officials, public and private school systems, environmental organizations, as well as
 government entities, acknowledging the valuable contributions and special skills of each in the
 overall success of the effort.

    This network will require an easily recognizable national point of access which would serve as
 the "hub" for the wheel of resource centers, facilitating the "partnering" of the multiple developers,
providers and clients. This "hub" would provide the broad range of environmental education and
 training institutions with a communications infrastructure,  with national and international

-------
  visibility, consistent access to high quality technical information resources, and the funding
  potential necessary to "seed" new and innovative ideas, and to implement, evaluate, replicate and
  disseminate successful projects and programs globally. Out of this recognition of the need for and
  the potential for such an institution was bom the concept of the National Environmental Education
  and Training Foundation.


  The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation: A Public/Private
  Partnership

     Despite almost universal acknowledgement of their value in affecting necessary changes in
  individual and organizational behavior, environmental education and training have historically been
  undervalued, and therefore underfunded across the public sector institutions, at all levels. In part,
  this has been true because very little immediate, measurable result was identified to justify capital
  and personnel resource outlay. In addition, large bureaucracies such as government institutions are
  more often than not caught up in attending to the "immediate crisis." Longer-term projects which
  have more "out-year" value rather than generate instant results are difficult to maintain  through
  multiple budget cycles, let alone across changes in government administrations. For such reasons,
  government/public sector funding for environmental education and training has been sporadic and
  insufficient to the task.  A prime example of this was the 1970 version of the National
  Environmental Education Act, which was supposed to be funded at some $15 million per year, but
  actually received less than $4 million a year for three years and then was "zeroed out" entirely.
 Despite these shortcomings, however, the "public will" expressed  through government approval
  and attention brings a unique focus and collective strength to the actions of individuals.

     In contrast, private sector businesses and industrial entities have been steadily increasing their
 funding of local, regional and  sometimes even national environmental education  and training
 projects. This may be, in part,  a function of their greater level of control over their own budget
 processes.   However, as several representatives  of corporations have told the NACEPTs
 Environmental Education and  Training Committee there is a connection between economic
 competitiveness of companies and their ability to run a "clean production process" (Le., less profit
 having to be diverted to waste treatment and disposal costs, long-term liability insurance, loss of
 production due to  worker illness due from  toxic exposure, etc.). For these forward-thinking
 companies, it "pays" to invest in the education and training of a workforce which will then value
 and implement a cleaner, and therefore more profitable, production process. Here, then, in the
 private sector, mere are individual instances of excellent ideas and actions, which while worthy in
 themselves, require a public platform from which they might provide example and inspiration.

    It became evident to the Committee that only a marriage of these two sectors, public and
 private, will provide the strong and effective base from which to operate a national/international,
 long-term, creative, and well-financed environmental education and training program. The
 Committee  formally recommended the creation of  the National Environmental Education and
 Training Foundation.


 Exploring  Existing  Models

    In its research,  the Committee was made aware of an existing public/private partnership
 associated with the U.S. Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service.  An extremely
 creative non-profit foundation was created by Federal statute, the board of directors of which,
 while appointed by  the Secretary of the Interior using statutorily pro-specified criteria, brought
 together highly prominent and effective members of the public and private sectors with an interest
 in and a will to act on behalf of fish and wildlife preservation, conservation and management This
 "National Fish and Wildlife Foundation," as a non-profit, tax exempt organization, has the
authority to receive both public and private funding, and to partner the best efforts of interested and
affected parties in very effective jointly created and  jointly funded programs and projects. The

-------
 foundation, while only four years old , has enjoyed resounding success, winning praise from both
 the Congress and the Executive Branch; so much so that the foundation's original mandate has
 been broadened to include international efforts among other new programs, and its spending
 ceiling has been raised.

       Given the success of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the desire to create a
 true public/private partnership to foster environmental education and training, a determination was
 made to use the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation as a model to establish the new National
 Environmental Education and Training Foundation. The Foundation has been incorporated and will
 receive its Federal charter with passage of JLR. 3684, the National Environmental Education Act
 of 1990.  [Full text of this legislation is enclosed.]

   The EPA, other Federal Government agencies, the United States Congress and  the private
 sector have responded enthusiastically to this concept, and the process is well underway. With the
 strong support and commitment of each of us, the National Environmental Education and Training
Foundation can become a unique and effective tool. With it, we can "change the world."

-------
                                          NACEPT
            ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMITTEE

                                       DRAFT AGENDA

                                       October 23,1990

                                       The Madison Hotel
                                       15th and M Sts. NW
                                       Washington, DC
   8:30  -  8:45 A.M.  Welcome and Introduction of Members and Contributors
                     Dr. William Hendee, Chairman

   8:45  -  9:00 A.M.  Approval of March 27,1990 Committee Minutes

   9:00  -  10:30 P.M  Update: Ongoing Projects based on 1990 Recommendations
                     1.  National Environmental Education Foundation— Mr. Robert Herbst/
                           Ms. Kate Connors (Foundation and Legislative Update)
                     2.  Alliance for Environmental Education/TV A—Mr. John Paulk
                           (Environmental Education Center Network Expansion)
                     3.  Management Institute for Environment and Business— Mr. Matt Arnold
                           (Environmental Literacy in the Business Community)

    10:30 -  12:00      Discussion: Environmental Literacy—Is it an attainable goal??
                     1. Pollution Prevention Focus Group—Dr. Anthony Cortese
                           (Pollution Prevention Task Force and University Presidents Roundtable)
                     2. Environment and Economics Focus Group— Dr. Erhard Joeres
                           (Consumer Education issues and Labelling Conference)
                     3. Environmental Health Focus Group— Dr. William Hendee
                           (Conference on Behavioral Change)
                  Discussion: How do we mobilize target audiences for action??
                     1. Urban/minorities Environmental Education— Ms. Lolette Guthrie/Rory Verrett
                           (A study with recommendations: where do we go from here?)
                     2. Student environmental education and outreach — Ms. Beth Binns/Brad Crabtree
                           (Ecomedia, SEAC, a Green Youth Corps)
   12:00 -  1:00 P.M.   LUNCH

   1:00  -  4:45 P.M.   Discussion continued:  Mobilization of Target Audiences
                     3. The Senior (Older American—Over 50) Community— Dr. John Grupenhoff
                           (Senior Environment Corps)
                     Discussion: Tactics: Present and Future
 	                  1. New Recommendations and Next Steps

llr:45 P.M.          Concluding Remarks
 II 5:00 P.M.          Adjournment

-------
NACEPT EDUCATION AND TRAINING
October 1990 Member and Contributor List
MEMBERS
                                      Dr. William T. Engel, Jr.
Dr. Howard G. Adams                  Director
Executive Director                      South Carolina Environmental Training
National Consortium for Graduate         Center
 Degrees for Minorities in Engineering, Inc. 506 N. Guignard Drive
P.O. Box 537                          Sumter Area Technical College
Notre Dame, IN 46556                  Sumter, SC 29150-2499
219/239-7183                          803/778-1961 FAX 803/773-4859

Dr. David Allen                        Mr. David Engleson
Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering Supervisor for Environmental Education
Room 5331, Boelter Hall                 Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
University of California-Los Angeles       PO Box 7841
Los Angeles, CA 90024                 Madison, WI 53707-7841
213/825-2046 FAX                     608/267-9266
Dr. John J. Boland
Professor of Geography and Environmental
Engineering
The Johns Hopkins University
Baltimore, MD 21218
301/338-7103

Dr. Kofi B. Bota
Vice President for Research and
 Sponsored Programs
Clark Atlanta University
223 James P. Brawley Drive SW
Atlanta, GA  30314-4391
404/880-8595

Dr. Quincalee Brown
Executive Director
Water Pollution Control Federation
601 Wythe Street
Alexandria, VA  22314-1994
703/684-2400 FAX 703/684-2492

Dr. Anthony Cortese
Director
Center for Environmental Management
Tufts University
Curtis Hall
474 Boston Avenue
Meford,MA  02155
617/381-3486 FAX 617/381-3084
Dr, Robert L. Ford
Director
Center for Energy and Environmental Studies
Southern University
14061 Derby Street
Baton Rouge, LA 70816
504/771-3723

Dr. William R. Hendee, Chair
Vice President
Science and Technology
American Medical Association
535 N. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL  60610
312/464-5334 FAX 312/464-5841

Mr. Robert L. Herbst, Co-Chair
Executive Director
Trout Unlimited
501 Church Street North East
Vienna, VA 22180
703/281-1100 FAX 703/281-1825

Dr. Erhard F. Joeres, Co-Chair
Chair, Water Resources Management
Program
Institute for Environmental Studies
1269 Engineering Building
University of Wisconsin—Madison
Madison, WI 53706
608/262-3883 FAX 608/262-6707

-------
Gail Mayville
Director of Environmental Awareness
Ben and Jerry's, Inc.
Route 100 Box 240
Waterbury.VT  05676
(802)244-5641 ext 215

Mr. Jeffrey M. Moritz
President
NCTV
114 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY  10011
212/689-0088 FAX 212/689-4121

Mr. Martin E. Rivers
Executive Vice President
Air and Waste Management Association
Three Gateway Center, Four West
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
412/232-3444 FAX412-255-3632 OR 3832

Dr. Brad Smith
Professor of Environmental Studies
Delta College
6 Lexington Street
Midland, MI 48640
517/686-9259 FAX517/686-8736

Miss Beth Turner
Environmental Consultant
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, Inc.
Past President, WPCF
P.O. Box 80721
Wilmington, DE 19880-0721
302/999-5277 FAX 302/366-4123

Mr. William Willis
Chief Operating Officer and
 Executive Vice President
ET 12B16B
TVA
400 Summit Hill Drive
Knoxvbille, TN  37902-1499
NACETT COMMITTEE CONTRIBUTORS

Mr. Matt Arnold
Management Institute for Environment and
Business
PO Box 12208
Arlington, VA 22209
 703/535-1133 FAX 703/247-8343

 Mr. Tom Benjamin
 Alliance for Environmental Education
 10751 Ambassador Drive
 Suite 201
 Manassas.VA 22110
 703/335-1816 FAX 703/631-1651

 Beth Binns
 ECO-Media
 PO Box 3123
 St. Augustine, FL 32085
 (904)826-0421 FAX(904) 826-0325

 Mr. Joel Charm
 Director, Product Safety and Integrity
 Allied Signal Corporation
 Morristown, NJ 07960
 (201)455-4057 FAX (201)455-4835

 Ms. Kate Connors
 Executive Director
 National Environmental Education and
 Training Foundation
 (703)247-8316

 Dr. Laurence Evans
 President, Laurence Evans & Assoc.
 SPARK Environment Industry Champion
 3658 Loraine Ave.
 North Vancouver, BC
 CANADA V7R 4B8

 A.J. Grant, President
 (Sending Bruce White)
 Environmental Communication Associates,
 Inc.
 1881 9th. Street
 Suite 200
 Boulder, CO  80302
 303/444-1428 FAX 303/444-9128

 Mr. Joel Hirschhorn
 President - EnviroSearch- East
 2400 Virginia Ave, NW
: Suite  103
 Washington, DC  20037

 Mr. Lynn M. Hodges
 Program Manager, Environmental Education
 Tennessee Valley Authority
 Forestry Building
 Norris,TN 37828
 615/632-1640 FAX 615/632-1612

-------
Dr. George Hulsey, Chairman
National Wildlife Federation
502 South Crawford
Norman, Oklahoma 73069
405/329-2333

Mr. Steven C. Kussmann
President
The Alliance for Environmental Education
2111 Wilson Blvd.
Suite 751
Arlington, VA  22201
703/841-8670 FAX 703/631-1651

Bob Johnson-Y(Beth O'Toole)
Executive Vice President
Air and Waste Management Association
Three Gateway Center, Four West
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
412/232-3444 FAX412-255-3632OR3832

Alan Kay
American Talks Security
83 Church Street
Unit 17
Winchester, MA 01890
617/721-0266

Mr. Mort Mullins
Director of Governmental Affairs
Monsanto Corp.
700 24th. Street Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005
202/783-2460 FAX 202/783-2468

John Paulk
TVA
LB IN 100C-K
415 Walnut Street
Knoxville,TN  37902-1499
615/632-3474 FAX 615/632-2291

Mr. Winfred Peterson, Pres/CEO
Metcalf and Eddy Services
30 Harvard Mill Square
PO Box 4043
Woburn.MA  01888-4043
617/245-8200 FAX 617/246-4621

Ms. Susan Prestwich, Acting Director
Educational Program Development
Office of Environmental Restoration and
 Waste Management, EM-521
US Department of Energy
12800 Middlebrook Road, Suite
Germantown, MD 20874
301/427-1685

Mr. C.L. Richardson
Executive Director
The National Environmental Training
    Association
8687 Via de Ventura
Suite 214
Scottsdale, AZ 85258
602/951-1440 FAX 602/483-0083

Mr. Jack Taub
Chairman of the Board
The National Information and Education
    Utility Corporation
2041 Gallows Tree Court
Vienna, VA  22180
703/893-3237

Dr. Lynn M. Waishwell
Associate Professor
Director, Health Education Program
103 Moulton Hall
Normal, Illinois 61761-6901
(309) 438-8329

EXPERTS

Ms. Ann Chabot
Center for Environmental Management
Curtis Hall
Tufts University
Medford,MA  02155
617/391-3531

Dr. John Grupenhoff
Grupenhoff Communications, Inc.
6410 Rockledge Dr., Suite 203
Bethesda,MD  20817
(301) 571-9790     FAX (301) 530-8910

Mr. Gary Heath
Specialist in Environmental Education
Maryland State Department of Education
200 West Baltimore Street
5th Floor-Division of Instruction
Baltimore, MD 21201
(301)333-2318 FAX (301)333-2379

Sue Kemnitzer
Deputy Dir. Infrastructure Division
National Science Foundation
Washington, DC  20550
202/786-9631  FAX 202/786-9652

-------
Environmental Education
and Training Committee

-------
          NACEPT EDUCATION AND TRAINING  COMMITTEE

      IMPLEMENTATION TO DATE OF 1990 RECOMMENDATIONS



RECOMMENDATION 1:

Recommend that the EPA Administrator request that President Bush
announce a " call to action" for effective environmental education and
training in the United States, to serve as a global role  model for sustainable
development balanced with  economic  competitiveness.

ELEMENT:

Expand the visibility of the importance of environmental education and training.

IMPLEMENTATION TO DATE:

•  The proposed bill to elevate the Environmental Protection Agency to full cabinet status,
   thereby expanding its mandate beyond regulation to include environmental education
   and training is still pending. NACEPT members and contributors commend this effort
   and have gone on record in support of this bill.

•  The National Environmental Education Act is still pending. NACEPT members and
   contributors commend this effort as well and have gone on record in support of this bill
   in its final House form which includes language supporting a National Environmental
   Education and Training Foundation.

ACTION STEPS FOR THE  FUTURE:

•  President Bush and Administrator Reilly should issue a statement in support of
   environmental education and training and indicate EPA's lead responsibility in
   promoting environmental education and training activities at the Federal level.

   -  This statement could coincide with the announcement of the passage of the Bill to
      elevate the EPA to full cabinet status.

•  Mr. Reilly should announce the creation of an EPA Office of Environmental Education
   and training at the time of the announcement of the passage of The National
   Environmental Education Act. He should further articulate EPA's view that
   environmental education is a key element in the management of all environmental
   programs.


RECOMMENDATION 2:

Recommend that the EPA Administrator redefine the Agency's mission  to
encompass a  broad environmental education and training  mandate to
emphasize the importance of national and international networks to address
the following issues:

-------
   a.  Improvement  of teacher training, curriculum development and public
       participation.

   b.  Coordination  of environmental training institutions to increase the
       quality and quantity of environmental professionals.

   c.  Empowerment of the environmental education and training
       institutions in  these  networks through  the use  of interactive
       electronic  technologies.

ELEMENT:

Expand the Agency's mission to include environmental education and training networks as
an essential tool for environmental protection.

IMPLEMENTATION TO DATE:

•  Currently joint efforts are underway with EPA, TVA, The Alliance for Environmental
   Education, other Federal Agencies and other interested organizations to expand this
   network effort. AEE has reported that 55 centers have joined so far and they have
   working agreements with EPA, DOD, TVA, and OECD as well as regional
   governmental agencies. Initial efforts are underway to obtain a working agreement
   with DOE. The network is expected to include 100 centers across the nation  by 1991.

•  Currently joint efforts are underway with ECO-Media and The Management Institute
   for Environment and Business (MIEB) to improve environmental education networks
   within the college student community. Eco-Media is a non-profit Delaware
   Corporation, incorporated in December 1989 whose mission is to address the urgent
   environmental problems of this decade by working with media to foster a new
   environmental ethic on our nation's college campuses. Eco-Media will create a
   comprehensive communications campaign aimed at America's 14 million college
   students to enhance  their environmental literacy and knowledge of what students can do
   to become responsible environmental citizens. The MIEB is a non-profit Delaware
   Corporation, designed to offer curriculum development assistance to business
   educators, and provide training to corporations on such issues as organizational change
   and environmental management, environmental auditing, environmental performance
   assessment, etc. in order to assist business educators to integrate environmental issues
   into their curricula.

ACTION STEPS FOR THE FUTURE:

•  EPA should expand joint national and international efforts with EPA, TVA, The
   Alliance for Environmental Education, other Federal Agencies and other interested
   organizations which have environmental education and training centers to continue the
   expansion of a national and international network of environmental education  and
   training centers and efforts.

•  To reinforce the Agency's commitment to global environmental education and training,
   the EPA Administrator should include references to the importance of global networks
   and partnerships in the Agency's new mission statement.

•  EPA should build into its internal strategic planning a system of planning and
   coordination with other agencies and organizations which are actively involved in
   environmental education and training.

-------
RECOMMENDATION 3:

Recommend that an Office of Environmental Education and Training be
established within EPA's Office of the Administrator to  provide [both
national and international]* leadership in environmental stewardship.

a. The functions of this Office  should include:

   1) Development of a National Environmental Education and Training
      Policy.

   2) An associated short and  long-term implementation plan.

   3) An annual report on national  (and international)* environmental
      literacy and behavior,

b. Creation of a national public/private  foundation  to fund environmental
   education and  training.

c. Convene annual  roundtables  with national (and international)* leaders
   of industry and  business, government, academia, professional
   associations,  training  centers, the media, environmental  and public
   interest groups, minority groups, religious  organizations  and other
   appropriate groups to address, synergistically, the imperative for a
   national environmental  ethic.
ELEMENT:

Place the Office of Environmental Education where it can positively impact the strategic
planning, pollution prevention programming and cross-media decision making of the
Agency.


IMPLEMENTATION TO DATE:

•  Currently S-1076 has been favorably heard in the Senate. The House introduced a
   companion bill, HR-3684, The National Environmental Education Act, which has
   passed the full House of Representatives in an amended form.  Currently staffs are
   meeting to negotiate these language differences.

•  The National Environmental Education and Training Foundation is now incorporated as
   a non-profit and its status as a 501-(c)(3) is pending. Its Board of Directors is nearly
   complete, legislation to provide a Federal charter and an annual appropriation is before
   Congress, and EPA and its sister Federal agencies will be providing seed money for
   start-up.

   -  OCEM has given over 1 FTE and is providing seed grant money to (NEETF).
      OCEM is currently pursuing office space to be approved and supported by EPA
      following approval of the legislation; staffing will be provided through OCLA.

-------
•   In October an international University Presidents Roundtable will be held held in
    France which will address the inclusion of environmental literacy issues at the post-
    secondary level.  This is being supported by a $27,000 EPA grant.

ACTION STEPS FOR THE FUTURE:

•   An Office of Environmental Education be placed within EPA in a highly visible
    location, other than the Office of Communications and Public Affairs, where it will be
    viewed in a context broader than only as an element of public relations and
    communications.  In order to be viewed as a high priority of the Administrator, an
    Office of Environmental Education must be located in an office which sends the
    Administrator's signal to incorporate education and training strategies to all of the
    programs of the agency. NACEPT therefore urges that the new Office of
    Environmental Education be placed under a Presidentially appointed Assistant
    Administrator in the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Administration and
    Resources Management, or Research and Development.

 •  The concept of environmental education be viewed as an important tool to be woven
    into the fabric of EPA and that it must go beyond K-12 to include university, graduate
    and professional schools and continuing education and training programs.

 •  EPA's Environmental Education Task Force complete the development of a strategic
    plan for the proposed Office of Environmental Education which addresses these issues
    in a holistic and integrated manner.

    -  OCEM and NACEPT have participated in reviewing and critiquing this plan, and
      will continue to do so as requested.

•  Support future national Roundtables to address  environmental literacy in institutions of
   higher learning including, a US University Presidents Roundtable, and Roundtables for
   College and for Technical and Community College leaders.

•   Address in its environmental education and training plan how to positively impact the
    environmental education needs of the minority/urban.

•   Support joint efforts with other agencies and organizations to address the need for
    effective environmental health  education, and  to implement an  effective public
    environmental education campaign similar to non-smoking or public safety campaigns.
RECOMMENDATION 4:

Recommend that the EPA assume a  leadership  role in coordinating
environmental education and  training activities among federal and state
agencies  and departments.

ELEMENT:

Through the proposed Office of Environmental Education and Training, increase
communication and coordination among federal and state environmental education and
training offices

-------
IMPLEMENTATION TO DATE:

•  An initial meeting of representatives of 12 Federal Agencies and Departments involved
   in environmental education was held to begin partnership building. Enthusiasm is high
   for cooperative efforts.

•  Language has been inserted into the Environmental Education Act which would make
   federal interagency communication an integral function of the proposed Office of
   Environmental Education.

ACTION STEPS FOR THE FUTURE:

•  Develop a synopsis of what Federal Departments and Agencies are doing.

   -  OCEM provided support to CEQ which wrote a report assessing Federal
      environmental education activities and strategies.

•  Convene federal departments and agencies which carry out environmental education
   and training efforts in a new ongoing communication and coordination process.

•  Convene the States in a cooperative process of building coordinated environmental
   education and training activities.


RECOMMENDATION 5:

Recommend that EPA Administrator develop a strategic  plan  for a long-term
public education program to encourage environmental responsibility.


ELEMENT:

The EPA Administrator should initiate the development of a strategic plan which would
address environmental education from a broad perspective including k-12, post secondary
education institutions, technical colleges, and professional education and training efforts.

IMPLEMENTATION TO DATE:

 •  A preliminary effort at developing a strategic plan for environmental education and
   training has been undertaken by members of the Agency's Office of Education Task
   Force. This strategy has been reviewed by OCEM and the NACEPT  EET Committee.
   Our understanding is that that because of negative reactions from Public Affairs
   reviewers, among others, this strategy has been withdrawn and is being rewritten and
   is scheduled to be complete in September.

ACTION STEPS FOR THE FUTURE:

 •  Create a high level working group to monitor the development of a strategic plan. This
   group could be comprised of 2-3 AAs, RAs, DAAs, or DRAs, plus members of the
   NACEPT Education and Training Committee who have contacts with environmental
   education and training institutions.

-------
          NACEPT EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMITTEE

                       NEW MEMBER BIOGRAPHIES
 DR. DAVID T. ALLEN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
 DEPARTMENT OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES

       Dr. Allen's research focuses on the characterization, kinetics and thermodynamics of
 mixtures containing hundreds to thousands of components, particularly fuels, air pollutants and
 hazardous wastes.  He has taught a variety of undergraduate and graduate courses including
 pollution control technology.  Dr. Allen has served as a consultant to several private firms, and he is
 a member of the American Institute for Pollution Prevention (U.S. EPA).  He has authored two
 books, many papers and is developing pollution prevention curricula for engineering students.


 DR. JOHN J. BOLAND, PROFESSOR
 DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
 THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
 BALTIMORE, MD.

       A faculty member at Johns Hopkins, Dr. Boland is a professor in the Dept. of Geography
 and Environmental Engineering, a lecturer in the G.W.C. Whiting School of Engineering and a
 faculty associate at the Institute for Policy Studies.  He was also a visiting professor at the
 University of New South Wales, Australia and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel.  Dr.
 Boland has conducted sponsored research for many state and federal agencies, and he has worked
 extensively as a consultant to private firms and municipal, state, national and international agencies.


 DR. KOFI B. BOTA.PROFESSOR
 DEPARTMENT OF CHEMISTRY
 CLARK ATLANTA UNIVERSITY
 ATLANTA, GEORGIA

       Dr. Bota is currently Vice President for Research and Sponsored Programs and a professor
 of Chemistry at Vice President for Research and Sponsored Programs at Clark Atlanta University,
 formerly Atlanta University.   During his tenure at Clark Atlanta University, he has devoted his
 energies to the growth of research  in  energy technologies, third world development, and
 environmental science and technology programs. Dr. Bota is active with issues concerning
 minority students and Historically Black Colleges and Universities and is currently director of the
 HBCU-MI Consortium. He has served as a consultant to U.S. AID, U.S. DOE, UNEP, UNDP
 and Volunteers in Technical Assistance (VITA).


 MR. DAVID C. ENGLESON, CONSULTANT
 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
 WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
MADISON, WISCONSIN

      Mr. Engleson has served as an environmental education consultant to the Wisconsin
Department of Public Instruction since 1967. In addition, he is an adjunct associate professor at the
University of Wisconsin's College of Natural Resources at Stevens Point and provides professional
services to the Wisconsin Environmental Education Board. Mr. Engleson is an author and editor of

-------
 many papers and books on environmental education, and he has acted as a consultant, coordinator
 and participant in many environmental education initiatives and conferences.


 DR. ROBERT L. FORD, DIRECTOR
 CENTER FOR ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
 SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY
 BATON ROUGE, LA

       A professor of Chemistry at Southern University, Dr. Ford is director of the Center for
 Energy and Environmental Studies and a marketing consultant for the NASA Industrial Applications
 Center.   Among  many  professional  activities, he  has  worked  as  a  curriculum
 developer.environmental writer,  computer applications consultant, environmental trainer and
 environmental consultant Dr. Ford has worked throughout his career on issues which concern
 Historically Black Colleges and Universities and promoted black leadership in science.


 MS.GAILMAYVILLE
 DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS
 BEN AND JERRY'S HOMEMADE, INC.
 WATERBURY, VT

       Ms. Mayville coordinates Ben and Jerry's Green Team which develops, coordinates and
 implements the  company's environmental program.  Its goal  is 100 percent participation in
 recycling, conservation, source reduction, and avoiding disposables. Ms. Mayville's work focuses
 on environmental improvements in products and packaging, the company wastestream and energy
 conservation.  She and her staff also engage in environmentally-oriented  community outreach in
 Vermont and elsewhere.


 MR. WILLIAM F. WILLIS, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
 AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
KNOXVILLE.TN

       Mr. William F. Willis joined the Tennessee  Valley Authority in  1960 and has served as
Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Tennessee Valley Authority since May
 1988.  He is deeply involved in the effort to improve technical education and promote research and
development in the Tennessee  Valley.  Mr. Willis is a member of Mississippi State University's
Engineering Advisory Committee and the President's Roundtable of Knoxville College.  He
presently sits on  the board of directors of the Pellissippi State Foundation, Tennessee Center for
Research and Development, And the International Fertilizer Development Center.

-------
 To:  NACEPT Education and Training Committee
 From:  Anthony D. Cortese, Sc. D.
 Subject:  "Environmental  Resource  Management:   Educating
 the  Business Leaders of  Tomorrow"
 Date:  October 16, 1990

      An  international conference on  integrating  environmental
 management education and research into schools of  management and
 business was held at  INSEAD  in Fontainebleau, France on October 11
 and  12, 1990.  The conference of deans and faculty  from  academic
 institutions, industry,  government and  environmental  experts was
 cosponsored by INSEAD, the  Management  Institute for Environment
 and  Business (MIEB),  UNEP  Industry and Environment Office and
 Tufts University and  was done in cooperation with  the  International
 Chamber of Commerce.  A copy of the conference  program is
 attached.   A report of the conference is expected  in the next 2-3
 months.

      The conference explored the current  and future roles of
 environmental management in business school and executive
 education,  the  integration of environmental management  into  the
 business schools,  and research priorities for  environment  and
 business .   Based on a recommendation by the University Presidents
 Conference in Talloires, France, October 4-7, 1990,  this was the
 first  attempt at strategy development.

      Hugh.Faulkner,  former Secretary General of the ICC, gave the
 keynote address and set the tone for the conference  of 50
 participants. He noted that the concern about environmental  issues
 has  shifted  from  environmental pollution to that of economic and
 societal sustainability. He also stated  his  belief that the business
 community,  aware of  the relevancy of this shift, views these issues
 as fundamental to the survival of business  and  industry.   Integration
 of these concerns  into  the line management and culture of business
 and  industry is essential. Integration must  also  occur  in the
 education  and training programs of schools of business and
 engineering  for the cultural shift to  take place.  This theme was
 echoed  by  the  other business and industry  participants.

     The  conference  included some frank  discussions  about the
 needs of business  in the areas of environmental management
education  and training for future  graduates and practicing
professionals. Also discussed  were  the barriers  to developing

-------
 increased  capability of business schools to supply the education  and
 training.   New resources for curriculum development and research
 are essential to shift priorities in business schools  toward
 environmental management.   In addition, business and industry must
 create  a real demand for graduates  with  environmental sensitivity
 and training in  order  to get a significant shift in  the  interest in and
 the teaching of these issues.

      The  conference  led to several outputs and recommendations:

 1.   Several examples of new educational  strategies  to integrate
 environmental issues  throughout the curricullum were discussed  and
 documented :
      new  elective  environmental courses sponsored by the National
 Wildlife  Federation  Corporate  Conservation Council,
      INSEAD's  environmental courses and
      Tufts Environmental  Literacy Institute..

 2.   Research  ideas  and priorities for environment  and business  were
 developed.  There was discussion of the role of MIEB  in taking the
 next step in research, needs development, and in  providing  the
 support  for research.

 3.  There  was a strong  expression of  interest in a network  for
 exchange  of research information,  educational programs and
 materials and for people involved  in environmental  management
 education and research.   There was discussion of the  role of MIEB in
 establishing the network.

 4.  There  was discussion of options for developing  the capability of
 faculty in business  and engineering schools to teach about
 environmental management -   e.g., faculty workshops, curriculum
 materials development.

 5.   There  was discussion of the need  for business schools to be
 linked  with the  international  institutions  that  are dealing  with
 environment and  development issues (e.g., UNEP, UNCED, ICC, GEMI).
 ICC asked  for several of the participants to work on  environmental
 management education issues for the  April  1991 World Conference
on  Industry and  Environmental Management  being  held to prepare  for
the Brazil 1992 World  Conference  on Environment and Development.

-------
6.  The group recommended the development of a process for
business school faculty to get the  first hand perspective of
developing countries on the role of  business  in environment  and
development  issues and  problems.

7.   Several  participants indicated the desire of business and
academic leaders from business and engineering schools to engage  in
a frank discussion of the need for  environmental management
specialists and environmentally literate and responsible graduates
from these institutions,  as well as  the strategies  necessary to make
this happen.

-------
   Environmental Resource Management:  Educating
           Business Leaders of Tomorrow

The Management Institute for Environment and Business

-------
                      The Management Institute for
                        Environment and Business
                                  OVERVIEW

  Context:
  The continuing challenge  for business is to develop new products,  methods of
  production, management practices and human resources which can meet higher demand
  and also achieve ambitious environmental goals. A great deal of uncertainty still exists
  about how to change management systems and operations to optimize environmental
  performance without sacrificing quality and competitiveness. To reduce this uncertainty,
  firms require  rigorous analysis of environmental performance,  and assistance in
  developing management systems which are responsive  both to the environmental
  impacts of business decisions and to the business  impacts of environmental decisions.

  Mission:
  The Management Institute for Environment and Business is a newly formed non-profit
  applied research group striving to improve corporate environmental performance through
  partnerships between academia, industry and providers of environmental training.  MEB
  will enlist leading academic institutions and research organizations to provide critical
  answers to business' increasing environmental demands. The applied research group
  of  MEB will  help lay  a foundation  for sound  corporate environmental  resource
  management in the 1990's.  In addition, MEB will forge a working partnership with multi-
  national corporations, industry associations and the small business community to
  service  their  needs  in achieving excellence  in  corporate environmental  resource
  management.  MEB will enlist providers of education and training to offer guidance to
  research projects and to channel the applied research back to industry in the form of
  consulting and training programs.

  Goals:
  MEB aims to establish  environmental competence as a standard  prerequisite for
  corporate employees and university graduates, and  to enhance corporate environmental
  policy and the allocation of resources to maintain a healthy and productive environment.
  MEB will improve .corporate environmental operational performance with respect to the
  environment by providing firms with the most advanced and relevant information on
  corporate environmental resource  management

  Support
  The Management Institute has received endorsements from several major corporations
  including Allied-Signal, AT&T, Du Pont, Occidental Petroleum and Union Carbide; several
  universities, including Stanford, Berkeley, INSEAD.  UCLA, Tufts and Boston University;
  and the National Wildlife Federation, the President's Council on Environmental Quality and
  the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
P.O. Box 12208                                               Phone: (703)525-1133
Arlington. Viigtala 22209                                          Fax: (703) 247-8343

-------
  ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENTS
       Educating the Business Leaders of Tbmorrow

An international conference representing leading academic institutions,
         industry, government and environmental experts

                  11 and 12 October 1990
             at INSEAD in Fontainebleau, France
                       Co-Sponsors:

                       INSEAD

       The Management Institute for Environment
                  and Business (MEB)

                    Tufts University

   United Nations Environment Program, Industry and
             Environment Office (UNEP/IEO)
                    in cooperation with:
         The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)

-------
    INSEAD  + MEB 4>  Tufts University 4> UNEP/EEO
                                 Overview

Rapid increases in population and economic output are making environmental management
one of the most important issues for business and society in the 1990's and the 21st century.
Business is dependent on an adequately trained and healthy work force and a healthy,
productive environment which supplies all the raw materials for economic activity. Deple-
tion of natural resources and pollution of the environment around the world are having
important impacts on business and industry. Thus, the integration of sound environmental
practices into business operations has become an important priority.

New strategies, technologies and management systems to promote this integration are
resulting in fundamental changes in the way  many firms operate. The majority of
professional managers are unprepared to meet  this new challenge.  Moreover, current
graduates of business schools receive little education on the importance to business of sound
environmental management This is why INSEAD, MEB, Tufts University, and UNEP/IEO
have joined forces to organize this conference. The goals of the conference are to:
                 Ua   define  the role of and objectives for graduate
                 business schools in environmental management educa-
                 tion and research.

                 2« develop strategies, programs and materials for pro-
                 ducing the necessary human resources for addressing
                 environmental management

                 $• outline the first phases of a critical research agenda
                 on business and the environment

                 4* identify the institutional collaborations that can
                 address barriers and can create incentives for devel-
                 oping environmental  management priorities in
                 business schools and in  business.

-------
                      Description of Workshops:

 Session 1: Objectives and Priorities in Graduate Business and Executive Education: the
 Importance of Environmental Management.

 This beginning session will lay the foundation for the role of business schools in educating
 managers about environmental management. Questions to be addressed include: Where
 does and should environmental management fall as a priority in business education? Is there
 increasing interest in this area? What should and can business schools expect to accomplish?


 Session 2: Integration of Environmental Management into Business Schools.

 This session will cover pedagogical philosophy, e.g. module topics, required versus elective
 courses for use in MBA and executive  training programmes. How can faculty integrate
 environmental issues into courses in marketing, finance, and production? Test cases will
 be presented as to their demand, and effectiveness.  In addition, this session will review
 current curriculum materials for individual courses, modules and executive management
 courses. An  assessment will be made of their successes and plans for development.
 Questions include: What are the strategies for integrating new curriculum into business
 education? Is a training program desirable for faculty? What inducements can be used to
 encourage faculty to develop an environmental management focus in teaching and research?


 Session S: Environment and Business Research Priorities.

 Formulating a research agenda is a critical step in ensuring ongoing faculty and student
 attention to environmental resource management issues. What are the fundamental needs
 for each management discipline? What are corporate research priorities? How can the
 resources and needs of business schools and corporations be linked to enhance research and
 improve corporate environmental performance?


 Session 4: Future Strategies for Integrating Environmental Management into Business
 School Education and Research.

 This panel discussion will focus on the strategies, programs and funding mechanisms for
 increasing business school attention to environmental issues. Areas of collaboration could
 include government, foundation, industry and university partnerships. Additionally, busi-
 ness schools could consider partnerships with public administration schools, co-creating
curriculum materials, and co-sponsoring executive management programs. What is needed
to create an international educational outreach program for environmental resource man-
agement?  How do we exchange information and strengthen the links of communication?
How do we encourage publication in this field?  What are some institutional mechanisms for
funding in this area?

-------
                              Programme

 Thursday Morning, October 11
 10:00-11:00 Opening of the workshop: Prat. EL Landis Gabel, INSEAD
           Welcome to INSEAD: Prof, Ludo Van der Heyden, Dean of INSEAD
           Keynote speakers: Mr. Hugh Faulkner, Former Secretary General, ICC
           Agenda Overview: Missions and Goals for the Conference
                           Jacqueline Aloici de Larderel. Director UNEP/IEO
                           Dr. Anthony Corteae, Dean, Environmental Programs
                           Matthew Arnold, Executive Director, MEB

 11:00-11:30 Break

 11:30-12:45 SESSION 1:
           "Objectives and Priorities in Graduate Business and Executive Education::
           The importance of Environmental Management.'
           Chairmen:  Prot H. Landia Gabel
                      Mr. BLJ. Kraativeld, Health, Safety, and Environmental
                      Division, Shell International Petroleum

 12:45-14:00 Lunch offered by INSEAD

 Thursday Afternoon
 14.-00-15.-00 Rapporteurs' and open discussions of Session No. 1.

 15:00-15:15 Break

 15:15-16:30 SESSION 2
           "Integration of Environmental Management into Business Schools."
           Chairmen:  Pro! R. A. Buchholz, Loyola University of New Orleans
                      Prof, Alfred Marcus, University of Minnesota, Carlson
                      School of Business
                      Mr. Leon de Roaen, Senior Advisor to UNEP/IEO

 1630-16:45 Break

 16:45-17:45 Rapporteurs' reports and open discussion of Session No. 2.

19:30      Cocktails offered by UNEP

20:00      Dinner offered by Tufts University

-------
                     Programme  (continued)

Friday Morning, October 12
9:00-10:30  SESSION 3 - Part I
           "Environment and Business Research Priorities: A Brainatorming Session."
           Chairmen:  Prof. Thomas Gladwin, New York University
                      Pro! James Patell, Assoc. Dean, Graduate School of
                      Business, Stanford University

1030-10:45 Break

10:45-1130 Rapporteurs' reports and open discussion of Session No. 3.

1130-11:45 Break

11:45-13:00 SESSION 3 - Part II
          "Environment and Business Research Priorities: Linking Corporations and
           Business Schools."
           Chairmen:   Matthew B. Arnold, MEB
                      Industry Representative to be determined

13:00-14:15 Lunch offered by INSEAD

Friday Afternoon
14:15-15:15 SESSION 4: Panel Discussion
           "Future Strategies for Integrating Environmental Management into Business
           School Education and Research."
           Chair:  Dr. Anthony Cortese
           Panel:  Mr. Jan WUlums, ICC
                  Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel, Director UNEP/IEO
                  Prof. H. Landis Gabel, INSEAD
                  Industry Representative to be determined

15:15-1530 Break

1530-16:00 Summary and Closure

-------
                                Co-Sponsors
   INSEAD (The European Institute of Business Administration) was created as a private
   independent business school in 1959 when Europe as a political and economic entity was just
   beginning to take shape. Its objective has been, from the very beginning, to educate present
   and future managers operating in European and International contexts. Entering the
   1990's, INSEAD is ranked among the top business schools world-wide, with an enrollment
   of 480 students from 30 countries in its one-year programme and more than 2400 executives
   attending shorter executive development programmes each year.
  The MER (Management of Environmental Resources) Programme at INSEAD was
  started in 1989 with a grant from the Otto Group of West Germany. The programme is
  focused on teaching, curriculum material development, and research.
  The Management Institute for Environment and Business is a newly
  formed non-profit research group, established with a grant from the U.S. Environmental
  Protection Agency, aiming to improve corporate environmental performance through part-
  nerships between academia, industry, and providers of environmental training.  MEB's
  applied research agenda is set by a research advisory  committee of corporate managers,
  academics, professional environmentalists, and government representatives.
  Tufts University, located in eastern Massachusetts, is integrating environmental con-
  siderations into the curriculum of all of its departments and professional schools. An Envi-
  ronmental Literacy Institute has been developed to help existing faculty from all disciplines
  in the integration process. Graduate degrees with an environmental focus are available in
  the Department ofUrban and Environmental Policy, and the Department of Civil Engineer-
  ing, which has an environmental engineering concentration and a Hazardous Materials
  Management program. In addition, a concentration in environmental policy is being
  developed at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

The Industry and Environment Office (IEO) was established by the United
Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in 1975 to bring industry and govern-
ment together for environmentally sound industrial development  Its office is located in
Paris. The goals of the IEO are to: encourage the incorporation of environmental criteria in
industrial development plans; facilitate the implementation of procedures and principles for
the protection of the environment; promote the use of safe and "clean" technologies; stimulate
the exchange of information and experience throughout the world.

To achieve these goals, UNEP/IEO provides access to practical information and develops co-
operative on-site action and exchange backed by regular follow-up and assessment
In Cooperation with:

"The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) is a non-governmental or-
ganization serving world business. ICC membership extends into over 100 countries, com-
prising tens of thousands of business organizations and enterprises with international
interests.  Its four principal functions are:  to represent the business community at
international levels, especially as business spokesman to the United Nations and specialized
intergovernmental agencies; to promote world trade and investment based on free and fair
competition; to harmonize trade practices and formulate terminology and guidelines for im-
porters and exporters; to provide practical services to businessmen."

-------
University Presidents Roundtable

-------
To: NACEPT  Education and Training Committee
From: Anthony D. Cortese, Sc.D.
Subject:   University  Presidents Conference  on  Environmental
Management  and Sustainable Development
Date:   October 16,  1990

   With the support of NACEPT, EPA ORD, the Rockefeller Foundation and the
MacArthur Foundation, Tufts University President Jean Mayer hosted a conference of
university presidents from October 4-7,1990 to discuss the role of universities in
environmental management and sustainable development  The conference, held at the
Tufts European Center in Talloires, France, was attended by 22 university presidents,
rectors and vice chancellors (including NACEPT chairman, Dr. Wesley Posvar)
representing every major region of the world. Participants are listed in the joint declaration
issued by them (copy attached). An international group of environmental leaders enhanced
the discussions, helped in framing the issues and offered innovative suggestions. They
included:

   Margarita Marino de Botero, President, Collegio Verde,  Colombia and former
member, World Commission on the environment and Development
   Russell Peterson, former Chairman, CEQ, president, National Audubon
society,Governor of Delaware
   David Brower, President, Earth Island Institute
   Dr. Alvaro Umana, former Minister of Natural Resources, Costa Rica
   Dr. Nay Htun, Special Advisor to the Secretary General, UN Conference on
Environmental and Development

   The conference, which was opened by  Dr. Maurice Strong, Secretary General  of the
UN Conference on Environment and Development to be held in Brazil in June, 1992,
explored the role of universities and, specifically, the role of university presidents  in
environment and development education and research. A copy of the agenda, declaration
and a press release from the conference are attached. A report of the deliberations,
strategies for actions, including ideas for institutional change will be forthcoming in
November 1990.

   The conference was extremely successful in exchanging views on the nature  of
environment and development problems; around the world, the role of universities  have
played in  the current state of affairs and what universities can do to encourage an
environmentally sustainable future.  Since a majority of the presidents were from
developing countries.concerns about resource depletion , poverty and the need for
substantial assistance from the developing countries received equal attention with local,
regional and global pollution problems.

   The presidents believe that society must move quickly to deal with problems  of
pollution, resource destruction and depletion and the loss of biodiversity being caused by
rapid growth in population and even greater growth in industrialization. They pledged to
increase the training of specialists and to initiate programs for environmental literacy for all
graduates, increase research and help with education at primary and secondary school
levels to increase public awareness and education. They pledged their leadership by setting
an example of environmental responsibility at their own universities (e.g., energy
conservation and recycling), speaking out on these issues to government, industry,

-------
foundations and the public and by convening deans of appropriate schools to develop the
specific environmental research and education programs.

   The presidents would like to establish a steering committee and a secretariat at Tufts to
continue this momentum by getting other university presidents to sign the declaration and to
inform and support each others efforts in innovative education and research. Moreover, the
presidents will work with the UN organizations such as UNEP and the UNCED to get
policy makers at the UN Conference on Environment and Development in Brazil in 1992 to
build support for a worldwide educational effort toward a sustainable future.


   The next steps are to send out the declaration to 200 other university presidents and to
obtain support  for the steering committee and the secretariat to advance these efforts.
Also, I have been invited to speak at a conference of 83 college and university presidents in
Brazil in December on the building of the education and research capacity of universities to
address population, environment  and development issues to have a sustainable future.

-------
TALLOIRES
THE PRESIDENTS
CONFERENCE
        UNIVERSITY PRESIDENTS FOR A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE


                - THE TALLOIRES DECLARATION -
                        OCTOBER 1990

-------
We, the presidents, rectors and vice chancellors of universities from all regions of
the world are deeply concerned aJbout the unprecedented scale and speed of
environmental pollution and degradation and the depletion of natural resources.
Local, regional and global air and water pollution, accumulation and distribution of
toxic wastes, destruction and depletion of forests, soil and water, depletion of the
ozone layer and emission of greenhouse gases threaten the survival of humans and
thousands of other living species, the integrity of the earth and its biodiversity,
the security of nations and the heritage of future generations.  These environmental
changes are caused by inequitable and unsustainable production and consumption
patterns which aggravate poverty in many regions of the world.

We believe that urgent actions are needed now  to address these fundamental problems
and reverse the trends.  Stabilization of human population, adoption of  and
dissemination of  industrial and agricultural  technologies which minimize resource
depletion, pollution and waste, promotion of  reforestation  and ecological restoration
are crucial elements in creating  an  equitable and  sustainable future for all
humankind in harmony with  Nature.  Universities have  a major role  in education,
research, policy  formation and  information  exchange  to make these  goals  possible.

 University heads  must  provide the leadership,  motivation and  support  to  promote,
 foster and facilitate  the mobilization of internal and  external  resources  necessary
 for their institutions to respond to this urgent  challenge.  We,  therefore,  agree to
 take  the following actions:

 1.  Use every opportunity to raise public,  government,  industry,  foundation and
 university awareness by publicly addressing the urgent need to move toward an
 environmentally sustainable future.

 2.  .Encourage, both at our universities and in collaboration with other universities,
 education,  research, policy formation and information exchange on population,
 environment and development to move toward a  sustainable future.

-------
3.  Establish programs to produce the needed expertise  in  environmental management,
economic development, population and related fields to  ensure that all university
graduates are environmentally literate and responsible  citizens.

4.  Foster programs to develop the capability of university faculty to teach
environmental literacy and responsibility to all undergraduate,  graduate and
professional school students.

5.  Set an example of environmental responsibility by establishing programs of
resource conservation, recycling and waste reduction at the universities.

6.  Work on expanding the involvement of government, foundations and industry in
supporting university research, education, policy formation and information exchange
in  environmentally sustainable development.  Expand work with government at all
levels and non-governmental  organizations to assist in finding solutions to
environmental problems.

7.  Convene deans of appropriate schools and environmental practitioners to develop
research, policy and information exchange programs and educational  curricula for an
environmentally sustainable  future.

 8.  Establish partnerships with primary and secondary  schools to  help develop the
 capability of their faculty  to teach about  population, environment and development
 issues.

-------
9.   Work  with  the UN Conference on .Environment  and Development, with  the United
Nations .Environment  Programme  and other national and  international organizations  to
promote a worldwide  university effort toward a  sustainable  future.

10.   Establish a steering committee  and a secretariat to continue this momentum and
inform and support each  other's efforts in carrying out this declaration.
BY
Pablo Area, Vice Chancellor
Central  American Autonomous University, Costa Rica

L. Ayo Banjo, Vice Chancellor
University of Ibadan, Nigeria

Boonrod Binson, Chancellor
Chulalongkorn University, Thailand

Robert W. Charlton, Vice Chancellor and Principal
University of Hitvatersrand,  Union  of  South Africa

Constantino  W.  Curris, President
The  University  of Northern lova, USA

 Michele Gendreau-Massaloux,  Rector
 1 'Academie de Paris,  Franca

 Jean Mayer,  President &  Conference Convener
 Tufts University, USA

 Adamu Nayaya Mohammed, Vice  Chancellor
 Ahmadu  Bailor University, Nigeria

 Augusto Frederico Muller,  President
 Fundacao Universidade Federal de Mate Grosso,  Brazil

 Mario Ojeda Gomez, President
 Colegio de  Mexico
Calvin  H. Plimpton,  President Emeritus
American University of Beirut, Lebanon

Wesley  Posvar, President
University of Pittsburgh,  USA

T. Navaneeth Rao, Vice Chancellor
Osmania University, India

Moonis Raza, Vice Chancellor Emeritus
University of Nev Delhi, India

Pavel D. Sarkisov,  Rector
Mendeleev Institute of Chemical Technology, USSR

Stuart Saunders, Vice Chancellor and Principal
University of Cape Tovn,  Union of South Africa

 Akiiagpa Sawyerr,  Vice Chancellor
 University of Ghana

 Carlos Vogt, President
 Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Brazil

 David Hard, Vice Chancellor
 University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA

 Xide Xie,  President
 Fudan University,  People's Republic of China

-------
       The Washington,  D.C.
  Urban Environmental Education
                 Report
               prepared by:

              Rory E. Verrett
     Patricia Roberts Harris Public Affairs
             Howard University

                   for
       The National Advisory Council on
Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
     Committee on Education and Training
   The United Stales Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM)
           401 M Street, SW A-101-F6
            Washington, DC 20460

-------
 INTRODUCTION:

 Purpose:

       This report will attempt to assess the environmental education efforts in
 Washington D.Cthat are sponsored by various sectors of the community including the
 federal government, non-government organizations, and community groups. This report
 will be a segment of a national project that will assess environmental education and training
 programs in several urban areas across the United States. These cities, intended to
 represent a cross-section of ethnic and geographic diversity, will be similarly studied. By
 first taking a microscopic view of environmental programs in one community, the report
 will identify some effective methods for urban environmental education and training, and
 thus serve as a starting point for similar studies in the other urban areas.

       The complete Urban Environmental Education Report will serve as a tool for
 discussion for the Education and Training Committee of the National Advisory Council on
 Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT). With the report as a starting point, the
 Committee can discuss methods for successfully reaching out to urban/minority
 communities and other currently disenfranchised groups with environmental and training
 programs. Ultimately, the report should provide the Committee with some basis for
 adopting recommendations to die Administrator of EPA concerning what role the Agency
 should play in urban environmental education and training on a national level.


 Definition:

       The ultimate goal of any environmental education program is the formation of an
 enlightened citizenry that is committed to preserving and protecting our natural
 environment Ideally, it would be desirable to have pervasive environmental education
 efforts both longitudinally as well as laterally; that is, environmental education that reaches
 from our youngest to our senior citizens and spans every cultural, ethnic, and socio-
 economic level To achieve this, environmental education programs must be as innovative
 as they are comprehensive and as easily understandable as they are profound in their
 treatment of environmental issues. To be sure, organizations concerned with urban
 environmental education must be willing to abandon traditional methods of education and
 training for more innovative techniques.  Moreover, urban communities must be made to
 realize the connection between local environmental concerns and global environmental
 issues. Environmental education and training programs must, however, meet the specific
 needs of the particular community. Therefore, any attempt to educate or train an
 urban/minority community toward responsible environmental stewardship mandates the
 establishment of effective linkage mechanisms-ones that link the local issue to die global
 perspective, the community organizer to the environmental policymaker.

       This linkage process, however, is tremendously enigmatic. As community
 concerns reach up the ladder of influence and national policies attempt to embrace the
 disenfranchised, the realization of mis often distant relationship is hazy, ambiguous, and
 promotes ineffective decisions from which neither side truly benefits. Government still
 seems to operate from an ivory tower and community concerns dissolve before diey reach
 policymakers. The environmental crisis plaguing our urban communities requires not only
 prioritized attention, but demands clarity and consistency in this linkage process.  No
longer can die environmental movement confine itself to certain ethnic and economic
constituencies while claiming to chart a global campaign to save the planet  Seemingly,
those most impacted by environmental hazards are those least knowledgeable and involved
in environmental  policies and programs. The Urban Environmental Education Report

-------
 seeks to link the government to the urban community by assessing successful strategies in
 environmental education and training. The report has, as its primary focus, the realization
 of the Environmental Protection Agency's potential role in urban environmental education
 and training.


 Scope:

        As it is enigmatic to define what is and what is not to be considered environmental
 education, so too is it problematic to define "urban environmental education." There exists
 a broad array of activities that are intended to promote the responsible stewardship,of urban
 minorities toward the environment Yet, this report does not intend to be too narrow nor
 too general in its classification of urban environmental education. While a minority
 internship program at a national science observatory might introduce minority students to
 research careers in geology, it may not be appropriate to include such  (nonetheless
 worthwhile) educational programs in an assessment of Washington, DC urban
 environmental education and training programs. Contrastingly, it would be appropriate to
 consider a music video about global warming, which was produced by a District
 environmental organization for minority communities, as an example of an urban
 environmental education program. For definitive purposes, an effort will be considered
 "urban environmental education or training" if it satisfies one or more of the following
 stipulations:

       o  it informs an urban minority audience about the specific environmental
          risks in their particular community;

       o  it educates an urban minority audience on global environmental issue(s) or
         establishes a connection between local and global environmental issuers);

       o it suggests specific actions that can be taken by community residents to
         affect/change their immftHiarf. and/or global surroundings.

 Moreover, when such a definition is placed in context of existing programs in the
 Washington DC area, this report establishes dear parameters for the classification of urban
 environmental education and training. Only programs with strategies transferable to an
 urban minority audience (Washington DC, for instance) will be similarly included.


Content:

      The Washington D.C Urban Environmental Education Report intends to answer
the following questions:

       1.  Is the D.C community actively seeking ways to educate minorities on local and
          and national environmental concerns? What organizations are involved?
         Are there any coordinated efforts among organizations? Are there any national
         programs (outside of the District) that could be considered?

      2. Do the existing programs address all of the minority community's environmental
         concerns?

      3. Do the existing programs administer to all of the community's needs for the
         successful implementation of the program?  Is training provided?  Are the
         programs offered in languages other than English?

-------

             suS|e5,tlons for improving urban environmental education efforts
                   ,

         At°n aC 5°™™"^ W^1 role sh°«W the Environmental
wotec&on Agency play in urban environmental education in Washington
U*x^« •

-------
WASHINGTON, DC URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL  EDUCATION REPORT

                         Outline


L What Is Needed: An Urban Perspective on Obstacles and Issues

      A. Obstacles
      B. Issues
             L Energy Conservation
             2. Water Quality
             3. Air Pollution
             4. Toxic Waste
             5. Toxic Chemicals in Homes


n. What Is Being Done: Samples of Urban Environmental Education Programs

      A. Federal Government Programs
      B. Non-Federal Programs


DDL What Can/Should Be Done: EPA's Role in Urban Environmental Education

-------
  AN  URBAN PERSPECTIVE*  ON OBSTACLES AND ISSUES:
 In order to be truly successful in urban environmental education, interested groups must
 first gain an understanding of the vantage point from which an urban population views the
 environment Similarly, it is crucial to grasp how these communities perceive the
 environmental movement, as well as certain environmental organizations, including the
 EPA.  Before any suggestions can be offered concerning the role of the EPA in urban
 environmental education, these key perceptions held by many urban residents should be
 first considered. They are not necessarily viewpoints of Washington DC residents only,
 but reflect a somewhat national consistency of urban perceptions of die environmental
 movement, issues and participants. Once these perceptions are fully understood, the
 Agency will be able to effectively organize an appropriate strategy in urban environmental
 education that is truly beneficial and productive to all parties involved.


 Obstacles:

 Many of the perceptions of urban residents on the environment are rooted in their inability
 to meet some of the basic requirements for normal living. That is, the environment, as a
 separate issue, is not embraced until the essentials of health, housing, food, and safety are
 met. Unfortunately in many urban communities, many of these basic needs remain
 unfulfilled. Poverty, racial discrimination, poor housing, financial insecurity, and violence
 are all barriers to the achievement of what is considered a normal standard of living. Thus,
 the environment is viewed as a superfluous topic; other topics, which are viewed as more
 important than environmental issues, occupy the daily agendas of urban residents.
 Moreover, the seemingly evident environmental crises facing these urban communities—
 problems of lead poisoning, weatherization, and asbestos—are not confronted as
 environmental problems; rather, they are realized as health and housing issues. Thus,
 many organizations that address the environmental concerns of these communities are often
 organizations such as housing agencies or social justice groups, reflecting the growing
 sentiment in urban communities that the current status of the urban environment is a result
 of racial and socio-economic injustice.

 These community organizations have taken on tremendous responsibilities as voices of
 urban residents, providing numerous mobilizational measures including protests, marches,
 boycotts, community meetings, and local, as well as national lobbying. These
 organizations are quite confident of their own ability to address the community's concerns.
 This community self-reliance is a result, organizers say, of the resource mobilizational
 strength of community organizations.  For instance, social justice groups that organize out
 of churches point to the fact that the church provides a consistent audience through worship
 services and offers facilities that are readily available to the community.  Few, if any,
 organizations can claim to have a more, consistent assembly than a church, community
 residents claim. Sermons, they add, are effective mechanisms to instill environmental
 awareness; ministers urge environmental protection as one of mankind's responsibilities to
 the Creator. As a result of these and other mobilizational strategies, organizers argue,
 community organizations are "in the trenches," and constantly aware of the needs of
 urban/minority citizens. Comparatively, government agencies are perceived as operating
 from an "ivory tower," far removed the immediate urban crises. This perceived contrast in
the proximities of government versus community organizations to urban environmental
needs is one of the central obstacles that must be overcome if the development of a
productive, working relationship is to occur between these groups. Certainly then, these
perceptions deserve elaboration.

-------
 Community Perceptions: Federal Government

 As many local organizations feel confident in their ability to meet the community's needs
 for environmental programs, these groups view some of the environmental education
 attempts by the federal government with disdain and caution.  Community leaders are
 skeptical of the motive behind government environmental education programs. Organizers
 propose that the government is suddenly reaching out to embrace urban environmental
 concerns now that the environment is a popular issue; that me recent attention directed
 toward urban environmentalism is political in nature and is not necessarily rooted in
 genuine concern. Many community leaders recanted incidents in which the federal
 government attempted to "introduce" environmentalism to urban residents through short-
 lived program*? that appeared to fulfill a bureaucratic munAttt^. rather than realistically
 educate minorities on environmental protection. Thus, community organizations largely
 feel that they must bear the responsibility to educate the community.

 These are not the only reservations that the urban community has with the government
 Some minority communities that have battled against the siting of toxic facilities in their
 communities allege that the EPA is allied with many toxic polluters. This government—
 industrial complex has, they maintain, led to the placement of many toxic facilities in
 minority areas. Community leaders point to emerging studies which hold that the racial
 composition of the community is the greatest common denominator of communities near
 hazardous waste sites.  With scarce numbers of minorities at the EPA and few, if any, on
 local toxic waste site boards, many in minority communities conclude that the growing
 number of toxic sites in minority communities is no coincidence. To guard against the
 disproportionate numbers of hazardous waste sitings in minority areas, community leaders
 urge agencies like the EPA, as well as national environmental groups, to increase minority
 recruitment

 Having significant numbers of minorities employed at these environmental organizations
 will dp more than protect minority communities from toxic waste placement, these
 organizers argue: it would hopefully be one significant step in catapulting urban
 environmentalism to the national forefront  Specifically, community organizers hold that
 national environmental organizations need "translators" that will be able to effectively
 communicate with urban minorities.  One of the biggest obstacles to community
 organizations educating urban citizens is the lack of technical information on the
 environment Moreover, to many minority communities, national policymakers are
 seemingly unaware of urban environmental needs.  These translators could facilitate the
 effective exchange of information between, for instance, the EPA and an urban minority
 community. In mis manner, the government would be constantly aware of urban
 environmental concerns while offering concrete assistance toward urban environmental
 education.
Issues:

Therefore, to fully comprehend the environmental crises facing an inner-city community, it
is necessary to confront the issues from a non-traditional perspective. Too often, analyzing
urban environmental concerns from a bureaucratic vantage point yields a perspective that is
both narrow and shallow. It becomes increasingly difficult to grasp the complexity, if not
the origin, of urban environmental problems when the issues are treated separately, apart
from their relationship to other urban frustrations. To be sure, the environmental issues in
the inner-city cannot be studied unless the complex entirety of inner-city life is embraced.

-------
 That is to say, the issues of economics, race, health, education, and environment are all
 inextricably bound.

 The inner-city resident does not view a problem like poor water quality as an environmental
 issue—it is realized as a mixture of many issues—health, economic, and educational to state
 a few. The resident initially confronts the quality of his/her water when usage/consumption
 becomes unhealthy. The issue is addressed when, for instance, a family member, say a
 small child, develops an adverse reaction to the water. Further, if adopting the necessary
 measures to improve the quality of water were financially feasible, and if the tenant were
 aware of the means to correct his condition, then he/she would probably change the
 situation. However, with limited financial means, little, if any, education on the hazardous
 effects of lead-ridden water and what can be done to improve it, the urban resident is
 powerless. Thus, to equip the urban resident with environmental education is to catalyze
 individual behavioral changes that will ultimately instill a sense of environmental
 stewardship toward an individual's irnmerfi^ and global environment. Consequently,
 effective urban environmental education programs should:

        1) Inform the resident about the specific environmental risks in the particular
          community;

       2) Establish a connection between local and global environmental issues;

       3) Suggest specific actions that can be taken by community residents to affect/
          change their immediate surroundings.

 Though environmental needs differ from community to community, there are certain
 common environmental concerns mat are prevalent in many of the District's urban areas:

 A.  Energy Conservation:

       Most of Washington's urban population live in houses that are over fifty years old.
 Many urban families cannot afford necessary weatherization measures, such as energy
 efficient doors and windows, to insulate homes from Washington's harsh seasonal
 temperatures. As a result, these urban families face uncomfortable living conditions as well
 as abnormally high energy bills.  Proper efforts must be undertaken to provide these
 residents with a comprehensive strategy to weatherize their homes.

 B.  Water Quality

       Dilapidated plumbing systems in Washington homes cany poor quality water that
 contains abnormally high levels of lead and other toxic chemicals. A study issued by the
 Agency for Toxics and Disease Registry reported that an alarming 44% of urban African-
 American children are at risk from lead poisoning-four times the rate of Caucasian
 children. Low-level lead intoxication is known to have caused a range of impairments,
 including IQ reduction and mild mental retardation. Since a significant number of District
 residents in urban areas do not own their homes, they heavily rely on landlords/building
 managers to renovate the dilapidated water systems. Efforts must be made to educate these
 residents on the importance of quality water sources, as well  as measures to promote the
consumption of alternative water sources until efficient plumbing systems can be
constructed.

-------
 C. Air Quality

       Due to the proximity to factories and intense automobile congestion, urban
 communities are most impacted by industrial and vehicle emissions. Unable to drift farmer
 away, these toxic gases become concentrated between buildings and create a carcinogenic
 breeding ground in the District's urban areas. While environmentalists urge residents to
 use public transportation to decrease the volume of vehicle emissions, urban residents are
 confronted with a troubling dilemma.  Since the District's Metro subway transportation
 system seems to have bypassed service to many urban/minority areas of the city, increasing
 numbers of District residents are forced to use automobiles more often, which, in turn,
 contributes to the toxic ah* quality that is daily ingested. It is imperative that urban/minority
 residents be informed of measures to improve air quality. Of particular importance is the
 formation of a working strategy to encourage individual efforts to improve air quality.

 D. Toxic Waste

       Some recent studies have shown that the racial composition of the particular
 community, rather than any other factor, including income level and property value, has
 been the prevailing common denominator in communities near hazardous waste faculties.
 (W. Wilson, 1989). To worsen matters, these communities are rarely informed of the
 hazardous dangers that they face as residents living near a toxic waste site. Contrastingly,
 Northwest Washington residents recently organized, with the help of several community
 organizations, a resistance to the siting of the Pepco Benrting Road incinerator. In this
 case, educational information was provided beforehand on the possible dangers of the toxic
 waste site.  Once cognizant of the toxic potential of such a facility, area residents were able
 to organize to oppose the siting. The Benning Road case provides an excellent example of
 the merits of urban environmental education. Specifically, it illustrates the resource
 mobilization strength of an urban community once an educational foundation has been
 provided.

 EL Toxic Chemicals in Homes

       Lead buildup in soil, resulting from old, chipped household paint and gasoline, is
 another silent hazard that plagues many urban District residents. Moreover, many are
 unaware of the toxic makeup of their yards and nearby playgrounds.  Educational efforts,
 as well as programs designed to improve die soil quality, are greatly needed.  Such projects
 could serve as excellent opportunities for local residents to actively interact with their
 immediate environment in an effort to establish and maintain healthy land areas.
       Asbestos fibers from insulation dissolve into dust particles that become part of
 urban residents'air content. This is a common situation in the District;  the heavy reliance
 on poor quality construction materials, such as the insulation found in many homes,
 contributes to a hazardous atmosphere. Residents need to be informed as to what
 individual measures can be taken to reduce the ingestion of asbestos. As well,
organizations with such technical information could supply data on potential alternative
sources of insulation.

-------
 URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION:  The Federal  Government

 Over the past two decades, environmentalism has evolved from an issue into a global
 crisis. Environmental advocates, who quickly realized the potential, irreparable effects of
 rapid technological expansion and resource mismanagement, theorized that one of the most
 effective ways of protecting our environment was to educate citizens on environmental
 issues—to demonstrate how "special interest" issues like smog, ozone depletion, wildlife
 preservation affected every citizen.  Thus, as the environmental movement has expanded in
 its scope and constituency, so have environmental education and training efforts.

 Recently, the Center for Environmental Quality produced a report, "Environmental
 Education in the Federal Government: An Assessment of Activities and Strategies." The
 report outlined how the federal government has engaged in a plethora of environmental
 education efforts including pilot projects, academic grants/internships, technical assistance
 to curriculum-based programs, and youth projects. However, when compared to other
 environmental education programs, there seems to be little effort directed specifically
 toward urban environmental education and training. The compendium of nearly 50 federal
 environmental education efforts contained only two programs that specifically targeted
 urban minority audiences (Appendix A). Whik the Washington DC Urban Environmental
 Education Report discovered slightly more federal activity in urban environmental
 education than the CEQ Assessment, it still appears mat while general environmental
 education programs have steadily increased, in number and scope over the past two .
 decades, the amount of comparative federal activity toward urban environmental education
 and training has been minimal.

 The proposed Office of Environmental T*ducatk*», as well as the National Environmental
 Education and Training Foundation would increase attention to environmental eduction
 generally, and possibly boost education and training programs for minority/urban
 populations. Pnth organizations w»H ajdmyt the issne of environmental education and
 extension for urban minority audiences. Below is a sampling of some various types of
 federal environmental education and training programs that specifically target
 minority/urban populations or programs that include strategies that could be transferable to
 a minority/urban audience. Included at the end of the report is a more comprehensive
catalog of Minority Support Programs within the Environmental Protection Agency's
Office of Research and Development (Appendix B).

Department of Interior: Take Pride in America

      Take Pride in America is a national campaign to increase awareness of the need for
wise use of the nation's natural and cultural resources, encourage an attitude of stewardship
and responsibility toward public resources, and promote volunteer!sm. Supported by a
partnership of 12 federal agencies, 48 states, and many private sector organizations, the
campaign annually sponsors a national awards ceremony to recognize those who have
made outstanding contributions to protecting and enhancing public resources. Award
categories are: constituent organizations; businesses and corporations; youth groups, civic
and citizen organizations; media; educational institutions; individuals; public-private
partnerships; local governments; state governments; federal agencies; and, private lands.

US Department of A griculture'  Cooperative Extension System

CES sponsors youth education and 4-H programs to teach rural and urban youth about
natural resource conservation in summer camps around the country. Additional emphasis
is placed on global climate change education.

-------
 //.
-------
US Environmental Protection AsencvlCoak Colleger pLtcov^rv Prof ram

       Discovery is an academic enrichment and apprenticeship program designed to offer
minority and disadvantaged students with ararf^mir promise an introduction to college
study and careers in science and technology. Discovery is a comprehensive and residential
five-week summer program for rising high school juniors and seniors. It includes
academic, apprenticeship, and residential components, which offer students a range of
activities including SAT preparation, hands-on research experience, and cultural
perspective seminars. The US EPA, which financially supports the program, provides
student apprenticeships that involve water sample collection, activities from boats and
helicopters, sample analysis in sanitary chemistry and microbiological sample analysis.

US Environmental Protection Afencv/Baclais Junior Hifh School

       In the Fall 1988, EPA headquarters formed a partnership with Bertie Backus Junior
High School in Washington, DC, a predominantly minority school. The objectives in the
partnership are:

       o to stimulate students' interest in studying mathematics and science at the
         high school level and beyond;

       o to inform students about careers at EPA and elsewhere for those with
         appropriate scientific and technical training; and

       o to educate students about environmental issues that impact their daily lives.

       Programs included:

       o a recycling project for white waste paper;

       o classroom participation by 20 members of the EPA's Speaker Bureau in
         which specialists in forestry, computers, toxic waste, air pollution, an
         other fields addressed as many as three classes a day on environmental
         issues;

       o selection of three Backus teachers and two students for summer internships
         atEPA;

       o a "mentor shadowing" experience for 10 students who observed Agency
         managers in action;

       o frequent visits to the school by the EPA chorus and steps toward creating
         a Backus chorus;

       o Participation by 30 students in the Agency's observance of the Martin
         Luther King, Jr. federal holiday.

      o a "town meeting," in which students were made aware of conflicting forces
         in environmentally-related decision-making in the development of a
         community.

-------
 US Environmental Pratecrinn Afencv: Minority Institutions Assistance Program (MIA)

 The US EPA, through its Office of Exploratory Research (OER), operates a special
 assistance program to provide federal assistance to minority institutions. The Minority
 Institutions Assistance Program was initiated in 1981 in response to an Executive Order to
 increase support for eligible minority institutions and to provide fellowships for students
 attending these institutions. The objectives of the program arc:

       o to identify existing and potential environmental research capability
         within minority institutions and to assist mem in participating in
         EPA research activity;

       o to help minority institutions to become more competitive with other
         institutions for federal funds;

       o to provide an opportunity for minority students to gain research
         experience in environmental science fields; and

       o to promote good working relationships between the Agency and
         participating institutions.

 US Environmental Protection Agencv/DC Public Schools:  Superfund Seniors
  Summer Enrichment Project

 Superfund Seniors is a joint venture  between the EPA and DC Public Schools that attempts
 to foster career awareness and student involvement in science and technology fields. The
 Summer Enrichment Project is a pilot 6 week summer program for 10 gifted high school
 juniors to learn about environmental  issues and the role of Superfund in toxic waste
 cleanups. Students produce public awareness campaign literature and support materials
 (videos, pamphlets, coloring and comic books, etc.).

 US Environmental Protection A yencv: Region II (New York}

 The EPA's Region n held a "Rap and Rock" contest for students in grades 7 through 12 in
 both New Jersey and New York. Music and lyrics were all developed around the contest's
 theme, "Pollution Prevention: You Can Make a Difference," Winners were honored at
 Region Us Earth Day Festival in late April and were also invited to participate in EPA's
 20th annual celebration in December, 1990.

 US Environmental Protection Agencv: National Network For Environmental Education

 The Agency is working to expand  the National Network For Environmental Education
 (NNEE), a network of interactive centers across the  country serving as regional centers for
 teacher training, community outreach, and environmental research.  As the Network
 reaches its full potential, these centers will serve as environmental education and
 information resources for grass-roots America. EPA is now working with other
 government agencies and departments interested in contribution to and accessing the
 Network.

Smithsonian Institution: The Oakland Museum

The Oakland Museum, a Smithsonian member, sponsors the ScienceReach Program,
 which consists of a visit to the Oakland Museum's Natural Sciences Gallery, a discussion

-------
with a professional in the field of resource conservation, and a classroom slide show  The
program attempts to familiarize high school students to concepts such as adaptation.
community, and interdependence. Of particular importance is the efforts ofrnc
SaenccReach program to make minority students aware of how issues like animal
extinction affect urban residents.
US Department Of Entrrv/Center For gm/iron^nr. Commerce. and Entry
 Urban Weathenzatian Project  - •

The Center For Environment, Commerce, and Energy and the Department of Energy have
established a partnership to wcatherize 40 urban District homes. As of July, 1990 20
homes have been weatherized with energy-efficient doors and windows.

-------
 URBAN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION:
   District  Programs, Curriculum-Based Programs, Environmental Advocacy
   Organizations,  Community Organizations:

 While the federal government is currently expanding its role in urban environmental
 education, there exists a multitude of organizations that have been engaged in urban
 environmental education for some time. Many of these organizations are community-
 based, organizing and educating large numbers of urban minorities toward establishing an
 environmental ethic. In many of these urban communities, there exists no formal grievance
 mechanism to represent local residents' needs. As a result, these urban citizens resort to
 churches and housing agencies—groups with which urban minorities are in frequent, if not
 constant contact, to voice their concerns. These local groups, often understaffed
 organizations with limited financial resources, are, nonetheless, engaged in a myriad of
 mobilizational activities including boycotts, marches, letter-writing campaigns, and
 lobbying.

 The rising grassroots environmental movement is also beginning to embrace the area of
 urban environmental education. Indeed, mere are a rising number of environmental
 advocacy groups that specifically target urban minority issues.  As well, these newly-
 established organizations offer some of the most innovative strategies for urban
 environmental education. Below is a sampling of some types of urban environmental
 education programs mat are sponsored by various organizations.


 District Government:

 District of Columbia Asbestos Removal Prof ram

 The District reviews demolition and renovation plans to ensure asbestos will be removed in
 a way that will protect the health of the construction workers and the public. Asbestos
 removal must be done by qualified workers, and their safety equipment is inspected before
 removal begins. To protect the public, access to the building is limited. The District
 monitors disposal of asbestos to make certain it is properly packaged and sent to an
 approved disposal site.  Approximately 372 asbestos removal projects were completed in
 the District in 1987.

 District of Columbia Soil and Water Conservation District

 The Soil and Water Conservation District provides educational materials to the public, such
 as the "Homeowners Urban Guide on Ground Maintenance for Washington, DC" This
 guide discuses soil erosion, drainage, and landscaping and is available at libraries, garden
 clubs, and the SWCD.

 District of Columbia Soil and Water Conservation District: Thomas L. Avers
 Outdoor Classroom Program

The Thomas L. Ayers Outdoor Classroom Program is designed to integrate various
curricula such as science, geography, mathematics, social studies, and language arts in an
outdoor setting.  This experience offers urban youth a hands-on approach to learning
activities. The District is one of three co-sponsors of the Ayers Program, The two
remaining co-sponsors are the DC Public Schools-Science Department, and the Soil and
Water Conservation  Society-DC Chapter.

-------
 Environmental  Advocacy Organizations:

 Center For Environment. Commerce, and Energy: Minority Environmental
  Internship Program,

 In 1988, the Center For Environment, Commerce, and Energy Minority Environmental
 Internship Program sponsored fourteen (14) interns and one volunteer at thirteen (13)
 environmental organizations and Maryland Governor Donald Shaefer's Environment
 Office. The objective of the program is to increase the number of minority participants in
 the environmental sector. The program is also intended to provide students with the
 analytical and technical skills necessary to better their understanding of the environmental
 policy-making processes through a paid internship with various environmental, energy,
 wildlife, and natural resource organizations.

 Environmental Action Foundation

 Environmental Action, Inc. is a national membership-based organization which works for
 strong state and federal environmental laws. The Foundation uses its educational, legal,
 technical and organizing capabilities to promote environmental protection and assist
 grassroots organizations. Environmental Action:

       o promotes alternatives to incineration and landfills through waste
         reduction programs that minimize waste production and maximi7.c
         recycling and composting;

       o champions energy efficiency as the most immediate and cost-
         effective response to global warming;

       o helps citizens learn about toxic hazards;

       o educates citizens on alternatives to chemical pesticides and helps
         them oppose  the use of chemical pesticides in their communities.


 The Morning Star Foundation

 The Morning Star Foundation is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization promoting Native
 American cultural rights. In 1989, the Foundation established a headquarters office in
 Washington, DC, and developed an in-house program of educational and cultural
 advocacy. The Foundation also provides organizational sponsorship for Native Children's
 Survival, which is international in scope and devoted to youth education and participation
 in environmental protection. Native Children's Survival is sponsoring a series of music
 videos; the first two of the series deal with missing children and the world environment

 The Natural Guard^

The Natural Guard is a new national, non-profit, environmental education, service, and
advocacy organization designed for school age youth. Through education and
involvement, the organization hopes to inspire young people to recognize and solve
environmental problems. The Natural Guard's five major goals are to:

       o Instill in  young people a better understanding of and appreciation
         for the local environment and, in turn, the world around them;

-------
       o  Generate service projects-such as recycling, pollution patrols,
          litter clean-up, energy conservation, wildlife habitat enhancement,
          tree-planting, park and monument carctaking, urban trailbuilding—
          designed to protect and enhance the environment, provide benefits
          for the entire community, and develop leadership skills in young
          people;

       o  Instill a sense of advocacy, and teach the skills necessary to achieve
          the goals of environmental protection and enjoyment;

       o  Institute a supervised exchange program among chapters that provides
          opportunities for outdoor exploration of different environments; and

       o  Emphasize career opportunities in the environment, conservation,
          and related fields.

 Within the next twelve to eighteen months, the Natural Guard plans to establish a chapter
 in Washington DC, as well as several other urban areas.  The organization hopes to appeal
 to young people from many geographic, economic, and ethnic backgrounds. Special
 emphasis will be placed on communities that are not being reached by other environmental
 education programs. The newly established environmental advocacy group plans to target
 the increasing number of communities where the primary language is Spanish;
 accordingly, appropriate staff, educational materials, and brochures will be bilingual.
National Toxics Campaign

The National Toxics Campaign, headed in Boston, Massachusets, is a grassroots
organization that helps to organize citizens in toxic neighborhoods to win relocation,
cleanup and fair compensation. A coalition of over 1000 grassroots groups, NTC
publishes "Fighting Toxics," a 500-page manual for protecting citizens from toxic hazards.

National Wildlife Federation:  Cool It! Pro frams

The National Wildlife Federation's Cool It! programs encourage college students to launch
local projects that attack the pollution causing global warming. Some campus projects may
double or triple the size of existing recycling programs. Other campuses may promote
public transportation, energy efficiency, bike paths and walkways, or try to persuade local
food establishments to switch from plastic packaging to biodegradable paper cups and
plates. Cool It! emphasizes supporting projects initiated by culturally diverse groups.
Organizers are assisting college students from diverse communities who are not
traditionally active in environmental issues to play an active role in solving environmental
programs.


Curriculum-Based  Programs:

Greenpeace Environmental Education Pilot Proieci

The Greenpeace organization produces a student-directed, process-oriented curriculum that
is used in 18 schools across the world, two of which are predominantly minority schools in
the US. The curriculum focuses on the environmental issues of the local community, rather

-------
 than environmental science in general  Instead of the traditional textbook learning
 method, the students coordinate research and site visits with local environmental
 organizations and agencies. After field research, the students initiate their own projects that
 are designed to encourage responsible environmental behavior.

 Thames Science Center: Watershed Worlds

 Watershed Worlds is an environmental science program for teacher enhancement and
 development of teaching materials.  Based on a pilot project, the program (grades 6-10)
 will be developed and disseminated in a three-year project involving 495 teachers and their
 students at 65 pilot sites in the nation. An additional 1350 teachers will be introduced to the
 program through in-service programs. The curriculum aims to engage teachers' and
 students' interest in a series of investigatory activities exploring current environmental
 problems and concerns. At the same time, participants explore concepts and theories of the
 planet's environmental systems and analyze the cumulative human impact upon them.
 These scientific investigations are highly relevant to the students' everyday lives as they
 employ and compare local and global databases. The Watershed Worlds curriculum offers
 a thematic and sequential presentation of science concepts that crosses boundaries in all
 science disciplines normally taught in secondary schools. It is designed to serve all
 students.
 Community Organizations:

 The Center For Community Action: Robeson County. NC

 The Environmental Protection and Policy Project of the Center For Community Action was
 formed in 1984 in order to develop creative strategies for the promotion of environmental
 protection in Southeastern North Carolina. The Center seeks to:

       o organize citizen participation in environmental concerns among the
         majority Native American and African-American populations of
         Robeson County; and

       o provide programs and trainings to increase public education and
         analysis on issues of hazardous and solid waste management,
         facility site selection processes and the role of race and economics
         in the selection process, waste reduction and disposal methods,
         recycling, landfill contamination, and the role of religious
         communities in environmental protection.

 Christadora Foundation: Monies Education Center

The Christadora Foundation operates in the city of New York as a grant-giving institution.
The Foundation's grants focus on environmental education. The common ground of all
Christadora grants is that they enable underprivileged city children to better understand and
value the environment that surrounds them.  Funded programs often bear an essential
relationship to the Manice Education Center. The primary goals of the Center are to:

       o introduce students to the world of nature, stimulating their enthusiasm
         for learning in the outdoors;

       o nurture sensitivity to and understanding of the human place within
         natural ecosystems;

-------
       o develop students' capacity for leadership, self-reliance, and group
         cooperation;

       o instill in students an appreciation for the natural world, the value
         of conservation and to help promote minority participation and
         leadership in the conservation movement and in the sciences
         in general

Students and classes are carefully selected from New York City public schools, grades 6-
10, to attend the Center.

The United Methodist Church:  General Board of Church and Society:
 For: Our Children Video

The United Methodist Church's General Board of Church and Society, a member of the
Eco-Justice Working Group, a network of onmnmniiy environmental jnsrice organizations,
produces a video, "For Our Children" and an accompanying 40 page manual that
discusses grassroots environmental organizing and issues. The video, which is about a
half-hour long, contrasts community points of view with corporate concerns in an attempt
to demonstrate the problematic nature of commercial incineration of hazardous waste.  It
also raises the fundamental question of mankind's relationship to nature. The video packet
is intended to promote discussion of the presented topics and is suggested for use in adult
or youth Church classes.

The United Methodist Church:  The Greenhouse Crisis FofflKfafion

The Eco-Justice Working Group of die National Council of Churches and the Joint
Strategy and Action Committee produces a guide on ways that individuals and church
congregations can begin to take to save die earth. The "101 Ways to Help Save die Barm"
manual presents specific actions mat individuals can take to change their daily habits. It
also includes a section, "52 Weeks of Congressional Activities to Help Save die Earth" that
urges activities from tree donation drives to energy efficiency seminars.

-------
 RECOMMENDATIONS:  The Environmental Protection Agency's Role in
                            Urban Environmental Education

 As a result of the research gathered for the Washington, DC Urban Environmental
 Education Report, the following recommendations for the US Environmental Protection
 Agency's role in urban environmental education have been developed:

 Partnerships:

 Some of die most effective environmental education programs in the Washington, DC
 community are partnerships between various organizations. This working relationship
 provides organizations with the opportunity not only to pool resources, but to share
 perspectives on environmental issues and strategies.

 Action: The Environmental Protection Agency nny<»nsidcr expanding existing
         partnerships and establishing new ones with urban schools, as well as
         <-mmrmnv»nfal advocacy gmnpg and local community orgnniratioos that
         are involved in urban environmental education.
 Technical Assistance:

 A significant obstacle to the success of many urban environmental education programs
 (ones not sponsored by government agencies) is the lack or deficiency of technical
 information on environmental issues.  Moreover, while many local organizations represent
 community concerns when a cnsfc situation results (e.g. the siffaff8 of municipal solid
 waste incinerators, waste-to-energy facilities, and solid hazardous waste incinerators lead
 to the formation of toxic waste prevention organizations), many times these groups need to
 be able to "translate" technical information on the environment into understandable terms to
 an urban audience.

 Action: The EPA may consider publishing fact sheets on urban environmental issues
         like air pollution, energy efficiency, incineration facilities, and general toxic
         issues. These handy information sheets could provide easy insertion into
         existing curricula while also promoting adult literacy on environmental issues
         that directly impact urban areas.


 Recognize/Award  Existing  Programs:

 Much of the effective work on urban environmental education goes unnoticed, resulting in
 the duplication of many environmental programs. Furthermore, organizations concerned
 with urban environmental education should be aware of successful programs so that similar
efforts may be considered in their particular community.

Action:  The EPA may consider instituting an environmental awards program
         (similar to the Department of Interior's Take Pride In America program)
         that recognizes and applauds the variety of environmental education programs
         that are produced by environmental advocacy groups, local community
         organizations, and other governmental agencies.

-------
 Teacher Recognition;

 One tremendous barrier to the implementation of environmental curricula in schools is the
 reluctancy of teachers, either because of time constraints, lack of interest in environmental
 issues, or poor reception by school administrators, to undertake environmental education in
 their schools. Those teachers that do decide to participate in environmental education
 programs should be rightfully acknowledged as innovators in education.

 Action:  EPA may consider instituting an Environmental Education Award specifically
          for teachers who initiate or actively encourage environmental education in
          their respective schools.


 Act as Clearinghouse/Coordinator for Environmental Education Programs:

 There are many strategies and programs mat operate in a vacuum; that is, successful
 methods for urban environmental extension are often not shared, but rather localized to
 specific communities.  There is a strong need for a national organization to act as
 networking center to facilitate the exchange of information among groups, as well as
 existing as a catalyst for the formation of partnerships between various organizations.

 Action: The EPA is in a unique position to act as a national clearinghouse for
          the sundry environmental education programs that currently exist
          The Agency may consider extensively researching urban environmental
          education programs that currently exist so that it may provide concerned
          organizations with appropriate program information and contacts. As
          well, the Agency may consider coordinating federal efforts at urban
          environmental education en route to establishing an comprehensive
          strategy for federal participation in urban environmental education.


 Establish Pilot Programs:

 One of the most innovative strategies in environmental education is die hands-on approach
 of environmental education pilot programs. Urban youth are more likely to become
 interested in environmental issues if programs allow actual participation and provide
 information and solutions to issues that directly impact their daily lives. Many urban youth
 do not realize the intexconnectedness of many environmental issues. As a result, they are
 unlikely to devote much attention to programs that discuss "foreign" topics. Developing
 innovative urban pilot projects could be tremendously effective in introducing and instilling
 an environmental ethic in today's urban youth.

 Action: EPA may consider developing pilot projects that are geared
          specifically toward urban minority children and the issues that directly
          affect them. Also, programs that connect global environmental issues
          to local concerns would bring environmentalism "closer to the urban home."


 Regional Publications:

EPA Headquarters cannot bear the responsibility of investigating urban environmental
concerns for every urban community in the country; EPA Regional offices, located in cities

-------
 with significant minority populations, could bear some of the responsibility for localizing
 urban environmental education efforts.

 Action: Regional offices may consider acting as liaison between various urban
         communities and EPA Headquarters, providing information on current
         environmental concerns in local urban communities.
Historically Black  College and  University (HBCID Research Budget:

Most, if not all of our nation's HBClTs are active in great numbers of community service
projects, many of which include environmental education programs for minority
communities. To support these institutions with significant funding is to feed money into
these already existing environmental education programs.

Action: EPA may consider increasing research funding to HBClTs that are engaged
         in urban environmental education. Moreover, the Agency may seek to
         initiate programs through partnerships at universities without
         environmental education projects.

-------
Environmental Health and Industry

-------
                             HSAMH  FQCPfi  QROPP
     NACKPT  EDUCATION  &  TRAl'MIHO  STAMP IMS
The following items are a colitejction of preliminary ideas
about how to get the private sector involved  in  environmental
education with special emphasis!: on environmental health
issues.  The ideas are not exhaustive and may already have
been implement ad in the U.S.  They are put forward as 'food
for thought1 in anticipation ori the next meeting of the focus
group .


 1.   Conduct a survey of companies which have successfully
    implemented environmental ({education) programs  within
    their own organization-,  ftrjeas to to be --considered might
    include, how companies encourage an environmentally aware
    ethic within their organisation, strategies  for changing
    behaviours/  encouraging people to produce  innovative
    waste reduction techniquea/technologies/processes,  etc.
    This may be done through a ponsult ing study  or  by
    encouraging EPA's regions !tb submit names of companies
    about which they have information.

2.  Once companies are : identified provide support to one or
    two businesses (demonstration) in each region to ensure
    their experience and methodology is
    transmitted/translated to:ojj:her companies /communities.
    This may be done by encouraging such companies  to give
    talks at local chamber's of i commerce and other  business
    organizations' meetings.

3.  Explore the use of social marketing to encourage
    environmentally sound behaviours.   Examine such social
    marketing programs as Canada's Participation  (fitness),
    Break Free (anti-smoking),  Jdrug addiction, seat-belt  use,
" •   etc.  ''.''.•"    ". .    '      '•'•'•..       ' ' '  ': ./

4.  Create one or more social ^marketing programs  targetted  on
    high risk issues related tjol environmental health.   Such
    programs could be funded in;i part by corporations  which
    could in turn use them withjLn their own organizations.
    Unions should not Joe Cof^OU!{L«« 0.0  puaalblc
5.  Identify basic principles of behaviour change programming
    (social marketing)  which could be put into a handbook for
    companies .

6.  Explore the possibility of getting a large
    advertising/marketing firm to donate all or a part of
    their time  to a social marketing project on the
    environment .

-------
7.   Identify and/or encourage  tjhe  creation/development  of
     childrene.' environmental organizations.  Encourage  them
     to create presentations with slides, visual aids etc.
     Invite them to  make presentations to their parent's
     companies or to local business service organizations.  An
     example  of this Activity exists in Vancouver, B.C.

8»   Create an environment success  story data bank with  'how
     to' briefings.   Market the sip success stories as examples
     of how progress Is being njiade and how others can get
     involved..  Environment Canada has such a program with
     over 100  examples  (see attached brochure).

9.   Foster the creation of a philanthropic fund for
     environmental education,  Spe attached advertisement for
     Canada Trust as an innovative example of how the banking
     community can act as vehiclie for generating funds for
     environmental projects.

10,  Pick one  or more, community 'demonstration, projects in
     which local corporations {ejmployees and management)  or
     industry public service organizations take on an
     environmental problem and work towards its solution.
     Ensure the project gets hi'gn public profile.


Prepared by;
Laurence Evans
Contributor; Environmental Health Focus Group
October 11, 1990

-------
                     NATIONAL  ADVISORY COUNCIL  FOR
                ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND  TECHNOLOGY

                    FY 1991 NACEPT COMMITTEE AGENDA

        ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMITTEE

        Pollution Prevention. Environmental  Preservation and  Restoration

—Focusing on developing creative ways to educate society about how to proactively protect the
environment, including redirecting people away from current end-of-the-pipe, reactive approaches.

FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Complete implementation of Administrator's Office Pollution
Prevention Education Task Force report and recommendations, complete implementation of
Management Institute for Environment and Business and Eco-Media, conduct University
President's Roundtable (domestic and international), develop Community College Roundtable,
complete urban/minority environmental research project, and define expanded NNEMS program.

Chair, Dr. Tony Cortese, Tufts University. Participants include representatives from Delta
College, South Carolina Environmental Training Center, Air and Waste Management Association,
National Environmental Training Association, Oberlin College, UCLA, EnviroSearch Inc.,
Alliance for Environmental Education.

                       Environmental  Consumer Education

—Developing strategies and initiatives to educate consumers about how their purchasing practices
impact the environment and effect change.

FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Potential conference on environmental labelling.

Chair, Dr. Erhard Joeres, University of Wisconsin. Participants include representatives from Small
Business Development Consulting, Johns-Hopkins University, Allied Signal, Environmental
Communication Associates, American Talks Security, Ben and Jerry's Inc., Monsanto, TV A,
Metcalf and Eddy, Green Seal, Delta College, and EPA Offices of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
and Pesticides and Toxic Substances.

                              Environmental Health

-Focusing on improving citizen understanding of the linkage of environment and public health.

-Studying how people make environmental management decisions.

—Working on improving cross-disciplinary networking, cooperation with the health care commuity
and environmental NGO's, motivating increased industry involvement, and seeking expanded role
by EPA Radon Program and Interagency Task Force on Environmental Cancer/Heart Lung Disease

FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: In cooperation with American Medical Association, plan to sponsor
environmental human behavior symposia to consider issues and successful behavior modification
program approaches.

Chair, Dr. William Hendee, American Medical Association, with representatives from Alliance for
   Environmental Education, Illinois State University, National Wildlife Federation, SPARK,
  Canada; Water Pollution Control Federation, Sierra Club, National Collegiate Television, EPA
                                     Region V.

-------
                                 AGENDA

                   STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
                       National   Advisory   Council
              for  Environmental  Policy   and  Technology

                    Madison  Hotel,  Washington,  D.C.
              	October  23, 1990	
 8:00 am      Coffee and  Breakfast  Rolls Available

 8:30 am      Welcome.   Introductions.  Review  of  Agenda ,
             Approval  of  7/18-19/90  Minutes ~  Terry Novak,   Chair

 8:45 am      Implementation   of   Committee  Recommendations   —
             Donna Fletcher,  Director

                   —Status of Followup Items
                   —Recommendations  Implementation  Plan

             Discussion
             Next  Steps

 9:10 am      Committee  Networking  Opportunities

             Relationship  to State-EPA  Committee  —  Tom Looby,   Vice Chair
             Urban Consortium  Environmental Task Force — George  Britton,   Member

             Discussion
             Next  Steps

 9:30 am      Committee  Projects:  Building  State  and  Local
             Environmental   Management   Capacity

             Environment  Program — Cindy  Kelly,  International City
                   Managers  Association
             State  Strategic Planning —   John Thomasian,  National
                   Governors  Association
             Self-Help Program  —  Jane  Schautz.  Rensselaerville  Institute

             Discussion
             Next  Steps

10:15 am     BREAK

10:30 am     State and  Local  Governments  in  EPA'n Strategic
             Planning  Process   — Facilitator Tom Looby

             Strawman  Recommendations
            Discussion
            Action on  Recommendations
            Next  Steps

-------
 11:00 am     Consideration  of  the  Special  Needs  nf Small  Communities   --
              Facilitator Tim  Power.   Chair. Small Communities  Subcommittee

              Referral  Recommendations  from  Subcommittee
              Discussion
              Action  on  Recommendations
              Next Steps

 11:30 am     Local  Governments  as Supgrfund  PRPs « Facilitator  Terry  Novak

              Analysis of Comments:   Donna  Fletcher
              Strawman   Recommendations
              Discussion

 12:00  noon   LUNCH ON YOUR OWN

 1:00 pm      Local  Governments  as  Superfund  PRPs  (continuation')

              Discussion
              Action  on  Recommendations
              Next Steps

 2:00 pm      Subtitle D  Municipal  Solid  Waste  Program  --

              EPA Panel; Bruce  Weddle. Director, Municipal  Solid Waste
                    Program;  Truett  Degeare, Planning  Implementation  Group

                    Overview of Final Subtitle D Regulations
                    Proposed  State  Implementation  Rule
                    Proposed  25% Waste  Reduction  Requirement
                    Technical  Assistance  and  Training  Plans

 3:00 pm     BREAK

 3:15 pm     Response  to  EPA  Panel on  Municipal  Solid Waste

             Jim  Power, State of Kansas
             George  Britton,  Phoenix. AZ
             Larry Cole,  Beaverton,  OR

             Discussion
             Next  Steps

4:00 pm     Future Committee  Projects  —  Donna  Fletcher,  Director

                    L Community    Environmental    Assessment
                    2. Strategies  for  Reaching  Local   Governments

4:30 pm     Agenda for  Next  Meeting —  Terry  Novak.  Chair
             Other  Business

5:00 pm     ADJOURN

-------
                  NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
                                   FOR
    ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY (NACEPT)

          STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
 Chairperson:

 Mr. Terry Novak. Ph.D.* (90)
 City Manager
 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd.
 Spokane, WA 99201
Designated Federal Official:

Ms. Donna Fletcher
U.S. EPA (A-101 F6) Comm. Dir.
Office of Cooperative Environmental
  Management
401 M St., S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Phone: (202) 245-3883

Members:

Mr. George W. Britton* (92)
Deputy City Manager
City of Phoenix
251 West Washington Street, 8th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Mr. Larry Cole* (93)
Mayor
City of Beaverton
P.O. Box 4755
Beaverton, OR 97076

Mr. Scott E. Fore* (93)
Vice President
Environmental, Health and Safety
Safety Kleen Corp.
777 Big Timber Road
Elgin,  IL 60123

Mr. J.  William Futrell, Esq.* (93)
President
Environmental Law Institute
1616 P Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

* Denotes NACEPT member
 Terms expire September 30
Vice Chairperson:

Mr. Tom Looby* (93)
Assistant Director for Health
 and Environmental Protection
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, CO 80220
Ms. Robin Cornwell
U.S. EPA (A-101 F6) Comm. Dep. Dir.
Office of Cooperative Environmental
  Management
401 M St.. S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 245-3889
Ms. Lillian Kawasaki* (93)
General Manager
Department of Environmental Affairs
City of Los Angeles
200 North Main Street (MS 177)
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Mr. James Power, Jr.* (92)
Director
Division of Environment
Departmemt of Health & Environment
Forbes Field, Building 740
Topeka, KS 66620-0001

Mr. Don Richardson* (93)
Mayor, Clinton, Arkansas
c/o Arkansas Association of Conservation
 Districts
No. 1 Capitol Mall, Suite 2D
Little Rock, AR 72201

-------

-------
Clarify the shared
environmental
management
responsibilities of
EPA, States, and local
governments and
EPA's responsibilities
in providing
enabling assistance,
information,
and education.
Issue national
policy on
Federal-State
relations.
Conducted 1984 oversight
policy implementation
study, Enforcement
in the 1990s project,
RCRA Implementation
Study; each concludes
that EPA has not made
the culture change
necessary to implement
the policy.

There is effort now to
"take stock" of
oversight practices to
determine needed
changes.

1987 policy memo on
community relations
asks forincorporation of
community relations
training into EPA
Institute, but it was not
implemented.
Issue statement
regarding oversight
policy: oversight includes
clear guidance, direct tech-
nical assistance, and train-
ing; programs are expected
to develop training and
technical assistance
as part of regulatory devel-
opment activities;
increase communication,
consultation, on-site visits,
and personnel exchanges.
                                                                             seui igo^tof refo^rms^and
                                                                               provements, and sets
                                                                             Institute programs for
                                                                             improving State-EPA
                                                                             mutual understanding,
                                                                             such as expanding use of
                                                                             IPAs and short-term ssign-
                                                                             ments, training programs
                                                                             on intergovernmental
                                                                             relations.
                                        AND TECHNOLOO(

-------
 Clarify shared
 environmental
 management
 responsibilities of
 States and EPA

 (continued)
Hold senior managers
accountable for State
capacity building and
improving EPA-State
relations.
1987 policy memo on
community relations asks
for measure to be
developed, bu it has not
yet been implemented.
Include a measure in
performance standards
of Headquarters and
Regional managers for
State capacity building and
improving EPA-State
relations.
Accelerate use of
risk and problem
assessment for
planning, managing,
and allocating
resources for
environmental
programs.
Accelerate development
of baseline risk in
Regions.
Comparative risk projects
in all 10 Regions; several
pilot State projects; NGA
project to study State envi-
ronmental planning ap-
proaches and potential
integration with EPA
planning.
Assess strengths and
 .* %V* X/ sffa'  > ••< > "\M  * 4 •>

assessment
                                                     Support NGA project to
                                                     study State planning
                                                     approaches.
                       Increase Regional and
                       State flexibility to
                       reallocate resources.
                           30% flexibility to shift re-
                           sources across programs
                           and within programs avail-
                           able to Regions, but limited
                           shifting has occurred;
                           States are not yet seeing
                           any flexibility.
                          flexibility in resource
                                                                             iive~Rffs aulEbTity to"
                                                                            make multi-media
                                                                            grants to States.
                       Shift accountability
                       measures to measures of
                       environmental
                       progress.
                           Guidance on strategic
                           planning and STARS
                           encourage progress
                           measures; programs
                           attempting to define
                           environmental measures,
                           but with limited success
                                experimentation
                                 iiches fo measuring
                                  evaluate,
                                                                            Select an experimental
                                                                            Region and State to be
                                                                            released from current
                                                                            accountability measures
                                                                            in exchange for an alterna-
                                                                            tive progress reporting
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR ENVinoWMFNTM oni i/w

-------
  State and Local
Programs Committee

-------
Increase emphasis on
building the environ-
mental management
capacity of local
government.
Issue national
policy on EPA's role
in enabling local
governments to
carry out their
environmental
management
responsibilities.
                           Maintain formal
                           mechanisms to
                           identify local
                           government needs
                           and assure delivery
                           of information and
                           assistance to them.
EPA responsibilities to local
governments still unclear;
some informal consultation
with local governments
takes place; some peer match
and technical assistance
efforts reach locals. Top
management's support
for such activities is not
known.  Assistance
efforts are generally
not coordinated among
the programs.
                       Grant with ICMA provides
                       peer matches and informa-
                       tion transfer to local
                       governments and means for
                       soliciting local government
                       perspectives. Several
                       other programs
                       provide information and
                       technical assistance to local
                       governments, but there is
                       no central list of such
                       activities oranalysis of
                       their effectiveness.
Issue policy explaining
EPA's responsibility to
foster improved environ-
mental management
capacity at the local level;
requires EPA programs
and Regions to consult
with local governments;
sets out expectations re-
garding implementation
of the local government
aspects of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act; establishes
opportunities for EPA staff
to visit very small towns,
and details support for
technical assistance to
local governments.
                           te conical as sis tan c e
                           Vtt&h&ttlriU &ldU.
                           drinking water-waste
                           water coordination of
                           information and
                           ^echlcaJL.assistance.,,
                           Contlaue aa3 expand""
                           • su .^.^ **•.*•& Xv%> fv.  . % s Vk *
                                  raflt program to
                                     governments
                                                                                 _
                                                                              SlriUngthis n T lies to
                                                                              USDA's Extension
                                                                              Service to educate/train
                                                                              local j^yemmejnts. _____
                                                                             "Explore potential use "61
                                                                              fire /health depart-
                                                                              ments as educators*'
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY

-------
 Build environmental
 management capacity
 of local government.
 (continued)
                   Build local govern-
                   ment capacity for
                   environmental
                   self-evaluation so
                   they can develop
                   and implement
                   sound environ-
                   mental manage-
                   ment plans.
                          Expand networks
                          and EPA resources
                          to deliver
                          information,
                          training, and
                          assistance to
                          States.
Auditing is becoming routine
in private sector but in
limited use by local govern-
ments. Preliminary dis-
cussions with ICMA on devel-
opment of a "green book" on
environmental management,
and with Extension Service
to develop environmental
assessment program for
small communities.
Small communities and
affordability work groups
are looking at cumulative
impacts of regulations on
communities; ability to
comply now assessed
regulation-by-regulation
without regard to costs of
complying with other
regulations.
                                          NGA grant produced report
                                          on alternative financing,
                                          implementation of CAA
                                          permit fee proposals, and
                                          study of State strategic plan-
                                          ning processes; other organi-
                                          zations representing execu-
                                          tive branch agencies are
                                          funded by and have
                                          working relationships
                                          with EPA.
 Fund a cooperative
 agreement with ICMA
 for development of a
 "green book" on
 environmental
h manajeme^nt..^ ^ ^ __ ^

 Develop an environ-
 mental auditing
 protocol for, local gov-
 ernments. Explore use
 of Extension network
 to disseminate to small
                                                                             Develop a small
                                                                             communities
                                                                             compliance policy that
                                                                             bases compliance efforts
                                                                             on a cross-program plan
                                                                             developed as a result of an
                                                                             environmental audit, risk
                                                                             assessment, and
                                                                             affordability analysis.
                           Continue support for
                           NGA program       :
                           providing peer
                           matches, information
                           exchange, and other,
                           assistance to States;
                           continue to support pther
                           State executive branch
STATE A
NATIONA
CCAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
 liSORY COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY

-------
Build environmental
management capacity
of local government.

(continued)
 Expand networks
 and EPA resources
 to deliver informa-
 tion, training, and
 assistance to
 States.

 (continued)
 Little EPA planning yet for
 State (and local) training
 either by EPA Institute or
 EPA enforcement academy.
Assure that planners for the
EPA Institute and en-
forcement academy
adequatey  consider
State  and local training
needs in the design
of their programs.
                                                                           Initiate a study of the
                                                                           status of State  (and
                                                                           local) training forenvi-
                                                                           rotti&entoJl agency person*
                                                                           nel as a first step in a
                                                                           loagei^ii* strategy for
                                                                           meeting their training
                                                                                     '
 Improve delivery of
 information and
 assistance to State and
 local governments.
Help States and
local goyerments
expand in-State
technical assis-
tance,  training,
and information
transfer.
EPA is funding Rensselaer-
ville Institute to expand its
model local "self-help" pro-
gram to other States. Other
organizations providing
technical assistance to local
governments (e.g., Small
Flows Clearinghouse, Rural
Communities Assistance Cor-
poration) also receive limited
EPA support.
Continue and expand
EPA' s peer match
and information dis-
semination program
with ICMA.
                                                                           program for drinking

                                                                           other States and add a solid
                                                                           Expand support to other
                                                                           organizations giving
                                                                           technical assistance to small
                                                                                               cize
                                                                           successful State assist-
                                                                           ance programs, hot-
                                                                           lines, clearinghouses;
                                                                           help establish inter-
                                                                           state networks,
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY

-------
 LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
 ANDSUPERFUND
  sz
                          Po«cy and Techno.ogy
Prepared for:
   and Local Programs Committee

-------
  LOCAL  GOVERNMENTS  AND SUPERFUND

                       SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
                                    AND
                  'STRAWMAN' RECOMMENDATIONS
                             stemming  from
                     ICMA FOCUS GROUP REPORT

 The State and Local  Programs  Committee  of the National  Advisory  Council  for
 Environmental Policy and  Technology (NACEPT)  has been examining  the
 impact  on  local governments  of  being  named potentially  responsible  parties
 (PRPs)  at  Superfund  sites  and other local  government  issues associated with
 implementation  of CERCLA.   Under  Committee auspices,  the  International  City
 Managers Association (ICMA) convened a focus group of local  officials whose
 communities  had been named PRPs to share  experiences  and identify  ways the
 process  could be made easier for other communities.  Since  the  U.S.
 Environmental Protection  Agency  (EPA)  bad  only  recently  completed
 development  of  a municipal  settlement policy  for Superfund  after months  of
 deliberation  and analysis of  the statute,  the participants  were asked  not to
 re-open  this  issue but rather to focus on improvements that could  be  made
 within  the  current statutory structure  and general  policy.

 A focus group  participation  presented the group's suggestions to  the
 Committee  at its July meeting.   The  Committee took  the suggestions  under
 advisement and  will decide at  its upcoming meeting  (10/23),  what
 recommendations, if any, to make  formally to  the  Agency.   To  help  in making
 this  decision, the  Committee  solicited  the views of key  organizations
 representing  State  and  local  governments.

  This paper contains  "strawman"  language  for recommendations based on  the
 comments along  with a discussion of  issues associated with each;  summaries  of
 associated comments  are also presented.   The recommendations  are  grouped  in
 the  following categories:

      1.     Notification
      2.     Procedures  when  Local  Governments  Involved  as  PRPs
      3.     Role of Local  Governments
      4.     General  CERCLA  Policy
      5.     Other Issues  Affecting  Local  Governments
      6.     Local Government Capacity Building
      7.     ICMA Focus  Group Proposals for Statutory Changes

The  "strawman"  recommendations  are only intended  to facilitate  discussion
leadinf  to  the  development of recommendations that  will  fo through  the
format NACEPT  process.

Prepared   for:
State and   Local  Programs  Committee
National  Advisory  Council   for  Environmental  Policy  and   Technology
October  1990

-------
                              GENERAL COMMENTS                            I
 The  primary  function  of local  governments  is the  protection  of the  public,
 safety,  health, and  welfare.   Local governments  implement  public  policy  in a
 wide  range of environmental  areas.   They  want to  be good partners with States
 and EPA.   There are  several impediments  to cost effective, efficient,  and  timely
 cleanups of hazardous  waste  sites.  We  have collectively  developed
 recommendations to  improve  hazardous  waste cleanup in  ways  that also
 enhance  the  role  of local  governments.   (ICMA  focus group)

 There  are  over 39.000 general  purpose  local governments in  the  United States.
 More  than 85% are  small, serving populations under  10,000.   Each  of these
 small  governments is  limited in  its financial resources,  staff expertise, and
 access to  consultants.    "General  purpose  governments" include cities,  counties,
 towns, and  townships;  the  recommendations should  apply  to all, not just to
 "cities."   (National  Association  of Towns  and Townships/NATaT)

 Local   governments  need to  be treated  as  equal  partners in  environmental
 protection.   Local  governments  are  there  to protect  the  health, safety,  and the
 environment for all  their citizens.  (NATaT)

 One  cannot  help  but  support  recommendations  for greater consistency,  cven-
 handedness. and efficiency  as  well  as  better information  sharing  and
 technology  transfer.    However,  our  reviewers did find possible points of
 friction between current  statutory requirements and  some  of the  report's
 recommendations.   (Association  of State  and Territorial Solid  Waste
 Management   Officials/ASTSWMO)

 Both the U.S.  Constitution  and  CERCLA set forth the relationship between
 Federal  and  State  governments, and,  by extension,  the relationship with  local
 governments.    The  delineation of these relationships  plays  a  large  part in  the
 procedures  designed  to implement Supcrfund.   While better  involvement  of
 local  governments is  desirable,  it should  not replace, circumvent,  or disrupt
 these  basic Constitutional   and  statutory   Federal/State  relationships.
 (ASTSWMO)

 The issues  that arise  when  cities  are  involved in  Federal Superfund or  State
 cleanups  are  extremely complex and involve not only cities,  but  also lenders,
 buyers, generators,  and owners of property.  The  issues  which need to  be
 addressed  include  such things as:   innocent landowners, de  minimus
 settlements,  environmental   assessments,  lender  liability,  site  registry,  and
 liability  insurance.   The ICMA proposal is  too narrow  in  scope; we  need to  take
 a  look at  a   number  of issues  confronting  municipalities when  contaminated
 sites  are identified  within  their communities.   (See  also  recommendations)
 (Jim  Power.KS)

 An important  part of the community's  responsibility  is not  only the  past,  but
 also the  future.   Cities  experiencing  ground-water  contamination  problems  are
 facing   the  high financial liabilities of expenditures  for cleanup  and
 remediation  and  loss  of tax  income  due  to  real estate devaluation.   Prime  real
estate  is  not  selling  because  of ground-water contamination.   Even the threat

-------
 of potential contamination has stopped many  real estate  transactions.   The
 challenge  is to find a way to share or manage  liability for contaminated  real
 estate  to  ensure  usable,  income-producing property for  long-range
 community development.   I  have  long  recommended  environmental  audits
 prior to all real  estate  transactions.   In the future, communities need  to  be
 proactive  in   limiting  future  liability  for ground-water  contamination.
 (See also  specific  recommendations) (Power,  KS)'
II                              1. NOTIFICATION
I    1-a  PROMOTE  INFORMATION SHARING  AMONG MUNICIPALITIES    I

 EPA  should   facilitate  sharing   of  lessons  learned  and  advice  from
 local  governments  that  have  had   experience  as  PRPs  with   other
 local   governments  through  dissemination   of  information   kits,
 peer  matches,   seminars,   and   publications.

 Local  governments generally  lack   the  sophisticated  legal  and technical
 expertise  needed to cope with being  named  a Superfund  PRP.   EPA  could  help
 them  through  this difficult  situation by  fostering development of information
 kits explaining the  process, sponsoring peer  exchanges among  local  officials
 with experience dealing  with  Superfund,  fostering  the  development  of
 networks  of local  officials, and   providing training  materials and  workshops.
 (ICMA focus group)

 EPA Headquarters  should develop  networks,  information  exchanges,
 workshops,  and  training  for local officials  and  implement  them through  EPA
 Regional  offices.   EPA may also  wish to work with national
 organizations/associations  to  get the  word out.   (NATaT)
I     1-b EARLY  NOTIFICATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS - ALL SITES   I

Local  government  officials   should   be  notified  immediately
when  EPA suspects  that  any site in  the  community  --  privately  or
publicly  owned   or operated  -  may  be a  potential CERCLA  site.

If a site  is suspected of  presenting  a health  or environmental  risk such  that it
warrants investigation as  a  potential  Superfund site,  local  officials should  be
notified immediately.  This will  allow them to take any  actions necessary to
limit access to the site  and  stop inappropriate activities there;  the  information
can  also  be factored  into community  planning  efforts. (ICMA focus group)

Notice should be provided at  the same time as:  EPA Regional  offices  are
informed by Headquarters  staff of a  potential  action,  or a decision  is  made  by
Regional  officials  to  undertake  an  enforcement action or  site  investigation.
(NATaT)

-------
 I            l-c NOTIFY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OF ALL ACTIONS            \

 EPA  should  inform  the  local  government  of any  investigations  or
 enforcement  actions  within   its  jurisdiction.

 Because  of  secrecy  requirements,  criminal  investigations  should  be  excluded
 from the notice requirement.  (EPA)

 Appropriate   timing  for  notification  should be  clarified.  (EPA)

 Should notice apply just to Supcrfund, or  to all programs?   If local
 governments  should be  informed about all actions,   is this  an appropriate role
 for EPA,  or more appropriate for the States since they take  most of the
 enforcement  actions?   (EPA)

 I      l-d  NOTIFY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS -  MUNICIPAL LANDFILLS      I

 EPA  should  immediately  notify  local  governments  directly   and  in
 writing  of  initial  investigation  steps  begin   taken  under   CERCLA
 involving  a  landfill   site  owned  or   used  by  local  governments.

 Local governments need  to know right away  if a landfill  they  own  or  use is a
 potential  CERCLA  site  so  that  they can discontinue  sending waste  there and
 begin cooperating  with  State  and Federal  officials.   The  notification  should  be
 in writing  directly to  local  governments,  and  not  through  State  agencies
 which  may  delay  notifying them.   If local  governments  continue  to  use
 landfills  suspected  of  being  Superfund sites,  additional  environmental  damage
 as well as economic  liability  could  result.  (ICMA focus  group)

 Initial  notice should be  given via a phone call  followed  up by a  written notice
 sent  to the  locality's  Chief Elected  Official and Chief Administrative Officer.
 Publication in the Federal  Register  should  not  be considered notice.  (NATaT)

 The  appropriate  timing  for such notification  is unclear.   (EPA)

 Which  local  officials should be notified  —city/town/township,  county,  or
 both  — is unclear.  (EPA)

I              1-e PROVIDE  INFORMATION  KIT WITH  NOTICE              I

 EPA should  include  an  information  kit  with   the  PRP  notice   to  help
 guide  local  government   officials  through   the  Superfund  process.

 Most local officials  will have  limited  or no understanding of the  Superfund
 process  and  their responsibilities  and liabilities as PRPs.   EPA  should  provide
 an  information kit  that explains  the process and  suggests what steps  they
 should  take.   Local officials  who have  experience as  PRPs should  be  involved
 in  identifying the  types of information  needed and  in developing the  content
 of  the  materials.

-------
 I    l-f NOTIFY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS BEFORE THE PRESS OR PUBLIC    I

 EPA   should   make  no  public   pronouncement  of  a  local   government's
 involvement  in   a  Superfund   investigation   until   after  the  local
 government  has  been   notified  directly.

 Local  officials  sometimes first learn  about the  government's  involvement  in  a
 potential  Superfund  site  from the press.   (ICMA  focus  group)

 EPA often  informs  the press prior  to  informing the local  government.   This
 places  a  community official  in  an   intolerable position.   (NATaT)
i   2.  PROCEDURES WHEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS INVOLVED AS PRPS   II

I        2-a  GIVE DEADLINE EXTENSION IF EPA RESPONSE IS SLOW      I

 If EPA fails  to  respond  expeditiously to  a  local  government's
 request  for  information  about  a  CERCLA  matter such  that  the local
 government  is  unable  to  meet  an  EPA  deadline  for  comments  or
 other  action,  EPA  should  automatically  extend   the  deadline.

 Often, EPA does  not  respond promptly to a local  government's inquiry  about  a
 CERCLA matter, yet EPA's deadline  for receiving comments from the local
 government do  not  change.   This leaves  the  local government inadequate  time
 to prepare.  If EPA does  not  respond to a local government within 10  days of  a
 deadline  for comments, the deadline should automatically be extended for 60
 days.  (ICMA focus group)

 NATaT  strongly believes  that  EPA needs to respond  expeditiously to  all requests
 for information.    We  have  no position on  the time frame  nor  the automatic
 extension.   (NATaT)

I   2-b LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SHOULD ENTER INITIAL CONSENT DECREE  I

 Local governments  that are  PRPs  should  be  given  the  opportunity
 to enter  into  the  initial   consent  decree.

 Current  EPA  practice  is  to notify and provide an opportunity  for settlement
 first to the ten largest PRPs at a  Superfund site.   Typically, a  local
 government's contribution  to  a site  would place  it much farther down  the  list
of PRPs, so  the  local government does not learn about its involvement in the
site until after the initial consent decree  has already  been negotiated.  By  not
being a  party to  the  initial consent  decree, the  local government can be sued
for cleanup costs by the parties  who  did sign.  EPA should notify all  local
governments involved  when  the  first  round  of  PRP notices go  out so they  can
enter  the initial  consent decree, get  de  minimus settlements  as  appropriate,
and be shielded  from  further  lawsuit by other PRPs.  (ICMA  focus group)

Some group members  who had  worked with EPA  from the beginning had mixed
feelings  about this  suggestion.   They said the  process  was so  cumbersome  and

-------
  some  requirements made by EPA  so  inappropriate  for  a local  government that
  they  wondered  whether they would  have been  better  off  taking their  chances
  of being sued by other  PRPs. (ICMA  focus group)
     2-c ACCOMMODATE LEGAL PROCEDURAL OBLIGATIONS OF LOCAL
        	                  GOVERNMENTS	
  EPA  should  accommodate  the  legal  procedural  obligations   that
  local  governments   must  comply  with  before  they   can  enter  into
  consents  or   formal   agreements.

  Follow  the  letter  and spirit  of Superfund and regulations applicable to  local
  governments, as  clarified in the  interim Municipal  Settlement Policy.   Assure
  that Regional  personnel, contractors,  and  others  performing  work associated
  with  local  government  involvement  in  Superfund  sites understand and
  implement  relevant provisions.   (ICMA  focus group)

  Local governments  are often restricted by State  law in  the  development of
  legally binding agreements and taxing authority.    EPA should take this  into
 consideration when  developing consent  or  formal  agreements  the  local
 government  must sign.   (NATaT)

 Although  most State  program  offices empathize  with local governments'
 need to  consider their own  legal and procedural  constraints imposed  by local
 laws (e.g., fiscal  year cycles, loss-of-job evaluations),  such constraints should
 not be expected to outweigh the  selected remedy,  and its attendant cost, as
 defined by  a scientifically based record of decision.   (ASTSWMO)

I  2-d  KEEP, EXPAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT  "IN KIND" WORK OPTIONS   I

 EPA  should  maintain  and   expand the  use  of  "in kind"  work  options
 available  under  the   Municipal   Settlement   Policy.

 The use  of  "in kind"  services  is one  way local governments can meet  their
 environmental  cleanup responsibilities.   With  limited  budgets and  very limited
 taxing authority, this  is a viable approach and should  be encouraged by  EPA.
 (NATaT)

I   2-e  DO NOT USE  MUNICIPAL SITES FOR EXPERIMENTAL CLEANUPS   I

 Discontinue  using   municipal  sites   as  theoretical   or  experimental
cleanup   sites.

Focus on  responsible,  pragmatic  cleanup programs that  restore  sites  to an
environmentally  sound  and usable state.   Discontinue  using municipal sites  as
theoretical or  experimental  cleanup sites  because  using new  approaches
causes too many delays in the  process and  difficulties  with  the  public. (ICMA
focus  group)

It is unclear whether  the  ICMA  focus group objects  to using municipal sites in
the  SITE  program, as  part of  research and development  efforts,  and/or  for  use
of new technology.   Since a common  goal is to  develop cost-effective
technologies  for cleanup,  exclusion  of  municipal  sites  from participating  in

-------
  research and  demonstration programs  might  be counterproductive.    A
  recommendation  to improve the  process  for  using  new  technologies  or
  participating  in  experimental sites might  be  more  appropriate.   (EPA)
   2-f  AGREEMENTS SHOULD  REFLECT UNDERSTANDING OF  MUNICIPAL
                                   FINANCE       	
  Structure  settlement   agreements  which   reflect  an  understanding
  of   municipal  finance   and  local  economic  constraints.

  Small  local governments are limited  in their ability  to  finance bonds, raise
  taxes,  and  increase user fees.  Their ability  to  cover the cost of cleanup is very
  limited and often  is passed on to the citizens of the community.  EPA needs to
  understand that,  unlike  industry,  local  governments  cannot raise  prices.
  Often  a new tax  or change in the government's  budget must be approved by
  the public.  (NATaT)

  Funding cleanups  is  complicated by CERCLA  Sec.l04(c)(3)(C),  which specifies
  the percentage of a site's  remedial  costs for which a State  is liable.   Under this
  section, a State's  liability  depends  in  pan  on the liability of its political
  subdivisions.   Consequently,  States have  an important stake in the manner in
  which  the  liability of  local governments  is  resolved.   The  State program  office
  must therefore be deeply  involved  in the  PRP  settlement  process.  (ASTSWMO)
  2-g  ADOPT PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING FINANCIAL STATUS THAT
               ARE APPROPRIATE TO LOCAL  GOVERNMENTS
 Superfund   financial  analyses   should   be  performed   using
 methodologies  that  are  appropriate  to  assessing  the   financial
 health   of   local   governments.

 The  Superfund  program does not now have  a standard  procedure  for
 evaluating the  financial status  of  local  governments.   Financial  analyses of
 local  governments are conducted  by  staff and/or contractors without
 appropriate guidance.  Many  examples  exist of studies of local  government
 finances  that  were  performed  using  methods  appropriate for businesses  but
 not for governments.    EPA should develop and assure use of standard methods
 —  drawing on  methods for municipal bond  rating and  other  standard
 approaches to  assessing  municipal financial  health  --  when conducting
 financial   analyses of  local governments.

•                    3. ROLE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
  3-a  INCLUDE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN SITE PLANNING, OVERSIGHT,
 	          ENFORCEMENT
 Include  local   governments  in   discussions  between   EPA  and   the
 State   regarding   Superfund  sites,   recognizing  their   potential   role
 in   enforcement   and   oversight.

 Local  governments  involved in municipal settlements as PRPs  are  in  the
 awkward  position of  having  an inherent conflict of  interest  that  probably
 precludes them  from  participation  in oversight or  enforcement  at  many sites.

-------
  Also,  State  experience in building  regulatory and  financing infrastructures  to
  support remedial actions  has  shown that  these are resource  intensive efforts.
  (ASTSWMO)

 \        3-b  UTILIZE EXPERTISE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT STAFF        I

  Make  better   use  of  local  government   staff  experienced   in
  environmental   public  safety  and   intergovernmental  relations   who
  can  make  meaningful  contributions  to technical  issues,
  discussions,  and   decisions.

  Making use of  local  government staff is  an  important key in meeting
  environmental mandates.   Since many  small  governments  don't have  this
  expertise,  EPA  should  develop  a peer match  program to share expertise
  between  large and small governments.  (NATaT)

 I      3-c  ASSIGN OVERSIGHT TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS     I

  Where  possible, EPA  should   assign  oversight of Superfund
  cleanups  to  the State  agency  or to  a   local  government.

  Assignment  of  responsibility  must  take  into  consideration  staff expertise  and
 community resources.  Many small  communities do not   have  the  appropriate
 expertise and knowledge to manage the  cleanup of a Superfund site.   (NATaT)

 I 3-d  LOCAL GOVERNMENT AS MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT AGENCY I

 EPA  should enter   into  agreements  with  qualified  local
 governments  as  designated  Superfund   local   management   and
 oversight  agencies.    EPA   should  begin  a  pilot  program   to  identify
 appropriate  parameters  for   these   agreements.

 NATaT  supports  the concept of local management of Superfund sites.   Because
 of  limited  expertise  and resources, many  small  governments  could  not/should
 not play an oversight role.  Small local governments should  be invited,
 however, to participate as an observer in such oversight activities.   (NATaT)
i                      4. GENERAL CERCLA POLICY                      B

I 4-a   APPLY  REGULATIONS,  MANAGEMENT PROCESSES CONSISTENTLY I

 EPA  should   apply  regulations   and  management   processes
 consistently    nationwide.

 There are considerable variations  in  management processes  and in the way
 regulations are applied  at  Superfund sites,  even within the same EPA  Region.
 This  is ultimately unfair. (ICMA focus group)

 Consistency is needed, but it  will require strong  management  guidance from
 EPA  Headquarters.  (NATaT)

-------
I         4-b  IMPROVE SELECTION. OVERSIGHT OF CONTRACTORS

 EPA  should  carefully  select  and  screen  prime  contractors  for
 RI/FS  and   remedial   activities  and   avoid  duplicative  oversight
 contractors.

 The  current  contracting  system  often has  different contractors  performing
 various stages of site  assessment and  remediation  activities.   Often, costs  rise
 and delays occur  because each succeeding new contractor  finds it necessary  to
 "re-do" the  work of  the  previous contractor.   EPA certification of contractors
 would be helpful.   EPA should also assign cleanup activities  under a  more
cooperative oversight program.   (ICMA focus group)

The intent of "a more  cooperative oversight  program" is  unclear.  (EPA)

I           4-c  AGGRESSIVELY  PURSUE  NONSIGNATORY PRPs         ~|

EPA  should  pursue   nonsignatory  PRPs  more  agressively,   providing
local  governments   more  leverage  with  other  responsible   parties.

This  recommendation  is  not  clear.   EPA should  always  pursue  nonsignatory
PRPs;  this would reduce  the cost of cleanup and other actions.  (NATaT)

While expedited cleanup  is preferable to interminable litigation, ASTSWMO
advocates a  vigorous  "enforcement  first" settlement  approach  to  ensure  that
cleanups  are  undertaken  quickly, while conserving the CERCLA  trust fund for
sites  where PRPs  are  recalcitrant  or  unidentifiable.   This is  an equitable policy
that should apply to all PRPs.  (ASTSWMO)
           S.  OTHER ISSUES AFFECTING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
   S-a  CONTINUE TO IDENTIFY, RESOLVE ISSUES AFFECTING LOCAL
   	      GOVERNMENTS
EPA  should   continue  working  to  identify  and  resolve  Superfund
issues  affecting   local  governments.

Local governments  are  affected both  directly and  indirectly  when  a
contaminated site is  identified  in the  community; so  too are  lenders, buyers,
generators,  and  property owners.   Local economies  can suffer,  property
transactions can stop.    EPA must continue to examine such issues as:

      oo    Innocent  landowners
      oo    De minimus  settlements
      oo    Environmental  assessments
      oo    Lender  liability
      oo    Site  registry
      oo    Liability  insurance

-------
               6.  LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAPACITY BUILDING
 I    6-a PROMOTE  INFORMATION  SHARING AMONG MUNICIPALITIES    I

 EPA   should  facilitate  sharing  of  lessons  learned  and  advice   from
 local   governments  that  have  had  experience  as  PRPs  with  other
 local   governments  through  dissemination   of  information  kits,
 peer   matches,   seminars,   and  publications.

 Local  governments generally  lack  the  sophisticated  legal and  technical
 expertise  needed to cope with being named a Superfund PRP.  EPA could help
 them  through this difficult  situation by  fostering development  of information
 kits explaining the  process, sponsoring  peer  exchanges among  local  officials
 with experience dealing  with  Superfund. fostering  the  development of
 networks  of  local  officials,  and   providing training  materials and workshops.
 (ICMA focus  group)

 EPA Headquarters  should develop networks,  information  exchanges,
 workshops,  and training  for local officials  and implement them through EPA
 Regional  offices.   EPA may also  wish to work  with national
 organizations/associations  to  get the word  out.   (NATaT)

I  6-b  HELP LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ASSESS  AND ADDRESS PROBLEMS  I

 EPA  should  develop  a  program  to  assist  local  governments in
 assessing  and   addressing   environmental   problems   systematically.

 Local  governments  face  a wide  range of environmental problems  and  must
 comply with  multiple regulatory  requirements.   A systematic  assessment of
 environmental  assets  and  potential  problems   ("environmental audit")  would
 aid  communities in  setting  rational  priorities  for addressing  them according  to
 the  risk  they  present,  rather than according to how  and  when  individual
 problems  are  discovered.    (several  commenters)

I                 6-c  PROMOTE PREVENTION ACTIVITIES                 I

 EPA  should   encourage  local  governments  to  undertake  prevention
 activities   that  limit   future  liability  for  ground-water
 contamination.

Local  governments  should be encouraged  to take  steps to prevent future
liability.  Examples include:

oo     Require stricter  monitoring of underground storage  tanks,  oil storage
       facilities, and  industrial  waste  disposal  sites.

oo     Prohibit landfills  within  city  limits.

oo     Require annual  monitoring of  landfills.

oo     Find  alternative  funding  for redevelopment of  real estate  with  low-level
      contamination.
                                      10

-------
 oo    Require  soil and  water  testing prior  to  issuing building permits.

 oo    Monitor  for toxic  chemicals  in  water supplies  more  frequently.

 oo    Recommend that counties form consortiums  to  plan  for  future  waste
       disposal.

 oo    Combine  resources and  hire  experts  to  create plans  for  ground-water
       protection.

 oo    Develop  plans  for greater  wellhead  protection.

 oo    Include costs  of cleanup  for  soil  and water contamination in
       redevelopment  costs.

 oo    Monitor  abandoned wells  and their cross-connections with  private
       wells.

 oo    Set  aside  funds for  prevention and  remediation  of  ground-water
       contamination,  as  well  as for future  soil and  water  monitoring.

 oo    Carefully represent instances  of  ground-water  contamination to  the
       public to  prevent  unnecessary perceptions  of property devaluation.

 oo    Redevelop  industrial  properties   through  public/private partnerships.

 (Powers,  KS)
    6-e LOCAL GOVERNMENT/INDUSTRY COOPERATIVE PREVENTION
    	               EFFORTS      '	
Local  governments  and  industry  should  be  encouraged  to  work
more   closely   together  to  limit   liability   for  ground-water
contamination.

To limit liability  for ground-water contamination,  businesses  should:

oo    Increase  the monitoring of  disposal,  storage,  and delivery  procedures
       for hazardous  waste  on company  property.

oo    Conduct  environmental  reviews of  property  history,  and  perform  soil
       and ground-water  testing prior  to  all  real  estate transactions.

oo    Conduct  environmental  reviews  and  monitoring on all waste  disposal
       sites they own.

oo    Consider ground-water  protection  in the  design  and  installation of
       new  manufacturing  processes  and  facilities.

oo     Institute  internal   waste minimization  procedures  and  oversee  their
       own  waste disposal.
                                      11

-------
 oo     Develop  policies  for limiting  future liability  by becoming more
        conscious of operating practices that have  the  potential  to adversely
        change   ground-water  quality.

 oo     Train  personnel  better and document  procedures  for quick  response
        action.

 oo     Conduct  regular  environmental audits to  assess  potential
        environmental   hazards.

 oo     Explore   alternatives  to  landfilling  wastes.

 (Powers, KS)
        7.  ICMA FOCUS GROUP PROPOSALS FOR STATUTE CHANGES
 The   ICMA  focus  group  suggested  several  statutory  changes  to
 CERCLA,   shown  in  unedited  form  below.	
 1.     Local  governments  should be  responsible only  for  hazardous wastes
       generated by  its  own  operations.   There  should be no  local  government
       liability  for the  wates generated by  households,  businesses,  or  industry
       within  its  jurisdiction.

 2.     Because  of cities' responsibility for the public  health, they  should not
       be  penalized for  collecting household  waste.   The definitions  of
       "transport."  "arrange."  etc., should be  changed to be limited  to
       commercial trash producers  and  carriers.

 3.     Publication  in  the Federal Register  shall  not  constitute  legal
       notification  to  a local  government under CERCLA.   Legal  notice should
       be  a written document  to  the Chief Elected Official  and Chief
       Administrative  Officer.

 4.     Make amendments so  as  to shift  the  emphasis  from litigation to  cleanup
       of sites.

 5.     Consider  the  relative  risks to  human health  and  the  environment  from
       all  sources  in  setting  priorities  for  legislative  action and funding.

 6.     Funding  for Superfund is inadequate.   A  mechanism is  needed  which
       will  provide resources  to  clean up sites within  a reasonable  time.

7.     Clarify definitions so that toxicity, not volume of waste, is the standard
       in  determining  how  municipal  solid waste and  sewage sludge should be
       considered  under Superfund.
                                       12

-------
[Comments  received   on  the  ICMA   proposals  are   presented   below.     I

 ASTSWMO Comments:

 While it is  axiomatic to say  that human  health  and the environment should  be
 the  primary  consideration  in  the  Superfund program,  the  statutory
 recommendation to  use toxicity  rather  than  waste volume  for  determining
 local governments'  liability  for sewage  sludge and municipal  solid  waste
 requires much  broader consideration  than is  provided  here.    Besides the
 critical   impact  such  a recommendation  would have  on Superfund's  strict,  joint
 and  several  liabiolity  standard, it  appeared to some of  our  reviewers that
 liability  assessments for sludge and  municipal solid waste  should be  based  on
 all  appropriate  factors contributing  to  their  relative risk.

 The statutory  recommendations  for  liability  exemptions related  to  wastes
 generated by households, businesses,  and  industry,  as well  as  to exemptions for
 certain   transporters, represent  a  profound  change  to  the  strict, joint  and
 several  liability standard, and  should  be  studied  closely  for  its impact on
 overall   funding and for equity  among responsible  parties.   An  exemption  for
 any  PRP that  would  otherwise  be normally  liable  inevitable creates a  shortfall
 in the  total  level  of  cleanup  resources.

 While expedited cleanup  is  preferable  to interminable  litigation, ASTWMO
 advocates  a  vigorous  "enforcement  first" settlement approach to  ensure that
 cleanups  are  undertaken quickly,  while  conserving  the  CERCLA trust  fund  for
 sites  where  PRPs  are  recalcitrant  or  unidentifiable.   This  is  an equitable policy
 that  should  apply  to all  PRPs.

 NATaT  Comments

NATaT  expressed  agreement  with  all proposals.  They  point out that  EPA can
shift  the emphasis  from litigation to  cleanup of sites  without  legislative
change   (4).

With  regard  to  setting priorities according to risk  (5), they  note:

      Legislative  changes  to  implement  this  recommendation  would  be
      required  under  all environmental  statutes.   Though  we  agree  that
      relative  risks  to human health  should  be  considered across all media
      before  regulatory actions  are   undertaken, this  issue/approach  needs  to
      be explored as  to  its  feasibility before legislative changes are
      recommended.
                                       13

-------
                        NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES

              Comments  on  ICMA  Focus  Group  Suggestions
                    Local   Governments  and  Superfund	
 Comments on  the  ICMA  focus  group suggestions  on local  governments and
 Superfund were received from  the  National League  of Cities  (NLC)   too late to
 be incorporated  into  the  summary.   The  League's comments are summarized
 below.

I      NEW;  EPA COMMENDED FOR MUNICIPAL SETTLEMENT POLICY      I

 EPA  is  commended  for   issuing  the  Interim  Municipal  Settlement
 Policy   which  provides  significant  relief   to  local   governments
 faced   with  potential   Superfund   liabilities.

 EPA should be  praised for issuing  the  Interim  Municipal  Settlement  Policy  last
 December.   That policy deals with  perhaps the  most important  issue  faced by
 local governments  under Superfund:   the extent to  which  they will be held
 liable for the generation  and transportation  of ordinary garbage  found  at
 Superfund sites....The Policy  states  that  EPA will  not take  enforcement action
 against  local governments  when their only  involvement with  a  site is as  a
 generator or transporter of municipal solid  waste.    The only exception to this
 rule  is  when  site-specific evidence  indicates that  the  local  government  also
 hauled  hazardous waste generated  by  an industrial process  to the  site.

 In light  of  the  increasing efforts  of corporate  defendants  to shift  billions of
 dollars  in Superfund  liability  onto the  backs of local governments, the EPA
 policy represented  a  significant  victory  for municipalities.   We  feel  it is
 important, . therefore,  that  the local government  community continue  to
 reinforce the Agency's position  on  this  key issue, both  to  show  gratitude for
 the  Agency's stand  and to forestall  any  retreat  by  EPA on  this critical issue.

 Since the policy is only a statement of how  EPA  will  exercise its  enforcement
 authority,  the  Policy  does not  prevent  private  lawsuits  against  local
 governments; it  leaves  local  government exposed   to  claims for contribution
 based on the volume  of garbage they contributed to  the site;  and  it does not
 address  in any detail how local governments will be  treated when they are
 PRPs at  Superfund  sites (either because they own  or operate the site or
because   they  generated  and  transported clearly  hazardous  waste.)

I                      AGENCY-WIDE RISK  ASSESSMENT                     I

NOTE:   The, original  ICMA focus  group  report included a suggestion that EPA
 "re-examine  its  enforcement  priorities through  an Agency-wide  risk
assessment."   Because the  State and Local  Programs Committee  is  addressing the
whole  issue  of strategic planning in another  set  of recommendations,  it has
been dropped  from  the Superfund  recommendations.   NLC's comments on  the
recommendation  are  similar to  others  received  on  this  issue, and are therefore
summarized  below.

We  assume  that  what is meant  by  "Agency-wide risk assessment" if  a re-
evaluation of  all of  the  nation's  environmental programs  in order to

-------
 determine  which ones address the  most serious public  health risks.   We do  not
 object to that  kind  of process,  but we are not clear about why such a global
 recommendation  belongs in  comments designed to address specific  problems  of
 Superfund.   If the  point is that Superfund  should  not  be  a top priority for the
 Agency, EPA  staff correctly believe  that Congress has instructed the Agency  to
 make  Superfund cleanup and enforcement  a priority  and that it  has little
 discretion  to ignore that  mandate.    If local  governments  are concerned  that
 Superfund is receiving  inordinate  attention,  we  need  to raise those  issues  with
 the  Congress,  not EPA.

I         4-b  IMPROVE SELECTION, OVERSIGHT OF CONTRACTORS         I

 EPA  should   carefully  select  and screen prime  contractors  for   RI/FS  and
 remedial   activities   and  avoid   duplicative  oversight   contractors.

 This comment seems  to confuse  the  identify  of  "prime"  contractors  who
 actually  do  the  cleanup work  and "oversight" contractors  who are hired  by
 EPA (not  by the "prime"  contractor)  to  oversee the cleanup activities.   While
 there may in  fact  be waste  in the contracting program, EPA's use of  oversight
 contractors  is  the  only  way  that the Agency  can monitor the progress and
 efficiency  of cleanup  work.   Some  have suggested that the Agency  hire
 sufficient  staff to  conduct this  monitoring function  itself rather  than paying
 top  dollar to one  consultant to look  over  the shoulder of another consultant.
 This alternative  approach  has  considerable  merit  and should  be  mentioned, at
 least,  in the  recommendations.

I     6-a  PROMOTE INFORMATION  SHARING AMONG MUNICIPALITIES    \

 EPA  should   facilitate  sharing  of  lessons  learned  and  advice  from
 local  governments  that   have  had  experience   as PRPs  with  other
 local   governments   through   dissemination   of   information   kits,
 peer  matches,   seminars,   and   publications.

 We  hope that the  Agency gives strong  emphasis  to  meeting  the Superfund
 training,  technical  assistance,  and information  needs  of  local  governments.
 We  hope also  that  the Agency will continue and  expand its use of existing
 associations  like ICMA  and NLC,  which  are known and trusted sources of
 information  for local  leaders, as  vehicles  for meeting those  needs.

I      NEW; ASSURE REGIONS UNDERSTAND,  IMPLEMENT CHANGES      I

EPA  Headquarters   must  communicate   Superfund   implementation
procedures   clearly  to   Regional   offices   in   writing  and   through
training  programs,  and  assure  that  they  are implemented.

EPA national  and  Regional  office  communication has caused unnecessary
confusion  and  problems  in  the  implementation  of  other  environmental
programs.    Once a set of Superfund implementation  procedures  have  been
agreed upon at the national  Agency  level,  it  is  critical that  procedures  and
instructions  be clearly  communicated, both  in  writing  and  through  training
programs, to the EPA Regional  office staff.

-------
 National  Advisory  Council for Environmental  Policy  and Technology  (NACEPT)

                      State and Local Programs  Committee

                                   Meeting

                                July  18-19, 1990

                                   MINUTES	
The meeting was convened  by Terry Novak, Committee Chair, at  1:30 PM  on
Wednesday,  July  18.   A copy of the meeting agenda and a list of meeting
attendees  is attached.
Report  on  the  NACEPT  Executive  Committee  Meeting

Dr. Novak provided  an overview of the July  11-12  NACEPT Executive Committee
meeting.  He had reported  to the Executive Committee about  the  State and  Local
Program Committee's  current activities:   establishment  of the Small
Communities  Subcommittee;  examination  of  Superfund  liability  and other
issues affecting  municipalities;  and continuation  of  grant  activities  with  the
International Cities  Managers  Association,  National  Governors  Association,  and
Rensselaerville  Institute. He also noted disappointment at the  lack  of action on
the Committee's  recommendations,  a desire  for  EPA to move  further toward
risk-based  decision-making, concern  about the  lack  of  accessibility  of  EPA
Regional  offices, and  the  view that  compliance  rather  than  enforcement
should be  the  focus of EPA's programs.

Dr. Novak  reported several key actions of the Executive Committee, including
establishment of a  subcommittee on the Bureau  of  Environmental  Statistics
under  the  State  and Local Programs Committee and  the  separation  from
NACEPT  ~  but  with  continued  close  ties  —  of the  Environmental  Financial
Advisory Board (EFAB).


Report  From   the   State-EPA  Operations  Committee   Meeting

Tom Looby provided an overview of the July 17-18  meeting  of the State-EPA
Operations  Committee,  of which he is  also  a member. Among  the  topics
discussed  were  the  State   role   in  ground-water protection and  drinking water
programs,   integrated  environmental   management,  stormwater  permitting,
the RCRA program, Federal facilities,  and amendments to the  Clean Air Act.
Mr. Looby  also  mentioned  that  there are  some  issues of  common  interest to
both the State-EPA Operations Committee and  the NACEPT State  and Local
Programs  Committee,  and  that   more  interface  and cooperation  between the two
committees  would be  desirable.   The  Committee then discussed  potential  areas
and projects of joint  interest.

-------
 Action   Items.
 oo    Mr.  Looby  will  work with Donna Fletcher, Director  of  the  State and
       Local  Programs  Committee, and  Paul  Guthrie,  who  manages  the  State-
       EPA  Operations  Committee, to develop a  process and procedures  for
       greater  information-sharing  and  cooperation  between  the  committees.

 oo    Mr.  Looby  will draft a  letter from the Committee to  the  Deputy
       Administrator  expressing  the  members'   concern about compliance
       at Federal  facilities  and State  and local  government views  on  the
       proposed Sovereign  Immunity  Act.

 oo    Ms.  Fletcher  will  ask  the  Deputy Administrator to include  Committee
       members in  the  review process  for  the ground-water protection
       policy  papers now  under development.

 oo    Ms.  Fletcher  will  send  Committee members, for their review  and
       comment,   copies  of the RCRA  Reauthorization papers  developed by  the
       State-EPA Operations Committee.

 oo    Ms.  Fletcher  will  explore  the  potential for joint efforts with  the
       State-EPA Operations Committee  on  implementation of  stormwater
       permitting and  analysis  of organizational structures State  and local
       governments  use  to do   integrated  environmental  management.


 Three   Studies   on  Federal-State  Relations                       	

 The Committee's first formal  recommendation asked EPA  to  clearly  articulate
 an  oversight  policy  which  sets  out the  shared environmental  management
 responsibilities  of  EPA, States,  and  local governments  as well  as EPA's
 responsibility  for  providing assistance,  information,  and  education  that will
 help  State   and local  governments   improve their  environmental  management
 capacity.

 In  line  with the  Committee's  recommendation,  the  issue  of Federal-State
 relations  has  been  receiving  considerable  management  attention in EPA.
 Recently, three  separate EPA  studies looked  at  Federal-State  relations and
 implementation of  the  1984 oversight policy that  had  been developed  after
 extensive research  and debate  by  a  State-Federal  Task Force in  1984.. Each of
 these studies  represented  a different perspective, but  all  three studies  had
 similar  findings.   Managers of  each of these  studies presented  their findings
 and  recommendations to  the  Committee.

 State  Delegation  and   Oversight  Policy  Review

Paul Guthrie  of EPA's  Office  of  Regional  Operations  and  State/Local Relations,
described his  review  of EPA's  State  delegation   and  oversight  policies and
studies of their implementation.   Generally,  he  found that the policies  have not
been implemented.    He noted  that he has  presented his findings  to the  Deputy

-------
 Administrator,  who has  asked  for actions  to  take stock of  the  current oversight
 situation  and  dramatic  steps  to  achieve better implementation  of the policies.

 In  his  presentation,  Mr.  Guthrie  noted that the  growing responsibilities  of EPA
 and the States cover  an increasingly  large and  diverse universe of  sources  and
 facilities,  often  requiring  site-specific  actions.   This  presents  enormous
 managerial challenges  to EPA.   He  also pointed out the EPA  is a multi-faceted
 organization,  and  the  different facets  do  not  always  work  together effectively.
 Most regulatory  takes  place  on a media-specific  basis,  but most  problems  are
 cross-media,  and  current structures are not  well equipped  to address them.

 Mr. Guthrie  reported that the issue of oversight and  delegation  of  authority
 has been studied  extensively.    Many  policies  exist;  most have merit but
 sometimes work  at cross  purposes.  EPA  needs to figure  out what the guiding
 principles  and  framework are  for policies,  practices,  and  procedures  affecting
 States,  such  as  the  State program approval process, delegations and oversight
 policies,  State-EPA  agreements,  and  the  performance-based assistance  policy.
 He  noted  that  current  EPA  management  themes  of strategic planning  and total
 quality   management  may  work  together  through  implementation  of the
 oversight  policy.

 Discussion

 Mr. Barber suggested that it is EPA's  responsibility  to  make  sure  that there is
 an  adequate  State  program,  but it is not  EPA's responsibility to run  State
 programs.

 RCRA   90-Day  Study

 Suzanne Rudzinski,  Chief of the State  Programs Branch in EPA's  Office  of Solid
 Waste,  made a  presentation  on  the State-Federal relationships  chapter of  the
 90-Day  Study of RCRA  Subtitle C.

 A  central  finding of  the study was  that the EPA/State relationship  does  not  live
 up  to the promise  of  a partnership,  and  that  in appropriate  expectations  are
 generated by the use  of the partnership  term.  Dual implementation   of RCRA
 by  Regions  and  States  strains  the State-EPA relationship.   The study also  found
 that EPA  needs a  more effective and efficient mechanism  to  differentiate
 treatment of "good"  versus  deficient  State programs.

 The study found  that different entities  within  EPA do  not appear to  share  a
 common focus  regarding  the  goals and priorities of the  RCRA program.
 Further,  States  and EPA Regional offices  feel  they  have  limited opportunity to
 impact  planning,  and  feel that Headquarters  priorities  do  not reflect the  real
 problems  they  face.     Of particular interest  with regard to  State-Federal
 relations, there is no  agreement  on  the  importance  of achieving  delegation  to
 the States.   EPA  is seen as  not  fully committed to  complete program
 implementation  by the  States.   The authorization process  is  a lightning  rod for
 friction  in the  State/Federal  relationship  and   is  also  difficult  because of
RCRA's  ever  changing and  prescriptive  nature.

EPA  does not  forthrightly  acknowledge what  can  and cannot be  accomplished
under RCRA, the  study found.     This  can  lead to cynicism,  given the limited

-------
 resources  available  and  the  growing  number  of  requirements  States  are  being
 asked to  implement.  Finally, the failure of EPA and  the  States to collectively
 define  success  for  RCRA is  responsible,  in  part,  for Congressional micro-
 management  and   negative  public  perceptions.

 Discussion

 During the discussion, it was pointed out that  EPA's  oversight policy  must be
 implemented  throughout  the  management chain.  Senior  managers may  be
 aware of the policy,  but  it has not yet filtered  down  to the day-to-day
 operations  of the  Agency.

 The  Agency  should  build a  management  infrastructure  to  encourage  different
 ways  of  evaluating success in  environmental  management.    For  example,
 visible or  measurable  environmental improvement  would  be  a better  measure
 that  numbers of  enforcement  actions.

 Realistic  expectations of  what  can be  done under  RCRA  should be articulated
 and communicated  to all  entities  involved  in  RCRA implementation.

 Enforcement  in   the   1990's   Project

 Donna  Fletcher  was  Program  Manager  for  Compliance  and  Enforcement
 Assistance prior to assuming the  position of Committee Director of the State
 and Local Programs Committee.   She  was a key  participant  in the recently-
 completed Enforcement  in the  1990's Project and served  as team  leader  for  the
 State-EPA Relationships  portion.   She presented an  overview of  the  whole
 project and  findings  and  recommendations  of  the  State-Federal  relationships
 portion.

 The  project  began with  interviews  of more  than  80 individuals  representing
 Congress;  business; various Federal,  State, and  local  agencies;  and
 environmental organizations.   From  the  initial  interviews,  six topics were
 selected for  further study:  measures  of success,  Federal-State relations,
 rulemaking,   compliance  incentives,   innovative enforcement,   and local
 government role.   Ms. Fletcher  noted that as a  result of the  project, a shift  in
 enforcement  policy  was  likely  over  time in which companies  would  be
 expected  to  have  environmental  management programs in place  as  a  standard
 of  "due diligence".

 Key  findings of the  State-Federal  portion of the study are summarized below.

 o      Effective enforcement by EPA and  the States is essential.  Clearer
       understanding  and  acceptance of  each   other's roles   and   responsibilities
       will  improve relations  and  make  more  efficient  use of  limited resources.

 o      The  1984 EPA oversight  policy is still considered valid.   However, the
       culture change  needed at both the State  and Federal levels  to put  it into
       practice  has not  yet occurred.

o      EPA must be ready and able to  enforce when a State is  unable  or
       unwilling  to act,  or national  issues  are  involved.

-------
 o      EPA  should  withdraw program  approval  if  a  State  has  a consistently
       inadequate   enforcement  program.

 o      The  potential  for  overfiling provides essential  leverage  in assuring
       adequate  State  enforcement.

 o      Differences  in  enforcement  approach  between   EPA  and States —
       particularly  with  regard  to economic  penalties -- are often  a  source  of
       conflict.

 o      Establishing greater trust  between States  and EPA is the key to a
       successful   partnership.

 The study makes  recommendations in  two  basic  areas:

 o      EPA  should  work to build successful  State programs as a  primary means
       of achieving effective  enforcement.   Recommendations in  this area
       clarify the  respective  roles  and responsibilities of  States and  EPA
       for environmental  enforcement  and  suggest  steps  for achieving  a
       more   constructive   relationship.

 o      EPA  should  use  strategic planning as a means  for providing  greater
       flexibility to States.   These recommendations  suggest  steps for
       involving States  in  planning  and  implementing   strategic  plans
       for  enforcement.

 Discussion

 The Cooperative Extension  Service  and  local  fire departments are grass  roots
 organizations that  could be  used  to  disseminate information  pertaining  to
 compliance.   The  Extension  Service,  in  particular, however, would  not  wish  to
 get  involved in  enforcement  activities.   Local governments  need a  practical
 place  to  go  for  information  on  environmental management  without  fear of
 enforcement  action.

 An  enforcement  action  is  appropriate  only  after  steps  have  been taken  to
 encourage  compliance.   As an  example,  Colorado's compliance and
 enforcement  strategy  has  four  graduated levels  of  response: education,
 evaluation,  incentives, and  enforcement.   There  should  be  economic
 incentives  for compliance,  a potential  issue  for EFAB.

Action   Items.
oo     Ms.  Fletcher and  Committee  staff will  follow implementation of
       recommendations  from  the  three  studies  and raise issues as needed for
       Committee  discussion  and/or action.

oo     Ms.  Fletcher will  ask the EFAB  to  consider  including study
       of economic incentives  for  compliance as  part  of its  activities.

oo     Ms.  Fletcher will ask  the  Assistant  Administrator for Compliance
       and  Enforcement  to  distribute the  complete Enforcement  in  the
       1990's  Project  studies to the Committee  for  review  and  comment.

-------
 oo     Ms. Fletcher  will express the Committee's interst in having EPA do
        further study  of the potential for a local role  in  enforcement to the
        Office  of Enforcement.
 The Committee adjourned for the  day at 5:00 pm  and re-convened at  8:00 am  on
 Thursday. July  19.
 State   Involvement   in   Strategic  Planning
 The  second major  recommendation  of the State  and  Local  Programs  Committee
 encouraged  EPA  to  increase  risk-based  management  of environmental
 programs,  and  provide  greater flexibility  in planning,  priority  setting,
 resource  allocation,  and  oversight  measures.   These  potential  for  these
 concepts  to improve Federal-State  relations  was highlighted  in the  findings  of
 the three studies  discussed in the Wednesday session.   Efforts by EPA and States
 to  implement  strategic  planning,  which  is designed  to address many  of  these
 concepts,  were  the  subject  of the  Thursday  morning  presentations  and
 discussion.

 Strategic  Planning  and  Management  Reforms   in   EPA

 Bob  Currie, Director of the Strategic  Planning  and  Management  Systems
 Division  of EPA's  Office  of Policy, Planning,  and Evaluation,  described the
 Agency's  efforts to  implement Strategic  Planning and  Management  Reforms.

 In  describing the context for EPA's  efforts, he noted  that the focus in EPA  has
 been  on  the number of permits  and  enforcement actions,  rather  than on  the
 end result: how much cleaner the environment is.   Activities  at EPA are
 generally  media-specific;  this  sometimes  results in  pollutants being  moved
 around  at  great  cost without actually  cleaning  anything  up.   Also  contributing
 to  this  problem  is the fact that EPA's budget process  is annual,  and
 environmental  problems   are  long  term.   Mr.  Currie stresses  that EPA needs  to
 stop  looking in  the  rear view  mirror,  the Agency  needs  to  figure out where  it
 wants to  be, then strategize  about  how  to get  there,  and  plan  for  that end goal.
 The  variation  in levels  of  risk and risk  reduction potential  from  different
 environmental  problems  has  been  recognized  by the  Agency,  but  it has  not
 addressed  this  fact  directly.

 When all  10 Regions agree  on  the  importance  of a problem, it is  a national
 issue.   When they  do not agree on  the  importance of an issue,  they  should
 individually  have the flexibility to  address the  problems that  are  most
 important to them.   Mr.  Currie feels that  the  Regional offices should  follow  a
 similar  model  with  their  States.   However, Mr.  Currie also stresses that  the
 agendas  of Regional offices  and States  must be  based on analysis that shows
 what  their  priorities are  and why.   Mr.  Currie's group  is  trying  to  encourage
EPA  to distribute  resources  based   on  analysis  rather  than  political  perception.

EPA  has started  asking  the  Regional Offices to  prioritize  their environmental
problems, with  the  expectation  that  some  shifts in  activities would result.     As
now  planned. Regions would have  up  to 30  percent  flexibility to  shift

-------
 resources  around,  both within and  across programs.   In  the  three  Regions
 with  pilot  efforts this year, however,  little  cross-program  shifting  is
 occurring.   Mr.  Currie  pointed  out that shifting  will  happen  gradually,
 perhaps  at  about  5 percent  a year,  but  there will be  progress over time.   He
 noted  there are  statutory constraints  that  limit  flexibility.

 Discussion

 Mr. Looby, whose State of Colorado is a pilot State, pointed out that  the
 availability of flexibility  across program areas is not  visible at the State level.
 Mr. Currie feels that  this is an issue  that needs  to  be addressed by  Congress.

 Strategic  Planning;   a  State   Perspective

 Bob MacPherson,  Manager of the  Planning Section,   Delaware  Department  of
 Natural  Resources and Environmental Control,  made a  presentation  on
 Delaware's  strategic  planning process.   He  described a  multiple-step process  in
 which  the  State's plan  was developed,  with widespread participation. In
 January  of 1988,  the  Governor of  Delaware received   a  report  detailing  a
 diverse  set  of environmental  problems,  including  air,  water,  waste
 management,  shore  line  stabilization,  and  freshwater  wetlands management  as
 well  as  the  need  for environmental  education  and  building  the  environmental
 awareness of county  councils and  other  local  governments.   The State  is now
 working  to  implement the program  activities suggested by  the report.

 Mr. MacPherson pointed  out that, like Colorado,  Delaware has not found  EPA to
 be  flexible in  providing  resources  to  address the priority  problems  the State
 identified.

 State  Strategic   Planning:   Experiences   of  a  Pilot  State

 Colorado is one  of the States that received EPA  funding  to  develop  a pilot State
 strategic  environmental plan.   Tom  Looby,  Assistant  Director  for  Health and
 Environmental  Protection,  Colorado  Department  of  Health, made  a  presentation
 about  his experience  with the  State's  strategic  planning  efforts.

 The purpose  of  Colorado's  strategic  planning  project,  Colorado Environment
 2000 (CE 2000), is to create a vision and a set of goals for Colorado's
 environmental  programs,  to  formulate  action  plans   for accomplishing  these,
 and to  achieve  constituency enhancement (to  improve  environmental
 awareness  in the State).   Key players   in ED 2000  are the  Governor,
 representatives of the Health   and Natural Resources  Departments,  a  technical
 advisory  committee,  and  a  citizens'  advisory  committee.

 After evaluation  of  their  relative  risks  and other  relevant  factors,  the  State
 decided to focus on 11 environmental  issues.   CE  2000 calls for  the study  of
 trends  and shifts  in  environmental  quality;  the  development of goals for State
 environmental  programs  for the  year  2000  and  beyond;  and  development  of
 action  plans for  citizens,  businesses, communities,  and  State government.   Next
steps  include distribution of  a  citizen handbook, development  of State  work
plans and grants,  development of  a  handbook  for  businesses and  local
governments, and  use  of CE 2000 to  drive Region 8  EPA's strategic  plan.

-------
 Comments  From  the  Local  Perspective

 Larry  Rice,  City Manager of Elgin, Illinois, made a  short presentation  on his
 experience  with  environmental  planning for  Elgin   and  his  earlier
 involvement  in the Denver area planning effort.     Mr. Rice  noted that the
 citizens  of Elgin are in  support of efforts  to  protect the environment;  in  fact,
 they  are  demanding  that the  city's actions  be  environmentally  responsible.
 Mr.  Rice also mentioned  that fire  departments  do a lot of inspections for  code
 violations  at the  local level, and that in the future they may  be the lead
 organizations  for  environmental management  at  the  local  level.

 Mr.  Rice outlined a  proposal for having his city  designated  as the local
 enforcement  agency  for  environmental  laws.    Elgin  needs  the  support of State
 government as well  as  the  U.S. EPA to move forward in its local  environmental
 management  efforts.   Mr. Rice  suggests that Elgin could be  the site of  a  pilot
 effort  for local  implementation  of environmental laws.   There  was  general
 support  for  this  idea. Ms.  Fletcher  expressed  concern about how  local
 governments  could be  delegated  the  necessary  legal authority  for  enforcing
 national  environmental  laws, noting that the  authority to  inspect is  derived
 from  the individual  statutes  and formally delegated to EPA inspectors  from  the
 President and/or  EPA Administrator.   State authority  to  inspect  is  similarly
 derived  from  State  law,  and structural  arrangements  between  State and  local
 governments vary  from  State to  State.

 Discussion

 Mr.  Power pointed out that there is  no way States can deal with  all
 environmental  issues.   The  idea  of local  enforcement of  environmental
 statutes  may  be  an  issue  for future consideration by the Committee.

 Lessons  Learned

 Eva  Ring, a  Senior  Analyst  in  the Regional and  State Planning  Branch of EPA's
 Strategic Planning  and  Management Systems  Division, described the  pilot
 strategic  planning efforts  her  office  funded   in  Colorado,  Pennsylvania,  and
 Louisiana.   The  purpose of the project  was to build  consensus in  States about
 environmental  priorities,  to  help States  have more  say in how  EPA devotes  its
 resources,  and to  help States build support for  addressing  priority
 environmental  problems.   The  experiences  gained in  the three  pilot  States,
 according to  Ms. Ring,  lead  to the following  conclusions about  State strategic
 planning:

o      Top  management  support  is  critical  to  the success of the project.

o      Continuous  follow-up  is  necessary to  implement   and institutionalize
       strategic  plans.

o      The  staff involved  in  the project will continue to make  connections
       across programs  and in  budget  and  policy areas,  not just in the analysis
       involved  in  the  beginning  of the process.

-------
 Discussion

 The strategic planning efforts  to  date  are encouraging,  but it will  probably
 take  very  dramatic steps  to  implement.   Barriers to  implementation  include  the
 constraints  on  grants,  the  management  accountability  system,  and  program
 managers and  staff who have  vested  interests  in  the  current  approaches.   One
 suggestion  is to  foster more  pilots, perhaps selecting a State and  Region to be
 released —  as an  experiment  —  from all  "beans"  to  implement  their strategy.

 Action   Items.

 oo    At  its next meeting, the  Committee will develop  formal  recommendations
       commending the  strategic  planning efforts  to date  and asking for
       implementation  of one  or  more  pilots  to be  conducted  and evaluated.

 oo    The  Committee supports EPA funding  of the  National Governors
       Association  to  study,  hold a symposium,  and develop  information
       materials  on how  States  plan  environmental  programs.

 oo    Ms.  Fletcher will explore  the potential for a  pilot  project on  local
       government environmental   enforcement.


 Environmental    Regulations   and   Local  Government

 Small   Communities   Activities

 Ann Cole, EPA's  Small  Community Coordinator, gave  a status  report on  what her
 office  is doing.   Through her  office,  she hopes to  change the Agency's
 approach  to small communities,   improve Agency  implementation of the
 Regulatory  Flexibility  Act,  and  heighten  the  visibility for  the  Agency's
 commitment  to  small  community concerns.   A  first step  toward  achieving these
 goals will  be compiling  a cross-media list of  all  regulations  affecting  small
 communities and  generating  the  ability  to  measure the  cumulative, cross-
 media  costs  of environmental regulations for all communities.   Ms. Cole  also
 outlined  plans to  achieve  better use of the Regulatory Flexibility  Act to be sure
 that small  community concerns  are  addressed  in  the regulatory development
 process.

 Ms. Cole serves  as Director of the new Small  Communities Subcommittee of the
 State  and Local Programs  Committee.    Jim Power, Director, Division  of
 Environment,  Kansas  Department of  Health  and Environment,  is  the Chair.  Mr.
 Power and  Ms. Cole  are  planning  an  organizational  meeting  of  the
 subcommittee on  August  2-3, 1990.  The meeting  will  focus  on orientation of
 members, setting  priorities  among issues, and defining   proposed products.

Discussion

 Committee  members  commended the  compilation  of  regulations  affecting local
governments  as  a good  idea, but cautioned that this is a  very ambitious project.

-------
 Local  Governments  as  PRPs  at  Supgrfund  Sites

 On  June  25,  a focus group  of city managers from  communities named as
 Potentially  Responsible  Parties (PRPs)  at  Superfund  sites met to discuss  ways
 the  process could be  made  easier for other communities  facing  this situation.
 The focus group  was organized by ICMA  under its  grant with the  Office of
 Cooperative Environmental  Management to  follow  up  on  the Committee's
 interest  in  this  issue.

 Larry  Rice, City  Manager of Elgin,  Illinois,  provided  an overview of the June
 25 meeting.    The  focus  group  developed suggestions  for  procedural and  other
 changes  that  can  be implemented by EPA  as well  as several  statutory
 recommendations  which would need  to  be addressed legislatively.   The group
 presented  its  findings and suggestions  on EPA  internal changes  informally  to
 senior managers in the Office of  Solid Waste  and  Emergency  Response, where
 they were well-received.    A copy  of the focus group's report  is attached  to
 these  minutes.

 Discussion

 Committee  members expressed their  appreciation for the work of  the  focus
 group, and will review the  group's report  to decide which  of the suggestions
 the  group developed should  be  submitted  to  the  Agency as formal
 recommendations  from  NACEPT.    Some concern  was  expressed about the
 appropriateness,  in  particular, of  the  suggestions   for  legislative  changes;
 these  should  be  addressed  separately  from  those which EPA can implement
 more directly.   Committee members also want to  solicit  the  views  of key
 organizations  of  State  and  local government  officials  before deciding  which
 suggestions to  pass along  formally.

 Action   Items.
oo    Ms.  Fletcher will ask  key  organizations to review and  comment on  the
       suggestions for  procedural  and  legislative changes  and  provide these
       comments  to the Committee  before  the October meeting.

oo    The  Committee  will  review the suggestions and be  prepared  to  develop
       specific  recommendations  at its  October  meeting.


Guidebook   on   Environmental  Management  for   Local   Governments

Barbara Moore  and Jerry  Hoetmer of  ICMA spoke briefly  about the  idea  of
developing  a  Green Book  on  environmental management.   ICMA's Green  Book
series  has  been  an  authoritative  source  on  local government  management  for
practitioners,  teachers,  and  students  for  many  years.

Discussion

Following Ms.  Moore's  and  Mr.  Hoetmer's presentation,  the Committee agreed  to
endorse the Green Book idea and to  recommend  that EPA  find  funding for a
cooperative  agreement  with  ICMA to undertake  the  project.    Further, the
                                       10

-------
 members said the  Green  Book should be a project of the State and  Local
 Programs  Committee of NACEPT, with seats on  the book's advisory committee
 for the Committee Director and  one or more  Committee members.

 Action   Item.
 oo    Committee  staff should  pursue  the  funding  and awarding  of a
       cooperative agreement with  ICMA for the development  of a Green
       Book  on  environmental  management.

 Future  Work;  State__and_Lgcal_ Programs  Committee

 The Committee discussed the major topics and  issues it would  like to place  on
 the  agenda  for  the  next two meetings.

 October   meeting:
 Develop recommendations  on  local governments  as PRPs
 Develop  recommendations  on  strategic  planning
 Panel discussion on  RCRA Subtitle D

 Winter  meeting:
 Education and  training for local  governments,  possibly as joint  project  with
       Education  and  Training  Committee
 Panel  on drinking  water  compliance,  how  small  communities  are considered
       in  regulation  development

 Meeting   Schedule

 1990
 October 23 — State  and Local Programs Committee Meeting
 October 24 -- Full NACEPT Meeting

 1991
 January 22/23 -- NACEPT Executive Committee Meeting
 Winter  (January/February)  — State and  Local Programs Committee  Meeting
 May 22 — State and Local Programs Committee Meeting
 May 23 -- Full  NACEPT Meeting
 July 10/11 - NACEPT Executive  Committee  Meeting
The  meeting  was adjourned at 3:30 PM.   The next meeting of the  Committee is
scheduled for October 23,  1990,  in  conjunction  with the  full NACEPT meeting
scheduled for October 24.
     ectfully  submitted.
   fna A.  Fletcher,  Director
State  and Local  Programs Committee
National  Advisory  Council for Environmental  Policy  and  Technology

October 1, 1990
                                     11

-------
                     NATIONAL ADVISORY  COUNCIL FOR
                ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY

                    FY 1991  NACEPT COMMITTEE AGENDA

                 STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS COMMITTEE

                        Small Communities Subcommittee

--Focuses on the special problems of very small communities in addressing environmental
problems including assessing the impact of regulatory programs on small communities,
implementing regulatory flexibility opportunities, adopting performance-based standards,
improving participation of local governments in policy development, and improving delivery of
information and technical and financial assistance to small communities.

The Subcommittee is managed in cooperation with EPA's Small Community Coordinator in the
Office of Regional Operations and  State/Local Relations.

Chair, James Power, Jr., State of Kansas. Participants include local officials from Michigan, New
Hampshire, and Texas, as well as representatives from National Governors Association, Office of
Management and Budget, Rural Community Assistance Corporation, National Rural Water
Association.

FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Will be examining such issues as the cumulative impact of EPA rules
on small communities and using risk-based priority setting for addressing local problems.

                  Environmental Management Capacity Building

The Committee is supporting several capacity-building demonstration/pilot projects.

-Several EPA program offices (including OW-ODW, OMPC, OGWP; OSW--OMSW; OPPE--
OPP;) have joined in supporting Committee projects designed to assist State and local
governments in building their capacity to address environmental problems.

—The National Governors Association (NGA) produced a national report on how States use
alternative financing mechanisms for environmental programs and conducted peer matches on such
topics as hazardous and solid waste management, pollution prevention, and geographic
information systems.

-The International City Management Association (ICMA) develops and disseminates new
information materials and assists local-to-local peer matches on topics including wastewater,
ground water, solid waste management, and chemical accident prevention.

~A special focus group of local officials who have dealt with being potentially responsible parties
at a Superfund site shared experiences and developed suggestions for the Committee to consider as
recommendations to EPA to improve current policies and procedures on this matter.

-The Rensselaerville Institute in New York is working with State officials in several additional
States in an effort to extend the Self-help program concept through which small communities plan,
design, and construct cost-effective wastewater or drinking water facilities.

FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN:   Peer matching, information dissemination, and special focus group
activities of NGA and ICMA will continue. NGA is planning seminars and developing educational
materials on State strategic planning and how it can fit with EPA's planning process. ICMA

-------
efforts will cover a broad range of issues, including implementation of Subtitle D rules. A special
project is planned to develop a "green book" designed for city managers and other public
administrators on local environmental management The Self-Help project will move into the
demonstration phase with assistance provided to selected towns; the Ford Foundation is expected
to provide a low-interest revolving fund to aid with construction costs. The Committee is also
planning a cooperative project with USDA's Extension Service and other interested organizations
to train local officials in smaller communities in how to assess and address environmental assets
and problems. Other Federal agencies with an interest in community development are being invited
to become official contributors to the Committee, which may lead to additional cooperative efforts
(FmHA, HUD, EDA, HHS).

                          State-EPA Operations Committee

The State and Local Programs Committee (SLPC) is providing logistical support to and
coordinating closely with the State-EPA Operations Committee managed by Paul Guthrie, Office of
Regional Operations and State/Local Relations. Tom Looby, State of Colorado, sits on both
committees.

—The committees exchange information, products, and reports for review and, where appropriate,
endorsement or other action; a recent example is the State-EPA Operations Committee's RCRA
reauthorization policy draft. When possible, the committees try to schedule so they "piggyback"
one another to facilitate attendance.

FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN:   The committees plan even greater coordination, such as through
setting agendas that complement each other's efforts on selected issues of priority concern to both
committees. The SLPC may provide staff support and/or access to use of grantee organizations; a
current example is strategic planning. State-EPA Operations Committee members will be invited to
participate or assign staff to participate on relevant SLPC focus groups.

-------
  TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS

                COMMITTEE OF NACEPT


                        OCTOBER 23, 1990

                         MADISON HOTEL
                        WASHINGTON, D.C.

                       - DRAFT AGENDA -

 9:00 a.m.    Convene, Welcome, Introductions   Nicholas Ashford, Chair &
             of New Members, Review of      Tom Devine, Vice Chair
             Agenda, Comments of the Chairs,
             & Approval of March 1990 Minutes

 9:45 -12:15  Permitting Focus Group:      Ed Keen, Chair
            Status Report and Discussion     David Berg, TIE Committee Director

12:15- 1:30   Lunch

 1:30 - 2:30   TIEC Strategic Direction       Nick Ashford & Tom Devine

           Discussion:
           •  Implementation of Recommendations
           •  TIEC Plans for 1991 and Beyond

 2:30 - 3:00  Water Pollution Prevention    Jim Lund
            Project Focus Group

 3:00 - 3:30   Liability Focus Group:        Nick Ashford
            Status Report and Discussion

 3:30 - 4:00   Diffusion FOCUS Group:       Bill Carpenter
            Status Report and Discussion

 4:00 - 4:45   Focus Group on Remediation  Martin Rivers, Chair &
            Technology                Walt Kovalick, Director, OSWER
                                      Technology Innovation Office

 4:45 - 5:00   New Business               Tom Devine

 5:00 - 5:15   Summary of Action Items

 5:15 p.m.     Adjourn

-------
                                                                   October
                      NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
                                      FOR
              ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
                                   (NACEPT)

             TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS
                                 COMMITTEE
 Chairman:

 Dr. Nicholas A. Ashford*
 Associate Professor of Technology and Policy
 Center for Technology, Policy & Industrial
  Development
 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (E40-239)
 1 Amherst Street, Room 239
 Cambridge, MA 02139
 Phone:(617)253-1664
 Fax:(617)253-7140
 Vice Chairman:

 Mr. Thomas Devine*
 Corporate Vice President
 Regulatory Affairs
 RMT, Inc.
 100 Verdae Boulevard
 Greenville.SC 29607
 Phone:(803)281-0030
 Fax:(803)281-0288
 Designated Federal Officials:
 Director
 Mr. David R. Berg
 Office of Cooperative Environmental
  Management
 EPA (A-101F6)
 499 South Capitol Street, S.W., Room 115
 Washington, DC  20460
 Phone: (202) 382-3153
 Fax: (202) 245-3882

 Members:

 Mr. Paul Arbesman*
 Corporate Director for Pollution Control
 Health, Safety & Environmental Services
 Allied Signal Corporation
 P.O. Box 1013 R
 Morristown, NJ 07960
 Phone: (201)455-4286
 Fax: (201)455-4835

 Dr. R. Darryl Banks*
 Deputy Commissioner
 Department of Environmental Conservation
State of New York
50 Wolf Road
Abany, NY 12233-0001
Phone: (518) 457-5768
Fax:(518)457-1088
 Deputy Director
 Mr. Morris Attschuter
 Office of Cooperative Environmental
  Management
 EPA (A-101F6)
 499 South Capitol Street. S.W., Room 115
 Washington, DC  20460
 Phone: (202) 475-6139
 Fax: (202) 245-3882

 Members:

 Dr. Pamela Bridgen*
 Executive Director
 Association of Biotechnology Companies
 Suite 1330
 1666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
 Washington, DC  20009-1039
 Phone: (202) 234-3330
 Fax: (202) 234-3565

 Dr. Paul Busch*
 President
 Malcolm-Pimie. Inc.
 2 Corporate Drive
 Box 751
 White Plains, NY 10602
 Phone:(914)694-2100
 Fax: (914) 694-9286
* Denotes NACEPIjnember	
                                    Pagel

-------
                     NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
                                     FOR
             ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
                                 (NACEPT)

            TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND  ECONOMICS
                                COMMITTEE
 Members:

 Mr. William W. Carpenter*
 Vice President
 Technology Applications
 Martin Marietta Energy Systems. Inc.
 P.O. Box 2009
 104 Union Valley Road
 Oak Ridge. TN 37831-8005
 Phone: (615) 576-8368
 Fax:(615)574-1011

 Ms. Karen Ftorini
 Senior Attorney
 Environmental Defense Fund
 1616 P Street. N.W.
 Washington. DC 20030
 Phone: (202) 387-3500
 Fax: (202) 234-6049

 Mr. James Hall*
 Technology Transfer Coordinator
 USDA-ARS OCI
 Building 205, Room 403
 BARC-West
 Beltsville. MD 20705
 Phone:(301)344-4045
 Fax:(301)344-3191

 Mr. William M. Haney III*
 William Haney Associates
427 Newberry St.
Boston. MA 02115
Phone:(617)267-3366
Fax: (617) 267-3404
Members:

Dr. David M. L. Lindahl*
Director
Office of Alcohol Fuels
Department of Energy
Room5G086 (CE-50)
1000 Independence Avenue, S.E.
Washington, DC 20585
Phone: (202) 586-9791
Fax:(202)586-8134

Dr. John W. Liskowrtz*
Executive Director
Hazardous Waste Institute
New Jersey Institute of Technology
323 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Newark. NJ 07102
Phone: (201) 596-3234
Fax:(201)596-1525

Gen. James McCarthy*
Deputy Director
Engineering and Services
HQ-USAF/LEE
Pentagon
Washington. DC 20330-5130
Phone: (703) 679-9221
Fax:(703)614-7572

Ms. Nancy E. Pfund*
General Partner
Hambrecnt & Quist
1 Bush Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 576-3310
Fax: (415) 576-3621
                                             Denotes NACEPT member
                                    Page 2

-------
                      NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
                                      FOR
             ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
                                   (NACEPT)

             TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS
                                 COMMITTEE
 Members:

 Dr. Walter Quanstrom*
 Vice President
 Environmental Affairs and Safety
 Mail Code 4905A
 Amoco Corporation
 200 East Randolph Drive
 Chicago, IL 60601
 Phone: (312) 856-2506
 Fax:(312)616-0197

 Dr. Robert Repetto*
 Senior Economist and Program Director
 World Resources Institute
 Suite 700
 1709 New York Avenue. N.W.
 Washington, DC 20006
 Phone: (202) 638-6300
 Fax: (202) 638-0036
Members:

Mr. Martin E. Rivers*
Executive Vice President
Air and Waste Management Association
Three Gateway Center, Four West
Pittsburgh. PA 15222
Phone:(412)232-3444
Fax: (412) 255-3832

Mr. Shelby Yastrow*
Senior Vice President
McDonald's Coporation
One McDonald's Plaza
Oak Brook, IL 60521
Phone:(708)575-6178
Fax: (708) 575-6941
Contributors:  -

Mr. Jack Adams 4
Vice President
Marketing and Financial Services
National Environmental Technology
 Applications Corporation (NETAC)
University of Pittsburgh Applied Research
 Center
615 William Pitt Way
Pittsburgh. PA 15238
Phone:(412)826-5511
Fax: (412) 826-5552

Mr. David Allen'
Director
Pollution Prevention Project
National Toxics Campaign
P.O. Box 945
Cambridge. MA 02140
Phone:  (617) 628-5441
Contributors:

Dr. Ed Berkey '
Executive Vice President
NETAC
University of Pittsburgh Applied Research
 Center
615 William Pitt Way-
Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Phone:(412)826-5511
Fax:(412)826-5552
 Denotes NACEPT membership
 Indicates Focus Group Members:
 1  Environmental Permitting
 2 Liability
 3 Remediation Technologies
 4 Technology Diffusion
                                     Page 3

-------
                      NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
                                       FOR
             ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
                                    (NACEPT)

             TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS
                                  COMMITTEE
 Contributors:

 Mr. Arthur Bryant2
 Executive Director
 Trial Lawyers for Public Justice
 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
 Suite 100
 Washington, DC 20036
 Phone: (202)797-8600
 Fax: (202) 232-7203

 Mr. MikeCrossner3
 Donohue & Associates
 4738 North 40th Street
 Sheboygan, Wl 53083
 Phone:(414)458-8711
 Fax:(414)458-0537

 Mr. Les Cheek 2
 Crum and Forster
 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
 Suite 414
 Washington, DC  20036
 Phone: (202) 296-5850
 Fax: (202)775-2639

 Mr. Richard Conway
 Senior Corporate Fellow
 Union Carbide Corporation
 P.O. Box 8361
 3200 Kanawha Turnpike
 South Charleston, WV  25303
 Phone: (304) 747-4016
 Fax: (304) 747-5430

 Dr. Randall Curiee
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Building 4500-N, MS 6205
P.O. Box 2008
Oak Ridge. TN 37831
Phone: (615)576-4864
Fax: (615)574-8884
Contributors:

Mr. Peter S. Daley3
Senior Director
Research & Development
Chemical Waste Management, Inc.
Geneva Research Center
1950 S. Batavia Avenue
Geneva, IL 60134-3310
Phone: (708)513-4500
Fax:(708)513-0087

Mr. Daniel M. Darraugh3
Attorney at Law
Saperson and Day, P.C.
GoWome Center
One Fountain Plaza
Buffalo. NY 14203-5400
Phone:(716)856-5400
Fax:(716)856-0139

Mr. Blake Early2
Director, Pollution and Toxics
Sierra Club
330 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.
Washington, DC 20002
Phone:(202)547-1141
Fax:  (202)547-6009

Ms. Lois Epstein, P.E.3
Environmental Engineer
Environmental Defense Fund
1616 P Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 387-3500
Fax: (202) 234-6049

 Denotes NACEPT membership
 Indicates Focus Group Members:
 1 Environmental Permitting
 2 Liability
 3 Remediation Technologies
 4 Technology Diffusion	
                                       Page 4

-------
                      NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
                                      FOR
             ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
                                   (NACEPT)

             TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND  ECONOMICS
                                 COMMITTEE
 Contributors:

 Mr. Richard Fortuna 3
 Executive Director
 Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
 1440 New York Avenue. N.W.
 Washington. DC 20005
 Phone: (202) 783-0870
 Fax: (202) 737-2038

 Mr. Sanford Gaines2
 University of Houston
 Environmental Liability Law Program
 Law Center
 4800 Calhoun Street
 Houston. TX 77204-6381
 Phone: (713) 749-1393
 Fax: (713) 749-2567

 Mr. Charles Goddard3
 Department of Environmental Conservation
 State of New York
 50 Wolf Road
 Albany. NY 12233-0001
 Phone: (518) 457-0730
 Fax:(518)457-1088

 Mr. Michael A. Gollin'
 Sive, Paget & Riesel. P.C.
 460 Park Avenue
 New York. NY 10022-1906
 Phone:(212)421-2150
 Fax:(212)421-1891

 Mr. Tom Grumbiy ^*
 President
Clean Sites. Inc.
1199 North Fairfax
Alexandria. VA  22314
Phone: (703) 683-8522
Fax: (703) 548-8773
Contributors:

Ms. Jean Herb1
Director
Office of Pollution Prevention
NJ Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
7th Ftoor - East Wing
Trenton. NJ 08625
Phone: (609) 984-5339
Fax: (609) 984-3962

Mr. Robert L. Herbst*
President
Lake Superior Center
700 Lonsdale Building
Duluth. MN 55802
Phone: (218) 722-0861
Fax:(218)722-9568

Mr. Joseph C. Hovious, P.E.3
Assistant Director, Environmental Affairs/
 Chemicals and Plastics
Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics
 Company, Inc.
39 Old RkJgebury Road
Danbury, CT 06817-0001
Phone: (203) 794-5193
Fax: (203) 794-5275

Mr. Robert J. Johnson3
Director of Outreach Programs
Air and Waste Management Association
P.O. Box 2861
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
Phone:(412)232-3444
Fax: (412) 232-3450
  Denotes NACEPT membership
 Indicates Focus Group Members:
 1 Environmental Permitting
 2 Liability
 3 Remediation Technologies
 4 Technology Diffusion
                                    PageS

-------
                       NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
                                       FOR
              ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
                                    (NACEPT)

             TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS
                                  COMMITTEE
 Contributors:

 Dr. Swiatoslav Kaczmar3
 O'Brien & Gere Engineers, Inc.
 5000 Brittonfiekj Parkway
 P.O. Box 4873
 Syracuse, NY 13221
 Phone: (3150 437-6100
 Fax: (315) 463-7554

 Mr. Edward S. Keen '
 President
 Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
 50 Beale Street
 P.O. Box 3965
 San Francisco, CA 94105-1895
 Phone: (415) 768-0236
 Fax: (415) 768-0360

 Ms. Meryl Lieberman 2
 Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz. Edelman & Dicker
 420 Lexington Avenue
 New York. NY 10170
 Phone: (212) 490-3000. X2759
 Fax: (212) 490-3038 or (212) 557-7810

 Mr. David Morell'
 EPICS International
 1410 Jackson Street
 Oakland. CA 94612-4010
 Phone: (415) 891-9794. x22
 Fax: (415) 839-3846

 Dr. Gerald Nehman *
 Director
 Environmental Institute for Technology
 Transfer
The University of Texas at Arlington
Box 19050
Arlington. TX 76019-0050
Phone: (817)273-2300
Fax:(817)794-5653
Contributors:

Mr. LeRoy Paddock1
Assistant Attorney General
State of Minnesota
102 State Capitol
St. Paul. MN 55155
Phone: (612) 296-6597

Dr. EdRepa3
Director of Technical Research
National Waste Manufacturers Association
Suite 1000
1730 Rhode Island Avenue. N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 659-4613
Fax: (202) 775-5917

Dr. Jack Sanderson *
Vice President for Corporate Technology
Asea Brown Boveri
900 Long Ridge Road
P.O. Box 9304
Stamford. CT 06904
Phone: (203) 328-2284
Fax: (203) 328-2352

Mr. Larry Schmidt'
Director
Office of Program Coordination
NJ Department of Environmental Protection
401 East State Street
7th Floor
Trenton. NJ 08625
Phone: (609) 292-2662
Fax: (609) 292-0988

* Denotes NACEPT membership
 Indicates Focus Group Members:
 1  Environmental Permitting
 2  Liability
 3  Remediation Technologies
 4  Technology Diffusion	
                                       Page 6

-------
                      NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
                                      FOR
              ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY
                                   (NACEPT)

             TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND  ECONOMICS
                                 COMMITTEE
 Contributors:

 Mr. John Schofield'
 Senior Vice President
 Pollution Control
 IT Corporation
 312 Directors Drive
 Knoxville. TN 37923
 Phone:(615)690-3211
 Fax:(615)690-3626

 Ms. Claire H. Sink
 Chief, Technology Integration Branch
 Division of Educational Program Development
 U.S. Department of Energy
 EM-521.GTN
 Washington, DC 30545
 Phone:(301)427-1685
 Fax:(301)427-1600

 Mr. James Slater'
 Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
 50 Beate Street *
 P.O. Box 193965
 San Francisco, CA 94119-3965
 Phone: (415) 768-5643
 Fax: (415) 768-0360

 Mr. William Sonntag4
 National Association of Metal Finishers
 1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
 Washington, DC 20036
 Phone:(202)857-1127
 Fax: (202) 223-4579

Mr. Robert Stone *
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Center for Technology, Policy & Industrial
 Development
1 Amherst Street, Room 238
Cambridge. MA 02139
Phone:  (617)253-1654
Fax: (617) 253-140
Contributors:

Dr. Russell H. Susag. P.E.3
Director
Environmental Regulatory Affairs
3M Environmental Engineering & Pollution
 Control
Building 21-2W-07
St. Paul, MN 55133-3331
Phone:(612)778-4468
Fax: (612) 778-7203

Mr. Lyman Wible'
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wl 53707-7921
Phone:(608)266-1099
Fax: (609) 267-3579

Dr. J. Kenneth Wtttte4
Vice President
Etectro-Pyrolysis, Inc.
Suite 1118
996 Old Eagle School Road
Wayne, PA 19087
Phone: (215) 687-9070
Fax:(215)964-8570

Mr. Tom Zosel'
3M Corporation
BWg. 21-2W-06
P.O. Box 3331
St. Paul, MN 55133
Phone:(612)778-4805
Fax: (612) 778-7203
 Denotes NACEPT membership
 Indicates Focus Group Members:
 1  Environmental Permitting
 2  Liability
 3  Remediation Technologies
 4  Technology Diffusion
                                     Page 7

-------
Technology Innovation and
   Economics Committee

-------
NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
 FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
               AND TECHNOLOGY

          Permitting and Compliance Policy:
             Barriers to U.S. Environmental
                    Technology Innovation
                     Report and Recommendations of the
                         Technology Innovation and
                           Economics Committee
                                October 1990

-------
                                                       DRAFT

                     TABLE  OF CONTENTS

I.    Executive Summary                                 Page 3
II.    Members of the Technology Innovation and            Page 9
        Economics Committee
III.   Introduction                                       Page 11
   A.  Background                                     Page 11
   B.  TIE Committee's Goals and Process                Page 12
IV.   The Stakeholders Speak:   The Findings                Page 15
V.    Rationale for System  Changes                       Page 23
VI.   Recommendations for  Action and Commentary         Page 31
   A.  Executive Summary of  Recommendations            Page 31
   B.  Detailed  Recommendations  for Action               Page 32
          and Commentary
           Recommendation 1                             Page 32
           Recommendation 2                             Page 41
           Recommendation 3                             Page 50
           Recommendation 4                             Page 53
           Recommendation 5                             Page 61
Appendix A:  Presenters at Fact  Finding Processes            Page

-------
                                                               DRAFT
                     I.  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY

    Man's continuing challenge to the environment varies with the growth of human
populations and with changes in economic activity, complexity, and competition. As
seemingly finite resources diminish, the pressure to satisfy basic human needs and wants
creates demand for advanced processes of production. In turn, the need grows for
advanced scientific gauges of the nature and degree of public health and environmental
stress, and for innovative technological solutions to evolving environmental problems.  If
the rate of technology innovation for environmental purposes is less than required, a gap is
created between our ability to define and target environmental problems, and our ability to
solve them.

    EPA's emphasis on the measurement  of risk and  the  reduction of
significant risks sets an  important new standard for the targeting of
environmental protection programs. Equally, the  national capacity to
reduce these high priority environmental  risks is directly related to our
ability to  produce technological  solutions.

    The rate of technology innovation for environmental purposes thus limits the range of
policy options available to the nation's political and environmental leadership. Our
regulations, administrative processes, permit systems, and enforcement practices are
directly impacted by the nation's ability to produce innovative technological solutions. In
turn, these environmental systems impact the rate and type of technology innovation for
environmental purposes by fostering or constraining the innovation process*.

    The progress we have made over the  past 20 years in protecting human health and the
environment has been enabled by the development and deployment of then-innovative
technologies for pollution control and pollution prevention.  If we are to sustain a balance
between environmental and economic objectives, technology innovation for environmental
purposes will have to continue and increase.  EPA information shows, however,
that for at least the past decade the rate of investment in environmental
technology development  and commercialization has lagged.  This reflects a  net
disincentive, one which persists, for technology innovation for environmental purposes.
    The Technology Innovation and Economics (TIE) Committee of
    NACEPT concludes that accelerated development and commercialization
    of innovative technology for environmental purposes is  necessary to
    improve environmental quality and enhance economic productivity.	
    If we are to receive the full benefit of such technology innovation to reduce the risks
associated with the highest priority environmental problems, the market dysfunction
symbolized by this lagging  rate of investment in technology innovation for
environmental purposes will have to be addressed in  a number of areas,
without losing sight of the  primary objective of protecting human health
and  the environment.  These areas exist both within and  outside  of the
environmental regulatory system. It should be recognized that current policies are
neither helpful nor benign and that the philosophical neutrality of statutes, legislative
histories, regulatory policy, and regulations is hampering national efforts to both solve
environmental problems and increase economic productivity. The Federal Technology
Transfer Act of 1986 (FTTA), which is as yet underutilized, represents the beginning of a
change to a more helpful governmental role.

-------
                                                                DRAFT
    It is important to note that not all of these recommendations are new and unique to the
TIE Committee (see the Committee's January 1990 recommendations, which overlap with
and complement these recommendations).  The TIE Committee reiterates its
January  1990 recommendations:  it  is critical to evaluate the effectiveness
of existing innovation programs, issue  a technology innovation policy  for
the environment,  and  develop a  technology  innovation  strategy.

    The time is right to take these steps:  a  growing  recognition  exists,
inside and outside of the EPA, that technology  innovation for
environmental  purposes1 is essential to the success of environmental
programs in  the United States.  The TIE Committee commends  the
increasing number of initiatives undertaken by EPA and states to foster
technology innovation  for environmental purposes.  These include EPA's
establishment of the Pollution Prevention Office and the Technology Innovation Office (in
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response), the steps suggested in the RCRA
Implementation Study to aid the development and use of innovative technologies for RCRA
compliance purposes, the increased support by the Office of Research and Development
(ORD) for the testing and commercialization of innovative environmental technologies, the
several state integrated and cross-media permitting programs, and the several state toxic use
reduction programs. Further, the recent report of the Science Advisory Board, "Reducing
Risk:  Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection," defines how to set
priorities for solving environmental problems. It is now time to increase the
national  capacity to develop the  technologies needed to solve the  most
important environmental problems.

    This  document  summarizes the TIE  Committee's investigation of the
impact of two key elements of the environmental regulatory system in  the
United States — permitting and compliance — on such technology
innovation. The TIE Committee has completed an extensive fact finding process which
gathered information from the segments of society that have the most at stake.  These
"stakeholders"  include regulated communities, regulators (federal, state, and local),
providers of environmental products and services, the providers' investors, and the
organized environmental community.
    The TIE Committee concludes that permitting and compliance systems,
    as they  function today, discourage all  stakeholder groups from  taking
    the risks necessary to develop innovative technologies — whether for
    pollution prevention or for pollution control — and to bring them into
    routine  use to solve environmental problems.	          	
    Uncertainties, costs,  and  delays  associated with the permitting of tests
and of early commercial uses of innovative environmental technologies, and
the unpredictability and inconsistency of enforcement, are significant
disincentives that discourage technology innovation for environmental
1   The term "technology innovation for environmental purposes" includes all types of technology
    innovation that have a beneficial effect on the environment, i.e., pollution prevention (such as
    manufacturing process changes), pollution control and remediation, information systems, and
    management practices. In particular, however, the TIE Committee notes that it is technology
    innovation involving pollution prevention and pollution control that is most affected by permitting
    and compliance systems, and therefore these types are especially targeted by this document. In the
    interest of brevity, at times other similar phrases, such as "innovative environmental technology." are
    used interchangeably.

-------
                                                               DRAFT
purposes.  These combine to create a high-risk, low-reward situation that
needs  to be  rectified if more opportunities for environmental  technology
innovation are  to  be realized for solving environmental problems.
    At the same time, the TIE Committee has reinforced the notion that the
    environmental statutes and regulations, and their enforcement, "make
    the market" for these very same technologies.	
    Rigorous enforcement of existing regulations and requirements is critical to the
realization of already-planned environmental progress. Enforcement could be a primary
motivator of regulated organizations to comply, using conventional and innovative
technological solutions.

    This report documents the dysfunction in the marketplace for environmental
technology and its causes within permitting and compliance systems, and characterizes the
conceptual framework of permitting and compliance systems that would best encourage
environmental innovation. It further recommends specific changes in policy and procedure
for permitting and compliance programs that will correct the market dysfunction and
thereby maximize the possibility of technology innovation for environmental purposes.

    The TIE  Committee's primary recommendation  is  that the Administrator
of EPA,  working within  EPA, with state  and local agencies, and with the
Congress, make  interrelated improvements  in  environmental permitting  and
compliance systems  necessary to  foster technology innovation for
environmental purposes,  within the  overriding goal of protecting  human
health and the environment.  These recommendations and improvements, which  fall
into five categories, are to:
1.  Modify permitting systems to  aid the development and testing of
    innovative technologies for  environmental purposes.	
1.1 Institute a working system of specialized permits in all media for testing innovative
    technologies for environmental purposes, including

    a.  Permits for specialized testing facilities.
    b.  Permits for testing at other locations.

1.2 Develop a system of dedicated centers for the testing of innovative environmental
    technologies.

1.3 Develop a system for cross-media and crpss-jurisdictional coordination of the review
    of permit applications for (a) testing facilities and (b) tests at other locations.
2.  Implement permitting processes that aid the commercial introduction of
    innovative technologies for  environmental purposes.	
2.1 Increase the flexibility of permitting processes involved in introducing environmentally
    beneficial technologies into commercial use.

2.2 Streamline the process of reviews of permit applications for newly introduced
    innovative technologies that have environmental benefit, coordinate their review, and
    afford them high priority.

-------
                                                                 DRAFT
2.3 Assure national consistency in the consideration of proposed uses of innovative
    technologies, subject to site-specific limitations.

2.4 Institute a system of incentives for users of commercially-available innovative
    technologies.
3.  Use compliance programs  to  encourage the use of innovative
    technologies to solve  environmental problems.	
3.1 Modify environmental compliance programs to create an expectation of the need to
    comply.  This is necessary to create markets for innovative technology.

3.2 EPA and state agencies should practice and encourage flexibility in the choice of
    remedies during enforcement actions, aiming at encouraging the use of innovative
    technologies under appropriate circumstances.

3.3 EPA, state agencies, and other regulatory authorities should institute mechanisms to
    increase coordination in compliance programs across the media and across
    jurisdictional lines.
4.  Support regulators and other involved communities to maximize  the
    effectiveness of improvements recommended in permitting  and
    compliance  systems.	
4.1 Institute a system of incentives, training, and support to retain experienced federal and
    state permit writers who participate in permitting decisions involving the testing or
    early commercial use of innovative environmental technologies.

4.2 Institute a system of incentives, training, and support to retain experienced federal and
    state inspectors and compliance staff who participate in decisions involving
    innovative environmental technologies.

4.3 Provide support to prospective innovative technology permittees (including technology
    developers and technology users).

4.4 Emphasize the role of EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) as
    consultant to federal, state, and local government permit writers and inspectors to
    provide information on innovative technologies for environmental purposes.

4.5 Institute systems to provide the public with information and support related to the
    testing and use of innovative environmental technology.
5.  Identify and remove regulatory  obstacles  which  create unnecessary
    inflexibility and uncertainty or  otherwise inhibit technology innovation
    for  environmental  purposes.	.
5.1 The Administrator should revise deh'sting regulations under RCRA Subtitle C to allow
    process-specific, rather than site-specific, delisting decisions.
 .2 The Administrator should revise the hazardous waste (RCRA Subtitle C) regulations to
    include special provisions for small quantity generator hazardous wastes, taking into
    account their uniaue case.
5

    account their unique case

-------
                                                               DRAFT
5.3 The Administrator should clarify a number of definitions of terms of art under RCRA.

5.4 The Administrator should revise regulations to direct permits to describe the
    performance requirements of the technology on which they are based, but not to
    prescribe a specific technology.

5.5 The Administrator should direct that users of mobile treatment units (MTUs) be
    exempt from HSWA Corrective Action triggers and further that EPA allow national,
    regional, and state permits for MTUs, with an opportunity for local community input
    and for consideration of site-specific factors.

5.6 The Administrator should direct that RCRA land ban treatment standards based on
    incineration as BDAT should not automatically be applied to all site remediation
    technologies.
    The  TIE Committee has also concluded that changes to the
    environmental regulatory  system will  be needed  to  create incentives
    encouraging the environmental technology  innovation process.	
It is important to be clear that the measures recommended in this document
will  not  fully solve all of the fundamental problems leading to a market
dysfunction and an unsatisfactory rate of technology innovation for
environmental purposes. These problems derive from the way the central approach to
regulation in the United States — "best available technology"-based regulations ~ is
frequently used today.  Policy makers should reconsider the current reliance on this
approach  (to the extent that reliance on "best available technology"-based regulations
impedes the development and introduction of innovative technologies), should remove
rigidity, and should create opportunities to develop and use innovative technologies.  To do
this, they  should revise regulatory processes to create an incentive structure that fosters
technology innovation and, more broadly, encourages each stakeholder group to contribute
to the search for solutions to environmental problems. A systematic analysis of the
motivations — economic and otherwise — of each stakeholder group will be necessary to
design a complementary set of effective improvements.

    The  "Report and Recommendations" includes five major sections:

    •  Section I is this Executive Summary.

    •  Section n is the "Membership of the Technology Innovation and
       Economics Committee."

    •  Section III, the "Introduction," outlines  the "Background" for the
       report and the "TIE Committee's Goals and Process."

    •  Section IV is titled "All the Stakeholders Speak: The Findings."
       This section contains the findings that underpin the TIE Committee's
       rationale for  its recommendations to strengthen  permitting and
       compliance systems, and to  identify  and remove regulatory  glitches
       that  impede technology  innovation.

    •  Section V describes the  Committee's  "Rationale for System
       Changes"  — its analysis of the key issues  surrounding the

-------
                                                   DRAFT
relationship between technology innovation for environmental
purposes and permitting  and compliance  systems.

Section VI, "Recommendations for Action and Commentary,"
includes an "Executive Summary of Recommendations" and the
"Detailed Recommendations for Action and Commentary."  This final
section provides a listing  of each of the recommendations and
subrecommendations and analyzes each.
                             8

-------
                                                             DRAFT
  II.   Technology  Innovation  and Economics (TIE)  Committee
                                  of the
             National Advisory Council  for Environmental Policy and
                               Technology
Staff:
Mr. David R. Berg, TIE Director

Mr. Morris Altschuler
Mr. Kai C. Janson

TIE Committee Members:
Dr. Nicholas A. Ashford, Chair
Mr. Thomas Devine, Vice Chair
Mr. Paul Arbesman
Dr. R. Darryl Banks
Mr. William W. Carpenter
Ms. Karen Florini
Mr. James T. Hall
Mr. William M. Haney, HI
Mr. Edward S. Keen
Dr. David M. L. Lindahl
Dr. John Liskowitz
Mr. Lester H. Poggemeyer
Ms. Nancy E. Pfund
Mr. Martin E. Rivers
 Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
   (OCEM)
 OCEM
 OCEM NNEMS Fellow
  Massachusetts Institute of Technology
  RMT, Inc.
  Allied Signal Corporation
  N. Y. Dept. of Environmental Conservation
  Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
  Environmental Defense Fund
  U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
  William Haney Associates
  Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
  U.S. Dept. of Energy
  New Jersey Institute of Technology
  Poggemeyer Design Group
  Hambrecht & Quist
  Air and Waste Management Association
Members of the Focus  Group
Mr. Edward S. Keen, Chair
Mr. David Allen
Dr. R. Darryl Banks
Ms. Karen Florini
Mr. Michael A. Gollin
Mr. William M. Haney, m
Ms. Jean Herb
Mr. David Morrell
Mr. LeRoy Paddock
Mr. Larry Schmidt
Mr. John Schofield
Mr. James Slater
Mr. Lyman Wible
Mr. Tom Zosel
on Environmental Permitting:
  Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
  National Toxics Campaign
  N.Y. DepL of Conservation
  Environmental Defense Fund
  Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
  William Haney Associates
  N.J. Dept. of Environmental Protection
  EPICS International
  Assistant Attorney General, Minnesota
  NJ. Dept. of Environmental Protection
  IT Corporation
  Bechtel Environmental, Inc.
  Dept. of Natural Resources, Wisconsin
  3M Corporation
Non-EPA Contributors to the  Focus Group:
Ms. Susan April                  Kerr and Associates
Mr. Ed Berkey                   National Environmental Technology Applications
                                Corporation (NETAC)
Mr. Ken Hagg                   Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection
Mr. Bob Kerr                    Kerr and Associates

-------
                                                              DRAFT
Mr. Bruce Oulrey                 California Air Resources Board (CARB)
Ms. Elissa Parker                 Environmental Law Institute
Ms. Kathy Porter                 Mass. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Dr. Manik Roy                   Formerly of the Mass. Dept. of Environmental
                                 Protection
Focus Group Contributors (cont.):
Ms. Ivy Schram                  NETAC
Mr. Alan Sherman                Enviresponse, Inc.
Mr. Peter Venturini                CARB
Mr. Jeff Wiegand                 Alton Geoscience

EPA  Contributors to the Focus Group:
Mr. John Atcheson                Pollution Prevention Office (PPO)
Mr. Jay Benforado                Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Ms. Elizabeth Cotsworth           Office of Solid Waste (OSW)
Mr. Kirt Cox                     Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                                 (OAQPS)
Mr. Jim Cummings                Technology Innovation Office
Mr. Jim Edwards                 PPO
Ms. Donna Fletcher                OCEM
Ms. Deborah Gillette              Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (OWEP)
Mr. Mark Joyce                  Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
Mr. Ephram King                 OWEP
Mr. Jim Lund                    Office of Water Regulations and Standards
Mr. Frank McAlister              OSW
Mr. Gary McCutcheon             OAQPS
Mr. Mike Mastracci                ORD
Mr. Alan Morrisey                Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
Mr. Mahesh Podar                Office of Policy Analysis
Mr. Dale Ruhter                  OSW
Mr. Kevin Smith                  OWEP
Mr. Jim Yezzi                    ORD
Note: See Appendix A for list of presenters at Focus Group fact finding processes.
                                     10

-------
                                                              DRAFT
                        III.   INTRODUCTION
                            A.  BACKGROUND

    The environmental regulatory system in the United States was developed to protect
human health and the environment. This system has achieved significant progress toward
these goals, but much greater progress will be needed to meet current and future
environmental objectives, while attaining sustainable economic growth.

    The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)
and its Technology Innovation and Economics (TIE) Committee have concluded that the
current environmental regulatory system tends to emphasize pollution abatement, rather
than pollution prevention, and offers limited encouragement to  simultaneous environmental
and industrial productivity improvements. The environmental regulatory system includes
the development of regulations, administrative practices and policies supporting the
regulations, permitting programs, compliance and enforcement programs, and federal,
state, and local research programs supporting environmental objectives.

    Technology innovation has been viewed as a secondary goal of the environmental
regulatory system, and a comprehensive network of authorities, policies, and programs
designed to stimulate technology innovation for environmental purposes does not exist.
This has triggered a market failure:  the investment rate for environment-related technology
innovation is so low that the national ability to make environmental improvements is limited
by a lack of technology. In fact, the investment rate for environmental control technology
lags that of the economy as a whole. Moreover, lit Committee Fact Finding activities
have indicated that environmental investment decisions are typically made separately from
production investment decisions, although there is a trend towards integrated decision
making. This implies strongly that pollution prevention investment, as well as pollution
control investment, lags. This two-edged market failure threatens the health of the United
States economy and places the health of the environment and the economy in opposition.

    In the January  1990 "Report and Recommendations of the Technology
Innovation and Economics Committee" to the Administrator of EPA,
NACEPT concluded that the development and use of innovative
technologies  are necessary to more efficiently and simultaneously  improve
the environment and  enhance productivity and  economic competitiveness.
Technology innovation is essential  to continued progress in environmental
protection in the United States. This is the case for both improved production
processes that increase productivity and prevent pollution, such as manufacturing process
changes and modifications, and more efficient emissions control and cleanup
technologies*.

    In this report, NACEPT determined that a critical need exists to examine how the
environmental regulatory system impacts  technology commercialization and how factors
external to the regulatory system (e.g., tax policy, corporate culture and decision
processes) compound the problem of lagging investment in technology innovation for
environmental purposes.  NACEPT, based on the TIE Committee's work,
recommended that EPA assume a leadership role in  fostering technology
innovation for  environmental purposes and that  the Administrator take  three
key steps to address this  market dysfunction:
                                     11

-------
                                                                DRAFT
    •   Evaluate the degree  to which the implementation of U.S.
        environmental  programs is  effective in  stimulating technology
        innovation

    •   Issue  a policy  statement expanding the Agency's mission to
        encompass fostering technology innovation

    •   Develop and implement a strategy  to carry out the fostering role.

    To help the Agency implement these recommendations, in October 1989 the TIE
Committee established the Focus Group on Environmental Permitting to examine the
relationship between government permitting and compliance processes and the introduction
of new technologies for environmental purposes.  The Committee had developed the view,
on the basis of its investigations, that federal, state, and local permitting and compliance
systems contain elements that act as important barriers to innovative technology for
environmental purposes, both pollution prevention and pollution control technologies.
These elements were seen to create a climate that is not suitable for technological change
and that contribute to the inadequacy of market responses. The Committee asked the Focus
Group to confirm or correct this view, and to suggest modifications to permitting and
compliance systems that will encourage technology innovation without compromising the
principal goal of protection of public health and the environment.

    This document reports the results of the Focus Group's review. Other TIE Committee
activities will examine other suggested sources of market dysfunction, including regulatory
approach, liability systems, and corporate practices. TIE Committee recommendations are
aimed at helping EPA put in place a system of positive and negative signals that encourages
environmental problem-solving in the context of sustainable development. This, in turn,
will enhance the market for innovative technologies for environmental purposes and
improve the ability of the environmental agencies to achieve their goals.


               B. TIE COMMITTEE GOALS AND  PROCESS

    The TIE Committee has two strategic goals which  apply to all environmental
technologies. These are to:

    1.  Increase the  development and commercialization  of innovative
        technologies
    2.  Ensure the  diffusion (use) of existing and new  technologies.

The TIE Committee believes that these goals can and must be  accomplished while
maintaining the primary purpose of the system: protecting human health and the
environment.  The TIE Committee recognizes a hierarchy of technological
approaches to environmental improvement.  In order of desirability, these are:
technologies that prevent pollution (including waste minimization and source reduction
technologies), recycling technologies, environmental control technologies, and cleanup
technologies. To pursue these goals, the TIE Committee is examining (1) the effectiveness
of the environmental system in ensuring a suitable climate for  technological change and (2)
the adequacy of market responses.

    The TIE Committee has identified impediments to environmental technology
innovation that exist within the environmental system, diminishing its effectiveness. These
impediments are regulatory, administrative, and systemic (see Findings).  The Committee


                                      12

-------
                                                                 DRAFT
is reviewing ways to alleviate these impediments and to create positive incentives. In
considering the response of the marketplace to the need for innovation in environmental
technology, the TIE Committee is:

    •   Identifying ways of achieving better market responses leading to the development
        and use of new pollution prevention and environmental control technologies.

    •   Identifying ways to remove the impediments and to assist developers of these
        technologies (inventors, investors, and users).

    •   Reviewing ways that the public sector, the private sector, and the non-profit sector
        can work, alone or together, to provide assistance.

    The TIE Committee process is designed to identify the key factors that would
contribute to a climate in business and government that favors environmental problem
solving. To this end, the Committee process involves engaging and seeking the views of
all parties "at interest" These "stakeholders" include regulated communities, regulators
(federal, state, and local), providers of environmental products and services, the providers'
investors, the public, and the organized environmental community.

    The Focus Group  on Environmental Permitting  was asked to examine  the
relationship between  government permitting and compliance systems
(federal, state, and  local)  and the process  of technology innovation for
environmental purposes. This analysis is critical to understanding the climate for
technological change and the adequacy of market responses. The Focus Group was also
asked to examine the impact of regulatory "glitches" — regulatory requirements that have an
unplanned, adverse effect on technology innovation and diffusion — on the development
and introduction of new technologies for environmental purposes.  The Focus Group was
to identify steps that can alleviate impediments and create positive incentives within the
permitting and compliance systems, helping remove the existing  market dysfunction.
Issues considered by the Focus Group include the following:

    •   Who are the major interested parties and what is their motivation with respect to the
        decision to invest in developing or applying an innovative technology for pollution
        prevention or for environmental control or cleanup?

    •   What are the resource and timing impacts on technology innovation and diffusion
        of permitting reviews by federal, state, an local authorities?

    •   What is the importance to technology innovation and diffusion of flexibility in
        permitting requirements and of cross-media consideration of environmental
        impacts of innovative technology?

    •   What is the importance to technology innovation and diffusion of flexibility in
        compliance practices?

    •   What is the potential to create incentives for technology innovation related to
        pollution prevention in permitting and compliance systems?

    •   What are the concerns of the public about technology innovation for environmental
        purposes?

    The Focus Group was comprised of individuals drawn from six state agencies,
technology developers, regulated firms, the financial community, and the organized


                                       13

-------
                                                                 DRAFT
environmental community. Most major offices of EPA participated. The Focus Group met
in January and March, 1990, and agreed upon its mission and the methods to be used in
accomplishing it To broaden its information base, the Focus Group heard presentations
from EPA's permitting and compliance programs (air, water, and solid/hazardous wastes).

    The Focus Group then held two public Fact Finding meetings: May 16,1990, in San
Francisco and August 8, 1990, in Washington, D.C. (These meetings were noticed in the
Federal Register and advertised in at least 12 wide-circulation periodicals.  In addition, TIE
Committee staff made over 100 telephone calls to state and local officials, environmental
groups, companies and industrial groups, and trade associations.) Presenters were asked
to provide comments about any positive and negative aspects of permitting, compliance, or
regulatory processes that are believed to affect technology innovation for environmental
purposes.  Illustration of the significance of these comments and suggestions was
requested using specific, real case studies.

    Twenty eight (28) oral and five (5) written presentations were received at the two Fact
Finding meetings. Most provided one or more case studies. The presentations came from
technology developers and other providers of environmental products and services,
regulated communities, EPA regulatory offices and researchers, and the environmental
community (listed in declining order of the number of presentations).

    In addition, the National Environmental Technology Applications Corporation
(NETAC) prepared a report that describes a framework for considering the relative
importance of the impact of potential impediments on technology innovation. The
framework describes the stages of the technology development and commercialization
process and identifies the points of interaction between that process and environmental
permitting and compliance systems.

    The Focus Group met in August, 1990, to review information available to it, make
findings, and draft preliminary recommendations. The Focus Group defined characteristics
of permitting and compliance systems that would encourage the development and diffusion
of innovative  technologies. It used these as the framework for its recommendations. It also
listed the important perspectives that must be kept in mind when considering the value of
potential recommendations. (The characteristics and perspectives are discussed in the
"Rationale for System Changes.") The Focus Group met twice more by teleconference,
during which  this report and its recommendations were discussed, revised, and approved
for presentation to the full TIE Committee. [The TIE Committee approved these
recommendations at its meeting on October 23,1990].
                                       14

-------
                                                                DRAFT
  IV.    ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS SPEAK:   THE FINDINGS


    The Technology Innovation and Economics (TIE) Committee has held two fact finding
processes over the past two years. One has helped build to the other. The first examined
EPA's innovation programs, identifying the status and effectiveness of each in fostering
technology innovation for environmental purposes. Based on this examination, NACEPT
issued its January 1990 "Report and Recommendations of the Technology Innovation and
Economics Committee." This document contains "Findings" that gave an overview of the
critical role of technology innovation to the nation's success in protecting human health and
the environment in the context of sustainable development, and introduced the concept that
serious impediments, different from those facing other technology fields, obstruct the
market process for technology innovation for environmental purposes.  The Findings
emphasized:

    1. The need for federal leadership for this technology innovation;

    2. The need for a comprehensive policy to remove the major impediments obstructing
       this technology innovation;

    3. The need to erect a system of incentives that address the perceptions of risk within
       each stakeholder group, encouraging each to play its appropriate role in technology
       innovation;

    4. The nature of several of the major impediments that create an atmosphere of risk-
       averseness among organizations involved in technology innovation;

    5. The need to build a cooperative relationship among the stakeholder groups; and

    6. The need for outreach to build the consensus that will be needed to sustain a
       mutually supportive relationship.

    The second fact finding process of the TIE Committee, which examined the
relationship between environmental permitting and compliance systems  and technology
innovation, built on the first. The Findings of the second TIE Committee process are now
the basis for the Rationale for System Changes (Section V) and the Recommendations
delineated in Section VI. Following are these Findings:

1.  Technology innovation, pursued through an  integrated approach,  is
    necessary  for the achievement of environmental  protection  goals and
    objectives. Technology is the source of most pollution, but can be designed in a
    manner to eliminate pollution or to reduce, recycle, control, or treat emissions and
    residues.  Existing environmentally-beneficial technologies can be  used more broadly.
    Improved technologies, too, can be applied to solve potential environmental problems.
    Environmental and productivity considerations can be integrated into the design of new
    technologies to ensure efficient, environmentally-sound production of goods and
    services.
                                      15

-------
                                                               DRAFT
2.  The federal government should  assume leadership and establish a
    system of incentives  favoring technology innovation.  The goal of
    government is to build a  cooperative  relationship among  governments,
    businesses, and  academia  for technology innovation  for environmental
    purposes and for assuring sustainable development.   At the heart of this
    relationship is consistency  in the marketplace. The federal government alone
    is capable of this role, because the federal government primarily determines the
    stringency, applicability, timing, and longevity of environmental requirements, and its
    signals dominate in the minds of regulated communities and technology developers.
    The process of technology innovation is made up of many steps, each one of which is
    critical to the ultimate success or failure of a technology.  Unless the environmental
    regulatory system provides a constant incentive to innovate, the likelihood is increased
    that worthwhile technologies will not complete the necessary steps to
    commercialization. It is particularly important that the Environmental Protection
    Agency make technology innovation a high priority, because it is at the national level
    that incentive and institutional  systems to foster technology innovation can be
    addressed most efficiently.

3.  Federal, state, and local environmental permitting and compliance
    programs provide underlying impetus for the use of environmental
    technologies, but  administrative complexity, high cost, duplication, and
    layering create a severe dysfunction  in environmental technology
    markets.  This problem, generally applicable to all environmental
    programs in the United States,  is especially  damaging to  technology
    innovation  for environmental  purposes.  Federal, state, and local government
    permitting and compliance systems for both tests and early commercial uses of
    innovative technology are in some cases duplicative and in many cases confusing.
    There is little coordination among relevant agencies. In addition, nearly all are specific
    to a single environmental medium (e.g., air, water).  Compliance with a specific
    permit may cause non-compliance with other media-specific permits at operating
    facilities. The current system often precludes the most efficient use of resources in any
    given operating facility and does not encourage technology innovation and the search
    for efficient solutions to environmental problems. It particularly discourages
    technology opportunities for pollution prevention.

4.  Predictable and consistent enforcement of regulations, rather than the
    mere existence of regulations, creates markets for innovative
    technology. The lack of predictable and consistent enforcement at all levels of
    government precludes the expectation of the need to comply with environmental
    requirements and, therefore, the need to purchase environmental products and
    services.  Similarly, the lack of predictable enforcement discourages permittees from
    using innovative technologies, which inherently expose them to greater risk, and
    discourages entrepreneurs from investing money and effort in the technology
    innovation process.

5.  The cost, risk, and complexity of permitting systems associated with
    testing innovative technology for environmental purposes is  excessive.
    There are few locations in the United States where  tests of innovative
    technologies can be performed. No viable permitting process  exists for
    those few that do. The functional purpose of permitting systems related to testing
    innovative technology is not being met This is to protect human health and the
    environment while allowing technology developers to define the range of applicability
    of an innovative technology. Permitting processes for tests of innovative technologies


                                      16

-------
                                                                 DRAFT
    should be instituted, expanded, and streamlined and designed to encourage technology
    innovation - and then put to use ~ under each of the major media statutes. In some
    cases, this may require legislation. Similarly, testing centers ~ whether operated by
    private organizations, EPA, or other governmental agencies — should be encouraged
    and supported. Specialized permitting processes should also be designed to ease and
    speed the start of these facilities. Some might be established at existing and abandoned
    federally-owned sites. The need to protect human health and the environment during
    testing and early commercial use of nay innovative technology is considered
    paramount by the TIE Committee. However, the TIE Committee also believes that the
    potential benefits of innovative technologies for environmental purposes
    counterbalance limited, temporary deviations from standards that may occur during
    testing projects.

6.  The lack of institutional recognition of the high priority  of technology
    innovation  and the complexity of the permit application  process inhibits
    many technological ideas from flourishing, causes excessive  time
    delay, and  imposes excessive costs  on the development and early
    commercial  uses of innovative technologies.  Permit application has become
    an art practiced by consulting firms as a response to the complex and conflicting
    requirements imposed. The cost and time required to the permittee for application
    drafting, negotiation of permit terms, and pre-permit data gathering are so excessive as
    to discourage the development, testing, and commercial use of innovative technology
    for environmental purposes. Costs associated with preparing permit applications and
    filing for permits can actually exceed the cost of a technology, thus creating significant
    disincentives. Operating facilities with existing permits are especially discouraged
    from applying for new permits based on the use of an innovative and environmentally-
    effective technology.

7.  The risk  associated with testing and early commercial  uses of an
    innovative  technology is greater than risks associated with using known
    technologies in similar applications.  The record shows that the  lack of
    public confidence and trust  stands as a  major impediment to the
    development and use  of innovative technologies  for  environmental
    purposes. A key step in fostering technology innovation for environmental
    purposes must, of necessity, address the public concern. Moreover, unless permitting
    and compliance systems are effective, public confidence cannot be earned. Unless
    performance envelopes (i.e., the range of applicability of technologies) are defined, a
    "Catch-22" will exist that undermines public confidence in innovative technologies,
    adds to the perception of investment risk by technology developers and the financial
    community, and deters potential commercial users. Engineers' ability to determine
    performance envelopes during testing — and therefore be able to project the potential
    efficacy of that technology if it was later used at distant sites - is critical to reducing
    the risk to public health and environment associated with testing  and subsequent use
    for compliance purposes.  The solution to this dilemma can be found in redefining the
    purpose  of permitting and compliance systems towards (a) assuring the enforceability
    of applicable objectives (standards), (b) assuring that a positive record exists of
    facility's compliance history, (c) developing accurate and effective self-monitoring
    systems  (to assure compliance), and (d) undertaking enforcement against violators,
    while (e) establishing a substantive process for public involvement that can build
    confidence and (f) allowing sufficient flexibility for performance envelopes to be
    defined. Thus, both a strong process for public involvement and flexibility with
    respect to technology performance and timing of achieving compliance (or test
    objectives) should be built into environmental permitting and compliance processes.
                                       17

-------
                                                                 DRAFT
8.  Permit and compliance  personnel turnover is  excessive, causing loss of
    institutional memory, the use  of inexperienced personnel,  and
    inconsistent permitting and  enforcement approaches.  One reason for this is
    the lack of training and other support for permit and compliance personnel. The high
    turnover rate is particularly damaging to the technology innovation process, because
    the expertise required for regulatory consideration of innovative technologies is greater
    than what is required for the consideration of conventional, "best available
    technology"-based approaches. When this problem is combined  with the lack of
    institutional policy support and guidance for the use of innovative technology and the
    fact that the process of considering innovative technologies is more time consuming,
    the importance of retaining permit and compliance personnel is even more apparent

9.  Uncertainty about the timing, goals,  and  longevity  of  regulations
    increases  investment risk and  discourages the development and  use  of
    innovative technology for environmental purposes.  In the current regulatory
    system, (1) regulatory objectives and requirements remain in flux at least until
    promulgation and (2) old regulations can be modified and new regulations introduced
    under one or another environmental media program with little regard to creating some
    stability for regulated parties. The process of developing innovative technology
    generally takes ten or more years from the point of invention until commercial
    introduction. This long lead time for technology innovation conflicts  sharply with the
    uncertainty inherent to current regulatory practices. The inability to predict future
    environmental requirements and the inability to predict the longevity of current
    regulations generates an atmosphere of excessive risk and discourages investment in
    innovative technology for environmental purposes.  Related to this problem, confusion
    exists about the intent of some regulations, especially with respect to definition of
    terms and interpretation of regulations and procedures. These problems must be
    identified and clarified, if compliance and innovation rates are to be increased.

10. The current reliance on "best available technology "-based  regulations
    misses a major opportunity  to apply incentive-based approaches in  rules
    and permits that can  appeal to the motivations of interested parties.
    Among the incentive-based approaches that could be applied successfully to improving
    environmental results and technology innovation are: (1) economic incentive tools
    (e.g., pollution fees and taxes, pollution trading, strengthening environmental
    technology patents and making them easier to obtain); (2) depreciation rules, tax
    credits, and other tax policies; (3) performance-based rules, (4) explicit, clear
    standards, and (5) two-tiered regulations, which combine a "best available
    technology"-based first tier, an environmental goal-based second tier (that may be
    technologically or economically unattainable at the time of promulgation), and,
    potentially, pollution trading and credits. In the absence of the use of such incentive-
    based tools, the current command-and-control, "best available technology"-based
    approach to regulation offers at best mixed incentives for the development and use of
    improved environmental and production technologies. Such technologies, which often
    cost more than the technology on which a regulation is based, must await an uncertain
    recognition by rulemakers before their niche in the marketplace is assured. As
    previously noted by the TIE  Committee in the January 1990 "Report and
    Recommendations," "before the imposition of an environmental rule,  no incentive
    exists to apply an environmentally beneficial technology (other than good will or  the
    desire to avoid an uncertain future liability). After regulatory requirements are
    imposed, compliance with BAT-based rules requires the quick use of a technology
    with the requisite performance and provides no reward for the development and use of
    technology offering improved performance, regardless of the environmental and public
    health risk remaining after use of BAT." Opportunities must be put in place that create


                                       18

-------
                                                                 DRAFT
    a system of positive incentives for stakeholders to seek innovative technological
    solutions to environmental problems — and then put to use — under each of the major
    media statutes. In some cases, this may require legislation.

11. Many affected and interested  parties are uninformed about the purpose
    and  benefits of, and approaches to technology innovation on  the
    environment. EPA and state regulatory staffs, regulated communities, technology
    developers and providers, and the public need various types of information about
    technology innovation. A technology innovation strategy will involve a significant
    management change in the operation of environmental programs. Consensus-building
    activities will be necessary, as will training and education programs to increase the
    ability of interested parties to participate in a technology innovation strategy that
    includes pollution prevention, as well as pollution control, technologies.

12. The  encouragement of pollution  prevention has not been sufficiently
    built into permitting and compliance systems.  Great opportunities exist to
    build into production processes an improved environmental result, avoiding the
    generation of pollution. Pollution prevention opportunities exist in virtually every
    industry, but current regulatory approaches have not been designed to foster the  search
    for them or to foster their use.  With this in mind, the TIE Committee has recognized
    that a hierarchy of technological approaches to environmental improvement exists, in
    order of desirability: technologies that prevent pollution, recycling technologies,
    environmental control technologies, and cleanup technologies.  The TIE Committee
    believes that the use of a combination of these technological approaches can yield the
    most efficient reduction of environmental problems. Further, the policy of
    automatically triggering a major permit review when facility operators propose to
    introduce pollution prevention modifications to existing permits should be modified.

13. Although some positive incentives exist, no important  stakeholder
    group  is currently encouraged, in  net  effect,  to support  innovative
    technologies for environmental purposes.  This situation creates  the
    major market dysfunction described  above that needs to be addressed
    by environmental policy makers.  The disincentives affecting the involvement of
    each major stakeholder group in developing, demonstrating, and using innovative
    technologies, as they are seen by the Tit Committee, are summarized below:

    •   Regulated Communities: Fragmentation of responsibility for permitting and
       compliance across federal, state, and local jurisdictions; a lack of coordination of
       permitting processes and reviews and of compliance policies and practices across
       the media; a lack of permitting and compliance policies that aid the testing and
       commercial introduction of innovative technology (e.g., the lack of flexibility
       allowed for tests); regulatory uncertainty and risk associated with the use of
       innovative technology; and the lack of adequate information and technical
       assistance on permitting processes for innovative technology, on enforcement
       policies related to technology innovation,  and on available innovative technology.

    •   Regulators  (Federal, State,  and Local):  Professional risk in choosing an
       innovative technology over a "tried and true" technology in issuing permits for its
       early commercial applications (associated with the difficulty and lack of experience
       in determining the appropriateness of a proposed use of an innovative technology
       for compliance purposes at a  particular site and with the possibility that a proposed
       use may be an attempt to avoid or delay compliance); for permit writers, extra time
       to consider the use of an innovative technology at a particular site without receiving
       encouragement (i.e., from policy) or credit (e.g., lowered requirements for


                                      19

-------
                                                                  DRAFT
        number of permit applications processed, recognition for helping the innovation
        process); lack of institutional credit for taking the time to consider a permit
        application for RD&D permits under RCRA; difficulty in coordinating with other
        levels of government and other media-specific permit writers; problems associated
        with permitting test centers; lack of incentives for compliance personnel to be
        flexible with early applications of innovative technologies (that may have difficulty
        in "working the bugs out" on a timely basis, even in good faith efforts to do so);
        lack of resources in permitting and compliance programs at all levels of
        government (e.g., inadequate staff, lack of information about innovative
        technologies and their previous applications).

    •   Providers of Environmental Products  and Services:  Lack of compliance
        processes that, by creating the expectation to comply, define markets and thereby
        reduce the risk of technology innovation and early commercialization; the need to
        satisfy, simultaneously and without coordination mechanisms, the requirements of
        various levels of government and in potentially more than one of the environmental
        media;  costs associated with obtaining permits for testing that may be significant in
        the context of the entire innovation project; the compounding of risk associated
        with the difficulty, expense, and delays of getting permits to test innovative
        technologies and permits for their early commercial application; uncertainty about
        the timing, goals, and longevity of regulations (and, therefore, about the timing,
        nature, and longevity of markets); and lack of encouragement for pollution
        prevention (and, therefore, about the markets for pollution prevention solutions to
        environmental problems).

    •   Investors: Lack of compliance processes that, by creating the expectation to
        comply, define markets and thereby reduce the risk of technology innovation and
        early commercialization; costs of testing that are magnified by the costs and time
        delays associated with obtaining permits to test innovative technology; the
        compounding of risk associated with the difficulty, expense, and delays of getting
        permits to test innovative technologies and permits for their early commercial
        application; uncertainty about the timing, goals, and longevity of regulations (and,
        therefore, about the timing, nature, and longevity of markets); lack of
        encouragement for pollution prevention (and, therefore, about the markets for
        pollution prevention solutions to environmental problems).

    •   The Public: The combination of hope, fear, and lack of understanding about
        technology in general and innovative technologies, in particular, concern with
        being the "guinea pig" that assumes all of the health risk associated with the failure
        of a test or commercial use of an innovative technology without being able to reap
        more than a small share of the benefit (reflected in the "not in my backyard"
        [NIMBY] syndrome); the inability of regulators, technology developers, and users
        of innovative technologies to assure the public that no harm to their health and
        safety and that of the environment will arise from tests or early commercial uses of
        these technologies (related to the problem that the public does not know who to
        trust, if anyone); the fact that no study can prove the absence of an effect; the lack
        of confidence that they are being fully informed about the purpose, benefits, and
        potential local impacts of technology innovation.


    These Findings, and the following recommendations that derive from them, describe
the TEE Committee's conclusions about the problems inherent to existing environmental
permitting and compliance systems as they relate to technology innovation for
environmental purposes and the reforms that must be made to take advantage of


                                       20

-------
                                                                DRAFT
opportunities that innovative technologies offer for environmental gain.  The TIE
Committee believes that it is essential to make the reforms recommended in this report to
deliver a clear and appropriate message to governmental and non-governmental
stakeholders that a strong market response is desired and possible for solving
environmental problems. Making these reforms will set in motion the integration of
environment into both the public policy development process and the private investment
cycle, leveraging the government's resources by encouraging maximum public and private
efforts to innovate for environmental ends and, thereby, encouraging technology
innovation for environmental purposes.


Looking Towards the Future

    It is important to note that not all of these recommendations are new and unique to the
TIE Committee (see the Committee's January 1990 recommendations, which overlap with
and complement these recommendations).  The TIE Committee reiterates its
principal January 1990  recommendations:  it remains  critical to evaluate the
effectiveness  of existing innovation programs, issue a technology
innovation  policy for  the  environment, and  develop a  technology innovation
strategy. The time is right to take these steps: a growing recognition exists that
technology innovation for environmental purposes is critical to the success of
environmental programs in the United States and an increasing number of commendable
initiatives have been undertaken by EPA and states to foster technology innovation for
environmental purposes. And, the recent report of the Science Advisory Board, "Reducing
Risk: Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection," defines how to set
priorities for solving environmental problems. It is now time to increase the national
capacity to develop the technologies needed to solve the most important environmental
problems.

    There are beginning to be steps in the right direction. EPA's recent RCRA
Implementation Study, for example, identifies the need for some reforms in RCRA
permitting systems to aid the development and use of innovative technologies for RCRA
compliance purposes.  More EPA and state activities than can be catalogued in this
document are underway. Among them are the creation by EPA of the Pollution Prevention
Office (and the dedication of EPA resources to support pollution prevention initiative
projects that can impact positively on the prospects for fostering technology innovation for
environmental purposes) and the Technology Innovation Office (in the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response). Another is the increased vigor of the technology
transfer programs of the Office of Research and Development (ORD) and the explicit
support by ORD for the testing and commercialization of innovative environmental
technology at such facilities as Center Hill in Cincinnati; the EPA Incineration Research
Facility in Pine Bluff, Arkansas; the National Environmental Technology Applications
Corporation (NETAC); and the Equipment Testing and Evaluation Facility in Edison, N.J.
Yet another is the development of an "Interpretive Rule" by the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) aimed at creating a routine process for considering tests
of air pollution  technology.  Several states have instituted integrated or cross-media
permitting programs that encourage pollution prevention and co-optimization in
environmental control. State toxic use reduction programs and support for technology
development and commercialization are also hopeful developments.  All of these initiatives
(and others not specifically noted here) by EPA and states deserve recognition and
commendation — and far more need to be undertaken in a coordinated, integrated fashion.

    As  the  TIE  Committee notes in Finding 10,  however, fundamental
changes will  be  needed  to  create  a  comprehensive and continuous system  of


                                      21

-------
                                                                DRAFT
incentives that  systematically encourage the  environmental technology
innovation process.  These necessary changes  will extend beyond
permitting and compliance to reach to the very basis  of regulations.  The
changes must clearly reduce the risks and increase the rewards associated with the process
of bringing technology into commercial use for environmental purposes, if the Agency's
risk reduction-based strategy is to be successful.  Specifically, policy makers should
reconsider "best available technplogy"-based regulations, which use agency established
technology-based limits and which use a technology to demonstrate that these limits are
achievable. Even though these are performance-based requirements, they have a strong
tendency to lock in the technology that is used to demonstrate achievability. Policy makers
need to be careful to provide flexibility so that other technologies that can be used to meet
the limits or to transcend them are developed and used. In this regard, the Committee notes
that environmental regulatory requirements are frequently limited by a technology base that
is insufficient to solve environmental problems to the degree recommended by risk
analyses.  In other words, the  United States'  environmental program is
technology  limited.

    While "best available technology "-based regulations are not inherently "bad," the way
they are frequently implemented creates rigidity and has an adverse affect on technology
innovation for environmental purposes. Consideration should be given to substituting
regulatory processes that create economic incentives for technology innovation. Such
regulatory processes might include performance-based standards (particularly those that
establish requirements that meet desired environmental targets, rather than targets based on
those that are currently achievable technically and economically), pollution fees and taxes,
emission and effluent trading, depreciation rules, tax policies, and other such techniques.
In addition, the approaches currently in use to provide support to research and development
should be revisited, with consideration being given to techniques that provide additional
financial and other assistance to technology innovation and which leverage governmental
resources. For example, strengthening patents for environmental technology  and making
them easier to obtain will increase the incentive to innovate.

    As  with its  January 1990  recommendations, the TIE Committee
sincerely wishes to help EPA create a broad and clear  strategic vision  of
what is needed  to  energize the innovation cycle for environmental
purposes.   The  recommendations in  this  report suggest evolutionary
modifications to  the present environmental regulatory system that are
designed to channel the creative and  financial resources of the nation, to
expand the technology base  for solving environmental problems.   This  is
the critical complement to EPA's risk reduction strategy for targeting
critical environmental problems.  The combination of these two  strategies
can increase the effectiveness of EPA in its role as the national
environmental  leader.

    The following sections summarize the TIE Committee's five major recommendations
to the Administrator, describe the Committee's findings and rationale in terms of the
present dysfunction of markets for environmental technology, and provide detailed
recommendations and commentaries about their significance in overcoming impediments to
the environmental marketplace. Detailed implementation steps are included, where
appropriate.
                                      22

-------
                                                                DRAFT
           V. RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATIONS

    Environmental regulations and associated compliance programs define and drive the
marketplace for environment-related technology. Technology is the source of most
pollution, and technology improvements are needed to meet both environmental and
economic objectives. The role of regulation and enforcement is crucial, because most
environmental costs are economic externalities.  As a result, technologies will not
frequently be used to improve the environment without clear definition of requirements and
without effective compliance programs. Indeed, without regulatory acceptance, no
technology can be developed and used to meet environmental requirements. Moreover,
successful compliance programs engender the expectation on the part of affected parties that
they are required to comply.

    NACEPT, in the January 1990 "Report and Recommendations of the Technology
Innovation and Economics Committee," has concluded that the development and use of
innovative technologies is necessary to more efficiently and simultaneously improve the
environment and enhance productivity and economic competitiveness. Technology
innovation is thus essential to continued progress in environmental protection in the United
States.

    The TIE Committee's aim is to increase our understanding of the incentives and
disincentives built into today's environmental regulatory system. Recommendations based
on this understanding should help the Administrator make informed policy choices, thereby
enhancing the ability of the organizations responsible for the management of environmental
quality to influence the nature and pace of technology innovation for environmental
purposes.

    The rationale for the TIE Committee's recommendations is rooted in the answers
developed by the Focus Group on Environmental Permitting's investigations of the six
issues listed in the section of this report entitled  "TIE Committee Goals and Process". The
TIE Committee's analysis of these six issues follows:
1.  The first question concerns the identification of the major interested ponies — the
    stakeholders — and their motivation with respect to technology innovation.	
    Several categories of stakeholders are recognized by the TIE Committee: regulated
organizations (whether in the private or public sectors); providers of environmental
products and services; the financial community supporting the providers; regulatory
agencies, federal, state, and local; and the general public.  Their motivations with respect to
technology innovation vary, and their willingness to pursue technology innovation is
impacted differently by environmental permitting and compliance systems. The
motivations include factors directly related to the features of permitting and compliance
systems and factors that are, in large part, independent of these features.  Critical themes
include:

    •  Compliance expectation: whether regulated organizations expect to have to
       comply. (The effectiveness of compliance programs determines the dimensions
       and timing of markets.)

    •  System predictability and flexibility:  whether the additional time required
       to obtain permits for testing and beginning early commercial  use of innovative
                                      23

-------
                                                                   DRAFT
        technologies can be predicted, and whether obtaining such permits can even be
        anticipated under reasonable circumstances. (Permitting programs affect
        technology developers, financiers of innovative technologies, potential users of
        those technologies, and the general public.)

     •  Time and cost: whether the time and cost impacts of gaining permits to test
        innovative technologies for environmental purposes are acceptable compared to
        those associated with other investment opportunities. (Permitting programs affect
        financiers of innovative technologies, technology developers, potential technology
        users, and the general public.)

     •  Extraneous triggers: whether application for a permit to test an innovative
        technology or to use it at a commercial facility triggers a new source review, a
        corrective action requirement, or another environmental review extraneous to
        determining the innovative technology's performance. (Permitting programs affect
        facility operators, technology developers, financiers of innovative technologies,
        and the general public.)

     •  Testing  the full range of performance: whether allowable tests of
        innovative technologies can fully define performance envelopes. (Permitting
        programs affect technology developers, financiers of innovative technologies, and
        potential users of those technologies.)

 Other factors are, in large part, independent of permitting and compliance systems:

     •  Regulation certainty: whether a stable and predictable set of regulations
 applies to the facilities and technologies potentially affected by an innovative technology
 (definition and stability of the market).

     •  Range of requirements:  whether a large or a narrow range of requirements
        applies to facilities and technologies potentially affected by an innovative
        technology (definition and stability of the market).

     •  Regulatory treatment of new,  old facilities:  whether  regulatory
        requirements affect new and old production facilities and equipment equally
        (turnover rates for production facilities and equipment and, therefore, the timing,
        nature, and size of markets).

     •  Financial policies: whether tax policy and accounting practices favor pollution
        control or pollution prevention solutions (financial characteristics of the market).

     As discussed in the Findings, the TIE Committee concluded that  the market  signals
 created by current environmental statutes and regulations, permitting  systems, and
 compliance programs do not, in net effect, convey to the major interested parties support
 for the search for technological solutions to environmental problems.  Importantly,
 permitting and compliance systems, as they function today, discourage individuals and
firms in all categories of stakeholders from taking the risks necessary if innovative
 technologies are to be routinely brought into use to solve environmental problems. As
 previously noted, the rate of investment in environmental technology research and
 development is relatively low, reflecting the net disincentives facing stakeholders, and the
 role of the United States as leader in environmental technology has diminished  The TIE
 Committee believes that uncertainties, costs, and delays  associated with permitting and
 compliance systems are significant factors in this market dysfunction.
                                        24

-------
                                                                   DRAFT
2.   The second question concerns the resource and timing impacts on technology
     innovation and diffusion by federal, state, and local permitting reviews.
     The TIE Committee has found a complex picture, depending on:

     •   Whether a technology is being developed or is ready for commercial use

     •   The environmental medium being considered

     •   Whether a control technology or a pollution prevention technology is being
        considered

     •   The jurisdiction and the degree to which applicable requirements have been
        attained in a geographic area.

In general, the resource and timing impacts of the media-specific environmental programs
appear to have a significant adverse effect on the cost and the time required to develop and
demonstrate innovative technologies for environmental purposes and to bring them into
commercial use. It appears that the environmental system under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) poses the greatest resource and timing impacts to technology
innovation for environmental purposes; that the Clean  Air Act, as currently applied, poses
somewhat fewer, and that the Clean Water Act, as currently applied, poses the fewest
barriers. Both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act are being interpreted in some
jurisdictions and by EPA in ways that increase flexibility for testing and for applying
innovative technology, despite the limited use of statutory provisions designed for that
purpose. Moreover, there is typically no effective cross media coordination in permitting
and compliance systems.  This deters technology innovation in general, and constrains
efficiency in environmental responses and to pollution prevention, in particular.
3.  The third question concerns the importance to technology innovation and diffusion of
    flexibility in permitting requirements and of cross-media consideration of
    environmental impacts of innovative technology.	
    The TIE Committee has found that permitting requirements must simultaneously
protect human health and the environment, and be sufficiently flexible to (1) allow
performance envelopes (i.e., the range of acceptable performance of a technology) to be
defined during testing and (2) encourage regulated facilities to co-optimize for
environmental and productivity objectives when choosing from available technological
options for achieving compliance. Several "characteristics of permitting systems that
encourage technology innovation for environmental purposes," were identified by the
Focus Group on Environmental Permitting. These place the need for flexibility in context
with other necessary characteristics:

    a.  Flexibility: The regulatory system should authorize the permit writer to
        incorporate a greater degree of flexibility into each permit for testing or use of an
        innovative technology than is generally the present practice, if means can be found
        to adequately protect human health and the environment.  This is critical during the
        testing of prototypes and demonstration units: the developer of innovative
        technology needs sufficient flexibility to define the performance envelope of a new
        technology (that is, to realistically determine the most appropriate operating
        conditions). For operating facilities, the terms of a permit should focus on the
        "result rather than the means to achieve it," encouraging the consideration of a
        broader range of technology options by the owner or operator (see below). A
                                       25

-------
                                                              DRAFT
    focus on result would provide flexibility to try innovative technologies, especially
    pollution prevention options.

b.  Compliance: Technology developers and users need to be confident that
    compliance will be required during testing, demonstration, and early commercial
    use of innovative technologies. Compliance efforts must therefore be consistent,
    predictable, and systematic. This is vital to allowing markets to develop for
    technologies, as well as require testers and users to operate responsibly, knowing
    that enforcement programs will assure compliance.

    The need to protect human health and the environment during testing and early
    commercial use of any innovative technology is considered paramount by the TIE
    Committee. If means to provide this protection cannot be found, testing or use of
    an innovative technology will have to be limited The TIE Committee believes,
    however, that approaches are available, even within existing statutory
    authorization, to allow sufficient flexibility during testing and demonstration to
    define performance envelopes — while ensuring compliance. It should be noted
    that once the performance envelope of an innovative technology is defined by
    testing, early commercial use is less risky and, therefore, can become routine.

c.  Enforceabilitv: Permit conditions must be enforceable. Introducing flexibility
    into permit conditions in the interest of technology innovation cannot be allowed to
    diminish enforceability. Variances should be available for good faith  efforts that
    are not completely successful, if there is no significant threat to human health and
    the environment.

d.  Predictability:  The schedule for obtaining permits for testing and early
    commercial uses of innovative technologies for environmental purposes needs to
    be consistent and predictable, within and across jurisdictions. The outcome of the
    process of obtaining an operating permit when an innovative technology is
    involved appears to be less certain, the time to obtain it longer, and the cost greater
    than would be the  case if a conventional technology were involved. As noted in
    the Findings, this uncertainty is even greater if, as is usually the case, multiple
    jurisdictions or more than one environmental medium are involved, since
    coordinated permitting is not the norm.

    The need to assure the protection of human health and the environment during
    testing, while paramount, appears to have overwhelmed the need for flexibility
    sufficient to define performance envelopes. This is particularly so under RCRA
    and, to a lesser extent, under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The
    outcome of permitting processes has therefore become difficult to predict for
    technology developers and time consuming and costly.  In some jurisdictions,
    obtaining permits for testing is nearly impossible.  When viewed across
    jurisdictional lines, the lack of predictability of permitting processes for testing
    innovative technologies is striking. The lack of a predictable, working process for
    permitting tests reinforces investors' perception of excess risk.

e.  Claritv: Clarity in permitting processes and in permit conditions are  important to
    the testing  and early commercial use of innovative technologies.  Clarity is
    important to the technology developers, technology users, regulators, and the
    public.  Permit writers, especially, are assisted by clearly-stated principles.

f.   Confidentiality: To encourage early discussions with regulators and other
    interested parties, assurance must be provided that secret information  about
                                    26

-------
                                                                  DRAFT
        innovative technologies will be protected.  The expectation of confidentiality
        would encourage development and commercialization of innovative technology.  It
        would also encourage more and earlier dialogue during technology development
        and a better flow of information between technology developers, technology users,
        and permit writers. Thus, a greater assurance of confidentiality would likely
        shorten the time for innovative technologies to be introduced and a more efficient
        use of resources by both permittee and permit writer.
    The fourth question concerns the importance to technology innovation and diffusion of
    flexibility in compliance practices.	
    Technology developers and users need to know that the compliance requirement will
be enforced during testing, demonstration, and early commercial use of innovative
technologies.  A successful compliance system will create the belief on the part of affected
parties that they will be required to comply. The TIE Committee identified characteristics
necessary to a successful compliance system that encourages technology development and
use:  consistency, predictability, and flexibility.  Certain features of enforcement programs
were also identified.

    •   Consistency:  Consistency in compliance within and across jurisdictions is
        important to giving basic definition and size to environmental markets. The TIE
        Committee concluded that, unless compliance programs are systematic and have a
        significant probability of identifying non-compliers, an expectation of the need to
        comply will not be created.

    •   Predictability: Compliance schedules and the enforcement of permit conditions
        must be predictable. (Similarly, the introduction of new regulations must also be
        predictable.) The TIE Committee has found that the market for innovative
        technologies and the degree of risk associated with investment in technology
        innovation are strongly subject to the predictability characteristic.

    •   Flexibility: Innovative technologies have not previously been permitted for
        compliance purposes, so performance and schedules are not based upon a good
        data base derived from a permitted operating facility. They therefore need flexible
        targets. The need for compliance flexibility arises in two situations: (1) not all
        tests can be completed according to plans, within predetermined schedules, and
        fully successfully in terms of performance targets and (2) early commercial
        applications of innovative technologies may not achieve compliance on a timely
        basis or may never achieve full compliance.  The TIE Committee believes that,
        under circumstances limited by the overriding need to protect human health and the
        environment, selective, temporary, and minimal non-compliance must be tolerated.

    •   Features  of enforcement programs: Appropriate enforcement methods must
        contain provisions to assure that no economic benefit obtains during periods of
        non-compliance associated with testing and early commercial use of innovative
        technologies for environmental purposes.  Enforcement programs must be seen as
        strong, yet be flexible and fair. Regulated organizations misusing the flexibility
       feature must be strongly penalized. The TIE Committee concluded that these
        features of enforcement programs would encourage reasonable technological and
        financial risk taking by technology developers, financiers, and regulated
        organizations.
                                       27

-------
                                                                   DRAFT
5.   The fifth question concerns the potential to create incentives for pollution prevention in
     permitting and compliance systems.	
     The TIE Committee has concluded that considerable potential to enhance pollution
prevention exists in both permitting and compliance systems. The potential is present in
permitting and compliance systems to design an improved approach to regulation that
increases certainty about the timing, applicability, and longevity of requirements; that
includes incentive features in regulatory design; that emphasizes performance, rather than
"best available technology"; and that decreases regulatory "glitches."

     In permitting, the TIE Committee has identified several disincentives (see Findings),
including the media-specific approach to facility permitting, the multi-jurisdictional
oversight of single facilities (without coordination and, sometimes, common requirements),
the easy triggering of permit reviews (e.g., by making "significant" facility modifications),
the high cost and long delays associated with permits for research, development, and
demonstration (RD&D) tests; and the lack of a regulatory climate that encourages and
rewards experimentation. The TIE Committee believes that the potential exists under
current statutory authority to reverse most of these disincentives to pollution prevention.
Statutory modifications will be needed to address the rest of these disincentives.
6.   The sixth question concerns the perspective of the general public about technology
     innovation for environmental purposes.	
     There exists in the public both a fear and a hope about technology. The TIE
Committee met with several senior individuals from the organized environmental
community late last year (November 30,1989) to discuss this point  Although the purpose
of the meeting was limited to exploring individuals' perspectives, a consensus emerged that
technology innovation for environmental purposes, while not an end in itself,  "is a
necessary component to effectively protecting the environment now and in the future" and
that "selective policies that foster useful technology innovation should be adopted."
Moreover, there is strong support in the environmental community and in the general public
for pollution prevention, waste minimization, and recycling, all of which to a greater or
lesser extent require technology innovation.

     The public appears to be cautious, properly so in the opinion of the TIE Committee,
that technology innovation for environmental purposes be approached in a manner that does
not jeopardize human health and the environment.  When the public feels that it is well
informed and properly consulted, that undue risks are not taken that pose an imminent
threat, and that assurance against unforeseen damage is provided (e.g., that corrective
action to clean up a site where testing took place is guaranteed), the public's concerns can
be vitiated.

    In its investigation of these six issues, the TIE Committee considered six perspectives
that reflect the wide variety of forces that impinge on the design and functioning of
environmental permitting and compliance systems. The six perspectives are:

    a.  Jurisdiction: Several levels of government necessarily are involved in decisions
        about the permitting of tests and early commercial use of innovative technologies:
        federal, state and local agencies. The TIE Committee recognizes that differing
        viewpoints represented by agencies in the different levels of government must be
        addressed in recommending improvements in permitting and compliance systems,
        that increased coordination across jurisdictions is necessary, and that the roles of
                                        28

-------
                                                           DRAFT


different levels of government need to be reconsidered and meshed together more
effectively.

Media: The three environmental media are regulated very differently. Several
federal statutes provide differing approaches to regulation, permitting, and
compliance. State and local laws further complicate the permitting and compliance
systems with which developers or users of innovative technologies must comply.
Each of these laws focuses narrowly on permitting and compliance systems
targeted on a single environmental medium. The TIE Committee is in strong
agreement that a multi-media approach is needed in the interest of resource
efficiency, to minimize cross-media shifts of pollution, and to provide incentives
for accelerated technology innovation.

Pollution Prevention QL Pollution Control: Pollution problems can be
addressed by preventing or minimizing pollution in the first place, by controlling
pollution once it is generated, or by a combination of the two approaches. The TIE
Committee's view is that a hierarchy of technology choices exists in which
pollution prevention is preferred, all things being equal.  The TIE Committee's
investigation revealed that some features of permitting and compliance systems can
affect technology choices differently, some encouraging pollution prevention  and
others encouraging pollution control. Similarly, permitting and compliance
systems can encourage technology innovation to take one course or the other.
Because both pollution prevention and pollution control solutions are needed, the
TIE Committee examined the ability of existing and potential features of permitting
and compliance systems to encourage both types of technology innovation.

Existing O£ New Facilities: The public's lack of trust towards both regulated
organizations and regulators is reflected in the regulatory treatment of new sources,
which is of ten far more stringent than that for existing sources. Such "double
standards" are evident in all three environmental media.  Information gathered by
the TIE Committee shows strong agreement that it is extremely difficult to obtain
permits for new locations and relatively easier to renew permits for existing
facilities.  At many locations, the difficulty of obtaining permits for a new facility
is more important than whether a technology proposed for use there is innovative
or the standard one.

The TIE Committee heard descriptions of situations in which companies'
reluctance to become subject to permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act led
them to apply innovative technologies. Their purpose was to keep emissions
below regulatory thresholds and thereby to escape regulation.  In other cases,
however, attempts to apply innovative technologies to treat hazardous wastes on-
site were abandoned by firms who did not wish to have regulatory oversight
triggered under RCRA.

The performance requirements for environmental technologies and the degree of
scrutiny given to technologies applied may differ. The triggering of a major
modification provision under the Clean Air Act can have  a vast impact on a
facility's environmental requirements. Under RCRA, the choice of treating or
even storing wastes on-site can bring a facility otherwise outside the purview of
RCRA under its umbrella and can trigger a RCRA corrective action review. The
TIE Committee recognizes the variety of potential positive and negative impacts on
technology choice created by the distinction between existing and new facilities,
and considers these a major concern to the goal of encouraging technology
innovation.
                                29

-------
                                                                 DRAFT
    e.  Geographic Considerations:  The location of two identical facilities in
        different geographic locations may place different strains on the environment or
        may subject the company to different state laws and regulations. This may, in
        turn, trigger different performance requirements and the need to use different
        environmental technologies. These geographic considerations may transcend state
        boundaries and are reflected in different requirements, such as attainment vs.
        nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act, state to state variations in
        requirements under several programs, and water quality and effluent treatment
        requirements in different bodies of water. The TIE Committee recognized and
        considered the need for geographic variation in environmental requirements and in
        technology choice. The Committee also recognizes the importance of the state role
        in assuring that site-specific considerations are addressed, and the need for
        coordination to assure that information can be shared and properly applied to each
        unique situation.

    f.  Stakeholders: As discussed earlier, the TIE Committee recognizes five
        categories of stakeholders whose views and motivations must be considered if
        improvements in environmental permitting and compliance systems are to occur
        regulated organizations, whether in the private or public sectors; providers of
        environmental products and services; the financial community supporting the
        providers; regulatory agencies, federal, state, and local; and die general public.
        The TIE Committee has concluded that permitting and compliance systems, as they
        function today, discourage individuals and firms in all categories of stakeholders
        from taking the risks necessary (f innovative technologies are to be routinely
        brought into use to solve environmental problems.  The TIE Committee sought to
        identify and consider the motivating factors operating  within each stakeholder
        group relative to the development and use of innovative technology for
        environmental purposes.

    Overall, the TIE Committee has concluded that current permitting and compliance
systems do not create a positive incentive system. Therefore, specific changes (or types of
changes) should be undertaken by responsible officials. These improvements are designed
to address the specific market dysfunctions described above, to encourage the efficient use
of resources for technology innovation for environmental purposes, and to increase the
opportunity to use these innovative technologies to improve the nation's ability to protect
human health and the environment
                                       30

-------
                                                         DRAFT
        VI.   RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION AND
                          COMMENTARY


         A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

    The Technology Innovation and Economics Committee of NACEPT
recommends that the Administrator of EPA, working within EPA, with state
and local agencies, and with the Congress, make interrelated improvements
in environmental permitting and compliance systems necessary to foster
technology innovation for environmental  purposes within the overriding
goal of protecting human  health and the  environment. These improvements
fall into five categories:

1.  Modify permitting systems to aid the development and testing of
    innovative  technologies  for environmental purposes.

2.  Implement  permitting  processes that aid the commercial introduction of
    innovative  technologies  for environmental purposes.

3.  Use compliance programs to encourage the use of innovative
    technologies to solve  environmental  problems.

4.  Support regulators and other involved communities to maximize the
    effectiveness of improvements recommended in  permitting and
    compliance systems.

5.  Identify and remove regulatory obstacles which  create unnecessary
    inflexibility and uncertainty or otherwise inhibit technology innovation
    for environmental purposes.
                                 31

-------
                                                               DRAFT
           B . DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTION
                           AND COMMENTARY
RECOMMENDATION 1:

Modify permitting systems to  aid  the  development and testing of innovative
technologies for  environmental  purposes.
1.1   Institute  a  working system of specialized permits in all media
       for testing innovative technologies for environmental  purposes,
       including.

       a.  Permits for specialized testing facilities

       b.  Permits for testing at other locations

Commentary

    Testing innovative technologies for environmental purposes is necessary to define their
performance envelopes (i.e., the range of acceptable performance of a technology). Such
testing may have to be conducted several times during research, development, and
demonstration, as technologies are scaled up, re-engineered to improve performance and
extend applicability, and finally demonstrated at commercial, operating locations.

    The Clean Air Act (CAA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) contain some provisions aimed at fostering the
testing of innovative technologies for environmental purposes. As noted in NACEPTs
"Report and Recommendations of the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee"
in January 1990, these provisions are, however, limited and none has been widely used
Under the CAA and CWA, ad hoc mechanisms have evolved to create some flexibility for
testing. Under the CWA, for example, most permits are written under "best engineering
judgement" —  "BEJ" — allowing the permit writer flexibility to consider innovative
solutions and local conditions. This is not the case under RCRA. NACEPT recommended
that, at a minimum, existing statutory provisions be fully employed to create added
opportunities for and flexibility in permitted tests.

    Information collected by the TIE Committee suggests that the permitting of testing is
difficult under RCRA and limited under other statutes. The TIE Committee has found that
considerable testing is conducted of air and water pollution control technologies, although
mainly at permitted operating facilities using the ad hoc regulatory methods. Existing
provisions under RCRA are narrowly construed and little used or not fully deployed.

    Moreover, the TIE Committee has found that there is little cross-media coordination of
permit application reviews, compounding the difficulty of the permitting process for
technology developers and discouraging some tests of pollution prevention technologies,
the value of which may be most evident when viewed in a cross-media context
                                     32

-------
                                                                   DRAFT
     Testing of innovative technologies can take place at permitted locations specifically
designed and designated for that purpose (see recommendation 1.2) or at other locations,
particularly at permitted operating facilities. Specialized permitting processes are needed
for such testing centers. These permits should be cross-media based and issued for a
substantial time period.  Permit terms should be flexible enough to allow for the testing of a
wide variety of technologies at a variety of sizes ranging from bench scale potentially
through full scale. The Committee endorses seven detailed recommendations for testing
facility permits developed bv EPA's Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
(OCEMY.

     a.  Scope of permit defined to ensure facilities' environmental safety. Permit
        application reviews for testing facilities would focus on the capability of a facility
        to safely test a proposed range of technologies, rather than the capability of every
        technology tested to achieve acceptable environmental performance during testing.
        Thus, the range of technologies tested would be limited to those that could be
        safely tested within the facility. Scientists will then be freer to conduct tests that
        define the performance limits of technologies tested, while the facility's
        own structure and environmental control technology insulates the surrounding
        environment and nearby communities from harm,

     b.  Federal program, with delegation authority. Federal regulations would establish
        and guide the issuance of testing facility permits, but delegate program authority
        to states accepting the program. EPA would issue permits only in states that have
        not adopted the program, and then only with state concurrence.  State authority to
        require more stringent standards  would therefore be preserved.

     c.  Ten-year permit duration allowed.  Permits would be issued for up to a ten-year
        period, with the possibility of renewal. A description of technology categories and
        testing parameters,  including sufficient information to assure that the capability of
        the facility to safely conduct tests would not be exceeded, would have to be
        provided as a part of the application, but controlled flexibility would remain (see
        #4 below). Specialized requirements « such as those under RCRA for a public
        review process, emergency plans, inspections, and corrective action  — would
        apply.

     d.  Installation of environmental controls required. Permitted facilities would have to
        have air emissions control equipment, water treatment or pretreatment equipment,
        solid and hazardous waste residuals pretreatment and storage capability, and
        environmental monitoring equipment sufficient to assure that public health and the
        environment are protected from pollutant releases during and after tests. This
        installed environmental equipment will, in essence, create a bubble of
        environmental protection around equipment being tested, ensuring no violation of
        applicable environmental regulations during and after testing. Without test-specific
        review by responsible regulatory agencies, no test could be conducted if the
        capabilities and capacities of installed environmental controls could be exceeded
        during testing.

     e.  Cleanup requirements apply. Application of the closure and post-closure
        requirements under RCRA would apply, assuring that no significant residual risk
        would remain at the testing location after the useful life of the testing facility is
        completed or the facility is otherwise closed down.

     f.  Public review process. Appropriate public participation processes (see
        subrecommendation 4.5) for permitting under federal and state statutes would be


                                        33

-------
                                                                  DRAFT
        applied to proposed testing facility permits.  Independent scientific expertise
        should be made available to the community, enabling them to evaluate the test
        facility to review safety, the range of tests proposed, time limits, etc. (see
        subrecommendation 4.5). Tests conducted within the constraints of the terms of a
        permit, once it is issued, would not be subject to individual public review,
        however.

    g.  Anti-loophole provisions. Time limits would be placed on the length of testing
        allowable for any one piece of equipment This and other requirements (e.g.,
        inspections, limits on quantity and time of storage of materials for testing) will
        assure that the testing facilities cannot be misused to circumvent normal
        requirements on treatment, storage, or disposal facilities.

    If EPA and other authorities are to facilitate such testing, whether at testing facilities or
at other locations, improvements will have to be built into permitting systems and strong,
positive signals will have to be issued from regulatory agencies. It is important to note that
the TIE Committee recommends that a systematic program be instituted to encourage,
support, and train permit writers involved in permitting activities associated with testing
(see subrecommendation 4.1 for details). Another signal could be in the form of guidance
that encourages and enables EPA laboratories to make the fullest use of the Federal
Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) to take advantage of existing expertise and facilities
inside and outside of the government in conducting joint testing projects.  The TIE
Committee recommends that several specific issues be addressed and features be built into
improved permitting programs to institute the set of needed improvements. They include:

    1.  Flexibility: At a minimum, testing programs must have the flexibility to define
performance envelopes (the range of applicability of an innovative technology for
environmental purposes). Permitting systems are needed under each of the media statutes
to allow such testing, as is coordination of media-specific permitting efforts across
jurisdictions:

    •   RCRA: Based on the results of its Fact Finding efforts, the TIE Committee has
        concluded that, at present, the greatest need for change exists under RCRA. There
        is effectively no RCRA permit available for locations where a variety of innovative
        technologies can be tested over time (i.e., permits for testing centers) and no
        effective permitting program exists for tests of single technologies (i.e., RD&D
        permits under Section 3005(g) of RCRA, only fifteen of which have been issued
        since July 1985). Most states are not authorized for the RD&D permit program,
        for example.

        Improvements can be accomplished by one of at least three methods, which may
        require administrative policy changes, statutory changes, or both. NACEPT has
        previously recommended three complementary solutions, each of which can be
        accomplished under existing authorities (January 1990, TIE Committee
        Recommendations 1.4.d [RD&D permit program modifications], 1.4.e
        [implementation of Subpart Y regulations for testing facilities], and 1.4.f
        [expanded use of Subpart X]). The TIE Committee compliments OSW for its
        support to extending the statutory time limit for RD&D permits from one (1) to ten
        (10) years, but the Committee notes that administrative revisions in the RD&D
        permits program are also critical to allow sufficient flexibility during testing.
        EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has suggested that an
        administrative rulemaking, called the "Subpart Y" rule, could provide an alternate
        regulatory framework for testing facilities under current authorities, but no action
                                       34

-------
                                                                   DRAFT
        on this concept has been taken after eight years. The TIE Committee urges
        immediate action to address this crving need.

        Additionally, the TIE Committee recommends that the treatability rule be revised
        to allow, at the discretion of the permit writer, a larger volumetric treatability
        exception for hazardous waste testing.  The amount would be greater than 1000
        kg, but less than 10,000 kg, and linked to the technology, as well as to the site.
        Further, the RCRA prohibition barring technology developers from collecting
        revenues for wastes treated during authorized tests should be eliminated in favor of
        reporting requirements and strict compliance programs that assure that the terms of
        testing, including the length of tests, are followed. Such an approach should not
        create a loophole, and is very important to technology developers who must
        otherwise bear the full cost of tests.  See also recommendation 5 for a discussion
        of several RCRA-related regulatory  glitches.

     •   CAA:  No testing permit provision exists under the CAA, but tests at small scale
        can be conducted without permits in most jurisdictions. An ad hoc administrative
        procedure involving ORD and OAQPS, called the "no action assurance" letter, has
        been devised to allow larger tests at operating facilities. This method does not
        provide sufficient predictability, certainty, and orderliness to the process of testing
        innovative technology. The procedure may be formalized by the so-called
        "interpretive rule," which has recently been formally proposed by OAQPS. The
        TIE Committee commends OAQPS and ORD for this proposal and endorses the
        concept, while noting that it has not  reviewed the terms in enough detail to
        comment on their sufficiency as a systematic system for testing.

     •   CWA: No testing permit provision  exists under the CWA, but considerable
        testing is conducted at permitted operating facilities. The current ad hoc system
        involving the granting of significant flexibility on a case-by-case basis by permit
        writers does not provide sufficient predictability, certainty, and orderliness to the
        process of testing innovative technology.  This ad hoc system involves the
        issuance of permits written under the "best engineering judgement" permitting
        program feature — "BEJ."  The  "Innovative Technology" variance provision
        (CWA Section 301(k)) is, unfortunately, little used.  The TIE Committee
        recommends that a systematic system of testing permits be developed under the
        CWA.

     2.  Compliance and Enforceability:  At a minimum, regulations establishing
specialized permits for testing innovative technologies for environmental purposes must
assure that public health and the environment are protected at the same time that flexibility is
provided.  The concern of the public that health and environmental quality might be
jeopardized is a primary limiting factor to technology innovation (see subrecommendation
4.5). This is true both for technology tests which are, by their nature, being conducted
expressly  to prove efficacy and safety of individual technologies, among other factors, and
for testing centers which, by their nature, are sites where a series of tests of unrelated
technologies will be conducted.

        The TIE Committee recommends that testing facility permits include provisions
that minimize risk to the public and the environment and include provisions that assure their
enforceability. As noted earlier, the lack of public confidence that regulated parties will
behave responsibly with respect to the environment deters the issuance of environmental
permits at new locations, as well as those for the testing of new technologies. It must be
clear to the public that permits for testing will not become loopholes to escape the
requirements and intent of the regulations technologies must meet. In its Fact Finding


                                        35

-------
                                                                   DRAFT
activities, the Committee was impressed that current testing programs have apparently not
been abused by technology developers or regulated parties. New provisions that offer
greater flexibility must retain such provisions as (1) limited time for tests, (2) corrective
action requirements, (3) disclosure, (4) public participation, and others that assure
necessary protection.

     3.  Clarity: The TIE Committee recommends that the regulatory process for
specialized permits for testing innovative technologies must be clear in its intent and
process. Likewise, permitting conditions must be clear. Clarity, as noted previously, is
important to technology developers, technology users, regulators, and the public. Permit
writers and applicants, especially, are assisted by clearly stated principles and by
institutional support in terms of policy, guidance, and rewards for carrying out these
specialized permitting programs (see recommendation 4).

     4.  Confidentiality: The TIE Committee recommends that additional steps be taken
to assure the confidentiality of secret information about innovative technologies, both those
tested at permitted facilities and those tested at other sites. The expectation of
confidentiality would encourage development and commercialization of innovative
technology. And, as previously noted, it would also encourage more and earlier dialogue
during technology development and a better flow of information between technology
developers, permit writers, and technology users. Secure areas in regional offices and state
agencies should be provided for confidential discussions and storage, and penalties should
be imposed for violations of security.


1.2    Develop a system of dedicated  centers for the  testing of innovative
        environmental technologies.

Commentary

     The TIE Committee found that few locations exist in the United States where testing of
innovative environmental technologies can be performed. Furthermore, the Committee
found that there is no viable permitting process for dedicated testing centers under any
environmental statute. The Committee has recommended that such a permitting process be
instituted (see subrecommendation 1.1).

     Within the general theme that testing centers are facilities at which performance trials of
innovative technologies are conducted, several variations have been built or proposed.
Variations can revolve around institutional relationship and form, type of services offered,
type of technology  tested, availability to unrelated parties, and stage of technology tested.
Iii what is perhaps their purest form, testing centers might be open door facilities, available
as a fee-based service for anyone seeking a safe testing place. These might be federally-
operated, with services available under terms of the Federal Technology Transfer Act
(FTTA), or not federally-operated.  Sometimes, testing centers are located in conjunction
with in-house technology research centers, such as corporate research facilities
investigating improved manufacturing processes and government agency research facilities,
such as EPA's. In other cases, controlled condition testing could be one of the array of
services offered by incubation centers, such as is now offered by the Illinois Institute of
Technology Research Institute (11'1'Kl) and as is proposed by the National Environmental
Technology Applications Center (NETAC) in Pittsburgh. (NETAC offers other
commercialization services, as well.)  Another institutional home for testing and evaluation
might be provided by a university affiliation, as is proposed at the New Jersey Institute of
Technology for Edison,  N.J.
                                        36

-------
                                                                   DRAFT
     Testing facilities will also vary in terms of the type of technology tested:  Some
facilities might be equipped to safely test all types of environmental control technologies,
but most appear likely to be targeted on a single environmental medium and even on a
subset of the technological targets within it For example, EPA's Center Hill research
facility in Cincinnati focuses on stabilization technologies and EPA's Pine Bluff, Arkansas,
research facility has historically focused on incineration technologies.

     Some facilities are "open to all comers," while others will be captive to a single
organization or otherwise of limited access. Examples of each exist at this time.  Testing is
required at all stages of technology development and demonstration. Testing centers can
provide services at each stage. Much testing, particularly of early stage technologies, can
be conducted under existing operating facility permits, as long as existing permit conditions
are not exceeded. Testing at larger scale presents greater permitting difficulties, and testing
facilities may be particularly useful to satisfy this need.

     RCRA RD&D permits are primarily applicable to the testing of single technologies.
They allow only small quantities of waste material to be tested, are too restrictive of the
range of conditions that can be tested, and are of limited duration (i.e., RD&D permits  are
issued for a one-year period, renewable for up to three times before reapplication is
necessary).  There are no formal provisions for research, development, or testing permits
within either the air or water programs — all testing must be done under a facility's full
operating permit or under ad hoc mechanisms (e.g., "no action assurance" letters in the air
program). The Committee heard several industry comments during its Fact Finding
Meetings (comments confirmed by state regulators) that facilities, once they have obtained a
RCRA, air, or water permit, are very reluctant to conduct research and testing of new
technologies, if a  significant change in emissions could result, thereby triggering a permit
review.

     The TIE Committee therefore recommends that a  national system of permitted testing
centers be created and!or promoted. The principal characteristic of these facilities would be
to allow innovators and developers, under controlled test conditions that protect human
health and the environment during and after testing, to determine performance envelopes so
that they and regulators can project potential efficacy at commercial facilities. There are two
principal benefits  to the environment:  (a) testing will be environmentally safe (because
testing is conducted under controlled conditions and under the direction of professionals)
and (b) information critical to reducing risks to public  health and the environment
associated with further testing and commercial use will be developed, and information that
is important for writing operating permits and determining compliance conditions will be
produced. It is important to note that the TIE Committee recommends that a systematic
program be instituted to encourage, support, and train permit writers involved in permitting
activities associated with testing centers (see subrecommendation 4.1 for details).

    As noted in Finding 6, "(t)he record shows that the lack of public confidence and trust
stands as a major impediment to the development and  use of innovative technologies for
environmental purposes." Public concern is particularly evident when permits for new
facilities and new technologies are sought  It is therefore extremely important that
mechanisms for early and substantive public involvement, such as those discussed in
subrecommendation 45.be included in the testing facility program. In addition, it is
critical that such facilities should also:

    •   Be secure;

    •   Be isolated from the outside environment;
                                        37

-------
                                                                  DRAFT
     •   Have all the necessary media monitoring and environmental controls to assure that
        public health and the environment are protected during and after testing;

     •   Be staffed by trained professionals who are expert in testing environmental
        technologies and operating the on-site environmental control equipment;

     •   Undergo scrutiny from the local community, including appropriate mechanisms for
        public participation on an ongoing basis;

     •   Have in place a RCRA corrective plan to address any potential remediation that
        could be required as a result of releases or testing failures.

     Such testing centers must go the extra mile to assure both the regulators and the public
that testing will be done in a safe, environmentally protective manner.

     The resources and expertise ofORD should be used to assist permit writers to devise
realistic and flexible, yet fully protective, permit conditions for testing centers. ORD
should also provide technical assistance to testing center operators. ORD's own testing
facilities should be made available to testing center permittees, perhaps through Federal
Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) agreements. A guidance document for such facilities
could be prepared by ORD. (See also subrecommendation 4.4 for more details.)

     EPA should investigate the potential for establishing federal testing centers at EPA
facilities and at other federal locations, such as Department of Defense (DOD) or
Department of Energy (DOE) sites.  Sites which are in isolated areas, away from vulnerable
environments and high population centers, would be most desirable. The Department of
Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (the old National Bureau of
Standards) could also be a participant in establishing and guiding federal testing centers.

     Testing centers could also be established under non-governmental auspices, such as
private companies, universities, and other research institutes. EPA should fully utilize the
provisions of the Federal Technology Transfer Act in setting up such centers at quasi-
public or private facilities.  EPA  should assure that reasonable provisions and licensing are
made for ownership and licensing of intellectual property, such as patents and trade secrets
at public and private test centers. It should also be noted here that testing centers could be
for manufacturing process innovation or for pollution control and remediation innovation.
In the former case, testing centers are likely to be operated by individual companies, by
industry associations, or by other organizations created for that purpose.


1.3.   Develop a  system for cross-media  and crpss-jurisdictional
        coordination  of  the review of  permit applications for (a) testing
        facilities and  (b) tests at other locations.

Commentary

    The TIE Committee recommends that steps be taken to achieve coordination of testing
permit activities. Even if permitting systems for testing innovative technologies for
environmental purposes were in place in each of the media-specific programs and at the
federal, state, and local levels, coordination would be needed to assure that they can be
used effectively. Such coordination is critical to the encouragement of innovative pollution
prevention technologies in that it is needed to achieve consistency, timeliness, efficiency,
clarity, and predictability.
                                        38

-------
                                                                   DRAFT
     In implementing this recommendation, the Committee recommends that a working
 group be established that includes the appropriate EPA offices, including all of the key
 categorical programs, plus a number of state and local agencies. This working group
 should be tasked with describing the detailed implementation steps that are necessary,
 including potential statutory changes. The TIE Committee believes that this task can be
 completed within 9 to 12 months of its inception. Operating guidance should be developed
 by EPA and provided to regional offices and to state and local governments to assure a
 consistent coordination effort  It is important that, as a part of this effort, methods be
 devised to assure an early and substantive role for the public. Such an approach is
 necessary to building public confidence that public health and the environment will not be
 subject to unacceptable risk when new technologies are undergoing trials and testing.

     The importance of this recommendation lies in the fact that the TIE Committee has
 found that individuals, firms, universities, and others wishing to test innovative
 environmental technologies

     •  have frequently been significantly and apparently unnecessarily slowed by
        permitting processes,

     •  have encountered conflicting attitudes and requirements at different levels of
        government,

     •  have spent large sums applying for permits, perhaps unnecessarily, and

     •  have only had mixed success in the end.

 The Committee heard many case studies and examples of these problems.  It can easily cost
 millions of dollars to apply for the several permits necessary to conduct a test of an
 innovative technology that itself may cost considerably less than a million dollars to
 purchase. Obtaining these permits can take two years or more and involve application  to
 and negotiation with several agencies at more than one level of government.  Additionally,
 if use is proposed in another state, the entire process may have to be undertaken again at a
 substantial fraction of the cost and time.

     The TIE Committee recommends that serious consideration should be given to new
 authority that divides and coordinates the responsibility for overseeing testing among the
 levels of government. Under such a division of responsibility, the federal government
 might appropriately develop technology-specific permitting conditions from a national
 perspective, while state and local governments might develop site-specific permitting
 conditions for tests proposed within state borders. National applicability of the data could
 thus be assured, and data sharing could be made easier, while state and local governments
 could consider  the applicability of a technology to a proposed site and site-specific risks
 associated with its testing determining whether a proposed test would be allowed to
 proceed. National technology permits could be modeled on those issued by EPA for TSCA
 mobile treatment units.

     Various mechanisms for coordinating permitting of technology tests are being tried in
 several states (e.g., Massachusetts, New Jersey). These may involve coordination of  the
 reviews of independent permitting programs through various forms of teaming or a
 combined, multi-media review by one qualified person or a small team assembled under a
 special office.  Other mechanisms are conceivable. The TIE Committee recommends that,
 at a minimum, a team leader concept be adopted by EPA so that federal responsibility and
 accountability for the review of permit applications for tests of innovative technology and
for testing centers is unified within the Agency and so that a single point of contact exists


                                        39

-------
                                                                  DRAFT
for use by the involved state and local agencies. Ideally, the teams should be well-
coordinated across the levels of government and, within EPA, from region to region. This
could help alleviate the frustration and confusion mentioned frequently by the case studies
heard by the Committee during its Fact Finding process.

    The TIE Committee recommends that a technology Innovation ombudsman function be
established. This function would provide a point of contact for technology developers,
prospective users of innovative technology, permit writers and compliance officers at all
levels of government, and the public so that people can find out information about (1) the
status of permit applications for individual tests and testing centers, (2) the permitting
process, (3) the policies relating to technology innovation, and (4) test results, including
information about the performance envelopes of individual technologies. To be successful,
the ombudsman will need to have the ability to work at all levels of government - national,
regional, between states,  within states, and locally. The ombudsman function could also
profitably include the ability to intervene to encourage timely consideration of permit
applications or even to mediate between permit applicant and permit writer. (See also
subrecommendation 4.4.)


Concluding Comments:   Recommendation 1

    The program outlined above needs first and foremost to have as its motivating force a
strong and clear EPA policy that promoting technology innovation is a part of the Agency's
mission. NACEPT has previously recommended (January 1990, TIE Committee
Recommendation 1.1) that the Administrator of EPA develop and issue a policy statement
redefining the Agency's mission to include fostering the development and diffusion of
innovative technologies that both further the Agency's environmental objectives and
enhance the competitiveness of the United States economy. The TIE Committee reiterates
that recommendation.
                                       40

-------
                                                                DRAFT
RECOMMENDATION 2:

Implement permitting processes that aid the commercial introduction  of
innovative technologies for environmental  purposes.
2.1    Increase the flexibility of permitting processes involved  in
        introducing environmentally beneficial technologies into commercial
        use.

Commentary

    The Committee believes that EPA should undertake a number of measures to ensure
the necessary flexibility in permitting processes to promote environmental technology
innovation. Some of them can be accomplished under existing authorities and some will
require legislation.  In summary, however, EPA and most other environmental regulatory
agencies have interpreted existing permitting and compliance authorities in a way that limits
flexibility and, thus, discourages technology innovation for environmental purposes. It
should be noted that some of these measures are more critical for pollution prevention
technology innovation, some for pollution control technology innovation, while some
would promote both. Specific measures include the following:

a.  Revitalized  waiver authorities: EPA should make a policy and organizational
commitment to promote environmental technology innovation through revitalization of its
innovation- and regulatory-waiver authorities.  While this would certainly assist in
encouraging the development of innovative pollution control technology, it could
potentially have its greatest impact in removing barriers to implementation of innovations in
pollution prevention, and the Committee strongly recommends that EPA explore this
potential. NACEPT has previously recommended (January 1990, TIE Committee
Recommendation 1.4.h) that the Administrator expand the use of statutory provisions such
as the Clean Water Act's "Innovative Technology" variance (CWA Section 301 (k)) and
"Fundamentally Different Factors" variance (CWA  Section 301 (n)), and innovative
technology waivers (CAA Section 11 l(j)) under the Clean Air Act. Through effective use
of these authorities, EPA may be able to realize significant increases in the regulatory and
permitting flexibility required to encourage environmental innovation.

    The Committee found that while EPA has had authority to grant innovation waivers
under both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act for over a decade, there has been
very limited use of these provisions. Other variance authorities, some of which might also
be useful in the context of encouraging multi-media pollution prevention technology
innovations, have also been very low on the Agency's list of priorities.  The Committee
believes that, in combination, these authorities could provide a powerful tool for
encouraging plants to make environmentally-sound  decisions to cut back releases to all
media. To make these statutory and regulatory authorities an effective tool for promoting
both environmental innovation and pollution prevention, the Committee believes that EPA
should take the following, interrelated steps:

    -   Make a high-level policy commitment to maximizing the potential for promotion
        of pollution prevention innovation in current and future authorities.  The


                                      41

-------
                                                                   DRAFT
        Committee commends EPA for its actions to make a commitment to pollution
        prevention. These actions include establishing the Pollution Prevention Office, the
        development of a pollution prevention strategy, the drafting of pollution prevention
        legislation (although it should be noted that the Committee did not review its
        specific terms and, therefore, is not implying its support or rejection of any
        individual terms), and the initiation of several "pollution prevention initiative
        projects;"

        Establish an organizational focus charged with revitalizing the Agency's powers
        for promoting innovation within these programs, and involving the active
        participation of individuals from the relevant programs;

     -   Establish working groups in each region with the responsibility of integrating this
        approach into regional operations, including permitting and enforcement;

        Develop guidance for evaluations of waiver applications, particularly in a multi-
        media context and including criteria for success linked clearly to pollution
        prevention objectives, and establishing a basis for performance evaluations against
        those criteria at all levels within the Agency with responsibility for the effort;

        Provide incentives within the Agency for individuals to work for the success of
        regulatory incentives for environmental technology innovation, with special
        emphasis on looking for opportunities for innovations  in pollution prevention (see
        recommendation 4);

        Promote joint, cooperative efforts  to promote similar programs at the state level,
        since active state participation and support is a prerequisite for such a program to
        work; and

        Develop a technology transfer and outreach effort to communicate the Agency's
        new objectives and programs to industry, and to emphasize that this has a high
        priority at EPA.

b.  Create a ""soft landing" policy: EPA should adopt policies that allow a  "soft
landing," consistent with leal and regulatory requirements to protect human health and the
environment, for good-faith efforts which fall  minimally short of compliance requirements.
Such policies would complement innovation waiver programs in promoting either pollution
prevention or pollution control (see subrecommendation 3.2). Where permits providing for
innovation waivers are approved, the Committee believes that it is important to provide for
"soft landings," i.e., to avoid punishing good  faith efforts.  The need for such a
mechanism would occur when a permittee  makes a good faith effort to use an innovative
technology to meet the permit requirements, but falls short,  minimally, resulting in no
significant public health or environmental damage.  In such  a case, to encourage permittees
to use innovative technology, efforts  should be made to minimize penalties for non-
compliance or eliminate them completely, and additional time should be allowed to achieve
compliance where possible.

c.   Repermitting of facility changes:  To the extent consistent with its current
authority, EPA should seek to reduce the permitting burden for the introduction of new
technologies (see subrecommendation 22) and should explore the potential for statutory
provisions which would reduce such burdens. One area of particular concern for the
Committee was the extent to which the installation of innovative technology for either
pollution prevention or pollution control at existing facilities might be discouraged by the
necessity of obtaining new permits. More-polluting older technologies are often kept in


                                        42

-------
                                                                 DRAFT
 place, even when it might be economical to replace them, simply because of the perceived
 cost, complexity, and uncertainty of having to go through the permitting process for the
 replacement technology.

 d. CAA New Source Reviews:  The Committee also heard comment in its Fact
 Finding activities about the perceived risk facility owners take in triggering New Source
 Review (NSR) review in  non-attainment areas when participating in innovative technology
 demonstration projects, such as might occur in the EPA/DOE Clean Coal Technologies
 Program. The Committee learned that EPA is currently preparing an interpretive ruling
 which will clarify that if a source solely adds or enhances a system or device whose
 primary function is the reduction of air pollution, and which is determined to be not less
 environmentally beneficial, such activities do not constitute a physical or operational change
 triggering new source requirements.  The Committee applauds OAQPSfor initiating this
 interpretive ruling. It recommends, however, that more aggressive efforts be undertaken to
 educate the regulated community of its existence to ensure that perceived barriers do not
 prohibit facilities from demonstrating and eventually adopting innovative and
 environmentally beneficial technologies.

 e.  CAA netting policy: The Committee has found that EPA's netting program under
 the Clean Air Act can help reduce the permitting burden for new pollution prevention or
 pollution control technologies. The Committee noted, however, that some states have not
 adopted EPA's approach to netting in non-attainment areas. Netting allows a new
 technology to be introduced under a less stringent and cumbersome review process
 whenever the plant at which the new equipment is being introduced can find enough
 emission reductions elsewhere at the plant to avoid significant increases in overall
 emissions as a result of the new equipment The rationale for netting is that increased
 emissions which do not exceed the significance levels do not warrant the time-consuming,
 resource-intensive New Source Review process. For those states which have not adopted
 EPA's netting program, EPA should consider working with the states to define criteria, at
 a minimum.for innovative pollution prevention technology to which the netting program
 would apply.

 f.  RCRA corrective action trigger:  The TIE Committee recommends that, under
 selected conditions, corrective action requirements not be triggered by the application for
permits under RCRA. These conditions should, at a minimum, include the application for
 permits for testing of innovative technologies.

 g.  Performance-based permits: The TIE  Committee recommends that,  within
 statutory constraints, the Agency should adopt regulatory changes to place all of its permit
 requirements on a performance basis. In addition, statutory changes should be considered.
 While most permits issued under EPA programs are stated in terms of performance
 standards, even though the standards are based  on estimates of the performance capabilities
 of specific technologies, some standards are stated in terms of technology requirements.
 The Committee believes that technology-specific requirements in permits eliminate
 alternative options for meeting standards, inhibiting the development of innovative
 technology.

 h.  Support to permit writers:  The TIE Committee recommends that a systematic
program be instituted to encourage, support, and train permit writers involved in permitting
activities associated with  the testing of innovative environmental technologies (see
subrecommendation 4.1 for details). Without such a program, permit writers will lack the
institutional sanction and  encouragement and the supporting resources necessary to realize
the benefits of the above actions.
                                       43

-------
                                                                 DRAFT
2.2    Streamline  the process of reviews  of permit applications for newly
        introduced  innovative technologies  that  have environmental benefit,
        coordinate their review, and afford them high  priority.

Commentary

    A streamlined permitting process is important ifnewty introduced innovative
technologies that have environmental benefit are to be moved more successfully from
demonstration into commercial use. The TIE Committee has concluded that an early dialog
between permit writers and the technology developer or prospective user of an innovative
technology should be encouraged to minimize misunderstanding by both parties, shorten
the permit process, and reduce costs. Equally, the Committee sees an early dialog as being
critical to effective and positive public participation in the consideration of permit
applications for innovative technologies [see subrecommendation 4.5]. These suggestions
derive from two, interlocking barriers to the use of innovative technologies: unfarniliarity
with the innovative technology by permit writers and the local community.

    Two-phase  permit process:  The Committee recommends that environmental
policy makers, in developing a strategy for streamlining permit reviews involving the earlv
commercial use of innovative technologies, consider instituting one that is comprised of
two distinct phases, or tiers. During the first phase, basic principles and parameters
associated with the operation of the proposed innovative technology would be discussed at
the earliest possible time. The permit writer would then be able to gain a better
understanding from technical experts (e.g., from ORD) and seek answers to and
resolutions of any outstanding issues (e.g., obtain additional environmental, health, risk,
or efficiency data). The permit writer would also be able to discuss the concepts with the
interested public.  If no agreement is possible, this fact can often be identified during the
first phase. In this case, a decision to modify or abandon a project could be made earlier,
before regulators and applicants have expended as much time and resources as would be
needed if a complete permit application has to be provided before consideration could
begin. During the second phase, detailed technical information would be discussed to
establish permit conditions and a compliance schedule, and to reach a conclusion about
whether a permit will actually be issued.  Deliberations during this phase would not reopen
issues covered successfully in phase 1. The public would also be deeply involved in the
second phase.

    The goal of the TIE Committee's recommendations for a testing permit system (see
subrecommendations 1.1 through 1.3) is to remove as much uncertainty as possible about
the potential performance of a proposed operating use of a newly introduced (yet already
tested) technology. The problem addressed by  this recommendation is the difficulty of
obtaining an operating permit for an already-tested innovative technology for which little
operational data exists.

    Coordination, integration of permitting programs:  Coordinated review is
especially appropriate at the time of first introduction of a new technology, since permit
writers and the public will be unfamiliar with that technology and have a higher level of
concern than for a well-proven technology. This was recognized by NACEPT in the TIE
Committee's January 1990 recommendation 1.4.c that EPA  work to maximize coordinated
permitting strategies across environmental media, and increase intergovemmentally-
coordinated permitting whenever possible, within the constraints of existing statutes.

    The Committee has developed a great deal of information that supports this view.
During the Committee's recent Fact Finding meetings, EPA's Office of Pollution


                                       44

-------
                                                                  DRAFT
Prevention (OPP) gave a presentation describing the progress of EPA's "pollution
prevention through permitting" initiative. Specific case studies presented included the
project at Amoco's Yorktown, Virginia, refinery, at which a multi-media environmental
evaluation will be performed. At the state level, fact finding presentations from
Massachusetts and New Jersey described those states' multi-media pollution prevention
efforts, including integrated permitting and coordinated inspections.  The Committee heard
a report on the Blackstone Project recently conducted by the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection.  Under that project, multi-media inspection teams under a team
leader were assigned to inspect individual facilities. The team leader was often chosen on
the basis of the primary medium for facility releases. The state is examining the potential
for applying this process to permitting, as well. The Committee commends the Agency for
the financial support it has provided for this innovative program under the Pollution
Prevention Incentives grant program, and urges the Agency and states to explore the wider
application of this approach.

     The Committee reiterates its recommendation that a system for coordinated and
integrated permitting be devised for easing the introduction of new technologies into the
marketplace. Major features of a program for the coordinated review of permit applications
for innovative technologies might include the following:

     •   A mechanism for expedited joint review across federal, state, and local authorities.
        Contemporaneous public hearings would be one time- and resource-saving device.

     •   Permit teams that could provide "one-stop shopping" for permits across all affected
        media.  In addition to simplifying the often complex permit application process
        (different forms and data formats, and different submission  and reporting
        requirements), the one-stop process would allow for careful tracking of permits.
        Perhaps more importantly, the team approach also has the benefit of less disruption
        when one team member leaves. The rest of the team will be able to bring the
        replacement up to speed in much less time, eliminating the possibility that
        applicants will have to go back to "square one."

     •   Use of a technical resource ombudsman as outlined in subrecommendations 1.3
        and 4.4.

     •   Incentives for fast-track processing to assure timely response on a predictable
        basis. A key element of a fast-track process is a systematic program to encourage,
        support, and train permit writers involved in permitting activities associated with
        testing (see subrecommendation 4.1 for details).

     The permit team concept: The TIE Committee recommends that the permit
review team concept be adopted by EPA so that responsibility and accountability for the
review of permit applications for the use of new technologies is unified within the Agency
and with involved state and local agencies.  EPA should encourage states to adopt this
approach. Team members should include appropriate representatives from each of the
major media program offices (RCRA, water, air, and, potentially, TSCA) at the federal,
state, and local levels. Technology expertise from ORD should also be represented,
perhaps in the role of technology ombudsman (see subrecommendation 4.4). Another
important team member would be someone with public participation expertise whose
primary role would be to assist the public if questions arise about regulatory process or
whether the new technology will be protective of human health and the environment in the
proposed use (see subrecommendation 45). One member of the team would be designated
team leader to serve as client contact (for the new technology permit applicant) and to
coordinate team efforts.
                                       45

-------
                                                                  DRAFT
    Top priority status for reviews of permit applications:  One of the barriers
to coordinated and concurrent permitting is that each single-medium statute contains its own
individual permit requirements and compliance deadlines, along with separate schedules for
renewal or review of existing permits.  For example, under many state air pollution control
programs, written approvals are required before construction of a new source or a source
modification may begin. Resulting delays of six months to a year are frequent. Such
delays may preclude innovative technologies from ever getting to market ~ especially
environmentally beneficial manufacturing technologies in rapidly changing industries. The
TIE Committee heard several examples where permit application reviews for a project were
completed in one or more media, but not in all media so that the project was delayed
substantially. The permit team might be given the flexibility to provide limited
modifications to nonsubstantive regulatory requirements, e.g., those involving timing.  In
all cases involving technology innovation, every effort must be made to streamline the
application and permit approval process so as to not miss the narrow "window of
opportunity" during which the commercial success or failure of the introduction of an
already-tested technology is determined.

    The Committee heard from many sources that permit applications involving innovative
technologies are frequently assigned lower priority than those involving well-known
solutions. The TIE Committee recommends that, either with or without the benefit of the
permit team program, permit applications for the introduction of innovative environmental
technologies be given the highest priority  in terms of timely review. The combination of
permitting complexity and slow permit approval causes a great barrier to  the diffusion of
new technology.

    Streamlined CAA small source permit reviews:  The Committee  notes another
factor impeding technology innovation for environmental purposes: permit writers in some
state programs do comprehensive reviews for even small sources of air pollution. The
Committee recommends that the Agency promote streamlined review processes or
exemptions for small or very small sources, and that the Agency encourage states to give
innovative proposals and prevention projects preference when scheduling reviews of permit
applications. The combination of these suggestions will increase the efficiency of
permitting programs, freeing up scarce governmental staff time for higher value uses.
Some states, including Massachusetts, have modified permit review processes to minimize
the time required to approve very small air pollution sources (0-1 tons/year, 1-5 tons/year
— see CMR 7.02 [4] [a]). Some off-the-shelf equipment may be exempted from
comprehensive review, if it meets performance standards, e.g., solvent degreasers or dry
material storage silos.  This action to cut the permit review backlog supports innovation by
reducing delays. Further, Massachusetts sources which propose innovative prevention or
control strategies can have their permit applications moved to the front of the approval
process queue.


2.3    Assure national consistency  in  the  consideration of  proposed uses of
        innovative  technologies, subject  to  site-specific limitations.

Commentary

    The TIE Committee recommends that EPA take steps to ensure, to the greatest extent
possible, consistency in the review and evaluation of proposed uses of innovative
technology, subject to site-specific variations, across iurisdictional boundaries, and within
relevant peopraohic units  In addition  EPA should take stenv to eliminate renetitive and
                                       46

-------
                                                                  DRAFT
potentially inconsistent repermitting requirements for mobile treatment units' non-site-
dependent features.

    The information developed in the Committee's Fact Finding process indicates that
consistency in the evaluation of innovative environmental technologies is of great
importance both for pollution prevention and pollution control. Potential market size is a
critical factor in decisions about whether to invest in the development of any innovative
technology.  Inconsistencies across regions or among different levels of government reduce
potential market size by increasing uncertainty among potential users of a technology that it
will actually be acceptable to permit writers.

    Mobile Treatment Units (MTUs) provide a specific example of technologies potentially
subject to multiple and inconsistent reviews of the basic technology, independent of
appropriate and necessary site specific considerations.  It is generally agreed, based upon
the Committee's Fact Finding meetings, that in many cases it is environmentally preferable
to move a mobile incinerator from place to place rather than transport hazardous waste
substantial distances for treatment at a stationary incineration unit.  Yet site-specific
permitting militates against this.

    The TIE Committee recommends that some of the current constraints on the use of
MTUs be removed. In making this recommendation, the Committee recognizes EPA's
TSCA nationwide permits for mobile PCB incinerators. The Committee heard a
presentation from California on that state's successful permitting and utilization of MTUs,
for California's non-RCRA hazardous wastes, through the use of state-wide Permit-By-
Rule (PER) mechanisms.  California's approach is not available for RCRA wastes within
that state. The Committee recommends that EPA review the California approach, and
consider the regulatory and/or statutory changes which would be required to implement
such a system for RCRA hazardous wastes. The Offices of Solid Waste and General
Counsel might be tasked with this job.

    One factor the Committee believes can lead to inconsistent consideration of innovative
technologies is the lack of adequate technical expertise in each of EPA's regions to review
all the relevant technical features of a proposed innovative technology, which may have had
trials in only a few locations in the entire country.  This problem is compounded when
federal and state permit writers are involved. The recommendations in 2.1 with respect to
innovation waivers are intended to address this problem by ensuring the development of a
central organizational unit with the responsibility of providing consistent review of
technical factors. The recommendations in 4.1 with respect to support to permit writers are
intended to address this problem by elevating the priority of permits involving innovative
technologies and by providing needed technical assistance and training.

    Another factor in the inconsistency among EPA regions in evaluations of permit
applications involving innovative technologies has been the lack of any general EPA
guidance on the principles and objectives which should govern the review of permit
applications requiring innovation waivers.  In the absence of such a clearly articulated
national policy, each regional office,  and in fact each individual permit writer, is likely to
make different determinations of the relative environmental benefits which should be
required from an innovative environmental technology.  Moreover, the lack of a strong
signal from EPA has led to an inconsistent, and generally weak, set of state policies for the
use of innovative technologies.

    In addition, EPA should, whenever possible, indicate geographical areas to which
common technical performance requirements are applicable.  Examples of such areas might
                                       47

-------
                                                                  DRAFT
 be severe non-attainment areas or geologically sensitive areas of a large aquifer.Designation
 of industry categories appropriate for new technologies might also be warranted

     Since decisions bv state and local jurisdictions are alsp vital in any effort to achieve
 consistency, the Committee urges EPA to (a] issue strong guidance encouraging the use of
 innovative technologies and (b) develop a system for working closely with state and local
 Jurisdictions in considering permit applications involving the use of innovative
 environmental technologies.  The guidance should address the need to assure substantive,
 early public involvement (see subrecommendation 4.5). This guidance would also address
 (a) the development, to the greatest extent feasible, of common standards for evaluating
 proposed uses of innovative technologies, (b) the provision of technical assistance by EPA
 to states, localities, and the public requesting technical support  in the review of permit
 applications proposing use of such technologies (see subrecommendations 4.1 and 4.5),
 and (c) the provision of support to both the applicants and the suppliers of innovative
 technologies involved in the permit application (see subrecommendation 4.4).

     The federal RCRA Subpart X regulation was originally intended for use in providing
 flexibility in the permitting of non-conventional treatment units, such as MTUs.  The lack
 of specific standards, however, in the Subpart X regulation and the absence of clear
 guidance to permit writers have hampered the full utilization of this authority for permitting
 transportable units.  In its January 1990 recommendations, the TIE Committee
 recommended that EPA investigate how RCRA Subpart X regulations could be used to
 facilitate the use of miscellaneous treatment technologies. In light of the California program
 and EPA's own TSCA experience, the TIE Committee recommends that EPA investigate a
 PBR mechanism, perhaps within RCRA Subpart X, to allow the consistent nationwide
 utilization of MTUs where such use is appropriate, for RCRA hazardous waste. The
 Committee notes that the RCRA Implementation Study makes a similar recommendation
 and suggests that the Offices of Solid Waste and General Counsel might be tasked with
 conducting this investigation and reporting its results (and proposed recommendations to be
 taken on the basis of its results) to the Administrator. The Administrator should also
 identify other opportunities to introduce flexibility into permitting systems that can be
 applied to aid the introduction of innovative environmental technologies and, if sufficient
 opportunities do not exist, should seek additional statutory provisions, not limited to
RCRA.


 2.4     Develop a system of incentives  for users  of commercially-available
 innovative  technologies.

 Commentary

    Current statutory provisions for innovation waivers are generally designed to provide
extra time for regulated organizations using innovative technologies to come into
compliance with statutory or regulatory requirements. These provisions are thus meant to
provide an incentive (or eliminate a disincentive) for organizations to  implement innovative
approaches to reducing pollution. Industry experience with federal and state
implementation of innovation waiver and variance programs, however, has resulted in
considerable skepticism about the seriousness of such efforts. In addition, if an effort to
implement innovative technology falls short of a requirement, by however narrow a
margin, EPA and states have typically not had any policy other than requiring full
implementation of the standard alternative for achieving compliance (see
subrecommendation 3.2).
                                       48

-------
                                                                   DRAFT
     For the innovation waiver program to work as an effective incentive, the TIE
 Committee recommends that EPA and states communicate to industry and other regulated
 organizations that anv regulatory flexibility effort designed to promote environmental
 technology innovation is the result of a top-level decision, that there are clear criteria, for
 evaluating the chances of success of an application, and that the responsible Agency has
 assigned adequate resources to carry through on its objectives.

     EPA should design approaches for "soft landings" for good-faith efforts to implement
 innovative alternatives that fall marginally short of regulatory objectives. EPA should work
 with regional offices and state agencies to implement these approaches. The Committee
 believes that, in many cases, the ability to institute  such approaches already exists within
 the Agency's statutory authority and, in some case, regulatory repertoire. For example, in
 certain cases the emissions trading and offset programs could be used to create a bubble,
 enabling facilities that would otherwise fall marginally short of meeting such requirements
 at the conclusion of innovation waiver compliance delays to meet these regulatory
 requirements. In other cases, new authority may be needed.

     The Committee also believes that EPA and states should consider more extensive use
 of economic incentives to encourage environmental innovation. Where the cost of
 compliance with environmental requirements or the cost of using environmentally
 detrimental materials substantially increases, industry will have a strong incentive to invest
 in developing alternative technologies or materials, even in the absence of performance-
 based or technology-based standards.  The prohibition against land disposal without
 treatment, for example, appears to have had a significant role in promoting industry efforts
 to find innovative approaches to pollution prevention, because of the enormously increased
 costs of compliance with the new regulations.  It is likely that the economic factor will do
 more to encourage investment in innovative pollution prevention processes than would any
 specific regulatory requirement applied to process equipment. Similarly, many states are
 now considering taxes on volumes of chemical releases reported in the Toxic Release
 Inventory. One of the objectives of such a tax is to provide an incentive to industry to
 reduce the use and release of toxic chemicals.

    Another incentive EPA should consider is a special effort to recognize companies that
 adopt innovative environmental technologies — perhaps particularly in the context of
pollution prevention.  Such a program is likely to be effective, if it is well conceived and
 run, because many corporations place significant value on recognition for corporate
 activities which benefit the public and particularly the environment. One component of a
 broad program to recognize companies and other organizations that adopt innovative
 solutions could profitably be an awards program.

    It should be reiterated that a system of incentives for permit writers should be instituted
 (see subrecommendation 4.1). Such a system will complement the system of incentives for
 users of innovative technologies by increasing the receptivity of permit writers to
 applications proposing the use of innovative solutions.

    Subrecommendation 43 discusses other types of support that would be important to
prospective innovative technology permittees.  These primarily involve information
 systems and technical support, but also include the ombudsman function.
                                        49

-------
                                                                 DRAFT
RECOMMENDATION 3:

Use compliance programs  to encourage use of innovative technologies to
solve environmental problems.
3.1   Modify  environmental compliance programs to create an expectation
       of the need to comply.  This  is necessary to create markets for
       innovative  technology.

Commentary

    The Committee stresses the importance that industrial, commercial, and other facilities
subject to environmental requirements expect routine and rigorous enforcement of permit
requirements. Otherwise, most will not purchase and use innovative technologies.
Without the expectation of the need to comply with environmental permit requirements, the
market stability and consistency necessary to promote innovative environmental technology
will be lacking. Environmental compliance systems that are consistent and predictable
provide an incentive for the development of both pollution control and pollution prevention
technology because they assure that a market for such technologies will exist (and be of
predictable size and character).  Penalties must be sufficient to remove any economic
benefits a facility might gain from non-compliance.

    Such an approach to enforcement and compliance is fully consistent with the flexibility
inherent in providing waivers for genuine, good-faith efforts to develop and implement
innovative technology. But it is important that the criteria for such waivers be clear and
consistent, so that waivers cannot in any way be used as vehicles for avoiding compliance
by facilities which arc not genuinely attempting to implement an innovative approach and/or
provide an overall, multi-media environmental benefit.

    EPA can promote the necessary market consistency both through firm and predictable
enforcement actions, and through support for and coordination with state and local
enforcement efforts.  One role which EPA is in an especially strong position to play, and
which the Committee believes would be of great value, is to track innovative state and local
enforcement programs which are trying new approaches to providing consistency,
predictability, and multi-media inspection and permitting of entire facilities, and providing
information and communication between programs in different parts of the country. A
number of new experiments in enforcement are currently underway in various states and
localities, e.g., Minnesota, Massachusetts, South Coast Air Quality Management District
(in California). EPA should promote the sharing of information on the successes and
problems of these efforts.

    The Committee notes that, with most compliance activities taking place at the state and
local levels, NACEPTs State and Local Programs Committee could appropriately
undertake a project leading to widespread implementation of the recommendations in 3.1.
                                      50

-------
                                                                 DRAFT
 3.2    EPA  and state agencies should  practice and encourage flexibility in
        the choice of remedies during enforcement actions, aiming at
        encouraging the  use of innovative technologies under appropriate
        circumstances.

 Commentary

     As noted above in recommendations 3.1 and 2.4, both incentives and firm
 enforcement play an important role in creating a stronger market for innovative
 environmental technology.  Flexibility in meeting environmental compliance requirements
 is essential to provide the freedom necessary to experiment with initial commercial
 application of promising innovative pollution control or pollution prevention technologies.
 The TIE Committee believes strongly, however, that flexibility only works in a context of
 strong enforcement and meaningful penalties, so that there is no reward for making a
 perfunctory effort to comply.

     Within a strong enforcement context, the Committee believes that flexibility is
 essential.  Innovative approaches which may provide long-term environmental benefits
 often cannot meet short-term compliance deadlines. In addition, multi-media benefits
 which might result from innovative environmental technology are not addressed by EPA's
 and states' media-specific statutes.  Further, the potential for a risk management strategy
 that is multi-media in scope can only be possible if greater flexibility is instituted in
 operating guidance and, potentially, statutory language.

     In order to deal with these factors, it is important to have an effective program for
 environmental waivers and variances (as discussed in recommendation 2.4), with
 provisions for soft landings, to the extent consistent with legal and regulatory requirements
 to protect human health and the environment, for good-faith efforts which fall minimally
 short of compliance requirements.  In particular, where the Agency and/or a state deems
 that an attempt to implement an innovative technology has met clearly delineated criteria for
 a good-faith effort, penalties might be reduced for some predetermined period during which
 the facility would be required to come into compliance by improving the performance of
 innovative technologies or through the use of more traditional technologies.

     // is important that support of various types be provided to compliance personnel in
federal and state agencies.  Subrecommendation 4.2 discusses a system of support that is
 recommended by the TIE Committee.


 3.3    EPA, state agencies, and other  regulatory  authorities should  institute
        mechanisms to increase coordination in compliance programs across  media
        and across jurisdictional lines.

 Commentary

     EPA should work to maximize coordinated permitting  strategies across environmental media.
 and increase intergovernmentallv-coordinated permitting whenever possible, within the constraints
 of existing statutes. NACEPT has previously recommended (January 1990 TIE Committee
 Recommendation 1.4.b) that EPA identify, develop, and apply ways to use compliance and
 enforcement policies to encourage technology innovation, including commercial adoption of new
 technologies. This recommendation (3.3) is closely related to Subrecommendation 2.3 (previously
 recommended in the January 1990 TIE Committee Recommendation 1.4.c).
                                       51

-------
                                                                   DRAFT


    A multi-media approach to compliance would include the development of multi-media
inspection teams, and the development of consent agreements or other enforcement actions which
take into account potential reductions in pollution to all media - not just the single medium (where
that is the case) where a facility is discovered to be in violation.  Such an approach would reduce
the incidence of cross-media transfers which have often been the result of narrow enforcement
actions against single-media violations. It would also be an effective means to encourage
innovations in pollution prevention technologies, since it would encourage facilities to look for
overall changes in production methods and materials usage, not simply to install available add-on
controls to correct the immediate violation. Consent agreements could be designed to provide the
extra compliance time necessary to design and implement such multi-media changes.  They could
also be used to require facilities to undertake multi-media pollution prevention planning.  This
could improve the facility's analysis of its own future pollution prevention opportunities, whether
through innovative process or materials changes, or standard improvements in operating
procedures.

    In some cases, it might be appropriate to allow monies derived from civil penalties (for
compliance violations) to underwrite technology innovation. This has been done, for example, in
Minnesota, where a portion of the penalties for violations of pre-treatment requirements by
electroplaters and metal finishers was allocated to the development of an innovative central metals
treatment and recovery facility. In Southern California, $1 million from enforcement penalties is
being set aside as an Air Quality Assistance Fund to guarantee loans to smaller businesses for
installation of compliance technologies.

    For efforts that attempt to use compliance and enforcement to promote innovative pollution
prevention to be successful, there must be effective integration of efforts and approaches  between
all relevant governmental jurisdictions.  Without such coordinated efforts, each level of
government, or each affected geographical jurisdiction, would essentially hold veto power over
any agreement to try an innovative approach, if such changes as extension of normal compliance
deadlines or alternative allocation of enforcement penalties would be required. Moreover, support
systems will be needed for compliance personnel involved with innovative technologies (see
subrecommendation 4.2).
                                       52

-------
                                                                 DRAFT
RECOMMENDATION 4:

Support regulators and other involved communities to maximize the
effectiveness  of improvements  recommended  in  permitting and compliance
systems.
4.1    Institute a system of incentives,  training, and support to retain
        experienced state and federal permit writers who participate in
        permitting decisions involving the testing or early commercial use of
        innovative environmental technologies.

Commentary

    The TIE Committee recommends that a systematic program be instituted for the
purpose of retaining experienced permit writers, and to encourage, support, reward, and
Train those permit writers to be better prepared, and more favorably disposed, to processing
permits involving testing and/or introduction of innovative technology. Both increased
continuity and specialized support and training are critical to the success of permitting
systems to encourage testing and implementation of new technologies because, at present,
there is little or no incentive for permit writers (who often have limited experience) to take
the risk of recommending or authorizing testing or use of a new technology.

    The TIE Committee believes that improving the continuity of permit writers would be
an important step towards ensuring the timely and consistent permitting of innovative
environmental technologies. The Committee heard evidence of cases where, in attempting
to permit a new technology, technology developers had to deal with a seemingly constant
stream of new permit writers. All of the hard-won verbal agreements that were reached
with the old permit writer were wiped clean when the new permit writer came on board and
the developers had to start at square one again. Other developers presented case studies of
how the rapid turnover rate of permit writers had protracted the permitting of a new
technology to such a degree that the expected market niche disappeared by the time the
technology finally received permits. Regulatory agencies indicated that the turnover rate
problem damaged their ability to consider permit applications on a timely basis, both in
terms of the adequacy of staff and the adequacy of their knowledge base.

    Comments heard during the Fact Finding meetings indicated, however, beyond the
issue of experience, that permit writers are often discouraged, by unwritten policy, by the
lack of guidance, or by other factors, from writing permits for testing and/or
implementation of new technology. The results were often counterproductive to the
development and use of innovative technology. For example, in those cases where RCRA
permits were entertained for testing new technology, the regulators pushed for full
permitting -- e.g., for RCRA technology testing, essentially a complete Pan B — that
limited testers' ability to define performance envelopes, restricting the value of testing and
increasing its cost This situation must be reversed, so that permit writers are encouraged
to and rewarded for issuing permits for safe testing of innovative technology for
environmental purposes.
                                      53

-------
                                                                   DRAFT
    It should be noted that changes at the federal level will have little actual impact if there
are not corresponding changes in state programs. State laws and regulations for the
various programs are generally modelled on those of EPA - but there can be significant
differences, such as California's "permit by rule" for mobile treatment units for treating
non-RCRA wastes. Permit writers in state programs will also have to be brought into the
incentives "loop." State and local participation in the permit team strategy outlined in
subrecommendation 2.3 should be encouraged.

    As one possible model of an incentives program aimed at encouraging, supporting,
and training permit writers at federal, state, and local agencies, the TIE Committee
recommends the following:

    a. Establish a hierarchy or job ladder for permit writers and incorporate criteria in
       performance evaluations along that promotional ladder to address the permit
       writers' development of expertise (either single media, cross-media, or
       technology-specific). The ladder might include the following elements:

       •  Single-media permit writers. Single media permit writers should be networked
          to facilitate information sharing within regions. These media representatives
          could serve as team members on the coordinated permit review teams described
          in subrecommendation 2.3.

       •  National expert single-media permit writers. A national expert permit writer
          program could be established within each of the single media areas as a next
          step in the ladder. National single-media experts could serve as a nationwide
          information (both technical and regulatory) resource locus in dealing with
          innovative technologies. They would also provide institutional memory in
          cases where local conditions favor high turnover rates.  (State experts might
          also be eligible for this program.)

       •  Cross-media permitting experts within each region. A rung in the ladder could
          be for permit writers who obtain expertise across the media.  In designing the
          cross-media permit expert role, much use could be made of the experience
          gained in  current EPA and state  (e.g., Massachusetts, New Jersey) cross-media
          inspection and integrated permitting pilot projects. Team leaders for the
          coordinated permit reviews discussed in subrecommendation 2.3 should be
          drawn from this pool.

       •  Regional liaison permit writers.  Regional liaison permit writers would serve as
          coordinators, facilitating access to regional and state single-media and cross-
          media expertise.

    b. Provide training and model templates, based on the prior testing of innovative
       technologies, to all permit writers.  A concise, yet comprehensive, training
       pogram should explain the permit writers' role in fostering the successful use of
       innovative technologies for environmental purposes and on information sources
       and networks for identifying technical information.  The training program should
       also educate  the regulators on how industry innovation works, and on the role of
       ORD and technology groups within other federal agencies, with the goal of
       improving the permit writers potential networking base for technical information.

    c. Strengthen ORD's role as identifier and conveyer of technical information to permit
       writers. Establish a centralized clearinghouse where permit writers can easily
                                        54

-------
                                                                  DRAFT
        access needed information. ORD should help permit writers sift through the
        technical details of newly proposed technologies, explaining how, and if, the
        innovation will be beneficial, and under what conditions, and help the permit
        writer frame permit conditions for unfamiliar technologies. ORD might also be the
        Agency lead for the ombudsman function (see subrecommendations 1.3 and 4.4).

    d.  Establish performance evaluation standards and reward systems that promote
        greater support and consideration from permit writers for innovative pollution
        prevention and pollution control technologies. The first step, as mentioned
        elsewhere throughout this report, would be develop a clear, strong policy
        statement about EPA's role in promoting technology innovation. Other steps could
        include modifying performance standards and credits ("bean counting") to reflect
        the degree to which a permit writer works to achieve the goals set  forth in the
        technology innovation policy statement The Tit Committee recognizes that extra
        time and risk are involved in processing permit applications for innovative
        alternatives, and for the risk associated with supporting approaches which involve
        the uncertainties in changes in standard technologies and the uncertainties in
        performance projections for innovative solutions. Financial incentives should also
        be considered, as well as recognition and merit awards.

    e.  Improve data and technical information sources to aid permit writers in their job of
        reviewing permit applications involving innovative technologies.  EPA should
        collect the information from federal, state, and other sources and assemble the data
        and information in on-line databases for PC/Mac users. Information should be
        collected and assembled in information retrieval systems easily accessible to all
        permit writers.  Information should include the following:

          Media affected by the technology;
          Emission/effluent/hazardous waste reductions achieved by the technology;
          Process descriptions;
          Location and results of tests, demonstrations, and early commercial uses;
          Level of cleanup (remedial technologies) achieved;
          Contact persons, including owner or licensee, plus ORD technical experts;
          Existence of patent covering the technology and the availability of licenses;
          Key words; similar technologies; terms of art;
          Known limitations; and
          Potential site incompatibilities.


4.2    Institute a system of incentives,  training, and  support to  retain
        experienced state and federal inspectors  and compliance  staff who
        participate in decisions involving  innovative environmental
        technologies.

Commentary

    The TIE Committee recognizes that the need to both maintain continuity of personnel
and promote a more positive approach to innovative environmental technology applies to
inspectors and compliance staff, as well as to permit writers. As a result, the TIE
Committee recommends that measures to train and support compliance and inspection
personnel be undertaken bv EPA and the states.

    If EPA and state agency compliance staffs and their respective compliance policies are not
supportive of measures to promote innovation in pollution prevention or pollution control


                                       55

-------
                                                                  DRAFT


technology, compliance requirements will remain a barrier to efforts to innovate.  The Committee
therefore recommends that EPA open discussions with state enforcement officials on how best to
promote such changes. Some state programs (e.g., New Jersey and Massachusetts) are already in
the first stages of implementing compliance programs to promote multi-media pollution prevention.
The Committee also recommends that EPA provide support for evaluation, implementation and
expansion of existing state efforts, and for communication between the states on the success of
alternative approaches. Coordination with state efforts to implement HSWA land disposal
phaseout provisions consistent with their SARA corrective action plan responsibilities are of
particular importance from a technological perspective.

    Standard bean-counting approaches to measuring the performance of inspection and
enforcement officials are a disincentive for these officials to support innovative responses to
compliance requirements. Few compliance officials have experience with multi-media approaches
to evaluating facility compliance options. In addition, working with facilities with the opportunity
to develop or implement innovative alternatives presents potential significant risks and few
potential rewards for the compliance official. Reviewing an innovative approach, or working with
a facility to develop such an approach, is almost certain to require more time than imposing a
standard compliance requirement and may involve increased scrutiny by managers.  Evaluation of
an innovative approach is intrinsically more difficult, since operational capabilities and parameters
are generally more uncertain than standard alternatives, whether for innovative manufacturing
evolutions or innovative pollution control methods. This poses the risk that the compliance  official
will be held responsible for blessing an alternative that fails.

    If compliance officials are to be willing to undertake the greater difficulties posed bv
innovative alternatives, there must be clear policy direction, support, and rewards for their efforts.
Three mutually reinforcing elements are ke\:

    a.  First and foremost. EPA or the relevant state agency must have articulated a
        compliance policy which clearly establishes promotion of environmentally
        beneficial innovation as a major goal. Once such a clear policy is established,
        many of the necessary tools are available. For example, the Agency could
        implement more effectively the innovation waiver tools which it has largely
        neglected in the past The TIE Committee reiterates its January 1990
        recommendation (1.4.h) that EPA expand the use of existing statutory provisions
        which trade compliance delays for improvements in technology (e.g., CWA
        Sections 301(k) and 301(n); CAA Sections 11 l(j) and 113(d)). The Office of
        Water has plans to draft revised guidance for the Section 301 (k) waiver process,
        but in most cases the authorities carry little practical guidance and are seldom used.
        (See a further discussion of waivers under subrecommendations 2.1 and 3.3.)

    b.  Second, the performance evaluation and reward system must be amended to provide
        special credit for the compliance official who takes the risk of seriously evaluating and
        encouraging such approaches.

    c.  Third, in order to promote attention by compliance officials to innovative
        technology alternatives and to promote the retention of inspectors and compliance
        staff knowledgeable of and favorably disposed to considering the use of innovative
        technologies, the TIE Committee recommends a parallel incentives program to that
        outlined above for permit writers. The major headings below identify the basic
        program content (see subrecommendation 4.1 for details):

        •  Establish a  hierarchy or job ladder for compliance staffs and incorporate criteria
          in performance evaluations along that promotional ladder to address the staffs'
                                       56

-------
                                                                 DRAFT
          development of expertise (either single media, cross-media, or technology-
          specific).

        •  Provide training and model templates, based on the prior testing of innovative
          technologies, to all compliance personnel.  Such training should include
          explanation of the role of inspectors and compliance staff in promoting
          technology innovation for environmental purposes.

        •  Strengthen ORD 's role as identifier and conveyer of technical information to
          compliance personnel.

        •  Improve data and technical information sources to aid compliance personnel in
          compliance situations involving innovative technologies.


4.3    Provide support to prospective innovative technology permittees
        (including  technology  developers and  technology users).

Commentary

    The TIE Committee has previously recommended (January 1990, recommendations
1.2 and  1.7) that the Agency should build into its technology innovation promotion
strategies comprehensive approaches to inform regulated parties, particularly small and
medium-sized businesses, about (a) applicable environmental requirements; (b) the
advantages of developing and using innovative technologies to meet these requirements;
and (c) EPA's specific programs to foster innovative problem solving. The current
recommendation builds on the January 1990 recommendations and provides some concrete
details on possible informational approaches, some of which are being used today and all
of which can be put to greater use in cost-effective fashion. These include the following:

    a.  Outreach seminars on innovative technology permit and compliance policies and
        processes.

    b.  Information dissemination programs related to innovative technologies. These can
        involve coordinated efforts by EPA offices (especially ORD [see January 1990
        recommendation l.S.b]), industry associations, state agencies, economic
        development authorities, local authorities, professional associations, and others.
        Opportunities to assist executive branch organizations and non-governmental
        organizations inform their memberships have particular potential. Examples of
        potential dissemination mechanisms are:

        •  Newsletters;
        •  Press releases;
        •  Reports; and
        •  Seminars.

    c.  Access to the on-line database to be developed under subrecommendation 4.1 (item
        9). Additional information relevant to technology users and potential permittees
        might be added to the database, including permit requirements used in similar
        technologies and other permit application informational needs. Technical
        information might also be added to the RCRA/CERCLA "Hotline." Similar
        mechanisms could also be found for water and air.  Consideration  should be given
        to enlisting the cooperation of a private service (e.g., DIALOG) to ensure wide
        access to the information. Among the advantages of an environmental technology


                                      57

-------
                                                                 DRAFT


        clearinghouse are that it would help innovators track the state of the art and it
        would promote selection of appropriate technologies and invention of new ones.

     d.  Utilization of ORD personnel for technical assistance and subsidized testing. This
        would coincide with establishing an ombudsman function, as described in
        subrecommendations 1.3. and 4.4. Subsidized testing should be increased,
        although note should be taken of the January 1990 recommendation l.S.a, which
        calls for expanding testing protocols in the SITE program and analogous testing
        efforts to define performance envelopes.

     e.  Assure that the confidentiality of applicants' trade secrets is maintained. The TIE
        Committee notes that the statutory language for trade secret protection varies from
        statute to statue in terms of the procedure for asserting trade secrets.  This can
        create confusion among technology owners, licensees, and users, and complicates
        the role of permit writers and compliance personnel involved in the consideration
        of tests and uses of innovative technologies. Trade secret protection information
        and procedures should be readily available, and to the extent that there are
        substantive differences among the environmental media statutes, these should be
        normalized.


4.4    Emphasize  the  role  of EPA's  Office of Research and Development
        (ORD)  as consultant to  federal, state, and local government permit
        writers and inspectors to provide information  on innovative
        technologies  for environmental purposes.

Commentary

     The TIE Committee reiterates its previous recommendation (January 1990 TIE
Recommendation 1 S.b) that the Agency should  investigate wavs to strengthen ORD's roles in
fostering technology innovation as (a) identifier  and conveyer, with the regulatory offices, of
information about present and future technology gaps; and (b) a non-regulatory forum that works
closely with technology user communities, as in the SITE program, to evaluate and guide
technology development efforts. An analogous role for ORD within the federal government, the
need for which has become more prominent, is to maximize the flow of environmental technical
information among all parts of the government, including the Departments of Energy and Defense
and the national laboratories.

     Subrecommendation 1.3 calls for EPA to consider establishing a technology "Ombudsman".
Its function would provide a point of contact for technology developers, prospective users of
innovative technology, permit writers, and compliance officers at all levels of government, and the
public so that people can find out information about (a) the status of permit applications for
individual tests and testing centers, (b) the permitting process, (c) the policies relating to
technology innovation, and (d) test results, including information about the performance envelopes
of individual technologies. The function could also profitably include the ability to intervene to
encourage timely consideration of permit  applications or even to mediate between permit applicant
and permit writer. Currently, the EPA office most closely matching the requirements for the
ombudsman role is ORD.  ORD has strengths in its knowledge of and objectivity about
technology, and in its multi-media orientation, and would need to strengthen its knowledge with
respect to permit processes and permit status.

     ORD also should play a complementary and significant role in the permit team concept
propounded in subrecommendations 13 and 23. Other roles for ORD in fostering technology
innovation in this document include (a) developer of guidance documents on permitting technology


                                       58

-------
                                                                   DRAFT


testing centers and (b) collator of information (e.g., clearinghouses, on-line databases) discussed
under incentives for permit writers and compliance staff (subrecommendations 4.1 and 4.2).
These roles should be made prominent within the ORD system and integrated with existing
technology transfer and regional scientist processes.


4.5    Institute systems to provide the public with information and
        support  related  to the testing and use of innovative environmental
        technology.

Commentary

    The Committee believes that one of the most significant barriers to implementation of
innovative environmental technology is lack of public trust in the information presented
during the permitting process, as well as in the actual process of permit review and
approval. As a result, siting of new facilities, or use of new technologies in existing
facilities, often faces insurmountable public resistance.

    This public concern and fear of things that are new,  whether associated with
innovative technology or not, must be understood and addressed. It is important to realize
that no study can prove the absence of an adverse effect  Every effort must be made to
supply the public with as much data as is available (with  understandable explanatory
information) and to involve the public in the permitting process as early as possible. If this
is done, by the time permits are issued for a facility it may not seem as "strange" or "new"
but, in fact, very familiar. In addition, for this reason, care  should be taken in the
permitting processes with the designation "new", whether with reference to entire facilities,
production processes, or changes to facilities and processes.

    The Committee recommends two measures which EPA should undertake to improve
the quality of public participation in permitting. Implementing these measures may involve
statutory, as well as administrative, changes:

    a.  Provide detailed information on all facets of a new technology for which a permit
        is sought, and provide (or require the applicant to provide) substantial information
        on all known risk factors relevant to any permit application.

    b.  Redesign permitting processes to afford the public an early and more substantive
        role in the actual design requirements for facilities that affect them. An improved
        use of public hearings should be considered, but it should be noted that public
        involvement can occur in other ways, as well.

        One way would be to address the limited resources available to communities that
are wrestling with the problem of how to respond to proposals for environmental
compliance made by local regulated organizations. In particular, communities find it
difficult to obtain adequate technical expertise to assist the community in evaluating the
potential contribution of a new technology and in developing a confident understanding of
the level of safety being provided.  Environmental policy makers must consider how to
provide neutral technological advice beyond that provided by the regulated organization
involved or the governmental authorities who must approve permits. The Committee notes
that some communities are  now entering into agreements to purchase neutral expert advice,
using funds provided by the regulated organization. Such community selected expertise
may provide the confidence bridge necessary for having a fair and equitable decision
making process. The Committee suggests that environmental policy makers consider how
to make it possible for local communities to obtain such neutral advice as a matter of routine


                                       59

-------
                                                                  DRAFT
and on demand, whenever the use of an innovative technology for environmental purposes
is proposed.

    The two-tiered permitting process recommended earlier could help achieve positive
public involvement.  Under such a process (see subrecommendation 2.2), phase one - a
screening step ~ would consider the basic principles and parameters for a potential facility
permit, and phase two — the detailed consideration step — would weigh detailed technical
information and result in the issuance or denial of permits. Phase two would commence on
if issues identified in the phase one have been resolved. The public would be involved
deeply in each phase. This could reduce the time and investment required in exploring
permits for innovative technologies, either by resolving basic issues (e.g., characterization
of wastes produced,  environmental and health risks, and process efficiency) early in the
process, or by reaching the point during phase one that no agreement is possible. In this
latter case, public input to the project could be made earlier, and the project modified or
abandoned before regulators and applicants have expended as much time and resources as
they would have to if a complete permit application has to be provided
                                       60

-------
                                                                DRAFT
RECOMMENDATION 5:

Identify and remove regulatory obstacles which create unnecessary
inflexibility and uncertainty or otherwise  inhibit technology innovation  for
environmental purposes.
    During the course of its discussions, the Committee has reviewed certain regulatory glitches
which appear to inhibit the development of innovative pollution control or pollution prevention
technologies. This has not been a systematic effort, and the recommendations below are neither in
order of priority nor in any way complete. The Committee recommends that the Administrator
undertake a more systematic identification and review of such problems.


5.1   The Administrator should revise  delisting regulations under RCRA Subtitle
       C to allow process-specific, rather than  site-specific, delisting decisions.

Commentary

    The current delisting process under RCRA Subtitle C is complex, time-consuming, costly,
and greatly discourages technology innovation for environmental purposes. This sharply inhibits
the development of "land ban" technologies. The TIE Committee suggests that  delisting
procedures be simplified in order to encourage the development of treatment technologies that
remove hazardous constituents from waste streams. A process-specific delisting mechanism
should be investigated whereby, for certain wastes, using a given technology under specified
condition will produce a delistable waste. Site-specific factors need not be considered in the
determination. This would allow technology developers to better market their products, since it is
important for them to be able to assure potential technology users that, under specified conditions,
their treatment technology will produce a deli stable waste.


5.2   The Administrator should revise the hazardous waste (RCRA Subtitle C)
       regulations to include special provisions for small  quantity  generator
       hazardous  wastes,  taking into  account their unique case.

Commentary

    The TIE Committee received comments from Region 9 and the City of San Francisco that the
cost and complexity of analyzing infrequently-generated, heterogeneous, very small quantity waste
streams from household hazardous waste, small-quantity generators, and one-time sources
discourages compliance. The specific problem noted was with the requirement  to use standard
waste testing and hazardous constituent analysis as outlined in the federal SW-846 methodologies.
The City had come up with innovative testing procedures, but they were not deemed equivalent to
SW-846, and therefore not allowed in the City's Part B permit for their small quantity generator
and household hazardous waste staging and treatment facility.

    More flexibility is needed in the regulations to take into account the special nature of small
quantity generator wastes. Having too strict and unreasonable a regulation only promotes
improper disposal. As noted by San Francisco, much of the waste that they would like  to take at a


                                      61

-------
                                                                DRAFT


permitted facility winds up in municipal garbage and/or the city sewers. The original Subtitle C
requirements were designed for large quantity generators and industrial sources.  The TIE
Committee recommends that these regulations be revisited in light of the unique situation of small
generator hazardous waste components.


5.3   The Administrator should clarify a number of definitions of terms of art
       under RCRA.

Commentary

    Definitions of what constitutes "recycling" and "reuse," and the impacts of regulatory concepts
such as the "derived-from" rule, have potentially significant implications for technology
innovation. While the Agency has been constrained in its evaluations of such impacts by statutory
requirements and court interpretations, the Committee recommends that — given the potential for
modifying such definitions in the pending RCRA reauthorization - the Agency undertake a more
comprehensive review looking at the implications for new pollution prevention or control
technologies of alternative approaches. The Committee plans to review this issue more carefully in
the future. For example, definitions and exclusions should clearly describe their entire range of
use, and should be quantitatively and technically based whenever possible.


5.4   The Administrator should revise regulations to direct permits to describe
       the performance requirements of the technology  on which they are based,
       but not to prescribe a specific technology.

Commentary

    Many water, air, and even RCRA standards are performance-based, and are not necessarily
technology-specific.  The TIE Committee recommends that EPA and states encourage permit
writers to focus on performance when writing permit conditions. The TIE Committee believes that
there may be an over-zealousness on the part of some permit writers to dictate "every nut and bolt"
of environmental technologies. Permit writers should be directed to concern themselves with
whether or not a given technology will meet its performance requirements.  This would provide a
flexible environment that allows for alternative solutions giving rise to technology innovation.
Having an overly prescriptive permit ties the hands of technology developers and users in making
any improvements.


5.5   The Administrator should direct that users  of mobile treatment units
       (MTUs) be exempt from HSWA Corrective Action triggers and should
       further  direct that EPA allow national,  regional, and state permits for
       MTUs, with an opportunity for local community input and for
       consideration of site-specific factors.

Commentary

    Many hazardous waste treatment technologies are well suited for use as mobile treatment units
(MTUs; in California they are called TTUs, transportable treatment units). The TIE Committee
heard presentations that use of MTUs has been discouraged by EPA because of the federal
requirement to have each site where an MTU will be used apply for a full RCRA Part B permit.
Small  facilities and industries that generate one-time or  batch waste streams  are
particularly  impacted  by this  strict  interpretation of permitting regulations.
                                      62

-------
                                                                 DRAFT


California, on the other hand, has successfully utilized a Permit-By-Rule system to allow state-
wide use of MTUs (see subrecommendation 2.2).

    The major drawback to requiring MTU users to apply for Part Bs is the HSWA requirement
that owner/operators seeking a permit are responsible for corrective action. Corrective action
requires that the site be investigated and any releases of hazardous waste, regardless of the time
when the release occurred must be identified. A corrective action plan must be developed before
EPA can grant the permit. The site investigation itself might be too costly and time consuming to
justify short-term or infrequent use of an MTU. Discouraged by this approach, generators avoid
the Part B permitting process altogether and continue to ship their waste off-site (generally to
landfills rather than to off-site treatment). Thus, the corrective action trigger a Part B
application entails creates a significant barrier to the utilization of MTUs.


5.6     The Administrator should direct that RCRA land ban treatment standards
        based on incineration as BDAT should not automatically be applied to  all
        site remediation technologies.

Commentary

    This is important in promoting the use of innovative bioremediation technologies which
destroy organic compounds but not at the level achieved by incineration. Treatment standards for
RCRA waste are based on the Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT). In many cases,
these standards are based on incineration.  Incineration can effectively destroy organic hazardous
compounds to media-specific levels that are extremely difficult to achieve using other technologies.
Biological treatment, for example, may remediate a site at a much lower cost than other cleanup
technologies.  Biotechnology may not, however, meet incineration-based treatment standards.
Consequently, for Superfund NPLs where RCRA land disposal restrictions are deemed to be
applicable, bioremediation may have to be ruled out. A mechanism exists whereby site-specific
treatability variance applications can be sent to EPA in Washington for approval, but the process is
lengthy and time-consuming.  The TIE Committee recommends that this situation  be
investigated and  that relief processes  be  simplified and  expedited.
                                      63

-------
                     NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL  FOR
                ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND  TECHNOLOGY

                     FY  1991 NACEPT COMMITTEE AGENDA

         TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND ECONOMICS COMMITTEE

                             Environmental  Permitting

—Examining relationship between the introduction of new environmental technologies and
permitting and compliance systems,  and impact of specific regulatory requirements that have an
unplanned adverse effect on technology development and introduction.

—Evaluating permitting technology tests, permitting early comercial uses of newly proven
technologies, resource and timing relationships, cross-media issues, compliance practices,
pollution prevention incentives in permitting and compliance systems, regulatory flexibility, waiver
processes and general public concerns related to environmental technology innovation and
diffusion.,

—Developed findings and five major recommendations based on fact finding meetings

FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Implementation of recommendations adopted following consideration
of report at the October meeting.

Chair, Edward Keen, Bechtel Environmental. Participants include representatives from States of
California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey,  New York and Wisconsin; Environmental
Defense Fund, National Toxics Campaign, William Haney Associates, IT Corporation, 3M
Corporation, NETAC, Kerr and Associates, and EPA Offices of Policy Planning and Evaluation
(Pollution Prevention Office, Policy Analysis Office), Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring,
Solid Waste, Water Enforcement and Permits, Air and Radiation (Immediate Office, Air Quality
Planning and Standards),  and Research and Development.

                                      Liability

—Will address the effects of liability on the innovation and diffusion of environmentally relevant
technologies. Liability with  respect to manufacturers, users, the public, and developers of new
technologies will be considered.

FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Initiating a literature review and review of arguments concerning
effects of liability issues. Develop recommendations to mitigate problems associated with adverse
effects of liability.

Chair, Dr. Nicholas Ashford, MIT. Participants include representatives from Allied Signal, Trial
Lawyers for Public Justice,  Crum and Forster, Sierra Club, University of Houston Law Center,
Kerr and Associates, a major law firm, and EPA Offices of Policy Analysis, Technology
Innovation, Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention, Waste Programs Enforcement,
Solid Waste, Toxic Substances, and Underground Storage Tanks (OUST). We have obtained
agreement with the Director of OUST for this Focus Group to be managed on a day to day basis by
Sam Ng.

-------
                                      Diffusion

--Will examine why much of the best environmentally-helpful technology (whether EPA-owned,
privately-owned, or university-developed) is not moving from the point of origin to the point of
need.

--Will consider what can be done by EPA, other government entities, and the private sector to
encourage the movement of innovative environmental technology in the private sector as well as
the movement of EPA research and development products from point of origin to point of need.

—Examining barriers and incentives in statutes and in EPA contract and grant policies and language

FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Disseminate report on U.S. university-based environmental technology
research centers; complete study of regulatory impacts on patenting, and develop case studies of
EPA R&D diffusion and private sector technology movement. Will develop recommendations to
encourage diffusion of innovative technology, both wider applications and additional uses.

Chair, William Carpenter, Martin-Marietta Energy Systems. Participants include representatives
from University of Texas, Electro-Pyrolysis,  Clean Sites, Combustion Engineering, National
Association of Metal Finishers, Texas Instruments, Tennessee Eastman, NETAC, Thermo-
Electron, and U.S. Department of Agriculture.

                             Remediation Technologies

—Created to support the Technology Innovation Office of OSWER.

—Currently focusing on four issues associated with fostering innovative remediation technologies:
remediation contractor awareness, market assessment, identifying vendors of innovative
technologies, and the needed capabilities of "incubator facilities" for supporting the development of
hazardous waste treatment technologies.

FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN:  Conduct remediation contractor outreach to identify strategies to
upgrade engineering awareness and use of innovative technology information, conduct an
assessment of the market for innovative remediation technologies, assist development of vendor
identification information formats, and sponsor a workshop with various institutions.

Chair, Martin Rivers, Air and Waste Management Association. Participants include representatives
from National Solid Waste Management Association, Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, Clean
Sites, RMT, Inc., Environmental Defense Fund, New York State, New Jersey Institute of
Technology, EMS, Inc., Donohue and Associates, O'Brien and Gere Associates, and EPA Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response's Office of Technology Innovation.

                            Pollution Prevention Project

—Created to support the Office of Water's "2% set-aside" Project, which is designed to incorporate
pollution prevention into the industrial effluent guidelines development process and to reach out to
industry and the consuming  public to establish and implement the pollution prevention ethic.

—The Project is intended to help develop more collaborative approaches to development and
dissemination of pollution prevention-oriented solutions.

-The Project currently involves EPA representatives from the Offices of Water, Toxic Substances;
Solid Waste; Air and Radiation; Policy, Planning and Evaluation; General Counsel; and
Cooperative Environmental Management.

-------
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN:   Conduct studies of historical processes, statutes, international
experience and incentives,  consider report of Continuous Quality Improvement Team, and develop
draft Effluent Guideline Process Manual.

-------
International Environment
       Committee

-------
      INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
                                      OF
                                  NACEPT

                                October 23,1990
                        Madison Hotel, 15th and M Street
                               Washington, D.C.

                                    AGENDA

8:30 AM-9:00 AM   Plenary Committee Session—Drawing Room in, IV

Welcome:          John O'Connor, Chair
                  Jan McAlpine, Director
                  Ginger Wandless, Deputy Director

                  Introduction of New Committee Chair Sam Schulhof,
                  Vice Chair Jon Plaut. Discussion of Agenda, Working Groups
                  and plans for the upcoming year.

9:00 AM-2:30 PM   Concurrent Subcommittee Meetings
                  (See Attached Subcommittee Agendas)

                  The three Subcommittees will meet concurrently in three
                  different rooms. A lunch is included for Committee members
                  and expert guests.

                  I. Economics & Financing Subcommittee —
                    Drawing Room HI, IV
                    John O'Connor, Chair

                  The subcommittee serves to identify and assess impacts on
                  economic activity and seeks to work out innovative solutions
                  for financing mechanisms and programs to facilitate environmental
                  improvement.

                  •Environmental Markets
                  •Global Environmental Indicators

-------
                     n.  Strategic Planning Subcommittee—Drawing Room I
                        John McGlennon, Chair

                     The subcommittee focus is on assessing environmental policies in
                     an  international context in order to facilitate such programs as the
                     establishment of priority international principles, guidelines and
                     standards or the enhancement of mechanisms by which technology
                    transfer occurs.

                    •Global Environmental Standards
                    •Process and Institutional Issues for Technology
                     Transfer
                    *Report on Wild Ocean Reserves

                    IE.  Technical Assistance & Training—Drawing Room II
                        Paul Kaplow, Chair

                    The subcommittee identifies opportunities and develops mechanisms
                    for  the international exchange of technical assistance and training.

                    •Standards and Criteria for Training
                      *Applied Technical Assistance and Training
                      *Industry Peer Match
                    •Information Networks

2:45PM-5:OOPM.   Plenary Committee Session—International Energy  Issues
                    Drawing Room HI, IV

                    Panel—
                           Chair—Dr. Wilbur Steger,
                           President and Chairman of the Board
                           Consad Research Corporation
                           Co-Chair—David J. Bardin,
                           Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin and Kahn

                      •     Ted Williams, Director-Environmental Analyses,
                           Office of Policy, Planning and Analysis,
                           U.S. Department of Energy
                           —International Aspects of the National Energy Strategy
                      •     Adam Sieminski, Washington Analysis Corporation
                           —The Mideast, Oil, and our Energy Future(s)
                      •     Richard Lawson, President,
                           National Coal Association
                           —Coal in the 1990s

-------
               International Environment Committee Participants
                         Economics and Financing Subcommittee
                             Drawing Room in and IV
                              Chair:  John O'Connor
 Members
Peter Emerson
Robert Hahn
Jeffrey Leonard
John Liskowitz
Sandra Panem
Martyn Riddle
lona Sebastian
Harvey Yakowitz
Konrad von Moltke
Expert Committee Guests

Randall Curlee
 (Oakridge Nat'l Labs) TIE Member
Kirn Devonald
 (EPA,Policy, Planning and Evaluation)
Leo Goldstone (World Statistics Ltd)
Paul Cough
 (EPA, International Activities)
Michael Hoffman (Saloman Brothers)
Patrick Lennon
 (Canada, Science and Technology)
James Morant
 (EPA, Center for Environmental
 Statistics)
Phil Ross
 (EPA, Center for Environmental
 Statistics)
Jeff Schweitzer
 (AID, Science and Technology)
Tim Titus
 (EPA, Policy, Planning and Evaluation)
Dan Tunstall
 (World Resources Institute)

-------
                             Strategic Planning Subcommittee
                                   Drawing Room I
                                Chair:  John McGlennon
Members                 Expert Committee Guests


Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderel             Maureen Breitenberg (Commerce)
Sylvia Earle                           Renata Carlin (Shell Oil Company)
James Retcher                         Eric Christiansen (NRDC)
Edward McCord                        Catharine de Lacy (Occidental Petroleum)
John Rasmusson                        Raj Schellaraj
Karel de Waal                           (EPA, Office of International Activities)
                      Technical Training and Assistance Subcommittee
                                   Drawing Room II
                               Chair: Paul Kaplow

 Members                            Expert Committee Guests

William Carroll                        Lou Bramsford (Public Service Satellite
Barclay Hudson                         Consortium)
Walter Jackson                        John Harris (INEP)
Antony Marcil                          Frank Priznar (Institute for Environmental
Gerard Meyer                           Auditing)
John Palmisano                        Barbara Rodes, (WWF)
Ann Rappaport                        Linda Spencer (EPA, OARM)
Margaret Seminario                    Peter Thacher (WRI)
Eugene Tseng                         John Waugh (IUCN)

-------
    INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
                                    NACEPT
Committee Chairman:
Mr. John C. O'Connor*, Chief
Socioeconomic Data Division
International Economics Department
Room S 7131
World Bank
1818H. Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20433
tel/ (202) 473-3805. fax/ (202) 477-0661

Committee Vice Chairman:
Mr. Samuel A. Schulhof, Director
Environmental Research Center
General Electric Corporate Research and
 Development
Research and Development Center
P.O. Box 8
Schenectady, NY 12301
tel/ (518) 387-5353, fax/ (518) 387-5324
For direct mail:
        River Road
        Building K1
        Room A5A7

Committee Director:
Ms. Jan McAlpine
U.S.  EPA. A-101F6
Office of Cooperative Environmental
 Management
401 M Street. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
tel/ (202) 382-2477, fax/ (202) 245-3882

Committee Deputy Director:
Ms. Ginger Wandless
U.S.  EPA. A-101F6
Office of Cooperative Environmental
 Management
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
tel/ (202) 475-9477, fax (202) 245-3882
Committee Members:
Ms. Jacqueline Aloisi de Larderef, Director
Industry and Environmental Office
United Nations Environmental Program
Tour Mirabeau
39-43, Quai Andre Citroen
75739 Paris cedex 15
France
tel/011-33-1-40-58-88-58
fax/ 011 -33-1 -40-58-88-88

Mr. William J. Carroll
Chairman of the Board
James Montgomery Engineers
250 N. Madison Ave
P.O. Box 7009
Pasadena, CA 91109-7009
tel/(818) 796-9141. fax/(818) 449-3741

Dr. Sylvia Alice Earle*
Fellow and Research Biologist
California Academy of Sciences
President and Chief Executive Officer
Deep Ocean Engineering, Inc.
1431 Doolittle Drive
San Leandro, CA 94577
tel/ (415) 562-9300, fax/ (415) 430-8249

Dr. Peter Emerson, Vice President
Wilderness Society
1400 Eye Street N.W. 10th floor
Washington, D.C. 20005
tel/ (202) 833-2300, fax/ (202) 429-3959

Dr. James Fletcher, Senior Fellow
Institute for Technology and Strategic Research
600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
Suite 480
Washington. D.C. 20037
tel (202) 965-0211, fax/ (202) 965-0228

Mr. Frank B. Friedman, Vice President
Health, Environment and Safety
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
10889 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90024
tel (213) 208-8800/ (213)443-6161
fax/ (213) 443-6688
Approved IEC 10/12/90

-------
Dr. Robert W. Hahn, Professor
Carnegie Mellon Resident Scholar
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
1150 Seventeenth Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
tel/(202) 862-5909
fax/(202) 862-7178

Mr. Barclay Hudson
EcoSource
921 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 224
Los Angeles, CA 90024
tel/ (213) 208-1887, fax/(213) 208-8823

Dr. Walter E. Jackson, Director
Environmental Legislation and Regulation
Environmental Affairs
USS Technical Center
4000 Tech Center Drive
Monroeville, PA 15146
tel/ (412) 825-2943, fax/(412) 825-2494

Mr. Paul Kaplow, Director
Health, Safety and Environmental Services
Aristech Chemical Corporation
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
tel/ (412) 433-7865, fax/ (412) 433-7753

Dr. H. Jeffrey Leonard, Vice President
Conservation Foundation
1250 24th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20037
tel/ (202) 778-9569, fax/ (202) 293-9211

Dr. John W.  Liskowrtz*. Executive Director
Hazardous Waste Institute
New Jersey  Institute of Technology
323 Martin Luther King Blvd.
Newark, NJ  07102
tel/ (201) 596-3234. fax/ (201) 802-1946

Mr. Edward L. McCord, Ph. D., Associate
Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay
435 Sixth Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15230-2009
tel/ (412) 288-3131, fax/ (412) 288-7200

Mr. John McGlennon, President
ERM, New England
205 Portland St.
Boston, MA  02114
tel/ (617) 742-8228. fax/ (617) 720-5742
Mr. Antony Marcil, President
World Environment Center
419 Park Avenue South
Suite 1404.
New York, NY 10016
tel/ (212) 683-4700, fax (212) 683-5053
                fax/ (718)459-3513

Dr. Gerard Meyer, Executive Director
EuroAmerica Business Network Institute
1 Oxford Center
Suite 3140
Pittsburgh. PA 15219
tel/(412) 391-2911. fax/(412) 391-2912

Dr. Konrad von Moltke, President
Bioprime, Ltd.
P.O. Box 716
Harriet Partridge House
Main Street
Norwich. VT 05055
tel/ (802) 649-2227, fax/ (802) 649-3539

Mr. John Palmisano*, President
AER'X
1990 M Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
tel/ (202) 463-6909. fax/ (202) 872-9185

Dr. Sandra Panem, Vice President
Salomon Brothers Venture Capital
Two New York Plaza
New York, N.Y. 10004
tel/ (212) 747-7506, fax/ (212) 747-4340

Mr. Jonathan Plaut, Director
Environmental Compliance
Health, Safety and Environmental Sciences
Allied Signal, Inc.
P.O. Box 1013 R
Morristown, NJ 07960
tel/ (201) 455-6570, fax/ (201) 455-4835

Ms. Ann Rappaport
Center for Environmental Management
Tufts University, Curtis Hall
474 Boston Avenue
Medford, MA02155
tel/ (617) 381 -3486, fax/ (617) 381 -3084

Dr. John Rasmusson, Research Professor
Director of Energy Studies
Institute for Technology and Strategic Research
The George Washington University
600 New Hampshire Avenue N.W., Suite 480
Washington. D.C. 20037
tel/ (202) 965-0211, fax/ (202) 965-0228
        994-7131

-------
Mr. Martyn Riddle, Senior Environmental Advisor
International Finance Corporation
1818 H Street N.W.
10-145
Washington, D.C. 20433
tel/ (202) 473-0661. fax/ (202) 334-8705

Ms. lona Sebastian,  Economist
Environment Division
The World Bank
1818 H Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20433
tel/ (202) 473-3238. fax /(202) 477-0968

Ms. Margaret Seminario*. Director
Occupational Safety and Health
AFL-CIO
815 16th Street N.W., Room 303
Washington, D.C. 20006
tel/ (202) 637-5366, fax/ (202) 637-5058

Dr. James Selover, Vice President and Manager
Marketing and  Business Development
Bechtel Corporation
50 Beale Street
San Francisco, California 94105
tel/ (415) 768-2548, fax/ (415) 768-0360

Mr. Eugene Tseng*. J.D.
EcoSource
921 Wesiwood Boulevard, Suite 224
Los Angeles, CA 90024
tel/ (213) 208-1887, fax/(213) 208-8823

Dr. Karel de Waal, Deputy Director
Division of Technology for Society (TNO)
P.O. Box 342
7300 AH Apeldoorn
The Netherlands
tel/ 011 -31 -55-493493. fax/ 011 -31 -55-419837

Mr. Harvey Yakowrtz, Senior Consultant
Environment Directorate (Annexe Maillot)
Organization for Economic Cooperation
 and Development
2,  rue Andre Pascal
Paris, France 75775 - Cedex  16
tel/ 011 -33-1 -45247880, fax/ 011 -33-1 -45247876
home 011 -33-1 -45004680
* Indicates membership on the National Advisory Council
for Environmental Policy and Technology as well as par-
ticipation in the International Committee.
Staff Assistants:

Mr. Thomas M. Kearney
U.S. EPA. A-101F6
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington. D.C.  20460
tel/ (202) 382-3198, fax/ (202) 245-3882

Mr. Timothy J. Jennison
U.S. EPA. A-101F6
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460
tel/ (202) 245-3937, fax/ (202) 245-3882

-------
       ECONOMICS AND  FINANCING  SUBCOMMITTEE


 I.  ENVIRONMENTAL  MARKETS  WORKING GROUP. 9:00-11:45  AM.

 1.  Introduction
 Working Group Co-Chairs: Leo Goldstone (World Statistics Ltd.), Sandra Panem (IEC member).
 Welcome, introduction, introduction of experts, speakers. Jan McAlpine (IEC Director). EC
 organization/overview, scope of work.  5 mins.

 2.  Presentations
       a)  Staff  Report
          Tim Jennison (IEC staff). Presentation of "framework for discussion."  10 mins.
       b)  Working Group Member Reports
           Reports on ongoing and completed market studies and on the field in general by
           representatives of interest groups involved in environmental market assessment
                    • Patrick Lennon, Director, Environmental Industries Sector Initiative,
                      Industry, Science and Technology Canada (ISTC).
                    • Harvey Yakowitz, Environment Directorate, OECD (EEC Committee
                      member).
                    • John Palmisano,  President, AER*X

 3. First Issues Sandra Panem (Working Group Co-Chair)
       a) Market Characteristics Discussion
          The Working Group will discuss, from options presented, characteristics of the global
          environmental market (i.e. what constitutes an environmental good or service?).
       b) Discussion  on Market Assessment Studies
 i         The Working Group will discuss  areas of possible market research.
 *
 4.  Further  Issues/Next Steps
       a) Discussion of Market Drivers  (phenomena that influence spending on environmental
          goods and services).
          Topics might include:
                    • Regulation and Standards, which are directly related to industry investment in
                      pollution control equipment
                    • The relationship between installation of sophisticated environmental
                      technology and cost effectiveness.
                    • Consumer behavior and awareness of the environment, corporate image and
                      the promotion of "environmentally friendly" products.
                    • Subsidization of industry to encourage compliance with standards.
                    • Economic indicators/structural economic change and the market for
                      environmental technology.
                    •  Technology innovation and spending on environmental protection.
                    •  Multilateral institutions (GATT, etc.) and the transfer of environmental
                      technology across borders.
                    •  Regional economic integration (EC) and its relation to market growth.
                    •  Awareness of the market itself and what it is comprised of.
       b) Other
          John Liskowitz (IEC Committee member).  Presentation of NJTT/NSF study.  10 mins.
                    Discussion will follow.

 5.   Wrap-Up/Next Steps
 Goldstone, 5 mins.
|Set date for next Working Group meeting.

-------
       ECONOMICS  AND  FINANCING  SUBCOMMITTEE

 II.   GLOBAL  ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS  WORKING GROUP
       12:30-2:30

 1.   Introduction:

 Working Group Chair: John O'Connor (IEC member).
 Welcome, introductions, introduction of speakers, experts. Jan McAlpine (IEC Director). BBC
 Organization/overview, scope of work.

 2.   Presentations:

    a) Staff Report
       Tom Kearney (IEC staff). Presentation of "framework for discussion."
    b) Working Group/Expert Reports
    Reports on current work on global environmental indicators issues.
    •     Kim Devonald, Chief, Environmental Measures and Forecasting Branch,
          Strategic Planning and Management Systems Divisions, Office of Pollution
          Prevention, OPPE, US EPA. "The US EPA and Global Environmental Indicators"
    •     Jonathan Plaut, Director, Environmental Compliance, Health, Safety, and
          Environmental Sciences, Allied Signal, Inc. "Industry and Global Environmental
          Indicators."
    •     Daniel B. Tunstall, Senior Associates, World Resource Institute.  "Recent
          Work in the Environmental Indicators Field"
    •     N. Phillip Ross, Director, Center for Environmental Statistics Development Staff,
          Office of Regulatory Management and Evaluation, OPPE, EPA. "The Center for
          Environmental Statistics and Environmental Indicator Issues"

 3.   Issue  Discussion:
       a)     Global Environmental  Indicators and Policymaking Discussion.  The working
              group will discuss the current issues surrounding global environmental indicators and
              their current and potential uses by national policymakers.
              Some  questions that can be addressed during this discussion:
              • How can environmental indicators be developed by different policymaking sectors?
                    —industry
                    -government
                    -international organizations
              • What are their potential uses for these sectors?
              • What kinds of policymaking decisions can be assisted by a set of
               environmental indicators?
              • What are global indicator issues?
              • What are international and transnational indicator issues?
              • What are the barriers to indicator use?
                    -technological and institutional
                    -information gaps

4.   Further Issues/Next Steps;
       a)      Discussion  of Planned Conference:  Global Environmental  Indicators for U.S.
             Policymakers.  Drawing upon the results from the preceding discussion, some questions
             that can be addressed during this could consist of the following:
             • What issues would such a conference need to address?
             • Can Global Environmental Indicators become a useful policy tool?
             • What policymaking sectors should participate in this meeting?
             • How large should this conference be?
             This discussion would serve as a basis for agenda-setting, work plan organizations,
             and determination of the exact date for the Global Environmental Indicators Conference

5.  Wrap-up  and Review of Work Plan:
John O'Connor.  Set date for next Working Group meeting.

-------
        STRATEGIC PLANNING  SUBCOMMITTEE

I.    GLOBAL  ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS,  9:00-11:45


1.    Introduction

Sub-Committee Chair: John McGIennon
Welcome, introduction, introduction of experts, speakers. Tom Kearney (IEC Staff)
IEC organization/overview, scope of work.
2.    Presentations
             a)     Staff Report
                   Ellen Lawson (IEC staff).  Presentation of "framework for discussion".
             b)     Working Group Member Reports
                   Speakers come from different sectors and will provide a variety of
                   perspectives on the standards issue.

                         •     Eric Christiansen, Natural Resources Defense Council
                         •     Stan Warshaw, Department of Commerce, National
                               Institute of Standards and Technology
                               Karel de Waal, TNO, The Netherlands
3,	Issues for  Discussion:
      • What are criteria for setting standards (i.e. effectiveness, easily monitored etc...)?
      • What types of international environmental standards need to be increased? What are
      the potential impacts of these standards on the environment?
      • What impact would international environmental standards have on: trade, technology
      innovation, labor, competition etc...?
      • If standards are pursued, what types would be less controversial and therefore, more
      easily implementable?
      • Should a global, regional, a site-specific, or a standard-specific approach to standards be
      taken?
      • If a regional approach is taken, should it be between developed countries or developed
      and developing countries?
      • What role would the IEC recommend for EPA's Administrator in regards to the standards
      issue?


4.    Wrap-up/Next Steps
      McGIennon, 5 rnins.
      -Development of "next steps" for the Subcommittee and IEC staff.
      —Define the pieces and distribute the work assignments along with timelines for progress.

-------
              TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND  TRAINING
                                SUBCOMMITTEE
 I.     STANDARDS AND  CRITERIA FOR TRAINING  WORKGROUP
       9:00-11:45

 1.     INTRODUCTION
 Working Group Chair: Paul Kaplow (EEC member), Moderator: Barclay Hudson (IEC member)
 Welcome, introductions, introduction of experts/speakers. Ginger Wandless (EEC Deputy Director)
 EEC organization/overview, scope of work. 5 mins.


 2.     PRESENTATIONS
             a)     Issue Report
                   Barclay Hudson (EEC member).  Presentation of "framework for discussion".
             b)     Working Group Member Reports
                   The speakers will provide examples of international technical assistance programs
                   that have been successful in the past
                         Barclay Hudson, Program Director, EcoSource International. 10 mins.
                   •      Eugene Tseng, Executive Director, EcoSource International.  10 mins.
                   •      Tony Marcil, President, World Environment Center. 10 mins.
             c)     Work Group Report
                   Tim Jennison (EEC staff). Presentation of the "Peer Match" project developed for
                   EPA Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation and the Republic of Poland.


 3.     ISSUES FOR  DISCUSSION:
       Topics for discussion might include:

                   What are the criteria for setting standards (effectiveness, easily monitored, etc)
                   What types of international or national standards for technical assistance already
                   exist? Are they used uniformally or consistently and by whom?
                   Where are the gaps in standards for technical assistance?
                   What are the institutional issues involved in setting standards?
                   What infrastructure issues need to be resolved?
4:    WRAP-UP/NEXT  STEPS
Kaplow, 10 mins.
Set date for next meeting.

-------
      TECHNICAL  ASSISTANCE  AND  TRAINING
                        SUBCOMMITTEE
II.   INFORMATION NETWORKS WORKING GROUP,  12:30-2:30
1.    Introduction
Working Group Chair: Paul Kaplow (EC member).
Welcome, introductions, introduction of experts, speakers. Ginger Wandless (EC Deputy Director)
DEC organization/overview, scope of work. 5 mins.
2.   Presentations
      a)    Staff Report
            Ellen Lawson (EEC staff). Presentation of "framework for discussion". 10 mins
      b)    Working Group Member Reports
                  Peter Thacher, World Resources Institute. 10 mins.
            •     John Harris, International Network of Environmental Policy. 10 mins.
                  Linda Spencer, INFOTERRA-U.S. National Focal Point, U.S. EPA. 10 mins
3.  Issues for  Discussion (45  minutes)

      •     Which option(s), if any, seems most viable to the subcommittee?
      •     What standards and criteria would need to be developed for an
            environmental information system:
                  —types and quality of information
                  —organization and maintenance
                  —information transfer etc...
                  —accessibility to system
4.   Wrap-Up/Next  Steps (10  minutes)
Kaplow, 10 mins.
Set date for next Working Group meeting.

-------
                     NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR
                ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY

                     FY  1991 NACEPT COMMITTEE AGENDA

                INTERNATIONAL  ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

                     Global Environmental  Economic Indicators

-Addressing ways to integrate environmental costs and benefits into the mainstream of
international economic programs. The problem is how to include ecological as well as
environmental economic indicators into traditional national economic practices including GNP,
National Accounts or Satellite Accounts, and the lending practices of Multilateral Development
Banks.

FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN:  Sponsor an interdisciplinary, cross-sector workshop  for US-based
policy makers who influence global environmental indicator decisions to discuss the merits and
difficulties of using environmental indicators in policymaking. The Committee believes it will be
able to make early recommendations concerning the cross-over between ecological and economic
indicator data, its maintenance and use.

                                Financing Solutions

—Focusing on how capital formation, lending policies and market incentive approaches add to or
detract from achieving global environmental quality.

FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Early planning for an international conference (involving development,
commercial, and investment banks) to develop environmental guidelines for  investment and
economic development  for those communities.

                  Markets for Environmental  Goods and Services

-Focusing on identifying the U.S. portion of the world market and approaches or "levers" which
could enhance the world environmental goods and services.

FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN:  Publish phase 1 of a report identifying the U.S. share of the global
market for environmental  goods and services.  Consider official "classification" for environmental
goods and services in order to better quantify size and trends.

The above Working Groups  operate under the Economics and Financing Subcommittee.
Chair John O'Connor, World Bank. Participants include representatives from the  Wilderness
Society, American Enterprise Institute, Dartmouth College, Salomon Brothers, World Bank,
Bechtel Corporation, World  Resources Institute, the United Nations Development Programme, and
OPPE at EPA.

           Global  Environmental Principles. Guidelines, and Standards

-Addressing institutions and mechanisms that influence or are affected by international
environmental principles,  guidelines, and standards and the impact of international standards on
trade, development, capital exchange, environment, and technology innovation.

-Will consider potential categories of standards, criteria for the development of standards and
identify associated opportunities and problems.

-------
 FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Meeting of experts to assess the potential role that standards might
 play in international environmental and economic policymaking and develop recommendations for
 further action and evaluation of standards issue.

          Legal and Intellectual  Property Issues for Technology Transfer

 —Will address the extent to which legal and intellectual property barriers to international technology
 transfer can be removed or revised.

 FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Beginning committee work on this issue in FY 91.

          Process and  Institutional  Mechanisms  for Technology Transfer

 —Examining the institutions and processes by which technology transfer occurs internationally.
 How does the structure, role and purpose of the international  institution enhance or inhibit
 technology transfer? What processes support the transfer? What changes need to occur to enhance
 technology transfer?

 —The study being completed by IETTAB on the U.S. agencies programs to support technology
 transfer will be included as a major component

 -Sponsoring a Wild Ocean Reserves project concerning the establishment of a protected area in the
 high seas in international waters.

 FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Continuation of Wild Ocean Reserves study with potential publication
 of phase one report.

 The above Working Groups operate under the Strategic Planning Subcommittee. Chair John
 McGlennon, ERM New England. Participants include representatives from the United Nations
 Environment Programme, NOAA, Institute for Technology and Social Research, Occidental
 Petroleum, Conservation Foundation;Reed, Smith, Shaw and McClay  Esquire; AER*X
 Corporation, Allied-Signal, George Washington University, TNO-The Netherlands, OECD, and
 The EPA Office of Water and OPPE.

                 Application  of Training and Technical   Assistance

 —Identifying and documenting successful approaches for delivering international training and
 assistance to address the concerns of lesser-developed countries that the most appropriate person
 or team is sent to help them address their environmental problems.

 FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Continued sponsorship of a "peer-match" initiative requested by OPPE
 and the Ministry of Environment for the Republic of Poland.  Development of a strategy to expand
 the concept into other Eastern European countries and to expand into other industries within Poland
 with environmental concerns.

                          Training Standards and Criteria

 -Addressing the development of common standards and criteria for training and applied technical
 assistance programs. The group seeks to incorporate the expertise of organizations currently
involved in technical assistance (e.g., VITA, the World Environment Center, and the World Bank)
into a criteria document that can be used in conjunction with the applied technical assistance
initiatives being discussed by the previous group.

-------
FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Develop a criteria document to be used for applied technical assistance
initiatives and develop a work-study program with Johns Hopkins School of Advanced
International Studies (SAIS) to demonstrate the need for cross-disciplinary  education.

                International Environmental Information Networks

—Addressing the preponderance of international environmental information that is not being
transfered efficiently or effectivly.

—Will examine existing networks, databases and structures such as INFOTERRA and develop a
strategy to increase the transfer of information within and between countries.

FY 91 PROGRAM PLAN: Co-sponsor a workshop with World Resources Institute to develop a
strategy for the Internationl Information Conference in Canada in May of 1991 addressing
international information networks.

The above Working Groups operate under the Technical Assistance and Training Subcommittee.
Chair Paul Kaplow, Aristech Chemical Co. Participants include representatives from James M.
Montgomery Engineers, UCLA, USX Corporation, New Jersey Institute Of Technology, World
Environment Center, EuroAmerica Institute, Tufts University, AFL-CIO, EcoSource
International, and OPPE at EPA.

-------
  Chemical Accident
Prevention Committee

-------
                CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION COMMITTEE

                       MEETING AGENDA — 23 October. 1990

                              THE MADISON HOTEL
                            15TH AND M STREETS, N.W.
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
                              Mt. Vemon Room, Salon B


1.   8:30am — 9:15am Welcome remarks by Chair/Vice Chair and introductions

            Mr. Walt Barber, Chair
            Dr. A. Wayne Tamarelli, Vice Chair

n.   9:15am — 10:30am Who we are and what it is about: the reason for creating a CAP
         committee

            Remarks and discussion by Mr. Jim Makris, Director
            EPA's Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention program
                  Basic purpose and goals of CAP committee
                  Background, history, and  philosophy of chemical accident
                        prevention
                  Stakeholder concept; relationship of CAP to EPA
                  Recommendations for useful CAP undertakings

m.    10:30am—10:45am Break

FV.    10:45am — 12:00pm Discussion of draft mission statement: where we want to go

V.    12:00pm — 1:15pm Lunch (Vista Hotel  for CAP members and NACEPT staff)

VI.    1:15pm — 2:30pm  Implementing goals: how to get there

      A.  Issues we want to address, short term and long term (discussion based on a list
         of issues prepared and distributed before meeting)

      B.  Setting priorities

      C.  Structure/roles/responsibilities

VH.   2:30pm — 3:30pm  Next steps: goals for FY '91

      A.  Desired accomplishments

-------
      B.  Desired outputs/products

VIE.  3:30pm — 3:45pm  Break

IX.   3:45pm — 4:30pm  Preparations for next committee meeting

      B.  Expectations for May '91 meeting

      C.  Necessary accomplishments/outputs between October 23 and May

X.    4:30pm — 4:45pm  Review of NACEPT timeline and procedures

             Mr. David Graham, Committee Director
             Mr. Adam Sutkus, Committee Deputy Director

XI.   4:45pm—5:00pm  Review

      Adjourn

-------
                 CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION COMMITTEE
                                 Draft Mission Statement

The overall goal of the Chemical Accident Prevention Committee is:

       * to work toward a national consensus for prevention of major chemical
         industrial accidents

       * to recommend ways to implement that consensus

The means that the Chemical Accident Prevention Committee will use to reach that goal include:

       * examine commonly accepted prevention practice, technologies, and principles
         as well as current programs and policies

       * define roles and responsibilities of stakeholders (*)

       * learn what research is currently being done and determine how results can be
         made most useful; identify areas where additional research and development is
         needed and then find ways to stimulate it

       * identify information needs of each sector of prevention stakeholders and explore
         effective means of sharing information

       * identify technology transfer needs and recommend appropriate mechanisms for
         such a transfer

       * identify ways to increase accountability of industry

       * encourage improvement in state of prevention practice throughout industry

*NOTE

       Stakeholders include:
       industry — large, medium, and small
       government — federal, state, local
       trade associations and professional societies
       labor
       academia
       scientific and technological community
       medical profession
       insurance/legal/financial  fields
       media
       environmental organizations
       fire services and emergency services
       general public

-------
                      NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
                                     FOR
               ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY

             CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION COMMITTEE
Chairperson:

Mr. Walter Barber
President and Chief Executive Officer
Groundwater Technology, Inc.
220 Norwood Park South
Norwood, MA  02062
(617) 769-7600 FAX (617) 769-7992
Vice Chairperson:

Dr. A. Wayne Tamarelli
Chairman
Dock Resins
1512 W. Elizabeth Avenue
Linden, NJ 07036
(201) 862-2351
Designated Federal Official:

Mr. David Graham, Committee Director
Office of Cooperative Environmental
 Management
EPA (A-101 F6)
401 M Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 475-9743 FAX (202) 245-3882

NACEPT Members:

Mr. R. Nick Odom, Jr.
Director
Environmental Services
Springs Industries
205 North White Street
Fort Mill, SC  29715
(803) 547-3601

Dr. Lawrence L. Ross
Director
Center for Waste Reduction Technologies
American Institute of Chemical Engineers
345 E. 47th Street
New York, NY 10017
(212) 705-7407 FAX (212) 752-3297
Mr. Adam Sutkus, Comm. Deputy Director
Office of Cooperative Environmental
 Management
EPA (A-101 F6)
401 M Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 245-3752 FAX (202) 245-3882

-------
Chemical Accident Prevention
Committee Contributors:
Mr. D. Wayne Bissett
Chief, Prevention
Env. Emergencies Branch
Conservation and Protection
Environment Canada
Hull, Quebec K1A OH3
(819) 953-8257

Mr. Ray L. Brandes
Director
Safety and Industrial Hygiene
ICI Americas Inc.
Wilmington, DE  19897
(302) 886-5501

Mr. Michael Callan
Captain
Wallingford Fire Department
293 Bee SL
Meriden, CT 06450
(203) 238-2023

Mr. David D. Doniger
Senior Attorney
Natural Resources Defense Council
1350 New York Ave., N.W.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 783-7800

Dr. David McLoughlin
Consultant
Rt. 1, Box 306
Forest, VA  24551
(804) 525-0365

Mr. James Morrow
President
Morrow & Associates
581C Country Club Dr.
Newark, OH 43055
(614) 344-5915
W. J. Mottel
Director,
Safety & Occupational Health
N11543
E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co.
Wilmington, DE 19898
(302) 773-4190

Stan Schecter
Rohm & Haas
Engineering Division
P.O. Box 584
Bristol, PA 19007
(215) 785-7340

Dr. Klaus D. Timmerhaus
Professor & Presidential Teaching
 Scholar
University of Colorado, Boulder
Department of Chemical Engineering
Campus Box 424
Boulder, CO 80309-0424
(303) 492-7680

Dr. Jack Walker
Chairman
Kansas State Emergency Response
 Commission (SERC)
109 SW 9th St., Suite 501
Topeka, KS 66612
(913)296-1690

Mr. Mike Wright
Director
Safety and Health
Steel Workers of America
5 Gateway Center
Pittsburgh, PA  15222
(412)562-2581

-------
                             Questions for a Consensus-Building Process
                         on a National Chemical Accident Prevention Strategy


 1. Is the approach of focusing on' management practices rather than technologies a good basis for
 addressing chemical process safety issues?1

        Are the key management elements appropriate and are there others that should be added?

        Should these management practices apply to every facility or do they need to be adjusted for small
        facilities, producers vs. users, etc, and, if so, how?

        Potential Discussion Papers

               Expanded description of the proposed elements
               Applicability of elements to various industry sectors
               Advantages and disadvantages of a management-directed approach

 2.  How can facilities be encouraged to go beyond minimal compliance with the regulations, codes, and
 standards?

        Are there economic incentives that can be exploited to promote improved practices?

        Can potential liability for the consequences of accidents be used as an incentive?

        What are the technical, social, and economic barriers that need to  be overcome to promote safety
        and how can they be overcome?

        Potential Discussion Papers

               Insurance and financial instruments as key influences of chemical safety practices
               Institutional and economic barriers and how to overcome them
               Economic incentives for going beyond minimum standards and improving prevention
               practices

3.  How can information about risk management practices, hazard identification, and technologies be
collected and shared?

       Who should collect and manage the information?

       What role should industry, the federal government, trade associations, professional organizations,
       and state and local governments play to ensure that information reaches downstream users and
       others?

       Are there existing transfer mechanisms that can be better utilized?

       Are federal or other clearinghouses useful and cost effective?

       Are there institutional, economic, or technical barriers to  information and technology transfer that
       need to be addressed?
   l.  See attached list of management practices.

-------
                                                 2

         How can the concept of product stewardship be used to improve information transfer?

         What other initiatives should industry undertake to reach downstream users?

         Potential Discussion Papers

                Product stewardship as a means of information transfer
                Alternative approaches to packaging information — for example, sharing information on
                hazards or chemicals rather than process-specific data
                The role of local organizations (e.g., Chamber of Commerce, state trade groups, etc) in
                information transfer
                Successful programs — case studies
                Barriers to technology transfer and ways to overcome them
                Incidents vs near misses as a source of information
                Sharing* incident investigation results vs. liability concerns

 4.  How can state and local communities help promote adoption of a  holistic approach to chemical
 accident prevention, as outlined in the section 3QS(b) report?

        How can industry, trade associations, the federal government, etc, facilitate state and local
        interactions with facilities?

        Are there state or local programs that can be adopted to promote the risk management program
        elements?

        How can Title III entities (SERCs and LEPCs) be used to encourage and promote cnemical safety
        at facilities in their area? How can they keep the public informed of chemical risk?

        How are existing codes and regulations used to promote safety and prevention?  Are they
        effective?

        Potential Discussion Papers

               Using data provided under Title III to gather prevention information
               The effect of the New Jersey and California programs
               Local case studies
               Uniform fire and electrical codes, building codes as prevention tools
               Using the public health and safety mandate to foster prevention activities —  the role of
               zoning and transportation routing in prevention

5.  How can public participation be enhanced?

       What are the roles of environmental groups and how can their participation be enhanced?

       How can public interest be mobilized?

       What kinds of public education programs are needed and who should provide them?

       Potential Discussion Papers

              Successful programs — case studies

-------
 6.  What should the role of governments be?

        Are additional regulations needed or appropriate and, if so, by what level of government and in
        which areas?

        What kind of coordination is required among existing government prevention-related programs?

        If regulations are proposed, what else can the government do to promote safety practices among
        facilities not covered?

        Potential Discussion Papers

               Pros and cons of various regulatory and voluntary compliance options
               Review of current federal programs related to prevention
               Potential coordination mechanisms

7. What can labor do to improve safety at facilities?

        How can labor work with management to implement a risk management plan?

        Are there barriers to labor involvement that need to be overcome?

        Potential Discussion Papers

               Labor and the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard
               Labor involvement in plant safety — case studies

8. What technologies need to be developed or improved?

       The section 305(b) review identified the following technologies as needing additional research:
       chemical-specific detectors, laser-based, remote sensing systems, and mitigation technologies for
       liquid, liquid/vapor, and solid releases. Are there other technologies in monitoring and mitigation
       that should be targeted?

       The section 305(b) review indicated that data  are needed on source characterization, human health
       effects, equipment failure rates, and human error rates.  Are there other related data that should
       be developed?

       Should particular chemicals, hazards, or industries be targeted?

       How can the federal government enhance cooperation and technology transfer with the states?

       How can the federal government help overcome barriers to technology sharing?

       What research is under development?

       What are the roles of industry, professional organizations, academic institutions,  health
       professionals, and government in technology development?

       What are the economic incentives/disincentives for R & D?

-------
Potential Discussion Papers

        Technological problem areas
        Economic incentives for R & D
        Review of current research being conducted by government and industry
        Pros and cons of targeting a limited number of chemicals, hazards, etc
        Information clearinghouses — case studies

-------
     ATTACHMENT

     Key Elements in Management Programs

     Several organizations, both professional and industrial, have
outlined programs to define good management practices for the
construction and design of facilities,  and for production, processing,
use, and storage of hazardous substances.   The components of such
programs include,  among others,  the following items:

      1.     Capital project review and design process review should be
            conducted to analyze all designs for safety problems
            before they are approved; this can include preliminary
            hazard assessments as well as  pre-start-up safety
            inspections.  Human factors, such as the  ease of operating
            equipment,  should be considered in the  design of the
            system.

      2.    Management must recognize that compliance  with standards
           and  codes of industry,  associations, and laws  of
           governments  is a minimum, and the intent of  these
           standards must be  applied on a case-by-case  basis.
           Compliance with standards alone does not ensure a safe
           operation.

      3.    Process safety information should be documented to provide
           identification of  the hazards, a description of key  design
           data, and technical specification of each  step of the path
           to a safe operation.  This document should include rules
           and  procedures for a safe operation.

      4.    Accountability of  personnel involved in the  operation of
           the  facility should be defined.

      5.    Risk management should include identification  and
           evaluation of potential hazards using valid  hazard
           evaluation techniques.  These must be regularly scheduled
           hazard evaluations involving key personnel,  not just
           weekly or monthly  inspections.

      €.    All process  and facility changes should be evaluated for
           their impact on safety; each process or facility change
           should be subjected to the same rigorous review as would
           be applied to a new process.  Authorization  for change
           should include new operating procedures, training, and
           maintenance  schedules.

     7.    Process and equipment integrity should be checked by
           periodic testing and inspection; this includes quality
           assurance.

     8.    Prompt investigation of all serious and potentially
           serious incidents should determine the cause(s) of the
           incident.   The investigators should make recommendations
           for corrective actions.

     9.    Training,  including testing and refresher courses, should
           be provided to all workers.

-------
    10.   Audits  of key elements should be conducted by technically
          qualified personnel; deficiencies and corrective actions
          should  be documented.

    11.   The facility should have methods to enhance its knowledge
          of process safety; that is, the facility  should have a
          method  to increase knowledge about the processes and
          equipment.

    12.   Emergency procedures should be in place to respond to a
          release and to contact the local community.   The facility
          should  also have ongoing programs of communications with
          the community.


    (Attachment From: REVEW OF EMERGENCY SYSTEMS, REPORT TO CONGRESS,
Section 30S(b) Title m Supeifund Amendments and Reauthorization Act,of 1986. final Report, pg.
16, June 1988 USEPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Wash. D.C 20460)

-------
                   NATIONAL ADVISORY COUNCIL FOR
              ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY

                  FY 1991 NACEPT COMMITTEE AGENDA

             CHEMICAL ACCIDENT PREVENTION COMMITTEE


The new Chemical Accident Prevention Committee is intended to develop mechanisms to identify
needs, prioritize them, focus resources and consensus building to address the needs; to identify
and focus attention on areas where opportunities exist to improve prevention practices; and to
enhance capabilities for development, evaluation and exchange of information on existing and new
practices.

No Focus Groups have been established yet.

-------
Environmental Financial
     Advisory Board

-------
 8:30

 9:00
9:00

9:15
              Environmental Financial Advisory Board
                              EFAB

                        Hotel Washington
                15th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
                     Washington, D.C.  20004
          October 23, 1990

              Agenda

Registration

Opening Remarks
Park View Room

Herb Barrack
Executive Director
               Welcome
               Introduction of New Members
               Overview of Day's Activities
               Approval of Minutes

 9:15 -  9:45  Future Directions for  1991

               Organizational
               EFAB Independence
               Procedures for  Board Operations
               EFAB Executive  Committee

               Focus of Recommendations
               Administrator's Direction
               Congressional Interests
               Scope of Issues
                                     Roy Torkelson
                                     Chairman
 9:45 - 10:45
      Environmental  Tax  Policy
      Statement
                               Roy  Torkelson
10:45 - 11:00  Review Workgroup Status

11:00 - 11:45  Concurrent Workgroup Meetings

               Goal:  To Develop Proposed
               Recommendations  and Reach
               Consensus for Directions
               in 1991

               Private Sector Incentives
               Public Sector Financing
               Small  Community  Strategies
               Environmental Tax Policy
                                     Workgroup Chairs
                                     Council Room
                                     Capitol Room
                                     Federal Room
                                     Park View Room

-------
                               -2-
11:45 -  1:00  Lunch
               Charles L. Grizzle, EPA
               Assistant Administrator
               for Administration and
               Resources Management

                         and

               Dr. William Cooper, Chairman
               of the Zoology Department,
               Michigan State University
Sky Room
 1:00 -  3:30  Continue Concurrent Workgroup
               Meetings

 3:30 -  4:00  Workgroup Sessions Summaries
               of Proposals for 1991

 4:00 -  4:15  Closing Remarks and
               Administrative Matters
Workgroup Chairs
Park View Room

Roy Torkelson
Herb Barrack

-------
          ENVIRONMENTAL FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD (EFAB)
                        MEMBERSHIP ROSTER
 EFAB Chair

 Mr.  Richard  Torkelson
 Deputy Commissioner  for Administration
 New  York State
 Department of Environmental Conservation
 50 Wolf Road
 Albany,  NY  12233

 EFAB Vice Chair

 Ms.  Frieda K. Wallison
 Partner
 Jones,  Day,  Reavis & Pogue
 1450 G.  Street, N.W.
 Washington,  DC   20005-2088

 EFAB Designated Federal Official

 Mr.  Herbert  Barrack
 Assistant Regional Administrator
  for Policy and Management
 U.S.  EPA Region 2
 26 Federal Plaza
 New  York,  NY 10278
Congressional

Honorable Beryl Anthony, Jr.
U.S. Representative
U.S. House of Representatives
1117 LHOB
Washington, DC   20515

Honorable Pete V. Domenici
U.S. Senate
434 SDOB
Washington, DC   20510
State Officials

Mr. Shockley D. Gardner, Jr.
Executive Director
Virginia Resources Authority
P.O. Box 1300
Richmond, VA  23210

-------
                                -2-

 Honorable  Anne  Meagher Northup
 Kentucky State  Legislator
 Kentucky State  Legislature
 3340  Lexington  Road
 Louisville,  KY    40206

 Mr. Richard  Torkelson
 Deputy  Commissioner  for Administration
 New York State
 Dept. of Environmental Conservation
 50 Wolf Road
 Albany,  NY   12233
 Local  Officials

 Mr. Jack  Bond
 County Manager
 Durham County Judicial  Building, 6th Fl.
 201 E. Main Street
 Durham, NC   27701

 Mr. Thomas Christensen
 Supervisor
 Charter Township of  Ironwood
 N. 15516  Black River Road
 Ironwood, MI   49938

 Mr. John  Gunyou
 City Finance Officer
 Finance Department
 331 City  Hall
 Minneapolis, MN   55415-1379

 Honorable William H. Hudnut, III
 Mayor  of  Indianapolis
 2501 City-County Building
 Indianapolis, IN   46204

 Honorable Rolland W. Lewis
 Mayor  of  Mount Vernon
 P.O. Box  641, City Hall
 Mount Vernon, IL   62864

 Academia

 Dr. William Fox
Associate Director
University of Tennessee
 Center for Business  & Economic Research
 1000 Volunteer Blvd., Suite 100, Glocker Bldg.
Knoxville, TN   37996-4170

-------
                                -3-

 Associations  and Organizations

 Ms.  Heather L.  Ruth
 President
 Public Securities Association
 40  Broad Street
 New York,  NY    10004-2373

 Ms.  Roberta H.  Savage
 Executive Director
 Association of  State &  Interstate
 Water  Pollution Control Administrators
 444  North Capitol Street NW,  Suite 330
 Washington, DC    20001-1512

 Mr.  Douglas P.  Wheeler
 Executive Vice  President
 The  Conservation Foundation
 1250 Twenty-Fourth Street, N.W.
 Washington, DC    20037

 Ms.  Elizabeth Ytell
 Director,  Water-Wastewater Division
 Rural  Community Assistance Corporation
 2125 19th  Street,  Suite 203
 Sacramento, CA    95818


 Federal  Agencies

 Mr.  John C. "Mac"  McCarthy
 State  Director
 U.S. Department of Agriculture
 Farmers  Home Administration
 3727 Government Street
 Alexandria, LA    71302
Business and Industry

Mr. J. James Barr
Vice President and Treasurer
American Water Works Company, Inc.
1025 Laurel Oak Road
P.O. Box 1770
Voorhees, NJ  08043

Mr. David W. Gilbert
Vice President
Envirotech Operating Services
P.O. Box 101
Birmingham, Al  35201

-------
                                -4-

 Mr.  Harvey Goldman
 Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer
 Air and Water Technologies Corporation
 P.O.  Box 1500
 Somerville,  N.J.  08876

 W.  Jack Hargett
 Vice  President Government Relations
 The Parsons Corporation
 1133  Fifteenth St.,  N.W.,  Suite 800
 Washington,  D.C.   20005
 Banking.  Finance,  and Legal

 Mr.  William H.  Chew
 Senior Vice President
 Municipal Finance  Department
 Standard  & Poor's  Corporation
 25  Broadway,  22nd  Floor
 New York,  New York  10004

 Mr.  Roger D.  Feldman,  P.C.
 Partner
 McDermott,  Will &  Emery
 1850 K. Street,  N.w.
 Washington,  DC   20006-2296

 Dr.  Richard Fenwick,  Jr.
 Vice President,  Corporate Economist
 CoBank National  Bank for Cooperatives
 National  Credit Services Division
 P.O. Box  5110
 Denver, CO   80217

 Mr.  William B.  James
 Associate  Director
 Prudential-Bache Capital Funding
 Public Finance  Department
 100  Gold Street
 New  York,  NY    10292

 Mr.  Robert  F. Mabon Jr.
 Morgan Stanley  and Company, Inc.
 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 39th Floor
 New  York, NY    10020

 Mr. Marlin  L. Mosby, Jr.
Managing Director
 Public Financial Management, Inc.
 4735 Spottswood Avenue, Suite 105
Memphis, Tennessee  38117

-------
                               -5-

Mr. George A. Raftelis
Partner
Ernst & Young
1500 Independence Center
Charlotte, NC  28246

Mr. Joseph Rosenblum
Vice President and Managing Director
Moody's Investors Service
Public Finance Department
99 Church Street
New York, NY   10007

Mr. Warren W. Tyler
Vice President
State Savings Bank
20 East Broad Street
Columbus, OH   43215

Ms. Frieda K. Wallison
Partner
Jones,  Day, Reavis & Pogue
1450 G.  Street,  N.W.
Washington, DC   20005-2088

-------
By-Laws

-------
                   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                     NATIONAL  ADVISORY COUNCIL  FOR
                ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY AND TECHNOLOGY

                                    BYLAWS
ARTICLE T;  NAME

Section 1. The name of the organization shall be the National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology (NACEPT).


ARTICLE TT!   AUTHORITY

The  National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT)  is
established within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of the Administrator,
under a Charter approved  by the Deputy Administrator and by the U.S. General Services
Administration.  NACEPT advises the Administrator of EPA consistent with its approved Charter
and the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Statutory requirements
provide for reconsideration of this Council every two years.


ARTICLE TTT;   MISSION AND  SCOPE

Founded in 1988, NACEPT is EPA's national advisory committee for the formulation of policy
and technology recommendations concerning the problems and opportunities shared among
business and industry, government, academia,  and non-governmental organizations such as
professional and trade associations, environmental groups, and labor organizations. The Council
is national and international in scope and consensus-building in nature.  Its purpose is to provide a
forum for debate and independent  advice and counsel to the EPA Administrator on Agency
progress in  designing, developing, and implementing the environmental management programs
that it administers.

NACEPTs  mission is to help EPA improve the design and implementation of environmental
programs by fostering more effective use of the financial and intellectual resources of all
institutions involved in management of the environment.  NACEPT is designed to promote
continuing consultation and cooperation among representatives of institutional participants  to
ensure a shared understanding of  the differing perspectives, concerns, and needs of each.
NACEPTs activities are directed to:

   1. Create a broad understanding in EPA and throughout the world of the full range of the
      institutions implementing roles in environmental pollution protection, preservation, and
      prevention;

   2. Promote continuing consultation and debate to ensure mutual understanding of each
      institution's needs and concerns;

   3. Through cooperation and consensus-building actions, maximize the extent to which each
      institutional participant understands, accepts, and fulfills its environmental protection
      responsibilities;

-------
    4.  Facilitate broad public sharing of information on environmental problems, alternative
       approaches, and implementation strategies for addressing them; and

    5.  Promote consideration by EPA of all potential sources of financing in developing
       leveraging and institutional strategies to address environmental needs.


 ARTICLE IV:  MEMBERSHIP

 Section  1:   Representation  of Sectors

 A. The Council membership shall have approximately equal representation by volunteers from
    Government, Business and Industry, Academia, and Nongovernmental Organizations such as
    professional and trade associations, environmental groups, and labor organizations.

 B. Representation shall not be limited to citizens of the United States.

 Section  2:   Classes of Participation

 A. Members shall be volunteers named by the EPA Deputy Administrator to occupy one of
    approximately 50 designated seats.  Members shall have full voting rights in all Council and
    Committee actions.

 B. Contributors shall be volunteers designated by the Chair of NACEPT or a standing
    Committee as a full participant in deliberations of designated Committees. Contributors may be
    permitted to vote with Members at the Committee level, but may not vote in plenary meetings
    of NACEPT.

 C. Experts shall be volunteers who are invited by the Chair of NACEPT or a standing
    Committee chairperson to provide specialized information or assistance to NACEPT.
    Experts have no voting rights.

 Section  3:  Terms

 A. NACEPT Members shall be appointed by the EPA Deputy Administrator for terms not to
    exceed 3 years.

 B. A NACEPT Member may be reappointed by the EPA Deputy Administrator for a second
    consecutive term not to exceed 3 years.

 Section  4:  Methodology for Appointment

A.  Nominations to fill expiring terms, or other vacancies as described in Section 5, shall be
    solicited annually by publication in the Federal Register. Nominations will be solicited from
    the sectors listed in Article 4, Section I.A., and from the public at large. The Council may
    also use other informal approaches in order to identify potential new NACEPT Members.

B.  All seats on the Council are filled by formal appointment by EPA's Deputy Administrator.

Section 5:  Termination of Membership

A.  Members missing two consecutive plenary meetings of the Council may be removed by the
    Chair unless they provide an acceptable written excuse.

-------
 B.  Members who change their employment status may be removed in order to maintain balance
    among the sectors of membership.

 C.  Members may be removed for cause, as determined by EPA's Deputy Administrator, when
    they arc determined to have violated the Ethics in Government Act or when their continued
    participation would reflect unfavorably on the overall actions of the Council.

 Section  6:  Compensation

 A.  As voluntary advisors to EPA, NACEPT Members, Contributors, and Experts are limited to
    reimbursement for travel expenses only, subject to federal travel requirements.


 ARTICLE V:  OFFICERS

 Section  It  Council Chair

 A.  The Council shall have a chairperson selected from among the Members. The Chair shall be
    appointed by the Deputy Administrator.

 B.  The Chair shall serve a 2-year term of office. The Chair may be reappointed to consecutive
    terms not to exceed 6 years.

 Section  2:  Council Vice Chair

 A.  The Council shall have a Vice Chair, selected from among the Members. The Vice Chair shall
    be appointed by the Deputy Administrator.

 B.  The Vice Chair shall serve in the absence of the Chair and undertake other ongoing
    responsibilities as determined with the EPA Designated Federal Official and the Chair.

 C.  The Vice Chair shall serve a 2-year term of office, coterminous with that of the Chair. The
    Vice Chair may be reappointed to consecutive terms not to exceed 6 years.

 Section 3:  Committee Chairs and  Vice Chairs

 A.  Each  standing Committee shall have a Chair and Vice Chair appointed by the Council Chair.

 B.  Each Committee Chair and Vice Chair shall serve a 2-year term of office coterminous with that
    of the NACEPT Chair. Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs may be reappointed to consecutive
    terms not to exceed six years.

 C.  The terms of the Committee Chair and Vice Chair shall coincide to the maximum extent
    possible.

 Section  4:  Designated Federal  Officials

A.  The Director of EPA's Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM) shall be the
    Designated Federal Official for NACEPT. The Designated Federal Official or the Deputy
    Designated Federal Official serves as Executive Director for NACEPT and supervises the EPA
    committee management staff.

B.  Each standing Committee shall have a Designated Federal Official who shall serve as
    Committee Director.

-------
ARTICLE VI:  COMMITTEES

Section  1:   Creation of Committees

A.  The number, designation, mission, scope, and membership of standing or special Committees
    at any time shall be subject to agreement between the Executive Committee and the NACEPT
    Designated Federal Official.

B.  The Council shall operate principally through use of standing Committees. The full Council
    generally shall not act unless proposals have been evaluated through established standing or
    special Committee processes.

Section  2:   Executive Committee

A.  There shall be a NACEPT Executive Committee consisting of the NACEPT Chair and Vice
    Chair, and the Ckair and Vice Chair of each standing Committee.

B.  The Executive Committee shall be responsible for strategic planning and for coordination of
    activity among Committees. The Executive Committee shall assure that multi-year strategic
    plans are developed and maintained for each Committee and for the Council as a whole.

C.  The Executive Committee shall be empowered to act for the Council, subject to the advice and
    consent of the Members. Any actions taken shall be presented to the Members at the next
    NACEPT meeting.

Section  3:   Full  Council Meetings

A.  The Council shall meet in plenary session at least semiannually.

B.  Plenary meetings shall be held between the October-January and March-May time periods of
    each fiscal year.

Section  4:   Committee Meetings

A.  The Executive Committee shall meet at least semiannually, to the extent possible at a point
    midway between plenary Council meetings. These meetings shall be at the call of the
    NACEPT Chair, a majority of the Chairs of standing Committees, or a majority of the
    NACEPT Council, subject to the administrative approval of the Designated Federal Official.

B.  Standing Committees and their subcommittees (focus groups or working groups) shall meet as
    needed at the call of the Committee Chair or a majority of the Committee membership, subject
    to administrative approval of the Designated Federal Official.

Section  3:   Special  Meetings  of  NACEPT

A.  A special meeting may be scheduled for any purpose as needed. Special meetings must involve
    at least two NACEPT Members, including a designated chairperson, and be subject to the
    administrative approval of the Designated Federal Official.

Section  6:   Notice of Meetings

A.  It shall be the policy of NACEPT to encourage maximum public participation and to operate in
    accordance with the FACA open meeting rule.

-------
B.  A notice inviting public comments and attendance shall be published in the Federal Register by
    the Designated Federal Official not less than 15 days before a meeting of NACEPT or of any of
    its standing Committees.

C.  This requirement shall apply to other NACEPT activities, including meetings of the Executive
    Committee and subcommitees (woricing groups and focus groups of standing Committees), at
    the option of the responsible Chair or Designated Federal Official.

Section 7:   Sunshine  Rule

A.  All meetings held under the auspices of NACEPT shall be open to attendance by the general
    public.

Section 8:   Minutes

A.  Minutes shall be taken at sal meetings.

B.  Meeting Minutes shall be submitted by the Designated Federal Official to the membership for
    its approval at the next scheduled meeting.

C.  The need for a verbatim  transcript of any meeting shall be determined by the Designated
    Federal Official.

D.  Minutes, once approved by a Committee or the Council, shall be signed as a true copy by the
    Chair and made available for public information.

E.  A true copy of the Minutes of any meeting shall be provided to the public on request  A copy
    of the Minutes of all meetings of NACEPT and its Committees shall be available for review
    during regular business hours at the office of the Designated Federal Official.

Section 9:  Quorum

A.  Members attending a meeting shall constitute a quorum for transaction of business.


ARTICLE VII:  RECOMMENDATIONS

Section 1:  Approval  bv Committee

A.  A proposed recommendation may be brought forward by a Committee at any time.

B.  A majority vote by Members present at a Committee meeting shall be sufficient to forward a
    proposed recommendation to the full Council.

Section 2:  Approval  bv Council

A.  A proposed recommendation shall be accepted for formal review if approved by a majority vote
    of those present at a meeting of the full Council or by mail to the full Council.

B.  Each accepted draft recommendation shall be mailed to all Members for review for a minimum
    of 30 days. A Member shall be assumed to approve the recommendation if no comment is
    received by the Designated Federal Official at the end of the 30-day period.

-------
C.  A recommendation shall be transmitted to the Administrator if a majority of all members
    approve. Significant minority views may be transmitted with an approved recommendation at
    the option of the NACEPT Chair.

D.  Final Council action on a proposed Committee recommendation shall be completed within a
    maximum of 90 calendar days.

E.  The Chair shall transmit an approved recommendation directly to the EPA Administrator and
    the Deputy Administrator within 10 working days of its approval by the Council.

F.  The Council expects that the Administrator shall respond to recommendations in a timely
    manner. The Chair shall request responses and status reports from the Agency, as appropriate.


ARTICLE  VIII:  RULES OF ORP^R

Roberts Rules of Order and Procedure shall govern at all meetings on all matters relating to order
and procedure.


ARTICLE IX:   AMENDMENTS

These Bylaws may be added to, amended, or repealed in whole or in part by a vote of at least two-
thirds of the Members at any regular meeting, provided that notice of intention to do so shall have
been given to each Member at least 30 days preceding such meeting.

-------