United States Policy, Planning, 230-R-92-OOf^
Environmental Protection And Evaluation May 1992
Agency ((PM-219)
&EPA Report To The President
On The 90-Day Review of
Regulations
Overview Volume
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAY 51992
THE ADMINISTRATOR
The Honorable George Bush
President of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear Mr. President:
Last January you asked us to undertake a 90-day review of
our regulations and programs to accelerate actions that can
eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens or promote economic
growth.
The results of our effort speak for themselves: in this
report, which I am pleased to transmit to you today, we describe
88 actions that we have taken in the 90-day period or will take
in the near term. These actions should save the economy $4-8
billion per year, or between 3 and 6 percent of the $130 billion
that the United States is spending this year on environmental
protection. They will also stimulate economic growth in a number
of ways.
The 90-day period, which I have characterized as "pause and
review," afforded us the opportunity both to look back at some
existing regulations and to accelerate initiatives with an eye to
reducing economic burdens. Your directive provided a coherent
vision that mobilized our energy and creativity.
The actions and commitments presented in this report build
on our regulatory and institutional reform efforts of the last
several years. From the start, we have sought to integrate our
environmental and economic concerns, to harness the market on
behalf of the environment, and to apply cost-effective methods in
meeting our regulatory responsibilities. We have sought to
refocus our attention on the most serious risks to public health
and the environment. We have pursued inclusionary rulemaking,
involving all the relevant parties up front as we craft a
workable, sensible regulation, rather than following the
traditional pattern that more typically entails confrontation and
costly litigation.
In undertaking our 90-Day Review, we have taken a hard look
at the many changes taking place in the world around us that
-------
alter old assumptions and practices concerning the economy and
the environment. We have consulted widely with the regulated
community — the parties most directly affected by environmental
regulations and policies. And we have listened to scholars from
research centers and others who follow our work.
In short, our actions will:
1. reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on small
communities and small businesses;
2. expand the use of market-based approaches;
3. reduce barriers to the development and use of natural
gas and other relatively low-risk products;
4. reorient hazardous waste programs toward high risk
wastes; and
5. spur development of new technologies and promote the
export of U.S. environmental technologies and services.
These actions do not represent any lessening of our
Administration's commitment to a clean environment. The
activities we are initiating should stimulate business and trade,
and should enable us to do our job — protecting health and the
environment — in better, more cost-effective ways.
To remain healthy, all institutions, public and private,
must constantly review their efforts to be sure they are meeting
their stated objectives. EPA has been and remains committed to
continuous improvement. The seeds of some of the actions we
describe in this report were sown some time ago. Other actions
were formulated entirely during the 90-Day Review. We will
continue to look for ways to improve our economy and our
environment. This report is part of a long-term agenda for EPA
to assure the cost-effectiveness and credibility of environmental
protection.
Many of our actions will require a good deal of effort in
the coming months. We look forward to working with you to
deliver on these commitments to the American people.
Respectfully,
William K.
Enclosure
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
CHAPTER ONE: Environmental Protection and the Economy 12
1. EPA's Assignment From the President 12
2. The Costs and Benefits of Environmental
Regulation 14
3. Current and Projected Environmental
Expenditures 15
4 . Current Environmental Challenges 18
5. Toward More Efficient and Effective
Environmental Policy 19
6 . EPA' s 90-Day Review Process 22
CHAPTER TWO: The 90-Day Review: Actions and Commitments 26
1. Overview 26
2 . Program Summaries 27
2.1. Air and Radiation 27
2.2. Prevention, Pesticides,
and Toxic Substances 30
2.3. Solid Waste and Emergency Response.... 32
2.4. Water 35
3 . Priority Areas 38
3.1. Market Incentives 38
3.2. Biotechnology 39
3.3. Natural Gas 40
3.4. Technology Innovation 41
3.5. Export Promotion 41
3.6. Small Communities 43
3.7. Small Businesses 44
3.8. Inclusionary Rulemaking 45
3.9. Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) Reforms 45
CHAPTER THREE: Other EPA Activities That Serve the
Objectives of the President's Request 46
1. Strategic Planning and Budgeting 46
2. Applying Total Quality Management 48
3 . Permitting Reform 49
4. Reducing Reporting Burdens 50
5. Better Science in Agency Decision-Making...51
6. Better Economics in Agency
Decision-Making 52
7 - Voluntary Conservation and Emission
Reduction Programs 52
-------
REFERENCES 54
EXHIBITS 55
INDEX OF EPA ACTIONS AND COMMITMENTS 62
RULES ACTIVELY UNDER DEVELOPMENT WITH STATUTORY/JUDICIAL
DEADLINES 87
EPA 90-DAY REGULATORY REVIEW TASK FORCE 97
APPENDIX SEPARATE VOLUME
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE ECONOMY
On January 28, 1992, President Bush asked the heads of federal
regulatory departments and agencies to review their programs over
a 90-day period and accelerate initiatives that would eliminate
unnecessary regulatory burdens or speed economic growth. The
President was concerned that "excessive regulation and red tape
have imposed an enormous burden on our economy," and that "because
of the constant pressure to develop new programs, we are not doing
nearly enough, to review and revise existing programs" (See Exhibits
1 and 2).
This report presents the results of the Environmental
Protection Agency's 90-Day Review effort. It describes 88 actions
that the Agency has already taken during the 90 days or will take
in the months ahead. These actions, summarized below, would reduce
regulatory costs by $4 - 8 billion annually (see Figure E.I).
EPA shares the President's concerns about the economic effects
of environmental regulation. The Agency recognizes the strong
links between the environment and the economy. In the long term,
the two are interdependent. A healthy environment supports
economic activity, and, conversely, economic growth provides
resources for environmental protection programs. The challenge for
EPA is to develop policies and regulations that integrate economic
and environmental objectives and maximize social welfare.
The rising cost of environmental protection heightens the need
to meet this challenge. Americans now spend over $130 billion per
year to protect the environment, and this amount is expected to
increase by 30 - 40% by the year 2000 (see Figure E.2). The
magnitude of these expenditures, and their potential effect on
economic growth, make it critical to ensure that we make our
environmental investments wisely.
To achieve this goal, the Agency is modifying its regulatory
development, budgeting, strategic planning, and research processes
to:
• set risk-based priorities for environmental protection and
devote resources to the most serious environmental problems;
• craft programs, within its administrative discretion, that
maximize the net social benefits to the American public;
-------
Figure E.1
Annualized Cost Savings of Environmental Initiatives
for EPA Program Offices Under the 90-Day Review
7.72
I Low Case
I High Case
Air and
Radiation
Solid
Waste and
Emergency
Response
Water
Prevention,
Pesticides
and Toxics
TOTAL
Source: EPA economic analyses and unpublished data.
Figure E.2
Annualized Costs for Pollution Abatement and Control by Medium
200,000
180,000
160,000
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
I Air & Radiation
I Water
I Solid & Hazardous D Chemicals
Waste
I Multi-Media
Source: EPA, 1990a; EPA economic analyses and unpublished data
Note: Costs for Pesticides and Toxic Substances are included under chemical and multi-media categories.
-------
• encourage the most efficient means of addressing environmental
problems; and
• promote economic growth and the international competitiveness
of U.S. industry.
Many of this Administration's programs reflect EPA's
commitment to these objectives. For example, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, an initiative of President Bush's, employs
flexible, performance-based, cost-minimizing regulatory approaches .
Most notable are the marketable permits provisions of the acid rain
program. In the non-regulatory arena, EPA is pursuing activities
that benefit both the economy and the environment — promoting the
export of U.S. environmental goods and services, for example.
President Bush's request for a 90-day review of regulations
provided EPA with an opportunity to accelerate activities that
promise to promote economic growth, and to look broadly at existing
programs for additional opportunities to meet environmental goals
more efficiently. EPA identified numerous ways to reduce the costs
of achieving the nation's environmental objectives. In many cases,
the activities described in this report will result in
environmental improvements while helping the economy.
All of these actions are fully consistent with the Agency's
legal mandates and environmental goals. The Agency faces an
extensive list of statutory and court-ordered deadlines (see "Rules
Actively Under Development with Statutory/Judicial Deadlines" near
the end of this document). Meeting all legal mandates on schedule
has been and continues to be an Agency priority, and the activities
described in this report do not in any way hinder progress toward
that goal.
Beyond the specific actions in this report, the Agency is
continuing an across-the-board effort to improve regulations and
policies. The Agency is strengthening in-house scientific and
economic capabilities to ensure that regulations are based on sound
analysis and that the costs and benefits of regulations are well
documented. The Agency is also working to shift priorities toward
high risk problems through a strategic planning and budgeting
process, and to evaluate the effectiveness of existing programs
through the development and use of environmental indicators.
The 90-Day Review is particularly timely given recent changes
in the nature of EPA's work. Further improvements in environmental
protection are likely to be increasingly costly. Efforts to
control stormwater pollution, smog, and a variety of other problems
are increasingly targeting numerous small sources, such as farms
and dry cleaners. The Agency also devotes a growing amount of
effort to global environmental issues such as upper atmospheric
ozone and climate change — issues that provide new challenges yet
-------
also present potential business opportunities. As the Agency
addresses these and other emerging environmental problems, it will
be particularly important to integrate environmental and economic
objectives.
II. SUMMARY OF EPA 90-DAY ACTIONS AND COMMITMENTS
EPA's 90-Day Review has resulted in 88 actions and commitments.
These reforms will reduce economic burdens and promote growth in
five major ways:
• reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on small communities and
small businesses;
• expand the use of market-based approaches;
o reduce barriers to the development and use of natural gas and
other relatively low risk products;
• reorient hazardous waste programs toward high risk wastes; and
• spur development of new environmental technologies and promote
the export of U.S. environmental technologies and services.
Highlights of EPA activities in each of these areas are presented
below and listed in Table E.I. Where possible, preliminary
estimates of annualized cost savings are provided. A complete list
of activities (including cost savings estimates where available) is
provided in the " Index of EPA Actions and Commitments," near the
end of this document, and a detailed description of each of these
actions can be found in the Appendix to this volume.
1. Reduce Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens on Small Communities and
Small Businesses.
Environmental regulation can be particularly burdensome for
small communities and small businesses. These entities typically
do not have the technical and financial resources of large
municipalities or companies, nor can they achieve the same
economies of scale. Yet the ability of these entities to prosper
is vital to the health of our economy and the environment. Small
business is the source of 50% of the jobs in this country. Nearly
90% of all the government jurisdictions EPA works with serve fewer
than 10,000 people.
-------
TABLE E.1: HIGHLIGHTS OF EPA 90-DAY ACTIONS AND COMMITMENTS
Total number of actions and commitments: 88; total estimated savings: $4-8 billion per year.
1. Reduce Unnecessary Regulatory Burdens on Small Communities and Small Businesses
Regulatory Flexibility Act: revised internal EPA guidance to further tailor all Agency regulatory requirements to the needs
and capacities of small businesses and communities.
Stormwater regulation: promulgated rule which exempts small municipal dischargers of industrial stormwater and reduces
sampling and reporting requirements. Projected savings: $5-10 million annually.
TRI. CERCLA. EPCRA release reporting: will examine ways to eliminate unnecessary reporting requirements.
Perchloroethvlene: will propose to exempt this dry cleaning solvent and degreaser from regulation as a contributor to ozone.
Underground storage tanks: will propose rules to expand the availability of financial responsibility compliance mechanisms
for local governments. Projected savings: $30-70 million annually. Will propose extending financial responsibility
compliance deadlines to 1999. Projected savings: $75-150 million annually.
Superfund liability for financial institutions: clarified scope of liability to improve availability of capital.
2. Expand the Use of Market-Based Approaches
Mobile - stationary source trading: will issue guidance allowing states, cities and companies to buy older, more polluting cars
to reduce mobile source air emissions in lieu of requiring more expensive controls on stationary sources of air pollutants, and
permitting other mobile - stationary source trades. Projected savings: $100-750 million annually.
Marketable air quality permits: is assisting Los Angeles-area sources of volatile organics and nitrogen oxides develop a
market to buy and sell emission rights to reduce ozone levels. Projected savings: $270-430 million annually.
Water pollutant discharge trading: is promoting opportunities for point and non-point sources of water pollutants in the same
watershed to trade discharge amounts to improve water quality more cost-effectively.
Pricing municipal waste management services: will provide information needed to consider and establish market-based
municipal solid waste management systems.
State grants for Clean Air market incentives: is providing five states grants to develop their own air quality market
incentives.
Privatize municipal wastewater systems: is examining economic benefits of and regulatory barriers to privatizing wastewater
treatment systems.
3. Reduce Barriers to Developing and Using Relatively Low Risk Products
Natural gas: will issue final "WEPCo" rule allowing utilities to modify existing plants without having to undergo "new
source" review. Projected savings: $400 million-1.1 billion annually. Will propose emission standards for natural gas
vehicles to make them more competitive with vehicles using other fuels.
Biotechnology: will propose new or revised FIFRA, TSCA and RCRA regulations to remove barriers to the development and
safe use of biotechnology products.
Low-risk products and pesticides: will propose changes to TSCA Premanufacture Notification Exemptions (PMN) and FIFRA
requirements to accelerate production and marketing of low-risk products and pesticides. Projected savings for PMN rule:
$10 million annually.
4. Reorient Hazardous Waste Programs Toward Controlling High Risk Wastes
RCRA reforms: will implement 23 actions to meet four major objectives: 1) Target RCRA on waste posing significant risk;
e.g., proposed rule to allow low risk wastes to exit from the Subtitle C system. Projected savings: $60 million-1.8 billion
annually; 2) Expedite the pace of cleanups and eliminate unnecessary costs; e.g, will propose to establish treatment standards
for contaminated soils.- Projected savings (overlap with above): $2.4-3.2 billion annually. Will also propose to suspend the
toxicity characteristic rule for non-underground storage tank petroleum-contaminated media. Projected savings: $75-150
million annually, 3) Tailor management standards to the nature of the risks being managed; 4) Streamline permitting and
encourage innovative technologies.
Accelerate site clean-ups subject to Superfund and TSCA: Will propose to amend PCB regulations to expedite clean-ups and
reduce costs. Projected savings: $500 million-1 billion annually. Testing new Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model at nine
pilot sites.
5. Spur Development of New Technologies and Promote the Export of Environmental Technologies and Services
Technology Innovation: will define new technology needs and form partnerships with industry to meet these needs.
Export Promotion: will work with private and governmental organizations to help U.S. environmental companies identify and
develop new markets; e.g. established U.S. Environmental Training Institute.
-------
In response to a growing concern about the cumulative burden
of environmental regulations on small entities, EPA revised, in
April, its internal guidance for implementing the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. The new guidance requires Agency programs to
expand efforts to tailor requirements to the needs of small
businesses and small communities. This action will heighten
attention to small entities throughout the Agency's programs. In
addition, EPA is taking the following near-term actions to reduce
unnecessary burdens on small communities and businesses.
EPA published a Stormwater Implementation Rule on April 2
which reduces the burden of previous rules in various ways,
including lessening sampling and reporting requirements and
exempting small municipal dischargers.
Projected savings: $ 5 - 10 million.
EPA will propose to eliminate unnecessary reporting
requirements in several programs. Specifically, EPA will
issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in early
summer, 1992, announcing its intention to evaluate options for
reducing Toxic Release Inventory reporting burdens for certain
small releasers. EPA will also lead an inter-Agency effort to
streamline extensive and potentially overlapping release
reporting requirements, many of which effect small entities,
required under several statutes, including the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA or "Superfund") and the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA).
EPA will propose, in June, to exempt perchloroethylene, a dry
cleaning solvent and degreaser, from regulation as an ozone
precursor. Promulgation of this proposal would allow states
to exempt such sources from current ozone state implementation
plan rules.
EPA will reduce burdens for underground storage tank (UST)
owners in two ways.
EPA will issue regulations in July to provide additional
financial responsibility compliance mechanisms for local
governments.
Projected savings $ 30 - 70 million.
EPA will propose in November to extend financial
responsibility compliance deadlines to 1999.
Projected savings $ 75 - 150 million.
EPA published, on April 29, regulations clarifying the scope
of the exemption from cleanup liability under CERCLA for
financial institutions that hold security interests in
property contaminated with hazardous waste. As a result,
small businesses in particular will have greater access to
-------
funding for improvements and modernization — capital that
otherwise would have been restricted by lenders due to
Superfund liability concerns.
2. Expand the Use of Market-Based Approaches
Market incentives were a special focus of the Review. In his
memorandum initiating the 90-Day Review, President Bush
specifically stated: "Regulations should incorporate market
mechanisms .to the maximum extent possible." Market mechanisms can
often provide the most efficient means of achieving environmental
goals.
Over the last several years, the Agency has placed increasing
emphasis on the use of market mechanisms. The 90-Day Review has
provided a further impetus to this effort. As a result of the
Review, EPA is implementing several market-based programs and
committing to pilot or study additional programs. Most important:
EPA released an information document in March giving states,
cities and companies the option of scrapping old, high-
polluting automobiles in place of more costly measures to
satisfy certain emission-reduction requirements. The Agency
is currently developing guidance for additional mobile -
stationary source trading actions.
Projected savings (for all programs): $ 100 - 750 million.
EPA is helping the South Coast Air Quality Management District
in Southern California to develop and implement a marketable
permits program for volatile organic compounds and nitrogen
oxides as a cost-effective approach to attainment of the ozone
standard.
Projected savings: $ 270 - 430 million.
EPA has analyzed the potential use of point — non-point
source water pollution trading and, starting with a national
meeting on April 27-28, will promote cost-effective watershed
management through this approach.
EPA will develop a draft full-cost accounting guide to
municipal solid waste pricing this spring and begin a
demonstration project to investigate the effect of price on
waste generation.
EPA will fund five grants to states, totaling $610,000, to
help them develop their own economic incentives programs under
the Clean Air Act.
EPA will determine how the economy can benefit from
privatization of municipal wastewater systems and will promote
privatization efforts where appropriate.
-------
3. Reduce Barriers to the Development and Use of Relatively Low
Risk Products
Some products are less harmful to the environment than others
that are used for the same purpose. For example, natural gas is
considered a relatively clean fuel because it generates less air
pollution than other fossil fuels per unit of energy produced.
Regulations can provide barriers to the production and use of such
products, particularly when regulations governing existing
commodities and pollution sources are less stringent than those
addressing new products and facilities. The activities described
below seek to remove regulatory biases against emerging low risk
products and processes, or to tilt the regulatory playing field in
their favor.
EPA is taking steps to further the use of natural gas,
including:
EPA will shortly issue a final rule (the "WEPCo" rule)
allowing electric utilities to make certain changes at
existing power plants without having to undergo expensive
and time-consuming "new source" review. This will reduce
impediments to the expanded use of natural gas.
Projected savings: $ 400 million - 1.1 billion.
EPA will propose emissions standards for natural gas
vehicles by June that will allow them to compete on an
equal basis with other vehicles.
EPA is removing barriers to the development and safe use of
biotechnology products, since these substances can pose less
risk to the environment and may be more effective than their
alternatives such as conventional chemicals. Specifically,
EPA will reduce its requirements for microbial pesticides
under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), encourage the development of microorganisms for uses
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and reduce
barriers under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and TSCA to the use of bioremediation technologies.
EPA is streamlining the review process for certain pesticides
and toxic substances that, based on experience with similar
substances, may pose lower risks. Specifically:
EPA will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in July
1992 to amend the Premanufacture Notification Exemption
Rules under TSCA, to reduce costs for manufacturers of
low risk substances, and to speed marketing and
production of such substances.
Projected savings: $ 10 million.
8
-------
EPA will publish in May 1992 a notice in the Federal
Register requesting public input on a project to
encourage the development and use of pesticide products
that present reduced risks compared to those they would
replace.
4. Reorient Hazardous Waste Programs Toward High Risk Wastes
The Agency is proposing significant reforms to its hazardous
waste management and site cleanup programs. Proposed revisions to
RCRA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA — commonly referred to as Superfund), and
TSCA will better target regulations toward high risk activities and
facilitate cleanups at abandoned and active waste sites.
Most of the reforms address Subtitle C of RCRA, which governs
the management and disposal of hazardous waste. The current
program was developed under tight time frames and was based on
limited technical information. The proposed reforms reflect a wide
consensus about the need for program refinements. Through 23
separate actions, the Agency seeks to accomplish four main
objectives:
First, refocus the RCRA regulatory system on high risk waste
activities. As part of this effort, EPA will soon issue a
notice of proposed rulemaking under the RCRA hazardous waste
program to allow low risk wastes to exit from the Subtitle C
system.
Projected savings: $ 60 million - 1.8 billion.
Second, expedite the pace of cleanups at RCRA facilities and
eliminate unnecessary costs. This initiative includes
promulgating a final rule defining two new unit types to
facilitate cleanups. Most notably, EPA will propose in Fall,
1992, to modify treatment standards for contaminated soils in
order to establish a health-based system that will encourage
more innovative and cost-effective treatment technologies.
Projected savings: $ 2.4 - 3.2 billion.1
Third, tailor RCRA management standards to better fit risks
posed by waste management activities. Reforms in this area
would also be extended to research and development operations.
Specific reforms would reduce technical barriers to the use of
innovative technology at RCRA sites.
Fourth, streamline the RCRA permit system to facilitate
The cost savings associated with this action overlap with
those for the previous action — the two are not necessarily
additive.
-------
cleanups and the post-closure permit process. Reforms will
explore ways to grant greater flexibility in administering
permits.
In addition to these reforms, EPA is proposing other changes
under Superfund and TSCA, as well as RCRA, to speed cleanups of
contaminated sites. Most important:
EPA is piloting the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model to
speed actions to reduce immediate risks at both National
Priority List (NPL) and non-NPL sites. The Agency has
recently initiated nine pilot projects and will soon begin
others.
Under TSCA, EPA will propose to amend the PCS disposal rules
to provide increased flexibility in managing cleanups of PCB-
contaminated sites. This would expedite cleanup activity and
reduce costs.
Projected savings: $ 500 million - 1 billion.
Under RCRA, EPA will issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in
June 1992 to suspend the Toxicity Characteristic Rule for non-
UST petroleum-contaminated soils. This action will make
cleanups easier to accomplish.
Projected savings: $ 75 - 150 million.
5. Spur Development of New Environmental Technologies and Promote
the Export of U.S. Environmental Technologies and Services
EPA is aiding economic growth in two additional ways. First,
EPA is promoting the development of innovative environmental
technologies to reduce the cost of complying with environmental
regulations. EPA is establishing an in-house council to define new
technology needs, form partnerships with industry to meet these
needs, and recognize outstanding innovations.
Second, in a complementary effort, the Agency is assisting
U.S. companies in capturing growing international markets for
environmental technologies and services. The potential for
expanding exports in this area is tremendous. The global market
for environmental goods and services is estimated at $200 billion
per year, and is expected to be growing at an annual rate of 5.5%.
EPA will launch efforts to expand overseas markets for U.S.
environmental goods and services by "building capacity" in
developing countries and capitalizing on EPA's strong international
reputation to help U.S. companies enter into new markets. EPA is
organizing efforts to promote U.S. exports in collaboration with
the private sector and other agencies, through: the U.S.
Environmental Training Institute; the Asian Environmental
Partnership; the development of an environment and energy
10
-------
technology clearinghouse; new technical information packages for
developing countries; and other outreach efforts.
III. NEXT STEPS
To remain healthy, all institutions — public and private —
must constantly review their efforts to determine if they are
meeting their objectives and to make further improvements. EPA is
committed to continuous improvement. The 90-Day Review was an
occasion for an intensified effort to increase the effectiveness of
our environmental programs and find ways to achieve our goals more
efficiently.
The ideas developed during this review came from the public as
well as staff and managers throughout the Agency. The proposals
are in many cases the result of extensive efforts to involve all
interested parties in the policy development process. EPA is
committed to sponsoring open and informed dialogues on
environmental issues, both through formal comment processes and
other processes.
In response to an Agency Federal Register notice concerning
the 90-Day Review, EPA received over 700 comments from about 220
organizations or individuals within the comment period. These
comments, summarized in the Appendix to this report, contained many
good suggestions from the public regarding possible areas of
improvement. Because of the short time available, the Agency
developed specific actions and commitments in the limited number of
areas discussed above.
As the Agency identifies additional targets for its continuous
improvement reviews, it is important to have the insights of the
public regarding situations where the burdens imposed by our
policies are greater than necessary to achieve the environmental
objective. Sometimes relatively small changes in EPA's policies or
operating procedures can have a very positive benefit for the
regulated community or the economy as a whole, while having no
significant adverse impact on the environment. The Agency is
continuing to search for such opportunities, and remains open to
further suggestions.
11
-------
CHAPTER 1
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND THE ECONOMY
1. EPA's Assignment from the President
On January 28, 1992, President Bush asked the heads of federal
regulatory departments and agencies to review existing programs as
well as those under development over a 90-day period and accelerate
initiatives that would eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens or
speed economic growth. The President was concerned that "excessive
regulation and red tape have imposed an enormous burden on our
economy," and that "because of the constant pressure to develop new
programs, we are not doing nearly enough to review and revise
existing programs" (see Exhibits 1 and 2).
This report presents the results of the Environmental
Protection Agency's 90-Day Review of existing and pending
activities. It describes 88 actions that the Agency has taken
during the 90 days, or is planning to take in the months ahead.
These actions, summarized in Chapter 2, would reduce regulatory
costs by $4 - 8 billion annually.
EPA shares the President's concerns about the effect of
environmental regulation on economic growth. EPA recognizes that,
over the long term, environmental protection and economic growth
are interdependent. Economic growth provides the resources
necessary for environmental protection. Conversely, a healthy
environment supports economic activity. For an example of what
happens when the environment is overlooked in the pursuit of
economic growth, one has only to look at Eastern Europe.
Yet environmental and economic objectives can compete. The
actions required by regulations consume investment capital, time,
and other resources. In two independent studies (both funded in
part by EPA), researchers found that the costs imposed by
environmental regulation have a noticeable negative effect on
economic growth, as traditionally defined. (Hazilla and Kopp, 1990;
Jorgenson and Wilcoxen, 1990).
Under what conditions are the costs of environmental
regulation justified? Properly structured environmental regulation
improves economic efficiency. As discussed below, environmental
regulations have been found to save the national economy billions
of dollars a year by decreasing health care costs, increasing human
and agricultural productivity, and decreasing capital maintenance
and replacement costs. The challenge for EPA is to develop
policies and regulations that integrate economic and environmental
objectives to maximize social welfare and improve the quality of
life.
12
-------
EPA must meet this challenge in a way that is consistent with
its legal mandates. Improving economic efficiency — maximizing
the difference between benefits and costs — is only one objective
of environmental policies. Other values, including equity and
citizens' rights, are often weighed in the political process. The
resulting laws determine in part how EPA may set regulatory goals
and choose regulatory approaches.
The laws are diverse in this regard. Some, such as the Toxic
Substances Control Act, direct EPA to balance the benefits and
costs of its actions. Others direct the Agency to protect the
public health without regard to cost. For example, under the Clean
Air Act, EPA must set standards for ambient air pollutants which
protect the public health with "an ample margin of safety." In
addition, the statutes EPA implements are often very specific about
the regulatory approach the Agency should use in achieving these
goals. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, for example, mandate
a market-based approach to controlling sulfur dioxide emissions,
and a technology-based approach to controlling air toxics.
While varied in the factors they allow EPA to consider in
implementing the law, the dozen major federal statutes EPA
administers all call for strong protection of human health and the
environment — a call that is supported by the American people. A
poll conducted in December, 1991, by the Roper Organization found
that a majority (55%) agreed with the statement that "protecting
the environment is so important that requirements and standards
cannot be too high, and continuing improvement must be made
regardless of cost." Significantly, only 44% agreed with the same
statement in 1980 (Roper, 1992). Other studies report similar
findings. While these studies do not purport to measure the way
citizens would balance explicit environmental - economic tradeoffs,
they do indicate a substantial and growing commitment to investing
in environmental improvements.
President Bush's request for a 90-day review of regulations
has provided EPA with an occasion to examine the manner in which
its policies and regulations affect the balance between the economy
and the environment and to make needed improvements. All of the
actions EPA is taking or committing to take are fully consistent
with the Agency's legal mandates and environmental goals. The
Agency is facing an extensive list of statutory and court-ordered
deadlines (see "Rules Actively Under Development with
Statutory/Judicial Deadlines" near the end of this volume).
Meeting all of our legal mandates on schedule has been and
continues to be an Agency priority, and the activities described in
this report do not in any way hinder progress toward that goal.
The remainder of this chapter provides background for the
review effort.- Section 2 discusses the costs and benefits of
environmental regulations; Section 3 reviews current and projected
environmental expenditures; Section 4 describes the special
13
-------
challenges EPA faces in directing future expenditures, and Section
5 explains the types of changes EPA is making to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of its policies, and reviews the
rationale for these changes. Finally, Section 6 describes how EPA
conducted the 90-Day Review.
2. The Costs and Benefits of Environmental Regulation
As Professor Thomas Schelling has observed, "Policy judgments
are easier to come by, the farther we are from our goals. If there
are only two directions and ,we know which way is forward ... no
fine discrimination is needed" (Schelling, 1984). In the 1970's,
EPA found itself in such a situation. There was less concern about
the economic implications of environmental decisions, since there
was a strong consensus that the nation's air and water were too
polluted. The major cleanup efforts, funded largely by the private
sector, have produced substantial social benefits to our society.
A 1982 Resources for the Future (RFF) study reviews and
synthesizes a series of air pollution studies to derive some
general estimates of the benefits of EPA's early water and air
pollution regulations (Freeman, 1982). Clearly such exercises are
difficult to conduct. Further, it is impossible to account for all
the benefits society enjoys. Nonetheless, for air pollution, RFF
found that the overall annual benefits from regulations between
1970 and 1980 ranged from $8.9 to 93.1 billion with a most likely
estimate of $39.5 billion. EPA (1990) estimated costs during that
period to be roughly $15.8 billion per year. The difference
between benefits and costs yields a net benefit in 1978 dollars of
about $24 billion per year. Later studies corroborated this
conclusion. Further, as the United States' population and national
income grow, the benefit estimates increase accordingly while costs
do not. Therefore, the net benefits of EPA's air pollution program
prior to 1990 appear to be very large.
The same RFF study quantified the benefits from implementation
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and
1977. It found that the benefits resulting in 1985 ranged from
$6.9 to $33.5 billion per year. EPA estimates the costs of these
amendments in 1985 were roughly $38 billion. Based on this
analysis, it appears that benefits fell short of costs. A joint
study by staff of the Council of Environmental Quality and the
Office of Management and Budget (Farrow and Lyon, 1992) found
2A recent study (Portney, 1990) questioned the net benefits of
the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Data limitations and the
prospective nature of this study, however, prevent EPA from drawing
definitive conclusions from the analysis. EPA is currently
conducting both a retrospective and prospective cost and benefit
study of the Clean Air Act, pursuant to Section 812 of the
Amendments.
14
-------
similar results.
These studies, while instructive, have limitations. In
particular, it is often difficult to predict with much precision
the human health and environmental benefits of regulations.
Further, when these effects can be estimated, it may not be easy to
place a dollar value on them. This is particularly true for
certain programs, such as groundwater protection, that do not
always directly benefit human health or ecological resources.
Nevertheless, these aggregate assessments of benefits and
costs demonstrate that regulations must be carefully crafted if
benefits are to outweigh costs. This is especially critical as the
nation spends an increasing portion of its resources on
environmental protection.
3. Current and Projected Environmental Expenditures3
The improvements in environmental quality over the past 20
years have been possible because the citizens of this country have
made a significant commitment to protecting the environment. The
United States now spends over $130 billion per year on pollution
control. This amount is up about 30% since 1987 and has increased
roughly four fold in the past 20 years. Total spending is expected
to grow by another 30 - 40% by the year 2000, depending on how
various laws are implemented (see Table 1) . As a percentage of the
Gross National Product these costs range from 1.9% in 1987, to 2.1%
in 1992 to 2.6% or more in 2000. For 1987 this was approximately
one quarter of what the nation spent on national defense and also
about a quarter of what the nation spent on medical care.
Table 1
U.S. Pollution Control Expenditures
Total annualized costs 1972 1987 1992 2000*
Billions of est. 1990 $ 30 98 130 160-190
Percent of GNP 0.9 1.9 2.1 2.6-2.8
* The range reflects uncertainty about the timing and nature of
future regulatory requirements.
Source: EPA, 1990a; EPA, unpublished data.
While the level of spending on environmental protection is
changing, so is the allocation of expenditures. Over the next
decade, there is expected to be a reallocation of the percentage of
All cost estimates are in 1990 dollars
15
-------
pollution control expenditures from air and particularly water
pollution control to land pollution (principally hazardous and
solid waste) control (see Table 2). This is a result of the major
land pollution control legislation first passed by Congress in the
mid-1970's and greatly expanded in the 1980's.
Table 2
Pollution Control Expenditures by Environmental Media
Environmental Medium
Air and radiation costs
Water costs
Land costs
Chemical control costs
Multimedia costs
Source: EPA, 1990a
1987
28.9%
42.9
26.0
1.2
1.1
100.0%
100.0%
Figure 1 combines Tables 1 and 2, showing total annual!zed costs
for pollution abatement and control for 1972-2000, broken out by
environmental medium.
Figure 1
200,000
180,000
1972
Annualized Costs for Pollution Abatement and Control by Medium
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
I Air & Radiation
I Water
I Solid & Hazardous D Chemicals
Waste
I Multi-Media
Source: EPA, 1990a; EPA economic analyses and unpublished data
Note: Costs for Pesticides and Toxic Substances are included under chemical and multi-media categories.
16
-------
The funding sources for these expenditures are also changing.
The share of total annualized costs incurred by state and local
governments fell during the 1970's at the expense of the federal
government as it expanded its environmental involvement, while the
private sector share remained relatively stable. During the period
1980-1987, there was remarkable stability in the cost shares. The
future projections, however, are for a rapid growth in the federal
share with a corresponding reduction in all other shares,
particularly the private sector, over the period 1987-2000. The
primary reason for this is the projected 140 percent increase in
non-EPA federal costs, primarily due to proposed Department of
Defense and Department of Energy expenditures on military and
nuclear waste cleanup.
Table 3
Shares of Total Annualized Costs by Funding Source
Funding Source 1972 1980 1987
EPA 3.7% 7.9% 7.9%
Non-EPA Federal 0.3 3.3 3.1
State 5.8 3.8 3.5
Local 29.0 22.2 22.5
Private 61.2 62.8 63.0 60.0
Source: EPA, 1990a 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
These costs, when expressed as a percentage of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP), are roughly comparable to or higher than those of
other developed countries (see Figure 2). In 1985, the U.S. spent
a higher percentage of its GDP on environmental protection than
Finland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, France or Norway.
West Germany's investments in environmental protection as a percent
of GDP exceeded those of the U.S. (EPA, 1990a).
The disparities that remain are due to numerous cross-
national differences, but two are especially significant. First,
the U.S. is the only nation with comprehensive programs for
remediating both active and inactive waste sites. As noted above,
hazardous waste clean-up accounts for a major and increasing
portion of U.S. pollution control costs. Second, the statistics do
not reflect differences in energy prices. The U.S. uses much more
energy per unit of GDP than any other developed country except
Canada, in part because of relatively low energy prices. The
higher fuel prices of other nations reduce their energy consumption
and associated pollution, but are not reflected in their pollution
control cost estimates.
17
-------
Figure 2
1985 POLLUTION CONTROL EXPENDITURES BY COUNTRY
Household
Non-Household
0.00 0.20
0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40
Percentage of Gross Domestic Product
1.60 1.80
Source: EPA, 1990a
4.
Current. Environmental Challenges
EPA recognizes that this country's pollution control
expenditures are considerable, and that further environmental
improvements are likely to come at increasing cost. Thus,
additional investments must be made judiciously. This is
particularly true in light of the changing nature of EPA's work.
Many of the most obvious problems of the 1970's — gross
examples of air and water pollution — have been addressed with
some degree of success. A variety of pressing problems remain. A
recent study by EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB, 1990) ranked the
most serious environmental risks to human and ecological health.
Topping the list of risks to human health were: ambient air
pollutants from factories and automobiles; worker exposure to
chemicals in industry and agriculture; indoor air pollutants
(including radon); and pollutants in drinking water. The most
serious risks to the natural ecology and human welfare were:
alteration and destruction of wildlife habitat; species extinction
and overall loss of biological diversity; stratospheric ozone
depletion; and global climate change.
Efforts to address these and other problems have expanded the
universe of pollution sources affected by Agency policy. Smaller,
more numerous and more diverse sources have been brought into the
regulatory fold. Stormwater, which was largely uncontrolled until
recently, is now the subject of regulations that will eventually
require permit coverage for 173 cities, 47 counties and over
100,000 industrial facilities that discharge stormwater. Reducing
drinking water risks requires continued attention to a large number
of small providers. Over 90% of the public water supply systems in
18
-------
the U.S. serve less than 10,000 individuals each (EPA, 1991).
Likewise,.air regulations are currently being extended to small
entities such as dry cleaners, local gasoline stations, and
transportation and storage facilities.
The Agency is also spending an increasing amount of its
resources on global environmental issues such as stratospheric
ozone and climate change. These and other trans-national
environmental problems can only be effectively addressed through
coordinated efforts among nations. Not surprisingly, the number of
international environmental agreements has jumped sharply in recent
years (U.S. International Trade Commission, 1991).
5. Toward More Efficient and Effective Environmental Policy
Given the increasing costs associated with meeting existing
requirements and the need to address emerging environmental
problems, the Agency is working to ensure that current and future
investments are made wisely. EPA is modifying its regulatory
development, budgeting, strategic planning, and research processes
to achieve this end. The Agency is also promoting economic growth
directly where possible. In particular, the growing worldwide
demand for environmental goods and services creates an opportunity
for EPA to help U.S. environmental companies identify and develop
new markets.
The remainder of this section discusses how regulations should
be crafted to best ensure they integrate environmental and economic
objectives and maximize social welfare. EPA's technology
innovation and trade promotion efforts are discussed further in
Chapter 2. The Agency's modifications to its strategic planning
and budgeting processes, its science reforms, modification to
permit programs, and other non-regulatory activities consistent
with the objectives of the 90-Day Review are discussed in greater
detail in Chapter 3.
In crafting efficient regulations, EPA is guided by three
fundamental economic principles, consistent with those in the
President's directive (see Exhibit 2):
(1) regulation is needed only when a market failure exists;
(2) regulations should be crafted to maximize net benefits;
and
(3) when correcting a market failure, regulations should
promote cost-effective outcomes and innovation.
The first two principles are reviewed briefly below. The third
principle, which is directly germane to many of the reform
activities presented in this report, is discussed in greater
19
-------
detail.
(1) Regulation is needed only when a market failure exists.
Society readily acknowledges that well structured markets improve
welfare. A well-functioning market requires, among other things,
that individuals and companies bear the full costs of their
actions. When polluters do not see the full costs of their
actions, regulation may be justified. Effective regulation fully
internalizes the social costs of pollution so that a polluter will
weigh these costs in addition to the private costs of production.
The manner in which governments force private parties to
internalize these costs is crucial to sound regulatory policy.
These considerations are addressed below.
(2) The regulatory decision should maximize social welfare.
Regulatory decisions, on balance, should make society better off.
The importance of this principle is best illustrated through an
example: banning all pesticides would undoubtedly have
environmental benefits, but the costs of our food supply would
increase tremendously. At least in the short run, even a quick
look at the evidence suggests that such a regulation would, on
balance, leave society worse off.
(3) When correcting a market failure, the regulation should
promote cost-effective outcomes and innovation. A variety of
regulatory mechanisms exist, including: setting technology-based
standards; setting performance standards; establishing goals that
collectively polluters must achieve (e.g through trading pollution
rights); and using direct economic incentives (e.g. pollution
taxes). Each of these approaches has advantages and disadvantages,
and is better suited to some problems than others. In particular,
each has different implications for efficiency.
One well established regulatory approach is the use of
uniform, technology-based standards. These standards have the
advantages of providing certainty about the consequence of the
regulation, and of being relatively easy to enforce. Technology-
based standards, however, can provide some disincentives. In
particular, once polluters adopt the approved technology, they no
longer search for more cost-effective solutions to the problem.
Even if they are aware of cheaper abatement solutions, polluters
may be reluctant to adopt such options since they could be deemed
to be in noncompliance as a result.
In contrast, performance-based standards provide polluters
with strong incentives for innovation. The search for less
expensive abatement solutions goes on perpetually since cost
savings would result at any point that a lower cost abatement
program is adopted. Market-based approaches provide even greater
incentives, since every reduction below a permitted level will
result in less pollution fees paid or in excess emission permits
20
-------
that can be sold.
There is an important corollary to these principles.
Regulations should strive to put competitors on a "level playing
field"—otherwise, achieving environmental objectives at the least
cost to society is impossible. For example, prior to 1990, the
Clean Air Act regulated new sources of acid rain much more
stringently than existing sources. In the 1970's, officials
believed that, as older sources were retired, acid rain emissions
would decrease over time. Over two decades, however, utilities
learned how to keep older coal-fired boilers productive by
refurbishing them in ways that would not trigger new source
reviews. Thus, the "old dirties" continued to live on under a
regulatory regime that penalized new boilers, thereby stifling the
development of new coal-fired utilities.
The cost-effectiveness principles discussed above apply even
when the regulatory goal has not been set using cost-benefit
analysis. For example, the goals established in drinking water and
toxic waste remediation projects reflect equity and citizen's
rights as well as efficiency concerns. EPA's challenge in these
cases is to meet the social objective at least cost.
Many of the regulatory reform activities discussed in this
report are designed to improve the efficiency of regulations by
more closely adhering to the above principles. As described in the
next chapter, EPA is proposing to take or has taken steps to reduce
unnecessary requirements for small entities, where the benefits of
such requirements may be small and the costs disproportionately
high. EPA is also expanding its use of market-based approaches in
a variety of areas. Further, EPA has taken or is proposing
regulatory reforms to level the playing field for lower risk
products such as natural gas, as well as certain biotechnology
products, pesticides, and toxic substances.
To further the efficiency of environmental regulation over the
long term, EPA is working to strengthen its analytic capabilities.
In particular, EPA is improving its ability to estimate and value
benefits. For example, EPA has recently released internal exposure
assessment guidance which will standardize risk assessments across
offices and strengthen consideration of scientific uncertainties.
In the ecological area, EPA has brought together ecologists and
economists to work collaboratively to develop methods for assessing
ecological benefits.
Finally, EPA is working to inform discussions about
environmental investments. As the Agency's knowledge of costs and
benefits expands, and as it learns from experience the practical
advantages and' disadvantages of various regulatory and policy
approaches, the Agency is sharing this information with legislators
and the public. To shape future legislation, EPA has presented
frank statistics to Congress highlighting disparities between
21
-------
Congressional priorities and environmental priorities identified by
EPA's Science Advisory Board. Several EPA reports have fueled the
dialogue about environmental protection and the economy ; this
report further contributes to the discussion.
6. EPA's 90-Day Review Process
In order to make this 90-Day Review as meaningful as possible,
EPA Administrator William K. Reilly decided that EPA would select
a limited number of specific regulations and related activities
which appeared to present special opportunities to promote the
President's goals and to focus its analysis on them. (See Exhibit
3, "90-Day Economic Review of Regulations," Memorandum from
Administrator William K. Reilly, February 5, 1992.) The
Administrator .'s memorandum listed several topics that he had
decided should receive focussed attention:
"• Reduce regulatory burdens for small communities and small
businesses;
• Increase incentives for the use of clean fuels such as
natural gas;
• Reform RCRA (through legislation or regulation - the
mixture and derived from rule5 offers a near-term
opportunity);
• Expand market-based approaches to regulations;
• Accelerate inclusionary rulemaking (particularly
negotiated rulemakings or "reg negs");
• Accelerate rules that reduce the regulatory burden on the
economy; and
• Strengthen innovative technology development and export
promotion efforts.
In addition, we should explore ways to speed biotechnology
reforms."
Each of these topics became the focus for a series of agency-
wide workgroups that met throughout the 90-day period. The reports
of each of these workgroups are included in the Appendix volume to
this report and summarized in Chapter 2 of this Overview volume.
In order to be sure that it considered a full range of topics
for further analysis and had access to relevant information, EPA
See: SAB, 1990; EPA, 1990a; EPA, 1990b; and, EPA, 1992,
forthcoming.
5See discussion of the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule in
Chapter 2, and Item SI in the Index of EPA Actions and Commitments
at the end of this volume.
22
-------
made a. vigorous effort to get assistance from the public. A key
element of this effort was a request for public comment that EPA
published in the Federal Register. The notice stressed that "each
regulation or related activity that a commenter suggests for review
should meet the President's criteria as well as meet the following
tests: (a) Any suggested changes that might be made as a result of
the review must be within EPA's statutory authority. (b)
Significant economic savings would be possible if changes are made.
(c) Proposed changes will not compromise environmental protection
goals." The notice also stressed that EPA would only be able to
choose a limited number of topics for review in the 90-day period.
(See Exhibit 4, Federal Register. 57:42, March 3, 1992, pp. 7564-
7566) .
EPA also made other attempts to obtain public comments. It
held a large public meeting on February 27 and met with several
smaller groups from within and outside the government during the
90-day period. The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization sent out a special request for comments from the small
business community. The White House also forwarded written comments
that it had received from various parties concerned with
environmental regulations. EPA's program offices also held several
public meetings during the 90-day period at which they discussed
topics under review.
In response to the Federal Register notice and the other
requests for comments, EPA received over 700 comments from about
220 individuals or organizations within the comment period. Trade
associations and individual companies comprised over 90 percent of
the commenters. Other commenters included local governments, state
governments, non-profit organizations, and individuals (see Figure
3).
The comments covered all of EPA's program areas. The air
program received the most comments, followed by the water program,
toxics, waste, and pesticides. The Agency also received comments
concerning general policies on subjects such as cost-benefit
analysis, risk assessment, and effects of environmental regulations
on small business (see Figure 4).
Some of the comments were on topics that EPA had announced
would receive special attention in the 90-Day Review. These
comments were given to the workgroups focusing on these topics. A
number of comments concerned specific rules that EPA is presently
developing, including some comments that previously had been
submitted to the Agency. These were given to the offices
responsible for the relevant rulemakings to use in the 90-Day
Review or in their ongoing regulation development. A third group
of comments addressed a wide variety of other subjects. These were
passed along to appropriate Agency staff.
23
-------
Figure 3
90-Day Moratorium Comments
Commenters
Government
6%
Trade Associations
56%
Individual Firms
37%
n = 221
Note:
Government includes coments from federal agencies (.5%), state governments (2.7%) and local governments (3.2%).
Figure 4
90-Day Moratorium Comments
By Program Area
Toxics (1)
15%
n = 720
Note: (1) includes Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, SARA Title III and TRI
24
-------
Highlights of the comments are included in the program
summaries in Chapter 2 and a more detailed summary of comments is
in the Appendix to this volume.
25
-------
CHAPTER 2
THE 90-DAY REVIEW: ACTIONS AND COMMITMENTS
1. Overview
As a result of its 90-Day Review, EPA is taking a total of 88
actions, some of which it completed in the 90-day period and others
of which it has committed to take in the near future. These
actions would reduce regulatory costs by $4 - 8 billion annually
(see Figure 5). While these savings are considerable, EPA does not
expect that current levels of environmental protection will suffer
from these actions. Indeed, by saving this amount of money, the
nation should actually be in a better position to make real
environmental gains.
This chapter summarizes the actions and commitments the Agency
is making. A complete list of actions, along with associated
savings, is in the Index of EPA Actions and Commitments, near the
end of this volume. More detailed reports about the four EPA
programs and the nine priority areas may be found in the Appendix
to this report, which is in a separate volume. The Appendix also
has a more detailed summary of public comments.
The EPA reforms described in this report will reduce economic
burdens and promote growth in five major ways:
• reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on small communities and
small businesses;
• expand the use of market-based approaches;
• reduce barriers to the development and use of natural gas and
other relatively low risk products;
• reorient hazardous waste programs toward high risk wastes; and
• spur development of new technologies and promote the export of
U.S. environmental technologies and services.
The pages that follow include many examples of each of these types
of measures.
26
-------
Figure 5
Annualized Cost Savings of Environmental Initiatives
for EPA Program Offices Under the 90-Day Review
7.72
I Low Case
1 High Case
Air and
Radiation
Water
Solid
Waste and
Emergency
Response
Source: EPA economic analyses and unpublished data.
Prevention,
Pesticides
and Toxics
TOTAL
2. Program Summaries
2.1. Office of Air and Radiation
Background and Public Comment
The Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) administers the Clean
Air Act, the Indoor Radon Abatement Act, and parts of the Atomic
Energy Act. Under these authorities, it develops and implements
regulations to set national emissions standards for air pollutants
and national ambient air quality standards, and produces guidance
and criteria for states to use in their development of State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to attain national air quality
standards.
Over 200 of the public comments received in connection with
the 90-Day Review concerned air issues. All but twenty of these
dealt with issues connected with the ongoing development of
regulations implementing the new Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.
The bulk of these comments was nearly equally divided among several
broad areas: Title I of the Act, which covers attainment of ambient
air quality standards; toxic air emissions control; and Title II,
which covers emissions from mobile sources.
27
-------
Among the concerns about ambient air quality that received the
most comments were the cost implications of the "best available
control technology" (BACT) definition, visibility issues, new
source review, and emissions trading. Regarding air toxics, by far
the most comments addressed the use of risk assessment in setting
standards and priorities. Most other comments addressed particular
issues in specific rulemakings. Title II comments focused on non-
road engine standards, onboard diagnostic systems, and improved
vehicle evaporative emissions control systems. Comments in other
areas addressed acid rain monitoring and nitrogen oxides control
(Title IV), permitting flexibility (Title V), and
Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) control issues (Title VI). Many of the
comments received are duplicates of those already received in the
course of the ongoing rulemakings. Comments on rulemakings in
progress will be addressed as part of the standard notice and
comment process 'for the rulemakings to which they apply.
EPA received only 20 comments on existing rules. Twelve of
these called for revisions the Agency already has underway in
response to litigation, legislation, or discussions with regulated
industries. The remaining eight comments called for review or
repeal of specific rulemakings, such as the small-boiler New Source
Performance Standards and the Navajo power plant emissions
standard. Each of these was reviewed by a subcommittee of OAR's
Clean Air Act Advisory Committee, which did not recommend any of
them as 90-day initiatives. Instead, the subcommittee recommended
that OAR focus its 90-day efforts primarily on the four market-
based initiatives outlined below, which are expected to yield the
most cost savings of any initiatives considered.
Overview of 90-Day Actions and Commitments
OAR will undertake or consider 16 actions as a result of its
90-Day Review. These actions include burden-reducing revisions to
existing regulations, development of market incentive programs,
development of programs to stimulate production of natural gas, and
development of at least one future regulation through regulatory
negotiation. Several of these actions will also provide relief to
small businesses.
The following four actions are examples:
• Economic Incentives Program for National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) Attainment. The South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) in Southern California has an
extensive effort underway to develop a marketable permits
program for volatile organic compounds (VOC's) and nitrogen
oxides emissions as a cost-effective approach to attainment of
the ozone standard. If successful, it is expected that
similar programs may be developed in other states facing ozone
nonattainment problems. During the past year, EPA staff have
helped SCAQMD develop the concepts underlying this program.
28
-------
For this initiative, EPA will provide technical assistance
over the next year to help SCAQMD write the regulations
implementing this program.
• Reform of Electric Utility New Source Review Requirements . In
this action, often called the "WEPCo" rule, EPA's new source
review rules will be amended by adopting a broad exclusion for
pollution control projects and revising the review
requirements for other plant modifications. The result will
give utilities the flexibility and certainty they have
indicated they need in order to comply with the requirements
of the new Clean Air Act (e.g., the requirements of the Acid
Rain Program), and will reduce impediments to the expanded use
of natural gas. EPA expects to finalize this action shortly.
• Accelerated Retirement Program for Older Vehicles. Old
automobiles, especially those built before the strict emission
control requirements introduced in the 1970's, pollute far
more than those built under today's strict emission control
laws. Removing these cars from the road would greatly reduce
pollution immediately. Moreover, it appears that this could
be done at much less cost than achieving comparable reductions
from stationary sources. This initiative will result in
published guidance and criteria for states, cities, and
companies. The guidance will give them the option of scrapping
old, high-polluting automobiles and using the resulting
improvements in air quality to satisfy certain emission-
reduction requirements, in place of more costly controls that
would otherwise be required. This program would be the first
nationwide application of the concept of mobile/stationary
source trading.
• Economic Incentive Rule Expansion. Title I of the 1990 Clean
Air Act requires the Agency to promulgate certain rules for
economic incentive programs. For this initiative, the Agency
will expand the scope of the rulemaking to encourage the early
adoption of economic incentive programs generally, and to
provide guidance in the development of such programs.
In addition to these initiatives, OAR will award over $600,000
in state grants in fiscal year 1992 to develop state-level market-
based air pollution control projects; produce a study clarifying
property rights to methane emissions from coal mines as a way to
stimulate the capture and sale of these emissions; incorporate
emissions-averaging provisions into forthcoming rules on VOC
control and hazardous organic chemical plant emissions; and develop
a mobile/stationary source emissions trading program. OAR will
also seek public comment on several strategies for improving the
cost-effectiveness of future air toxics regulations.
For the remainder of its initiatives, OAR is proposing to
exempt a chemical widely used in drycleaning — perchloroethylene,
29
-------
or "PERC" — from regulation as a volatile organic compound (a
contributor to ozone); to revise the guidance for home builders on
radon control; to rescind the smoke standard for heavy diesel
engines; to review the radionuclides air emission standards for
possible redundancy with Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations;
and to reexamine the need for a costly procedure to test for
emissions from painting processes and to enhance its efforts with
the states to implement small business assistance programs. All of
these actions, if finalized, will reduce regulatory burdens across
the board, and for small business in particular. Finally, OAR has
committed to explore the potential for using a negotiated
rulemaking process in at least one future rulemaking.
In addition to these actions taken as part of the 90-Day
Review, OAR is in the midst of an ambitious Clean Air Act
implementation program that embodies most of the 90-day objectives
identified by the President and the Administrator. As discussed in
the OAR section of the Appendix to this report, the Clean Air Act
itself was passed at the initiative of the President and includes
regulatory reforms such as market incentives and technology
innovation.
OAR actions are listed in the Index of EPA Actions and
Commitments and described in more detail in the Appendix.
2.2. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Background and Public Comment
The Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
(OPPTS) administers several major statutes, including the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), Section 313 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), certain
authorities under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
and several laws concerning asbestos. Under these laws EPA
responsibilities include reviewing new chemicals and pesticides,
evaluating substances already in commerce, and collecting and
reporting information on routine and accidental releases of
chemicals. About 20%, or roughly 140, of the comments EPA received
addressed these areas.
Most comments addressed Section 313 of EPCRA. More than half
of these were requests for exemptions from the Toxic Release
Inventory reporting requirements6. The remainder suggested various
ways of reducing reporting burdens.
6 Other reporting requirements under EPCRA are administered by
EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and are
discussed in the OSWER summary.
30
-------
The Agency also received a number of comments regarding
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), the new chemicals program,
possible regulation of lead, and TSCA Section 8(e) reporting
requirements.
In the pesticides area, most of the comments discussed
farmworker protection standards. Other areas addressed included
minor use pesticides, and the registration and re-registration
programs.
Overview of 90-Day Actions and Commitments
OPPTS is proposing to undertake 11 reforms. These reforms
would reduce unnecessary reporting burdens, streamline review
and/or approval requirements for low risk substances, revise rules
regulating the use and disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB),
and encourage the development and use of biotechnology products.
Several of the actions will provide relief to small businesses.
Three of the most important actions are:
• Propose Amendments to Disposal Rules for PCB-Contaminated
Soils. Liquids, and Sludges. Amendments of this type would
speed testing of innovative remediation technologies, reduce
duplicative paperwork burdens for both the government and the
regulated community, reduce disposal costs, and give states
the primary role in managing PCB waste storage and disposal
facilities within their borders.
• Propose Amendments to Premanufacture Notification (PMN)
Exemption Rules. Specifically, EPA will propose in July,
1992, revisions to three existing regulations (the polymer
exemption rule, the low volume exemption rule, and the
Expedited Follow-Up Significant New Use Rule), and will
develop a new exemption for "low risk" substances. These
amendments would shift the focus of new chemical reviews away
from low risk categories of substances toward high risk
chemicals. The Agency has established categories of chemicals
that are not expected to pose risk to human health or the
environment, and will propose revisions to testing and review
requirements for new chemicals in these categories. This will
reduce costs for manufacturers of low risk substances and
speed marketing and production of such substances.
• Develop Incentives for Safer Pesticides. EPA intends to
publish a Federal Register notice soliciting public
participation in a project designed to encourage the
development of lower risk pesticides as well as improved pest
control practices. Some of the possible measures being
considered by EPA are: counsel applicants early in the process
to clarify registration requirements, accelerate the review
31
-------
process, allow fee waivers, and reduce or defer certain data
requirements for lower risk products.
The Office is also considering reducing reporting burdens
under TSCA and EPCRA. The Agency plans to issue an advance notice
of proposed rulemaking under Section 313 of EPCRA to consider
options for amending Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting
requirements; these amendments could modify the threshold for
reporting, or exempt facilities that release or transfer off-site
(in waste) less than 5,000 pounds of listed TRI chemicals. It has
been estimated that this exemption could potentially reduce the
number of reports filed by as much as 90%, while still covering 85%
of total releases. OPPTS will also solicit comment on certain
refinements to EPA's policy concerning the mandatory reporting of
information under TSCA Section 8(e) regarding release of chemical
substance to, and the detection of chemical substances in,
environmental media. These refinements could lower the burden on
industry in several ways, including narrowing what is presently
considered "substantial risk information," lengthening the
reporting deadline for written information, and specifying certain
types of information which need not be reported.
Other actions and commitments include: providing appropriate
relief to users and registrants of minor use pesticides;
reclassifying PCB and PCB-contaminated transformers to reduce
record-keeping and disposal costs; holding a workshop on
reregistration; and issuing both FIFRA and TSCA biotechnology
rules.
OPPTS activities are listed in the Index of EPA Actions and
Commitments and described in detail in the Appendix. Biotechnology
reforms are discussed in more detail below in this chapter and in
the Appendix.
2.3. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Background and Public Comment
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
administers several major statutes, including the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive
Emergency Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) . RCRA
addresses the management and disposal of hazardous and non-
hazardous waste and underground storage tanks (USTs). CERCLA, also
known as Superfund, governs the cleanup of abandoned hazardous
waste sites. Superfund also governs the response to releases of
hazardous substances into the environment, and planning and
preparedness to prevent releases. The Oil Pollution Prevention
Act and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 complement this part
of Superfund.
32
-------
The reforms advanced by OSWER came from three sources: (1) a
series of external and internal reviews conducted during the past
several years, (2) OSWER staff suggestions, and (3) public comments
received as part of the 90-Day Review.
Roughly 25 percent of all the comments EPA received related to
OSWER programs. Approximately two-thirds of these focused on RCRA.
The major RCRA issues addressed were the definition of solid waste,
used oil7, and the "mixture" and "derived-from" rules. Other issues
included recycling and the land disposal restrictions. Commenters
expressed concern over the ambiguity of the existing solid waste
definitions. Comments pertaining to used oil generally supported
not listing used oil as a hazardous waste. Some commenters
advocated management standards, and others requested specific
exemptions from existing regulations. Comments concerning the
remanded derived-from and mixture rules generally supported
hazardous waste determinations based on risks. Some commenters
requested a multi-tiered approach for managing hazardous wastes.
Superfund liability issues, including municipal and lender
liability, were the most frequently commented on CERCLA issues.
Other CERCLA issues addressed were Superfund transaction costs, use
of a risk-based approach in the Superfund process, and the list of
extremely hazardous substances.
Other OSWER issues identified by several commenters were
possible revisions to the oil spill regulations and the underground
storage tanks financial responsibility regulations. The reforms
outlined below address many of the concerns raised in public
comments.
Overview of 90-Day Actions and Commitments
OSWER has developed a set of 38 far reaching regulatory and
policy reforms. The reforms fall into three general categories:
(1) RCRA Subtitle C (hazardous waste program); (2) Superfund; and
(3) various additional activities in a range of program areas that
promote cooperative endeavors with the regulated community and
states and provide relief to small communities and small
businesses. The economic benefits associated with these reforms
will be achieved while maintaining, and in some cases improving,
the existing level of environmental protection.
(1) RCRA Subtitle C. The most significant reforms address
core RCRA Subtitle C programs. The current RCRA system is
essentially a series of standards and management practices that
ensure safe management and cleanup of hazardous wastes. The
While used oil is not included in this package, the Agency
intends to take final action on used oil in summer, 1992.
33
-------
program is composed of prevention measures, engineering design
standards, permitting requirements, and cleanup standards. The
current system, however, was developed under tight time frames and
was based on far less information than is available today. The
desirability of program refinements is generally accepted by all
interested parties.
The proposed RCRA reforms are designed to accomplish four main
objectives. First, the program will redirect RCRA towards waste
activities presenting high risks and exclude low risk activities
from Subtitle C controls. To achieve these ends, the program will
soon propose several approaches for identifying low risk waste
which would be allowed to exit the Subtitle C system, and will
develop tailored management standards for certain low-risk and
high-volume wastes, especially those associated with hazardous
wa s te recyc1ing.
Second, through revisions to the Subtitle C Corrective Action
program, the Office will expedite the pace of cleanups at RCRA
facilities and eliminate unnecessary time delays and costs.
Third, the Office will adjust RCRA management standards to
better fit the nature of the environmental risks posed by waste
management activities. Reforms in this area would streamline
permitting for low risk or low complexity operations, including
those involving the development of innovative technologies. In
particular, specific reforms will reduce technical barriers to the
use of innovative technology at RCRA sites.
Fourth, the program seeks to streamline the RCRA permit system
to facilitate cleanups, hazardous waste recycling, and addressing
closed facilities. As an example, the Agency will explore ways to
streamline the post-closure permitting process.
Several examples of specific major RCRA actions are:
• Proposed Hazardous Waste Identification Rule ("HWIR") to allow
low risk wastes to exit from the RCRA system. The proposed
HWIR rule, signed April 30, will modify the current "mixture"
and "derived from" rules.
• Establish Special Treatment Standards for Debris to encourage
innovative and cost-effective treatment technologies.
• Establish Special Health-Based Treatment Standards for
Contaminated Soils to encourage more innovative and cost-
effective treatment technologies.
• Suspend the Toxicity Characteristic Rule for Petroleum-
Contaminated Media — Both UST and non-UST— in States with
"Adequate" State Clean-up Programs. This would help to promote
clean-ups.
34
-------
• Establish Temporary Units and Corrective Action Management
Units to facilitate site cleanups.
(2) Superfund. Reforms in the Superfund program are designed
to make the program more effective, efficient, and equitable while
expanding the protection of public health and the environment. The
centerpiece of the reform effort is the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model, which will speed actions to reduce immediate risks
at both NPL and non-NPL sites. In addition, the Superfund program
will explore developing standardized or presumptive remedies for
site cleanup and establishing standardized soil cleanup levels.
(3) Other Reforms. OSWER initiatives also include actions to
relieve unnecessary burdens on small communities and small
businesses and enhance its cooperative efforts with industry. The
Office will undertake reforms in the underground storage tank
program, including a proposal to extend the financial
responsibility compliance deadline to 1995 for certain UST
facilities, a rule to provide additional financial responsibility
mechanisms to local governments, and a commitment to develop
options to clarify UST lender liability. To reduce reporting
burdens on small businesses, it intends to coordinate a government-
wide project to reduce potentially duplicative accidental release
reports required under several laws administered by EPA, including
CERCLA, Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA), as well as laws administered by other agencies. Further,
the Office will expand the use of alternative dispute resolution to
reduce litigation burdens and initiate a pilot environmental
extension service to provide technical advice on solid and
hazardous waste to small communities and businesses. Finally, the
Office will sponsor experiments in a number of communities to
measure the effects of unit pricing on waste generation and
recycling and will develop a guide for municipalities on this
subject.
OSWER actions are listed in the Index of EPA Actions and
Commitments and described in more detail in the Appendix.
2.4. Office of Water
Background and Public Comment
The Office of Water (OW) administers the Clean Water Act, the
Safe Drinking Water Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the
Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, among other laws.
Under these statutes, OW works with the states and cities to
control industrial and municipal effluent discharges to surface
waters, to protect drinking water resources, and to preserve
critical aquatic habitats.
35
-------
OW's 90-Day activities reflect the changing nature of the
environmental problems it is confronting. To a great extent, point
sources of water pollution have been controlled, and OW has turned
its attention to diffuse sources of pollution such as sediments,
nutrients and pesticide run-off from agricultural activities, and
stormwater. In addition, it is becoming increasingly clear that
the actions needed to address these sources, and the costs
associated with these actions, vary by watershed. This indicates
that site-specific remedies need to be developed and implemented to
effectively control these diffuse sources.
To address these sources efficiently, OW has been looking
beyond its traditional regulatory approach — technology-based
standards enforced through facility specific permits — and is
seeking to develop innovative, cost-minimizing programs. The 90-
Day Review offered an opportunity to accelerate these efforts.
About 130 comments received on OW's programs covered a variety
of surface water and drinking water issues, but by far the largest
number of comments focused on the NPDES program for industrial
sources of stormwater. The key concerns were monitoring
requirements and deadlines for submission of applications. Several
commenters also requested that general permits for groups of
facilities that are similar to those allowed under the proposed
rule be issued as soon as possible.
Other major areas addressed in the comments include wetlands
delineation and permitting, water quality standards for toxics, and
effluent guidelines. OW's primary action under the 90-Day Review is
directed at resolving the key stormwater issues discussed by the
majority of the commenters.
Overview of 90-Day Actions and Commitments
OW will initiate or propose 7 regulatory reforms that will
reduce burdens for dischargers and control authorities, lower
compliance and administrative costs, and stimulate innovative
approaches for environmental improvement. In particular, OW is
expanding the use of general permits in its NPDES program, is
pursuing other means of reducing permitting burdens, and is
exploring opportunities to use market-based approaches within
individual watersheds. Three actions are particularly important:
• Stormwater Regulations.
Phase I: On April 2 the Agency promulgated the stormwater
implementation rule. The rule encourages the use of general
permits for industrial stormwater discharges and includes a
number of other refinements to previous regulations to reduce
the burden of stormwater requirements. Among other things,
the revised regulations reduce sampling and reporting
requirements, allow simple notices of intent for general
36
-------
permits in lieu of burdensome application requirements, extend
application deadlines for group applications, and remove small
municipal dischargers from the universe of facilities
requiring NPDES permits for stormwater.
Phase II: The second component of OW's stormwater effort is
designed to elicit information that can be used to develop
cost-effective programs for small stormwater discharges. To
this end, the Office will hold a series of public meetings in
May and June, 1992, to consider the most effective ways of
addressing remaining risks from stormwater discharges,
focusing heavily on those sources not currently required to
have NPDES permits. These sessions will solicit input from the
public on the advisability and type of rulemaking that may be
appropriate for these sources.
• Point — Non-point Source Trading: EPA estimates that over 700
waterbodies in the U.S. have the basic characteristics that
make them potential areas to apply point — non-point source
trading programs. These programs have the potential to reduce
loading control costs by 50% or more. In this initiative, EPA,
with the State of North Carolina, held a public meeting in
Durham on April 27-28, 1992, to discuss opportunities for
improving the cost-effectiveness of pollution control programs
through point / non-point source trading. A recently completed
EPA report on trading opportunities will provide the focus for
identifying and resolving trading program implementation
issues. Specific follow-up actions to promote trading will be
based, in part, on information and comments obtained from the
meeting attendees.
• Wise Water Use Partnerships; EPA will initiate a voluntary
program to encourage cost-effective water conservation
techniques by industrial facilities and other large water
users. OW will host a meeting of potential partners in early
May, 1992, to create the partnership charter and obtain
initial commitments to this voluntary cost-savings program.
The Office is also emphasizing the use of regulatory processes
that include substantial public input, such as policy dialogues. In
addition to the Phase II stormwater effort, OW is seeking the
public's input on how to structure cost-effective policies for two
areas (combined sewer overflow controls and management of
contaminated sediments). The Office will also seek comment on
issues related to the privatization of municipal wastewater
systems. Finally, the Office will hold, in May 1992, a Governors'
Forum on Implementation of the Drinking Water Program to address
the capacity constraints states face in implementation of the
expanding drinking water requirements. The Forum will look at
issues related to the level of federal oversight and flexibility,
as well as the need for statutory changes.
37
-------
OW actions are listed in the Index of EPA Actions and
Commitments and described in more detail in the Appendix.
3. Priority Areas
As described in Chapter 1, EPA established nine interoffice
workgroups to address areas of priority concern for the 90-Day
Review. The work of these groups is described generally below and
in more detail in the Appendix. To avoid repetition with the
previous section of this chapter, EPA actions and commitments in
the priority areas are only summarized in this section and
references are given to specific actions and commitments listed in
the Index of EPA Actions and Commitments.
3.1. Market Incentives
In his memorandum initiating the 90-Day Review, President Bush
specifically stated: "Regulations should incorporate market
mechanisms to the maximum extent possible." EPA further recognized
the potential of market incentives by making them one of the areas
of special focus for the review.
Incentive mechanisms are well-suited to address both current
and future environmental problems. In many cases, these tools offer
the prospect of achieving environmental improvements at less cost
than with other tools, such as with traditional command-and-control
regulations. They can be particularly effective in dealing with
pollution from large numbers of widely dispersed sources and
providing a greater stimulus for innovation and technological
change. The prospect of achieving environmental goals at lower
costs is especially welcome in light of the generally increasing
marginal costs of pollution control, the increasing percentage of
the GNP being devoted to pollution control, and the current state
of the economy.
EPA's emphasis on economic incentives is not new. In recent
years the Agency has initiated a series of pollutant "banking" and
"trading" programs, such as for lead. More recently, the Agency
actively supported the market-based provisions of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990, including the acid rain trading provisions.
The Agency published a report, Economic Incentives; Options for
Environmental Protection, in March 1991 (EPA, 1991). EPA will soon
be releasing a new report on the United States experience with
economic incentives to control environmental pollution.
However, the number of regulations currently incorporating
economic incentives remains small. EPA used the 90-Day Review to
identify program areas where market incentives could be immediately
proposed, tested using demonstration projects or presented as
viable options to the public. This activity has furthered the
38
-------
Agency's efforts to incorporate market-based approaches into the
fabric of its everyday activities.
In the course of the 90-Day Review/ EPA decided to undertake
a series of actions to further the use of economic incentives as a
tool for environmental protection. The actions are grouped in four
different areas and cover each of the Agency's programs:
1. increasing efficiency in environmental improvement, such as
the "trading" plans announced by the air and water offices;
2. reducing regulatory barriers, such as the Lower Risk
Pesticides Policy;
3. filling information gaps, such as the full cost accounting
guide and experiments in municipal solid waste pricing; and
4. building capacity, such as the grants to states to help states
and localities develop their own economic incentives.
Fourteen individual actions are listed in the Index of EPA Actions
and Commitments: A6, A8 - A13, PI, P7, S24, Wl - W4.
3.2. Biotechnology
Biotechnology is a rapidly developing industry with many
beneficial applications. EPA has both a regulatory and research
and development interest in seeing that these applications
materialize without posing unreasonable risks to human health and
the environment. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) are among the many
federal statutes that regulate the development and use of micro-
organisms . Among these microorganisms are those being produced to
enhance crop production, to control agricultural pests, to extract
valuable minerals, to produce fuels such as ethanol from plant
matter, and to clean up toxic waste (via bioremediation).
The 90-Day Regulatory Review provided a good opportunity to
examine ways in which EPA can develop its regulatory and research
programs to protect the environment and minimize impacts on the
growth of America's biotechnology industry.
EPA explored five key types of actions during the 90-Day
Review:
1. coordinating federal regulatory agency oversight;
2. encouraging the use of low-risk pesticides;
3. encouraging development of microorganisms (particularly those
39
-------
used in bioremediation) for TSCA uses;
4. encouraging development of bioremediation; and
5. reducing regulatory barriers to the use of bioremediation.
Many of these activities are expected to provide substantial
cost savings and eliminate delays in future product development.
Eight individual actions are listed in the Index of EPA Actions and
Commitments: PI, P2, P10, S3, S4, S12, SIS, S19.
3.3. Natural Gas
Natural gas has numerous environmental attributes that make it
a very attractive fuel. For this reason EPA decided that one focus
of its 90-Day Review should be finding ways to reduce the
regulatory burdens on and biases against its production,
transportation, and use.
Natural gas is a comparatively "clean" fuel, producing much
less air pollution per unit energy produced than other fossil
fuels, and less carbon dioxide that contributes to global climate
change. Currently, natural gas provides more than one-fifth of all
the primary energy used in the U.S. (19 quadrillion British thermal
units (Btu's) out of a total of 85 quadrillion Btu's. Gas supplies
nearly half of all the energy consumed in U.S. homes, nearly a
third of industrial energy demand, and 17% of electrical generation
demand.
Recent technological improvements promise to push efficiency
ratings for gas-fired combined cycle power plants to nearly double
the efficiency of existing fossil-fired generation plants. These
advantages, combined with lowered gas price projections, make
gas-fired combined cycle plants likely to provide the most economic
and environmentally benign choice for new capacity additions in
many situations, including baseload, intermediate load, and peak
generation capacity — so long as regulatory burdens do not impede
this approach.
EPA will assist the efficient production, transportation and
use of natural gas through a series of market-oriented deregulatory
or regulatory-reform initiatives. An example of this is the "WEPCo"
rule, which will reduce impediments to the expanded use of natural
gas at existing power plants. Several initiatives involve working
closely with the Department of Energy, such as assisting state
Public Utility Commissions with evaluating investments in natural
gas generation. Six individual actions are listed in the Index of
EPA Actions and Commitments: A14, M12 - M16.
40
-------
3.4. Technology Innovation
EPA decided to look for ways to promote technology innovation
during the 90-Day Review for two reasons: (1) to strengthen or
improve the competitiveness of American industry by improving
cost-effectiveness of compliance with environmental regulations;
and (2) to promote opportunities for U.S. environmental technology
and service vendors in world markets. EPA is in a special position
to accomplish these goals because interested parties around the
world look to the Agency for leadership in environmental
technology.
It has become increasingly clear over the past several years
that continued improvement in environmental protection will depend
on innovations in technology and monitoring. A number of Agency and
inter-agency panels have concluded that the increasing costs of
carrying out the growing number of environmental mandates point to
the need for new technologies that are more cost-effective. Such
technologies include:
cleaner, "greener" products;
cleaner production processes;
improved pollution co.ntrol equipment;
more cost-effective cleanup techniques; and
improved monitoring and measuring methods.
Part of the reason that some of these products and
technologies have not yet been fully developed and commercialized
is that they face regulatory barriers and economic disincentives.
These barriers and disincentives include unresolved questions about
product and cleanup liability, technology-based regulatory
standards and regulatory reliance on "available technology," public
concern over risk, inadequate data on the potential markets for
various technologies, conflicting regulatory standards, and
difficulties in obtaining permits.
The Agency is taking steps to reduce the barriers to
innovation and promote the exchange of information. It is
modifying existing regulatory programs to remove disincentives for
the development and use of new technologies. EPA is also
establishing an in-house council to define new technology needs,
form partnerships with industry to meet these needs, and recognize
outstanding innovations. Nine individual actions are listed in the
Index of EPA Actions and Commitments: P10, S2 - S5, S12, S18, S19,
Ml.
3.5. Export Promotion
In response to the President's call to promote economic
growth, EPA chose to focus its 90-Day Review in part on assisting
U.S. companies in capturing growing international markets for
environmental goods and services. The Organization for Economic
41
-------
Cooperation and Development estimates that this market is worth
$200 billion annually and that it will grow at an average annual
rate of 5.5% through the year 2000 (OECD, 1991). The markets for
environmental goods and services fall into three general
categories:
1. technologies that are required by regulations or legislation,
e.g. pollution control devices that are an outgrowth of U.S.
environmental leadership;
2. technologies that improve efficiency, are cost-effective and
result in less pollution and/or more waste minimization; and
3. technologies that respond to an emerging consumer demand for
"green" products.
U.S. industry is a leader in many of the technologies suitable for
these markets.
EPA has two unique and linked capabilities to promote the use
and development of these technologies. First, by providing
technical assistance and information abroad, especially in the
developing countries where the Agency is active, EPA can enhance
the demand for environmental technologies and services. Second,
working with other agencies and entities through the Federal
Technology Transfer Act and other programs such as the Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation Program, EPA can promote the
innovation, development, and diffusion of new technologies. A key
objective of EPA's future activity is to use these capabilities
more effectively.
In order to promote exports of U.S. environmental goods and
services, EPA will undertake a series of actions. Immediate actions
include establishing an EPA Export Promotion 2000 study group;
improving coordination with other federal programs that have export
promotion responsibilities; increasing international access to
EPA's Environmental and Energy Efficient Technology Transfer
Clearinghouse; and launching the U.S. Environmental Training
Institute — a public-private endeavor that will help build
environmental capacity in developing countries and provide U.S.
companies with an opportunity to showcase environmental goods and
services to potential clients.
Future actions include building on existing bilateral and
multilateral programs to assess the environmental and technological
needs of developing countries and newly democratized nations;
demonstrating the application of emerging technologies for solving
environmental problems; evaluating the potential for establishing
U.S. environmental and technology centers (e.g., in cooperation
with the Commerce Department in Asia, Mexico and elsewhere);
organizing "reverse" trade missions (i.e., missions of foreign
buyers to the U.S.); completing and expanding a directory of
42
-------
vendors who offer environmental goods and services (the "Green
Pages"); and negotiating an interagency agreement with the Agency
for International Development to initiate international pollution
prevention demonstration projects in developing countries.
Four actions are listed in the Index of EPA Actions and
Commitments: M2 - M5.
3.6. Small Communities
Small communities are an integral part of American life.
Almost 90% of all the government units with which EPA works serve
communities of fewer than 10/000 people. These communities contain
over 70% of the nation's landfills, 80% of the nation's drinking
water systems and 90% of the nation's wastewater facilities.
With limited financial, technical and institutional resources,
small local governments' ability to meet their communities' needs
can be outstripped by the nation's cumulative environmental
mandates. EPA realizes that the burden of environmental regulations
on small communities could threaten not only their ability to
provide environmental services, but their viability as institutions
as well.
EPA is working hard to change the way it works with small
communities. EPA recognizes that small communities are often
disproportionately burdened by environmental regulations and that
small communities often require more tailored regulations to help
them protect their citizens' health and the environment. In an
effort to further the partnership developing between EPA and small
communities, EPA has undertaken several important projects.
o EPA has established a "Small Communities Cluster" which will
bring senior EPA headquarters and regional officials together
with local government officials and public interest groups to
find realistic, cost-effective ways for even the smallest
communities to implement environmental laws.
o EPA will collect data on the environmental services provided
by small communities and on their technical, financial, and
institutional capacity to provide these services. The
information gained through this program will help EPA improve
its interaction with small communities.
o EPA revised-, in April, its guidelines for administration of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act to require more rigorous
analysis of the regulatory burdens of small communities and of
options for minimizing these burdens.
In addition to these projects, many of EPA's program offices
43
-------
are taking action on rules which will benefit small communities.
Seventeen individual actions are listed in the Index of EPA Actions
and Commitments: S6, S7, S10, S23 - 27, S29, S33, Wl, W2, W5, W7,
M6 - M8.
3.7. Small Businesses
Small business is a vital part of the U.S. economy. Not only
is small business the source of 50% of the jobs in this country and
the major source of new job creation, but it is also the proving
ground for many new business ideas which can have an important
impact on the environment.
EPA decided to focus on small businesses in the 90-Day Review
because environmental regulations often can cause severe problems
for these enterprises. Generally speaking, small businesses cannot
devote the same level of resources to address environmental issues
as larger businesses. This does not mean that small businesses
should be allowed to abide by weaker environmental standards, but
it does mean that the Agency must think carefully about how it
regulates them and the assistance that it gives them.
Some examples of areas where the Agency needs to be especially
sensitive include:
o the burden of regulatory record-keeping and reporting, and how
these processes might be streamlined for small business;
o the manner in which small businesses can be most efficiently
informed of applicable requirements under the multiplicity of
statutes;
o the manner in which the Agency analyzes the economic impacts
of proposed regulations and cumulative requirements on small
business;
o the means by which fines and penalties can be most equitably
assessed for small businesses;
o the coordination between EPA and other government agencies on
actions that affect small business; and
o the involvement of the small business community in Agency
decision-making.
In the actions which EPA has initiated as a result of the
90-Day Review, there are a number that take into account the
special circumstances and concerns of small businesses. These
actions cover most of the areas listed above. Thirty-four
individual actions are listed in the Index of EPA Actions and
Commitments: A3 - A5, A8 - A12, A16, P3 - P9, Pll, S2 - S6, S7,
44
-------
S10, S23, S25, S27, S28, S33, S36, Wl, W3 - W7 , M8, M10.
3.8. Inclusionary Rulemaking
Over the past nine years, EPA has been trying to involve the
public and regulated parties more fully in regulatory decision-
making. This experience has shown that EPA, industry and
environmentalists can work together to find solutions to each
party's needs. In most cases the regulations that have been
developed are more pragmatic and environmentally effective than
they would otherwise have been. For this reason, EPA decided to
make inclusionary rulemaking a focus of the 90-Day Review.
Inclusionary rulemaking involves a range of activities,
including: public hearings and meetings, workshops, roundtables,
policy dialogues, negotiated rulemaking, and the use of "alternate
dispute resolution" in enforcement cases. Industry has testified
before Congress and at numerous meetings that negotiated rules save
money. Environmentalists claim that pollution reduction goals have
not been compromised and that implementation schedules have been
reasonable. EPA has been pleased with the results and wants to
expand its activities in this area.
In the course of the 90-Day Review, EPA conducted an Agency-
wide examination of rules under development and concluded that a
series of rules may benefit from greater use of inclusionary
processes. Several additional regulatory negotiations, including
one on air emissions from architectural and industrial maintenance
coatings, are under consideration. In addition, as noted in the
Index of EPA Actions and Commitments, several of EPA's 90-Day
activities expand the use of inclusionary processes: SI, S22, S31,
S32, and W7.
3.9. RCRA Reform
The final area on which EPA placed special emphasis in the 90-
Day Review was reform of regulations to implement the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). EPA is making commitments
that will lead to substantial savings in this area, while ensuring
continued protection of human health and the environment. These
commitments are described earlier in this chapter, along with the
other reforms being implemented by the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Twenty-eight individual actions are listed in
the Index of EPA Actions and Commitments: SI - S28.
45
-------
CHAPTER 3
OTHER EPA ACTIVITIES THAT SERVE THE OBJECTIVES
OF THE PRESIDENT'S REQUEST
In addition to the actions that EPA is taking specifically as
part of the 90-Day Review, the Agency is engaged in a number of
other activities that support the President's request to reduce
unnecessary regulatory burdens and promote economic growth.
Several of the major activities of this type are described in this
chapter.
1. Strategic Planning and Budgeting
2. Applying Total Quality Management
3. Permitting Reform
4. Reducing Reporting Burdens
5. Better Science in Agency Decision-making
6. Better Economics in Agency Decision-making
7. Voluntary Conservation and Emission Reduction Programs
1. Strategic Planning and Budgeting
Over the past three years, EPA has launched a major initiative
to integrate the Agency's strategic planning and budgeting
processes. The goal is to focus limited resources on environmental
problems that pose the greatest risks to human health and the
environment. Ten themes drive EPA's strategic planning for the
future:
1.1) Strategic Implementation of Statutory Mandates. EPA is
responsible for administering twelve major federal environmental
statutes that have shaped the Agency's regulatory programs,
organization and culture. The Agency has an extensive set of legal
obligations under these statutes, and is seeking to implement
mandated programs in a more integrated, effective way.
1.2) Improving the Science and Knowledge Base. EPA is
improving cross-media integration of science and information
management, including research in environmental economics.
Specific efforts include: core research to improve our
understanding of relative risks to human health and ecosystems;
cross-media research and technical assistance to program offices;
economic research to improve EPA's ability to value ecological
resources and to use market-based approaches to risk reduction; and
improving data collection and reporting capabilities through
improved statistical methods and analyses and application of
enhanced geographical information systems.
1.3) Pollution Prevention. EPA is finding ways to prevent
pollution from occurring and thereby eliminating or minimizing the
46
-------
need for end-of-pipe controls. The benefits of preventing
pollution include reduced costs of ongoing regulatory compliance;
recapturing and recycling waste streams; reducing energy demand;
increasing efficiency and performance and reducing consumption of
natural resources, virgin and hazardous/toxic materials. In
carrying out the 1990 Pollution Prevention Act, EPA is screening
new regulatory activities for pollution prevention alternatives;
sponsoring research on products, processes, recycling/reuse,
economic and institutional factors, and emerging technologies; and
providing funding and technical assistance to states and local
governments.
1.4) Geographic Targeting on an Ecosystem Basis. Geographic
targeting involves thorough integration of Agency resources and
actions across media, frequently using watersheds or other
geographical areas as a focus. This approach promotes holistic
ecosystem protection that carefully selects the appropriate mix of
regulatory and non-regulatory tools and measures to reduce health
and environmental risks posed by problems within a fixed geographic
area. To date, EPA has implemented this approach in water quality
programs within the Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, the Gulf of
Mexico, and other watersheds, estuaries and lakes. Other areas
being considered include flyways, terrestrial migration corridors,
deep water ecosystems, airsheds in major urban areas, and
international border areas.
1.5) Greater Reliance on Market and Economic Incentives. In
many areas, economic incentives and disincentives can stimulate
firms and consumers to improve environmental quality without having
to use "command and control" regulation. As described elsewhere in
this report, EPA is pursuing several innovations in this area.
1.6) Improving Cross-Media Program Integration and Multi-Media
Enforcement. Historically, EPA regulatory programs have developed
around media-specific goals, such as clean air or clean water.
This theme supports EPA's efforts to look broadly across an array
of environmental problems at a single site or among individual
sources and pursue the option that maximizes health and
environmental protection. It also requires that EPA find ways to
avoid actions that transfer risks from one environmental media to
another. Several efforts are underway to explore and promote multi-
media approaches to permitting, compliance and enforcement.
Computerized data systems are being developed to detect patterns of
violations which will facilitate cross-media enforcement. EPA has
concluded several innovative settlement agreements that require
violators to contribute to solving the environmental problems they
created or to commit to preventative actions.
1.7) Building State and Local Capacity. The majority of
national environmental programs are delegated to and funded by
states and local governments. States are assuming a growing number
of responsibilities, and local governments today are increasingly
47
-------
becoming both the "regulated community" and the "regulator."
Technical and financial assistance efforts to help states set
priorities, build state capacity, fund needed infrastructure, and
communicate regulatory and technical information are underway.
1.8) International Cooperation. Many environmental problems
transcend political boundaries and require coordinated, hemispheric
or worldwide cooperation. EPA is actively engaged in foreign
policy discussions on issues that will affect the nation's and
global environmental quality, including global climate change,
upper atmospheric ozone, and oceans policy. The Agency is also
supplying scientific and technical assistance to a growing number
of on-the-ground cooperative efforts in Eastern Europe, the former
Soviet Union, Mexico, Brazil, and the Caribbean basin. EPA is
giving new emphasis to strengthening bilateral programs, improving
cooperation, and finding ways to integrate economic and
environmental decision-making.
1.9) Education and Outreach. Public understanding of
environmental issues is critical to achieving wise public and
private policies and actions. With this in mind, EPA is expanding
and strengthening its capabilities to communicate scientific and
technical information. One important means is through
implementation of the National Environmental Education Act, which
will focus on Kindergarten through Grade 12 environmental science
curricula. Outreach efforts include making the Toxics Release
Inventory data available so that local communities and the public-
at-large can find ways to reduce potential environmental risks.
1.10) Better Management and Infrastructure. Using the
concepts and practices of total quality management (TQM), EPA is
seeking improvements in the scope and quality of services that are
provided by encouraging and rewarding individuals and teams that
advance the Agency's efforts to protect health and the environment
more effectively. The Agency is addressing the needs of EPA's
workforce to be better trained and to recruit and assimilate a more
culturally diverse workforce. EPA is continuing to upgrade
information management systems to manage growing quantities of
environmental data. The Agency is also seeking to collaborate with
other federal and private organizations that share common
interests, and offer opportunities to merge activities and
resources that will serve the Agency's mission of protecting public
health and the environment.
Several of these themes are echoed in the pages that follow.
2. Applying Total Quality Management
During the past 18 months, EPA has undertaken an intensive
Agency-wide program to implement the principles of Total Quality
Management (TQM). EPA's TQM training and application of TQM
48
-------
principles are similar to programs in many public and private
organizations. Nearly all Agency management and staff have been or
will be trained in applying TQM to their work by:
• reorienting their programs to be more responsive to the
needs of the regulated community;
•• paying more attention to the feedback provided by those
who are involved in carrying out particular programs
(such as state regulators);
• actively seeking ways to eliminate obsolete policies,
approval steps and other structural barriers to progress;
and,
• placing increased emphasis on continuous improvement.
In many ways, TQM principles reinforce the objectives of the
90-Day Review. EPA is seeking ways to work with people outside the
Agency to achieve real environmental gains in the most effective
way possible. For example, EPA is applying TQM to explore barriers
to technological innovation. Working with the National Advisory
Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), EPA is
examining the research and development community's needs to obtain
permits to test innovative technologies.
3. Permitting Reform
EPA is applying Total Quality Management (TQM) principles to
the administration of federal and state permit programs. Many of
EPA's policies and regulations are implemented through permit
programs that are integral to EPA's air quality, water quality, and
waste management programs. The regulated community often comes to
know EPA and state environmental agencies through their
interactions with permit writers and those who enforce permits. It
is especially important that these permit programs are efficiently
administered by state and federal agencies in order to attain
statutory goals most effectively.
Looking at federal and state permit programs from the point of
view of the "customer" (e.g. the regulated community) may help EPA
identify opportunities to eliminate unnecessary duplication,
streamline permitting processes, and reduce the uncertainties often
associated with trying to meet permit conditions while regulatory
requirements are changing. A number of actions are underway now in
individual permit programs to improve their efficiency and
effectiveness using TQM principles and techniques. For example, as
described in Chapter 2 of this report, EPA is using group
applications and general permits to control water quality impacts
from stormwater drainage. This will reduce the permitting burden.
In addition, EPA will propose revisions to the sewage sludge
49
-------
standards that will set priorities on the basis of risk and phase
in certain application requirements as companies reapply for new
permits over the present five year cycle. These changes should
enable the Agency to focus first on those sources posing the
greatest risks and to make the process move more smoothly for all
applicants. Finally, EPA is convening focus groups among the
regulated community, states, permitting authorities, and
environmental groups to identify further areas for improved permit
program efficiency.
4. Reducing Reporting Burdens
Another on-going initiative pertains to reducing the amount
and type of information that must be reported to regulatory
agencies under several statutes. Four aspects of EPA program
reporting requirements are under review: (1) de minimis reporting
thresholds; (2) overall systems structures; (3) more consistency
among state-delegated programs; and (4) opportunities to use
electronic reporting technologies.
4.1) De Minimis Thresholds; Several commenters during the 90-
day Regulatory Review suggested that raising the reporting
threshold for Toxic Release Inventory chemicals and for reportable
quantities of hazardous air pollutants would reduce paperwork
burdens on facilities substantially, without creating significant
losses in data on releases. EPA offices are exploring ways to
respond to these comments.
4.2) Systems Structures; Different EPA programs have created
many related information requirements. Examples include: (a)
waste/release/pollution prevention data collected in the Toxic
Release Inventory, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Biennial Report, Hazardous Waste Manifests, and Capacity Assurance
Planning reports; (b) motor vehicle emissions testing for vehicle
prototype certification; (c) industry-specific surveys, e.g., under
RCRA and for Effluent Guidelines under the Clean Water Act; and (d)
facility/spill response planning, under the Chemical Accident
Prevention sections of the Clean Air Act, under the Spill
Prevention Control and Cotmtermeasures provisions of the Oil
Pollution Act, and possibly under Underground Storage Tank and
Occupational Safety and Health Administration programs as well. In
these and other cases, EPA is analyzing data, and uses and sources
of the data to identify areas of overlap and suggest more efficient
and less burdensome ways to collect and maintain the data.
4.3) Improving State Consistency; States implementing EPA
programs often develop their own data reporting requirements —
creating additional reporting burdens for firms operating in
different states and arguably, compromising states' ability to
share data with each other. One example is the Hazardous Waste
Manifest, used to track shipments of hazardous wastes, which exists
50
-------
in approximately 20 state-specific versions. Efforts are underway
to develop uniform or consistent manifest requirements, implemented
through negotiated rulemaking, that will meet states' needs and
minimize burdens on regulated entities operating across state
lines. This approach may be considered wherever state program
diversity increases the burden of EPA requirements.
4.4) Electronic reporting: Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
promises to reduce burdens by facilitating the automation of
regulated entities reporting to EPA. Pilot projects are currently
underway to demonstrate this concept in waste and water quality
programs, in collaboration with states which have been delegated
authority to administer federal programs. In addition, given that
the handling and processing of paper reports constitute substantial
barriers to the coordination of related reporting activities, EDI
is being investigated as a way to integrate information collection
across various programs.
5. Better Science in Agency Decision-male ing
Sound science must be the foundation for all EPA policy and
program decisions, particularly as the environmental issues EPA
faces become more complex. Recognizing the need to improve
scientific data and analytic methodologies, EPA has recently
undertaken several important initiatives.
In early 1991, EPA commissioned an independent Expert Panel on
the Role of Science at EPA to advise the Agency on how to achieve
this objective. Last month this panel completed its report,
Safeguarding the Future; Credible Science, Credible Decisions.
This report contains many specific recommendations for improving
the Agency's science base and encouraging the development and use
of the highest quality science. In response, EPA is already
implementing many of the recommendations. EPA is revising its
research planning process; involving the scientific community
outside of the Agency with a new peer review system; establishing
science advisors in each program office; and placing new emphasis
on recruiting and maintaining high-caliber Agency scientists.
A second initiative is a thorough review of the Agency's
Integrated Risk Management Information System (IRIS). Since 1988,
IRIS has been expanded to include hazard identification and human
health risk information for 492 chemicals. The database contains
risk information that has been derived by Agency consensus, and it
is widely used by health professionals and environmental program
managers inside and outside the Agency. Currently, EPA is
undertaking a total quality management review of IRIS to improve
the quality of information and service provided to IRIS customers,
through increased public involvement and peer review.
A third initiative concerns risk assessment. In the past,
51
-------
EPA's risk assessments have focussed on cancer effects of
pollution. During 1992, more emphasis is being placed on non-
cancer effects, exposure assessments, and the development of
ecological risk assessment guidelines.
A fourth initiative concerns how the results of risk
assessments are characterized by program managers and others. In
February 1992, EPA issued guidance on how risk assessment
information and risk management information (costs, benefits,
feasibility) need to be presented and described. These guidelines
will ensure risk assessors better communicate uncertainties to risk
managers, and that common risk descriptors are used among all
offices.
6. Better Economics in Agency Decision-making
EPA is making a concerted effort to improve the use of
economics in Agency decision-making. To achieve this, it has
recently formed two independent advisory committees composed of
national leaders in environmental economics. These committees will
advise EPA in ways to improve the use of economics in its programs.
Each of these committees held their first meetings during the 90-
Day Review.
The first committee is the Environmental Economics Advisory
Committee (EEAC) of the Science Advisory Board. At its April 15
meeting, EEAC initiated a review of environmental accounting
practices. Many economists and others have long been concerned
about the ability of conventional economic accounting systems to
accurately reflect resource depletion and degradation of
environmental quality. Environmental accounting provides a
consistent and comprehensive system for looking at the interactions
between the environment and the economy. EPA has initiated a
demonstration environmental accounting project for the Chesapeake
Bay region.
The second committee, the Clean Air Act Compliance Analysis
Council (CAACAC), was congressionally mandated under the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990 and held its first meeting April 19. The
CAACAC is charged with reviewing and making recommendations to the
Administrator regarding the data, methodologies, and findings for
certain analyses called for by the Act. The Committee is reviewing
Agency plans to conduct a retrospective (i.e., 1970-1990) analysis
of the costs and benefits of the Clean Air Act.
7. Voluntary Conservation and Emission Reduction Programs
Oftentimes, the most effective way to promote environmental
protection and economic growth is to provide information and
assistance to organizations to encourage them to take actions that
52
-------
are in their own economic interests and provide public benefits as
well. EPA has several such activities underway, including the
Green Lights Program and the 33/50 toxic waste reduction program.
The Green Lights Program demonstrates the economic advantages
and environmental benefits of installing energy-efficient lighting.
Participants voluntarily sign an agreement with EPA to survey all
their facilities and install new lighting systems where profitable
and where lighting quality is not compromised. EPA provides
participants with technical support so that upgrades can be
completed in five years.
Since January 1991, 425 corporations, seven states, and three
cities have committed to the Green Lights program. Because of
their voluntary commitments, 8.7 billion kilowatt hours of energy
will be conserved. Air emissions from electric power plants
(carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide) will be reduced
by over seven million metric tons annually — for carbon dioxide
reductions, the equivalent of taking 1.6 million cars off the road.
Moreover, program participants will be cutting their electric
utility bills by an estimated $702 million a year. A similar
initiative to promote voluntary production of energy-efficient
computers ("Green Computers") is also underway. EPA estimates that
Green Computers could save at least 20 billion kilowatt-hours of
electricity and prevent the release of 15 million tons of carbon
dioxide every year.
The "33/50" Program is another voluntary pollution prevention
program. Under this program, companies develop their own goals and
make commitments to reduce their releases voluntarily of 17 toxic
chemical wastes through pollution prevention in support of
national reduction goals of 33% by 1992 and 50% by 1995. The 17
chemicals have been targeted using information reported to the
Toxic Release Inventory for 1988 as the baseline. Over 6000
companies reported releases to the environment and/or transfers of
wastes offsite totalling 1.4 billion pounds in the baseline year.
By March 1992, 734 corporations had pledged to reduce in excess of
304 million pounds of the chemical wastes for these 17 chemicals by
1995. Some companies are going beyond the basic program by
addressing additional chemicals, overseas facilities, and pollution
prevention management plans which will lead to environmental
improvements on a continuing basis beyond the lifetime of this
initiative.
53
-------
REFERENCES
Farrow, S. and Lyon, R. "An Economic Analysis of Clean Water Act Issues:
Preliminary Results," draft paper, Council on Environmental Policy and Office of
Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President of the United States,
February 6, 1992.
Freeman, A.M., Air and Water Pollution Control; A Benefit-Cost Assessment. New
York, Wiley, 1982.
Hazilla and Kopp, "Social Cost of Environmental Quality Regulations: A General
Equilibrium Analysis," Journal of Political Economy. 1990, vol. 98, no. 4.
Jorgenson and Wilcoxen, "Environmental Regulation and U.S. Economic Growth," Rand
Journal of Economics. 1990, vol. 21, no. 2.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), "The Environmental
Industry: Trends and Issues," September 25, 1991.
Portney, P., Public Policies for Environmental Protection. Resources for the
Future, 1990.
Roper Organization, Roper Reports. 92-1 (1992).
Schelling, T., Choice and Consequences; Perspectives of an Errant Economist.
Harvard University Press, 1984.
Schultz, C., The Public Use of Private Interest. Brookings Institute, 1977.
Science Advisory Board, Reducing Risk; Setting Priorities and Strategies for
Environmental Protection. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Unfinished Business; A Comparative
Assessment of Environmental Problems. 1987.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Investments; The Cost of a
Clean Environment. 1990a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Economic Incentives: Options for
Environmental Protection. 1990b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fiscal Year 1990 Compliance Report;
National Public Water System Supervision Program. March, 1991.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The United States Experience with Economic
Incentives to Control Environmental Pollution. 1992, forthcoming.
U.S. International Trade Commission, International Agreements to Protect the
Environment and Wildlife. Publication 2351, January, 1991.
54
-------
EXHIBITS
"Reducing the Burden of Government Regulation," Memorandum
from President George Bush, January 28, 1992, Weekly
Compilation of Presidential Documents, Vol. 28, No. 7,
February 17, 1992, pp. 232 - 234.
"Regulatory Coordination," Memorandum from President George
Bush, January 28, 1992, Weekly Compilation of Presidential
Documents, Vol. 28, No. 7, February 17, 1992, p. 232.
"90-Day Economic Review of Regulations," Memorandum from
Administrator William K. Reilly, February 5, 1992 (included as
the Appendix to the March 3, 1992, Federal Register notice -
Exhibit 4).
"Ninety Day Economic Review of Regulations," Federal Register,
Vol 57, No. 42, March 3, 1992, pp. 7564-7566.
55
-------
Weekly Compilation of
Presidential
Documents
232
Monday, February 17, 1992
Volume 28—Number 7
Pages 231-268
Memorandum on Regulatory
Coordination
January 28,1992
Memorandum for the Secretary of the
Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, the
Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, the
Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, the Chairman ofthe Nuclear
Regulatory Commission
Subject: Regulatory Coordination
As you know, the Congress has failed to
enact important growth-oriented legislation
that we have proposed. Although we will con-
tinue to work with the Congress to enact
these proposals, we must also redouble our
efforts to create jobs and achieve economic
growth within existing statutory constraints.
For such efforts to succeed, we must pre-
vent the fragmentation of policy-making and
better coordinate existing programs within
the executive branch. We have made great
strides in this area, but more remains to be
done. Your agencies share responsibility for
promoting safe and efficient energy produc-
tion while at the same time protecting the
environment. It is therefore essential that
you work together to streamline the regu-
latory process and ensure that the regulated
community is not subject to duplicative or
inconsistent regulation.
I hope that improved coordination will be
one especially valuable outcome of the 90-
day moratorium and review period described
in the attached memorandum. I look forward
to your reports on this important undertak-
ing. Although the Congress has created the
regulatory schemes within which we must
operate, I am confident that, with your help,
the executive branch can do much to create
conditions conducive to a healthy and robust
economy.
George Bush
Note: This memorandum was released by the
Office of the Press Secretary on January 30
Jan. 301 Administration of George Bush, 1992
but was not made available in time for pub-
lication in the appropriate issue.
Memorandum on Reducing the
Burden of Government Regulation
January 28,1992
Memorandum for Certain Department and
Agency Heads
Subject: Reducing the Burden of
Government Regulation
As you know, excessive regulation and red
tape have imposed an enormous burden on
our economy—a hidden tax on the average
American household in the form of higher
prices for goods and services. Just as Ameri-
cans have the right to expect their govern-
ment to spend tax dollars wisely, they have
the right to expect cost-effective and mini-
mally burdensome regulation. Although the
Congress has thus far failed to pass most of
the Administration's regulatory reform pro-
posals, there is much the Administration can
and should do on its own to reduce the bur-
den of regulation.
A major part of this undertaking must be
to weed out unnecessary and burdensome
government regulations, which impose need-
less costs on consumers and substantially im-
pede economic growth. We must be con-
stantly vigilant to avoid unnecessary regula-
tion and red tape.
We must also remember that even those
regulatory programs that may have been jus-
tified when adopted often fail to keep pace
with important innovations. New tech-
nologies and markets can quickly make exist-
ing rules obsolete. By the same token, exist-
ing regulations often impose unnecessary
constraints on emerging technologies and
markets that could not have been foreseen
at the time the regulations were promul-
gated. Existing regulatory programs also
need to be revised to take advantage of regu-
latory innovations, such as the flexible, mar-
ket-based approaches to regulation that many
of your agencies have developed over the
past few years.
I am concerned that, because of the con-
stant pressure to develop new programs, we
56
-------
Administration of George BusK, 1992 /Jan. 30
are not doing nearly enough to review and
revise existing programs. For that reason, I
ask that each of your agencies set aside a
90-day period, beginning today, to evaluate
existing regulations and programs and to
identify and accelerate action on initiatives
that will eliminate any unnecessary regu-
latory burden or otherwise promote eco-
nomic growth. During this period, agency re-
sources should, to the maximum extent pos-
sible, be devoted to these efforts. Specifi-
cally, I request that you take the following
steps:
1. During the 90-day review period, your
agency should work with the public, other
interested agencies, the Office of Informa-
tion and Regulatory Affairs, and the Council
on Competitiveness to (i) identify each of
your agency's regulations and programs that
impose a substantial cost on the economy and
(ii) determine whether each such regulation
or program adheres to the following stand-
ards:
(a) The expected benefits to society of any
regulation should clearly outweigh the
expected costs it imposes on society.
(b) Regulations should be fashioned to
maximize net benefits to society.
(c) To the maximum extent possible, regu-
latory agencies should set performance
standards instead of prescriptive com-
mand-and-control requirements, there-
by allowing the regulated community to
achieve regulatory goals at the lowest
possible cost.
(d) Regulations should incorporate market
mechanisms to the maximum extent
possible.
(e) Regulations should provide clarity and
certainty to the regulated community
and should be designed to avoid need-
less litigation.
2. To the maximum extent permitted by
law, and as soon as possible, your agency
should propose administrative changes (in-
cluding repeal, where appropriate) that will
bring each regulation ana program into con-
formity with the standards set forth above.
As you implement these proposals, you
should carefully order your agency's regu-
latory priorities to ensure that programs im-
posing the largest unnecessary burden are
the first to be revised or eliminated.
233
3. You should designate, in consultation
with the Council on Competitiveness, a sen-
ior official to serve as your agency's perma-
nent regulatory oversight official. This person
will be responsible for conducting the review,
for implementing the resulting proposals,
and for ensuring that future regulatory ac-
tions conform to the standards set forth in
this memorandum and in applicable Execu-
tive orders.
4. To the maximum extent permitted by
law, and subject to the exceptions listed
below, your agency should refrain from issu-
ing any proposed or final rule during the 90-
day review period. This moratorium on new
regulations will ensure that, to the maximum
extent possible, agency resources are devoted
to reducing the regulatory burden on the
economy. Of course, you should not post-
pone any regulation that is subject to a statu-
tory or judicial deadline that falls during the
review period. This moratorium does not
apply to:
(a) regulations that you determine, after
consultation with the working group of
the Council on Competitiveness de-
scribed below, will foster economic
growth;
(b) regulations that respond to emer-
gencies such as situations that pose an
imminent danger to human health or
safety;
(c) regulations that you determine, after
consultation with the working group of
the Council on Competitiveness de-
scribed below, are essential to a criminal
law enforcement function of the United
States;
(d) regulations issued with respect to a
military or foreign affairs function of the
United States;
(e) regulations related solely to agency or-
ganization, management, or personnel;
and
(f) formal regulations required by statute
to be made on the record after oppor-
tunity for an agency hearing.
5. At the end of the review period, each
agency should submit a written report to me.
Each report should indicate the regulatory
changes recommended or made during the
review period and the potential savings to the
economy of those changes, including an esti-
57
-------
234 Jan. 301 Administration of George Bush, 1992
mate of the number of jobs that will be cre-
ated. It should also include a summary of
any regulatory programs that are left un-
changed and an explanation of how such pro-
grams are consistent with the regulatory
standards set forth in paragraph 1 above.
The 90-day review, and the preparation of
the reports described in paragraph 5.above,
will be coordinated by a working group of
the Council on Competitiveness, chaired by
the Chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisers and the Counsel to the President
I look forward to your reports on this im-
portant undertaking. I am confident that,
with your help, the executive branch can do
much to create conditions conducive to a
healthy and robust economy.
George Bush
The Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary
of Defense, the Attorney General, the
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Secretary of Commerce, the
Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development, the
Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of
Energy, the Secretary of Education, the
Chairman of the Interstate Commerce
Commission, the Chairman of the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the
Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission,
the Chairperson of the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, the Chairman of the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission, the Chairman of the Federal
Maritime Commission, the Chairman of the
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, the
Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the Chairman of the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission,
the Chairman of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission
Note: This memorandum was released by the
Office of the Press Secretary on January 30
but was not made available in time for pub-
lication in the appropriate issue.
58
-------
7564 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 42 / Tuesday. March 3, 1992 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Chapter I
[FRL-4111-*]
Ninety Day Economic Review of
Regulations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Request for public comment
SUMMARY: This document requests
public comments that will assist the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPAJ
in responding to a directive from
President Bush. The directive requests
the Agency to undertake a 90-day
review to identify any unnecessary and
burdensome regulations which impose
needless costs on consumers and
substantially impede economic growth,
and to accelerate actions which will
promote economic growth. EPA invites
the public to make written comments
and/or to attend several open meetings.
DATES: EPA invites members of the
public to make written comments by
March 20,1992. Because the 90-day
period will conclude on April 27,1992.
comments received later than March 20,
1992, will still be welcome, but EPA may
not be able to consider them fully jn this
90-day review. EPA will also include
discussion of possible regulatory
changes at several meetings open to the
public (see SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION below). At these meeting*
EPA hopes to consider any written
comments that have been received on
the areas being discussed; thus it would
59
-------
Federal Ragtoter / VoL 57, No. 42 / Tuesday. March 3. 1992 / Proposed "Rules
7565
be helpful (although not required) if
written commentB on issues that might
be discussed at these meetings are
received at least several days before the
meetings. There will also be time set
aside at these meetings for members of
the public to speak.
KSES: Five copies of each set of
written comments should be sent to:
Assistant Administrator for Policy,
Planning and Evaluation (PM-219),
Attention: 90-Day Review, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
St. SW.. Washington, DC 20460.
Comments should include the docket
number FRL-4111-8. The public docket
will include copies of all written
comments received in response to this
notice. The docket will be available for
public review at EPA Headquarters
during normal business hours. To review
the docket please contact Mark
Goldman at EPA Headquarters,
(202)260-4454.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
For general information contact Mark
Goldman. (202)260-4454. Office of
Communications, Education and Public
Affairs (A-107), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401M St. SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. For specific
information about one of the public
meetings or particular EPA programs,
see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
below.
SUPPLEMENTARY MFORMATKM:
Background
On January 28,1992, President Bush
requested the Administrator of the -
Environmental Protection Agency, along
with the heads of other Federal
regulatory departments and agencies to
"set aside a 90-day period * * * -to
evaluate existing regulations and
programs and to identify and accelerate
action on initiatives that will eliminate
any unnecessary regulatory burden or
otherwise promote economic growth."
The President asked the Agency to
identify those regulations which impose
substantial costs on the economy and to
determine whether each such regulation
adheres to a set of five standards or
criteria which he set out in his
memorandum. He further requested the
Agency to work closely with the public
and other agencies on this effort and to
make a report to him at the end of the
90-day period. (See Weekly Compilation
of Presidential Documents, February 17,
1992, Vol. 28 No. 7, pg. 232. "Reducing
the Burden of Government Regulation,"
Memorandum from President George
Bush, January 28,1992, and "Regulatory
Coordination," Memorandum from
President George Bush, January 28,
1992.)
• In response to this directive, EPA has
initiated a review of tts regulations and
related aqgvflies. In a memorandum to
key Ageney staff, EPA Administrator
William K. Reilly stated that the
President's request "presents EPA with
an opportunity to accelerate the use of
innovative, cost-minimizing regulatory
approaches and to speed pro-growth
activities. It also provides an
opportunity to reconsider regulations
that unnecessarily impede economic
growth." (See Appendix 1 "90-Day
Economic Review of Regulations,"
Memorandum from Administrator
William K. Reilly. February 5.1992.)
Administrator Reilly's memorandum
stated that to fulfill the President's
request, EPA will undertake "a 90-day
effort to identify specific steps we could
take in each of these areas, and to
provide an assessment of the economic
effects of suggested actions * * '.All of
these actions must be consistent with
our statutory mandates and
environmental objectives." The
memorandum further stated that, "In
fact these initiatives promise to advance
environmental interests, which is the
President's objective, by better
integrating our efforts with national
economic priorities of promoting jobs,
investment and growth." Administrator
Reilly's memorandum made it clear that
the intent of EPA's review is not to slow
down environmental progress, but
rather to find ways to achieve this
progress in protecting public health and
the environment in a more economically
efficient manner.
In order to make this 90-day review as
meaningful as possible, EPA plans to
select a limited number of specific
regulations and related activities .which
- appear to present special opportunities
to promote the President's goals and to
focus its analysis on them. Although
EPA will be preparing a report for the
President on the review at the end of 90
days, some of the analyses may
continue past that time.
For its review, EPA will select the
topics for focussed analysis from
existing and proposed individual
regulations, groups of regulations, non-
regulatory programs and policies and
procedures that implement those
regulations and programs. The
Administrator's memorandum and the
section of this notice entitled "Program
Office Reviews and Public Meetings"
list several topics that are already being
considered for this review and on which
EPA would especially appreciate
comments.
Public comments on regulations under
development will continue to proceed
through the normal notice and comment
process, and this notice does not extend
those comment periods. Further, any
revisions to regulations initiated as a
result of this review will be made only
after full notice and comment.
Thus, the purpose of this request for
public comment is to invite interested
members of the public to identify
regulations and related activities for
EPA's review and to provide
information that would be useful to EPA
in its review.
Guidelines for Comments
In light of the short time available for
this review, the Agency makes the
following requests concerning any
comments that members of the public
choose to submit:
1. Each regulation or related activity
that a commenter suggests for review
should meet the President's criteria as
well as meet the following tests:
(a) Any suggested changes that might
be made as a result of the review must
be within EPA's statutory authority.
(b) Significant economic savings
would be possible if changes are made.
(c) Proposed changes will not
compromise environmental protection
goals.
2. Because EPA intends to focus its
review on a limited number of
regulations and related activities,
commenters who suggest more than one
regulation or related activity for review
should also suggest which one(s) should
receive EPA's priority attention.
3. Each regulation or related activity
that is suggested for review should be
-accompanied by a short (1-2 page)
••summary of why it meets the President's
criteria and any factual material or
analysis that would assist EPA in the
review. Supporting materials may be
appended. EPA is particularly interested
in information concerning economic and
environmental effects.
4. The comments most useful to EPA
would be those that both (1) identify a
specific regulatory burden that can be
shown to be unnecessary, for instance,
due to changes in the regulatory context
or new data or analysis, and (2) include
suggestions for achieving the same
environmental goal(s) in a less
burdensome or more efficient manner.
Program Office Reviews and Public
Meetings
The four EPA program offices are at
various stages in reviews of several
•topics. They have also scheduled some
meetings to which members of the
public are invited. Formal advisory
committee meetings listed below also
have been or will be announced
separately in the Federal Register. These
-------
7566
Federal Register / Vol. 57, No. 42 / Tuesday. March 3. 1992 / Proposed Rules
meetings will focus in whole or in part
on the review effort
As mentioned above, at these
meetings EPA hopes to consider any
written comments that have been
received on the areas being discussed;
thus it would be helpful (although not
required) if written comments on issues
that might be discussed at these
meetings are received at least several
days before the meetings. There will
also be time set aside at these meetings
for members of the public to speak.
1. Office of Air and Radiation. The
Clean Air Act Advisory Committee will
meet on Tuesday. March 31,1992, from
10:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., at the J.W. Marriott
Hotel, Pennsylvania Ave. and 14th
Street N.W., Washington. DC. For
further information contact: Paul
Rasmussen (202) 260-7430.
2. Office of Water. The Management
Advisory Group to the Assistant
Administrator for Water will meet on
March 9.10. and 11,1992, at the Holiday
Inn, Interstate 80. Grand island,
Nebraska. On March 11, at 10 a.m., a
portion of the agenda will be dedicated
to two particular topics of discussion
under the moratorium: stormwater
control and trading discharge
allocations between point and nonpoint
sources. For further information contact
Michelle Miller, (202) 260-5554.
3. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. The Office has
recently received extensive public
comment as it conducted reviews of
Superfund and Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Implementation. These reviews have
suggested a series of areas for reform. In
addition, the Office has recently
conducted a series of public outreach
activities involving affected
environmental groups and citizens,
regulated industries, states and local
governments, research institutions, and
other Federal Agencies. Based on these
efforts, the Office is focussing during the
Spring of 1992 on two areas of reform:
Redirecting RCRA towards waste
presenting significant risks; and
revitalization of Superfund. The Office
plans to publish a Federal Register
notice inviting comment on the first area
for reform in April. A public meeting on
the second area for reform is planned
for late March (details will be
announced when they are available). In
- addition, the Office will hold public
meetings and have additional
opportunities for public comment at
other areas are targeted for reform in the
near future. For further information
contact: Margaret Schneider (202) 280-
4617.
4. Office of Pesticides, Prevention and
Toxic Substances. The Office plans to
take advantage of upcoming meetings of
interested groups to solicit public input
on actions the Agency is taking and
might take to improve its programs. In
particular, officials will attend the
Pesticide Users Advisory Committee
meeting on March 24-25,1992, and the
meeting of the American Association of
Pesticide Control Officials on March 16-
18,1992. both in Washington, DC. At
these meetings, EPA plans to discuss,
among other current issues, incentives
to encourage the development and
registration of pesticides that may
present lower overall risks to human
health and the environment than those
currently on the market. The Office is
also already considering several specific
issues in the context of this review: How
best to address the risks of lawn care
pesticides, chemical inventory
exemptions and EPA's Section 6(e)
policy on environmental releases under
the Toxic Substances Control Act For
further information contact: Judith
Nelson (202) 260-2890.
Dated: February 27.1992.
Richard D. Morgenstem,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Policy.
Planning and Evaluation.
Appendix
1. "90-Day Economic Review of
Regulations," Memorandum from
Administrator William K. Reilly.
February 5,1992.
February 5,1992.
Memorandum
To: Assistant Administrators, General
Counsel, Inspector General, Regional
Administrators, Associate
Administrators
Subject: 90-Day Economic Review of
Regulations
President Bush has asked each federal
agency to review its regulations over the next
90 days. I fully support this initiative, for I
believe it presents EPA with an opportunity
to accelerate the use of innovative, cost- '
minimizing regulatory approaches and to
speed pro-growth activities. It also provides
an opportunity to reconsider regulations that
unnecessarily impede economic growth. I
have directed Dick Motgenstera to lead a 90-
day effort to identify specific steps we could
take in each of these areas, and to provide an
assessment of the economic effects of
suggested action*. Your participation and
support are critical. All of these actions must
be consistent with our statutory mandates
and environmental objectives.
While many of EPA's regulations are
exempt from the moratorium because of
statutory or judicial deadlines (including. I
am assured by both Michael Boskin and
Boyden Gray, proposals necessary to meet
such deadlines), the review should cover the
full range of EPA activities. We should first
Identify those rules or proposals necessary to
meet deadlines to ensure they are put into the
review process as early as possible.
Moreover, we should scrutinize every
regulation to assure that expected costs do
not exceed expected benefits, and must
continue to pursue vigorously the most cost-
effective strategies in all our regulatory
actions. At the White House meeting on the
review, I proposed the following areas in
which I expect EPA can implement more
cost-effective approaches to achieving
environmental objectives:
• Reduce regulatory b.irdens for small
communities and small bub nesses;
• Increase incentives for U.e use of clean
fuels such as natural gas:
• Reform RCRA (through legisL'jnn or
regulation—the mixture and deriveo from
rule offers a near-term opportunity);
• Expand market-based approaches to
regulations;
• Accelerate tnctuaionary ralemaking
(particularly negotiated rulemakings, or "reg
negs");
• Accelerate rules that reduce the
regulatory burden on the economy; and
• Strengthen innovative technology
development and export promotion efforts.
In addition, we should explore ways to
speed biotechnology reforms.
Nothing I have proposed is inconsistent
with EPA priorities. In fact, these initiatives
promise to advance environmental interests,
which is the President's objective, by better
integrating our efforts with national economic
priorities of promoting jobs, investment and
growth. We have already made substantial
progress toward furthering economic
objectives through instituting regulatory
reforms and developing programs that benefit
both the economy and the environment, often
while increasing energy efficiency. Enduring
public support for environmental protection
depends on continued efforts to develop and
implement the most economically efficient
environmental programs.
Dick will develop a strategy for the review
in consultation with you. He will follow up
with each of you shortly. Given your
commitment to developing environmental
programs sensitive to economic concerns. I
am confident the review will be productive. I
have attached, for your review, a
memorandum on this subject issued by the -
President on January 28.1992.
William K. ReiUy.
(FR Doc •92-5008 Filed 2-28-92:1119 pm|
61
-------
INDEX OF EPA ACTIONS AND COMMITMENTS
(Listed by Office, Cross-Referenced by the Administrator's Priority Areas)
REF.
NO.
Al
A2
A3
A4
I
OAR ACTIONS
REVISIONS TO EXISTING REGULATIONS
Review Radionuclides NESHAP for
NRG Licensees
— reduce duplication with NRC
Eliminate Smoke Standard for Heavy
Duty Diesel Engines
— revisit in light of more recent
requirements
Revise Radon Home Building
Standards Guidance
— improve cost -effectiveness by
targeting areas with highest radon
potential
Exemption of Perchloroethylene
(Perc) As a Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Due to Its
Negligible Ozone Contribution
— allows states to eliminate VOC
rules for PERC sources, especially
small sources like drycleaners
ACTION/ COMMITMENT
NPRM, July 1992
NPRM, December 1992
Propose revised
guidance, October
1992
NPRM, June 1992
ECONOMIC EFFECT
Cost savings: $3
million in first
year
Cost savings:
$100,000 annually
per manufacturer
New approach
limits cost to
$500 per house
ADMINISTRATOR' S
PRIORITY AREAS
Small Business
Small Business
62
-------
REP.
NO.
OAR ACTIONS
ACTION/COMMITMENT
ECONOMIC EFFECT
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
AS Revise Capture Efficiency
Guidelines
— explore less burdensome ways to
test the effectiveness of
emission-reduction methods for
painting processes; previously
mandated complex test required
building an enclosure around the
process
Complex test
suspended March 20,
1992; guidance,
April 1993
Small Business
A6 Improving Cost-Effectiveness of
MACT Standards
— seek public comment on several
specific strategies for improving
cost-effectiveness
Seek comment in
preamble to the
Hazardous Organics
NESHAP (HON), April
1992
Incentives
A7 Revision of Electric Utility New
Source Requirements ("WEPCo")
— improves flexibility and
certainty by exempting pollution
control projects and revising
requirements for other types of
plant modifications
Final rule, Spring
1992
Cost savings of
$400 million -
1.1 billion per
'year
Natural Gas
ECONOMIC INCENTIVES
A8 Assistance to California South
Coast Market-Incentives Program
— assures cost-effective
attainment of air quality
standards in Southern California
by providing technical help in use
of market approaches to pollution
control
On-going technical
assistance;
establish key
elements for
acceptable program
Cost savings of
$270 - 430
million annually
Incentives
Small Business
63
-------
REF.
NO.
OAR ACTIONS
ACTION/COMMITMENT
ECONOMIC EFFECT
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
A9 Accelerated Retirement of Older
Vehicles ("Scrappage")
—improves cost-effectiveness of
ozone control by allowing
emissions from scrapped vehicles
to be traded for costly
stationary-source emissions
Information
document, March
1992; Guidance,
September 1992 (see
All)
Combined with All
Incentives
Small Business
A10 State Grants Program
— provides targeted funds to
states for developing cost-
effective market-based approaches
to pollution control
$610,000 to be
awarded in FY92
Incentives
Small Business
All Mobile-Stationary Source Trading
Program
—improves cost-effectiveness of
ozone control by allowing
emissions trading between mobile
and stationary sources
Guidance, September
1992
Cost savings of
$100 - 750
million annually
Incentives
Small Business
A12 Expansion of Economic Incentives
Rule
— expands limited Clean Air Act
mandate into broad guidance and
encourages use of market-based
pollution control programs where
appropriate
NPRM, May 1992;
promulgate, November
1992
Incentives
Small Business
A13 Emissions Averaging in the
Hazardous Organics NESHAP (EON)
—improves cost-effectiveness of
air toxic controls by allowing
emissions averaging among all
sources at a facility
NPRM, April 1992
Incentives
64
-------
"REF.
NO.
A14
A15
A16
OAR ACTIONS
NATURAL GAS
Development of Coalbed Methane
— establishes procedures for
addressing conflicting ownership
claims to coalbed methane, thereby
encouraging the capture and
sale/use of this resource
Develop Emission Standards for
Natural Gas Vehicles
— promotes natural gas as
automobile fuel by providing
incentives for the use of natural-
gas vehicles through the
availability of CAFE credits, and
by providing regulatory certainty
to vehicle producers
SMALL BUSINESS
Enhanced Implementation of Small
Business Assistance Program (SBAP)
— augments mandated program
through more on-site visits and
regional meetings with those
having difficulty in planning for
and/or implementing a SBAP
ACTION/ COMMITMENT
Study completed, May
1992
NPRM, June 1992
Increased on-site
planning assistance
in FY92 and FY93
ECONOMIC EFFECT
ADMINISTRATOR' S
PRIORITY AREAS
Natural Gas
Small Business
65
-------
REF.
NO.
PI
P2
P3
P4
P5
OPPIS ACTIVITIES
PESTICIDES
Reduced Risk Pesticides
— incentives for development and
registration of "safer" pesticides
(e.g. . reduce data requirements,
fee waivers)
Microbial Pesticides: Experimental
Use Permits and Notification (FIFRA
Biotech rule)
— narrows the scope of
genetically modified and
nonindigenous organisms subject to
small-scale testing notification
requirements
Reregistration Workshop
— identify problems and issues for
pesticides reregistration by
meeting with registrants and others
Pheromone Project
— explore modifications to
procedures and regulations to
encourage use (e.g. . further reduce
data requirements)
Minor Use Project
— examine ways to provide relief
for users and registrants of minor
use pesticides
ACTION/ COMMITMENT
Publish FR notice,
May 1992
Publish NPRM, May
1992
Hold workshop, May
26-28, 1992
Users' manual, Summer
1992
Develop legislative
initiative, late
Spring/Summer 1992
ECONOMIC EFFECT
$100,000-500,000
savings in direct
cost per year;
reduction in
regulatory
uncertainty
ADMINISTRATOR' S
PRIORITY AREAS
Biotechnology
Incentives
Biotechnology
Small Business
Small Business
Small Business
66
-------
REF.
NO.
OPPTS ACTIVITIES
ACTION/COMMITMENT
ECONOMIC EFFECT
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
TOXICS
P6
TSCA Section 8(e) - Modifications
to Policy Guidance on Reporting of
Environmental Release Information
— (e.g., establish threshold for
reporting releases to the
environment, eliminate duplicative
reporting)
Publish FR notice,
late May - early June
1992
Small Business
P7
PMN Exemption Rules
— amend rules to reduce
administrative burdens/costs
(polymer exemption rule; low volume
exemption rule; and Expedited
Follow-Up Significant New Use Rule)
and develop new exemption for "low
risk" substances
NPRM, July 1992
$10 million per
year
Incentives
Small Business
P8
TSCA Chemical Inventory
— exempt certain substances from
TSCA inventory and premanufacture
notification reporting
Draft revised
guidance or rule
amendments late 1992
Small Business
P9
Reclassification of PCB and PCB-
Contaminated Transformers
— relax regulatory requirements
for reclassifying PCB transformers
to a lower regulatory status based
on new data
NPRM, September 1992
Small direct
savings and
significant
decrease in
potential
liability
associated with
PCB cleanups
Small Business
67
-------
REF.
NO.
P10
Pll
OPPTS ACTIVITIES
PCB Disposal Rule
— increase flexibility for cleanup
of large volumes of PCB
contaminated wastes (soil, dredged
material); reduce requirements for
R&D and treatability studies; and
reduce permitting paperwork for
multi-jurisdictional sites
TRI
— evaluation of options for
reducing reporting burdens (e.g. .
modify thresholds for reporting,
exempt small releasers, etc.)
ACTION/COMMITMENT
NPRM, Fall 1992
ANPRM, Spring/Summer
1992
ECONOMIC EFFECT
$500 million - $1
billion savings
per year
ADMINISTRATOR' S
PRIORITY AREAS
Tech Innovation
Biotechnology
Small Business
68
-------
REF.
NO.
OSWER ACTIVITIES
ACTION/COMMITMENT
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
RETARGETING RCRA TOWARD HIGH RISK
WASTES
SI Hazardous Waste Identification
Rule
— proposed rule will refocus the
regulatory system on high risk
waste,activities; will remove low-
risk wastes from Subtitle C
regulation
NPRM, early May 1992
Depending on
final approach,
cost savings of
$60 million -
$1.8 billion
annually — much
from contaminated
soil
RCRA
Inclusionary
Rulemaking
S2 Redefinition of Solid Waste
— four potential rules to tailor
requirements to the unique
management practices used by
industry and to encourage
recycling — areas include: 1)
"universal wastes", or wastes
commonly and widely generated at
non-industrial sites that can be
recycled without the need for
substantial regulatory control
(e.g.. ni-cad batteries and
fluorescent bulbs); 2) cement and
other building materials (examines
appropriate use of hazardous waste
in making cement and other
building materials); 3) low-risk
storage activities, especially
those associated with recycling;
and 4) metals reclamation
Universal wastes
NPRM, June 1992;
cement and other
building materials
study, September
1992; low-risk
storage study,
September 1992;
metals reclamation
study, September
1992
Promote sound
recycling
RCRA
Tech Innovation
69
-------
REP.
NO.
OSWER ACTIVITIES
ACTION/COMMITMENT
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
EXPEDITING THE PACE AND
ELIMINATING UNNECESSARY COSTS OF
RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
S3 Define Two New Unit Typest
- Corrective Action Management
Unit ("CAMU")
— allows broad area of
contamination to be designated as
a unit; movement and consolidation
of waste within the unit would not
trigger land disposal restrictions
or minimum technology
regu irement s; and
- Temporary Unit
— allow temporary use of less
stringent requirements as part of
cleanup process
Final rule, December
1992 (separated from
full Corrective
Action Rule)
Decreases
corrective action
costs
RCRA
Tech Innovation
Biotechnology
S4 Contaminated Soil
— revise treatment standards;
will encourage use of innovative
and cost-effective technologies
for soils
NPRM, Fall 1992
Cost savings of
$2.4-3.2 billion
per year — not
additive with Si
RCRA
Tech Innovation
Biotechnology
S5 Modify Treatment Standards for
Contaminated Debris by Adopting a
Technology-Based Approach
— currently, using numerical
concentration standards may
subject debris to unnecessary
treatment given the risks involved
Final rule, June
1992
Cost savings up
to $80 million
annually
RCRA
Tech Innovation
70
-------
REF.
NO.
OSWER ACTIVITIES
ACTION/COMMITMENT
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
S6 Suspension of TC Rule for Non-UST
Petroleum Contaminated Media
— would apply to states with
legal authorities and technical
programs in place for cleanup
response to petroleum releases,
and controls on the disposition of
wastes generated from cleanups
NPRM, June 1992
Cost savings of
$75-100 million
annually
RCRA
Small Business
Small Communities
S7 Final Determination of the
Applicability of the TC Rule to
UST contaminated Media and Debris
FR notice on data
availability and
request for comment,
July 1992
Decrease
corrective action
costs at UST
facilities
RCRA
Small Business
Small Communities
S8 Stabilization Initiative-
Accelerating RCRA Cleanups at
Contaminated Sites
— encourage source control in the
near-term as appropriate and
protective
Policy guidance,
Spring 1992
Address high
risks in a more
timely manner
RCRA
89 Technical Impracticability
Ouidance
— sites would be cleaned up to
levels technically feasible
Develop guidance and
procedures, December
1992
Decrease
corrective action
costs
RCRA
810 OSWER Directive on Reducing Costs
of RCRA Corrective Actions to
Clarify Flexibility and Promote
Use of Cost-Cutting Opportunities
in UST Cleanups
Final directive,
Fall 1992
Decrease UST
corrective costs
RCRA
Small Business
Small Communities
ADJUSTING MANAGEMENT STANDARDS TO
BETTER FIT ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM
ASSOCIATED WITH WASTE ACTIVITY
71
-------
REP,
NO.
OSHBR ACTIVITIES
ACTION/COMMITMENT
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
SIX Propose Universal Land Disposal
Restrictions Treatment Standards
Based on Constituent Concentration
Rather Than Haste Treatment
— simplifies and streamlines
current practice by replacing many
existing treatment standards with
a common set of treatment
standards known as universal
standards; these standards would
replace existing standards which
are constituent-specific and/or
waste-specific
NPRM,
Fall 1992
Decrease
administrative.
costs
RCRA
S12 Containment Buildings
Authorization
— authorizes new type of RCRA
unit to allow waste storage
without placement on land, thereby
not triggering LDR; will explore
whether bioremediation in a
containment building may not be
land disposal; would ease storage
requirements for large volume
wastes
Final rule,
June 1992
Promote sound
recycling
RCRA
Tech Innovation
Biotechnology
S13 Streamline Permitting for Mixed
Waste
— would rationalize the
permitting program by one or more
mechanisms: extend small quantity
generator exemption, new class
permitting, permit by rule
approach
NPRM,
Winter 1992
Decrease
administrative
costs, relieve
burden of
complying with
overlapping
authorities
RCRA
72
-------
REP.
NO.
S14
SIS
816
S17
S18
OSWER ACTIVITIES
Regulatory Relief for Specific
Wastes Treated Below Delisting
Levels
— would generically exclude
residues of F006 and K062 from
Subtitle C control once they are
treated using high temperature
metal recovery and meet treatment
standards
Existing Sumps
— extend deadline for sumps to be
assessed and upgraded
Joint EPA/NRC Mixed Waste Testing
Guidance
— directed at NRC licensed
generators of mixed waste; would
give guidance where both agencies
have jurisdiction
Paperwork Reduction for
Characteristic and K061 Waste as
Part , of the LDR Program
— can reform requirements without
sacrificing the appropriate level
of regulatory controls including
enforcement
(see also "Streamlining Post-
Closure Permitting", at S21)
REDUCING TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
Expand the 1,000kg RCRA Sample
Exclusion to 10,000kg for Soils
— existing limit is barrier to
pilot scale testing
ACTION/ COMMITMENT
Final Rule, May 1992
NPRM, Summer 1992
Held public forum,
April 1992;
guidance, September
1992
Final rule, May 1992
NPRM, Fall 1992
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
Promote sound
recycling
ADMINISTRATOR' S
PRIORITY AREAS
RCRA
RCRA
RCRA
RCRA
RCRA
Tech Innovation
Biotechnology
73
-------
REF.
NO.
S19
S20
S21
OSWER ACTIVITIES
Develop Directive Encouraging RD&D
Testing
— areas to be addressed: 1) use
of temporary treatment units for
corrective action, once regulation
is in effect; 2) use of financial
responsibility variance provision
for RD&D permits where risks are
limited; 3) broadening RD&D
capabilities at existing
facilities and 4) assistance in
developing public test and
evaluation facilities
(see also "CAMUs", at S3, and
"Containment Building
Authorization", at S12)
STREAMLINE RCRA PERMITS TO
FACILITATE CLEANUPS
Enhancing Flexibility in the
Permit System
— to ease burden in administering
permits
Streamlining Post-Closure
Permitting Process
— will examine alternatives to
post-closure permits that provide
equal protection of health and
environment
ACTION/COMMITMENT
Policy directive,
Spring 1993
Strawman proposal,
September 1992
Strawman
distributed, March
1992; NPRM,
December 1992
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
Decrease permit
administration
and transaction
costs
Decrease
administrative
costs; savings up
to $20 million
annually for the
regulated
community
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
RCRA
Tech Innovation
Biotechnology
RCRA
RCRA
74
-------
REF.
NO.
S22
OSHER ACTIVITIES
PROMOTE COOPERATION WITH REGULATED
COMMUNITY AND STATES:
- Environmental Extension Service
— establish pilot: a network of
non-government agents who provide
solid and hazardous waste
informational and technical
assistance to industries and
communities
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
— coordinate and expand existing
and planned activities, including
use of model orders and
training/outreach
- Investigate Granting CERCLA
Section 122 (f)(2) Unconditional
Covenants Not to Sue
— will explore innovative and
"standard" technologies for
certain superfund sites that can
result in permanent risk reduction
ACTION/ COMMITMENT
Award grants,
October 1992
Expand current
activities, e.g. .
training throughout
1992; RCRA Model
Order Provision,
Fall 1992
Investigate
possibility with
interested parties,
Summer, 1992
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
ADMINISTRATOR' S
PRIORITY AREAS
RCRA
Inclusionary
RCRA
Inclusionary
RCRA
Inclusionary
75
-------
REF.
NO.
OSWER ACTIVITIES
ACTION/COMMITMENT
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
PROVIDING RELIEF TO SMALL
COMMUNITIES AND BUSINESSES
S23 Uniform Accidental Release
Reporting
— several laws, including Title
III of SARA, require industry to
report certain information on
accidental releases of hazardous
substances—will identify
reporting concerns raised by
industry and recommend approaches
for minimizing duplication
Forum, April 1992;
report, November
1992
RCRA
Small Business
Small Communities
S24 Market Incentives for Municipal
Solid Waste
— develop full cost accounting
guide to municipal solid waste
management, and begin a
demonstration project to
investigate the effect of price on
waste generation
Draft report, Spring
1992
Aids communities
in looking for
alternative solid
waste management
strategies
RCRA
Small Communities
Market Incentives
S25 Extended Financial Responsibility
Compliance Deadline for Certain
UST Facilities to 1999
— exploring mechanisms to give
states a role in determining which
facilities meet the criteria for
an extension
NPRM, November 1992
Cost savings of
$75-100 million
annually
RCRA
Small Business
Small Communities
S26 Additional UST FR Compliance
Mechanisms for Local Governments
Final rule,
September 1992
Cost savings of
$30-70 million
annually
RCRA
Small Communities
76
-------
REF.
NO.
OSWER ACTIVITIES
ACTION/COMMITMENT
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
S27
Strategy for De Minimis
Settlements in Superfund Cases
— will allow for a greater number
of such settlements, which will
occur earlier in the process
Complete strategy,
May 1992
RCRA
Small Communities
Small Business
S28
Clarify Lender Liability for USTs
— through rulemaking
Propose rule, Fall
1992
Decrease
uncertainty in
UST lending
market
Small Business
S29
Municipal Liability for Superfund
Cases
— will examine options for
determining a fair share for
generators and transporters of
municipal solid waste to
contribute in settlements; a
reasonable contribution will allow
such parties to obtain protection
from the U.S. against third-party
suite
Decision, Spring
1992
Small Communities
77
-------
REF.
NO.
S30
S31
S32
S33
OSWER ACTIVITIES
CREATING AN EFFECTIVE, EQUITABLE
AND EFFICIENT SUPERFUND PROGRAM
Clarification of Lender Liability
Under Superfund
— clarifies the scope of the
exemption from cleanup liability
under CERCLA for financial
institutions that hold security
interests in property contaminated
with hazardous waste
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model
— designed to speed cleanup and
reduce redundant studies;
currently applied to Superfund
sites as a pilot project
Conduct Superfund Outreach Efforts
(see also S22) :
- State-EPA Superfund Policy Forum
- Superfund Revitalization Public
Forum
Standardized or Presumptive
Remedies for Wood Treaters,
Municipal Landfills, Sites
Contaminated with Solvents, and
Sites with Ground water
Cont aminat ion
ACTION/ COMMITMENT
Final rule
published, April 29,
1992
Nine pilots underway
Forum underway,
meets periodically
(3-4 times annually)
Conduct forum, June
1992
Pilot project
underway
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
Facilitates the
access of
businesses to
capital that
otherwise would
have been re-
stricted due to
Superfund liabi-
lity concerns
$15 million
annual savings on
new sites - two
years can be
saved between
discovery and
placing site on
NPL
$550,000 per year
savings per site
ADMINISTRATOR ' S
PRIORITY AREAS
Indus ionary
Inclusionary
Inclusionary
Small Business
Small Communities
78
-------
REF.
NO.
OSWER ACTIVITIES
ACTION/COMMITMENT
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
S34
Promote Voluntary Cleanups Prior
to Being Listed on the NPL
— PRPs would still be required to
enter into an order or consent
decree and would pay oversight
costs in advance; cleanup
expedited; includes community
part j.c ipat ion
Search for pilot
projects underway
S35
Tiered Oversight of NPL Sites
— level of oversight depends on
the severity of risk, PRP
relationship with EPA, compliance
history, public concern, scope of
response action, and site
complexity
Begin pilot during
1992
Savings of 30
percent of
oversight costs
S36
Double-Walled Above-Oround Storage
Tanks (ASTs)
— developing policy directive
which clarifies alternative means
that containment facilities may
use 'to satisfy the secondary
containment provisions of the Oil
Pollution Prevention regulation
Guidance, April 1992
Allow the AST
market to
stabilize quicker
Small Business
S3 7
Establish Standardized Risk-Based
Soil Cleanup Levels for CERCLA
Sites
— provides early estimates of
site cleanup costs, fosters
national consistency in cleanup
approaches, and speeds the process
Studies available,
July 1992
79
-------
REF.
NO.
S3 8
OSWER ACTIVITIES
Requirements for Reportable
Quantities (RQs)t
— expedite rulemaking to adjust
RQ levels; exploring interim
measures in the following areas:
- ethylene glycol
— from airplane deicing
operations
- other categories of compounds
— including ethylene glycol,
generally, and polycyclic organic
matter
ACTION/ COMMITMENT
Directive issued,
February 1992
Met with industry
represent at ives ,
March 1992
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
Reduce
administrative
costs associated
with reporting
Reduce
administrative
costs associated
with reporting
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
80
-------
REF.
NO.
HI
W2
W3
W4
OW ACTIVITIES
INCENTIVE PROJECTS
Point/Nonpoint Source Trading
— to identify opportunities for
improving the cost-effectiveness
of traditional water pollution
control programs through
point/nonpoint source trading
Privatization of Municipal
Wastewater Systems
— to facilitate and promote
private investment, ownership, and
operation of wastewater treatment
systems
Wise Hater Use Partnerships
— to initiate a voluntary program
to encourage industrial facilities
and other high volume water
consumers to use cost-effective
water conservation techniques
(similar to the Agency's Green
Lights Program)
Point/Point Source Trading
— to publicize the Point/Point
Source Trading Report and initiate
a dialogue on the future of
Point/Point trading in meeting
water quality standards once BAT
requirements are met
ACTIONS/ COMMITMENTS
Public meeting held,
April 27-28, 1992;
Provide guidance and
otherwise promote
application
Publish FR notice to
solicit comment and
announce public
meeting (May 1992)
Hold meeting of
"partners" in May
1992
Publish study in FR
and seek comment on
feasibility
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
Provides cost
savings to direct
dischargers;
within a
watershed, total
treatment costs
may be reduced by
up to an order of
magnitude
Provides funding
for construction
and maintenance
of facilities
Reduces costs as
water supply and
water treatment
expenditures
decline
Provides costs
savings to
dischargers
PRIORITY AREAS
Incentives
Small Business
Small Communities
Incentives
Small Communities
Incentives
Small Business
Incentives
Small Business
81
-------
REF.
NO.
OW ACTIVITIES
ACTIONS/COMMITMENTS
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
PRIORITY AREAS
PERMITTING
W5 Stomwater Implementation Rule
(Phase I)
— extande application deadlines
for group applications; encourages
use of general permits; and
reduces application, sampling, and
reporting requirements, among
other things
Published April 2,
1992
Reduces reporting
and recordkeeping
burden and costs
— cost savings
of $5-10 million
per year
Small Business
Small Communities
W6 NPDES Regulation Revisions
—• expands the use of general
permits; reduces types of permit
modifications requiring notice and
comment; and requests comment on
revisions to small business
exemptions for organic toxiclty
testing requirements, among other
things
Propose, June 1992
Reduces burden
and costs for
dischargers by
cutting red tape
Small Business
82
-------
REF.
NO.
OW ACTIVITIES
ACTIONS/COMMITMENTS
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
PRIORITY AREAS
W7 EXPAND USE OF INCLUSIONARY
RULEMAKINO
Storm Water Phase II
— to develop an effective
approach for addressing the
remaining risks from stormwater
discharges, focusing on sources
not covered by the Phase I
Stormwater Rule
Publish FR notice on
Phase II and public
meetings in May and
June 1992
Small Business
Small Communities
Inclusionary
Combined Sewer Overflow
— to identify ways to accelerate
construction of CSO controls for
priority CSO systems, balancing
national consistency and
state/local flexibility needs
Conduct feasibility
study of reg neg or
other inclusionary
process
Inclusionary
Governor'* Forum on Implementation
of Drinking Water Program
— to address issues associated
with implementation of the 1986
SDWA Amendments and alternatives
for enhancing program
Hold forum, May 1992
Inclusionary
Small Communities
Contaminated Sediment Management
Strategy
— to build support for and ensure
cost effective approaches for
implementing the Contaminated
Sediment Strategy
Begin three national
forums to be held in
April, May, and June
1992
Inclusionary
83
-------
REF.
NO.
Ml
M2
M3
M4
OTHER OFFICES' ACTIVITIES AND
AGENCY-WIDE ACTIVITIES
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION
Establish an Agency-wide
Innovative Technology Council
to Promote Tech Innovation through
a Range of Activities, Including!
1) estimating national/
international markets for
innovative technologies and define
priority technology gaps; and
2 ) providing information regarding
opportunities for collaborative
public/private research and
technology development
TRADE PROMOTION
Establish an EPA Export Promotion
2000 (E-2000) Study Group
— to develop an overall export
strategy for EPA
Undertake a Range of Export
Promotion Activities, Including:
1) evaluating the potential for
establishing U.S. environmental
technology center, e.g. , in
cooperation with the DOC in Asia,
Mexico, and elsewhere; and
2) organizing "reverse" trade
missions (i.e. missions of foreign
buyers to the U.S.)
Increase International Access to
EPA's Environmental and Energy
Efficient Technology Transfer
Clearinghouse
ACT IONS/ COMMITMENTS
Establish Council
by July 1, 1992;
estimate markets
and define tech
gaps by May 1,
1993; develop
"primer" on
opportunities for
collaborative
research and tech
development by
December 1, 1992
Implement over the
next year
Installed
clearinghouse at
the Inter-American
Development Bank
OFFICE (S)
OSWER
OAR
OW
ORD
OPPTS
Reg .4,5
OIA
ORD
OSWER
OPPE
OIA
OIA
ECONOMIC
EFFECTS
ADMINI STRATOR ' S
PRIORITY AREAS
Tech Innovation
Trade Promotion
Trade Promotion
Trade Promotion
84
-------
REF.
NO.
MS
M6
M7
M8
M9
OTHER OFFICES' ACTIVITIES AND
AGENCY-HIDE ACTIVITIES
Launch the U.S. Environmental
Training Institute
— to help build environmental
capacity in developing countries
and to provide U.S. companies with
an opportunity to showcase
environmental goods and services
to potential clients
SMALL COMMUNITIES / BUSINESSES
Establish Small Community
"Cluster"
— to bring together local,
regional, state, and national
government officials as well as
interest groups to find cost-
effective ways to implement
environmental protection
requirements
Develop a Handbook of
Environmental Regulations for
Local Government Officials
Revised Guidance for Implementing
the Regulatory Flexibility Act
— expand coverage to small
communities and expand
applicability of requirement
PERMITTING
Expand Total Quality Management
Activities in the Regions to
Improve Permitting Processes from
Point of View of All "Customers"
ACTIONS/COMMITMENTS
Hold inaugural
course, May 12-22,
1992
First meeting held,
February 1992
Publish during
Summer, 1992
Guidance Issued in
April, 1992
Action during 1992
OFFICE (S)
OSWER
OAR
OW
OPPTS
Regions
All
ECONOMIC
EFFECTS
ADMINISTRATOR' S
PRIORITY AREAS
Trade Promotion
Small
Communities
Small
Communities
Small
Communities and
Businesses
Permitting
85
-------
REF.
NO.
M10
Mil
M12
M13
M14
M15
M16
OTHER OFFICES' ACTIVITIES AND
AGENCY-WIDE ACTIVITIES
Assess Cumulative Burden and
Reporting Burden of Permitting on
a Typical Small Business Sector of
the Economy
Improve Ability of Agency to
Provide Permits for RD&D Purposes
NATURAL OAS
Ensure an Unregulated, Competitive
Market for CNO
Refine Natural Gas Price
Projections and Promote Refined
Estimates
— analyze and refine natural gas
price projections
Redefine Appliance Efficiency
Standards
— work with DOE to remove bias
against natural gas
Natural pas
Develop Action Plan for State
PUC's Regarding Evaluation of New
Supply- and Demand-side Options
Streamline Environmental Impact
Statements for Pipeline
Construction
ACTIONS/ COMMITMENTS
Action during 1992
Review during 1992
Work with Federal
and state
authorities
Actively publicize
and highlight new
analysis to
utilities and
regulations
Currently reviewing
furnace standards
Develop and Publish
Action Plan
OFFICE (S)
OPPE/OAR
OPPE/OAR
OPPE/OAR
OPPE/OAR
OFA
ECONOMIC
EFFECTS
ADMINISTRATOR ' S
PRIORITY AREAS
Permitting
Small Business
Permitting
Natural Gas
Natural Gas
Natural Gas
Natural Gas
Natural Gas
86
-------
RULES ACTIVELY UNDER DEVELOPMENT WITH STATUTORY/JUDICIAL DEADLINES
Introduction
This list includes significant rules that are actively under
development and are subject to statutory and/or judicial deadlines.
There are 102 rules on the list. Possible omissions from this list
are minor actions not included in the Regulatory Agenda (e.g. , some
SIPs may have deadlines) and actions with deadlines after October
1992 that were not included in the April 1992 Agenda.
87
-------
RULES ACTIVELY UNDER DEVELOPMENT WITH STATUTORY/JUDICIAL DEADLINES
TITLE
Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)
National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS): Lead (Review)
NAAQS: Ozone (Review)
NAAQS: Carbon Monoxide (Review)
NAAQS: Nitrogen Dioxide (Review)
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Facility—RCRA Air Emission
Standards
DEADLINE
Final, Statutory, 12/31/80
Reviews due by 12/31/80 and
5-year intervals thereafter
Final, Statutory, 12/31/80
Reviews due by 12/31/80 and
5-year intervals thereafter
Final,Statutory,12/31/80
Reviews due by 12/31/80 and
5-year intervals thereafter
Final,Statutory,12/31/80
Reviews due by 12/31/80 and
5-year intervals thereafter
Final, Statutory, 5/87
Individual Constituents Standards Final, Statutory, 5/87
—Phase III of RCRA Air Emission
Standards
Motor Vehicle Test Procedures for Final, Statutory, 5/15/91
Evaporative Hydrocarbons
(Revision)
Guidelines for Oxygenated
Gasoline Oxygen Credit Programs
Under Section 211(M) of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA)
Protection of Stratospheric
Ozone: Phase Out
New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS): Municipal Waste Combustion
—Phase II and Phase III
California Clean Fuels Pilot
Program—Credits Program
Other, Statutory, 8/15/91
Final, Statutory, 9/15/91
Final, Statutory, 11/91
Final, Statutory, 11/91
88
-------
TITLE
DEADLINE
OAR
Control of Gasoline Motor Vehicle
Refueling Emissions
Cold Ambient Air Temperature
Carbon Monoxide Emission Standards
Protection of Stratospheric
Ozone: Product Ban
Protection of Stratospheric
Ozone: Servicing of Motor Vehicle
Air Conditioners
Operating Permit Requirement
Phaseout of Lead in Gasoline and
Test Procedure for Lead
Substitutes
Motor Vehicle Certification Short
Test and Performance Warranty
Procedures
Reformulated Gasoline
Protection of Stratospheric
Ozone: Recycling
Urban Bus Particulate Matter
(PM) for Model 1991 to 1992
Guidance for the Implementation
of Section 112(G)—Modifications
Acid Rain Excess Emissions
Requirements Regulation
On-Board Vehicle Based Diagnostic
System Requirement
Acid Rain Permits Regulation
Acid Rain Allowance System
Regulation
Final, Statutory, 11/15/91
Final, Statutory, 11/15/91
Final, Statutory, 11/15/91
Final, Statutory, 11/15/91
Final, Statutory..
Final, Statutory,
11/15/91
11/15/91
Final, Statutory, 11/15/91
Final, Statutory, 11/15/91
Final, Statutory, 1/1/92
Final, Statutory, 1/1/92
Final, Statutory, 5/92
Final, Statutory, 5/15/92
Final, Statutory, 5/15/92
Final, Statutory, 5/15/92
Final, Statutory, 5/15/92
89
-------
TITLE
DEADLINE
OAR
Acid Rain Continuous Emissions
Monitoring Regulation
Protection of Stratospheric
Ozone: Federal Procurement
Protection of Stratospheric
O z one: Labe1ing
In-Use Urban Bus Test Program
Acid Rain Opt-In Regulation
Requirements for the Enhanced
Monitoring of Ozone and Ozone
Precursors
Acid Rain Nitrogen Oxides Control
Regulation
NAAQS: Sulfur Oxides (Review)
Medical Waste Incinerator
Development of a List of Source
Categories for Regulating Source
of Hazardous Air Pollutants
Subject to Section 112 of the
CAAA
Enhanced Monitoring and
Compliance Certification
Regulations
California Clean-Fuels Pilot
Program — Opt In, Vehicle
Standards, Sales Requirements,
and Fuel Availability
Clean-Fuel Fleet Programs
Final, Statutory, 5/15/92
Final, Statutory, 5/15/92
Final, Statutory, 5/15/92
Final, Statutory, 5/15/92
Final, Statutory, 5/15/92
Final, Statutory, 5/15/92
Statutory: Final, 1/1/97
Final, Statutory, 5/15/92
Final, Statutory, 11/92
Other, Statutory, 11/92
Final, Statutory, 11/92
Final Schedule, Statutory,
11/92
Final List, Statutory, 11/91
Other, Statutory, 11/91
Final, Statutory, 11/92
Final, Statutory, 11/92
Final, Statutory, 11/92
Other, Statutory, 11/92
90
-------
TITLE
DEADLINE
OAR
National Emission Standard for Final, Statutory, 11/92
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP):
Hazardous Organics
Standards for Tank Vessel Loading Final, Statutory, 11/92
Operations
NESHAP: Coke Oven Emissions from
Coke Oven Charging, Door Leaks,
and Topside Leaks on Coal Charged
Batteries
Final, Statutory, 11/15/92
Gaseous and Particulate Emission Final, Statutory, 11/15/92
Regulations for 1996 and Later
Model Year Non-Road Diesel Engines
Rated Equal To or Greater Than Fifty
Horsepower
Gasoline Detergent Additives
Regulation
Development of a Schedule for
Regulating Source Categories of
Hazardous Air Pollutants Subject
to Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990
General Provisions for Major and
Area Resources of Air Toxics
Protection of Stratospheric
Ozone: Safe Alternatives
Economic Incentive Program Rules
Authorized Under Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
NESHAP: Perchloroethylene Dry
Cleaning
Final, Statutory, 11/15/92
Final, Statutory, 11/15/92
Final, Statutory, 11/15/92
Final, Statutory, 11/15/92
Final, Statutory, 11/15/92
Amendments to National Emission
Standards for Benzene Waste
Operations
Final, Judicial, 11/15/92
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM), Judicial, 11/15/91
Final, Judicial 12/1/92
NPRM, Judicial, 3/2/92
91
-------
TITLE
DEADLINE
OAR
Acid Rain Phase I Reserve/
Phase II Allowance Allocations
Subpart
National Emission Standards for
Coke Oven Batteries
Clarification of Best Available
Control Technology Regulatory
Definition
Fuel and Fuel Additives:
Registration Requirements
NSPS: Review of Subpart DA—
Electric Utility Steam Generating
Units (S02)
Control Techniques Guidelines
Control of Air Toxics from Motor
Vehicles
Locomotive Emissions Standards
Prohibition of Leaded Gasoline
for Highway Use
Office of Water (OW1
Sewage Sludge Use and Disposal
Regulation
Indian Rules for the Wellhead
Protection Program and Sole Source
Aquifer Demonstration Program
Final, Statutory, 12/31/92
NPRM, Statutory, 12/31/91
Final, Statutory, 12/31/92
Final, Judicial, 1/7/93
NPRM, Judicial, 1/7/92
Final, Consent Decree, 6/1/93
NPRM, Consent Decree, 4/1/92
Final, Statutory, 8/7/78
Final, Statutory, 11/93
Final, Statutory, 11/93
Final, Statutory, 5/15/95
Final, Statutory, 11/95
Final, Statutory, 12/31/95
Final, Statutory, 8/31/87
NPRM, Statutory, 11/30/86
Final, Statutory, 12/19/87
National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System and Sludge
Management State Program Regulations
for Indian Tribes
Final, Statutory, 8/4/88
92
-------
TITLE
DEADLINE
OW
Treatment of Indian Tribes as
States under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)
National Primary Drinking
Groundwater Disinfection
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Inorganic and
Organic Compounds (Phase V/24
Contaminants)
Effluent Guidelines Plan
Final, Statutory, 8/4/88
Final, Statutory, 6/18/89
Final, Judicial, 2/29/92
NPRM, Judicial, 6/29/90
Final, Statutory, 6/19/89
NPRM, Judicial, 4/92
Final, Judicial, 2/19/92
Effluent Guidelines and Standards Final, Judicial, 6/92
for the Offshore Subcategory of
the Oil and Gas Extraction Category
Revision to the Safe Drinking Final, Judicial, 7/31/92
Water Act Underground Injection
Control (UIC) Regulations for
Class I Hazardous Waste Injection Wells
Plan to Review and Promulgate Final, Judicial, 8/92
Effluent Guidelines and Standards NPRM, Judicial, 4/92
Under CWA 304(m)
Water Quality Standards for Toxic Final, Statutory, 8/92
Pollutants
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation: Radionuclides
Final, Judicial, 4/17/93
NPRM, Judicial, 6/16/91
Final, Statutory, 6/19/89
Effluent Guidelines and Standards Final, Judicial, 5/93
for the Organic Chemicals,
Plastics and Synthetic Fibers
Category
National Primary Drinking Water NPRM, Judicial 6/30/93
Regulations: 25 Contaminants from Final, Statutory 1/1/91
Drinking Water Priority List NPRM, Statutory 1/1/90
(Phase V)
93
-------
TITLE
DEADLINE
OW
Effluent Guidelines and Standards
for the Pesticide Chemicals
Category
Effluent Guidelines and Standards
for the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturing Category
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations: Arsenic
Effluent Guidelines and Standards
for the Pulp, Paper, 'and
Paperboard Category
Effluent Guidelines and Standards
for the Waste Treatment Category
Effluent Guideline and Standards
for the Metal Products and
Machinery Category
Effluent Guidelines and Standards
for the Coastal Subcategory of
the Oil and Gas Extraction
Category
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER)
Reimbursement of Local
Governments for Emergency Response
to Hazardous Substance Releases
Final, Judicial 7/93
NPRM, Judicial 5/92
NPRM, Judicial, 8/94
Final, Judicial, 2/96
Final, Judicial, 1/95
NPRM, Judicial, 11/30/92
Final, Judicial, 9/30/95
NPRM, Judicial 10/31/93
Final, Judicial, 1/96
NPRM, Judicial, 4/94
Final, Judicial 5/96
NPRM, Judicial, 11/94
Final, Judicial, 7/96
NPRM, Judicial 1/95
Final, Statutory, 10/17/87
Underground Storage Tanks
Containing Hazardous Substances—
Financial Responsibility Requirements
Final, Statutory, 8/8/88
Degradable Plastic Ring Carrier
Regulation
Final, Statutory, 10/28/90
94
-------
TITLE
DEADLINE
OSWER
Land Disposal Restrictions—
Phase 1: Rulemaking on
Contaminated Debris and Newly
Identified Wastes
Management of Used Oil
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Wastes from Coke By-
Product Industries
Oil Pollution Prevention
Regulation—Phase II
Revisions to the National Oil
and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan
Identification and Listing of
Hazardous Wastes from
Chlorotoluene Production
Final, Judicial, 5/92
Final, Judicial, 5/1/92
NPRM, Judicial, 9/3/91
Final, Statutory, 11/8/86
NPRM, Statutory, 11/8/85
Final, Judicial, 7/92
NPRM, Judicial, 7/91
Final, Statutory, 2/8/86
Final, Statutory, 8/18/92
Final, Statutory, 8/18/92
Final, Judicial, 9/92
NPRM, Judicial, 9/91
Final, Statutory, 2/8/86
Disposal of Containerized Liquids
in Hazardous Waste Landfills
Final, Judicial, 10/92
Judicial deadline for
Supplemental Notice 10/91
Final, Statutory, 2/8/86
List of Regulated Substances and Final, Statutory, 11/15/92
Thresholds for Accidental Release
Prevention; Requirements for Petitions
Under Section 112(R)(3) of the
CAAA of 1990
Hazardous Waste Listing
Determination for Wood Surface
Protection Chemicals
NPRM, Judicial, 12/31/92
Final, Judicial, 12/31/93
95
-------
TITLE
DEADLINE
OSWER
Hazardous Waste Listing
Determination for Carbamate
Chemicals
Land Disposal Restrictions -
Phase II: Rulemaking on
Contaminated Soil and Newly
Identified Wastes
Reportable Quantity Adjustments
of Lead, Lead Compounds, Lead-
Containing Hazardous Waste
Streams, and Methyl Isocyanate
Risk Management Plans for
Chemical Accidental Release
Prevention
Land Disposal Restrictions -
Phase III: Rulemaking on Newly
Identified Wastes
National Priorities List (NPL)
for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste
Sites—Proposed Update XI
National Priorities List for
Uncontrolled Update Waste Sites
—Hazardous Proposed Update XII
Office of Prevention, Pesticides
and Toxic Substances (OPPTSi
Pesticide Management and
Disposal: Container Design,
Residue Removal, Storage,
Disposal, and Transportation
Priority Review of Refractory
Ceramic Fibers
Regulatory Investigation of
Dioxin in Pulp and Paper Mill
Sludge
NPRM, Judicial, 1/31/93
Final, Judicial, 1/31/95
Final, Judicial, 4/93
Final, Judicial, 4/30/93
NPRM, Judicial, 4/30/92
Final, Statutory, 4/30/88
Final, Statutory, 11/15/93
Final, Judicial, 3/94
Statutory: Annual Update
Other, Statutory, Annual
Update
Final, Statutory, 12/24/91
Other, Statutory, 5/8/92
Final, Judicial 11/30/92
96
-------
Chair:
EPA 90-DAY REGUIiATORY REVIEW TASK FORCE
Richard Morgenstern, Acting Assistant
Administrator for Policy, Planning and
Evaluation (OPPE)
Project
Manager:
Elizabeth Drye, OPPE
Senior Policy
Advisor: Frederick Alldn, OPPE
Senior
Economist: Al McGartland, OPPE
PRIORITY AREA REVIEWS:
Biotechnology
Chair: Linda Fisher, Assistant Administrator
for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances
Judith Nelson, Elizabeth Milewski, Larry
Zeph, Sharlene Matten, John Melone, Ellie
Clark, Tony Baney, Fred Betz, Steve Lingle,
Deb Debkowski, Bob Benson, John Kingscott
Small Communities
Chair: Laurie Goodman, Associate
Administrator for Regional Operations and
State and Local Relations
Ann Cole, Lou Kerestesy
Small Businesses
Chair: Karen Brown, Small Business and
Asbestos Ombudsman
Robert Rose, James Malcolm
Natural Gas
Co-Chair: Eileen Claussen, Director, Office
of Atmospheric and Indoor Air Programs
Co-Chair: Daniel Esty, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Policy, Planning and
Evaluation
'Bruce Schillo, Kathleen Hogan
97
-------
Resource
Conservation and
Recovery Act
Reform
Chair: Don Clay, Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Margaret Schneider, Mark Pollins, Caroline
Previ, Ellen Brown
Market Incentives
Co-Chair: Maryann Froehlich, Acting
Director, Office of Policy Analysis, OPPE
Co-Chair: Mark Luttner, Special Assistant to
the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
Robert Brenner, Thomas Eagles, Karen Martin,
Sharon Saile, Margaret Schneider, Ellen
Brown, Barnes Johnson, Al McGartland, Barry
Korb, Barry Elman, Ken Munis, Daniel Mussatti
Judith Nelson, Allen Jennings, Robert Lee,
Dana Ott
Technology
Innovation
Co-Chair: Walter Kovalick, Director,
Technology Innovation Office, OSWER
Co-Chair: Fred Lindsay, Director, Office of
Environmental Engineering and Technology
Demonstration, ORD
Margaret Kelly, Winston Smith, Mark Luttner,
John Seitz, Bill Bryson, Jim Hanlon, Tim
Opplet, Frank Princiotta, Joe Carra, Lou
True, Joe Wigold, Mike Moore, John Convery,
Mike Mastracci, David Berg
Export Promotion
Co-Chair: Daniel Esty, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for Policy, Planning and
Evaluation
Co-Chair: Alan Hecht, Deputy Assistant
Administrator for International Activities
Scott Bidner, Tim McProuty, Ron Slotkin,
David Schnare, Larry Weinstock
98
-------
Inclusionary
Rulemaking
Co-Chair: Robert Brenner, Director, Office
of Policy Analysis and Review, OAR
Co-Chair: Thomas Kelly, Director, Office of
Regulatory Management and Evaluation, OPPE
Chris Kirtz, Judith Nelson, Cynthia Puskar,
Margaret Schneider, Lou Kerestesy, Bettina
Fletcher
PROGRAM OFFICE COORDINATORS:
Office of Air
and Radiation
Robert Brenner, Director, Office of Policy
Analysis and Review
Thomas Eagles, Office of Policy Analysis and
Review
Office of Water
Cynthia Puskar, Acting Director, Policy Staff
Office of Solid
Waste and Emer-
gency Response
Margaret Schneider, Director, Policy Analysis
and Regulatory Management Staff
Mark Pollins
Office of
Prevent ionf
Pesticides
and Toxic
Substances
Judith Nelson, Director, Regulatory
Coordination Staff
JoAnne Foulks, Diane Seal, Joe Powers
Debbie Sisco
OTHER PARTICIPANTS:
Office of the
Administrator
Mark Joyce, Special Assistant
Mark Goldman, Special Assistant
99
-------
Office of Policy,
Planning and
Evaluation
Brendan Doyle, Special Assistant
Paul Lapsley, Director, Regulatory Management
Division
Ken Munis, Special Assistant
Katy Schnitz, Intern
Brett Snyder, Acting Chief, Economic Analysis
and Research Branch
Terry Sopher, Senior Analyst
Edgar Thornton, Special Assistant
Office of
Coromuni cation,
Education and
Public Affairs
Peggy Knight, Director, External
Relations Division
Sandro Young
Office of
Enforcement
Scott Fulton, Deputy Assistant Administrator
George Hayes, Special Assistant
Office of
General Counsel
Charles Elkins, Associate General Counsel
Carl Garvey, Dana Ott
Summary of Public
Comments
Brett Snyder, Dwight Atkinson, Jim Casey,
Donn Viviani, Harriet Tregoning, Drusilla
Hufford, Tom Gillis, Doreen Sterling, Adam
Saslow, Walter Walsh, Fred Talcott, Bob
Sachs, Chris O'Donnell, Connie Sasala, Angela
Carson, Linda Setneska, Chris Boelke, Ron
Dexter, Michael Branagan, Bob Benson, Jerry
Newsome, William Painter, Mahesh Podar,
Christine Ruf, Andrew Otis, Chris Knopes,
Todd Ramsden, Barry Korb, Mike Doonan, Peter
Nagelhout, Laura Cornwell, Ron McHugh
Project Support
Pat Lyttle, Tish Barbee, Carolyn Inge,
Roberta Lane, Pat Pender, Darren Reid,
Mardiko Smith, Theresa Stevenson, Deloris
Swann, Barbara Willis
100
•frU.S. Government printing office • 1992 312-014/40148
------- |