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 ------- |