United States Policy Planning EPA230-R-92-001A
Environmental Protection And Evaluation July 1992
Agency (PM-219)
\e/EPA Report To The President
On The 90-Day Review Of
Regulations
Appendix Volume
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT
ON THE 90-DAY REVIEW OF REGULATIONS
APPENDIX
On May 5, 1992, EPA Administrator William K. Reilly submitted
a report to the President on the Environmental Protection Agency's
90-Day Review of Regulations. The Overview report that was released
at that time described 88 actions that EPA had taken in the 90-day
period or had committed to take in the near term to eliminate
unnecessary regulatory burdens or promote economic growth.
This Appendix volume presents further information on each of
EPA's 88 actions. There are four sections which summarize the
actions being taken by each of EPA's program offices. There are
also eight cross-program sections, which are the reports from the
special workgroups established by Administrator Reilly to focus on
cross-program priority areas. [The ninth workgroup report, RCRA
Reform, is included in the report from the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.] Finally, this volume includes a summary of
the public comments that EPA received in the course of this
regulatory review.
Because of the overlap between the efforts of the program
offices and the cross-program workgroups, some of the 88 individual
actions are described more than once in this Appendix. To assist
the reader, each individual action has a reference number which is
the same throughout this Appendix and the May 5, 1992, Overview
report.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART ONE: PROGRAM OFFICE SUMMARIES
1. Air and Radiation 1
2. Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. . 22
3. Solid Waste and Emergency Response 41
4 . Water 68
PART TWO: CROSS-PROGRAM WORKGROUP REPORTS
5. Market Incentives 81
6 . Biotechnology 115
7. Natural Gas 141
8. Technology Innovation r. 147
9 . Export Promotion 155
10. Small Communities 171
11. Small Businesses 185
12 . Indusionary Rulemaking 229
PART THREE: PUBLIC COMMENTS
13. Summary of Public Comments in Response to
the Federal Register Notice 238
-------
APPENDIX 1
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
-1-
-------
Overviev
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 produces guidance and criteria for States to use in their
development of State Implementation Plans (SIPS) to attain air
quality criteria.
Public Comments
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 three
broad areas: Title I of the Act (52 comments), which covers
attainment of ambient air quality standards; Title II (53
comments), which covers emissions from mobile sources (e.g.,
automobiles); and Title III (58 comments), which covers toxic air
emissions control. Among the most-commented Title I concerns were
the cost implications of the "best available control technology"
(BACT) definition, visibility issues, new source review, and
emissions trading. Title II comments focused on non-road engine
standards, onboard diagnositic testing, and fuel evaporation
testing. Regarding Title III, by far the most comments addressed
the use of risk assessment; most other comments addressed
particular issues in specific rulemakings. Comments in other areas
addressed acid rain monitoring and NOx control(Title IV),
permitting flexibility (Title V) , and CFC control issues (Title
VI) . Many of the comments received are duplicates of those already
received in the course of the ongoing rulemakings. All comments on
rulemakings-in-progress will be addressed as part of the standard
notice-and-comment process for the rulemakings to which they apply.
Only twenty comments on existing rules were received. 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. 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 initiatives1. Instead, the
1 One particular comment merits special mention, because it
is connected with ongoing litigation in which the Agency is
involved. The commenter, the Central Arizona Water Conservation
District (CAWCD), requested withdrawal of EPA's final rule
promulgating federal revisions to the federal implementation plan
(FIP) for Arizona to remedy the visibility impairment at the Grand
Canyon National Park reasonably attributable to the Navajo
Generating Station (56FR50172, October 3, 1991). CAWCD also has
filed a petition for review of this final rule in the U.S. Court of
-2-
-------
subcommittee recommended that OAR focus its 90-day efforts
primarily on the major market-based initiatives outlined in the
next section, which are expected to yield the most cost savings of
any initiatives considered.
90-dav Initiatives
In addition to its consideration of all public comments
received, the Office of Air and Radiation conducted its own
internal review of its regulations. The result of this combined
public and internal review is a set of 17 initiatives which OAR
will undertake in support of the President's 90-day review goals.
These initiatives include a number of new actions, as well as
expansions of the scope of some actions already underway. These
initiatives are each summarized in one page or less in the
following pages, and are listed in the attached table of contents
preceded by their reference number, where applicable. Table l.i at
the end of this appendix lists the subset of actions for which
cost-savings have been quantified, and presents the cost estimates
for each action.
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and is in on-going litigation with
EPA over this final rule. See No. 91-70731 (petition filed
December 2, 1991). In the context of this litigation, counsel for
CAWCD have suggested that they view the aforementioned comment
submitted to EPA under the President's 90-day review effectively as
a petition for reconsideration of the final rule within the meaning
of section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section
7607 (d) (7) (B) . Section 307(d) sets out special procedures
governing certain Clean Air Act rulemaking actions, including
provisions governing the submittal of a petition for
reconsideration of a final rule subject to those procedures. EPA
currently intends to respond to CAWCD's comments in the context of
these special procedural revisions of the Clean Air Act.
Therefore, EPA does not believe it is appropriate to address
CAWCD's comments as part of the President's 90-day review.
-3-
-------
90-Dav Actions and Commitments
Al. Review Radionuclides NESHAP for NRC Licensees
A2. Eliminate Smoke Standard for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines
A3. Revise Radon Home-Building Standards Guidance
A4. Exemption of Perchloroethylene (perc) As a Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) Due to its Negligible Ozone Contribution
AS. Revise capture efficiency guidlines.
A6. Improving Cost-Effectiveness of MACT Standards
A7. Revision of Electric Utility New Source Requirements (WEPCO)
A8. Assistance to California South Coast Market Incentives Program
A9. Accelerated Retirement of Older Vehicles ("Scrappage")
A10. State Grants Program
All. Mobile-Stationary Source Trading Program
A12. Expansion of Economic Incentive Rules
A13. Emissions Averaging in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)
A14. Development of Coalbed Methane
A15. Develop Emission Standards for Natural-Gas-Fueled Vehicles
A16. Enhanced Implementation of Small Business Technical Assistance
and Compliance Program (SBAP)
-------
Al. Review Radionuclides NESHAP for NRC Licensees
Description:
The subject rulemaking is the reconsideration of an existing
standard, 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart I, National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) Radionuclide Emissions from NRC-
Licensed Facilities. EPA will propose to rescind the part of this
rule applying to facilities other than nuclear power reactors. The
rule was originally promulgated on October 31, 1989 but at the time
of publication, the Agency granted petitions for reconsideration of
the standard and announced that the rule was to be simultaneously
stayed. The stay was continued several times; in fact, the rule
for these NRC-licensed facilities has never become effective.
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 contained a new provision
Section 112(d)(9), which allows the Agency to decline to regulate
NRC-licensees under Section 112 if the Administrator finds, by
rule, and in consultation with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC), that the NRC regulatory program provides the public health
with an ample margin of safety. The purpose of this provision is
to avoid the duplicative regulation of radionuclides by two
agencies.
Before it could make a determination under Section 112(d)(9),
EPA undertook an evaluation of NRC-licensed facilities other than
nuclear power reactors in order to assess whether NRC's regulation
of these facilities already protected the public health with an
ample margin of safety. Under the authority of Clean Air Act
Section 114, the Agency sent hundreds of letters to randomly
selected facilities which required them to submit information
concerning dose calculations. Based on the results of this
evaluation, EPA is now proposing to rescind Subpart I for NRC-
licensed facilities other than nuclear power reactors.
Benefits/Costs Savings:
Rescinding this standard will eliminate the duplicative
regulatory scheme which exists for over 6000 NRC-licensed
facilities and the costs associated with overlapping programs. We
estimate the administrative costs savings to be $3,000,000 the
first year with lesser costs in subsequent years.
Commitments:
EPA expects to issue a Proposed Rule in July 1992.
-5-
-------
A2. Eliminate Smoke Standard for Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines
Description:
All heavy-duty diesel engines (HDDE) must currently meet the
federal smoke emission requirements. Smoke requirements limit
exhaust opacity (i.e., smokiness) during operating modes which tend
to promote smoke from diesel engines. Emission standards and test
procedures are contained in 40 CFR Part 86, Subpart 1.
Smoke generally consists of particles of partially or unburned
fuel. The visible particles are typically larger and consequently
more amenable to capture. The introduction of weight based (grams
per BHP-Hr) particulate emission standards for HDDEs in 1988, and
more stringent standards in 1991, have drastically reduced smoke
emissions. HDDEs which meet the current mass particulate standards
also meet the smoke standards. The mass particulate emission
standards have become the limiting factor and testing for opacity
offers no additional environmental benefit.
By relaxing or removing the requirement for smoke
certification testing of HDDEs, manufacturers are relieved of a
regulatory burdened which has been rendered ineffective by
advancing control technology.
Benefits / Cost Savings;
The proposed change in regulatory requirement would eliminate
the opacity testing of HDDEs. This action would save manufacturers
approximately $100,000 annually.
Commitments;
EPA expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
eliminate the need for opacity certification testing if existing
information shows that the engine will achieve the standard. The
proposal will be issued by the fourth quarter of 1992.
-6-
-------
A3. Revise Radon Home-Building standards Guidance
Description;
Section 304 of Title III (Indoor Radon Abatement) of
the Toxic Substances Control Act, (15 U.S.C. 2601) as amended,
mandates that EPA develop model construction standards and
techniques for controlling radon levels within new buildings.
Among other requirements, the Agency is charged with ensuring
that organizations responsible for developing national model
building codes, and authorities which regulate building
construction within states (or political subdivisions within
States), adopt the Agency's model standards and techniques for
radon-resistant construction. Since EPA has no authority to
regulate or limit the levels of radon in new homes, the proposed
construction Standard and the recommended procedure for its
implementation has been developed for adoption by the National
Model Building Code organization and as a "model" for use by
States and local jurisdictions as they develop building codes
and implementing regulations applicable to their unique radon
control requirements.
EPA is revising the draft model Standard to improve its cost-
effectiveness by targeting areas of the country with the highest
potential for elevated levels of radon. EPA has developed a map
which designates the areas of highest radon potential.
Benefits/Costs Savings;
By targeting new homes in high radon risk areas, EPA will help
ensure investments in mitigating radon risks are as efficient as
possible.
Commitment
EPA expects to publish a draft Standard for public comment
by October, 1992.
-7-
-------
A4. Exemption of Perchloroethylene (perc) As a Volatile organic
Compound (VOC) Due to its Negligible Ozone Contribution
Description:
This action would add perc to the list of compounds exempt as
a VOC for purposes of preparing ozone State implementation plans
(SIP's). The action responds to an industry petition to exempt
perc as a VOC on the basis that it has negligible photochemical
reactivity and this does not contribute to tropospheric ozone
formation.
This action would have the effect of encouraging States not to
control perc sources, especially dry cleaners and degreasers, as
part of their ozone SIP's. Control of perc would then be primarily
through national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAPS) under section 112.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
This action will reduce costs by encouraging States to
eliminate rules for perc sources, especially small sources like dry
cleaners and degreasers, that overlap or conflict with NESHAPS.
Commitments;
The EPA expects to issue a proposal in June 1992.
-8-
-------
AS. Revise capture efficiency guidlines.
Description:
In order to determine compliance with volatile organic
compounds (VOC) rules for certain types of printing and coating
operations, it is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the
system for collecting the vapors to be ducted to a control device,
referred to as capture efficiency (CE). In April 1990, EPA issued
protocols which responded to needs identified by States and
industry for accurate methods for measuring CE. Since then,
several commenters have expressed concern over the EPA CE
protocols. Therefore, EPA is undertaking a 12-month study to
investigate less expensive ways of using the current CE guidance,
as well as possible alternatives for determining CE. The study
will evaluate the economic and technical feasibility of any
alternative, as well as its relative accuracy compared to the
current protocols in the CE guidance. The EPA will be working with
industry during the course of this study.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
We cannot estimate the cost savings until the alternative CE
methods are developed and evaluated.
Commitment;
The EPA expects to issue alternate CE methods guidance by
April 1993, followed by notice and comment rulemaking to
incorporate CE methods in EPA rules.
-9-
-------
A6. Improving Cost-Effectiveness of MACT standards
Description;
EPA intends to ensure that the rules promulgated under the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 generally, and under Title III
specifically, are cost-effective. As part of the effort to
minimize the economic impact of future rules, the Agency will
solicit comment, in the preamble of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP
(HON), on various ways the Agency can improve the cost-
effectiveness and economic efficiency of Title III rules.
Specifically, the Agency will ask for comment on the use of
emissions averaging in all standards set under Title III. The HON
is the first major emission standard under Title III, and it
incorporates an emissions-averaging scheme that could reduce the
cost of compliance. The HON regulates the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI), a large source category
with many complex sources with thousands of emission points. While
this may make averaging complex, it also means there is likely to
be great variability in control costs across emission points,
resulting in large potential cost savings from averaging. Other
source categories, such as petroleum refining and pharmaceutical
manufacturing, have similar characteristics and may present
additional opportunities for cost savings through averaging. For
example, one commenter encouraged EPA to allow integrated, plant-
wide controls at automobile manufacturing facilities. Emissions
averaging would allow facilities to form integrated control
strategies for all of their emission points..
Finally, the Agency will ask for comment on whether the Agency
should consider incremental risk reductions when determining
acceptable costs in setting emission standards more stringent than
the "floor" under Section 112(d) of Title III. Section 112(d)(2)
requires the Agency to set emission standards for source categories
considering, among other factors, the cost of achieving the
emission standards. Two commenters encouraged EPA to consider risk
reduction when setting Title III emission standards.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
Estimated cost savings are not yet available, but could be
substantial.
Commitments;
OAR will solicit comments on the aforementioned subjects in
the preamble to the HON, to be published in May 1992.
-10-
-------
A7. Revision of Electric Utility New Source Requirements (WEPCO)
Description;
This notice provides clarifying amendments to EPA's new source
review (NSR) rules by adopting a broad NSR exclusion for utility
pollution control projects. Also, this rulemaking would adopt an
"actual-to-future-actual11 methodology for determining whether all
other nonroutine physical or operational changes at utilities
(other than the replacement of a unit or addition of a new unit)
are subject to NSR under either PSD or nonattainment provisions and
to maintain that this methodology is applied where the unit has
"begun normal operations."
In addition, this notice modifies EPA's regulations
implementing the modification provisions of the title I NSPS
program to provide that a utility may use for its prechange
baseline the highest hourly emissions rate achievable at any time
during the 5 years prior to the physical or operational change.
Finally, this notice also modifise EPA regulations to reflect
changes made by Congress in the 1990 Amendments to the
applicability of new source requirements to clean coal technology
and repowering projects, and to "very clean" units.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
This action will generally reduce costs to electric utilities
and States since it will allow certain types of changes at existing
utilities to be exempt from the new source requirements under the
Clean Air Act. It allows electric utilities more flexibility and
certainty in complying with the title IV (acid rain) of the CAAA of
1990. The annualized cost savings are estemated to be $0.4 to 1.1
billion per year.
Commitments;
EPA promulgated the final rule in May, 1992.
-11-
-------
AS. Assistance to California South Coast Market Incentives Program
Description;
California's South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) has an extensive effort underway to develop a marketable
permits program, which would establish a Regional Clean Air
Incentives Market ("RECLAIM"). The program goals are to lower
costs, increase flexibility, and achieve attainment of Federal and
State air quality objectives. The program will eventually be
submitted to the EPA for review and approval as part of
California's State implementation plan (SIP). OAR will assist the
SCAQMD in developing the State regulations to implement this
program. OAR's participation will include membership on work
groups to be established to define adequate emission quantification
and monitoring methods and enforcement provisions.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
Based on preliminary estimates by the SCAQMD, it is
anticipated that the RECLAIM program will significantly reduce
area-wide compliance costs.
Commitments;
OAR will provide staff to participate in the development of
rules to implement this program through work groups being
established by the SCAQMD.
-12-
-------
A9. Accelerated Retirement of Older Vehicles ("Scrappage")
Description;
Old automobiles, especially those built before the strict
emission control requirements introduced in the 1970s, pollute far
more than those built under today's strict emission control laws.
Getting these cars off 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. The EPA initiative will result in published guidance and
criteria giving states, cities, and companies 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.
Programs under this initiative would likely be similar to a
successful pilot program run by the Unocal oil company in the Los
Angeles area. Unocal bought, tested, and then scrapped over 8,000
old cars, with support and cooperation from Ford, the South Coast
Air Quality Management District, and the State of California. The
cars had an average fuel economy of 12 miles per gallon, less than
half that of new cars, and emitted hydrocarbons at 99 times current
standards.
Benefits/Cost Savings:
If 5% of existing pre-1971 vehicles (about 200,000 cars) were
scrapped by the programs under this initiative, hydrocarbon
emissions would be reduced by 32,000 tons, NOx by 8400 tons, CO by
235,000 tons, and C02 by 981,000 tons. Based on data from a pilot
program run by the Unocal company, a scrappage program would be
cheaper than stationary control wherever the stationary control
costs more than $300/ton for carbon monoxide, $2750/ton for NOx,
and $3,000/ton for hydrocarbons. In many cases, it will also cost
less than the cost of further tailpipe emission controls. This is
in contrast to the cost of stationary-source control, which can be
much higher: in Los Angeles, for example, stationary-source control
costs are projected to approach $25,000 per ton for major
pollutants.
Commitments;
EPA issued a technical information document for vehicle
scrappage on March 27, 1992. Additional guidance will be published
as part of the mobile/stationary trading guidance to be published
in the third quarter of 1992.
-13-
-------
A10. State Grants Program
Description;
Market-based approaches to addressing air quality goals
represent a major departure from the command and control approaches
historically used by States to develop implementation plans for
meeting air quality goals and requirements. There are
informational, institutional, and financial barriers to effecting
major changes in the types of programs that State agencies develop
and implement. In recognition of these problems, OAR will provide,
through its State grants program, resources for initiatives
designed to explore the feasibility and identify appropriate design
elements of market-based programs.
The results of the initiatives funded through this grant
process will help facilitate the development and implementation of
such programs by the States receiving the grants. In addition, the
information produced from these initiatives is expected to be
transferrable to other States which may benefit from the
experience, and to serve as input to the EPA's ongoing formulation
of policy dealing with market-based approaches.
Benefits/Cost Savings:
It is anticipated that these initiatives will result in the
development of State programs that provide cost savings and more
flexibility in meeting air quality goals than would traditional
regulatory programs. Potential cost savings have not been
quantified at this time.
Commitments:
For FY 1992, OAR is committing $610,000 to fund five
initiatives. These projects will address both stationary and
mobile source programs, and the control of ozone and air toxics.
Projects are expected to get underway this spring.
-14-
-------
All. Mobile-Stationary Source Trading Program
Description:
Under this initiative, EPA will produce guidance for States
which clarifies how Clean Air Act requirements can be met by
trading emission reductions among mobile and stationary sources.
This guidance will encourage states to consider these trading
opportunities where appropriate as they develop their
implementation plans for air quality management.
In this context, the term "trading" refers to a variety of
ways by which government entities and individual facilities can
exploit the differences between the control costs of stationary and
mobile sources to devise a least-cost strategy to meet Clean Air
Act requirements. The first type of trading envisioned here would
be done by State and local agencies, which would be allowed to
choose what combination of programs to use to meet the periodic
emission reduction requirements of the Clean Air Act. Areas could
decide to adopt further stationary source requirements or instead
may wish to adopt further programs to achieve reductions in the
mobile source sector. In this sense, mobile and stationary source
reduction programs can be "traded" for each other in state
implementation plans. The second type of trading would be done by
individual facilites, which would be allowed to trade reductions on
an individual basis to meet certain emission reduction requirements
or to generate tradeable offsets to help meet new source review
requirements.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
Emission trading takes advantage of the fact that some sources
of pollution are cheaper to control than others. The more widely
control costs vary between stationary and mobile sources, the more
cost savings an area can expect to achieve from trading. EPA
estimates that this program will reduce the costs of meeting
regulatory requirements by $100 - 750 million annually (including
cost savings for the scrappage program (A9) discussed above.
Commitments;
Guidance on mobile/stationary source trading will be issued in
the third quarter of 1992.
-15-
-------
A12. Expansion of Economic Incentive Rules
Description;
Under this initiative, OAR will produce guidance and criteria
encouraging States to incorporate economic incentive programs
(EIPs) into their implementation plans for air quality management.
The Clean Air Act Amendments (Act) require such programs to be
implemented only if future emission reduction progress milestones
are missed in the worst ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment
areas. For this inititative, OAR intends to provide guidance for
discretionary EIPs as well. In the absence of such guidance, it is
unlikely that States will devote much attention to the development
of discretionary programs designed to assist in achieving progress
toward attainment and in lowering the cost of meeting air quality
goals.
The planned guidance will identify the rationale behind
implementing EIPs, ideas for different types of market-based
approaches, and the program design elements that are key to
providing both the flexibility and the accountability that are
integral to the success of such programs. It is anticipated that
with this guidance, States will be more likely to develop economic
incentive initiatives of their own, as a means to avoid missing
progress milestones, rather than as a remedial measure after
milestones are already missed.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
The underlying basis for using economic incentives is that
such approaches can lower the cost of meeting environmental goals
as compared to traditional command and control approaches. To the
extent that such approaches have been evaluated for other specific
air quality programs, such as the emission allowance trading
programs for acid rain and lead, significant cost savings have been
projected or realized. However, no specific cost savings estimates
are possible for this initiative because it is impossible to
project what areas will adopt economic incentive programs on a
voluntary basis nor what kind of economic incentive program would
be adopted. The discussion for the South Coast marketable permits
program provides an example of the kind of savings that can be
realized by one type of economic incentive program.
Commitments;
This guidance, together with the mandated rules, is scheduled
for Federal Register proposal in late May. Final promulgation is
scheduled for November 1992.
-16-
-------
A13. Emissions Averaging in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (EON)
Description:
Emissions averaging is being developed for the HON proposal to
provide the flexibility necessary to cover broad range of
industrial processes cost-effectively. These averaging provisions
would require the owner or operator of a source to limit source-
wide emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs). The proposed
regulation provides specific instructions for determining how much
emissions must be reduced at each source. The required emissions
reduction is determined by how much emissions would be reduced if
a "reference control technology" (RCT) were applied to all the
"covered" emission points in the source.
The owner or operator of a source can use two methods to comply
with the emissions reduction requirement. Either method can be
used exclusively, or the two can be combined. The first method is
to apply the RCT, or an equivalent technology, to covered emission
points, thereby achieving some part of the required emission
reduction at each covered point that is controlled. The second
method is to average emissions from two or more points such that
the overall required emission reduction is achieved. With the
second method, emissions averaging, the owner or operator does not
have to apply the RCT to each covered point, as long as an
equivalent or greater emissions reduction is achieved elsewhere in
the source.
The Agency will ask for comment in the HON preamble on the
feasibility of developing enforceable methods to translate the
requirements of the negotiated rule for equipment leaks into
emission levels that could be used in the HON averaging program.
This program currently does not incorporate emissions from leaks
because those emissions are governed by standards that do not
require specific emission levels or reductions, but rather require
certain monitoring and repair criteria. To compare emissions
reductions from this emission type with those from other types,
emission reductions from leaks must be quantified in a way that is
easily verifiable. The HON preamble will ask for suggestions on
enforceable methods for quantifying and verifying these emissions
and emission reductions. Comment will also be solicited on whether
or not such an approach conflicts with agreements made in the
negotiated rulemaking on equipment leaks control.
Benefits/Cost Savings:
Emissions averaging can be expected to reduce the costs of
compliance with the HON while maintaining the same level of
emissions reductions. At present, a quantitative estimate of the
potential cost savings from emissions averaging is not available.
Commitments;
The HON NPRM will be proposed in May 1992.
-17-
-------
A14. Development of Coalbed Methane
Description;
Currently, for reasons of mine safety, much coal mine methane
is vented; recovery is limited since property rights to the gas are
uncertain. However, mechanisms are available which can moderate
the effect of these unclear property rights, and allow a
significant amount of coal mine methane to be economically
developed and transported to pipelines or recovered and used on-
site to generate electricity. For this initiative, EPA will
analyze the economic and environmental benf its of improved property
rights definitions, focusing on the Appalachian region.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
No estimates of benefits or cost savings have been made for
this initiative.
Commitments;
The study is now ongoing, and will be completed in May 1992.
-18-
-------
A15. Develop Emission Standards for Natural-Gas-Fueled Vehicles
Description;
EPA will propose emissions standards for natural gas vehicles
by June 1992. The lack of emission standards for alternative fuel
vehicles has generally been seen as a barrier to the widespread
introduction of these vehicles to the marketplace. The goal of
standards for natural gas vehicles will be to provide a "level
playing field" as compared with gasoline, diesel, and methanol
vehicles. The standards will be performance-based to allow
manufacturers to comply in the most efficient manner.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
Clarified emissions standards will help provide significant
environmental benefits. EPA estimates that natural gas vehicles
will reduce hydrocarbon emissions by 80% to 93% below those of
gasoline vehicles, carbon monoxide will be reduced 90% to 100%, air
toxins by 90%. Oxides of nitrogen will also fall slightly. If
specialized catalytic converters are successfully developed,
nitrogen oxides emissions could be lowered dramatically. Although
natural gas vehicles have a higher initial price than gasoline
vehicles, lower operating and maintenance costs could help offset
this initial cost disadvantage. Moreover, oil consumption will be
reduced. Further, carbon dioxide emissions will be reduced
significantly.
Commitments;
EPA expects to issue a proposed rule in June 1992.
-19-
-------
A16. Enhanced Implementation of small Business Technical Assistance
and Compliance Program (SBAP).
Description:
Under Section 507 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)
States must establish a small business stationary source technical
and environmental compliance program (SBAP) to facilitate
compliance by small businesses with the CAAA. The program must be
adopted as part of the States Implementation Plans (SIPS) under
Section 110 and 112 of the Act. States must submit their proposed
programs to the Agency for approval by November 15, 1992. For this
initiative, the Agency will increase its emphasis in the following
areas:
1. Providing additional personal contact to assure
responsible state staff of EPA's concerns and interest in
the establishment of effective SBAPs.
2. Assuring effective small business trade association
involvement both at the national and state level.
3. Assuring accelerated State outreach to small business by
responsible State staff.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
This increased emphasis on participation and interaction will
assure that the States are able to develop approvable Small
Business Assistance Program Plans with minimal revisions.
Commitments;
The Office of Air and Radiation, in cooperation with the
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, will
augment its activity in assisting the States through more on-site
visits and regionalized meetings with those having difficulty in
planning for and/or implementing a SBAP..
-20-
-------
Table i.l
Cost Saving Estimates for OAR Actions
REF. NO.
A6
A6
A7
AS
OAR ACTIONS
Improving Cost-
Effectiveness of MAC!
Standards - Hazardous
Organic NESHAPS (HON)
Improving Cost-
Effectiveness of MAC1
Standards - Other
than HON Compounds
Revision of Electric
Utility New Source
Requirements
("WEPCo")
Assistance to
California South
Coast Market-
Incentives Program
TOTAL
COST
SAVINGS -
LOW
ESTIMATE
$ 60 -.
million
$ 100
million
$ 400
million
$ 270
million
$ 930
million
COST
SAVINGS -
HIGH
ESTIMATE
S 140
million
$ 450
million
§ 1,100
million
$ 430
million
$ 2,870
million
-21-
-------
APPENDIX 2
OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
-22-
-------
Overview
The Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
(OPPTS) will expedite several actions in response to President
Bush's 90-day regulatory moratorium and review. These activities
are listed below.
OPPTS Activities
Pesticides
PI. Incentives for
Development and Registration
of Reduced Risk Pesticides
P2. Microbial Pesticides:
Experimental Use Permits and
Notification (FIFRA Biotech
Rule)
P3. Reregistration Workshop
P4. Biological Pesticide
Regulatory Relief (e.g., the
Pheromone Project)
P5. Minor Use Project
Toxics
P6. TSCA Section 8(e)-
Modifications to Policy
Guidance on Reporting of
Environmental Release
Information
P7. Proposed Rule to Amend
Premanufacture Notification
(PMN) Exemption Rules
P8. Modifications to TSCA
Chemical Inventory Exemptions
Action/Commitment
ACTION: Publish FR
Notice, May 1992; and
Workshop, Fall 1992
ACTION: Publish NPRM;
May 1992
ACTION: Workshop to be
held in May 1992
COMMIT: User's Manual;
Summer 1992
COMMIT: Propose
legislative initiative;
late Spring/Summer 1992
ACTION: Publish FR
Notice; late May/early
June 1992
ACTION: Publish NPRM;
July 1992
COMMIT: Revised guidance
or rule amendments will
be made available for
public comment in late
1992
-23-
-------
OPPTS Activities
P9. Reclassification of
PCB and PCB-Contaminated
Transformers
P10. PCB Disposal Rule
Amendments
Pll. Evaluation of Toxic
Release Inventory Exemptions
Action/Commitment
COMMIT: Publish NPRM;
September 1992
COMMIT: Publish NPRM;
Fall 1992
COMMIT: Publish ANPRM;
Spring/Summer 1992
Each activity is described in further detail in the
following pages, starting with those actions which are being
taken now during the moratorium (current actions) and then
describing those that will be undertaken in FY'92 or '93. These
actions have the potential to improve economic efficiency without
sacrificing health and environmental benefits. Table 2.1 at the
end of this appendix lists the substet of actions for which cost-
savings have been quantified, and presents the estimated savings
for each action.
-24-
-------
CURRENT ACTIONS
FOR THE
OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
-25-
-------
PI. Incentive* for Development and Registration of Reduced Risk
Pesticides ("Safer Pesticides Policy")
Description;
EPA intends to publish a Federal Register notice soliciting
public participation in a project designed to encourage the
development of lower risk pesticides such as biological and other
newer pesticides as well as improved pest control practices such
as integrated pest management. The project's goal is to develop
policies under which EPA would provide market incentives to
registrants, including reducing compliance costs and red tape, to
encourage innovation, leading to a net effect of economic growth
with decreased risk to public health and the environment.
Registering a new pesticide is a very costly undertaking —
both in time and money. Pesticide registration decisions are
based primarily on EPA's evaluation of the test data provided by
applicants. Depending on the type of pesticide and its proposed
use, EPA can require up to 70 or 80 different kinds of specific
tests. For a major food-use pesticide (which normally requires
the most testing), testing can cost the manufacturer up to $10 to
$15 million. It can take six to nine years to develop, test, and
register a new pesticide.
Among possible incentives under consideration by EPA to
encourage development of lower risk products are the following:
counsel applicants early in the process to clarify registration
requirements; accelerate the review process; allow fee waivers;
and reduce or defer certain data requirements for lower risk
products.
Benefits/Cost Savings:
This project is being initiated with publication of a
Federal Register notice soliciting public input and
participation. Benefits and cost savings have not yet been
determined, but could be significant for registrants of lower
risk pesticides.
Commitments;
The Federal Register notice will be published in May 1992.
Following the 90-day public comment period, the Agency intends tc
hold a public workshop to discuss the options in the late summer
or early fall 1992.
-------
P2. Microbial Pesticides: Experimental Use Permits and
Notification (FIFRA Biotech Rule)
Description;
EPA's primary goal for biological pesticides (microbial,
biochemical, and transgenic plant pesticides) is to promote and
facilitate the development and use of these generally "safer"
products. Biological pesticides are often useful and effective
alternatives to many of the more toxic conventional chemical
pesticides.
Many of the data requirements for the registration of
pesticides require testing in the environment. To ensure testing
is done appropriately, EPA requires an Experiment Use Permit
(EUP) for certain environmental tests. Large scale tests
generally require EUPs; small scale tests are generally presumed
not to need an EUP. For many genetically modified and
nonindigenous microbial pesticide products, the developer must
currently notify and obtain the approval of EPA before even small
scale tests can be conducted.
EPA's proposed amendments to its Experimental Use Permit
regulations will provide regulatory relief by narrowing the scope
of organisms subject to the notification requirement for
genetically modified and nonindigenous organisms. It would
significantly reduce the number of small-scale field test
notifications currently required to be submitted. For example,
under EPA's preferred option, of the 75 notifications received
between 1984 and April 1990, only 19 would have required a
notification to EPA prior to small scale testing in the
environment.
Benefits/Cost Savings:
The proposed rule may reduce the number of notifications to
EPA for small scale testing of pesticides by approximately 75%,
and save $100,000 - $500,000 annually in direct costs to industry
and EPA. More importantly, there are significant unquantified
benefits in terms of reducing regulatory uncertainty, and thus
encouraging research and development in pesticidal applications
of biotechnology.
Commitments;
EPA expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
in May 1992.
-27-
-------
P3. Reregistration Workshop
Description;
The 1988 FIFRA amendments require the reregistration of all
pesticides registered prior to 1984. As EPA enters it third year
of implementation, the Agency has created the basic framework for
the program; however, many important issues remain. Therefore,
the Agency has decided to hold a workshop with industry and other
parties to discuss reregistration requirements.
EPA will use this workshop to promote an inclusive approach
to problem-solving, to provide practical advice and assistance to
registrants in complying with reregistration requirements, and to
encourage input and constructive debate on issues of interest to
the regulated community and other affected parties. The workshop
will feature progress reports and other communication materials,
breakout sessions on specific issues, and opportunities to meet
with the people involved in the reregistration program. Some of
the specific topics on the agenda are: (1) study rejection
rates, (2) ecological risk data requirements and methodologies,
(3) health risk data requirements and methodologies, (4) end use
product registration, and (5) the role of growers and grower
groups (minor use issues).
Benefits/Cost Savings;
By promoting a better understanding of.data requirements and
methodologies and by identifying and eliminating the most
frequent causes of study rejection, significant savings can be
realized by pesticide manufacturers, and those savings can be
passed on to pesticide users and consumers in general.
Commitments;
EPA plans to hold a workshop on May 26-28, 1992 at the
Stouffer Concourse Hotel, 2399 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, Virginia.
-28-
-------
P6. TSCA Section 8(e)- Modifications to Policy Guidance on
Reporting of Environmental Release Information
Description:
This notice will solicit public comment on certain
refinements to EPA's policy concerning the mandatory reporting of
information under section 8(e), the "substantial risk"
information reporting provision of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA). Specifically, comments will be sought on certain
TSCA section 8(e) policy refinements concerning mandatory
reporting of information on the release of chemical substances
to, and the detection of chemical substances in, environmental
media. Comments will also be sought on specific refinements made
to EPA's policy concerning the reporting deadline for written
"substantial risk" information and the circumstances under which
certain information need not be reported to EPA under section
8(e) of TSCA. Finally, the notice will reaffirm the Agency's
position concerning claims of confidentiality for information
contained in a notice of substantial risk under section 8(e) of
TSCA. After receipt of public comments, a final policy for
reporting TSCA 8(e) environmental release information will be
developed.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
Quantitative cost savings are not available. However, the
TSCA section 8(e) policy refinement could lower costs and burden
on industry by: narrowing what could presently be considered
reportable as "substantial risk information" under the present
policy; lengthening the reporting deadline for written
"substantial risk" information; and specifying certain additional
types of information which need not be reported under section
8(e) of TSCA because it is considered "known to the
Administrator." It is believed that none of the above
burden/cost reductions would substantially sacrifice
environmental gains.
Commitments:
The TSCA Section 8(e) Notice of Clarification and
Solicitation of Public Comment is projected for publication in
late May or early June 1992; a final policy clarification will be
issued early in 1993.
-29-
-------
P7. Proposed Rule to Amend Premanufacture Notification (PMN)
Exemption Rules
Description;
The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) wants
to utilize the knowledge gained through experience without
compromising protection to human health or the environment. As
the Agency has gained knowledge of chemicals, categories of
chemicals which are not expected to pose a risk to human health
have been developed. In addition, methods to reduce or
eliminate the exposure to chemicals which do pose a risk to human
health have been developed. The Agency has also identified other
areas within the New Chemicals program where other protections
and efficiencies can be obtained.
The goals of the Premanufacture Notification (PMN) Rule
Amendments are to exempt a larger proportion of PMNs from full
review, to shift certain fixed costs to PMN submitters, and to
reduce burdens for 5(e) Consent Order development. In effect,
the Agency expects to be able to shift the focus from the review
of low-risk substances toward the review and management of high-
risk substances and, in the process, to increase the
manufacturer's certainty concerning the marketing and production
of new chemicals. Proposed regulatory initiatives include the
following: (1) expansion of the polymer exemption (more eligible
polymers, notice of commencement type reporting rather than
Agency review); (2) expansion of the low volume exemption
(increase production volume from 1,000 kg/yr to 10,000 kg/yr);
(3) introduction of a low exposure/low release exemption to
promote pollution prevention practices (reduce number of 5(e)
consent orders); (4) introduction of regulatory language to allow
future electronic submissions; (5) modification of the 2% rule
for reporting polymers allowing for greater flexibility in
reporting; (6) specifications for reporting of chemical identity
to eliminate notice review delays; and (7) expansion of
information requirements for the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) inventory searches.
These amendments are expected to streamline the PMN review
process, reduce the number of submissions requiring full review,
reduce bona fide TSCA Inventory search requests, and reduce
incomplete or incorrect submissions. Industry will have greater
flexibility in their development and marketing schedules since
fewer chemicals will be going through the full PMN process and
fewer 5(e) orders will be issued.
-------
Industry representatives, including members of the Chemical
Manufacturers Association, the Society of Organic Chemical
Manufacturers Association, and the Society of the Plastics
Industry, have voiced support for the proposed amendments.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
A preliminary estimate of overall societal costs reveals
that a reduction of not quite $10 million annually is expected as
a result of these amendments. Costs and benefits vary depending
upon the specific provision.
Commitments:
Short-term actions include an announcement in the next issue
of OPPT's Chemicals in Progress Bulletin and publication of a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in July 1992. Long-term
actions include publishing a Final Rule in April 1993, depending
upon comments received.
-31-
-------
FUTURE COMMITMENTS
FOR THE
OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
-32-
-------
F4. Biological Pesticide Regulatory Relief (e.g., the Pheromone
Project)
Description;
Interest in biological pesticides has increased
significantly in recent years due to concern about chemical
pesticide residues in food as well as the adverse environmental
effects often associated with conventional chemicals. This
increased interest in biological pesticides is clearly reflected
in the increasing numbers of applications for registration of
such products. Seven of the ten new pesticides registered in
1991 were biologically-based products.
EPA can expect the interest in biological pesticides to
continue to grow over the next several years. The potential
benefits of these products to growers, consumers, and the
environment are significant. EPA must find ways, without
compromising human health and environmental safety, to facility
the regulatory process for biological pesticides.
EPA has identified several areas where the regulatory
program for biochemical pesticides (e.g., pheromones and natural
regulators) warrants refinement and streamlining, in the interest
of reducing burdens on the regulated community. The Agency has
also received several petitions from industry and user groups in
recent years urging the Agency to take such actions. EPA will
examine existing regulatory requirements for biochemical
pesticide products to determine whether the Agency could further
reduce the data requirements, change the tolerance requirements,
and change the acreage limits for experimental use permits to
test such pesticides.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
The benefits/cost savings have not yet been determined.
Commitments;
One of the first steps the Agency plans to take is to open
up the dialogue on issues relating to the regulation of
biochemical pesticides. One way the Agency intends to encourage
the sharing of information is to issue a quarterly "Biotech
Bulletin," which will report on current events and activities in
biotechnology and the related fields of biological research and
application.
Another project is the development of a "User's Manual," a
booklet designed to guide applicants through the regulatory
process and avoid time-consuming "regulatory pitfalls." EPA
expects to make the manual available by mid-summer 1992.
-33-
-------
PS. Minor Use Project
Description:
Minor uses are generally defined as those pesticide uses
that do not generate sufficient economic returns from sales to
justify the cost of meeting data requirements and fees for
reregistration or initial registration. Minor use crops include
vegetables, fruits, nuts, herbs, spices, ornamentals, flowers,
trees, and turfgrass. Minor crops are of major importance in the
U.S., accounting for approximately 40 percent of the dollar value
of total sales by agricultural producers.
The 1988 amendments to FIFRA require that all pesticides
originally registered before 1984 be reregistered to ensure that
the data supporting their registrations meet today's more
stringent health and environmental standards. Because of the
high cost of generating new data in support of registration (in
addition to new fees), many registrants are unwilling to continue
to support existing or request new registrations for minor crops.
Many registrants have responded or will respond to the
increased costs and time constraints imposed by FIFRA 1988 by
cancelling pesticide products or deleting minor uses from labels.
There is a significant public policy concern that pest management
on these crops will suffer if reregistration decisions are
affected by the high cost of the registration process.
EPA will examine existing laws in search of ways to provide
relief for users and registrants of minor use pesticides, while
maintaining protection of public health and the environment. We
are also examining options for new legislation to assist minor
users of pesticides while fulfilling the larger goals of EPA's
pesticides program.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
The benefits/cost savings have not yet been determined.
Commitments:
EPA expects to complete an assessment of the legislative
authorities by the middle of May, and to be in a position at that
time to recommend needed legislative changes and to react to any
legislative changes related to minor uses that may be introduced
in Congress. We also plan to have this as an agenda item for
discussion at the Reregistration Workshop in May 1992.
-34-
-------
P8. Modifications to Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Chemical Inventory Exemptions
Description;
Based on a request from the chemical industry, the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is presently reevaluating
its interpretation of its chemical inventory exclusion
provisions. Reinterpretation of the inventory exclusion
provisions could increase the number of new chemicals eligible
for exemption and thereby reduce the administrative burdens/costs
and overall number of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
section 5 Premanufacture Notifications (PMNs). OPPT has already
been meeting with certain industrial groups on this issue and is
expanding its contacts to include other industries and
environmental groups. It will publish any new interpretation and
receive public comment on it.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
*• The regulatory test will be clearer. It will save Agency
time and resources in responding to case-by-case industry
inquiries regarding the application of the exclusion
provisions.
> It will be easier for industry to determine whether or not
to report.
* It will reduce the number of unnecessary PMN (premanufacture
notification) submissions without sacrificing health and
environmental goals.
Commitments;
OPPT is planning a meeting with industry and other
interested parties within the next two months to exchange
information and clarify issues. Additional meetings may be held,
and revised guidance or rule amendments will be made available
for public comment in late 1992.
-35-
-------
P9. Reclassification of Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCS) and PCB-
Contaminated Transformers
Description;
The current polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) transformer
reclassification rule requires transformers to be drained of
their dielectric fluid, refilled with clean fluid, and put back
into service for 90 days under loaded conditions that raise the
temperature of the fluid to 50OC. While many transformers can
meet these conditions, those which cannot have slightly increased
recordkeeping and disposal costs.
The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is
currently developing rule amendments which would eliminate the
requirements for returning the drained and refilled transformers
to service for 90 days under loaded conditions that raise the
temperature to 50OC.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
Nationwide, only a limited amount of savings (<$1,000,000)
would be realized as a direct result of the changes to the
reclassification process. Transformer owners are, however,
interested in reclassification because it can significantly
reduce their potential liability and associated cleanup costs if
a transformer experiences a catastrophic failure, catches fire or
otherwise releases PCBs to the environment. Cleanups can run
into the millions of dollars per incident depending on the
original PCB concentration, location of the transformer and level
of cleanup mandated (usually by the individual states). Example;
The cleanup of an office building in New York after a transformer
fire has surpassed $40,000,000 and the building still has not
been reoccupied.
Commitments;
This proposed rule is projected for publication in the
Federal Register in September 1992.
-36-
-------
P10. Polychlorinated Bipbenyl (PCS) Disposal Rule Amendments
Description;
The current PCB disposal rules allow only limited exemptions
from the requirements for incineration or chemical waste
landfilling of PCB wastes. According to a recent Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) study of over 1200 NPL
(National Priority List) sites, approximately 21% had PCBs as a
"significant" contaminant. This represents approximately
37,000,000 yd3 of contaminated soils, liquids and sludges of
varying concentrations. Many more undocumented spill or old
disposal sites exist whose wastes might be subject to the current
PCB requirements.
The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is
currently developing amendments to the PCB disposal rules which
will benefit all innovative remediation technologies. As
currently envisioned, the amendments would recognize as a
separate class, large volume wastes. The Regional Administrators
(RAs) would be given flexibility in implementing risk management
strategies for these wastes based on site specific
considerations. Specifically the amendments would allow for more
flexible attainment of the goal of protection from unreasonable
risk than the current requirements for destruction [99.9999% ORE
(Destruction and Removal Efficiency)] or chemical waste
landfilling. In addition, the disposal amendments would provide
for self-implementing waivers for permits for R&D (research and
development) and treatability studies with flexibility on
quantity and time allowed for disposal to take place.
The amendments would also contain an "approval by rule"
provision which would reduce permitting paperwork and multi-
jurisdictional compliance issues by allowing the RAs the
opportunity to recognize other actions [e.g., RCRA (Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act) permits, state permits, Superfund
RODs (Record of Decisions), etc.] as equivalent to a TSCA
disposal permit.
The disposal amendments are expected to speed testing of
innovative technologies, reduce duplicative paperwork burdens for
both the government and the regulated community and give states
the primary role in managing PCB waste storage and disposal
facilities within their borders.
-37-
-------
Benefits/Cost Savings;
Disposal Costs. The costs for incineration and landfilling
vary widely depending on factors such as the amount of wastes, a
generator's long-term relationship with a disposer, on-site vs.
off-site disposal, nationwide capacity, composition of the waste,
time remaining on one year clock for disposal, etc.
Average Range: $600-700/yd3 for Incineration
$450-550/yd3 for Landfilling
PRPs (Principal Responsible Parties) at one Superfund site in New
Jersey provided the following estimates for disposal of 40,000-
80,000 yds3 from that site:
$17,000,000-34,000,000 Stabilization and Landfilling
$21,000,000-43,000,000 On-Site Incineration
$86,000,000-172,000,000 Off-Site Incineration
Permitting Costs. An average R&D disposal technology permit
application costs $10,000-40,000. Large fixed site applications
might cost between $100,000-500,000 depending on overlap with
RCRA facility requirements (large facilities tend to be joint
TSCA/RCRA facilities) and the need to collect hydrogeologic data.
The cost savings of these amendments could be substantial.
Cost and benefits could vary significantly depending upon the
flexibility provided in the rule amendments and the Regional
Administrator's decisions for managing cleanups of PCB-
contaminated sites. A preliminary estimate of the cost savings
is approximately $500 million to $1 billion per year.
Commitments;
A proposed rule (NPRM) is currently being developed which
will allow for the use of innovative disposal techniques and cost
efficiencies when selecting disposal options based on the risks
for the scenario being addressed. The current schedule
anticipates Federal Register publication of the NPRM in the Fall,
1992.
-38-
-------
Pll. Evaluation of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Exemptions
Description:
Based on a petition from the Small Business Administration
(SBA), the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is
considering evaluating options for exempting certain reporting
facilities from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). EPA is asking
for public comment on whether to modify the statutory thresholds
for reporting or, as SBA suggested, exempt facilities that
release or transfer off-site in waste less than 5,000 pounds of a
listed TRI chemical. Lower thresholds may also be considered for
some very toxic chemicals. The SBA believes that exempting small
releasers could potentially reduce the number of reports filed by
as much as 90%. The SBA petition also states that 85% of total
releases would be captured by the remaining large releasers.
Since some other environmental regulations are, or in the future,
may be driven by whether a TRI report must be filed, an exemption
from TRI reporting could also reduce other regulatory burdens.
Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) reguires certain facilities
manufacturing, processing, or otherwise using toxic chemicals
above threshold amounts to report their environmental releases of
such chemicals annually. Currently, those threshold amounts are
25,000 pounds per year for manufacturing (including importing) or
processing, or 10,000 pounds per year for otherwise using a toxic
chemical. Beginning with the 1991 reporting year, such
facilities also must report source reduction and recycling data
for TRI chemicals, pursuant to section 7 of the Pollution
Prevention Act (section 6607 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-508). Facilities covered include those
in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39 (the
manufacturing sector) which exceed an activity threshold for a
listed toxic chemical and have ten or more full-time employees.
According to section 313(f)(2) of EPCRA the Administrator can
establish threshold amounts which differ from those that were
mandated, provided that such revised thresholds obtain reporting
on a substantial majority of total releases of the chemical at
all facilities subject to the requirements of this section.
Benefits/Cost Savings:
We have not evaluated cost savings. Qualitatively,
facilities can save on the costs of completing the TRI Form R,
although under the SBA option to exempt small releasers they
would still need to evaluate releases in order to determine if
they were eligible not to report.
Commitments;
OPPT plans to issue an ANPRM (Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking) in Spring/Summer 1992 announcing its intention to
evaluate options for reducing reporting burden, especially among
small facilities.
-•50-
-------
Table 2.1
Cost Saving Estimates for OPPTS Actions
REF. NO.
P2
P7
P10
OPPTS ACTIONS
Microbial Pesticides:
Experimental Use of
Permits and
Notification
PMN Exemption Rules
PCB Disposal Rule
TOTAL
COST
SAVINGS -
LOW
ESTIMATE
$ 0.1 .
million
$ 10
million
$ 500
million
$ 510
million
COST
SAVINGS -
HIGH
ESTIMATE
$ 0.5
million
$ 10
million
$ 1,000
million
$ 1,011
million
-40-
-------
APPENDIX 3
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
-41-
-------
Overview
In response to the President's and the Administrator's
Directives to review and revise existing programs, the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) proposes a package of
far-reaching reforms. OSWER's reforms will strengthen
environmental protection and provide relief to the regulated
community from unnecessary, unproductive, and burdensome
regulations. Once implemented, more effective waste management
policies will result from: the RCRA Reform Initiative, designed
to make the RCRA programs more rational; Superfund
Revitalization, to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and
equity of the Superfund program; and reforms that enhance OSWER's
responsiveness to the burdens placed on the regulated community,
especially small communities and businesses.
OSWER's reforms are not regulatory relief at the expense of
environmental protection. Rather they redirect resources so the
extent of regulatory control is commensurate with the risk
addressed. These reforms, when implemented, will maintain or
enhance protection of human health and the environment, promote
pollution prevention, and encourage waste minimization by the
regulated community.
OSWER's reforms incorporate Total Quality Management. They
represent continuous improvement by servicing the needs of our
customers. OSWER staff was very much involved in identifying
areas for improvement and developing these initiatives, as was
the regulated community and public at large through OSWER's many
efforts to reach out to these groups to gain insight and
perspective regarding our programs
These proposals are consistent with the Agency's statutory
or court-ordered obligations and they are do-able in the near-
term, within our current budget and resource allocations. The
initiatives outlined below are ambitious but we believe
achievable.
-42-
-------
RCRA REFORM INITIATIVE
The current RCRA programs is a complex array of regulations
designed to implement a statute that is highly prescriptive.
Many were written under tight deadlines with limited information.
As a result, the level of control is not always commensurate with
the level of risk.
The reforms advanced in this proposal are designed to make
RCRA a more rational program in which the amount of risk
determines the level of control. In this way, a less burdensome
program is developed without compromising protection of human
health and the environment. This section discusses the array of
reforms that OSWER is proposing to the RCRA program. (See
diagram one.)
Potential cost savings from OSWER's proposed RCRA reforms,
based on a preliminary analysis, may approach three billion
dollars annually (see Attachment 1 for further discussion of
these estimates). The regulated community and government
agencies presently incur an estimated $8.5 billion per year to
ensure safe management of hazardous wastes under RCRA (excluding
the underground storage tank program). Absent these reforms,
these costs are projected to rise to about $13 billion annually
by the year 2000.1
In addition to these cost savings there are qualitative
benefits that will result from these reforms. These include
benefits flowing from the reduction of the administrative burden
on federal and state regulatory agencies, increased use of
innovative treatment technologies, more rapid cleanups, and
better compliance.
OSWER's reforms to RCRA fall into four broad categories for
action: 1) re-target RCRA toward waste presenting significant
risks; 2) eliminate unnecessary delay and cost in RCRA corrective
action; 3) establish risk-based management standards; and 4)
streamline RCRA permitting and encourage innovative technology.
1 The "baseline" cost estimate may exceed what is actually being incurred, due to existing current
variances from certain RCRA regulations. Estimates of cost savings for key reforms will change as
reform options are debated and reshaped, and as supporting regulatory analyses are developed further.
Some savings may not be realized if States with authorized programs may chose not to adopt EPA
reforms.
-43-
-------
I. Re-Target RCRA Towards Waste Presenting significant Risks
Through these initiatives, OSWER will "re-focus" the RCRA
regulatory system on high risk waste. Low risk waste will not be
subjected to regulatory control under Subtitle C. This approach
will significantly improve the accuracy of RCRA's regulatory
reach and enable resources to be targeted toward activities that
present the greatest risk. Initiatives in this category are
listed below.
81 Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HWIR): EPA will propose
several approaches for identifying wastes that do not
present risks significant enough for full subtitle C
regulation. Such low-risk wastes would be allowed to exit
from the RCRA hazardous waste management/cleanup system.
Schedule: April 1992 NPRM
Spring 1993 Final Rule
Public forums
82 Definition of Solid Waste: These are four potential
rulemakings that implement a set of administrative and/or
management standards tailored to the unique nature of waste
management practices used by industry. These rules
encourage waste minimization and recycling.
—Universal Wastes; Would allow recycling of wastes
that are commonly generated at non-industrial sites and
that can be recycled without substantial regulatory
control. Possible universal waste categories include:
ni-cad batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, and canceled
pesticides.
Schedule: Summer 1992 NPRM
Summer 1993 Final Rule
-44-
-------
—Cement and Other Building Materials; Would reduce
unnecessary regulatory barriers to the appropriate use
of hazardous waste in the production of cement and
other building materials. Instances include
substitution of wastes for virgin chemicals and
introduction of waste into an industrial process which
is beneficial and destroys the waste.
Schedule: Fall 19922
Fall 1994
Study recycling of wastes
into cement completed
Final Rule
—Reduced Requirements for Low-Risk Storage; Would
reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on lower-risk
storage activities, particularly storage for recycling.
Schedule: Fall 1992
Fall 1995
Initiate study of low
risk storage facilities
Final Rule (if warranted)
—Metals Reclamation; Would address regulatory issues
in the various metals reclamation industries. Emphasis
would be on the encouragement of environmentally sound
reclamation of metals from hazardous wastes.
Schedule: Fall 1992
Summer 1993
Summer 1995
Initiate study of metals
reclamation from
hazardous wastes
Complete Study
Final Rule (if warranted)
Potential cost savings from re-targeting RCRA toward high
risk wastes could be significant; possibly as much as $2 billion
annually depending on the approach selected for the HWIR. (There
is some duplication in this figure with savings from the reforms
discussed immediately below particularly from the contaminated
soils rule.) Cost savings for the other re-targeting initiatives
appear to be more limited.
2 To eliminate confusion, January and February are considered winter. September through
December are called fall.
-45-
-------
II. Eliminate Unnecessary Delay and Cost in RCRA Corrective
Action
EPA regulates the waste from cleanups, be they RCRA
corrective action, Superfund cleanups, State or voluntary
cleanups, with the same standards that apply to newly generated
wastes. Whereas for newly generated wastes, the cost and
complexity of RCRA regulations may serve as an incentive for
waste minimization, for cleanup wastes that opportunity does not
exist. Furthermore the imposition of these standards to cleanup
wastes adds significantly to the cost of cleanup and potentially
imposes an enormous burden on the American economy without regard
for the varying risks and technological problems posed by the
site and the wastes.
In an effort to ensure effective management of cleanups,
OSWER will develop special rules for cleanup wastes. These rules
will apply to RCRA corrective action as well to Superfund and
other cleanups. We also will develop rules to streamline the
corrective action program. These reform initiatives are
discussed below.
S3 Temporary Units and Corrective Action Management Units:
OSWER will promulgate a rule defining two new types of units
for corrective action. The first is a "corrective action
management unit" or CAMU. This would allow the Agency to
designate a broad area of contamination as a unit so that
movement of wastes within the area would not trigger LDR.
The second type of unit is a "temporary unit" to which
contaminated waste could be moved for short periods of time
under less stringent management standards. This rule will
be separated from the corrective action proposed rule.
Schedule: July 1990
Spring 1992
Spring 1992
Fall
1992
Summer 1993
Corrective Action
proposal published
Focus Group
Guidance sent to Regions
and States on CAMUs
Final rule on
CAMUs/temporary units
published
Final rule on remainder
of corrective action
-46-
-------
84 Contaminated Soil: The rule will establish new treatment
standards for soil to encourage the use of innovative and
cost-effective technologies. This rule in combination with
the HWIR will significantly alter the treatment of
contaminated soil where the concentration of hazardous
constituents is low.
Schedule: Fall 1992
Spring 1993
Publish NPRM
Final Rule
85 Contaminated Debris: Current policy subjects contaminated
debris to what may be unnecessary treatment given the risks.
OSWER will promulgate a rule that will modify the treatment
standards for contaminated debris. It will also establish
criteria to allow treated debris, once treated, to be
exempted from further Subtitle C controls.
Schedule: Jan. 1992
Summer 1992
NPRM Published
Final Rule
86 Suspension of the Toxicity Characteristics (TC) Rule for
Non-DST Petroleum Contaminated Media: OSWER will propose to
suspend for three years the TC rule as it applies to non-UST
petroleum contaminated media. The suspension would apply to
States that have the legal authorities and technical
programs in place to provide for cleanup response to
petroleum releases, and controls on the disposition of
wastes generated from such response actions.
Schedule: Summer 1992
1993
NPRM
Final Rule
-47-
-------
87 Final Determination of the Applicability of the TC Rule to
DST Contaminated Media and Debris: The application of the
TC rule to UST cleanup activities was delayed in order to
allow the Agency to evaluate the impact of this provision on
the Subtitle C program, and to examine alternative
administrative mechanisms for implementing UST cleanups in
accordance with Subtitle C. OSWER will publish several
studies that examine aspects of this issue. OSWER will make
a final determination on the application of the TC to UST
cleanup based on the results of this study.
Schedule: Summer 1992
Spring 1993
FR Notice on data
availability and comment
request on studies
Publish final
determination in the FR
88 Stabilization Initiative-Accelerating RCRA Cleanups at
Contaminated Sites: Stabilization of releases at a site
provides immediate risk reduction without delay that results
from detailed studies necessary for long term corrective
action. It is designed to immediately reduce the risk of
exposure and further releases until a permanent remedy can
be implemented; increase the pace of both mandated RCRA
corrective actions and voluntary cleanups; and direct
resources toward higher risk sites that require quick
action.
Schedule: Feb. 1992
Spring 1992
Fall 1993
National conference on
Stabilization
Policy Guidance on
Stabilization
Meet with industry
Develop performance-based
cleanup standards to
promote voluntary
cleanups.
89 Technical Impracticability Guidance: OSWER will address,
through guidance, the problem that at some sites, remedies
are infeasible due to technical impracticability. The
problem is especially acute when certain types of
groundwater contamination are involved. The guidance will
alleviate the pressure to use impracticable remedies (often
at significant cost) at such sites.
Schedule: Fall 1992
Develop guidance and
procedures
-48-
-------
810 OSWER Directive on Reducing Costs of RCRA Corrective Action:
OSWER will publish a directive that clarifies the
flexibility that already exists in the corrective action
regulations and promotes the use of cost-cutting
opportunities for corrective action at UST facilities.
Schedule: Fall 1992 Final OSWER Directive
These reforms are among the most significant of all the RCRA
reforms in terms of potential cost savings. Special treatment
standards for contaminated soils alone could potentially save $2-
3 billion annually. Several other corrective action reforms
could each save tens or hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
III. Establish Risk-Based Management Standards
RCRA's standards for treatment, storage and disposal
facilities were developed under stringent court-orders and
statutory deadlines. This drove the RCRA program toward generic
management standards that cover numerous diverse materials and
processes. For many materials, and practices, it would be far
more economically efficient and environmentally beneficial to
tailor standards to the actual risk posed. These reforms, listed
below, include a broad array of efforts which, taken together,
introduce risk-based efficiencies into the RCRA program.
Sli Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Universal Treatment
Standards: OSWER will simplify current practice by
replacing certain existing constituent or waste specific
treatment standards with a set of common or universal
treatment standards. This will significantly relieve the
burden on the regulated community and on EPA. It should
greatly increase the ability of industry to comply with LDR
and create and incentive for pollution prevention.
Schedule: Fall 1992 Publish NPRM
Spring 1993 Final Rule
-49-
-------
812 Containment Buildings Authorization: OSWER will promulgate
a rule that authorizes a new type of RCRA unit, a
"containment building". This would allow non-liquid wastes
to be stored on concrete pads inside buildings without
requiring LDR treatment standards. This regulation would
provide relief for management of large volume wastes such as
lead slags, spent pot liners, and contaminated debris.
Schedule: January 1992 NPRM Published
Summer 1992 Final Rule
814 Regulatory Relief for Specific Wastes Treated Below
Delisting Levels: OSWER will promulgate a rule that will
generically exclude residues from treatment of F006 and K062
from Subtitle C regulation once they are treated using high
temperature metal recovery and meet specified treatment
standards. These residues are currently subject to Subtitle
C regulation, even though levels of hazardous constituents
are below delisting levels.
Schedule: Jan. 1992 NPRM Published
Spring 1992 Final Rule
815 Existing Sumps: Sumps, or waste collection reservoirs that
are part of the floor or foundation of buildings, are under
a deadline to be assessed and upgraded. Problems are being
encountered in conducting integrity assessments and
installing secondary containment. The proposal would allow
for an extension of time to bring facilities into
compliance.
Schedule: Summer 1992 Proposed Rule
Summer 1993 Final Rule
816 Joint EPA/NRC Mixed Waste Testing Guidance: NRC and EPA
will produce a guidance document on waste analysis and
testing for NRC-licensed generators of mixed waste. Will
guide generators in situations where both agencies have
jurisdiction.
Schedule: March 1992 Draft guidance in FR
April 1992 Public forum
Fall 1992 Publish Guidance
-50-
-------
817 Paperwork Reduction for Characteristic and KO61 Waste as
Part of the LDR Program: Generators and treaters of
characteristic waste that is no longer hazardous and KO61
waste that has been treated to exclusion levels must still
send, with each shipment, a notification and certification
to the appropriate authority. This unnecessary paperwork
burden will be reduced.
Schedule: Jan. 1992 NPRM Published
Spring 1992 Final Rule
Several of these reforms have potential to generate
significant cost savings. These reforms are in the early stages
of development and we still lack of data needed to evaluate these
savings.
IV. Streamline the RCRA Permitting and Encourage Innovative
Technology
Experience has shown us that the current RCRA permit system
contains various provisions which either impose unnecessary
burdens on industry or clearly are not the most effective or
efficient way to accomplish the given task. OSWER will develop
the following three rules to eliminate needless burdens.
S20 Enhancing Flexibility in the Permit System: OSWER will
explore ways to grant greater flexibility to the permit
system. The current permit regulations require a number of
documents to be incorporated as part of the permit. A
number of these elements, e.g.. the contingency plan,
training plan, and inspection schedule, might be effectively
administered without including them in the formal permit.
Schedule: Fall 1992 Strawman to Regions
Fall 1993 Publish NPRM
Fall 1994 Final Rule
-51-
-------
S21 Streamlining Post-Closure Permitting: Post-closure permits
are currently used by EPA to address closure of RCRA land
disposal facilitates with waste in place. Post-closure
permits are not required by statue and may not be the best
way to address these facilities. OSWER is considering an
approach whereby closed facilities could be addressed
through alternative but equally protective mechanisms to
address the risks posed by a facility that closed with waste
in place. This should provide a more efficient and
effective use of both Agency and industry resources.
Schedule: March 1992
Fall 1992
Fall 1993
Strawman Reviewed by Regions
Publish NPRM
Final Rule
S13 Streamlined Permitting for Mixed Waste: The Utility Solid
Waste Activities Group filed a petition requesting
regulatory amendments that would reduce the RCRA permitting
burden for mixed waste generators who store on-site and also
have an NRC license. In response to the petition, OSWER is
considering several improvements to the permitting program.
These include: extend the small quantity generator
exemption, class permitting, or a permitting by rule.
Schedule: Spring 1992
Fall 1993
Informal meetings with
interested parties
Mixed Waste Survey Report
Publish NPRM
Of the reforms related to streamlining the RCRA permit
process, the one addressing post-closure permitting appears to
offer the most significant opportunity for cost savings. This
reform could save the regulated community an estimated $20
million per year in administrative costs. It is likely that new
technologies will result in considerable cost savings. It is,
however, difficult to anticipate these cost savings.
OSWER is keenly aware that continued improvement in
environmental protection depends on innovations in technology and
monitoring. A key element of the OSWER regulatory reform
initiative is to propose actions that the Agency can pursue to
foster development and commercialization of innovative
environmental technologies. This development is critical to
furthering faster and more efficient cleanup programs. OSWER is
proposing the following initiatives to promote innovative
technology.
-52-
-------
818 Expand the 1000 kg RCRA Sample Exclusion to 10,000 kg: The
existing limit for an exemption from certain RCRA
requirements, is insufficient for pilot-scale testing. This
expanded limit would apply to soil only. The Agency will
investigate applying the same exclusion to PCB contaminated
waste under TSCA.
Schedule: Fall 1992 Publish NPRM (for RCRA waste)
Summer 1993 Final Rule
S19 Develop Directive Encouraging RD&D Testing: OSWER is
developing a Directive to the Regions that would encourage:
- The use of temporary treatment units for corrective
action. This would be in conjunction with a clarification in
the final LDR rule package for Newly Listed Waste and
Contaminated Debris that bioremediation in a containment
building is not land disposal.
- The use of the financial responsibility variance provision
for RD&D permits.
- The approval by the Regions of testing for new technology
at permitted facilities through the permit modification
process or new RD&D permits.
- The development of public test and evaluation facilities.
Schedule: Spring 1993 Issue Directive
S3 Streamline Procedures for Using Innovative Treatment for
Corrective Action: Premised on Corrective Action Management
Units ("CAMUs") being defined to allow controlled treatment
within areas of contamination without triggering LDR or
minimum technology requirements. RD&D testing at permitted
facilities could be encouraged through temporary
authorizations or other permit modifications. This will be
explained in the preamble to the rule on CAMUs (See
discussion on "Temporary Units/Clarification of Unit
Definition.")
S5 Expand the Potential Application of Bioremediation through
the Use of Temporary Containment Buildings: OSWER will
investigate allowing use of temporary containment building
for bioremediation without triggering land disposal
restrictions. This proposal will be discussed in the final
rule on contaminated debris.
Schedule: Summer 1992 Discussion in Debris Rule
-53-
-------
SUPERFUND REVITALIZATION
EPA now has over twelve years experience in cleaning up
sites under Superfund. We have taken a hard look at the program.
OSWER is undertaking a myriad of initiatives and 30 pilot
projects designed to remove unnecessary delay in achieving
cleanups, and to make the Superfund program more effective,
efficient, and equitable, while expanding the protection of
public health and the environment. Highlights of these
initiatives are described below.
The public's involvement and acceptance of these initiatives
is critical. During March, 1992, a series of meetings on the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model and other revitalization
initiatives described below were held with House and Senate
staff, PRPs, State/local government representatives, and
labor/environmental groups. During May 1992, the Agency is
coordinating a public forum on Superfund revitalization. The
forum will provide the opportunity for the public to participate
in the Superfund revitalization process.
We cannot fully quantify the costs of the Superfund
Revitalization reforms. We know, however that these reforms will
bring greater efficiency and reduced burdens that will result in
significant savings in time and cost to both the Agency and to
PRPs.
I. EFFECTIVENESS
As part of the effort to accelerate cleanups, the Agency has
examined ways to make the program more effective by quickly
addressing contamination at sites and moving sites faster through
each step of the process. EPA is frequently criticized because
remedial cleanups of NPL sites take too long. These initiatives
may reduce the time it takes to address sites, and yield
significant long-term benefit to the program.
831 The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACK): This
initiative is intended to speed up and simplify the
Superfund program. Currently, Superfund is composed of two
discrete programs — remedial and removal. The remedial
component addresses the more permanent cleanup of sites on
the National Priorities List (NPL), while the removal
program generally addresses short-term emergency cleanup,
often at sites not on the NPL. Although the removal program
generally does not address ground water problems, many of
the other risks and response actions associated with the two
programs are similar.
-54-
-------
Under SACM, all Superfund cleanup actions will start with a
one-stop site assessment. After this initial assessment,
the decision on how to proceed will be made by a Regional
Management Decision Team. If action is needed, sites will
proceed to early action to address all immediate risks
and/or long-term cleanup and environmental restoration.
The increased flexibility under this approach, will provide
more effective cleanup results in the form of speedy
reduction of the majority of immediate risks from Superfund
sites and longer-term restoration of damaged environmental
media. Enforcement, community relations, State government
and public involvement will be active throughout the
process.
OSWER has begun integrating SACM into the Superfund program.
A number of SACM pilot projects are underway in the Regions.
We have met with State representatives to discuss State
participation in the Superfund revitalization effort.
The potential benefits of SACM are time and real cost
savings. If long-term action is required, as much as two
years can be saved between the time of EPA's first knowledge
of a contaminated site, and placement of the site on the
National Priorities List (NPL). We estimate that $15 million
per year can be saved on new sites. These savings will
result from lower remedial investigation/feasibility study
(RI/FS) costs at the approximately 30% of the sites that
will receive early action. There may be additional design
cost savings for sites that receive early action and are not
placed on the NPL. In addition, by addressing sites
quicker, there will be cost savings because we minimize
contaminant migration. SACM may lead to time savings in the
enforcement process, as well, by using removal enforcement
authorities more frequently.
Schedule: 14 pilot projects underway
S33 Standardized Remedies: Based on the experience gained in
cleaning up hazardous waste sites, EPA is developing
standardized or presumptive remedies for several types of
sites, possibly including wood treaters, municipal
landfills, sites contaminated with solvents, and sites with
ground water contamination. Standardized remedies are
expected to speed cleanups by approximately one year and
reduce costs by as much as a half a million dollars a site
by reducing site analysis, leaving more funds to pay for
actual cleanup work.
Schedule: Pilot Project in Region VI underway
-55-
-------
S37 Standardized Soil Cleanup Levels: Risk-based soil cleanup
standards will help provide responsible parties, State
governments, Federal agencies, and other stakeholders in
Superfund with early estimates of site cleanup costs. They
will also foster national cleanup consistency and accelerate
the cleanup process. In a two pronged effort, the Agency is
developing a set of risk-based goals focusing on exposure to
contaminants in surface soils; and the Agency is developing
a model to address the impact of soil contamination on
ground water.
Schedule: Summer 1992 Studies Available
Fall 1992 Issue Guidance
Site Completions; OSWER issued a directive that streamlined
the definition of construction completion that more
accurately reflects the point at which physical construction
at a site is complete. We have established ambitious
national targets of 130 site completions in FY 92 and 200
site completions in FY93.
Schedule: February 1992 Issued Directive on
procedures for site
completions
II. EFFICIENCY
OSWER is undertaking several initiatives to make both the
Superfund program and the Oil Spill Prevention, Response, and
Abatement Program implemented under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA)
more efficient by reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens while
ensuring protection of public health and the environment.
With the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of
1990, 51 hazardous air pollutants and at least six new categories
of compounds automatically became new CERCLA hazardous
substances. A number of these substances are released frequently
in quantities larger than the one pound statutory reportable
quantity. This results in not only a large burden on the
regulatory community, but also on the Federal response system.
OSWER will propose to adjust the statutory reportable quantity
levels, and is also exploring other options that may be taken in
the interim to both reduce any unnecessary reporting burdens and
ensure protection of human health and the environment. OSWER is
undertaking the following actions.
-56-
-------
S38 Requirements for Reportable Quanititles
—Ethvlene Glycol From Airplane De-icing Operations; OSWER
issued a directive stating that most releases of ethylene
glycol from airplane de-icing operations qualify as
federally permitted releases. It explained that other
releases may qualify for reduced reporting pursuant to the
continuous release reporting regulation.
Schedule: February 1992 Directive Issued
—Polvcyclic Organic Matter (POMs) and Ethvlene Glvcol;
OSWER is exploring ways to reduce the reporting requirements
under CERCLA for Clean Air Act Amendment hazardous air
pollutants, including expedited rulemaking adjusting the
one-pound statutory RQs for these compounds, issuing a
clarification or final interpretive rule establishing that
CERCLA notification requirements are not required for
classes of compounds, or narrowing the definitions of broad
classes of compounds. Ethylene glycol, which is used as an
antifreeze in motor vehicles, will also be addressed through
the accelerated rulemaking for RQs. An accelerated
rulemaking approach was taken because releases of antifreeze
to the environment in a one pound RQ or more may be
frequent.
Schedule: March 1992 Met with industry
representatives
S36 Above Ground Storage Tanks: OSWER clarified the existing
flexibility in the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation
governing above ground storage tanks (ASTs) through a policy
directive. The directive identifies alternative means that
certain facilities may use to satisfy the secondary
containment provisions of the Oil Pollution Prevention
regulation, also known as the Spill Prevention, Control and
Countermeasures (SPCC) regulation.
Schedule: April 1992 Directive in Final
S34 Voluntary Cleanup Pilot: OSWER is exploring ways to
encourage voluntary cleanups by allowing willing PRPs to
undertake early cleanup actions at sites prior to being
placed on the NPL. OSWER will conduct a pilot project with
a willing PRP or PRPs. The PRPs would be required enter
into an order or consent decree for the cleanup. PRPs would
pay oversight costs in advance to the Agency, in order to
eliminate a resource problem for the government. The
project is expected to show that such voluntary efforts
-57-
-------
could expedite cleanup actions and include community
participation.
Schedule: FY 1993 Begin Pilot
III EQUITY
There has been concern that the Superfund process is not
fair in its treatment of small contributors or those whose only
involvement in a site has been to generate or transport municipal
waste. The following initiatives are designed to ensure that the
Superfund enforcement process is equitable.
827 De Minimis Strategy: In an effort to relieve parties who
made only small contributions of hazardous substances to a
site from the burdens of possible extensive negotiations
with EPA and protracted litigation, Congress gave the Agency
the authority to reach quick, de minimis settlements. OSWER
has undertaken an initiative to increase the use of this
authority. To further this goal, a strategy for early de
minimis settlements will be finalized shortly. Increased
use of de minimis will help significantly to reduce
transaction costs for small contributors.
Schedule: Spring 1992 Final Strategy
S29 Municipal PRPs: Municipalities are involved in about 25% of
the sites on the National Priorities List. The Agency's
policy has been not to pursue municipalities or other
parties whose only involvement at a Superfund site is that
they generated or transported municipal solid waste from
households. However, this leaves municipal generators and
transporters vulnerable to third party suits for
contribution costs. OSWER is exploring options to determine
a fair share for generators or transporters of municipal
solid waste to contribute in settlement.
Schedule: Ongoing Activity
S35 Tiered Oversight: Sites already on the NPL could receive
different levels of oversight by the Agency depending on
various factors (e.g.. the severity of the risk, compliance
history, public concern, scope of the response action, and
site complexity). Federal facilities, municipal landfills,
and low risk sites may be prime candidates for a test of
tiered oversight. It is expected that tiered oversight can
save up to 30% of oversight costs.
Schedule: FY 1992 Begin Pilot
-58-
-------
ENHANCING RESPONSIVENESS IN OSWER PROGRAMS
OSWER evaluated all of its programs for the potential for
regulatory relief and for innovative projects that would result
in more efficiently run regulatory and cleanup activities.
Often, the precise economic benefit of the activity is difficult
to quantify. However, the relief they provide to the regulated
community is plain. These initiatives include cooperative
endeavors with the regulated community and States; and relief to
small communities and business.
OSWER seeks to identify and propose ways to promote greater
cooperation between the federal government and the regulated
community and States. Lost opportunities and ineffective
exchanges clearly present an economic burden on the regulated
community and public. These "cooperative endeavors" can take
various forms, ranging from more structured information exchanges
on pollution prevention technologies to promoting more efficient
means to resolve disputes.
The Administrator has specifically proposed that one result
of the Agency implementing more cost effective approaches to
achieving environmental objectives will be to reduce the
regulatory burdens for small communities and small businesses.
OSWER has identified initiatives to help achieve this goal
without sacrificing environmental protection.
822 Promote Cooperation With the Regulated community and states
—Environmental Extension Service; OSWER is beginning a
pilot project for an Environmental Extension Service (EES)
designed as a network of non-governmental environmental
extension agents that will provide solid and hazardous waste
"services" to communities and businesses subject to high
risks and compliance problems. The pilot will provide RCRA
regulatory and technical assistance, with an emphasis on
pollution prevention opportunities, to small businesses and
small communities. Longer-term activities will include
other members of the regulated community. The net benefit
of this program should be to decrease uncertainty in the
regulated community on the application of RCRA and to
increase compliance. The transfer of waste minimization
technology should reduce waste management costs.
Schedule: Fall 1992 Begin Pilot
—Alternative Dispute Resolution; OSWER is committed to
relieving the burden of litigation through increased
reliance on alternative dispute resolution (ADR). ADR
reduces the costs that would result from litigation which
-59-
-------
will free resources for investment and expansion. The
Executive Order on Civil Justice Reform signed by the
President on October 23, 1991 clearly encourages the use of
ADR techniques in civil litigation and the RCRA and CERCLA
programs will continue to build on this directive through
the following activities.
RCRA Activities include developing model ADR language
for a RCRA corrective action order and a policy
statement on the implementation of ADR. OSWER will
also coordinate with OE and Regions to provide ADR
training for Regional staff. OSWER plans to hold
forums in the Regions for the regulated community to
explain ADR policy and its use.
Schedule: Summer 1992 Begin Training
Fall 1992 Draft Model
Issue Policy Statement
Summer 1993 Conduct Forums
Superfund Activities include conducting Superfund-
specific ADR training for Regional staff; developing
guidelines to implement the Civil Justice Reform
Initiatives as they apply to ADR in Superfund;
developing a tracking system for the use of ADR in
Superfund enforcement; and conducting a forum to
acquaint the Superfund PRP community with ADR policy
and procedures. In addition, OSWER will perform a
number of activities related to using ADR for cost
recovery. These are: developing guidelines,
procedures, and a tracking system for ADR in cost
recovery; preparing guidelines for case selection;
participating in a Region IX pilot to evaluate Debt
Collection Act techniques for pursing past costs from
PRPs; participatating in an inter-agency workgroup to
develop a Memorandum of Understanding with IRS for tax
offsets as an incentive for PRPs to settle cost
recovery claims.
Schedule: Pilot with Region IX is ongoing
Fall 1992 MOU with IRS
Spring 1993 Cost recovery guidelines
and procedures
Civil Justice Reform
Guidelines of ADR
Summer 1993 Tracking measures
PRP Forum
Training for regional
staff
-60-
-------
—Permanent Remedies; Under Section 122(f)(2) of SARA the
Agency may grant a broad covenant not to sue to parties
which undertake treatment of site contaminates in a manner
resulting in permanent elimination of health or
environmental threats. The Agency will explore the use of
this rarely, used provision with interested parties. This
provision may result in permanent risk reduction at certain
sites.
Schedule: Summer 1992
Meeting With Industry
Representatives
S23 Uniform Accidental Release Reporting: Several laws,
including Title III of SARA, require industry to report
certain information regarding accidental releases of
hazardous substances. This initiative will identify
reporting concerns raised by industry, and recommend
approaches for minimizing duplication, including uniform
reporting.
Schedule: Spring 1992
Summer 1992
Fall
1992
Identify Issues
Discuss with Industry,
Labor, and States
Presidential Review
Report
S24 Market Incentives for Municipal Solid Waste: This multi-year
project, will provide local governments with information
that they may need in order to consider and establish
alternative municipal solid waste management systems that
would encourage source reduction and recycling. At least
two outreach documents are envisioned. Each will be widely
distributed. One would provide information on full cost
accounting for municipal solid waste. The other would look
at problems and solutions to unit based pricing systems for
municipal solid waste.
Schedule: Spring 1992
Draft report on full cost
accounting
Workplan complete
-61-
-------
825 Extend the Financial Responsibility Compliance Deadline to
1999 for Certain UST Facilities: OSWER will explore ways to
give States a role in determining which facilities meet the
criteria. Designed to ease burden on small business unable
to comply with the regulation due to costs of meeting
underwriting criteria or lack of State assurance fund,
grant, or loan program.
Schedule: Fall 1992 Proposed Rule
Spring 1993 Final Rule
826 Provide Additional Financial Responsibility Mechanisms for
Local Governments to Comply with UST Requirements: OSWER
will finalize four alternative financial responsibility
compliance mechanisms that are suited for use by local
governments.
Schedule: Fall 1992 Final Rule
828 Clarify Lenders' Liability for DSTs: OSWER will clarify
EPA's position on the liability of UST lenders. This
initiative will define circumstances under which a lender
incurs liability, thus removing a barrier to financing UST
facilities and allowing greater capital availability.
Schedule: Fall 1992 NPRM
In addition two projects listed above under Superfund
Revitalization, the Strategy for de minimis Settlements in
Superfund Cases and the Guidelines for Contribution by Generators
and Transporters of Municipal Solid Waste will provide
considerable relief to small businesses and small communities and
should be mentioned here as well.
-62-
-------
CONCLUSION
OSWER's reforms are significant and wide ranging. They are
the product of a thorough examination of OSWER's programs. They
reflect widespread agreement concerning the changes that are
needed to strengthen OSWER's programs by redirecting resources
toward the highest risks and eliminating overly burdensome
requirements where risks are minimal.
OSWER will continue to listen to our clients as we refine
and implement these reforms. In this way we will bring
continuous improvement to OSWER programs and to environmental
protection.
-63-
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
Summary and Explanation of Cost Savings
Table 3.1 summarizes the cost savings for the OSWER reform
initiative:
Cost Saving Estimates for OSWER Actions
REF. NO.
Si
S3, S4,
S5
S9, S20,
S21
S7
S25
S26
OSWER ACTIONS
**»***&*» ***** t**atii *******
**1%
Contaminated Media and
Corrective Action
Streamline RCRA Permitting and
Enhance Flexibility
Suspension of TC Rule for Non-
UST Petroleum Contaminated
Media
Extended Financial
Responsibility Deadline for
Certain UST Facilities to 1999
Additional UST FR Compliance
Mechanisms
TOTAL1
COST
SAVINGS -
LOW
ESTIMATE
s m
feUU&n
$ 2,500
million
$ 40
million
$ 75
million
$ 75
million
$ 30
million
$ 2,800
million
COST
SAVINGS -
HIGH
ESTIMATE
$ 1,800
WvilliOtt
$ 3,400
million
$ 100
million
$ 150
million
$ 150
million
$ 70
million
$ 3,800
million
1 Includes all elements except "SI - Hazardous Waste Identification Rule."
Savings for this rule were not included in the total because a large portion
of the savings (1,400 million of the upper-bound estimate) overlap with other
reform programs, particularly with "S5 - Contaminated Soils.
A more detailed discussion of the policy options analyzed and
methods used is provided below.
Contaminated Media (S4, S5, S6)
Approximately 90 percent of the cost savings associated with
OSWER's reform program are attributable to changes in the RCRA
program's handling of contaminated media. Depending on the final
regulatory approach promulgated, there could be savings of $2.5-
$3.4 billion annually associated with revisions of the soils and
debris land disposal restrictions (LDR) treatment standards and
-64-
-------
related initiatives3. As described below this range of savings
reflects the range of options under consideration in the LDR
rules.
Without regulatory changes to our waste treatment program,
facilities engaged in site cleanups would be required to use
intensive and costly treatment technologies, such as
incineration, that were designed for process waste, to treat
large volumes of "low risk" contaminated soils. The primary
option that EPA is considering in its upcoming LDR regulations
would allow the use of less expensive but equally effective
treatment methods such as biological treatment and soil washing.
These technologies can also achieve the statutory required
"minimize threats" levels, assure protection of human health and
the environment, encourage timely cleanup and offer a substantial
cost savings.
Hazardous Waste Identification (SI)
The Hazardous Waste Identification rule (HWIR) will have an
impact on the definition of hazardous waste and has estimated
potential annual savings of $60 to $1,800 million annually.
The potential savings attributable to HWIR reflect a broad array
of options that are under consideration (see 57 Federal Register
21450, May 20, 1992.) The volumes of hazardous waste which would
no longer require management under Subtitle C varies with the
option selected. Under the lower bound option a relatively small
amount of low hazard waste is removed from Subtitle C treatment
and disposal and no contaminated media would be excluded. At the
upper bound a large amount of contaminated media and process
waste no longer requires further management under Subtitle C4.
3 Approximately 3 million tons per year of contaminated
soils are generated from all cleanups (lower bound soils
generation estimate). Changes in treatment standards could
yield cost per ton savings if approximately $800 - $1100 per ton
for an annual savings for soils of $2.4 to $3.2 billion per year.
Savings will also result from changes in debris land disposal
treatment standards and relief from suspension of the TC rule for
non-UST petroleum contaminated media.
4 The lower bound estimate of 60 million in annual cost
savings assumes a relatively low concentration threshold
(Dilution Attenuation Factor (DAF)) equal to 1, details on the
derivation of DAFs are presented in, Preliminary Economic
Assessment of Proposed Hazardous Waste Identification Rule.
Office of Solid Waste, May 1992) Under this option it is
estimated that 10 million tons per year of process waste would
exit the Subtitle C management system and be managed as a non-
hazardous waste.
-65-
-------
Under the broader HWIR options, many contaminated soils
would no longer be subject to the LDR program described above.
For these reason, cost savings estimates from the HWIR and
contaminated soils reforms should not be added. Due to this
potential for double-counting, the HWIR savings were not included
in the total RCRA savings estimates.
Initiatives that Streamline Implementation
The OSWER reform initiative also includes several
administrative changes which streamline and improve the
implementation of RCRA, UST and CERCLA. These reforms have
smaller cost savings nationally ranging from $200 to $300 million
annually, but may offer individual facilities substantial relief.
One example is the streamlining of the post closure permit
program which is expected to save $20 million annually and is
attributable the reduced burden of preparing a post closure
permit applications for submission to EPA5.
Reform Initiatives Without Cost Savings Estimates
Finally, certain reform measures are likely to have
substantial cost savings, but, due to data limitations, it was
not possible to estimate cost savings. For example, the
Corrective Action Management Unit reform, which would allow the
consolidation of wastes from different units during cleanups at
RCRA facilities, could have significant cost savings. However,
until additional analysis of corrective action cleanup sites is
conducted, these potential savings will be unknown.
Similarly, the group of revisions to the Definition of Solid
Waste may also offer significant cost savings and reduce impacts
for specific sectors of the waste management industry. The
savings associated with these programs have not been estimated.
Baseline Assumptions
The upper bound savings of $1,800 million include savings of
$1,400 million for contaminated media and $400 million for
process waste. The contaminated media savings assume 1.7 million
tons per year exit Subtitle C (the total upper bound media
generation rate in this analysis was 10 million tons per year)
and are managed as a nonhazardous waste. The $400 million in
annual process waste savings assume a hundred fold higher
concentration threshold (DAF=100) than the lower bound which
allows 89 million tons of waste per year to exit the hazardous
waste management program.
5 Assumed that 1400 facilities would save $250,000 in
administrative costs over the life of the facility.
-66-
-------
OSWER used as a baseline for the cost savings estimates
current and projected RCRA expenditures. Only a portion of the
costs avoided under OSWER's reforms are currently being incurred.
For example, certain contaminated soils are currently subject to
a national treatment variance. Only after the variance expires
will contaminated soils be subject to stringent treatment
requirements; however, the reform initiative should be in place
before the variances expires. The reduction in these future costs
avoided - costs that would have been incurred absent these
reforms—are included in the cost savings estimates. The reforms
are expected to lower the projected cost of OSWER's program -
estimated to reach $13 billion per year in the year 2000 - by
$2.8 - 3.8 billion annually, reflecting real progress toward
reducing the burden associated with current treatment and
cleanups programs.
-67-
-------
APPENDIX 4
OFFICE OF WATER
-68-
-------
Overview
The Office of Water has committed to 7 actions to
investigate and/or implement more cost-effective approaches to
protecting and restoring the integrity and quality of the
nation's waters. These actions include the use of market
incentives within our regulatory program, increased regulatory
flexibility in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit program, and expanded involvement of the
environmental community in regulatory and guidance development
through expanded "inclusionary rulemaking" procedures. Table 4.1
at the end of this appendix lists the subset of actions for which
cost savings have been quantified, and presents the estimated
savings associated with each action.
-69-
-------
wi. Point/Nonpoint Source Trading
Description:
Point/non point trading is a market-based approach to water
quality improvement based on the concept that controlling
discharges of the same pollutant from nonpoint sources instead of
a point source discharger could be less costly and result in
improved water quality at lower cost. In most point
source/nonpoint source trading scenarios, regulated point sources
are allowed to deter treatment system upgrades to meet water
quality objectives if they pay for or arrange equivalent or
greater reductions in nonpoint source discharges within their
watershed or body. Case studies of trading experiences to date
suggest that, for the near term, the best opportunities are for
trading nutrient allocations. Nutrient trading is attractive
because trading programs to date have dealt with these type of
pollutants and because issues associated with trading toxic
pollutants are relatively more difficult. Longer term
opportunities may exist for trading pathogen or chloride
allocations.
Point source/nonpoint source trading systems are currently
components of watershed management strategies in Colorado and
North Carolina. Few trades have been make to date, due in part,
to the legal, technical, and institutional barriers that inhibit
trading. A national meeting will be held to: (1) broaden the
general understanding of point/nonpoint trading and promote its
acceptance; (2) identify programmatic, technical, and legislative
factors which facilitate or discourage trading; (3) develop
cooperative action plants to address technical, legislative and
programmatic barriers; and (4) develop recommendations for
supportive EPA activities.
Cost Savings:
EPA analyses indicate that this approach could be applied
more widely across the United States, potentially in as many as
950 waterbodies. Its most obvious benefit is direct cost savings
to point source dischargers. The estimated costs of nonpoint
controls for nutrients in a trading program range from 5 to 50%
of the costs for an equivalent amount of nutrient removal by
point sources. This implies that savings could be achieved
through trading programs. Improved water quality due to nonpoint
source controls that otherwise might not be implemented is an
additional benefit.
Implementing such a program will involve some monetary
outlays that will vary according to waterbody size and program
design. Potential costs include those for monitoring and
modelling beyond those needed under current policy, permitting
costs to establish discharge levels for the "with trading" case,
and government transaction costs associated with review and
approval of individual trades.
-70--
-------
Commitments:
EPA sponsored an April 27-28, 1992 meeting in Raleigh, North
Carolina to review a report which discusses the principles of
trading and its applications to date. EPA is following up on
actions resulting from the meeting.
-71-
-------
W2. Privatization of Municipal Wastewater Systems
Description;
Many wastewater treatment projects that received federal
funds though the construction grants program face substantial
capital expenditures for facility renovation, expansion, and
upgrade. EPA has an interest in ensuring that the federal
investment in wastewater treatment is protected and that it
continues to pay "environmental dividends." EPA's 1990 Needs
Survey has identified $110 billion in wastewater construction
needs. Because of the limited availability of public funds for
environmental infrastructure, current Agency initiatives
encourage consideration of public-private partnerships for
facilities providing public services. However, current policy
and grant regulations contain provisions that limit the
feasibility of private funding.
EPA will develop policy and/or modify regulations (to the
extent permitted by law) to provide a new financing opportunity
to local governments through private investment by specifying
conditions under which a construction grant-funded facility may
secure private eguity investment necessary for rehabilitation,
expansion, or upgrade; specifying conditions under which a
construction grant-funded facility may be sold or leased in full
or in part and what constitutes acceptable compensating benefit;
and identifying methods for determining the extent of the federal
interest in a construction-grant funded facility.
Cost Savings:
This initiative will promote environmental protection and
economic activity by stimulating private investment in municipal
wastewater treatment facilities. It is expected to provide a new
financing opportunity to communities for needed projects that
would not otherwise proceed due to lack of public funds; protect
the substantial federal investment in wastewater treatment
without additional federal outlays; leverage past, current and
future investments in water quality infrastructure; and further
environmental protection by ensuring adequate capital for
efficient operation, rehabilitation, upgrade and expansion of
aging facilities.
Commitments;
EPA will publish a Federal Register Notice to solicit public
comment on actions to encourage public-private partnerships for
wastewater treatment (April-May); develop an internal management
steering group to address the issue; discuss the initiative
during the May meeting of the Agency's Environmental Financial
Advisory Board; hold public meetings to discuss the issue; and
modify regulations based on Agency study and public input.
-72-
-------
W3. Wise Water Use Partnership
Description
In the last several years, public utility commissions (PUC)
have pushed electric utilities to consider demand-side
management—how conservation measures could reduce the need for
expensive new capacity. In addition, some PUC's are requiring
electric utilities to internalize the externalities of
electricity production when planning new capacity. Like electric
utilities, water delivery and wastewater operations are natural
monopolies and, as such, would charge too high a price without
rate of return regulation. PUCs have been slow to apply these
demand-side management tools to water authorities. Therefore,
they may be missing opportunities to both lower water delivery
and treatment costs and improve the environment.
This project will see if the electric utility experience can
be applied to water use. EPA will forge voluntary partnerships
among water providers, PUCs, states and water users.
Transferring information about the potential for demand-side
management to reduce costs is the focus of these partnerships.
While EPA will not officially enter into agreements with these
parties, we expect the water rate regulatory system to change in
response to the sharing of information about demand-side
management. Further, local agreements between water providers,
wastewater utilities, and other interested parties would
establish specific activities that would be appropriate for the
local area. The Office of Water has committed to providing
technical and informational support and recognition of these
agreements.
Cost Savings/Benefits
Fostering more efficient water use through voluntary
partnerships may provide economic and environmental benefits.
Potential economic benefits include reduced water supply
treatment costs under the Safe Drinking Water Act; reduced costs
for expansion of wastewater and water supply facilities; and
reduced long-term consumer costs for water and energy. Local
partnership arrangement(s) drawn to support specific and unique
local conditions may also result in monetary savings to the
public and better management of water resources.
The program is designed as voluntary information exchange
effort where water authorities can learn how to implement demand-
side management. The immediate public and private costs
associated with implementing the program are expected to be
relatively small. The Agency is committing to providing
technical support and improving the exchange of information among
partners, and the industry in general. An assessment of a
clearinghouse is just underway.
-73-
-------
Commitment
Subsequent to the meeting in summer 1992, the Office of
Water will explore how to transfer information about demand-side
management, including models for the development of local
agreements. These activities would begin immediately following
the meeting (presuming that a sufficient number of "partners"
agree to participate).
-74-
-------
W4. Point/Point Source Pollutant Trading
Description:
Point/Point Source pollutant trading, like point/nonpoint
source trading, is a market-based approach to water quality
improvement. In a typical point/point trading transaction, a
point source discharger, currently regulated by an NPDES permit
under the Clean Water Act, would avoid a costly treatment upgrade
by paying for or otherwise arranging equivalent or greater
reductions in discharges from other facilities that discharge
into the same receiving water. The facility would continue to
treat its discharge to a level consistent with the existing
technology-based standards. Facilities subject to treatment
requirements more stringent than the technology-based limitations
could, under a trading program, enter into binding agreements
with other dischargers to treat an equal or greater amount of
pollutants.
The focus of point/point source trading activity should be
on conventional pollutants. Some nonconventional pollutants may
also be good parameters to consider for inclusion in trading
programs. Trading of toxic pollutants is not included as an
option in this proposal. A permitting authority (State or EPA
Region) would set the overall quantity of pollutant loading
reductions required to meet water quality standards for the
particular receiving waters. The authority would allocate
reductions among dischargers, and offer them the opportunity to
develop an alternative reduction strategy before new permits are
finalized. The participating facilities would decide who will
further reduce their discharges, by what amount, and finalize
trades according to associated cost savings, efficiencies, and
other criteria.
Cost Savings:
Point sources may avoid costly treatment upgrades by
participating in trading programs. Limited evidence suggests that
the cost savings could range from several thousand to several
tens of thousands of dollars per facility per year, although it
is difficult to predict accurately the number and type of
dischargers that may benefit. The larger social benefit is that
the costs of goods produced by point source dischargers can be
lowered while environmental quality is maintained or even
improved.
Commitments;
EPA published a Federal Register notice announcing the
initiative and the availability of an upcoming report on
point/point trading entitled "Incentive Analysis for Clean Water
Act Reauthorization: Point/Point Source Trading for Effluent
Discharge Reductions."
-7S-
-------
W5. Stormwater Implementation Rule - Phase I
Description;
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act established a two
phase approach for controlling urban storm water. In Phase I,
all large and medium sized cities and all stormwater discharge
associated with industrial stormwater were to be permitted by
October 1, 1992. Phase II was to include the control of all
other urban stormwater discharges based on studies that EPA was
to perform and regulations that were to be promulgated by October
I, 1992. As a result of the legislation, over 100,000 facilities
with stormwater associated with industrial activity became
subject to NPDES permitting and the application requirements that
EPA promulgated in November, 1990. Individual applications would
have been quite extensive requiring comprehensive facility-
specific narrative information and quantitative analytical data
based on sampling during storm events. In addition to individual
applications, the rule allowed for the use of two-phased group
applications by facilities with similar stormwater
characteristics which reduced the application burden to some
extent by calling for detailed information on a specified sample
of group members as well as general permits.
Due to the tremendous reaction from the regulated community
on the burden and costs associated with preparing permit
applications for stormwater associated with industrial activity,
EPA subsequently focused its activities on general permits
covering baseline stormwater pollution prevention requirements
and reviewing, sampling, and reporting permitting requirements to
reduce unnecessary monitoring costs. EPA proposed and
subsequently promulgated on April 2, 1992, a regulation to reduce
the industrial stormwater permit burden by allowing for the
submission of simple notices of intent for general permits in
lieu of burdensome application requirements, reducing sampling
and reporting requirements, extending application deadlines for
group applications, and exempting small cities with industrial
stormwater discharges (except for airports, powerplants, or
uncontrolled sanitary landfills). EPA also promulgated, as part
of this rule, a risk-based, long-term strategy for industrial
stormwater to deal with identified and potential water quality
problems.
Cost Savings;
EPA estimates savings to the industrial sector of
approximately $5-10 million per year from reducing the
application and reporting requirements for thousands of
industrial facilities. Additionally, by developing a long-term
strategy and focussing first where the risk is the greatest, EPA
expects a net gain in environmental protection.
Commitments;
EPA promulgated the revised rule on April 2, 1992.
-76-
-------
W6. NPDES Regulation Revisions
Description;
This proposed rule would amend 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124,
125, 403, and 501 to implement changes in the NPDES permitting
program mandated by the 1987 Water Quality Act and programmatic
changes based on Headquarters, Regional, and State experience in
implementing the program. It includes a number of deregulatory
provisions such as expanded use of general permits, expanded
number of situations which would qualify as minor permit
modifications, and facilitating cases in which permits may be
terminated without notice and comment. The proposal will also
request comment on changes in the definition of the small
business exemption.
Cost Savings:
The specific impacts and benefits of this proposed rule have
not been calculated. However, EPA expects that the rule will
result in decreased "red tape," accelerations in the permitting
process, and improved responsiveness of the permitting system
which will benefit both the regulatory community and
environmental protection.
Commitments;
EPA will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register
in June.
-77-
-------
W7. Expanded Use of Inclusionary Rulemaking Approaches
Description;
Inclusionary rulemaking approaches are based on the
involvement of affected parties in the development of regulations
and policies. They can include regulatory negotiations through a
formally chartered advisory committee specifically chartered to
reach consensus on approaches that will be the basis of a
proposed rulemaking, use of advisory committees or panels to
discuss the issues in question and potential resolutions which
may or may not lead to a rulemaking, and policy dialogues where
groups meet to explore areas of concerns, public workshops to
gather information and discuss trial ideas. EPA's Office of
Water (OW) is using inclusionary rulemaking approaches in four
projects:
o storm Water Program Assessment: In conjunction with the
Rennsalaerville Institute, OW will hold a series of public
meetings in May and June to consider the most effective ways
of addressing remaining risks from stormwater discharges in
ways which will reduce the regulatory burden on small
businesses and small communities without creating water
quality problems. Discussion will focus heavily on those
sources not currently required to have NPDES permits. As part
of these sessions, OW will seek input on the advisability and
type of rulemaking or other approach(es) that may be
appropriate for dealing with these sources.
o Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Controls; Under the authority
of the OW Management Advisory Group, OW will organize a
subgroup of interested outside parties to accelerate
construction of CSO controls. The goal is to have the group
identify and agree to support CSO controls that would provide
an appropriate balance between needs for national consistency
and state/municipal flexibility.
o Governors/ Forum on Implementation of the Drinking Water
Program (Governors' Forum on Environmenta1 Management); EPA
will convene a meeting with selected Governors and their staff
to discuss with the Administrator and the Assistant
Administrator for Water issues associated with the drinking
water program and alternatives for enhancing program
implementation. The intent of this meeting is to develop a
joint federal-state approach to administering the program
which will ease the overall burdens on states and taxpayers
while still assuring effective drinking water protection. EPA
will take appropriate follow-up actions as a result of the
Forum.
o Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy; OW is the lead
office in developing an Agency strategy to improve the
understanding of the extent and severity of sediment
contamination and to propose prevention, control, and
-78-
-------
Table 4.1
Cost Saving Estimates for OW Actions
REF. NO.
Wl
W5
OW ACTIONS
Point/Nonpoint Source
Trading
Stormwater
Implementation Rule
(Phase I)
TOTAL
COST
SAVINGS -
LOW
ESTIMATE
$ 5
million
S 5
million
$ 10
million
COST
SAVINGS -
HIGH
ESTIMATE
$ 20
million
S 10
million
S 30
million
-79-
-------
remediation programs. The strategy describes the policy
framework and the specific actions that EPA programs could
take to promote the consideration and reduction of ecological
and human health risks posed by sediment contamination as well
as potential research and outreach activities with other
agencies and the general public. Three national forums will
be held April through June to solicit public comment on the
draft strategy outline. The April forum will focus on the
extent and severity of sediment contamination; the May forum
on building alliances with State and Federal agencies; and the
June forum on public outreach. Recommendations will be
solicited on the most cost-effective approaches for
implementing the strategy. EPA is also accepting written
comments on the draft outline through July 15.
Cost Savings;
OW expects that involving the affected parties in these
program issues will help it develop more cost-effective
approaches and reduce the potential costs associated with
subsequent challenges to federal action.
Commitments:
o stormwater Assessment: Convene a series of public meetings in
May and June.
O Combined Sewer Overflows: Create a subgroup to the Management
Advisory Group to provide public input on appropriate CSO
controls.
o Governors' Forum on Implementation of Drinking Water Program:
Convened a forum of state representatives on May 1, 1992.
o Contaminated Sediment Management Strategy: Convene three
public forums in April, May, and June.
-80-
-------
APPENDIX 5
Market Incentives
-81-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 83
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 84
INTRODUCTION 85
WHY USE ECONOMIC INCENTIVES? 86
90-DAY MARKET INCENTIVE ACTIVITIES (reference number/project) 88
Increasing Efficiency in Environmental Improvement 91
VV4. Point/Point Source Trading 93
Wl. Point/Non-Point Source Trading 94
A9. Accelerated Retirement of Older Vehicles ("Scrappage") 95
All. Mobile-Stationary Source Trading Program 96
A8. Assistance to California South Coast Market Incentives Program 97
A13. Emissions Averaging in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) 98
Reducing Regulatory Barriers 99
W2. Privatization of Municipal Wastewater Systems 101
PI. Reduced Risk Pesticides 103
PI. Premanufacture Notification (PMN) Exemptions 104
Filling Information Gaps 105
W3. Wise Waste Use Partnerships 107
S24. Market Incentives for Municipal Solid Waste 108
Building Capacity 111)
A10. State Grants Programs 112
A12. Economic Incentives Rule for Air Programs 113
-82-
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Maryann Froehlich
Mark Luttner
Robert Brenner
Ellen Brown
Thomas Eagles
Barry Elman
Allen Jennings
Barnes Johnson
Barry Korb
Robert Lee
Karen Martin
Al McGartland
Ken Munis
Daniel Mussatti
Judith Nelson
Dana Ott
Sharon Saile
Marsaret Schneider
THE MARKET INCENTIVES TEAM
Co-Chairs:
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Office of Water
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Office of General Council
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
-83-
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EPA has taken the opportunity presented by President Bush's 90-Day Moratorium and Review to
expand its continuing efforts to incorporate market-based approaches in environmental protection.
Specifically, EPA has identified 13 projects - covering each of the Agency's program areas - where
particular market-based initiatives have been implemented, proposed, or announced during this 90-day
period. Each of these projects falls within one of four general areas: (1) increasing efficiency in
environmental improvement (e.g., reducing compliance costs without adverse environmental consequence);
(2) reducing regulatory barriers; (3) filling information gaps; and (4) building capacity (i.e., enhancing the
ability of federal, regional, state and local organizations to incorporate market-based mechanisms in
environmental protection programs). Figure 1 presents the activities EPA has undertaken during the 90-
day period. These projects are consistent with the spirit of the President's moratorium and review, and
potentially offer mechanisms to improve the Agency's programs without compromising human health and
the environment.
In his memorandum initiating the 90-day review, President Bush directed agencies to consider
flexible, market-based approaches to regulation. Administrator Reilly further emphasized market-based
tools by establishing market incentives as one of the focus areas in implementing the President's
moratorium and review. This report summarizes EPA's activities related to this priority area during the
90-day period.
Incentive mechanisms are well suited to addressing environmental problems the nation faces both
now and into the future. In many cases, these tools offer the prospect of achieving environmental
improvements at less costs than other tools, such as command-and-control regulations. Incentives can be
especially effective in dealing with large numbers of widely dispersed sources and providing a greater
stimulus for innovation and technological change. These advantages are especially important given the
increasing marginal costs associated with pollution control. For example, the Agency has estimated that
expenditures on environmental pollution control could reach three percent of GNP by the year 2000.1
EPA's emphasis on economic incentive tools is not new. The Agency published a report,
Economic Incentives: Options for Environmental Protection, in March 1991. EPA will shortly release a
second report on economic incentives that documents past and present efforts in using economic incentives
to control environmental pollution, The United States Experience with Economic Incentives to Control
Environmental Pollution. The Agency also actively supported the market-based provisions of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 and has been examining incentives for potential application in the on-going
Clean Water Act reauthorization process.
However, the number of regulations currently incorporating economic incentives remains small.
EPA used the 90-day moratorium and 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 proven to be effective, as the actions discussed in this appendix illustrate, and has
furthered the Agency's efforts to incorporate market-based approaches into the fabric of EPA's everyday
activities.
'U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cost of Clean
-84-
-------
INTRODUCTION
This report was prepared by the EPA 90-Day Moratorium and Review Market Incentive
Team. This group was organized subsequent to Administrator Reilly's designation of market
incentives as one of his nine priority areas during the 90-Day Moratorium and Review called by
President Bush on January 28, 1992. This group included representatives from the Office of Air and
Radiation, the Office of General Council, the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, the Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and
the Office of Water.
F6r the purpose of this report, the terms "economic incentives" and "market-based
approaches" are used interchangeably and are defined broadly: tools or mechanisms that provide
continuous inducements, either financial or otherwise, for sources to make reductions in the pollution
they release. The key feature of economic incentives is that they achieve environmental objectives at
lower cost than traditional forms of regulation. In the case of trading programs, for example,
emission standards are attained by additional controls at facilities with the lowest costs rather than
mandating controls at all facilities of a given type, regardless of cost. Evaluations of incentive systems
implemented in the U.S. typically find savings in control costs, improvements in environmental
quality, or both. Opportunities for cost savings associated with incentive approaches may be
substantial as environmental problems increasingly result from diverse sources and are addressed by
little-known control technology.
Incentive mechanisms contrast from traditional "command-and-control" approaches in that the
latter usually do not provide incentives to continuously seek ways to reduce the quantity of releases.
To have additional gains in environmental quality under command-and-control approaches, the
burden is primarily on regulators to tighten requirements imposed on individual sources.
Appropriately applied economic incentives, however, provide sources with motives to continually seek
environmental improvement since they encourage and reward environmental improvements. Under
trading schemes, for example, firms able to implement cost-effective activities may market these
improvements to firms facing relatively higher control costs. Thus, economic incentive approaches
are typically more cost-effective than command-and-control for a given level of environmental quality.
The report is organized into two major sections. The first section, "Why Use Economic
Incentives?," discusses the applicability of economic incentives to environmental problems. The
second section, "90-Day Market Incentive Activities", is the focus of this report and discusses each of
the specific incentive activities undertaken during the 90-day period. Each of the activities is
discussed in the context of a general area of improvement. The four general areas are: (1)
increasing efficiency in environmental improvement; (2) reducing regulatory barriers; (3) filling
information gaps; and (4) building capacity (i.e., enhancing the ability of federal, regional, state and
local organizations to incorporate market-based mechanisms in environmental protection programs).
For example, point/non-point source trading for watershed management potentially reduces the costs
of complying with wastewater discharge requirements. Thus, it appears in the "Increasing Efficiency
in Environmental Improvement" portion of the report.
-85-
-------
WHY USE ECONOMIC INCENTIVES?
Incentive mechanisms have several properties that could make them especially well suited to
environmental problems the nation faces now and into the future. First, incentive mechanisms are
inherently more economically efficient; that is, they achieve environmental goals at lower cost than
traditional forms of regulation. Second, incentive approaches offer the prospect of more effectively
dealing with pollution from large numbers of widely dispersed sources, an increasingly important
problem. Third, incentive mechanisms provide a greater stimulus for innovation and technical change
in pollution control than does a direct regulatory approach. These properties are discussed below.
GREATER EFFICIENCY
Economists have long suggested that the present approach to environmental pollution control,
which is predominantly command-and-control in nature, results in control costs that are much higher
than are necessary to achieve any given level of environmental protection. They have suggested that
costs could be substantially reduced if economic incentives were used in place of
command-and-control regulations. The reduced costs would result because those having the lowest
costs of additional control would have an economic incentive to control rather than all polluters of a
given type, as is now usually the case.
Empirical studies conducted in the U.S. to date consistently support these assertions.2
Evaluations of incentive systems that have been implemented typically find savings in control costs,
improvements in environmental quality, or both. Furthermore, theoretical modeling of pollution
control costs consistently demonstrates that incentive systems outperform command-and-control
approaches in terms of efficiency.
DIVERSE SOURCES AND LITTLE-KNOWN CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Direct regulatory approaches are most effective when all the affected sources of pollution
have similar emission characteristics, environmental impacts, and pollution control possibilities and
when the regulators have as good a knowledge of the available abatement opportunities as the
sources do. Few of these conditions apply to many of today's environmental problems since the
"easy" pollution sources have largely been controlled. Many heterogeneous smaller sources discharge
effluent into the nation's streams and rivers. Emissions from large numbers of dispersed area sources
contribute nearly half of the precursors of ozone in nonattainment areas. Millions of motorists
change their oil and release used motor oil into the environment in a variety of places and ways.
Shortages of existing capacity and the difficulty of siting new solid waste facilities in communities
across the nation have stimulated interest in ways to reduce the generation of solid waste. For these
and similar environmental problems, direct regulatory action may be much more expensive and less
effective than economic incentives.
Particularly for such diverse sources, individual firms or households are more likely than
regulators or legislators to have the knowledge to choose the most effective pollution control tech-
*For further discussion of these studies, see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, The United
States Experience With Economic Incentives To Control Environmental Pollution. 230-R-92-001,
forthcoming.
-86-
-------
niques for their particular situation. Albeit with information provided by others - e.g., vendors of
equipment, governments - individuals and firms are most likely to be aware of the full range of
options available. These options range from process changes to input changes to specific control
technologies and all vary with respect to their costs and effectiveness. Regulatory bodies are not
likely to have access to this range of knowledge.
STIMULUS TO INNOVATION AND TECHNICAL CHANGE
Because most economic incentive programs use emissions as the basis for determining the
incentive, they are more likely to provide incentives for innovation and technical change than most
command-and-control approaches. When emissions are used as the basis for determining either
incentives or compliance with a command-and-control approach, polluters have strong incentives to
innovate and introduce technical changes to reduce emissions below required levels in the case of
economic incentives but only to the required levels in the case of command-and-control. When some
other basis is used, particularly a technology standard, polluters usually have less or even a negative
incentive to innovate. In the case of a technology standard, polluters often have a negative incentive
because if they use unproved technology, the regulators may use that as the basis for requiring even
tighter control hi the future since it has then been "proven." So although emission-based command-
and-control approaches can be used to provide incentives for innovation, even these incentives may
be less effective since they only provide incentives to bring emissions down to the standard, rather
than below it. This may be considerably less technically challenging.
-87-
-------
90-DAY MARKET INCENTIVE ACTTVrnES
EPA has identified 13 projects - covering each of the Agency's program areas ~ where particular
market-based initiatives have been implemented, proposed, or announced during this 90-day period. Each
of these actions have potential to increase efficiency and stimulate technological change by providing
facilities and individuals with incentives to reduce their emissions or waste generation. Table 1
summarizes the 90-day initiatives and their groupings.
-88-
-------
Table 1
List of Incentive Activities
Reference No./Project
Office
Short-Term Activity
Long-Term Activity
INCREASING EFFICIENCY IN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT
W4 . Point/Point Source Trading
Wl. Point/Non-Point Source Trading
A9. Accelerated Retirement of Older
Vehicles ("Scrappage")
All. Mobile-Stationary Source Trading
Program
AS. Assistance to California South Coast
Market Incentives Program
A13. Emissions Averaging in the
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)
OW
OW
OAR
OAR
OAR
OAR
Federal Register Notice to announce report availability
Complete analysis; held public meeting on April 27 and 28
Announced program (3/18); Publish instructions on setting credit level (including
consideration of regional variation) and outline acceptable program design elements
Overall initiative announced with Accelerated Retirement of Older Vehicles on March
18
Provide technical assistance in development; focus on establishing key program
elements of an acceptable program
Inclusion of emissions averaging in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP scheduled to be
proposed in Spring 1992
Depends largely on outcome of public comments
Dependent on comments and meeting results; may
include pilot program
On-going Program; Continue to facilitate program
development and implementation
Expansion of accelerated retirement of older vehicles
program
Provide timely guidance and review of final rules to
implement program
Discussions with interested parties will continue as
appropriate during final rule development
-89-
-------
Reference No. /Project
Office
Short-Tenn Activity
Long-Term Activity
REDUCING REGULATORY
BARRIERS
W2. Privatization of Municipal
Wastewater Systems
PI . Reduced Risk Pesticides
P7 . Premanufacture Notification (PMN)
Exemption Rules
OW
OPPTS
OPPTS
Issue paper written; publish FR notice to solicit public comment; hold meeting to
discuss idea in May 1992
Federal Register notice in May 1992 to solicit comments on ideas
Announce program in OPPT's Chemicals in Progress Bulletin and publish proposed
amendments in early summer, 1992
Depends on outcome of meeting and comments
Fall workshop to expand on comments received;
proposed or final policy statement in early 1993
pending public input
Promulgate final amendments to rule in spring, 1993
depending on comments received
FILLING INFORMATION GAPS
W3. Wise Water Use Partnerships
S24. Market Incentives for Municipal Solid
Waste
OW
OSWER/O
PPE
"Partners" meeting in May 1992 to get commitments to this "green lights'-typc
program for water conservation
Publish full-cost accounting guide; begin demonstration project to investigate effect of
price on waste generation
On-going program to gain voluntary commitments and
actions for water conservation
"How-to Guide on unit-based pricing; possibly focus on
unit based pricing at Nat 'I MSW Conference
BUILDING CAPACITY
A 10. State Grants Program
A12. Expansion of Economic Incentives
Rule
OAR
OAR
FY 1992 commitment to fund five initiatives totaling $610,000
Federal Register proposal scheduled for May 1992 and promulgation of final rule by
November 1992
On-going program with additional funding expected in
future years
Continue working with regions and states to develop
and implement incentive programs
-90-
-------
INCREASING EFFICIENCY IN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT
As previously discussed, economic incentive systems that have been implemented typically result
in savings in control costs, improvements in environmental quality, or both. These improvements
typically derive from providing sources with better incentives to reduce the quantity of releases below
permitted levels or improve the "quality" of releases of pollutants beyond permitted levels. The burden of
how best to meet the environmental objectives is placed on those with the best knowledge -- individual
firms or households.
In the context of the 90-day moratorium and review, the Agency has identified six initiatives
where economic systems will be proposed or otherwise explored. These initiatives are expected to
increase the efficiency of specific regulatory activities without compromising environmental protection.
The initiatives will rely on creating a market for environmental improvement.
Table 2 summarizes each of these initiatives and they are discussed in the following pages.
-91-
-------
Table 2
List of Incentive Activities
Reference No./Project
Office
Short-Term Activity
Long-Term Activity
INCREASING EFFICIENCY IN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT
W4. Point/Point Source Trading
Wl. Point/Non-Point Source Trading
A9. Accelerated Retirement of Older
Vehicles ("Scrappage")
All. Mobile-Stationary Source Trading
Program
AS. Assistance to California South Coast
Market Incentives Program
A13. Emissions Averaging in the
Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)
OW
OW
OAR
OAR
OAR
OAR
Federal Register Notice to announce report availability
Complete analysis; held public meeting on April 27 and 28
Announced program (3/ 1 8); Publish instructions on setting credit level (including
consideration of regional variation) and outline acceptable program design elements
Overall initiative announced with Accelerated Retirement of Older Vehicles on March
18
Provide technical assistance in development; focus on establishing key program
elements of an acceptable program
Inclusion of emissions averaging in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP scheduled to be
proposed in Spring 1992
Depends largely on outcome of public comments
Dependent on comments and meeting results; may
include pilot program
On-going Program; Continue to facilitate program
development and implementation
Expansion of accelerated retirement of older vehicles
program
Provide timely guidance and review of final rules to
implement program
Discussions with interested parties will continue as
appropriate during final rule development
-92-
-------
W4. Point/Point Source Trading
The Office of Water will publish a Federal Register, notice announcing availability of
a report on point/point source trading by May 15,, 1992* Through the comment
process > the Agency hopes to identify candidates for demonstration projects involving
point/point trading.
Description
Point/Point Source pollutant trading is a market-based approach to water quality improvement. In
a typical point/point trading transaction, a point source discharger, currently regulated with an NPDES
permit under the Clean Water Act, would avoid a costly treatment upgrade by paying for or otherwise
arranging equivalent or greater reductions in discharges from other facilities that discharge into the same
receiving waters. The facility would continue to treat its discharge to a level consistent with the existing
technology-based standards. Facilities subject to treatment requirements more stringent than the
technology-based limitations could, under a trading program, enter into binding agreements with other
dischargers to treat an equal or greater amount of pollutants.
The focus of point/point source trading activity should be on conventional pollutants. Some
nonconventional pollutants may also be good elements to consider for inclusion in trading programs.
Trading of toxic pollutants is not included as an option in this proposal. A permitting authority (State or
EPA Region) would set the overall quantity of pollutant loading reductions required to meet water quality
standards for the particular receiving waters. The authority would allocate reductions among dischargers,
and offer them the opportunity to develop an alternative reduction strategy before new permits are
finalized. The participating facilities would decide who will further reduce their discharges, by what
amount, and finalize trades according to associated cost savings, efficiencies, and other criteria.
Anticipated Effects
Point sources may avoid costly treatment upgrades by participating in trading programs. It is
impossible to accurately predict the number and type of dischargers that may benefit. Limited evidence
suggests that the cost savings could range from several thousand to several tens of thousands of dollars per
facility per year. The larger social benefit is that the production costs for goods can be lowered while
environmental quality is maintained or even improved.
Program Actions
The Agency will publish a Federal Register notice announcing the initiative and the availability of
an upcoming report, and requesting public comment. The report, entitled "Incentive Analysis for Clean
Water Act Reauthorization: Point/Point Source Trading for Effluent Discharge Reductions," will be
available for public review and comment on May 15, 1992.
Through the comment process, the Agency hopes to identify candidates for demonstration projects
involving point/point trading. The candidates would be selected from those facilities subject to CWA
technology standards and water quality based limitations. EPA will also consider developing guidance or
other additional information identified during the comment process. Longer-term outreach will depend, in
part, on activities deemed worthwhile based on comments on the notice and report.
-93-
-------
Wl. Point/Non-Point Source Trading
The Office of Water hosted a national meeting On April 27 - 28, 1992 in £>urfiamt.
North Carolina, to establish a national agenda to promote trading as a cost effective
tool in federal, state and local water quality programs.
Description
Trading allocates reductions in pollutant loadings across point and nonpoint sources using cost-
effectiveness as a criterion. In most PS/NPS trading scenarios, regulated point sources are allowed to
avoid treatment system upgrades to meet water quality objectives if they pay for or arrange equivalent (or
greater) reductions in nonpoint source discharges within their watershed or waterbody. Case studies of
trading experiences to date suggest that, for the near term, the best opportunities are for trading nutrient
allocations. Nutrient trading is attractive because trading programs to date have dealt with these type of
pollutants and because issues associated with trading toxic pollutants are relatively more difficult.
Anticipated Effects
EPA analyses indicate that this approach could be applied more widely across the United States, perhaps
in as many as 950 water bodies. The estimated costs of nonpoint controls for nutrients in a trading
program range from 5 percent to SO percent of the costs for an equivalent amount of nutrient removal by
point sources. This suggests substantial savings could be achieved through trading programs. Improved
water quality due to nonpoint source controls that might not otherwise be implemented is an additional
benefit.
Implementing PS/NPS trading programs will involve additional costs -- e.g., incremental
monitoring and modelling beyond those needed under current policy, additional permitting costs, and
government transaction costs associated with trading. However, EPA believes the benefits discussed
above exceed these additional administrative costs.
Program Actions
The April meeting is the first step in the Agency's efforts to promote innovative and cost-effective
alternatives to water quality protection. The meeting is open to the public although space is limited to 125
participants (60 individuals will be specifically invited to attend). Prior to the meeting, EPA will
distribute a report for review and comment entitled, Incentive Analysis for Clean Water Act
Reauthorization: Point Source/Nonooint Source Trading for Nutrient Discharge Reductions. This report
will also be used to help focus discussions at the meeting.
A primary objective of the meeting will be to discuss the apparent factors currently inhibiting
trading. For example, although PS/NPS trading systems are currently components of watershed
management strategies in Colorado and North Carolina, few trades have been made to date due to a
variety of legal, technical and administrative barriers.
Future program actions will be driven by ideas generated at the meeting, and comments received
on the report. One action that EPA may pursue is to assist states in developing trading pilot projects.
-94-
-------
A9. Accelerated Retirement of Older Vehicles ("Scrappage")
The Office of Air and Radiation will develop and publish criteria outlining the key
dements of an acceptable accelerated old vehicle retirement program in a State
Implementation Plan. This, will give states* cities, and companies the option of
Scrapping old, high*polluting automobiles, and Using the resulting improvements in air
-------
All. Mobile-Stationary Source Trading Program
Office of Air and Radiation will soon propose guidance to encourage states to
emissions trading, including state-run trading programs, between mobile and
stationary sources to meet air qtiatity standards. '
Description
This initiative is designed to allow individual facilities and government organizations to take
advantage of the differences between control costs of stationary and mobile sources. Essentially, to
supplement mandated stationary and mobile source requirements, states and local agencies can choose
what combination of programs to use in meeting the periodic emission reduction requirements of the Clean
Air Act. Areas may decide to adopt mobile source reductions in lieu of additional stationary source
controls for example. EPA's Emission Trading Policy of 1986 allows states to submit source-to-source
trades between mobile and stationary sources as revisions to their State Implementation Plans. By
encouraging this "trading", EPA is working towards a least-cost strategy of meeting the Clean Act Act's
air quality standards.
Potential state and local attainment strategies, under this program, include: government sponsored
car-scrappage programs; more expansive or stringent inspection/maintenance programs; more aggressive
clean-fuel fleet conversion programs; additional stationary source control; and combining mobile and
stationary sources in a common emission trading market as may be implemented by the South Coast
marketable permits program known as "RECLAIM." Potential strategies for individual facilities include
company-sponsored car-scrappage programs, clean-fuel fleet programs, and aggressive fleet
inspection/maintenance programs.
Anticipated Effects
No specific cost savings have been calculated since it is difficult to project how states and
individuals will choose to respond to mobile/stationary source trading opportunities. As illustrated in the
Accelerated Retirement of Older Vehicles initiative, in some cases the expected costs associated with
controlling the emissions from a particular source-type (mobile or stationary) may be more cost-effective
than similar reductions under other types of sources.
Program Actions
EPA's guidance on mobile/stationary source trading opportunities will address which Clean Air
Act requirements may be met through trading. Stationary source requirements likely to be considered
under this program are certain existing source State Implementation Plan requirements, and offsets under
new source review. Possible mobile source requirements include inspection/maintenance and fleet
requirements. In its guidance, EPA will also address determination of appropriate baselines to use in
establishing "tradable" credits, incorporation of mobile/stationary source trading in State Implementation
Plans, and enforcement considerations.
-96-
-------
A8. Assistance to California South Coast Market Incentives Program
The Office of Air and Radiation will provide technical assistance to the South Coast
Marketable Permits Program, Specific efforts will include establishing key elements
- e.gx> monitoring methods and enforcement provisions ** Of an acceptable
marketable permits program for incorporation in State Implementation Plans.
Description
California's South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has an extensive effort
underway to develop a marketable permits program, which would establish a Regional Clean Air
Incentives Market ("RECLAIM"). The program will eventually be submitted to the EPA for review and
approval as part of California's State Implementation Plan (SIP). The RECLAIM program is based on the
concept of aggregating emissions from all sources within a facility, limiting total mass emissions from the
facility, and requiring each facility to meet prescribed emissions limits that will decline each year. The
actual method of compliance would be up to the individual facility; including purchasing excess emission
reduction credits generated by other facilities and exchanged through a regional market, installing control
equipment, using lower emitting materials, or other techniques.
Anticipated Effects
Based on preliminary estimates by the SCAQMD, it is anticipated that the RECLAIM program
will significantly reduce area-wide compliance costs. Cost reductions are estimated at $427 million in
1994, a 65 percent reduction compared to the current regulatory plan, and $270 million in 1997, a 29
percent reduction. In addition, the SCAQMD estimates that the net impact of RECLAIM, on average, is
that fewer jobs will be lost relative to the projected impact of the current regulatory plan.
Program Actions
In the short-term, OAR staff will participate in the development of rules to implement this
program through work groups being established by the SCAQMD. The product of this work group effort
will be key elements of the final program design. Beyond that, OAR will continue to work with the
SCAQMD as they finalize the overall program design and implementing rules, in order to produce a
program that may be approved in a timely manner. This program has and will continue to involve
extensive public outreach. Diverse public and private interest groups are represented on committees
providing direct input into the program development process.
-97-
-------
A13. Emissions Averaging in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON)
This spring^ the Office of Air and Radiation witt propose emission^ averaging for the
HON proposal to provide the flexibility necessary to covet the broad range of
industrial processes affected by this regulation.
Description
Emissions averaging allows owners and operators to avoid excessive control costs associated with
controlling one process by increasing control elsewhere within their facility. The emissions averaging
provisions in the proposed HON regulation apply to process vents, wastewater operations, transfer
operations and storage vessels and would require the owner or operator of a source to limit source-wide
emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants. The proposed regulation provides specific instructions for
determining how much emissions must be reduced at each source.
In the HON case, EPA does not have sufficient data to predict each potential characteristic that
could influence compliance costs. Therefore, emissions averaging allows the HON to regulate a diverse
set of processes in a least cost manner - facilities are allowed the flexibility to attain the desired air
quality in the manner they see fit. Emissions averaging is a good example of a case where economic
incentives can better tailor requirements to a diverse group of facilities while avoiding excessive
compliance costs.
Anticipated Effects
Emissions averaging can be expected to reduce the costs of compliance with the HON while
maintaining the same level of emissions reductions. At present, a quantitative estimate of the potential
cost savings from emissions averaging is not available.
Program Actions
The proposed HON will be published in the spring of 1992. Members of the interested public,
including state and industry representatives, have already been included in two roundtable discussions and
several smaller meetings to develop and discuss the emissions averaging policy for the HON. These types
of consensus building activities will be continued, as appropriate, through the regulatory development
process.
-08-
-------
REDUCING REGULATORY BURDENS
Another way to increase the efficiency of the Agency's regulations is to reduce institutional barriers and
paperwork requirements that increase compliance costs without a commensurate improvement in
environmental quality. The Agency has taken action to explore the feasibility of lessening the regulatory
burdens associated with three of its programs.
EPA is committing to publishing in the Federal Register three incentive initiatives aimed at reducing
existing regulatory barriers. The Office of Water will solicit public comments and hold a public meeting
to assess the barriers associated with private investments in public wastewater facilities. The Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) will publish two Federal Register notices. First,
OPPTS will solicit public comments on a policy aimed at reducing the review process for lower risk
pesticides. Second, OPPTS will propose amendments to the existing Premanufacture Notice requirements
to streamline the review process and focus on high-risk substances.
Table 3 summarizes these initiatives and they are discussed in the following pages.
-99-
-------
Table 3
List of Incentive Activities
Reference No./Project
Office
Short-Term Activity
Long-Term Activity
REDUCING REGULATORY
BARRIERS
W2. Privatization of Municipal
Wastewater Systems
PI . Reduced Risk Pesticides
P7. Premanufacture Notification (PMN)
Exemption Rules
ow
OPPTS
OPPTS
Issue paper written; publish FR notice to solicit public comment; hold meeting to
discuss idea in May 1992
Federal Register notice in May 1992 to solicit comments on ideas
Announce program in OPPT's Chemicals in Progress Bulletin and publish proposed
amendments in early summer, 1992
Depends on outcome of meeting and comments
Fall workshop to expand on comments received;
proposed or final policy statement in early 1993
pending public input
Promulgate final amendments to rule in spring, 1993
depending on comments
-100-
-------
W2. Privatization of Municipal Wastewater Systems
Office of Water (OW) Will publish & Fexierat fiegisfer notice to announce EPA'S
intention to make policy and regulatory changes needed to encourage and facilitate
pubifc"E>rivat& partnerships for Wastewater treatment.
Description
Many wastewater treatment projects that received funds through the construction grants program
face substantial capital expenditures for facility renovation, expansion, and upgrade. For example, the
Agency's 1990 Needs Survey identified $110 billion in wastewater construction needs. Because of the
limited availability of public funds for environmental infrastructure, current Agency initiatives encourage
consideration of public-private partnerships for facilities that provide public services. Such financing
arrangements may be appropriate to address the continuing capital needs of facilities constructed under the
construction grants program. However, Agency review of current policy and Grants Administration
Division (GAD) review of federal and EPA grant regulations has identified provisions that inhibit the
feasibility of private funding. This initiative will evaluate the feasibility of eliminating these barriers and
provide a new financing opportunity to local governments.
Specifically, the Agency will develop policy and/or modify regulations (to the extent permitted by
law) to: 1) define "publicly-owned treatment works" as a wastewater facility that may have less than 100%
public ownership for purposes of the construction grants and State Revolving Fund programs; 2) specify
conditions under which a construction grant-funded facility may secure private equity investment necessary
for rehabilitation, expansion, or upgrade; 3) specify conditions under which a construction grant-funded
facility may be sold or leased in full or in part and stipulate what constitutes acceptable compensating
benefit; and 4) identify method(s) for determining the extent of the federal interest in a construction grant-
funded facility.
Anticipated Effects
The proposed partnership will provide new financing opportunity to communities for projects
needed to protect the nation's waters that otherwise would not proceed due to the lack of public funds. In
addition, the initiative: 1) promotes pollution prevention by ensuring adequate capital is available for
efficient operation, rehabilitation, upgrade, and expansion of aging facilities; 2) promotes local and
regional economic growth, development, and employment; 3) establishes a steady source of property and
earnings tax revenue from private enterprises that provide beneficial environmental service; 4) leverages
past, current, and future federal, state, and local investment in water quality infrastructure; and 5)
continues paying "environmental dividends" secured from federal and other public investment.
Program Actions
This initiative will be coordinated with federal government-wide activities to encourage and
facilitate public-private partnerships for infrastructure development. The scope and timing of the
following actions may be guided in part by the broader government-wide agenda.
The Office of Water will publish a Federal Register Notice (FRN) to announce the Agency's
initiative to encourage public-private partnerships for wastewater treatment. This initiative will include
policy and regulatory changes to encourage such partnerships. The Agency will hold one or more public
meetings to discuss public-private partnerships for wastewater treatment. Based on an evaluation of
responses to the FRN and these meetings, EPA will consider and propose changes to EPA regulations in
order to implement this policy.
-101-
-------
This initiative has also been placed on the agenda of EPA's Environmental Financial Advisory
loard's (EFAB) next meeting scheduled for May 11-12, 1992. This Advisory group will offer continuing
dvice and analysis to the Administrator on increasing private investment in wastewater treatment. EFAB
as previously discussed this issue in a March 1992 advisory.
-102-
-------
PI. Reduced Risk Pesticides
The Office of Prevention^ Pesticides and Toxic Substances will issoe a Federal
Register Notice (FRN) by April 1992 identifying key issues and questions to be
addressed in implementing a Reduced Risk Pesticide Policy. A public workshop
be held in the fall of 1992 to focus on. issues and identify options for a final policy.
Description
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) requires that EPA register all
new pesticides. Extensive health and safety analysis is required for registering new pesticides and EPA is
required to review the results of these studies before approving any registration application. This data
collection and analysis requires large financial investments by the registrant and requires a considerable
amount of time for full EPA review. Since FIFRA requires EPA to balance the risk of pesticide products
with their benefits, EPA has retained the use of relatively high-risk pesticides, in some instances, due to
high benefits. Products with high benefits are frequently those without competition and the high
investment costs and considerable review time discussed above present barriers to firms' abilities to
develop and market substitute products. The intent of this initiative is to provide a market-based incentive
for pesticide registrants to develop products that present less environmental risk.
EPA is considering waiving certain data requirements and fees to lower the cost of bringing a
"low-risk" product into the registration process. In addition, expedited review of these "low-risk"
products would also provide for earlier market entry and return on investment. EPA is also considering
regulatory action against higher risk products as preferred alternatives become available. The net result of
these actions would be to remove the barriers to new registrants.
Expected Effect
Although it is currently not possible to quantify the benefits of the policy, EPA anticipates that
reducing the cost and time to register new pesticide products will provide incentives for the development
of new lower-risk products.
Program Action
The Federal Register notice and workshop will signal the Agency's intent to provide incentives for
less risky pesticides. Depending on the results of the FR notice and public workshop, EPA may propose a
formal reduced risk pesticide policy.
-103-
-------
P7. Premanufacture Notification (PMN) Exemption Rules
The Offkfc ofF>eventi0n> Pesticide and Toxic Substances will propose amendments to
its PrenWrattfactUre Notification {PMN) reqokements to streamline thfe revtetv process
and shift the focus of review to the management of high»risk substances.
Description
Manufacturers of new chemicals are required to notify EPA at least 90-days prior to commencing
commercial production of these new chemicals. Through this initiative, OPPTS wants to utilize the
knowledge gained through experience with the New Chemicals Program to evaluate ways to improve
efficiency of the program. In effect, the Agency expects to be able to shift the focus from the review of
low-risk substances toward the review and management of high-risk substances and, in the process, to
increase the manufacturer's certainty concerning the marketing and production of new chemicals.
The proposed PMN amendments will include: expanding the polymer exemption; expanding the
low volume exemption; introducing a low exposure/low risk exemption; allowing electronic submission of
data after a standard format is published; allowing greater reporting flexibility in the two percent rule;
standardizing reporting formats for chemical identification; and revising information requirements for
TSCA inventory searches.
Anticipated Impacts
A preliminary estimate of the potential savings ranges up to approximately $10 million annually.
However, the costs and benefits vary depending upon the specific amendment(s) adopted.
Action Plan
A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be published during the summer of 1992. Depending on
comments received, EPA anticipates publishing a final rule in spring 1993.
-104-
-------
FILLING INFORMATION GAPS
Individual firms or households typically have the knowledge to choose the most effective pollution
control techniques for their particular situation. However, in some instances the information available to
firms or households is obscured by various policies. In these cases, there may be a federal role in
improving the available information to increase efficiency. EPA has identified two areas where improving
the information available to decisionmakers may result in more rational resource management decisions.
First, building on the success of the Agency's "green lights11 program of encouraging energy
conservation, the Office of Water will initiate a similar program aimed at conserving water. Second, the
Office of Solid Waste will develop guidance to municipalities in determining the full-cost of municipal
solid waste disposal and assist the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation in a multi-year study of
municipal solid waste unit-based pricing. Each of these activities are discussed below.
Table 4 summarizes these initiatives and each of them is discussed in the following pages.
-105-
-------
Table 4
List of Incentive Activities
Reference No./Project
Office
Short -Term Activity
Long-Term Activity
FILLING INFORMATION GAPS
W3. Wise WAter Use Partnerships
S24. Market Incentives for Municipal Solid
Waste
OW
OSWER/O
PPE
'Partners' meeting in May 1992 to get commitments to this 'green lights'-type
program for water conservation
Publish full-cost accounting guide; begin demonstration project to investigate effect of
price on waste generation
On-going program to gain voluntary commitments and
actions for water conservation
'How-to Guide on unit-based pricing; possibly focus on
unit based pricing at Nat'l MSW Conference
-106-
-------
W3. Wise Water Use Partnerships
'V^fA-'y"v^>H*>'!**f^'^f"^y!f>f'"' *"*? VY***Jr**'7,v*, »*****7» «*w»*«j{^» •»•»** J^VWJ^VW^TVJMW ****** iiM#Wj« ™^% v.
^%?V"^"'coi^uct wjdfaii iftee^g; to the sWajk- of J99^ t<> tame the ovet1 all pjogrm ™ * \° \ *
Description
In the last several years, public utility commissions (PUC) have pushed electric utilities to
consider demand-side management-how conservation measures could reduce the need for expensive
new capacity. In addition, some PUCs are requiring electric utilities to internalize the externalities
of electricity production when planning new capacity. Like electric utilities, water delivery and
wastewater operations are natural monopolies and, as such, would charge too high a price without
rate of return regulation. PUCs have been slow to apply these demand-side management tools to
water authorities. Therefore, they may be missing opportunities to both lower water delivery and
treatment costs and improve the environment.
This project will see if the electric utility experience can be applied to water use. EPA will
forge voluntary partnerships among water providers, PUCs, states and water users. Transferring
information about the potential for demand-side management to reduce costs is the focus of these
partnerships. While EPA will not officially enter into agreements with these parties, we expect the
water rate regulatory system to change in response to the sharing of information about demand-side
management Further, local agreements between water providers, wastewater utilities, and other
interested parties would establish specific activities that would be appropriate for the local area. The
Office of Water has committed to providing technical and informational support and recognition of
these agreements.
Anticipated Effects
Fostering more efficient water use through voluntary partnerships may provide economic and
environmental benefits. Potential economic benefits include reduced water supply treatment costs
under the Safe Drinking Water Act; reduced costs for expansion of wastewater and water supply
facilities; and reduced long-term consumer costs for water and energy. Local partnership
arrangement(s) drawn to support specific and unique local conditions may also result in monetary
savings to the public and better management of water resources.
The program is designed as voluntary information exchange effort where water authorities can
learn how to implement demand-side management. The immediate public and private costs
associated with implementing the program are expected to be relatively small. The Agency is
committing to providing technical support and improving the exchange of information among
partners, and the industry hi general. An assessment of a clearinghouse is just underway.
Program Action
Subsequent to the meeting in summer 1992, the Office of Water will explore how to transfer
information about demand-side management, including models for the development of local
agreements. These activities would begin immediately following the meeting (presuming that a
sufficient number of "partners" agree to participate).
-107-
-------
S24. Market Incentives for Municipal Solid Waste
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) wilt publish a guide
for local governments that will assist them in determining the full cost of municipal
solid waste disposaL The Office of Policy, Planning tod Evaluation (QPPEK in
cooperation with OSWER, is working with eorrunonities considering Unit-based
pricing systems in a muHi'-year study k OPPE and OSW will also produce & guidance
document for local solid Waste officials considering UmVbased pricing schemes.
Description
Federal and state controls on solid waste facilities are increasing, as is the volume of solid waste
being produced. As both controls and volume expand, the cost of solid waste management is increasing as
well. Communities are finding a growing need to look at alternative solid waste management strategies.
Many communities find that they often don't have the information that they need to evaluate alternatives.
This project is intended to generate and disseminate some of that information.
Many communities find that accounting practices often obscure the true costs of solid waste
management making it very difficult for them to weigh alternatives. For example, very often the cost of
the land and the equipment is allocated to other accounts. As a result communities do not know how
much they are really spending on waste disposal and alternatives look expensive by comparison. The
Office of Solid Waste will publish a document on full-cost accounting of municipal solid waste
management to help communities better estimate the full cost of disposal.
Recognizing the problems associated with municipal solid waste pricing, a number of communities
have implemented unit based pricing of municipal solid waste in recent years. Under these programs, the
price paid by citizens for solid waste services better reflects the marginal cost of managing their waste
than does the price paid under other more traditional methods of financing disposal, such as fixed-fees.
These programs send a market signal that provides households with an economic incentive to reduce waste
and recycle.
As more communities explore and implement these programs a number of issues has emerged that
need to be examined. One important example is that there is no reliable estimates of the price elasticity of
household waste generation; most studies have relied on data that include numerous confounding
influences. Other examples of important issues include are: impact of fee programs on administrative
systems such as accounting systems; how fee rates might vary with waste production rates; how to design
systems to accommodate the needs of special groups, such as the elderly; and the effect of removing solid
waste funding from local tax systems (where they are deductible from federal income tax) to a fee-for-
service system (where no deduction is available.)
EPA will sponsor demonstration programs in a number of selected communities to measure the
effects of unit pricing on price elasticity, waste generation, waste collection, recycling, and other
behavior. EPA will develop a document for local governments dealing with issues to consider and
examples of how these issues have been dealt with by municipalities that have instituted unit based pricing
as well as a spreadsheet tool for decision-makers to use to predict possible effects of different unit prices.
The result will complement the EPA document, Variable Rates in Solid Waste.
Anticipated Effects
-108-
-------
To the extent that the document on full cost accounting promotes systems that provide for source
reduction and recycling, cost savings should accrue to local governments. Similarly, to the extent that this
document will encourage municipal governments to establish unit based pricing for municipal solid waste,
the impact of the activity will be to send a market signal to reduce the amount of waste generated, and
perhaps encourage recycling.
Action Plan
OSWER will completed a draft report on full-cost accounting within the 90-day period. OPPE,
with assistance from OSWER, completed a work plan and initiated a demonstration project on unit based
pricing within the 90-day period. The report on full cost accounting and the report summarizing results of
the demonstration project, which will include practical information on how to institute an effective unit
based pricing system, will be distributed widely. This distribution range from municipal governments to
national organizations and include OSWER's specialized mailing lists. OPPE and OSWER will also
publish a guidance document, including a "check-list" of key issues and a spreadsheet tool to help predict
unit-pricing effects, for local solid waste officials considering unit-based pricing.
-109-
-------
BUILDING CAPACITY
Although the appeal of economic incentives has been studied for quite some time, the number of
unlives implemented remains small. This is changing, however, and EPA has established a goal of
coming the premier federal agency using economic incentives. An important step in attaining this goal
to build the capacity of federal, regional, state and local environmental agencies. Therefore, EPA has
mtified two projects to expand the ability of regions and states to develop and implement market
>entives. Specifically, the Agency has made two important commitments during this 90-day period.
rst, the Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) is committing $610,000 in grant funds to states to establish
irket-based approaches to controlling air pollution. Second, OAR is developing criteria and guidance
r states to incorporate economic incentives into their air programs. Each of these initiatives are
icussed below.
These initiatives are summarized in Table 5 and discussed in the following pages.
-110-
-------
Table 5
List of Incentive Activities
Reference No. /Project
BUILDING CAPACITY
A 10. State Grants Program
A 12. Expansion of Economic Incentives
Rule
Office
OAR
OAR
Short-Term Activity
FY 1992 commitment to fund five initiatives totaling $610,000
Federal Register proposal scheduled for May 1992 and promulgation of final rule by
November 1992
Long-Term Activity
On-going program with additional funding expected in
future years
Continue working with regions and stales to develop
and implement incentive programs
-111-
-------
A10. State Grants Program
The Office of Air and Radiation has Committed $610,000 in state grants for five
projects incorporating economic incentives into air programs.
Description
Market-based approaches to addressing air quality goals represent a major departure from the
command and control approaches historically used by States to develop implementation plans for meeting
air quality goals and requirements. There are informational, institutional, and financial barriers to
effecting major changes in the types of programs that State agencies develop and implement. In
recognition of these problems, OAR will provide, through its State grants program, resources for
initiatives designed to explore the feasibility and identify appropriate design elements of market-based
programs.
It is anticipated that the results of the initiatives funded through this grant process will help
facilitate the development and implementation of such programs by the States receiving the grants. In
addition, the information produced from these initiatives is expected to be transferrable to other States
which may benefit from the experience, and to serve as input to the EPA's ongoing formulation of policy
dealing with market-based approaches.
For 1992, OAR is committing $610,000 to fund five initiatives. These projects will address both
stationary and mobile source programs, and the control of ozone and air toxics. The initiatives are very
diverse geographically, involving New England, mid-west, and west-coast locations. Projects are expected
to get underway this spring.
Anticipated Effects
It is anticipated that these initiatives will result in the development of state programs that provide
cost savings and more flexibility in meeting air quality goals than would traditional regulatory programs.
In addition, this program will build capacity in state environmental agencies for developing, designing,
and implementing incentive based environmental programs.
Program Actions
OAR is now in the process of working with the states to finalize their project plans prior to
releasing the grant funds to the responsible agencies. This process involves providing guidance on
constructive approaches to consider as part of the project, as well as to ensure that commitments are in
place for the states to provide an evaluation of the project and its findings so as to benefit other states and
OAR's overall policy development process. In the long term, the OAR anticipates continuing this set-
aside state grant program in future years, to build upon the experiences gained from these early market-
based initiatives.
One of the criteria by which grant proposals are evaluated is the extent to which the proposal
incorporates public outreach and involvement and support from affected public and private interests.
Thus, all of the supported initiatives will include public involvement both in the initiative itself, as well as
an element of any program which may grow out of the initiative.
-L12-
-------
All. Expansion of Economic Incentives Rule
The Office of Air and Radiation will produce guidance and criteria encouraging States
to incorporate economic incentive programs {EIPs) into their implementation plans for
air quality management This initiative will focus on &talionary*to*stationary source
trading.
Description
The Clean Air Act Amendments (Act) allow for economic incentive programs in any State plan,
but only require such programs to be implemented if future emission reduction progress milestones are
missed in the worst ozone and carbon monoxide nonattainment areas. While the Act requires EPA to
prepare rules for mandated economic incentive programs (EIPs), no such guidance is required for
discretionary EIPs; for this initiative, OAR intends to provide guidance for discretionary EIPs as well. In
the absence of such guidance, it is unlikely that States will devote much attention to the development of
discretionary programs designed to assist in achieving progress toward attainment and in lowering the cost
of meeting air quality goals.
The planned guidance will identify the rationale behind implementing EIPs, ideas for different
types of market-based approaches, and the program design elements that are central to providing both the
flexibility and the accountability that are integral to the success of such programs. It is anticipated that
with this guidance, States will be more likely to develop economic incentive initiatives of their own, as a
means to avoid missing progress milestones, rather than as a remedial measure after milestones are already
missed.
The OAR staff and Agency-wide work group responsible for developing the mandated EIP rules
have devoted time to incorporating this discretionary guidance into the rulemaking package. At present,
this guidance is being incorporated into a proposal package that will shortly undergo final Agency review
and OMB review.
Anticipated Effects
The underlying basis for using economic incentives is that such approaches can lower the cost of
meeting environmental goals as compared to traditional command and control approaches. To the extent
that such approaches have been evaluated for other specific air quality programs, such as the emission
allowance trading programs for acid rain and lead, significant cost savings have been projected or
realized. However, no specific cost savings estimates are possible for this initiative because it is
impossible to project how many discretionary EIPs this guidance will bring about or the nature or scope of
the resulting programs.
Program Actions
This guidance, together with the mandated rules, is scheduled for Federal Register proposal in late
May. Final promulgation is scheduled for November 1992.
Public outreach on this initiative has included conducting a public meeting and a national
workshop to highlight and receive comment on a range of issues associated with the development and
implementation of economic incentive programs. In addition, representatives from State and local
agencies have participated in the development of the rules and guidance. Additional public comment will
be solicited as part of the public comment period and public hearing process on the proposed rules.
-113-
-------
Beyond the release of final rules and guidance, the OAR will continue to work with Regional
Offices and States to facilitate the development and implementation of appropriate economic incentive
programs.
-------
APPENDIX 6
BIOTECHNOLOGY
-115-
-------
INTRODUCTION
This report of the Biotechnology Task Group identifies both
current and future actions that the Environmental Protection
Agency proposes to undertake to promote the development of
biotechnology products and to reduce uncertainty in the regulated
community concerning oversight of these products. The
introduction briefly describes the Agency's activities in the
area of biotechnology and sets the context for a description of
EPA's action plan under the regulatory moratorium review process.
EPA's action plan is designed to encourage the development of
biotechnology in a manner that protects human health and the
environment.
The EPA Biotechnology Program
EPA's activities in the area of biotechnology are diverse and
involve regulatory programs, basic and applied research, and
public outreach programs. In the area of regulatory programs,
several statutes govern EPA's oversight of microorganisms used in
biotechnology. Most of EPA's current regulatory activities occur
under.the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the
certain sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA).
FIFRA creates a statutory framework under which EPA, primarily
through a registration process, regulates the development, sale,
distribution, use, storage, and disposal of pesticides, no matter
how these pesticides are made or their mode of action.
EPA uses Sections 408 and 409 of the FFDCA, in conjunction
with FIFRA, to address dietary exposures to pesticides in food
and feed. Under these sections, EPA establishes tolerances or
exemptions from tolerance. The tolerance is a measure of the
amount of pesticide residues or breakdown products allowable in
food or feed consumed in the U.S.
TSCA authorizes EPA to acquire information on chemical
substances and mixtures of chemical substances in order to
identify and regulate potential hazards and exposures. TSCA
applies to the manufacturing, processing, importation,
distribution, use and disposal of all chemicals in commerce, or
intended for entry into commerce, that are not specifically
covered by certain other regulatory authorities (e.g., TSCA
applies to substances other than foods, drugs, cosmetics and
pesticides). Section 5 implements the Act's goal of screening
"new" chemical substances to identify risk before these chemicals
enter into commerce. A "new chemical substance" is defined at
TSCA section 3(9) as a substance not on the TSCA Inventory of
Chemical Substances manufactured in the U.S. TSCA's
applicability to biotechnology products is based on the
interpretation that organisms are mixtures of chemical
substances; an interpretation that was embodied in the
-116-
-------
development of the initial Inventory in 1977.
Several other statutes also address activities involving
biotechnology products. One of the product areas where there is
commercial interest is bioremediation. The statutes that are
applicable to bioremediation include TSCA, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).
These three statutes address the use of a variety of
technologies, including biotechnology, to treat hazardous wastes
and contaminated media. In addition, the Oil Pollution Act of
1990 provides for the identification and use of oil spill
mitigating substances, including microorganisms.
A major component of EPA's biotechnology research program at
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) is designed to
expand the use of bioremediation. Activities include database
development, research in the development and testing of
bioremediation processes, and development of guidelines for
specific applications of bioremediation.
Other portions of EPA's biotechnology research program
investigate issues associated with the use of microorganisms in
biotechnology. This research provides basic knowledge on
microbial ecology which is useful to industry in development and
evaluation of biotechnology products, as well as to EPA's
regulatory programs. The results of this research are also
available for use by the larger research community.
In the area of public outreach, EPA has several ongoing or
planned activities which are described below.
Biotechnology and Industry
EPA's activities in biotechnology address a wide variety of
research and commercial applications of this technology. These
include, in addition to the use of bioremediation and
biopesticides, microorganisms used as agricultural fertilizers,
in the extraction or recovery of minerals, in the production of
fuels such as ethanol from plant debris (i.e., biomass
conversion), and other products. In certain market sectors
commercial products have been developed (e.g., in biological
pesticides) while in other sectors products are in the research
and development stage. Federal support for biotechnology
research has been growing and is emphasized in a FY 1993
Presidential Initiative for biotechnology research. Assisted by
this research, the biotechnology industry is projected to grow
from an approximately $3.5 billion industry currently to a $15-50
billion industry within the next ten years. Since the industry
is potentially in a phase of rapid growth, it is important that
EPA ensure its regulatory programs protect human health and the
environment while not placing undue burden on the industry. The
-117-
-------
stated goals of the 90-day moratorium announced by the President
were to evaluate existing regulations and programs and to
identify initiatives that will eliminate any unnecessary
regulatory burden or otherwise promote economic growth. This
goal appears to be particularly useful for sectors of the
biotechnology industry which are developing new applications for
biotechnology, as in the area of bioremediation.
-118-
-------
90 - DAY MORATORIUM REVIEW
BIOTECHNOLOGY
ACTION
OFFICE
ACTION DATE/COMMITMENT
INTERAGENCY POLICY STATEMENTS:
1. Participate in issuance of FR Notice on Federal
oversight of biotechnology products.
2. Complete policies/roadmaps for biotechnology products. EPA
has lead on roadmap for microorganisms. EPA is participating in
discussions on foods policy, with FDA lead; and roadmap for plants,
with USDA/APHIS lead; and animals, with USDA/FSIS lead.
OPPTS
OPPTS
Completed, February 27,1992
FDA Foods Policy Notice published, April 1992;
Plant, Microorganism, Animal Roadmaps; Spring 1992
ENCOURAGE USE OF LOW- RISK PESTICIDES:
1. Propose notification regulation for certain microbial
pesticides under FIFRA. [P2]
2. Publish notice regarding incentives for development and
reregistration of reduced risk pesticides. [PI]
3. Streamline regulatory process for biological pesticides. [P4]
4. Target regulatory program for biochemical pesticides
for refinement with the goal of reducing burden on EPA and
industry. [P4]
5. Increase regulatory certainty for transgenic plant pesticides.
OPPTS
OPPTS
OPPTS
OPPTS
OPPTS
Publish NPRM, May 1992
Publish Notice, May 1992; Workshop, Fall 1992
Publish Pesticide "Users Manual", Summer 1992
Gather and summarize available research data on
pheromones, 1992-93
SAP and BSAC meetings, Summer 1992
Numbers in brackets are reference numbers to the Index of EPA Actions and Commitments
-119-
-------
90 - DAY MORATORIUM REVIEW
BIOTECHNOLOGY CONT...
ACTION
OFFICE
ACTION DATE/COMMITMENT
ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MICROORGANISMS
FOR TSCA USES:
1. OPPT communication strategy on TSCA uses of naturally
occurring and certain genetically modified microorganisms.
2. Propose rule for TSCA uses of microorganisms.
3. Develop categories for certain microorganisms
subject to TSCA section 5.
OPPTS
OPPTS
OPPTS
Articles in Bioremediation publications, Spring 1992;
Additional outreach continuing in Spring 1992 and later
Publish NPRM.FY 1993
Information on 1st catergories, Fall 1992/Winter 1993
ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF BIOREMEDIATION:
1. Enhance ATTIC with BAC case studies on bioremediation.
2. Publish Bioremediation Research Program Strategy.
3. Develop case studies on biotechnology and pollution prevention.
4. Complete Region VI contingency plan for oil spills.
5. Develop Regions VIE and DC contingency plans for oil spills.
6. Develop oil spill protocol to evaluate bioremediation products.
7. Complete evaluation of bioremediation field initiatives.
ORD/BAC
ORD
ORD/BAC
ORD/BAC/OSWER
ORD/BAC/OSWER
ORD/BAC/NETAC
ORD/OSWER
Draft Case Study Report (1st report), March 1992;
Final Case Study Report (1st report). Summer 1992;
Detailed Case Study Report (2nd report), Summer 1992
Draft, February 1992; Final report, Fall 1992
First report, Fall 1993
VI Contingency plan, February 1992
VOI and DC Contingency plans, Fall 1993
Draft Protocols, February, 1992;
Draft Tier 4 Protocol, December 1992
Evaluations completed, Fall 1993
BAC = Bioremediation Action Committee composed of: ORD + OSWER + OPPTS + Industry + States + Public Interest Groups.
NETAC=National Environmental Technology Applications Corporation
-120-
-------
90 - DAY MORATORIUM REVIEW
BIOTECHNOLOGY CONT...
ACTION
OFFICE
ACTION DATE/COMMITMENT
REDUCE REGULATORY BARRIERS TO THE USE
OF BIOREMEDIATION:
1. Increase limits for hazardous waste treatability studies. [SI8]
2. Allow waste temporary containment buildings for bioremediation
of RCRA waste. [S3,S12,S19]
3. Revise BDAT standards for soil to encourage
bioremediation. [S4]
4. Propose amendments for PCS disposal. [P10]
OSWER
OSWER
OSWER
OPPTS
Publish NPRM, Fall 1992
Publish Final rule, Spring/Summer 1992
Publish NPRM, Fall 1992;
Publish Final rule, Spring 1993
Publish NPRM, Fall 1992
-120A-
-------
-120B-
-------
ACTIONS
A. INTERAGENCY ACTIVITIES
1) Participate in issuance of the February 27, 1992 Federal
Register Notice on Federal oversight of biotechnology
products.
Description
The Administration's goal in publishing this Federal Register
Notice is to provide a framework for Federal oversight which
targets those products of biotechnology most likely to result~iri
unreasonable risk. The Notice sets forth the basis for agencies'
exercise of oversight authority within the scope of discretion
afforded by statute. It describes a risk-based approach to the
oversight of planned introductions of biotechnology products into
the environment. EPA was one of the principle contributors to
the development of this Notice.
Benefits/cost savings
This document clarifies that risk-based principles are to be
applied by Federal agencies in determining those products of
biotechnology which may require Federal oversight. One benefit
of this clarification is that it should reduce the uncertainty
which has existed for a number of years concerning Federal
oversight and, thus, should encourage investment in and
development of biotechnology products. Another benefit of the
Administration's policy statement is to ensure that limited
federal oversight resources are applied where they will
accomplish the greatest potential protection of public health and
the environment.
Commitments
Completed; February 27, 1992.
-121-
-------
2) Complete regulatory policies/roadmaps for products of
biotechnology.
Description
The Biotechnology Working Group of the President's Council on
Competitiveness has asked those agencies involved in overseeing
biotechnology to develop a "roadmap" describing the complete
regulatory structure for plants, animals, microorganisms, and
foods used in biotechnology. EPA has the lead in developing the
regulatory roadmap for microorganisms. EPA is participating in
discussions on a policy for foods derived from new plant
varieties, with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as the
lead; plants with USDA/APHIS as the lead; and animals with
USDA/FSIS as the lead.
Benefits/cost savings
A description of each agency's program will be provided
together with a description of how the various programs fit
together. The types of products subject to regulation and the
responsible agency will be outlined in the roadmaps. The
primary benefit of these roadmaps will be to further reduce
regulatory uncertainty for the biotechnology industry.
Commitments
FDA Foods Policy Notice to be published in April 1992.
Roadmap for plants to be completed in Spring 1992.
Roadmap for microorganisms to be completed in Spring 1992.
Roadmap for animals to be completed in Spring 1992.
-122-
-------
B. ENCOURAGE USE OF LOW-RISK PESTICIDES
>2 1) Propose regulation for notification of small-scale testing
for certain microbial pesticides.
Description
EPA's primary goal for biological pesticides (i.e.,
microbial, biochemical and transgenic plant pesticides) is to
promote and facilitate the development and use of these generally
low-risk or "safer" products. Biological pesticides are useful
and effective alternatives to many of the more toxic conventional
chemical pesticides.
Interest in biological pesticides has increased due to concern
about chemical pesticide residues and food safety as well as the
adverse environmental effects associated with some conventional
pesticides. In addition, biotechnology provides the "tools" to
increase the effectiveness and commercial competitiveness of many
of these biological pesticides.
Many of the data requirements for the registration of
pesticides require testing in the field. To ensure testing is
done appropriately, EPA requires an Experimental Use Permit (EUP)
for certain field tests. Large scale tests generally require
EUPs; small scale tests are generally presumed not to need an
EUP. For many genetically modified and nonindigenous microbial
pesticide products, the developer currently must notify and
obtain the approval of EPA before small scale field testing.
EPA's proposed amendments to its Experimental Use Permit (EUP)
regulations will provide regulatory relief by narrowing the scope
of organisms subject to this notification requirement. It would
significantly reduce the small-scale field tests that currently
require submissions.
Benefits/cost savings
This proposed rule is projected to reduce the number of
notifications to EPA for small scale testing of pesticides by
approximately 75%, and save $100,000 - $500,000 annually in
direct costs to industry and EPA. More importantly, there are
significant unquantified benefits in terms of reducing regulatory
uncertainty, and thus encouraging research and development in
pesticidal applications of biotechnology.
Commitments
EPA expects to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in
May 1992.
-123-
-------
PI 2) Publish Notice on "Incentives for Development and
Registration of Reduced Risk Pesticides" (the "Safer
Pesticides Policy").
Description
Registering a new pesticide is a very costly undertaking —
both in time and money. Pesticide registration decisions are
based primarily on EPA's evaluation of the test data provided by
applicants. For a major food-use pesticide (which normally
requires the most testing), testing can cost the manufacturer up
to $10 to $15 million. It can take six to nine years to develop,
test, and register a new pesticide.
EPA intends to publish a Federal Register notice soliciting
public participation in a project designed to encourage the
development of lower risk pesticides such as biological or other
newer pesticides, including genetically modified microbial
pesticides. The project's goal is to develop policies under
which EPA would provide incentives to registrants, including
reducing compliance costs and red tape, to encourage innovation,
leading to a net effect of economic growth with decreased risk to
public health and the environment.
Among possible incentives under consideration by EPA to
encourage development of lower risk products are the following:
counsel applicants early in the process to clarify registration
requirements; accelerate the review process; allow fee waivers;
and reduce or defer certain data requirements for lower risk
products.
Benefits/cost savings
This project is just being initiated with publication of a
Federal Register notice soliciting public input and
participation. Benefits and cost savings have not yet been
determined, but based on current incentives associated with
biological pesticides, benefits could be significant for
developers and registrants of lower risk pesticides.
Commitments
Publish Federal Register notice in May 1992.
Hold public workshop on options and issues in Fall 1992.
-124-
-------
P4 3) Streamline regulatory process for biological pesticides.
Description
At its Biologicals Planning Conference held in July 1991, The
Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) recognized that, in view of
the continually increasing number of EUP and registration
submissions for biological pesticides (including products of
biotechnology), there is a need to review the day-to-day handling
of submissions to ensure efficient work-flow and decision-making.
OPP also recognized the need to reaffirm its commitment (made in
the 1979 "Biorational Pesticide Policy," 44 FR 23994) to
facilitate the regulatory process for biological pesticides.
Some other possible areas for relief in the regulatory process
include reduced fees, generic waivers and generic tolerances.
A systematic evaluation and process improvement effort will be
undertaken in order to reduce and/or make more predictable the
processing time for biological pesticides. A "User's Manual"
will also be completed to guide applicants through the regulatory
process and avoid time consuming "regulatory pitfalls".
Benefits/cost savings
Improving the efficiency of EPA's administrative processes for
registering biological pesticides will save time and resources
for industry and the Agency. The User's Manual will help guide
applicants more quickly through the regulatory process.
Additional improvements will facilitate product development by
reducing the time needed to review applications for biologicals
and making the regulatory process more predictable.
Commitments
Streamlining the regulatory process will be an ongoing
project. The first step of the project is the "User's Manual",
which will be completed in mid-summer 1992.
-125-
-------
•p4 4) Target regulatory program for biochemical pesticides for
refinement with the goal of reducing burden on EPA and
industry.
Description
OPP has identified several areas where the regulatory program
for biochemical pesticides (e.g., pheromones, natural regulators)
warrants refinement and streamlining, the result of which would
be to reduce burden on both EPA and the regulated community. In
addition, the Agency has received several industry and user group
petitions over the past several years urging EPA to take these
kinds of actions. Industry has expressed particular concern that
the EUP limitations are discouraging product development. The
pheromone industry has recently formed a trade association,
"American Semiochemical Association", which could serve as a
focal point for discussion with EPA about regulatory relief
efforts.
Areas that could be modified to reduce burden include:
revisions to testing protocols (Subdivision M) similar to those
made for microorganisms in 1989 and data requirements (40 CFR
Part 158) with particular emphasis on data for EUPs and the
potential for generic registration/regulation of certain classes
of pheromones. Additional options for regulatory relief include
generic exemptions from regulation for certain classes of
pheromones and amendments to the EUP regulations to allow
experimental testing of certain pheromones on more than 10 acres
without requiring an EUP.
Benefits/cost savings
The revision of Subdivision M guidelines and the data
requirements (Part 158) could reduce the cost and time of
generating data for registrants developing certain low risk
biological pesticides such as pheromones. This will encourage
innovation and product development for these biochemical
products.
Commitments
Beginning in July 1992, EPA will gather and summarize
available research data on pheromones in support of future
efforts to revise testing protocols in Subdivision M and data
requirements in Part 158. Commitments on future efforts will
depend on a review of Agency resources.
-126-
-------
5) Increase regulatory certainty for transgenic plant
pesticides.
Description
OPP has developed a coordinated review scheme with USDA/APHIS
for small-scale tests of transgenic plants with pesticidal
properties, thereby helping to avoid duplicative review and
regulation. This coordinated review process is currently being
evaluated with an eye towards implementing further streamlining
and to more effectively utilize EPA resources. In addition,
efforts are now underway at EPA to develop a policy or proposed
regulation for transgenic plant pesticides. This policy would
help Clarify the responsibilities of EPA, FDA, and USDA with
respect to federal oversight of commercialization of transgenic
plants.
Benefits/cost savings
OPPTS efforts to develop a coordinated review scheme for
transgenic plant pesticides would result in more efficient use of
EPA resources and better coordination of regulatory efforts with
other federal agencies. More importantly, it would eliminate
duplicative review and the associated costs for the developers of
these products.
Development of a policy or proposed regulation for transgenic
plant pesticides would clarify FIFRA requirements and reduce
regulatory uncertainty, thereby promoting the development and
commercialization of these products.
Commitments
OPPTS will develop a draft transgenic plant pesticide policy
under FIFRA and FFDCA in Summer 1992. A FIFRA Scientific
Advisory Panel (SAP) and a Biotechnology Science Advisory
Committee (BSAC) meeting are planned for Summer 1992 to discuss
issues related to the assessment of transgenic plant pesticides.
-127-
-------
C. ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF MICROORGANISMS FOR TSCA USE
1) Communication strategy on TSCA uses of naturally occurring
and certain genetically modified microorganisms.
Description
The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) proposes
to develop a communication strategy aimed primarily at clarifying
TSCA's applicability to microorganisms used in bioremediation.
Confusion over coverage is particularly high among persons
involved with using microorganisms for bioremediation, as some
are not aware that bioremediation would be considered a TSCA use.
However, it is more common to find that people are aware that
bioremediation is a TSCA use, but they are not sure which
microorganisms used for bioremediation would require reporting to
EPA under TSCA Section 5.
The communication strategy would clarify that while
bioremediation is a TSCA use, under the current program,
microorganisms would not be subject to reporting under TSCA
Section 5 unless they were intergeneric microorganisms.
Naturally occurring microorganisms, which are currently being
used by the bioremediation community, are currently not subject
to premanufacture notification under TSCA, nor would they be
subject under the draft proposed rule. This project involves
briefing EPA staff who communicate with the public, preparing
articles for bioremediation publications, and exploring other
opportunities for communicating OPPT's current TSCA biotechnology
policy to the regulated community.
Benefits/cost savings
OPPT feels that the bioremediation community could be assisted
in their decision-making and planning if their obligations under
TSCA were clarified. In some cases the bioremediation community
will avoid unnecessary notification to EPA, while in other cases,
the notice and time requirements for Federal review will be known
and can be accommodated in the planning process.
Commitments
Briefing of EPA Headquarters and Regional staff. In January
1992, OPPT staff briefed staff of the TSCA Hotline on EPA's
current and proposed programs for microorganisms subject to the
TSCA. This briefing was videotaped so that it could be
disseminated to contacts in EPA's regions. OPPTS has also
initiated (begun in Fall 1991) a monthly teleconference call with
designated contact persons in EPA regional offices and has been
using these calls to brief the regions on current and proposed
programs.
-128-
-------
Bioremediation articles. An article entitled "EPA Reviews New
Rules for Microorganisms Under TSCA Section 5" was published in
the March 1992 issue of "Bioremediation in the Field," an EPA
publication which currently has a mailing list of about 4,000.
This article provided information about EPA's current review
programs for TSCA uses of microorganisms and included information
contacts. Articles are being planned for the June issue of
"Biotreatment News", a private publication with a readership of
about 800, and the August issue of "Chemicals in Progress
Bulletin", an EPA publication for persons interested in TSCA-
related issues.
2) Propose regulatory requirements for TSCA uses of
microorganisms.
Description
EPA plans to publish a proposed rule in the Federal Register
for notice and comment. The proposed rule would modify and
clarify the notification requirements for TSCA uses of
microorganisms; it would also exempt certain microorganism from
the requirements. The rule would be published under the
authority of TSCA Section 5.
EPA is currently operating its TSCA biotechnology program
under a 1986 policy statement made as part of the Coordinated
Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology. Under this policy,
persons using intergeneric microorganisms for a commercial TSCA
use must submit a premanufacture notification (PMN) to EPA prior
to their use of the microorganism. .This program is based on
EPA's TSCA authority over chemical substances and was developed
from the New Chemicals Program. The 1986 policy statement also
indicated that prior to the promulgation of a final TSCA rule for
biotechnology products, EPA expected voluntary PMN reporting of
R&D uses involving environmental releases of intergeneric
microorganisms. While EPA has been developing a proposed TSCA
rule for biotechnology products, EPA has been receiving and
reviewing both voluntary and required PMNs for intergeneric
microorganisms for R&D and commercial uses respectively.
For persons submitting PMNs for general commercial uses of
microorganisms, the current draft of the proposed rule contains a
reporting process tailored to microorganisms, clarifies the
applicability of the test marketing exemption (TME) for
microorganisms, establishes a flexible exemption process under
TSCA section 5(h)(4) and proposes several candidate
microorganisms for exemption.
For persons who have been voluntarily submitting PMNs for
-129-
-------
environmental R&D uses of microorganisms subject to TSCA, the
current draft of the proposed rule would provide an abbreviated
reporting process tailored to R&D activities, reduce overlapping
jurisdiction with other Federal agencies as much as possible,
establish a flexible exemption process under TSCA section 5(h)(4)
and propose several candidate microorganisms for exemption under
the process.
Benefits/cost savings
The proposed rule contains several important initiatives
(described above) which are intended to reduce regulatory burden.
Publication of the final rule would provide the regulated
community with certainty about TSCA biotechnology regulation, and
thus would encourage research, development and commercialization
of these products.
Commitments
Publish NPRM; FY 1993
3) Develop categories for certain microorganisms currently
subject to premanufacture reviews under TSCA Section 5.
Description
EPA will develop category decisions for certain microorganisms
which it has reviewed under its premanufacture notification (PMN)
program and for which it expects future submissions for similar
uses. The New Chemicals Program has developed chemical
categories to guide PMN submitters and facilitate the PMN review
process. Categories are developed after EPA has enough
information to identify hazard concern(s) for a specified
category of chemical substances and then provide information on
testing options which can be used to address these concerns.
OPPTS has determined that this approach could be used to develop
similar microorganism categories and expedite PMN reviews in the
interim before the TSCA rule for biotechnology products is
promulgated. In this way, EPA can accelerate the benefits of
reduced regulatory review to the biotechnology industry before
promulgation of the exemptions proposed to be included in the
rule.
Based on previous PMN submissions, OPPTS has begun development
of categories for specific recipient microorganisms for which it
expects to receive additional PMN submissions.
Benefits/cost savings
Development of categories would result in a reduction in the
-130-
-------
amount of information necessary for PMN submissions for certain
products of biotechnology and greater regulatory certainty for
the submitter, in addition to allowing for a more rapid
evaluation by EPA. OPPTS is proposing to develop categories for
microorganisms that it knows will continue to be the subject of
commercial use PMN submissions. This should provide a small
resource savings to the regulated community and EPA; however, the
savings has not been quantified at this time.
Commitments
Information on the first two categories will be developed and
disseminated in Fall 1992/Winter 1993.
-131-
-------
D. ENCOURAGE DEVELOPMENT OF BIOREMEDIATION
Communication Strategies
1) Enhance ATTIC information network.
Description
An important component of EPA's program to expand the
responsible use of bioremediation is the communication of current
and past activity in this area. Pursuant to this, EPA's Office
of Research and Development (ORD), in conjunction with the ORD-
sponsored Bioremediation Action Committee (BAG, composed of: ORD,
OSWER, OPPTS, Industry, States, and Public Interest Groups), has
undertaken an effort to gather information on bioremediation case
studies to supplement available data in EPA's Alternative
Treatment Technologies Information Center (ATTIC) information
retrieval network. ATTIC provides technical information on
innovative treatment methods for hazardous wastes and other
contaminants that can provide site remediation managers with
information to make effective decisions on cleanup alternatives.
Prior to this activity, there were approximately 250 cases in the
biological treatment portion of ATTIC. An additional 132 cases
were added.
Benefits/Cost Savings
The benefits of this information dissemination project cannot
be quantified; however, making information on bioremediation more
widely available should encourage further use of these
technologies.
Commitments
Two reports are planned:
1) The first report entitled Bioremediation Case Study
Collection; 1991 Augmentation of the Alternative Treatment
Technology Information Center (ATTIC) was available as a
draft in March 1-992, and will be published by Summer, 1992.
2) Detailed information on each of the 132 cases is expected
to be available in a second publication to be published in
Summer 1992.
-132-
-------
2) Publish Bioremediation Research Program Strategy.
Description
In December 1991, ORD released its draft Bioremediation
Research Program Strategy. This document identifies a strategy
for addressing important knowledge gaps. Sites containing any of
five waste types have been identified as a first priority for EPA
research in this site-directed approach. The five waste types:
1) organic solvents, 2) wood-preserving chemicals, 3) halogenated
aromatic hydrocarbons, 4) pesticides, and 5) munitions were
selected based on their prevalence at National Priority List
(NPL) sites and the regulatory requirements governing their
control or removal (CERCLA and RCRA). The strategy will be
important in directing what is expected to be a growing program.
Benefits/Costs
Information regarding the future direction of EPA research is
important for encouraging the development of all bioremediation
efforts. The Bioremediation Research Program Strategy is an
important element in this process.
Commitments
The draft document was peer-reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory
Board (SAB) in February 1992. The final version of the strategy
is expected to be published during Fall 1992.
3) Develop case studies on biotechnology and pollution
prevention.
Description
While efforts to date have been primarily directed toward
remediation, there is great potential for the application of
biotechnology to pollution prevention. An ongoing project of ORD
and the BAG is seeking to document the use of biotechnology for
the prevention, reuse, and in-line treatment of pollutants. In
this project, ORD will develop case studies on the use of
biotechnology for pollution prevention which are expected to be
available in automated databases as well as in hardcopy.
Benefits/Costs
This information should encourage the development and use of
biotechnology for prevention, recycling and reuse of pollutants.
Commitments
A first report identifying applications to phenolics and
methylene chloride should be available during Fall 1992.
-133-
-------
Protocols and technical guidelines.
4, 5) Develop interim guidelines and bioremediation spill
response plans.
Description
When EPA Administrator Reilly addressed the Second EPA-
Industry Meeting on Environmental Applications of Biotechnology
in June 1991, he expressed a desire to see a bioremediation
component included in all U.S. oil and hazardous spill response
plans over the next three years. The Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) and the ORD-sponsored BAG is
addressing the Administrator's charge through the development of
Interim Guidelines for Preparing Bioremediation Spill Response
Plans.
The interim guidelines document provides the first response
teams with reference questions to ask in the field, or to use in
preplanning for the use of bioremediation agents in responding to
a spill. The questions are related to variables such as oil
types, geology, ecosystem characteristics, storage facilities and
other relevant inputs.
The interim guidelines are now being used to develop a Region
VI contingency plan for the use of bioremediation for oil spill
responses. Region VI was chosen because of its high incidence of
oil spills. Representatives from OSWER and the BAG have assisted
the region and the Regional Response Team in developing the plan.
The plan includes an authorization form for obtaining approval to
use bioremediation agents and a questionnaire that can be used by
the on-scene coordinator after the incident.
EPA Regions VIII and IX have also expressed an interest in
working with the BAG and OSWER to author a contingency plan to
guide responses for oil spills on land. Response plans for these
regions will be developed in the next phase of the effort.
Benefits/Costs
The Interim Guidelines will result in more organization, control,
and better response to oil spills. The Regional Contingency Plans
will establish the needed infrastructure for the use of
bioremediation in the event of an oil spill in those Regions.
These actions should reduce barriers to the use of bioremediation
and encourage further use of this technology.
-134-
-------
Commitments
Interim Guidelines for Preparing Bioremediation Spill Response
Plans; distributed to Regions in 1991.
Region VI Contingency plan for oil spills; approved and available
February 1992.
Region VIII and IX Contingency Plans; available in late 1993.
6. Develop treatability protocols to evaluate bioremediation
products.
Description
The Exxon Valdez accident demonstrated that response
capability can be overwhelmed by a major spill. Traditional
physical and mechanical means of response were clearly inadequate
to address nearly eleven million gallons of spilled oil. A
multitude of bioremediation products were offered for the
response, but decision makers realized they had no method by
which to evaluate product effectiveness and safety. Out of the
necessity to provide a standard evaluation procedure for
bioremediation products used for major oil spills, the ORD, BAG
and National Environmental Technology Applications Corporation
(NETAC) activity on treatability protocol development was born.
A five-tier protocol framework has been developed as the standard
test for product effectiveness. The tiers are organized as
follow:
o basic information (base tier)
o feasibility assessment based on producer information
(tier 1)
o laboratory-scale testing (tier 2)
o simulated field testing program in the laboratory (tier 3)
o limited field-scale demonstration (tier 4)
The base, first and second tier protocols, as well as a draft
tier 3 protocol, have been completed for several ecosystems. The
highest priority is open water, followed by marsh and wetlands,
sandy beaches, inland shoreline, mangrove swamp, Arctic Ocean,
and land and soils. A draft report identifying these protocols
entitled Oil Spill Bioremediation Products Testing Protocol
Methods Manual was developed and is available through NETAC.
Future related activities include developing a tier 4 protocol
and expanding the number of ecosystems for which the protocols
are relevant.
Benefits/Cost savings
The project should make bioremediation technologies available
for oil spills in certain ecosystems. As such, it will encourage
further development and use of bioremediation.
-135-
-------
Commitments
Oil Spill Bioremediation Products Testing Protocols Methods
Manual; draft report available in February 1992.
Open-water Tier 4 Protocol; draft available in December 1992.
7. Evaluate the Bioremediation Field Initiative.
Description
The ORD and OSWER Bioremediation Field Initiative was
established to provide information regarding new developments in
the application of bioremediation at hazardous waste sites. The
three components of the initiative are to evaluate full-scale
bioremediation operations, to assist with treatability and field-
or pilot-scale studies, and to develop a bioremediation database.
The seven sites that are currently being evaluated contain a
range of contaminants, including creosotes, petroleum products,
and solvents. The seven sites are as follows:
o Libby, Montana Superfund site
o Park City, Kansas Pipeline site
o Allied Signal Superfund site at St. Joseph, Michigan
o Eielson Air Force Base, Alaska
o Hill Air Force Base, Utah
o Brookhaven, Mississippi Superfund site
o Public Service and Electric site, Denver, Colorado
For each site, specific goals have been established that when
accomplished will contribute to the understanding of field
bioremediation processes. It is expected that each of the seven
sites will have made a contribution by the completion of the 1993
field season. Also planned is an expansion of the initiative to
include pesticide- and munitions-contaminated sites. Selection
of these sites will make the initiative consistent with the site
directives previously discussed in the draft Bioremediation
Research Program Strategy.
Benefits/Costs
This project will result in the use of bioremediation
techniques at selected clean-up sites, and encourage its use in
the future for contaminated media.
Commitments
Evaluations of bioremediation operations at seven selected
sites to be completed in Fall 1993.
-136-
-------
E. REDUCING REGULATORY BARRIERS TO THE USE OF BIOREMEDIATION
S18 1) Increase limits for hazardous waste treatability studies.
Description
Under an existing exclusion, up to 1000 kg of non-acutely
hazardous waste may be Created from a single waste stream with a
maximum of 250 kg (less than two drums) per day. This provision
provides an exemption from identification, listing, generator,
and transporter requirements under RCRA. The quantity limits
are insufficient for testing many pilot-scale technologies. This
serves as an impediment to the development of new technologies
and inhibits treatability testing at hazardous waste sites. In
addition, there is no treatability exclusion for PCB's.
This action would involve a revision of the RCRA Treatability
Study Exemption Rule (40 CFR 261.4 (e)-(f)). The scope will be
limited to contaminated soils only. In granting the existing
exclusion, the Agency determined that it involved a de minimis
public health and environmental risk. This finding covered the
transport, storage, processing, and disposal of the waste
streams. An increase of the exemption limit is predicated on
demonstrating that it does not constitute a significant increase
in risk. It should be noted that authorized states have the
option of adopting this provision, and only seven have done so to
date. The current exemption may however be implemented by EPA
regions in the few remaining states that do not have final RCRA
authorization, unless the state regulation is more restrictive.
Benefits/Cost Savings
Larger scale treatability studies and/or technology
demonstrations are an essential step between initial development
and full-scale application. The ability to conduct timely,
credible, and cost-effective technology evaluations is
particularly important for innovative technologies, such as
bioremediation, which lack established performance records.
Commitments
Undertake rulemaking for an expanded exclusion quantity based
on an evaluation of needs for testing and de minimis risk. Both
RCRA and TSCA actions will be proposed in Fall 1992.
-137-
-------
S3, 2) Allow temporary containment buildings for bioremediation of
S12, RCRA wastes.
S19
Description
Bioremediation is being selected with increasing frequency for
Superfund site remediation. Several different techniques for
soils are available, including slurry phase, solid phase, in-
situ, and land treatment. These approaches differ in terms of
process control, time, and cost for remediation. Solid phase
treatment has been used in Europe and offers greater process
control than either land treatment or in-situ techniques.
Excavated soil is typically mixed with amendments and placed in
an enclosure, such as a building. The enclosure improves process
control by eliminating water run-on/run-off, moderating
temperature, allowing greater moisture control, and controlling
VOC emissions.
Temporary containment buildings for bioremediation were
proposed in the Land Disposal Regulation for Newly Listed Waste
and Debris. Comments were unanimously favorable.
Benefits/Cost Savings
When used for on-site remediation, the requirements for the
containment building could greatly affect the feasibility of
solid phase bioremediation. Permanent buildings and structures
which conform to RCRA tank standards unnecessarily increase
construction cost and pose practical decontamination and disposal
problems.
Commitments
In the final Land Disposal Rule for Newly Listed Waste and
Debris, EPA will further explore the possibility that
bioremediation in a containment building may not be land
disposal. This provision may be finalized as part of the
Temporary Unit rule in December 1992. Implementation of this
provision at specific sites however will require prior EPA/state
approval.
-138-
-------
S4 3) Revise BDAT standards for soil to encourage bioremediation.
Description
OSWER will revise its Best Demonstrated Available Treatment
(BDAT) standards to encourage the use of innovative and cost-
effective technologies such as bioremediation that are more
specific to soil media. The rule will carve out a special set of
treatment standards for soils. The net effect must include
consideration of other rule revisions which may exclude some
contaminated soil from RCRA jurisdiction if the concentration of
hazardous constituents is sufficiently low.
Benefits/Costs
Superfund and RCRA corrective action and closure sites present
unique treatment problems that were not generally considered in
developing the current BDAT standards. These standards were
derived from data for the treatment of industrial process waste,
which were often based on incineration. Treatment standards
which encourage the use of innovative technologies for soils,
such as bioremediation, could result in substantial cost savings.
Commitments
Publish NPRM in Fall 1992.
Publish final rule in Spring 1993.
P10 4) Propose amendments for PCB disposal.
Description
The current PCB disposal rules allow only limited exemptions
from the requirements for incineration or chemical waste
landfilling of PCB wastes. According to a recent OERR study of
over 1200 National Priority List (NPL) sites, approximately 21%
had PCBs as a "significant" contaminant. This represents
approximately 34,000,000 yds of contaminated soils, liquids and
sludges of varying concentrations. Many more undocumented spill
or old disposal sites exist whose wastes might be subject to
these stringent requirements.
OPPTS is currently developing amendments to the PCB disposal
rules which will benefit bioremediation technologies. As
currently envisioned, the amendments would recognize as a
separate class, large volume wastes. The Regional Administrators
(RAs) would be given flexibility in implementing risk management
strategies for these wastes based on site specific
considerations. Specifically, the amendments would allow for
more flexible attainment of the goal of protection from
-139-
-------
unreasonable risk than the stringent requirements for destruction
(99.9999% ORE) or chemical waste landfilling. In addition, the
disposal amendments would provide for self-implementing waivers
for permits for R&D and treatability studies with flexibility on
quantity and time allowed for disposal.
The amendments would also contain an "approval by rule"
provision which would reduce permitting paperwork and multi-
jurisdictional compliance issues by allowing the RAs the
opportunity to recognize other actions (e.g., RCRA permits, state
permits, CERCLA Records of Decision (RODs), etc.) as equivalent
to a TSCA disposal permit. Bioremediation of PCBs is currently a
promising, but undemonstrated technology. The flexibility being
provided by these amendments to the PCB disposal rules would
promote bioremediation by reducing the paperwork burden and allow
a mixture of destructive and non-destructive risk management
techniques for the remediation of contaminated media.
Benefits/Costs
The disposal amendments are expected to speed up the testing
of innovative technologies and reduce duplicative paperwork
burdens for both the government and the regulated community.
The costs for incineration and landfilling vary widely
depending on factors such as the amount of wastes, the
generator's long-term relationship with the disposer, on-site vs.
off-site disposal, nationwide capacity, composition of the waste,
time remaining on one year for disposal clock, etc. Responsible
parties at one Superfund site in New Jersey provided the
following estimates for disposal of 40,000-80,000 yds from that
site:
$17,000,000-34,000,000 Stabilization and landfilling
$21,000,000-43,000,000 On-site incineration
$86,000,000-172,000,000 Off-site incineration
Average R&D disposal technology permit applications cost
$10,000-40,000. Large fixed site applications might cost between
$100,00-500,000 depending on overlap with RCRA facility
requirements (large facilities tend to be joint TSCA/RCRA) and
the need to collect hydrogeologic data. Given the magnitude of
these costs, the cost savings of these amendments could be
significant; however, the savings have not yet been quantified.
Commitments
Publish NPRM in Fall 1992.
-140-
-------
APPENDIX 7
NATURAL GAS
-141-
-------
Introduction
Natural gas has numerous environmental and economic attributes
that provide strong incentives for its increased utilization and
make it likely to be a larger contributor to the United States'
energy portfolio in the coming years. As a comparatively "clean"
fuel, the burning of natural gas produces less air pollution than
other fossil fuels per unit of energy produced. Natural gas
combustion produces virtually no sulfur oxides (SOX) or particulate
matter (PM), and it emits far less nitrogen oxide (NOX), carbon
monoxide (CO), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) than other
fossil fuels. Additionally, because natural gas emits less carbon
dioxide (CO2) - a greenhouse gas — than other fossil fuels per unit
of energy output, the increased efficient use of natural gas
furthers U.S. policy with respect to global climate change.
Currently, natural gas provides more than one-fifth of all the
primary energy used in the United States (19 quadrillion BTUs out
of a total of 85 quadrillion BTUs). Gas is especially important in
the residential sector, where it supplies nearly half of all the
energy consumed in U.S. homes (5 quadrillion BTUs). Gas supplies
nearly a third of industrial energy demand (7 quadrillion BTUs).
In the electric utility sector, gas currently accounts for
approximately 17% of generation. By 2010, the Energy Information
Agency projects electric utility gas use will nearly double and
account for approximately 20% to 22% of generation.
The next generation of gas-fired turbine generators promises
to take advantage of greatly enhanced technological improvements
that will push efficiency ratings for gas-fired combined cycle
power plants to nearly double the efficiency of the existing
inventory of fossil-fired generation plants. Improved technology
combined with recently 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 the
majority of circumstances, including baseload, intermediate load,
and peak generation capacity.
Other end-use technological advances — such as high efficiency
residential clothes dryers and water heaters, and advanced
absorption and engine driven commercial chillers — will help spur
additional use of natural gas. And increased use of natural gas or
dual-fuel vehicles in commercial fleet applications may lead to
even wider adoption of natural gas as a transportation fuel.
EPA Initiatives
EPA has spoken with other Federal and State agencies,
industry, environmental groups, and other interested constituent
groups to ascertain potential regulatory barriers to the use of
natural gas. From such discussions and an internal review, EPA has
determined that it can best assist the efficient production,
-142-
-------
transportation, and use of natural gas through the following
specific market-oriented, deregxilatory, and regulatory-reform
initiatives:
1. Establish A Mechanism For Addressing Conflicting Coalbed
Methane Ownership Claims
A14. Establish Procedures for Addressing Conflicting Coalbed
Methane Ownership Claims
EPA will support legislation that develops a "forced pooling"
mechanism for addressing conflicting ownership claims over
coalbed methane resources. Methane is a potent greenhouse
gas. Currently, for reasons of mine safety, much methane is
vented by coal mines. In many regions, mines are precluded
from developing economic uses for this gas due to legal
questions regarding its ownership. By enacting forced pooling
legislation, project development can proceed while the
ownership questions are resolved. With such legislation, a
significant amount of methane could be economically recovered
by coal mines and used on site to generate electricity or
transported to pipelines. Federal legislation that enacts a
forced pooling mechanism in those states with no other
existing approach to resolving coal mine methane ownership
questions would promote greater recovery and use of methane by
coal mine. (Such a provision is included in H.R. 776, which
sets aside a royalty of ^/8 from project proceeds for the
entity that is determined to own the rights to the coal mine
methane but allows resource development to proceed prior to
final determination of ownership.)
The Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) and the Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) will work with the
Department of Energy (DOE) and other Federal agencies to
analyze H.R. 776 and other relevant legislation, offer
suggestions for improvements, and support environmentally
beneficial and economically efficient legislation. Both OAR
and OPPE will complete analyses of the economic potential of
coal mine methane by August.
2. Develop "Action Plan" To Aid States In Rationalizing Gas,
Electric, and Environmental Policy
OAR and OPPE, working with DOE, will undertake analyses and develop
an Action Plan to aid state utility and environmental regulators in
making decisions so that gas can contribute fully to an efficient
resource mix. Areas covered will include gas use for electric
generation and efficient gas end-use (including fuel switching).
-143-
-------
Specific areas of action include:
M13. Refine Natural Gas Price Projections: Remove Impediments
Caused By A Shortage Psychology
OPPE has recently launched an investigation of the adequacy of
existing natural gas price projections. Natural gas price
projections through the year 2030 have been revised downward
in recent years, but still remain higher than may be justified
based on geological resource assessments, historic price
behavior, and fundamental market dynamics. OPPE has tasked a
well-known energy consulting firm to review the generally
accepted paradigm, revise their price projections accordingly,
and present their results to a group of leading energy
modelers. Increased industry and government acceptance of the
viability of a low gas price profile through the year 2030
will likely result in greater use of natural gas in utility
and industrial applications. As a result, the cost of
achieving any given level of C02 reduction will be lowered.
OPPE will submit the analysis for peer review with government
agencies, trade associations, and private industry analysts.
EPA will publicize the results of the final report at industry
and government meetings.
M15. Develop An Action Plan Containing Recommendations for State
Utility Commissions to Use to Evaluate New Power Supply and
Conservation Options
OAR, working with OPPE, will develop an Action Plan for State
utility commissions to use in evaluating utility proposals for
bringing new power supply on line and for investing in
conservation programs. The Action Plan will highlight the
reduced risk associated with utility investments in natural
gas generation due to improved deliverability of competitively
priced gas (as discussed above) and reduced emissions of air
pollutants (including C02) .
3. Develop and Support Federal Regulatory Reform Options
EPA will work with DOE, and unilaterally where appropriate, to
promote regulatory reforms at the Federal level that will increase
the economically efficient and environmentally appropriate use of
natural gas. The following specific areas will be pursued:
A15. Issue Emissions standard for Natural Gas Vehicles
EPA will continue to investigate and will issue appropriate
emission standards for natural gas vehicles that will allow
them to compete on an equal bases with other vehicles.
-144-
-------
A7. Issue a Final WEPCo Rule
EPA will issue a final rule (the so-called "WEPCo" rule)
allowing electric utilities to make certain physical and
operational changes at existing power plants without having to
undergo expensive and time-consuming "new source" review.
Because many of the modifications discouraged by the current
regime are conversions to natural gas or gas co-firing
generators, the final rule should lead to increased natural
gas usage.
M14. Redefine Appliance Efficiency Standards To Place Natural Gas
Appliances On Equal Playing Field
EPA will work with DOE as part of the regular appliance
standards review process to examine the basis of appliance
efficiency standards so that the standards are not inherently
and unnecessarily biased against natural gas appliances.
Efficiency standards for gas-fired furnaces are currently
undergoing a review.
o Ensure Unbiased Incentives For Acid Rain Compliance
EPA will work to ensure that Clean Air Act regulations for the
allocation of bonus allowances and other provisions of the Act
define least cost energy plans as those that consider the full
range of supply- and demand-side options, including gas-fired
combined cycle generation plants, co-firing of natural gas
with coal, as well as giving equal weight to electric and gas
end-use technologies in utility-sponsored conservation
programs. OAR will ensure that all regulations promulgated
under the Clean Air Act will provide for the consideration of
the full range of supply- and demand-side options.
EPA also notes that it will continue to support the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) and other Federal agencies in their
efforts to fashion economically efficient and effective
regulations, and to improve and streamline regulatory procedures:
M16. Streamline EIS for Pipeline Construction
EPA will actively work to streamline the environmental review
process for pipeline construction. The Office of Federal
Activities will work with FERC to scope out critical issues
related to the environmental review process, including the
implementation of appropriate procedural changes that will
improve multilateral communication among FERC, the pipeline
applicant, and other Federal agencies.
-145-
-------
M12. Ensure Unregulated, Free Market Sales of CNG
Sales ofcompressed natural gas (CNG) 'for vehicles should not
fall under the jurisdiction of regulated and franchised local
distribution companies. Failure to develop in a free and
competitive market may stifle CNG as a transportation fuel
alternative. EPA will support the proposed FERC rule that
will remove perceived regulatory barriers to the sale of CNG
for use in motor vehicles. This rule will altogether exclude
from FERC jurisdiction most local wholesalers of CNG. EPA
will work to ensure that other barriers to the efficient use
of CNG are removed.
-146-
-------
APPENDIX 8
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION
-147-
-------
TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION AND COMMERCIALIZATION
Importance of Technology Innovation
It has become increasingly clear over the past several years that continued
improvement in environmental protection will depend on innovations in technology
and monitoring. The increasing costs of carrying out the growing number of
environmental mandates have pointed out the need for newer solutions that are
more cost effective. A number of Agency and interagency panels have concluded
the same thing, as exemplified by the National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology:
The United States' potential to improve the environment is directly related to
our ability to produce and apply technological solutions. . . . Accelerated
development and commercialization of innovative technology for
environmental purposes is necessary to improve environmental quality and
enhance economic productivity.
Innovative technology refers to equipment products, and techniques which
are not readily available off-the-shelf and which promise to be more
environmentally cost effective than those currently available. New technologies
can take many forms, including:
development of cleaner, "greener" products
design of cleaner production processes
improved pollution control equipment
more cost effective cleanup techniques
improved monitoring and measuring methods
In addition, EPA has the opportunity to become an active participant in the
National Technology Initiative, which President Bush established to help U.S.
industry use technology to improve economic growth and strengthen U.S.
competitiveness. The Agency's understanding of the technologies that are
deployed and permitted to meet environmental responsibilities gives EPA an
important role in the initiative.
Furthermore, key environmental legislation and international agreements (e.g.
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990; Montreal Protocol on Chlorofluorocarbons;
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986) recognize that the solution to environmental
problems must be phased in over the next few decades, and may require a
generation of technology beyond the current state of the art.
-148-
-------
Regulatory barriers and economic disincentives currently exist that impede
the development of innovative environmental technologies. Some of these include
unresolved questions about product and cleanup liability; technology-based
regulatory standards and regulatory reliance on "available technology"; inadequate
data on the potential market for various technologies; conflicting regulatory
standards between media; and the regulatory difficulties in obtaining permits or
field trials for research, testing, or marketing.
Existing regulatory structures may also permit existing technology to become
entrenched, impeding market penetration by environmentally preferable products or
technology. As part of its 90-Day Review effort, the Agency is proposing to
remove certain regulatory barriers to innovation. These actions are described in
the Appendices for the Office of Pesticides, Prevention, and Toxic Substances (see
item P2) and the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (see items S2 -
S5, S12, S18, and S19) and are not discussed here.
The lack of knowledge about (and the unpredictable nature of) permitting
processes amplifies the risk faced by investors, developers, and users of innovative
environmental technologies. This is contrary to the public interest because it
stifles the development and availability of innovative technology for environmental
purposes and weakens domestic industry by increasing the cost of innovation and
the cost of compliance.
The purpose of this 90-day task force is to propose additional actions that
EPA can pursue that will foster development and commercialization of innovative
environmental technologies. This will improve the competitiveness of American
industry by improving cost effectiveness of compliance with environmental
regulations. It will also provide added impetus to the important position U.S.
environmental technology vendors can have in world markets.
The U.S. currently spends in excess of $115 billion annually on pollution
prevention and pollution control. The purpose of this proposal is to expand and
accelerate the availability of innovative technologies that will reduce these costs.
Such savings may accrue to the developer due to reduced costs and red tape
associated with development though the amount and nature of the savings will
vary widely depending on the type and stage of development of the technology.
Savings will also accrue to the economy due to cheaper compliance. While no one
can say just which technologies will come to fruition that might not otherwise have
come to the fore, there is no question that innovative technologies can
substantially reduce costs. For example, under OW's Innovative and Alternative
Technology Program associated with the construction grants program, a 15%
minimum cost reduction potential was used as a technology screening yardstick.
Dozens of technologies were installed and most exceeded this minimum by
substantial margins. So, it may be safely assumed that the potential is there for
innovative technologies to have a multi-billion dollar impact on the cost of
compliance with environmental programs.
-149-
-------
EPA's Role in Innovation
Until recently, EPA's role in innovative technology development and
commercialization has been somewhat fragmented, consisting largely of spinoffs
of in-house and contractual research conducted by the Office of Research and
Development (ORD). Important technology contributions have emerged from this
work in pollution prevention and waste minimization, air pollution control, drinking
water treatment, wastewater management, hazardous waste destruction, and site
remediation. The advent of the Federal Technology Transfer Act authorities have
more recently allowed outside firms to further engage EPA labs in technology
evaluation and authentication. In addition, the Superfund law enabled ORD to
create a highly successful effort to conduct short-term evaluations of innovative
technologies called the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program. These published evaluations verify vendor claims about technology
performance and have proved an important force in breaking down barriers to the
use of new technologies. The MITE program is similar, testing innovative
technologies for managing municipal solid wastes.
ORD also conducts two technology clearinghouses. The Pollution Prevention
Information Clearinghouse (PPIC), a joint program of ORD and Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS), is an automated, searchable
information base covering pollution prevention techniques and technologies among
other things. It has recently been cloned by the United Nations Environment
Program (UNEP) as a worldwide system. ATTIC, the Alternative Treatment
Technology Information Clearinghouse, contains up-to-date information on
hazardous waste/Superfund site treatment technologies. Both are available to
industry free of charge. ORD currently sponsors, and was instrumental in
initiating, the National Environmental Technology Applications Corporation
(NETAC), a nonprofit adjunct of the University of Pittsburgh Trust, whose sole
function is to assist innovative technology developers in commercializing their
inventions.
Two years ago, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response created
the Technology Innovation Office (TIO) to act as a champion for innovative
technology use with developers and users inside and outside the Agency in the
"niche" related to contaminated soil and ground water. An integral function of this
office is to provide performance and cost data on innovative treatment
technologies needed by project managers in the public and private sectors. The
removal of barriers to innovation is also an important function of TIO. TIO is active
in constructing public-private partnerships to demonstrate performance of
innovative treatment technologies at Federal facilities; disseminating databases
such as the VISITT (Vendor Information System on Innovative Treatment
Technologies) to connect innovative technology vendors with potential users;
providing the financial community with a projection of what the major
contamination problems will be to inform investment decisions; and, reducing
regulatory disincentives.
-150-
-------
Within the Office of Water, the current focus is on low cost pre-engineered
solutions for small systems and small communities. This effort, called the Low-
Cost Small System Technology Initiative, involves identifying, testing, evaluating,
and facilitating approval of innovative technologies. A public-private partnership,
the Federal component applies resources from EPA, The Departments of State and
Commerce and the Farmers Home Administration. Similar programs for
wastewater technology, some of them grant funded, are underway within the
Office of Water. A clearinghouse for wastewater technology and another for
drinking water equipment is operated at West Virginia University. Both provide
technical assistance to water and wastewater management authorities with a
focus on innovative technologies.
OPPTS is instituting a program entitled, "Design for the Environment" to
accelerate design and adoption of cleaner technologies. This is a major new
pollution prevention outreach program that will focus on less polluting chemicals
and production processes. A voluntary incentives program is included.
Another example is the Integrated Pest Management Program that EPA and USDA
are jointly sponsoring. The Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, assisted
by several offices, is evaluating the potential for a one stop multimedia
experimental permit to facilitate development of innovative technologies.
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), in conjunction
with ORD, operates the Control Technology Center to assist State/local
governments and industry with issues relating to technology applications,
performance and cost. Moreover, OAQPS is heavily committed to providing
flexibility in responding to Clean Air Act mandates to encourage the development
and use of innovative technologies. Principal examples include: (1) the Early
Reduction program which allows industry six additional years to comply with
hazardous emission standards in exchange for substantial reduction in emissions
prior to standard proposal; (2) performance based standards which allow industry
freedom to adopt non-traditional methods, including emissions averaging, to
achieve compliance; and (3) aggressive pursuit of concepts such as marketable
permits to stimulate innovation in responding to regulatory requirements. The
added flexibility of these and other regulatory provisions is expected to spur the
use of innovative technologies as industries search for more cost effective ways to
achieve compliance.
The Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement has adopted a strategy to
aggressively promote the use of Federal facilities as testing centers and sites for
the development of innovative technologies in the areas of clean up, site
investigation and pollution prevention. This strategy has the support of DOE and
the Department of Defense. The basic premise is to leverage the resources and
expertise in the Federal government, and use the flexibility of Superfund
enforcement agreements to foster technology development.
-151-
-------
At this point, EPA's role can be described.as a modest technology
developer, technology evaluator, and technology transfer agent. Much more is
possible. In fact, private sector developers often pursue the Agency for its
"awareness" of their technologies. The regulated community would like the
assurance that technologies are available to cost-effectively solve problems that
the Agency regulates. Thus, while technology understanding and information
dissemination is important to EPA's mission, the Agency has only partially met
expectations or acted on chances to be a technology "player." As an example,
EPA regulation writers have not realized all the opportunities to include new, but
unproven, technology developments that might fundamentally change the cost of
compliance. Developers of such technologies can readily discuss with researchers
the nature of their new application, but are generally without an audience
elsewhere in EPA.
Opportunities for Improvement
This analysis suggests that EPA is empowered and capable of a much
broader role as a partner with the private sector in environmental technology
development and commercialization. The concept proposed is that EPA exercise
its research, evaluation, information brokering, regulatory and advocacy roles on
behalf of the development, assessment, and commercialization of innovative
technologies to assure the reduction of risk. EPA can and should be cognizant of
the nature of technology needs in its media programs. It should articulate the state
of current technology development to solve certain problems. At the same time, it
should challenge and be available to conduct joint development and evaluation
efforts with technology developers and the regulated community to pursue new
solutions to these problems.
Such a role is not fundamentally grounded in a massive influx of new
resources. It has to do with EPA's acting out a leadership role in environmental
technology commercialization and even export promotion and trade. In many
cases, EPA's regulatory programs increase the demand for pollution prevention,
control, and site remediation technologies. EPA and the States control the
introduction of such innovation in industrial and municipal settings through
permitting and other administrative processes. Thus, EPA's articulating new
technology needs, partnering with industry to meet them, and
rewarding/recognizing accomplishments by the private (and public) sectors recasts
the Agency's role to that of a technology enabler and leader.
EPA is committing to the following short-term activities as a result of the
90-Day Review:
(M1) Establish an Innovative Agency-Wide Policy Council.
Establish an Agency-wide Innovative Technology Council to (1) act as a Board of
Directors for EPA's "corporate effort" to advocate new environmental technologies
-152-
-------
and (2) aggressively seek out opportunities to leverage private and Federal
investments in innovative environmental technologies.' The Council will be an in-
house advisory and advocacy group composed of representatives from program
offices, regional offices, ORD and certain support offices. Jointly agreed Council
products and programs will be funded by the participating offices. The Council will
be in place by July 1, 1992.
• An "Innovative Technologies Advocate" will be appointed under each
program Assistant Administrator to implement his/her portion of the
Action Plan and provide a continuing customer service "window" for
the private sector. The advocates or their alternates will be the sitting
members of the Innovative Technology Council. These advocates will
be designated by May 1, 1992.
• Each EPA program will define, clearly chart, and disseminate
information on the process required to obtain approval for testing and
demonstration, and for eventual operation, of innovative products and
technologies in compliance with permit or standard requirements.
Continuous improvement in this arena will be pursued. The Council
will package this information and provide it to any interested party by
December 1, 1992.
• Through the Council, as a pilot effort, promote development and
commercialization of emission monitoring and measurement (including
site characterization) and exposure assessment technologies. Build
into the effort all of EPA's prospective new roles as enabler,
evaluator, partner, and facilitator. This strategy will be complete by
February 1, 1993.
• Through the Council, define and offer an integrated package to
technology developers of EPA-owned (and either EPA-operated or
contractor-operated) facilities for testing and evaluation of innovative
pollution prevention/source reduction techniques, remediation
technologies, monitoring technologies, and control technologies.
Because of the availability of monitoring and fail safe backup
equipment, flexible multimedia permits, and expert staff, EPA facilities
may be used to significantly accelerate testing and development of
privately developed innovative technologies through the Federal
Technology Transfer Act. This package will be made available by
October 1, 1992.
• Through the Council, EPA would publish projections of the
national/international markets for pollution prevention/source reduction
techniques, control technologies, remedial technologies, and
monitoring technologies and disseminate these to developers and
investment communities. Act on these assessments by defining for
-153-
-------
developers priority technology-gaps, to solve problems in each media.
An initial analysis will be made available to developers by May 1,
1993.
• Through the Council, promote a better understanding among EPA
organizations, industry, and academia regarding the opportunities for
collaborative research and commercial technology development
through the Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA). As a follow-up
to our involvement in the National Technology Initiative, EPA will
conduct a series of environmental conferences and technology trade
fairs designed to showcase EPA's capacity and willingness to work
with industrial partners on projects of mutual interest. A primer will
be available December 1, 1992, for distribution to industry and the
public on cooperative innovative technology development with EPA
through FTTA.
In the longer term, EPA intends to design, through the Council, an Agency-
wide strategy for developing, nurturing, and mainstreaming innovative technologies
and using the "creativity of the marketplace" to reduce environmental risk. The
strategy will evaluate impediments to technology innovation and develop an
agenda for addressing them.
-154-
-------
APPENDIX 9
EXPORT PROMOTION
-155-
-------
SUMMARY
The international market for environmental goods and services is large and expanding.
Estimated at $200 billion a year, worldwide sales are estimated to be growing at an annual
rate of 5.5%. International competition to serve this market is expected to increase
significantly in the years ahead, with Japan, Germany, and the United States all playing
particularly active roles.
The Department of Commerce and other Federal agencies with export promotion
responsibilities see broad opportunities for increasing the export of U.S. environmental
technologies and services. In addition, international development agencies, such as the
Agency for International Development (AID), see an expanding role in environmental
"capacity building" in developing countries as a complement to overseas market
development.
While export promotion has not been part of EPA's traditional role or mandate, the
Agency can play an important role in ensuring that U.S. companies have an opportunity to
compete on fair terms for a share of the global environmental market. EPA is a primary
source of environmental and technical expertise worldwide. Foreign governments,
international organizations, and individuals increasingly turn to EPA for technical assistance
and training and for advice on innovative technologies to address environmental problems.
Building on these outreach opportunities, EPA is taking a more direct role in
environmental export promotion. For example, through active participation in the Trade
Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) chaired by the Department of Commerce and the
U.S.-Asia Environmental Partnership led by AID, EPA participates in a broad range of U.S.
Government activities designed to promote the international competitiveness of the U.S.
environmental industry. EPA is also undertaking a number of its own initiatives in this area,
including regular participation in environmental trade shows and missions, the establishment
of a U.S. Environmental Training Institute (USETI), and the creation of an Environmental
and Energy Efficient Technology Transfer Clearinghouse.
This report summarizes EPA's direct and indirect activities related to both export
promotion and the creation of opportunities for economic growth, including specific
accomplishments achieved during the President's 90-day moratorium of regulations. The
report also proposes elements of a more comprehensive and coordinated strategy of
technology development, technical assistance and export promotion activities through which
EPA could improve its cooperation with other Federal agencies and the private sector. EPA
efforts in this area must, of course, be part of broader U.S. government programs.
-156-
-------
INTRODUCTION; THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
GOODS AND SERVICES
The current international market for environmental goods and services is estimated by
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) at over $200 billion a
year,1 with worldwide sales estimated to be growing at approximately 5.5% a year. Annex
I provides regional examples of the emerging international market.
Within this growing market, the environmental services sector is experiencing the
most rapid growth as the fuller incorporation of clean technologies into industrial processes
requires greater engineering and analytical expertise. Growth in hazardous waste
management and treatment markets has been widely recognized, with recent projections
suggesting an annual total market of $30 billion by the mid-1990s. This opportunity has
stimulated many new corporate ventures. Dupont's new environmental service business, for
example, is projected to grow to $10 billion in ten years.
International competition for these new markets is likely to increase significantly in
the coming years, with Japan, Germany, the European Community, and the United States all
playing particularly active roles. Japan's Ministry of International Trade and Industry
(MITI), for example, has developed an ambitious program ("New Earth 21") to develop new
environmental technologies and to promote environmental ("green") products. Many Japanese
companies now see environmental products as more than a fad and are prepared to make a
significant investment in this area. (See Annex 2.)
Present and future markets for environmental goods and services fall into three
general categories:
(1) those technologies which are required by regulations or which monitor the
environment;
(2) those technologies/services which improve efficiency, are cost-effective and
result in less pollution and or waste; and
(3) those technologies/services which respond to an emerging consumer demand
for "green" products.
EPA'S COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE RELATED TO EXPORT PROMOTION
'OECD,"The Environmental Industry: Trends and Issues," September 25, 1991
-157-
-------
While environmental export promotion has not been a traditional focus of EPA, the
Agency has two unique and linked capabilities which have contributed to the Agency's
playing at least an indirect role over the last twenty years.
1. Leadership in demonstrating innovative solutions to environmental problems
EPA accomplishes this objective through the provision of technical assistance,
information, education and training in support of rigorous programs of environmental
protection. EPA is a major source of human and technical resources to solve
environmental problems. EPA has credibility with developing countries and can provide
technical assistance including environmental assessment, ambient and source
monitoring, inventory and permit development, regulatory development, and enforcement. A
primary consequence of EPA's activities is the enhancement of demand and markets for
environmental technologies, goods and services.
2. Technology innovation, development and diffusion
EPA is a national and international leader in the research and development of new
environmental technologies. For example, the Superfund Innovation Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program, now in its sixth year, promotes the development of alternative clean-up
methods for hazardous waste sites across the nation.
The Federal Technology Transfer Act (FTTA) vests EPA with considerable authority
to cooperate with industries and universities in developing new and innovative environmental
technologies. EPA now participates in over 30 FTTA cooperative research and development
and licensing agreements.
A key objective of EPA's future activities should be to integrate these two capabilities
in a more effective and focused fashion and to develop an organizational structure that will
allow the full resources of the Aeencv to be used.
EPA'S EMERGING ROLE AND ACITVTriES RELATED TO EXPORT PROMOTION
In addition to EPA's indirect role in promoting environmental exports as described
above, EPA has begun to take a more direct role in promoting the export of U.S.
environmental goods and services. EPA has, for example, been an active member of the
Trade Promotion Coordination Committee (TPCC). chaired by the Secretary of Commerce,
which is designed to mobilize U.S. government export and trade opportunities in a number of
-158-
-------
areas, including the environment. The TPCC has 12 sub-groups including one on energy,
environment, and infrastructure.
EPA is also an active participant in the U.S.- Asia Environmental Partnership, which
provides an opportunity for Commerce, AID, EPA and other Federal agencies to interact
with the business community in a targeted program for Asia. The President's Commission
on Environmental Quality (PCEO). chaired by the Council on
Environmental Quality, offers an appropriate external forum to advise on policy related
issues. The PCEQ's international subcommittee has already begun to address technology
cooperation, finance, and export issues.
-159-
-------
EPA is exploring cooperative activities with the newly created Environmental
Technology Export Council (ETEC). a consortium of trade associations and industries
interested in expanding exports of American environmental technology, and with the
Environmental Business Council of New England, a regional association of 160 companies
selling environmental goods and services. EPA also works with trade and business councils,
such as the U.S.-ASEAN Council on Business and Technology, and professional societies in
promoting application and demonstration of appropriate environmental technologies. Finally,
EPA will take advantage of the export-related activities and recommendations of two
committees of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology
(NACEPT) "Trade and the Environment" and "Technology Innovation and Economics"
Committees.
EPA is increasing cooperative efforts with the Department of Commerce and other
Federal agencies with export promotion opportunities through a number of new programs and
activities. EPA will, for example, continue to sponsor or participate in international
environmental trade fairs, workshops, or conferences such as those
described earlier. In addition, EPA will contribute to the Federal Trade Promotion
Calendar, maintained by the Department of Commerce which provides a centralized listing of
all planned trade or technical fairs.
EPA has also undertaken a number of its own initiatives related to environmental
export promotion. The Agency has, for example, organized trade shows, conferences and
workshops on a number of environmental issues, including air and water pollution, hazardous
waste management, and stratospheric ozone depletion. On April 22-23, EPA hosted a major
workshop in Washington DC to explore business opportunities and challenges created by the
reauthorization of the Clean Air Act in 1990. A primary session of the workshop was
devoted to export opportunities.
EPA worked with the Governments of Japan and Thailand to organize a workshop in
Thailand on CFC-safe solvent substitutes. In cooperation with 8 other federal agencies,
EPA has also developed an integrated exhibition of U.S. environmental technologies for
display at the UN Conference on Environmental and Development (UNCED) in Sao Paulo,
June 1992. The theme of this exhibition is "Environmental Technologies: Matching
Solution to Problems."
EPA is working with environmental information managers in Hungary, Bulgaria and
Czechoslovakia to develop environmental geographic information systems. In response to
host country requests, EPA is providing U.S. Geographic Information Systems (CIS)
software and training to help ministry efforts to acquire and manage environmental data on a
-160-
-------
geographic basis. Equipment will be on site and in operation in the summer 1992.
Other activities include the following:
a) EPA will conduct a series of technology oriented trade fairs this year in
Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina, Cincinnati, Las Vegas, Puerto
Rico and Budapest, Hungary;
b) EPA will present a major exhibit at the October 1992 International Symposium
on Environmental Contamination in Central and Eastern Europe in Budapest.
This marks the first EPA initiative to help U.S. vendors of remediation
technologies (from the Superfund SITE program) to showcase their
capabilities; and
c) EPA will sponsor, November 15-17 the Fourth Forum on Innovative
Hazardous Waste Treatment. This conference focuses on technologies which
have been field tested and are ready for commercialization and use.
Domestic and international vendors are given an opportunity to provide
technical papers and poster presentations. The forum serves as a trade fair in
addition to technical conference. Last year over 100 of the 800 attendees were
from other countries.
EPA and the Department of Energy have established Energy Efficiency Centers in
Poland, Russia, and Czechoslovakia to promote economic development and environmental
protection by promoting energy efficiency. The centers promote policy research and
development and policy recommendations for consideration by high-level government
decisionmakers; promote joint ventures by identifying potential domestic and foreign partners
and by providing a mechanism for technology and information transfer; and sponsor technical
training and demonstration projects to increase public awareness of the benefits of energy
efficiency.
Two of EPA's most important initiatives, the U.S. Environmental Traning Institute
(USETT) and the Environmental and Energy Efficient Technology Transfer Clearinghouse are
described in the next section.
-161-
-------
90-DAY ACTIONS AND COMMITMENTS
During the 90-day moratorium, EPA committed to a number of initiatives to promote
economic growth throught the export of environmental goods and services, including the
following. These are listed below, preceded by their number in the Index of EPA Actions
and Commitments.
M2. Establish an EPA EXPORT PROMOTION 2000 (EP-2000) Study Group
While many specific activities are identified below, one of the most important actions
EPA will undertake is the establishment of an agency-wide focal point for information on
EPA programs and activities that can enhance environmental exports. EPA has a diverse
array of tools at its disposal that can and are being used to assist U.S. exports. However, no
single office in EPA has sufficient knowledge of or access to all of the ongoing activities.
The program will allow EPA to systematize its trade promotion activities. The
following elements will be developed as part of this effort:
(a) Develop a strategy for EPA's involvement in export activities that compliments
the efforts of other agencies and private sector organizations.
(b) Disseminate available data on the markets for environmental goods and
services in key foreign countries.6
(c) Explore options for "certifying" American environmental technologies, both
internally and in cooperation with outside organizations. (EPA is, for
example, developing a computerized inventory of innovative hazardous waste
treatment technologies. This Vendor Information System for Innovative
Treatment Technologies (VISITT) will be introduced in May 1992 with about
150 vendors of site remediation technologies.)
(d) Propose mechanisms to better integrate EPA's science and technology
development activities and EPA's technical assistance and export activities;
6 EPA has begun to compile and analyze data on the nature of and size of international markets for
environmental technology. The ASEAN Council has prepared a useful set of studies for the ASEAN countries.
The DOC has also prepared facts sheets on industry trends and highlights for most major markets. EPA will
consider ways make these data more readily available. The Asian Environmental Partnership is compiling a
similar inventory for Asia.
-162-
-------
(e) Define measures of success for trade promotion efforts;
(f) Evaluate within the next year the success of the Environmental and Energy
Efficient Technology Transfer Clearinghouse in Mexico, Vienna and
Washington and expand to other developing countries and regions as
appropriate.
(g) Prepare a communications strategy to advance the Agency's export efforts.
M4. Increase international access to EPA's Environmental and Energy Efficient
Technology Transfer Clearinghouse.
The EPA-AID-DOE Environmental and Energy Efficient Technology Transfer
Clearinghouse is a computerized information service designed to help developing countries
solve environmental and energy problems. The Clearinghouse is a "one-stop-shop"
clearinghouse of clearinghouses for energy efficiency and environmental technology
information. Although there are various information sources available on any particular
topic, there is no single means of accessing all the relevant environmental and energy
efficiency information. The Clearinghouse provides information from a broad group of
commercially available and government data bases, as well as from a number of data bases
developed specifically for the project. The Clearinghouse can access information on the
entire range of topics within the environmental and energy efficiency areas, including
pollution prevention and control, health and ecological effects of pollutants, renewable
energy technology and energy efficient and conservation technologies.
The Clearinghouse is currently operating in three cities - Mexico City (SEDUE, two
trade associations, and NAFINSA, a Mexican government affiliated lending institution),
Washington, DC (EPA, Inter-American Development Bank) and Vienna, Austria (UNIDO
and access by the Regional Environmental Center). For countries in time zones not
compatible with U.S. business hours, EPA is planning to provide a stand-alone system that
can be used without establishing online telecommunications links or conferring with the
Clearinghouse support staff. This simplified system will provide basic data enabling the user
to refer follow-up inquiries to environmental and development institutions with on-line
service or to EPA, DOE or AID.
EPA has begun discussions with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and AID (Asia
Bureau) to develop the stand-alone system. The Agency has also requested support from the
U. S. Asia Environmental Partnership (AEP) to develop the stand-alone system and enlarge
the Green Pages. The stand-alone system will be updated once every year and will be
-163-
-------
distributed to developing countries through UNIDO, Infoterra and Multilateral Banks.
MS. Launch the U.S. Environmental Training Institute (USETD
EPA, with support from other agencies, has launched the U.S. Environmental
Training Institute (USETI). USETI is a not-for-profit, joint venture between the private
sector and the U.S. government to help build environmental capacity in developing countries.
USETI will provide U.S. companies with an opportunity to showcase their technologies and
services to policy leaders and potential clients throughout the developing world.
The objective of USETI is to promote American environmental advances in the
international community. Participants will attend an orientation at EPA in Washington, DC
before attending courses provided primarily by U.S. companies. USETI has appointed an
Executive Director and will hold its inaugural course on Advanced Landfill Management,
May 12-22, 1992. One hundred students are expected to attend the seven scheduled sources
in 1992. A course catalog for fall and 1993 classes will be published this fall. Slots for
500-600 students will be available in the 1993 training year. The President's Commission on
Environmental Quality (PCEQ) has endorsed USETI and has encouraged all PCEQ members
to participate in its programs.
-164-
-------
EPA will establish a government liaison group chaired by the EPA Deputy Administrator
which will include representation from all relevant federal agencies. USETI activities in the
United States will also be expanded overseas. EPA will, for
example, use the newly developed Caribbean Environment and Development Institute as a
link to USETI to explore market opportunities in Central America and the Caribbean. EPA
regional offices in cooperation with local industries will develop courses for USETI.
M3. Future Actions
1. Build on existing bilateral and multilateral programs to assess the environmental and
technological needs of developing countries and newly democratized nations
Country studies, such as those carried out by EPA under the Montreal Protocol and in
Eastern Europe by EPA and AID in cooperation with the World Bank, help identify country
needs as well as potential business opportunities and contracts.
2. Expand development of generic material on environmental technologies and
environmental case studies.
EPA has developed a series of Technical Information Packages (TIPS) on key
environmental issues. Each TIP describes the environmental issue and identified appropriate
technologies to address them. TIPs will be distributed world wide.EPA will also prepare a
special publication on success stories of American technology solving environmental
problems.
3. Demonstrate the application of emerging technologies for solving environmental
problems.
Target specific products and markets for demonstration projects. EPA will work with
AID and DOC in the U.S. Asia Partnership and with AID in evaluating potential for
pollution prevention projects in developing countries. EPA will work with the PCEQ to
develop specific demonstration project in a developing country.
4. Organize "reverse" trade missions (i.e.. missions of foreign buyers to the United
States).
Conducted in cooperation with the Department of Commerce and the Trade and
Development Program, such "reverse" trade missions will be focused around specific
bilateral programs (e.g., inviting international visitors to EPA laboratories to study emerging
technologies). (See Appendix 3 for a sample project on the Tiete River Cleanup in Sao
-165-
-------
Paulo Brazil, a project under joint consideration by EPA and DOC)
5. Complete and expand "Green Pages", as part of Clearinghouse, to include
environmental goods and service suppliers as well as environmental consultants.
EPA's "Green Pages" will provide the names, addresses, phone numbers, and a
description of vendors who offer pollution control, renewable energy, and energy efficient
technologies, services, and equipment.
6. Negotiate an interagency agreement with AID to initiate international pollution
prevention demonstration projects in developing countries.
AID has proposed a program to apply the advances made in the United States in
pollution prevention and environmental quality to developing countries. This cooperative
program will provide technical assistance to factories in developing countries on cleaner
production, source reduction, pollution prevention and waste minimization technologies ~
and in doing so, expand the market for U.S. environmental goods and services.
ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF PROPOSED ACTIONS;
It is not possible to quantitatively assess the economic and other benefits that will be
associated with each of these activities. However, many of the proposed EPA activities have
the potential to enhance and expand existing environmental markets and to create new
markets especially in developing countries. Measures of success would include growth in the
export sales of U.S. companies in the environmental industry.
-166-
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
REGIONAL EXAMPLES OF EMERGING MARKETS:
~ Suppliers of environmental protection goods and services and regulatory agencies are
forecasting significant increase in demand for environmental technologies.
— European capital investment in pollution control technology was estimated at 33$ billion in
1989, 47$ billion in 1995 and $63 billion in 2000.
Southeast Asia:
— Rapid economic growth in the past but at the expense of the environment. Growing
demand for technologies for improving ambient air quality, safe-guarding water systems and
disposal of solid waste.
- Taiwan will spend up to $36 billion on pollution control and clean up over the next 6
years. South Korea expects to spend $2-$ 3 billion a year to clean up its environment.
Mexico:
- U.S.'s fastest growing export market (for all goods). Environmental goods and services
should be an important and growing component of this trade relationship.
- US general exports to Mexico are growing twice as fast as imports.
Seventy cents of every dollar Mexico spends on imports is spent on US goods. Mexico
spends more per capita on US goods than European do and almost twice as much as the
Japanese.
~ Total market for waste handling equipment and services in Mexico was $321 million in
1989; estimated rate of growth is 10% per year. Total market for air and water pollution
control equipments and services estimated at $71- $81 million with projected growth of 15%
per year.
-167-
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
JAPAN'S "EARTH 21;" IMPLICATION FOR EXPORT OF TECHNOLOGY
The Japanese Program called New Earth 21 is a one hundred year plan organized by
MTTI to promote new technology development and the transfer of existing and new
technologies to developing countries.
The various Japanese organizations involved are shown below.
Task Actions Infrastructure
Transfer energy and Increase ODA funds ICETT
environmental technology
10-year plan for
technical training
(10,000 person
training program)
Develop new technology Research and development RITE
GISPRI
Private Sector Global Environment Charter Keddanren
Cooperation MITI
JETRO
JETRO: Japan External Trade Organization, nonprofit government related organization
established in 1968. Its mission is to support trade between Japan and other countries.
ICETT: International Center for Environmental Technology Transfer, established under MITI
in Yokkaichi City. Undertakes training program for overseas personnel and research
activities commissioned by MITI.
RITE: Research Institute of Innovate Technology for the Earth: Core research organization
established for the purpose of promoting Earth 21. Located in Kansai Science City, a new
"technopolis" being constructed near Kyoto and Osaka. Strong R&D focus on new
technologies for Earth 21.
-168-
-------
GISPRI: The Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute, established in 1988 as
an institute to study relationship between industrial and economic activities and the
environment. Organizes studies, joint research and conferences and seminars. Publishes a
quarterly magazine.
Keidanren Global Charter: Statement by Japanese Business leaders to promote sustainable
development.
-169-
-------
ATTACHMENT 3
TTETE RIVER CLEAN
Example of Reverse Trade Mission
The Tiete River clean up is a good illustration of how EPA could enhance and
promote export of environmental technologies.
The government of Sao Paulo has undertaken a major clean up of the Tiete River,
which is heavily polluted. Funds are being requested from the World Bank. Pollution in the
River results from industrial and sewage discharges. EPA in cooperation with other agencies
can help the Sao Paulo government under the U.S.-Brazil Environmental Agreement in any
number of ways:
Invite industrial and political leaders to visit San Antonio or Cleveland where
similar cleanups have been achieved.
Showcase U.S. technologies used for clean up.
Organize meetings of Brazilian leaders with city and government officials to
plan future commercial development of River.
Organize seminars for Brazilian industrial leaders on pollution prevention with
the goal of introducing ways to reduce overall discharges.
Organize multimedia advisory teams to assist Brazilian government in
restoration and planning of future enforcement.
Establish'cooperative research on innovative technologies between EPA and
University of Sao Paulo.
-170-
-------
APPENDIX 10
SMALL COMMUNITIES
-171-
-------
SMALL COMMUNITIES
Introduction
Small communities, as well as the States, are experiencing
increasing difficulty implementing their environmental protection
mandates. The burgeoning list of regulatory requirements and the
increasingly difficult fiscal conditions many communities are
experiencing combine to create an environmental capacity shortfall.
In recognition of the challenge the expanding environmental agenda
currently poses for small communities, EPA Administrator Reilly
asked his staff to take a targeted look at small communities in the
context of the 90-Day Review.
EPA recognizes that small communities are often
disproportionately burdened by environmental regulations, and is
working to be more responsive to their unique situations. EPA is
refining its internal processes to better tailor regulatory
requirements to the needs of small communities, and is taking steps
to strengthen the capacity of these communities to implement
environmental programs. As a result of the 90-Day Review, EPA has
taken or initiated several specific activities in each of these
areas. In addition, EPA has revised or is proposing to revise many
individual regulations to reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on
small communities.
The following pages describe the regulatory and non-regulatory
actions taken as a result of the 90-Day Review.
-172-
-------
Agency-Wide Small Community Initiatives
M6. Establish Small Community Cluster
Description;
In recognition of the growing regulatory burden on small local
governments, an agency-wide Small Community Cluster was established
in March of this year. The Cluster, chaired by the Office of
Regional Operations, State and Local Relations' (OROSLR's)
Associate Administrator, is composed of senior-level
representatives from EPA regional and program offices. Mindful of
the limited financial and technical resources of small governments,
its mission is to design, evaluate, and test internal policies for
addressing and relieving, where appropriate, regulatory burdens.
Proposed Actions:
The Cluster has begun by targeting a number of specific areas
including: funding and public-private partnerships; outreach and
small local government participation in policy dialogues; a review
of current regulatory practices and processes; and science and
technology transfer to small communities. Examples of actions
under consideration include:
Recommend a cross-media structure for measuring the costs of
environmental rules, and develop an affordability model to
address cross-media costs for small governments.
Survey current agency practices for usage of statutory
flexibility, and identify additional opportunities for
increasing regulatory flexibility within statutory limits.
Perform a case study using drinking water as a model.
Develop a complete set of environmental handbooks for
educational purposes.
Develop a cross-media technology transfer plan.
-173-
-------
Beginning a Dialogue on Cumulative, Impact with Local Governments
Description;
EPA held several meetings in May to bring national
representatives and local government officials together with EPA
Leadership through a recently-formed Small Community Cluster.
Meetings focused on aggregate rules, aggregate costs, and sought to
determine which regulations are the most costly and technically
difficult for small and local governments to implement. In these
meetings, EPA and representatives from small governments discussed
what EPA can do to help, and how, together, approaches can be
developed to address problems presented by the totality of
environmental mandates.
W7. The Governors' Forum on Implementation of the Drinking Water
Program
Description:
Small and local government capacity problems are reflected at
both the State and Federal level. Discussion of implementation
difficulties with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) have most
recently focused on this issue. Under the leadership of OROSLR and
the Office of Water, a bipartisan forum of Governors was organized
to further the capacity dialogue between EPA and the state
governments. The first meeting of this forum was convened on May
1, 1992, with governors from nine states in attendance to work with
the Administrator on the implementation of the Act. Subseguent
sessions may be planned to address implementation concerns with
other program and statutes.
Actions:
EPA shares the concerns of State governments about the Act's
costs, the level of Federal oversight, and the need for
flexibility. EPA plans to develop specific approaches within its
statutory constraints to address this challenge. In addition,
possible legislative changes to ease the overall burdens upon
States and taxpayers while still assuring effective environmental
protection may also be addressed.
-174-
-------
M8. Revised Guidelines for Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
Description;
The Agency's Regulatory Flexibility Guidelines have been
revised to include small governments as a primary focus. Under
these revisions, developed by the Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation (OPPE), any time small communities are affected by the
promulgation of a rule covered by the Act, a regulatory flexibility
analysis must be performed. This special analysis, required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act for small businesses, small governments,
or small organizations subject to the rule, encourages programs to
provide them with flexible alternatives. Such alternatives are
offered to assist small entities in their efforts to comply with
the legislation under the constraints imposed by their limited
technical and financial resources. The new guidelines became
effective in April, 1992.
Establishing a Comprehensive National Data Program
Description;
The Small Community office in OROSLR functions as both
educator and advocate within the Agency by representing the
perspectives of small communities throughout EPA's rulemaking
process. In early April, EPA's Small Community Coordinator office
in OROSLR initiated a national data program to compile and analyze
the comprehensive information available on the nation's small
communities.
Although the Bureau of Census, universities, national
associations, and other sources collect limited information, their
statistics and data are currently too fragmentary and inadequate
for EPA's needs. In addition, they are incompatible from source to
source; therefore an accurate, comprehensive picture of small
communities should be formed.
The national data program will fill this gap. It will enable
EPA to form more accurate assumptions and to analyze important
regulatory, financial, educational, and outreach issues based on
more accessible and complete information.
-175-
-------
Regulatory Activities
EPA's program offices are also taking specific regulatory
actions as a part of the 90-Day Review that decrease unnecessary
burdens on small communities. These are described briefly below
and discussed in greater detail in the Appendices for the relevant
program office.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
S6. Suspend Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Rule for Non-Underground
Storage Tank (UST) Petroleum Contaminated Media
OSWER will propose to suspend for three years the TC rule as
it applies to non-UST petroleum contaminated media. The
suspension would apply to States that have the legal
authorities and technical programs in place to provide for
cleanup response to petroleum releases, and controls on the
disposition of wastes generated from such response actions.
schedule: Summer 1992 NPRM
1993 Final Rule
-176-
-------
S7. FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE APPLICABILITY OF THE TC RULE TO UST
CONTAMINATED MEDIA AND DEBRIS
The application of the TC rule to UST cleanup activities was
delayed in order to allow the Agency to evaluate the impact of
this provision on the Subtitle C program, and to examine
alternative administrative mechanisms for implementing UST
cleanups in accordance with Subtitle C. OSWER will publish
several studies that examine aspects of this issue. OSWER
will make a final determination on the application of the TC
to UST cleanup based on the results of this study.
Schedule: Summer 1992 Federal Register (FR) Notice on data
availability and comment request on
studies
Spring 1993 Publish final determination in the
Federal Register
S10. OSWER Directive on Reducing Costs of RCRA Corrective Action
OSWER will publish a directive that clarifies the flexibility
that already exists in the corrective action regulations and
promotes the use of cost-cutting opportunities for corrective
action at UST facilities.
Schedule: Fall 1992 Final OSWER Directive
S23. Uniform Accidental Release Reporting
Several laws, including Title III of SARA, require industry to
report certain information regarding accidental releases of
hazardous substances. This OSWER initiative will identify
reporting concerns raised by industry, and recommend
approaches for minimizing duplication, including uniform
reporting.
Schedule: Spring 1992 Identify Issues
Summer 1992 Discuss with Industry, Labor, and
States
Fall 1992 Presidential Review Report
S24. Market Incentives for Municipal Solid Waste
This OSWER multi-year project, in coordination with EPA's
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, will include a
demonstration with from one to four local communities. It
will provide local governments with information that they may
need in order to consider and establish alternative municipal
solid waste management financing systems that would encourage
source reduction and recycling.
Schedule: Spring 1992 Draft report on full cost accounting
Workplan complete
-177-
-------
S25. Underground Storage Tanks (extension of financial
responsibility compliance deadlines) *
OSWER will give the States flexibility to extend the federal
financial responsibility compliance data on a case-by-case or
group basis. This is designed to ease the burden on small
communities and businesses unable to comply with the
regulation due to costs of meeting underwriting criteria or
lack of State assurance fund, grant, or loan program.
Schedule: Fall 1992 Proposed Rule
spring 1993 Final Rule
S26. Underground Storage Tanks (additional financial responsibility
compliance mechanisms)
OSWER will finalize four alternative financial responsibility
compliance mechanisms that are suitable for use by local
governments.
Schedule: Fall 1992 Final Rule
-178-
-------
S27. Strategy for de minimis Settlements in Superfund Cases
OSWER has undertaken an intiative to expand the use of its
authority, given to the Agency by Congress, to reach quick de
minimis settlements early in the process. This strategy will
provide relief to parties who made only small contributions of
hazardous substances to Superfund sites from the burdens of
possible extensive negotiations with EPA and protracted
litigation. Increased use of de minimis will help
significantly to reduce transaction costs for small
contributors.
Schedule: Spring 1992 Final strategy
S29. Municipal Liability Guidance for Superfund
The Agency's policy has been not to pursue municipalities or
other parties whose only involvement at a Superfund site is
generation or transportation of municipal solid waste from
households. However, this leaves municipal generators and
transporters vulnerable to third party suits for contribution
costs. OSWER is exploring options to determine a fair share
for generators or transporters of municipal solid waste to
contribute in settlement.
Schedule: ongoing Activity
S33. Standardized Remedies
Based on the experience gained in cleaning up hazardous waste
sites, EPA is developing standardized or presumptive remedies
for several types of sites, possibly including wood treaters,
municipal landfills, sites contaminated with solvents, and
sites with ground water contamination. Standardized remedies
are expected to speed cleanups by approximately one year and
reduce costs by as much as a half a million dollars a site by
reducing site analysis, leaving more funds to pay for actual
cleanup work.
Schedule: Pilot Project in Region IV underway
-179-
-------
Office of Water (OW)
Wl. Point/Nonpoint Source Trading
Description;
Point/non point trading is a market-based approach to water
quality improvement based on the concept that controlling
discharges of the same pollutant from nonpoint sources instead of
a point source discharger could be less costly and result in
improved water quality at lower cost. in most point
source/nonpoint source trading scenarios, regulated point sources
are allowed to avoid treatment system upgrades to meet water
quality objectives if they pay for or arrange equivalent or greater
reductions in nonpoint source discharges within their watershed or
body. Case studies of trading experiences to date suggest that,
for the near term, the best opportunities are for trading nutrient
allocations. Nutrient trading is attractive because trading
programs to date have dealt with these type of pollutants and
because issues associated with trading toxic pollutants are
relatively more difficult. Longer term opportunities may exist for
trading pathogen or chloride allocations.
Point source/nonpoint source trading systems are currently
components of watershed management strategies in Colorado and North
Carolina. Few trades have been make to date, due in part, to the
legal, technical, and institutional barriers that inhibit trading.
A national meeting will be held to: (l) broaden the general
understanding of point/nonpoint trading and promote its acceptance;
(2) identify programmatic, technical, and legislative factors which
facilitate or discourage trading; (3) develop cooperative action
plants to address technical, legislative and programmatic barriers;
and (4) develop recommendations for supportive EPA activities.
Cost Savings/Benefits;
EPA analyses indicate that this approach could be applied more
widely across the United States, potentially in as many as 950
waterbodies. Its most obvious benefit is direct cost savings to
point source dischargers. The estimated costs of nonpoint controls
for nutrients in a trading program range from 5 to 50% of the costs
for an equivalent amount of nutrient removal by point sources. This
suggests that savings could be achieved through trading programs.
Improved water quality due to nonpoint source controls that
otherwise might not be implemented is an additional benefit.
Implementing such a program will involve some monetary outlays
that will vary according to waterbody size and program design.
Potential costs include those for monitoring and modelling beyond
those needed under current policy, permitting costs to establish
discharge levels for the "with trading" case, and government
transaction costs associated with review and approval of individual
trades.
-180-
-------
Commitment;
EPA sponsored an April 27-28 meeting in Raleigh, North
Carolina to review a report which discusses the principles of
trading and its applications to date. EPA is following up on the
actions resulting from the meeting.
W2. Privatization of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Systems
Description:
Many wastewater treatment projects that received federal funds
through the construction grants program face substantial capital
expenditures for facility renovation, expansion, and upgrade. EPA
has an interest in ensuring that the federal investment in
wastewater treatment is protected and that it continues to pay
"environmental dividends." EPA's 1990 Needs Survey has identified
$110 billion in wastewater construction needs. Because of the
limited availability of public funds for environmental
infrastructure, current Agency initiatives encourage consideration
of public-private partnerships for facilities providing public
services. However, current policy and grant regulations contain
provisions that limit the feasibility of private funding.
EPA will develop policy and/or modify regulations (to the
extent permitted by law) to provide a new financing opportunity to
local governments through private investment by specifying
conditions under which a construction grant-funded facility may
secure private equity investment necessary for rehabilitation,
expansion, or upgrade; specifying conditions under which a
construction grant-funded facility may be sold or leased in full or
in part and what constitutes acceptable compensating benefit; and
identifying methods for determining the extent of the federal
interest in a construction grant-funded facility.
Cost Savings;
This initiative will promote environmental protection and
economic activity by stimulating private investment in municipal
wastewater treatment facilities. It is expected to provide a new
financing opportunity to communities for needed projects that would
not otherwise proceed due to lack of public funds; protect the
substantial federal investment in wastewater treatment without
additional federal outlays; leverage past, current and future
investments in water quality infrastructure; and further
environmental protection by ensuring adequate capital for efficient
operation, rehabilitation, upgrade and expansion of aging
facilities.
Commitments:
EPA published a Federal Register notice to solicit public
comment on actions to encourage public-private partnerships for
wastewater treatment (April-May). The Agency also plans to develop
-181-
-------
an internal management steering group to address the issue; discuss
the initiative during the May meeting of the Agency's Environmental
Financial Advisory Board; hold public meetings to discuss the
issue; and modify regulations based on Agency study and public
input.
W3. Wise Water Use Partnerships
Description
In the last several years, public utility commissions (PUC)
have pushed electric utilities to consider demand-side management—
how conservation measures could reduce the need for expensive new
capacity. In addition, some PUC's are requiring electric utilities
to internalize the externalities of electricity production when
planning new capacity. Like electric utilities, water delivery and
wastewater operations are natural monopolies and, as such, would
charge too high a price without rate of return regulation. PUCs
have been slow to apply these demand-side management tools to water
authorities. Therefore, they may be missing opportunities to both
lower water delivery and treatment costs and improve the
environment.
This project will see if the electric utility experience can
be applied to water use. EPA will forge voluntary partnerships
among water providers, PUCs, states and water users. Transferring
information about the potential for demand-side management to
reduce costs is the focus of these partnerships. While EPA will
not officially enter into agreements with these parties, we expect
the water rate regulatory system to change in response to the
sharing of information about demand-side management. Further,
local agreements between water providers, wastewater utilities, and
other interested parties would establish specific activities that
would be appropriate for the local area. The Office of Water has
committed to providing technical and informational support and
recognition of these agreements.
Cost Savings/Benefits
Fostering more efficient water use through voluntary
partnerships may provide economic and environmental benefits.
Potential economic benefits include reduced water supply treatment
costs under the Safe Drinking Water Act; reduced costs for
expansion of wastewater and water supply facilities; and reduced
long-term consumer costs for water and energy. Local partnership
arrangement(s) drawn to support specific and unique local
conditions may also result in monetary savings to the public and
better management of water resources.
The program is designed as voluntary information. exchange
effort where water authorities can learn how to implement demand-
side management. The immediate public and private costs associated
with implementing the program are expected to be relatively small.
The Agency is committing to providing technical support and
-182-
-------
improving the exchange of information among partners, and the
industry in general. An assessment of a clearinghouse is just
underway.
Commitment
Subsequent to the meeting in summer 1992, the Office of Water
will explore how to transfer information about demand-side
management, including models for the development of local
agreements. These activities would begin immediately following the
meeting (presuming that a sufficient number of "partners" agree to
participate).
W5. Stormwater Implementation Rule (Phase I)
Description;
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act established a two
phase approach for controlling urban storm water. In Phase I, all
large and medium sized cities and all storm water discharge
associated with industrial storm water were to be permitted by
October 1, 1992. Phase II was to include the control of all other
urban storm water discharges based on studies that EPA was to
perform and regulations that were to be promulgated by October 1,
1992. As a result of the legislation, over 100,000 facilities with
storm water associated with industrial activity became subject to
NPDES permitting and the application requirements that EPA
promulgated in November, 1990. Individual applications could be
quite extensive requiring comprehensive facility-specific narrative
information and quantitative analytical data based on sampling
during storm events. In addition to individual applications, the
rule allowed for the use of two-phased group applications by
facilities with similar storm water characteristics which reduced
the application burden to some extent by calling for detailed
information on a specified sample of group members as well as
general permits.
Due to the tremendous reaction from the regulated community on
the burden and cost associated with preparing applications for
permits for storm water associated with industrial activity, EPA
subsequently focused its activities on getting in place for these
facilities, general permits covering baseline storm water pollution
prevention requirements and reviewing its base permitting
requirements, particularly for sampling and reporting, to reflect
better storm water control efforts and reduce unnecessary
monitoring costs. EPA proposed and subsequently promulgated on
April 2, 1992 a regulation to reduce the industrial storm water
burden by allowing for the submission of simple notices of intent
for general permits in lieu of burdensome application requirements,
reducing sampling and reporting requirements, extending application
deadlines for group applications, and exempting small cities with
industrial storm water discharges (except for airports,
powerplants, or uncontrolled sanitary landfills). EPA also
promulgated, as part of this rule, a risk-based long-term strategy
-183-
-------
for industrial storm water to deal with identified and potential
water quality problems.
Cost Savings/Benefits;
Although the amounts have not been quantified, EPA estimates
that it has enabled significant savings to the industrial sector by
reducing the application and reporting requirements for thousands
of industrial facilities. Additionally, by developing a long-term
strategy and focussing first where the risk is the greatest, EPA
expects a net gain in environmental protection.
Commitment;
EPA promulgated the rule on April 2, 1992
W7. Expanded Use of Inclusionary Rulemaking:
Stormwater Implementation Rule (Phase II)
Description;
OW will publish separate notices in the Federal Register
proposing a series of approaches to dealing with stormwater
discharges in ways which reduce the regulatory burdens on small
communities. These will include developing an approach to select
specific Phase II categories (municipal separate storm sewer
systems under 10,000 population served) for inclusion in
regulation; using permitting authority designation for specific
sources to be covered, and exempting all other sources; changing
the law to eliminate Phase II deadlines, and using the nonpoint
source program for coverage. All options will be open to public
comment.
Cost Savings;
OW expects that involving the affected parties in these
program issues will help it develop more cost-effective approaches
and reduce the potential costs associated with subsequent
challenges to federal action.
Commitment;
OW will publish a Federal Register notice on Phase II, and
will hold public meetings in May and June of 1992.
-184-
-------
APPENDIX 11
SMALL BUSINESSES
-185-
-------
Introduction
During the 90-day regulatory review, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) carefully scrutinized all of its current
programs and identified 34 activities which will reduce
regulatory burdens on small businesses without compromising
environmental goals. These activities are listed in Attachment 1
(by reference number) and described below.
-186-
-------
A3. Revise Radon Home-Building Standards Guidance
Description;
Section 304 of Title III (Indoor Radon Abatement) of
the Toxic Substances Control Act, (15 U.S.C. 2601) as amended,
mandates that EPA develop model construction standards and
techniques for controlling radon levels within new buildings.
Among other requirements, the Agency is charged with ensuring
that organizations responsible for developing national model
building codes, and authorities which regulate building
construction within States (or political subdivisions within
States), adopt the Agency's model standards and techniques for
radon-resistant construction. Since EPA has no authority to
regulate or limit the levels of radon in new homes, the proposed
construction Standard and the recommended procedure for its
implementation has been developed for adoption by the National
Model Building Code organization and as a "model" for use by
States and local jurisdictions as they develop building codes
and implementing regulations applicable to their unique radon
control requirements.
EPA is revising the draft model Standard to improve its
cost-effectiveness by targeting areas of the country with the
highest potential for elevated levels of radon. EPA has
developed a map which designates the areas of highest radon
potential.
Benefits/Costs Savings;
By targeting new homes in high radon risk areas, EPA will
help ensure investments in mitigating radon risks are as
efficient as possible.
Commitment
EPA expects to publish a draft Standard for public comment
by October, 1992.
-187-
-------
A4. Exemption of Perchloroethylene (PERC) as a Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC)
This action responds to an industry petition to exempt Perc
as a VOC on the basis that it has negligible photochemical
reactivity and this does not contribute to tropospheric ozone
formation.
This action would have the effect of encouraging States not
to control perc sources, especially dry cleaners and degreasers,
under their ozone state implementation plans. Control of Perc
would then be primarily through National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) under Section 112 of the Clean
Air Act.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
This action will reduce regulatory burdens on small
businesses that use Perc (e.g., drycleaners) by encouraging
States to eliminate regulations for Perc sources that overlap or
conflict with the application of NESHAPS to small business
sources.
Commitment;
The EPA expects to issue a proposal in June 1992.
-188-
-------
AS. Alternative Methods for Measuring Capture Efficiency
In order to determine compliance with volatile organic
compounds (VOC) rules for certain types of printing and coating
operations, it is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the
system for collecting vapors that are ducted to a control device.
This determination is referred to as capture efficiency (CE). In
April 1990, EPA issued protocols which responded to needs
identified by States and industry for methods to measure CE.
Since then, several commenters have expressed concern over the
EPA CE protocols. Therefore, EPA is undertaking a 12-month study
to investigate less expensive ways of applying the current CE
guidance, as well as possible alternatives for determining CE.
The study will evaluate the economic and technical feasibility
and accuracy of alternatives to the current protocols in the CE
guidance. The EPA will be working with printing and coating
industry during the course of this study.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
Cost savings will be calculated when the alternative CE
methods are developed and evaluated.
Commitment;
The EPA expects to issue alternate CE methods guidance by
April 1993, followed by notice and comment rulemaking to
incorporate CE methods in EPA rules.
-189-
-------
A8. Assistning California's Marketable Permits Program
California's South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD) is developing a marketable permits program, which would
establish a Regional Clean Air Incentives Market ("RECLAIM").
The program goals are to lower costs, increase flexibility, and
achieve attainment of Federal and State air quality objectives.
The program will eventually be submitted to the EPA for review
and approval as part of California's State Implementation Plan
(SIP). EPA's Office of Air and Radiation (OAR) will assist the
SCAQMD in developing State regulations to implement this program.
OAR's participation will include membership on work groups to be
established to define adequate emission quantification and
monitoring methods and enforcement provisions.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
Based on preliminary estimates by the SCAQMD, it is
anticipated that the RECLAIM program will significantly reduce
area-wide compliance costs. Cost reductions are estimated at
$270 - 430 million annually.
Commitments;
OAR will provide staff to participate in the development of
rules to implement this program through work groups being
established by the SCAQMD.
-190-
-------
All. Mobile - Stationary Source Trading Programs
Under this initiative, EPA will produce guidance for States
which clarifies how Clean Air Act requirements can be met by
trading emission reductions among mobile and stationary sources.
This guidance will encourage States to consider these trading
opportunities where appropriate as they develop their
implementation plans for air quality management.
In this context, the term "trading" refers to a variety of
ways by which government entities and individual facilities can
exploit the differences between the control costs of stationary
and mobile sources to devise a least-cost strategy to meet Clean
Air Act requirements. The first type of trading envisioned here
would be done by State and local agencies, which would be allowed
to choose what combination of programs to use to meet the
periodic emission reduction requirements of the Clean Air Act.
Areas could decide to adopt further stationary source
requirements or instead may wish to achieve reductions in mobile
source emissions. In this sense, mobile and stationary source
reductions can be "traded" for each other in state implementation
plans.
The second type of trading would be done by individual
facilities, which would be allowed to trade reductions on an
individual basis to meet certain emission reduction requirements
or to generate tradeable offsets to help meet new source review
requirements.
Benefits/Cost Savings!
Emission trading takes advantage of the fact that some
sources of pollution are cheaper to control than others. The
more widely control costs vary between stationary and mobile
sources, the more cost savings an area can expect to achieve by
trading. Cost savings estimates are estimated at $100-750
million annually (including savings for the "scrappage program"
described below).
Commitments!
Guidance on mobile/stationary source trading will be issued
in the third quarter of 1992.
-------
A9. Accelerated Retirement of Older Vehicles ("Scrappage
Program")
Old automobiles, especially those built before the strict
emission control requirements introduced in the 1970s, pollute
far more than those built under today's strict emission control
laws. Getting these cars off 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. The EPA initiative will result in published
guidance and criteria giving states, cities, and companies 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.
Programs under this initiative would likely be similar to a
successful pilot program run by the UNOCAL oil company in the Los
Angeles area. UNOCAL bought, tested, and then scrapped over
8,000 old cars, with support and cooperation from Ford, the South
Coast Air Quality Management District, and the State of
California. The cars had an average fuel economy of 12 miles per
gallon, less than half that of new cars, and emitted hydrocarbons
at 99 times current standards.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
If 5% of existing pre-1971 vehicles (about 200,000 cars)
were scrapped by the programs under this initiative, hydrocarbon
emissions would be reduced by 32,000 tons, NOx by 8400 tons, CO
by 235,000 tons, and C02 by 981,000 tons. Based on data from a
pilot program run by the UNOCAL company, a scrappage program
would be cheaper than stationary control wherever the stationary
control costs more than $300/ton for carbon monoxide, $2750/ton
for NOx, and $3,000/ton for hydrocarbons. In many cases, it will
also cost less than the cost of additional tailpipe emission
controls. This is in contrast to the cost of stationary-source
control, which can be much higher: in Los Angeles, for example,
stationary-source control costs are projected to approach $25,000
per ton for major pollutants. Small businesses that operate
fleets of older vehicles would benefit from scrapping vehicles
under this program. Small businesses selling newer, less-
polluting vehicles would also benefit.
Commitments;
EPA issued a technical information document for vehicle
scrappage on March 27, 1992. Additional guidance will be
published as part of the mobile/stationary trading guidance to be
published in the third quarter of 1992.
-192-
-------
A10. State Grants Program
Market-based approaches to addressing air quality goals
represent a major departure from the command and control
approaches historically used by States to develop implementation
plans for meeting air quality goals and requirements. There are
informational, institutional, and financial barriers to effecting
major changes in the types of programs that State agencies
develop and implement. In recognition of these problems, OAR
will provide, through its State grants program, resources for
initiatives designed to explore the feasibility and identify
appropriate design elements of market-based programs.
The results of the initiatives funded through this grant
process will help facilitate the development and implementation
of such programs by the States receiving the grants. In
addition, the information produced from these initiatives is
expected to be transferrable to other States which may benefit
from the experience, and to serve as input to the EPA's ongoing
formulation of policy dealing with market-based approaches.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
It is anticipated that these initiatives will result in the
development of State programs that provide cost savings and more
flexibility in meeting air quality goals than would traditional
regulatory programs. Potential cost savings have not yet been
quantified.
Commitments:
For FY 1992, OAR is committing $610,000 to fund five
initiatives. These projects will address both stationary and
mobile source programs, and the control of ozone and air toxics.
Projects are expected to get underway this spring.
-------
A12. Economic Incentive Rules Expansion
Under this initiative, OAR will produce guidance and
criteria encouraging States to incorporate economic incentive
programs (EIPs) into their implementation plans for air quality
management. The Clean Air Act Amendments (Act) require such
programs to be implemented only if future emission reduction
progress milestones are missed in the worst ozone and carbon
monoxide nonattainment areas. For this initiative, OAR intends
to provide guidance for discretionary EIPs as well. In the
absence of such guidance, it is unlikely that States will devote
much attention to the development of discretionary programs
designed to assist in achieving progress toward attainment and in
lowering the cost of meeting air quality goals.
The planned guidance will identify the rationale behind
implementing EIPs, ideas for different types of market-based
approaches, and the program design elements that are key to
providing both the flexibility and the accountability that are
integral to the success of such programs. It is anticipated that
with this guidance, States will be more likely to develop
economic incentive initiatives of their own, as a means to avoid
missing progress milestones, rather than as a remedial measure
after milestones have been missed.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
The underlying basis for using economic incentives is that
such approaches can lower the cost of meeting environmental goals
when compared to traditional command and control approaches. To
the extent that such approaches have been evaluated for other
specific air quality programs, such as the emission allowance
trading programs for acid rain and lead, significant cost savings
have been projected or realized. However, no specific cost
savings estimates are possible for this initiative because it is
impossible to project what areas will adopt economic incentive
programs on a voluntary basis nor what kind of economic incentive
program would be adopted. The discussion for the South Coast
marketable permits program provides an example of the kind of
savings that can be realized by one type of economic incentive
program.
Commitments;
This guidance, together with the mandated rules, is
scheduled for Federal Register proposal in late May. Final
promulgation is scheduled for November 1992.
-194-
-------
A16. Enhanced Impelmentation of Small Business Technical
Assistance and Compliance Program (SBAP)
Under Section 507 of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments
(CAAA) States must establish a small business stationary source
technical and environmental compliance program (SBAP) to
facilitate compliance by small businesses with the CAAA. The
program must be adopted as part of the States Implementation
Plans (SIPs) under Section 110 and 112 of the Act. States must
submit their proposed programs to the Agency for approval by
November 15, 1992. For this initiative, the Agency will increase
its emphasis in the following areas:
1. Providing additional personal contact to assure
responsible State staff of EPA's concerns and interest
in establishing effective SBAPs.
2. Assuring effective small business trade association
involvement both at the national and state level.
3. Assuring accelerated State outreach to small business
by responsible State staff.
Benefits/Cost Savings:
This increased emphasis on participation and interaction
will assure that the States are able to develop approvable Small
Business Assistance Program Plans with minimal revisions.
Commitments;
The Office of Air and Radiation, in cooperation with the
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, will
augment its activity in assisting the States through more on-site
visits and regional meetings with those having difficulty in
planning for and/or implementing a SBAP.
-195-
-------
P3. Pesticide Registration Workshop
The 1988 FIFRA amendments require the reregistration of all
pesticides registered prior to 1984. As EPA enters it third year
of implementation, the Agency has created the basic framework for
the program; however, many important issues remain. Therefore,
the Agency has decided to hold a workshop with small business
registrants and other parties to discuss reregistration
requirements.
EPA will use this workshop to promote an inclusive approach
to problem-solving, to provide practical advice and assistance to
registrants in complying with reregistration requirements, and to
encourage input and constructive debate on issues of interest to
the regulated community and other affected parties. The workshop
will feature progress reports and other communication materials,
breakout sessions on specific issues, and opportunities to meet
with the people involved in the reregistration program. Some of
the specific topics on the agenda are: (1) study rejection
rates, (2) ecological risk data requirements and methodologies,
(3) health risk data requirements and methodologies, (4) end use
product registration, and (5) the role of growers and grower
groups (minor use issues).
Benefits/Cost Savings;
By promoting a better understanding of data requirements and
methodologies and by identifying and eliminating the most
frequent causes of study rejection, significant savings can be
realized by pesticide manufacturers, and those savings can be
passed on to small business pesticide users (e.g., farmers) and
consumers in general.
Commitment!
EPA plans to hold a workshop on May 26-28, 1992 at the
Stouffer Concourse Hotel, 2399 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, Virginia.
-------
F4. Biological Pesticide Regulatory Relief (e.g., the Peromone
Project)
Interest in biological pesticides has increased
significantly in recent years due to concern about chemical
pesticide residues in food as well as the adverse environmental
effects often associated with conventional chemicals. This
increased interest in biological pesticides is clearly reflected
in the increasing numbers of applications for registration of
such products. Seven of the ten new pesticides registered in
1991 were biologically-based products.
EPA can expect interest in biological pesticides to continue
to grow over the next several years. The potential benefits of
these products to growers, consumers, and the environment are
significant. EPA must find ways, without compromising human
health and environmental safety, to facilitate the regulatory
process for biological pesticides.
EPA has identified several areas where the regulatory
program for biochemical pesticides (e.g., pheromones and natural
regulators) warrants refinement and streamlining, in the interest
of reducing burdens on the small business community. The Agency
has also received several petitions from industry and user groups
in recent years urging the Agency to take such actions. EPA will
examine existing regulatory requirements for biochemical
pesticide products to determine whether the Agency could further
reduce the data requirements, change the tolerance requirements,
and change the acreage limits for experimental use permits to
test such pesticides.
Benefits/Cost Savings:
The benefits/cost savings have not yet been determined.
Commitments;
One of the first steps the Agency plans to take is to open
up the dialogue on issues relating to the regulation of
biochemical pesticides. One way the Agency intends to encourage
the sharing of information is to issue a quarterly "Biotech
Bulletin," which will report on current events and activities in
biotechnology and the related fields of biological research and
application.
Another project is the development of a "User's Manual," a
booklet designed to guide applicants through the regulatory
process and avoid time-consuming "regulatory pitfalls." EPA
expects to make the manual available by mid-summer 1992.
-197-
-------
P5. Minor Use Project
Description;
Minor uses are generally defined as those pesticide uses
that do not generate sufficient economic returns from sales to
justify the cost of meeting data requirements and fees for
reregistration or initial registration. Minor use crops include
vegetables, fruits, nuts, herbs, spices, ornamentals, flowers,
trees, and turfgrass. Minor crops are of major importance in the
U.S., accounting for approximately 40 percent of the dollar value
of total sales by agricultural producers.
The 1988 amendments to FIFRA require that all pesticides
originally registered before 1984 be reregistered to ensure that
the data supporting their registrations meet today's more
stringent health and environmental standards. Because of the
high cost of generating new data in support of registration (in
addition to new fees), many registrants are unwilling to continue
to support existing or request new registrations for minor crops.
Many registrants have responded or will respond to the
increased costs and time constraints imposed by FIFRA 1988 by
cancelling pesticide products or deleting minor uses from labels.
There is a significant public policy concern that pest management
on these crops will suffer if reregistration are affected by the
high cost of the registration process.
EPA will examine existing laws in search of ways to provide
relief for users and registrants of minor use pesticides, while
maintaining protection of public health and the environment. We
are also examining options for new legislation to assist minor
users of pesticides while fulfilling the larger goals of EPA's
pesticides program.
Benefits/Cost Savings:
The benefits/cost savings have not yet been determined.
Commitments;
EPA expects to complete an assessment of the legislative
authorities by the middle of May, and to be in a position at that
time to recommend needed legislative changes and to react to any
legislative changes related to minor uses that may be introduced
in Congress. We also plan to have this as an agenda item for
discussion at the Reregistration Workshop in May 1992.
-198-
-------
P6. Modifications to Section 8(e) Policy Guidance on Reportying
of Environmental Release Information
This notice will solicit public comment on certain
refinements to EPA's policy concerning the mandatory reporting of
information under section 8(e), the "substantial risk"
information reporting provision of the Toxic Substances Control
Act (TSCA). Specifically, comments will be sought on certain
TSCA section 8(e) policy refinements concerning mandatory
reporting of information on the release of chemical substances
to, and the detection of chemical substances in, environmental
media. Comments will also be sought on specific refinements made
to EPA's policy concerning the reporting deadline for written
"substantial risk" information and the circumstances under which
certain information need not be reported to EPA under section
8(e) of TSCA. Finally, the notice will reaffirm the Agency's
position concerning claims of confidentiality for information
contained in a notice of substantial risk under section 8(e) of
TSCA. After receipt of public comments, a final policy for
reporting TSCA 8(e) environmental release information will be
developed.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
Quantitative cost savings are not available. However, the
TSCA section 8(e) policy refinement could lower costs and burden
on small business by: narrowing what could presently be
considered reportable as "substantial risk information" under the
present policy; lengthening the reporting deadline for written
"substantial risk" information; and specifying certain additional
types of information which need not be reported under section
8(e) of TSCA because it is considered "known to the
Administrator." It is believed that none of the above
burden/cost reductions would substantially alter environmental
gains.
Commitments;
The TSCA Section 8(e) Notice of Clarification and
Solicitation of Public Comment is projected for publication in
late May or early June 1992; a final policy clarification will be
issued early in 1993.
-199-
-------
P7. Proposed Rule to Amend Premanufacture Notification (PMN)
Exemption Rules
As EPA has gained knowledge of regulated chemicals,
categories of chemicals which are not expected to pose a risk to
human health have been developed. In addition, methods to reduce
or eliminate exposures to chemicals which pose risks to human
health have been developed. The Agency has also identified other
areas within the New Chemicals program where other protection and
efficiencies can be obtained.
The goals of the Premanufacture Notification (PMN) Rule
Amendments are to exempt a larger proportion of PMNs from full
review, to shift certain fixed costs to PMN submitters, and to
reduce burdens for Consent Order development. In effect, the
Agency expects to be able to shift the focus from the review of
low-risk substances toward the review and management of high-risk
substances and, in the process, to increase the manufacturer's
certainty concerning the marketing and production of new
chemicals. Proposed regulatory initiatives include the
following: (1) expansion of the polymer exemption (more eligible
polymers, notice of commencement type reporting rather than
Agency review); (2) expansion of the low volume exemption
(increase production volume from 1,000 kg/yr to 10,000 kg/yr);
(3) introduction of a low exposure/low release exemption to
promote pollution prevention practices (reduce number of 5(e)
consent orders); (4) introduction of regulatory language to allow
future electronic submissions; (5) modification of the 2% rule
for reporting polymers allowing for greater flexibility in
reporting; (6) specifications for reporting of chemical identity
to eliminate notice review delays; and (7) expansion of
information requirements for the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) inventory searches.
These amendments are expected to streamline the PMN review
process, reduce the number of submissions requiring full review,
reduce bona fide TSCA Inventory search requests, and reduce
incomplete or incorrect submissions. Industry will have greater
flexibility in their development and marketing schedules since
fewer chemicals will be going through the full PMN process and
fewer Consent Orders will be issued.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
A preliminary estimate of overall societal costs reveals
that a reduction of not quite $10 million annually is expected as
a result of these amendments. Costs and benefits especially for
small business, vary depending upon the specific provision.
Commitments:
Short-term actions include an announcement in the next issue
-200-
-------
of OPPT's Chemicals in Progress Bulletin and publication of a
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in July 1992. Long-term
actions include publishing a Final Rule in April 1993, depending
upon comments received.
P8. Modifications to Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) Chemical
Inventory Exemptions
Based on a request from the chemical industry, the Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is presently reevaluating
its interpretation of its chemical inventory exclusion
provisions. Reinterpretation of the inventory exclusion
provisions could increase the number of new chemicals eligible
for exemption and thereby reduce the administrative burdens/costs
and overall number of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
section 5 Premanufacture Notifications (PMNs). OPPT has already
been meeting with certain industrial groups on this issue and is
expanding its contacts to include other industries and
environmental groups. It will publish any new interpretation and
receive public comment on it.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
> The regulatory test will be clearer. It will save Agency
time and resources in responding to case-by-case small
business inquiries regarding the application of the
exclusion provisions.
> It will be easier for small business to determine whether or
not to report.
> It will reduce the number of unnecessary PMN (premanufacture
notification) submissions without sacrificing health and
environmental goals.
Commitments;
OPPT is planning a meeting with industry and other
interested parties within the next two months to exchange
information and clarify issues. Additional meetings may be held,
and revised guidance or rule amendments will be made available
for public comment in late 1992.
-201-
-------
P9. Reclassifying Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) and PCS -
Contaminated Transformers (P9)
The current polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) transformer
reclassification rule requires transformers to be drained of
their dielectric fluid, refilled with clean fluid, and put back
into service for 90 days under loaded conditions that raise the
temperature of the fluid to 50oc. While many transformers can
meet these conditions, those which cannot have slightly increased
recordkeeping and disposal costs.
The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is
currently developing rule amendments which would eliminate the
requirements for returning the drained and refilled transformers
to service for 90 days under loaded conditions that raise the
temperature to 50OC.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
Nationwide, only a limited amount of savings (<$1,000,000)
would be realized as a direct result of the changes to the
reclassification process. Transformer owners are, however,
interested in reclassification because it can significantly
reduce their potential liability and associated cleanup costs if
a transformer fails, catches fire or otherwise releases PCBs to
the environment. Cleanups can run into the millions of dollars
per incident depending on the original PCB concentration,
location of the transformer and level of cleanup mandated
(usually by the individual states). For example, cleanup of an
office building in New York after a transformer fire has
surpassed $40,000,000 and the building still has not been
reoccupied.
Commitments;
This proposed rule is projected for publication in the
Federal Register in September 1992.
-202-
-------
Pll. Evaluation of Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) Exemptions
Based on a petition from the Small Business Administration
(SBA), the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is
considering evaluating options for exempting certain reporting
facilities from the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). EPA is asking
for public comment on whether to modify the statutory thresholds
for reporting or, as SBA suggested, exempt facilities that
release or transfer off-site waste containing less than 5,000
pounds of a listed TRI chemical. Lower thresholds may also be
considered for some very toxic chemicals. The SBA believes that
exempting small releasers could potentially reduce the number of
reports filed by as much as 90%. The SBA petition also states
that 85% of total releases would be captured by the remaining
large releasers. Since some other environmental regulations are,
or in the future, may be driven by whether a TRI report must be
filed, an exemption from TRI reporting could also reduce other
regulatory burdens.
Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-
to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA) requires certain facilities
manufacturing, processing, or otherwise using toxic chemicals
above threshold amounts to report their environmental releases of
such chemicals annually. Currently, those threshold amounts are
25,000 pounds per year for manufacturing (including importing) or
processing, or 10,000 pounds per year for otherwise using a toxic
chemical. Beginning with the 1991 reporting year, such
facilities also must report source reduction and recycling data
for TRI chemicals, pursuant to section 7 of the Pollution
Prevention Act (section 6607 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1990, Pub. L. 101-508). Facilities covered include those
in Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20-39 (the
manufacturing sector) which exceed an activity threshold for a
listed toxic chemical and have ten or more full-time employees.
According to section 313(f)(2) of EPCRA, the Administrator can
establish threshold amounts which differ from those that were
mandated, provided that such revised thresholds obtain reporting
on a substantial majority of total releases of the chemical at
all facilities subject to the requirements of this section.
Benefits/Cost Savings;
Qualitatively, facilities can save on the costs of
completing the TRI Form R, although under the SBA option to
exempt small releases, small business would still need to
evaluate releases in order to determine if they were eligible not
to report.
Commitments;
OPPT plans to issue an ANPRM (Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking) in Spring/Summer 1992 announcing its intention to
-203-
-------
evaluate options for reducing reporting burden, especially among
small facilities.
86. Suspend Toxicity Characteristics (TC) Rule for Non-
Underground storage Tank (UST) Petroleum-Contaminated Media
OSWER will propose to suspend for three years the TC rule as
it applies to non-UST petroleum contaminated media. The
suspension would apply to States that have the legal authorities
and technical programs in place to provide for cleanup response
to petroleum releases, and controls on the disposition of wastes
generated from such response actions.
Schedule: Summer 1992 NPRM
1993 Final Rule
S7. Final Determination of the Applicability of the TC Rule to
UST Contaminated Media and Debris
The application of the TC rule to UST cleanup activities was
delayed in order to allow the Agency to evaluate the impact of
this provision on the Subtitle C program, and to examine
alternative administrative mechanisms for implementing UST
cleanups in accordance with Subtitle C. OSWER will publish
several studies that examine aspects of this issue. OSWER will
make a final determination on the application of the TC to UST
cleanup based on the results of this study.
Schedule: Summer 1992 Federal Register (FR) Notice on
data availability and comment
request on studies
Spring 1993 Publish final determination in the
Federal Register
SlO. OSWER Directive on Reducing Costs of RCRA Corrective Action
OSWER will publish a directive that clarifies the
flexibility that already exists in the corrective action
regulations and promotes the use of cost-cutting opportunities
for corrective action at UST facilities.
Schedule: Fall 1992 Final OSWER Directive
-204-
-------
823. Uniform Accidental Release Reporting
To minimize duplicative accidental release reporting
by the regulated community, with a special focus on small
businesses, while ensuring that the Government at all levels has
sufficient information to act in an emergency.
The initiative will identify reporting concerns raised by
industry, states, and local government, and recommend approaches
for minimizing duplication. Uniform reporting will be explored
as an effective tool for accomplishing this.
Several federal laws, such as CERCLA and the Emergency
Planning and Community Right to Know Act of 1986 (Title III of
SARA), required industry to report certain information regarding
accidental releases of hazardous substances. The recipient of
the information, the reason for the reporting, and the
information reported, varies. For example, under CERCLA, the
National Response Center (NRC) receives notification of a release
for certain chemicals above a reportable quantity. The purpose
in reporting is to determine whether there is need for a federal
response. Under Title III, the facility must report to the local
emergency planning committee and state. An immediate notice for
the purpose of emergency action and follow up reports to evaluate
the action are required. Timing of the reporting affects the
accuracy of the information, e.g. exact cause of the accident,
and therefore affects the use of the information.
At a recent National Advisory Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology (NACEPT) Chemical Accident Prevention
Committee meeting, several industry and labor representatives
indicated that reporting presented a substantial burden. While
EPA is responsible for some reporting, other agencies such as
OSHA also have reporting requirements, as do States. The CAA
Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board which is to be
established to investigate accidents also will need information
and the possibility of more reporting requirements looms in the
future.
The Presidential review of release prevention, mitigation and
response authorities of the federal agencies required under the
CAA will explore several issues such as reporting, on a
government-wide scale. The Presidential Review Report, due in
November 1992, will contain regulatory and legislative options
for consolidating reporting requirements, and EPA will take
follow up actions as appropriate.
Schedule:
o Identify EPA Accidental Release Reporting Issues: March 1992
o Examine the issues in a special forum of stakeholders
-205-
-------
at the Hazardous Materials Spills Conference: April 21-24
o Evaluate the possibility of uniform reporting or
design of EPA reporting systems to ease the burden
reporting: May-June
o Discuss outcome with industry, labor, state
stakeholders: July
o Presidential Review Report on legislative and/or
regulatory options for streamlining: November, 1992
825. Extend the Financial Responsibility Compliance Deadline to
1999 for Certain UST Facilities
OSWER will explore ways to give States a role in determining
which facilities meet the criteria. Designed to ease burden on
small business unable to comply with the regulation due to costs
of meeting underwriting criteria or lack of State assurance fund,
grant, or loan program.
Schedule: Fall 1992 Proposed Rule
Spring 1993 Final Rule
-206-
-------
827. De Minimis Setttlements
Superfund authorizes de minimis settlements for businesses
that have contributed only minor amounts of waste to Superfund
sites. Under these settlements, minor waste contributors pay
their small share of the site cleanup costs early and are
released from further liability, substantially reducing their
transaction costs.
EPA has completed 61 de minimis settlements to date, and is
negotiating others. EPA believes the use of these settlements
can and should be increased by reducing the current barriers that
EPA Regional offices face in implementing these settlements (e.g.
the expense of negotiating with multiple parties and the
difficulty of quickly obtaining information on site costs). As
the result of a 1991 conference that focused on identifying ways
to increase the number of de minimis settlements, EPA is devoting
additional resources to these settlements and undertaking several
activities to promote their use nationally.
EPA will issue guidance to its Regional offices in May,
1992, for achieving de minimis settlements. The guidance will
establish procedures to help EPA Regional offices determine,
early in the cleanup process, the amount of waste a particular
entity contributed to the site, and to determine the appropriate
level of payment Regions should require of small contributors.
This and other activities underway should expand the use of de
minimis settlements and provide needed relief to businesses that
now face needless litigation and other transaction costs.
Schedule: Spring 1992 Final Strategy
-207-
-------
828. Clarify Lenders' Liability for USTs
OSWER will clarify EPA's position on 'the liability of UST
lenders. This initiative will define circumstances under which a
lender incurs liability, thus removing a barrier to financing UST
facilities and allowing greater capital availability.
Schedule: Fall 1992 NPRM
S33. Standardized Remedies
Based on the experience gained in cleaning up hazardous
waste sites, EPA is developing standardized or presumptive
remedies for several types of sites, possibly including wood
treaters, municipal landfills, sites contaminated with solvents,
and sites with ground water contamination. Standardized remedies
are expected to speed cleanups by approximately one year and
reduce costs by as much as a half a million dollars a site by
reducing site analysis, leaving more funds to pay for actual
cleanup work.
Schedule: Pilot Project in Region VI underway
-208-
-------
836. Above Ground Storage Tanks
OSWER will clarify the existing flexibility in the Oil
Pollution Prevention regulation governing above ground storage
tanks (ASTs) through a policy directive. The directive will
clarify alternative means that certain facilities may use to
satisfy the secondary containment provisions of the oil Pollution
Prevention regulation, also known as the Spill Prevention,
Control and Counter-measures (SPCC) regulation.
Schedule: April 1992 Directive in Final
-209-
-------
Wl. Point / Non-point Source Trading
Point/non point trading is a market-based approach to water
quality improvement based on the concept that controlling
discharges of the same pollutant from nonpoint sources instead of
a point source discharger could be less costly and result in
improved water quality at lower cost. In most point
source/nonpoirit source trading scenarios, regulated point sources
are allowed to avoid treatment system upgrades to meet water
quality objectives if they pay for or arrange equivalent or
greater reductions in nonpoint source discharges within their
watershed or body. Case studies of trading experiences to date
suggest that, for the near term, the best opportunities are for
trading nutrient allocations. Nutrient trading is attractive
because trading programs to date have dealt with these type of
pollutants and because issues associated with trading toxic
pollutants are relatively more difficult. Longer term
opportunities may exist for trading pathogen or chloride
allocations.
Point source/nonpoint source trading systems are currently
components of watershed management strategies in Colorado and
North Carolina. Few trades have been made to date, due in part,
to the legal, technical, and institutional barriers that inhibit
trading. A national meeting will be held to: (1) broaden the
general understanding of point/nonpoint trading and promote its
acceptance; (2) identify programmatic, technical, and legislative
factors which facilitate or discourage trading; (3) develop
cooperative action plants to address technical, legislative and
programmatic barriers; and (4) develop recommendations for
supportive EPA activities.
Cost Savings/Benefits;
EPA analyses indicate that this approach could be applied
more widely across the United States, potentially in as many as
950 waterbodies. Its most obvious benefit is direct cost savings
to point source dischargers. The estimated costs of nonpoint
controls for nutrients in a trading program range from 5 to 50%
of the costs for an equivalent amount of nutrient removal by
point sources. This implies that savings could be achieved
through trading programs. Improved water quality due to nonpoint
source controls that otherwise might not be implemented is an
additional benefit.
Implementing such a program will involve some monetary
outlays that will vary according to waterbody size and program
design. Potential costs include those for monitoring and
modelling beyond those needed under current policy, permitting
costs to establish discharge levels for the "with trading" case,
and government transaction costs associated with review and
approval of individual trades.
-210-
-------
Commitment;
The Office of Water will hold an April 27-28, 1992 meeting
in Raleigh, North Carolina which will be announced in the Federal
Register. Prior to the meeting it will distribute a report which
discusses the principles of trading and its applications to date.
OW will also lead follow-up actions resulting from the meeting.
W3. Wise Water Use Partnerships
Description
In the last several years, public utility commissions (PUC)
have pushed electric utilities to consider demand-side
management—how conservation measures could reduce the need for
expensive new capacity. In addition, some PUC's are requiring
electric utilities to internalize the externalities of
electricity production when planning new capacity. Like electric
utilities, water delivery and wastewater operations are natural
monopolies and, as such, would charge too high a price without
rate of return regulation. PUCs have been slow to apply these
demand-side management tools to water authorities. Therefore,
they may be missing opportunities to both lower water delivery
and treatment costs and improve the environment.
This project will see if the electric utility experience can
be applied to water use. EPA will forge voluntary partnerships
among water providers, PUCs, states and water users.
Transferring information about the potential for demand-side
management to reduce costs is the focus of these partnerships.
While EPA will not officially enter into agreements with these
parties, we expect the water rate regulatory system to change in
response to the sharing of information about demand-side
management. Further, local agreements between water providers,
wastewater utilities, and other interested parties would
establish specific activities that would be appropriate for the
local area. The Office of Water has committed to providing
technical and informational support and recognition of these
agreements.
Cost Savings/Benefits
Fostering more efficient water use through voluntary
partnerships may provide economic and environmental benefits.
Potential economic benefits include reduced water supply
treatment costs under the Safe Drinking Water Act; reduced costs
for expansion of wastewater and water supply facilities; and
reduced long-term consumer costs for water and energy. Local
partnership arrangement(s) drawn to support specific and unique
local conditions may also result in monetary savings to the
public and better management of water resources.
-211-
-------
The program is designed as voluntary information exchange
effort where water authorities can learn how to implement demand-
side management. The immediate public and'private costs
associated with implementing the program are expected to be
relatively small. The Agency is committing to providing
technical support and improving the exchange of information among
partners, and the industry in general. An assessment of a
clearinghouse is just underway.
Commitment
Subsequent to the meeting in summer 1992, the Office of
Water will explore how to transfer information about demand-side
management, including models for the development of local
agreements. These activities would begin immediately following
the meeting (presuming that a sufficient number of "partners"
agree to participate).
W4. Point / Point Source Pollutant Trading
Point/Point Source pollutant trading, like point/nonpoint
source trading, is a market-based approach to water quality
improvement. In a typical point/point trading transaction, a
point source discharger, currently regulated by an NPDES permit
under the Clean Water Act, would avoid a costly treatment upgrade
by paying for or otherwise arranging equivalent or grater
reductions in discharges from other facilities that discharge
into the same receiving waters. The facility would continue to
treat its discharge to a level consistent with the existing
technology-based standards. Facilities subject to treatment
requirements more stringent than the technology-based limitations
could, under a trading program, enter into binding agreements
with other dischargers to treat an equal or greater amount of
pollutants.
The focus of point/point source trading activity should be
on conventional pollutants. Some nonconventional pollutants may
also be good parameters to consider for inclusion in trading
programs. Trading of toxic pollutants is not included as an
option in this proposal.
A permitting authority (State or EPA Region) would set the
overall quantity of pollutant loading reductions required to meet
water quality standards for the particular receiving waters. The
authority would allocate reductions among dischargers, and offer
them the opportunity to develop an alternative reduction strategy
before new permits are finalized. The participating facilities
would decide who will further reduce their discharges, by what
amount, and finalize trades according to associated cost savings,
efficiencies, and other criteria.
-212-
-------
Cost Savings/Benefits:
Point sources may avoid costly treatment upgrades by
participating in trading programs. Limited evidence suggests
that the cost savings could range from several thousand to
several tens of thousands of dollars per facility per year,
although it is difficult to predict accurately the number and
type of dischargers that may benefit. The larger social benefit
is that the production costs for goods can be lowered while
environmental quality is maintained or even improved.
Commitments;
EPA will publish a Federal Register notice in May announcing the
initiative and the availability of an upcoming report on
point/point trading entitled "Incentive Analysis for Clean Water
Act Reauthorization: Point/Point Source Trading for Effluent
Discharge Reductions." The Report should be available in the
beginning of June.
W5. Storrawater Implementation Rule (Phase I)
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act established a two
phase approach for controlling urban storm water. In Phase I,
all large and medium sized cities and all storm water discharge
associated with industrial storm water were to be permitted by
October 1, 1992. Phase II was to include the control of all
other urban storm water discharges based on studies that EPA was
to perform and regulations that were to be promulgated by October
1, 1992. As a result of the legislation, over 100,000 facilities
with storm water associated with industrial activity became
subject to NPDES permitting and the application requirements that
EPA promulgated in November, 1990. Individual applications could
be quite extensive requiring comprehensive facility-specific
narrative information and quantitative analytical data based on
sampling during storm events. In addition to individual
applications, the rule allowed for the use of two-phased group
applications by facilities with similar storm water
characteristics which reduced the application burden to some
extent by calling for detailed information on a specified sample
of group members as well as general permits.
Due to the tremendous reaction from the regulated community on
the burden and cost associated with preparing applications for
permits for storm water associated with industrial activity, EPA
subsequently focused its activities on getting in place for these
facilities, general permits covering baseline storm water
pollution prevention requirements and reviewing its base
permitting requirements, particularly for sampling and reporting,
to reflect better storm water control efforts and reduce
unnecessary monitoring costs. EPA proposed and subsequently
-213-
-------
promulgated on April 2, 1992 a regulation to reduce the
industrial storm water burden by allowing for the submission of
simple notices of intent for general permits in lieu of
burdensome application requirements, reducing sampling and
reporting requirements, extending application deadlines for group
applications, and exempting small cities with industrial storm
water discharges (except for airports, powerplants, or
uncontrolled sanitary landfills). EPA also promulgated, as part
of this rule, a risk-based long-term strategy for industrial
storm water to deal with identified and potential water quality
problems.
Cost Savings/Benefits;
Although the amounts have not been quantified, EPA estimates that
it has enabled significant savings to the industrial sector by
reducing the application and reporting requirements for thousands
of industrial facilities. Additionally, by developing a long-
term strategy and focussing first where the risk is the greatest,
EPA expects a net gain in environmental protection.
Commitment;
EPA promulgated the rule on April 2, 1992
W6. NPDES Regulation Revisions
This proposed rule would amend 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, 124,
125, 403, and 501 to implement changes in the NPDES permitting
program mandated by the 1987 Water Quality Act and programmatic
changes based on Headquarters, Regional, and State experience in
implementing the program. It includes a number of deregulatory
provisions such as expanded use of general permits, expanded
number of situations which would qualify as minor permit
modifications, and facilitating cases in which permits may be
terminated without notice and comment. The proposal will also
request comment on changes in the definition of the small
business exemption.
Cost Savings/Benefits;
The specific impacts and benefits of this proposed rule have
not been calculated. However, EPA expects that the rule will
result in decreased "red tape," accelerations in the permitting
process, and improved responsiveness of the permitting system
which will benefit both the regulatory community and
environmental protection.
-214-
-------
Commitments;
OW will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register in
June.
W7. Storrawater Program Assesment
In conjunction with the Rennsalaerville Institute, OW will
hold a series of public meetings in May and June to consider the
most effective ways of addressing remaining risks from storm
water discharges in ways which will reduce the regulatory burden
on small businesses and small communities without creating
environmental problems. Discussion will focus heavily on those
sources not currently required to have NPDES permits. As part of
these sessions, OW will seek input of the advisability and type
of rulemaking or other approach(es) that may be appropriate for
dealing with these sources.
M8. Revised Guidance for Implementing Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act provides that when a
regulation will have "a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities" the Agency generally must
analyze options for minimizing the impacts. EPA is adopting a
new approach to performing these analyses. For the purposes of
the Agency's implementation of the Act, any impact is a
significant impact, and any number of entities is a substantial
number. Thus, EPA will consider regulatory options for every
regulation subject to the Act that can reasonably be expected to
have an impact on small entities.
Schedule: revised guidelines issued April 9, 1992.
Cost Savings/Benefits;
The practical effect of this policy will be to shift
resources from the effort to determine whether an analysis is
required, to the more productive consideration of regulatory
options for small entities that are subject to the rule.
Mil. Coordinate Permitting and Reporting Requirements in the
Printing Industry
EPA will work with the printing industry to develop a
permitting and compliance initiative that reduces transaction
costs for small businesses. Environmental and safety standards
required by law will not be compromised; rather, the emphasis
will be on achieving these objectives more cost-effectively. The
project will have three components:
-215-
-------
o Coordinated permitting; The Agency will support
efforts to explain permitting requirements for small
printing companies through a comprehensive, easy to
read document, this effort will help to reduce the
burden that small businesses face in trying to identify
and comprehend their obligations under various
environmental laws.
o Coordinated reporting; EPA will support efforts to
coordinate reporting requirement for small 'printers, to
reduce the record-keeping burden required under various
statutes.
o Technical Assistance for Compliance; Finally, EPA will
support cooperative efforts to provide on-site
technical assistance to help small printshops find
cost-effective ways to comply with new environmental
standards.
EPA's work in coordinating permitting and reporting, and
targeting technical assistance, will be designed to encourage
economical investments in pollution prevention. This cooperative
effort with the printing industry will be part of a larger effort
to provide incentives through EPA's compliance programs for
company commitments to environmental excellence. Recognizing the
central role that states play in permitting and technical
assistance programs, EPA will work closely with states in
developing this proposal.
Cost Savings
Not available at this time.
Commitments
1) EPA is already proving technical assistance to the
printing industry through the Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxic substances, and through the Small Business Assistance
program mandated by Section 507 of the Clean Air Act.
2) EPA will established a "cluster" for the printing
industry to ensure that the development of new environmental
standards required by law is coordinated across all programs.
This cluster will provide the basis for evaluating ways to
coordinate permitting and reporting, and to target technical
assistance to help printers find the most cost-effective ways to
comply with new environmental standards.
-216-
-------
Attachment 1
EPA REGULATORY REVIEW ACTIONS AND COMMITMENTS BENEFITTING SMALL BUSINESS
(Listed by Office, Cross-Referenced by the Administrator's Priority Areas)
REF
NO.
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
ACTION/COMMITMENT
ECONOMIC EFFECT
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
REVISIONS TO EXISTING REGULATIONS
A3 Revise Radon Home Building
Standards Guidance
—improve cost-effectiveness by
targeting areas with highest radon
potential
Propose revised
guidance, October
1992
New approach
limits cost to
$500 per house
Small Business
A4 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
Notice of
Preliminary
Rulemaking (NPRM),
June 1992
Small Business
A5 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
-217-
-------
REF
NO.
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
ACTION/COMMITMENT
ECONOMIC EFFECT
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
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
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
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
Included in
savings shown
above
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
-218-
-------
REF
NO.
A12
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
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
ACTION/COMMITMENT
NPRM, May 1992;
promulgate , November
1992
ECONOMIC EFFECT
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
Incentives
Small Business
-219-
-------
REF
NO.
A16
REF.
NO.
P3
P4
P5
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
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
OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES
AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
PESTICIDES
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
TOXICS
ACTION/COMMITMENT
Increased on-site
planning assistance
in FY92 and FY93
ACTION/COMMITMENT
Hold workshop , May
26-28, 1992
Users' manual, Summer
1992
Develop legislative
initiative, late
Spring/Summer 1992
ECONOMIC EFFECT
ECONOMIC EFFECT
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
Small Business
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
Small Business
Small Business
Small Business
-220-
-------
REF. OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES
NO. AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
ACTION/COMMITMENT
ECONOMIC EFFECT
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
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 Federal
Register notice,
Small Business
late
May - early June 1992
P7 Premanufacture Notification
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 Toxic Substances Control Act
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
-221-
-------
REF.
NO.
Pll
OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES
AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI)
— evaluation of options for
reducing reporting burdens (e.g. .
modify thresholds for reporting,
exempt small releases, etc.)
ACTION/COMMITMENT
Advance Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM), Spring-
Summer 1992
ECONOMIC EFFECT
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
Small Business
-222-
-------
REF.
NO.
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
ACTION/COMMITMENT
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
EXPEDITING THE PACE AND
ELIMINATING UNNECESSARY COSTS OF
CORRECTIVE ACTION UNDER THE
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY
ACT (RCRA)
S6
Suspension of Toxicity
Characteristic (TC) Rule for Non-
Underground Storage Tank (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
Federal Register
notice on data
availability and
request for comment,
July 1992
Decrease
corrective action
costs at UST
facilities
RCRA
Small Business
Small Communities
S10
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
PROVIDING RELIEF TO SMALL
COMMUNITIES AND BUSINESSES
-223-
-------
REF. OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND
NO. EMERGENCY RESPONSE
ACTION/COMMITMENT
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
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
S25 Extend 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
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
CREATING AN EFFECTIVE, EQUITABLE
AND EFFICIENT SUPERFUND PROGRAM
-224-
-------
REF. OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND
NO. EMERGENCY RESPONSE
ACTION/COMMITMENT
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
S30 Clarify 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
Final rule
published, April 29,
1992
Provides
businesses access
to capital that
would have been
otherwise
restricted by
Superfund
liability
Small Business
S33 Standardized or Presumptive
Remedies for Wood Treaters,
Municipal Landfills, Sites
Contaminated with Solvents, and
Sites with Groundwater
Contamination
Pilot project
underway
$550,000 per year
savings per site
Small Business
Small Communities
S36 Double-Walled Above-Ground 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
-225-
-------
REF.
NO.
OFFICE OF WATER
ACTIONS/COMMITMENTS
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
PRIORITY AREAS
INCENTIVE PROJECTS
Wl Point/Nonpoint Source Trading
— to identify opportunities for
improving the cost-effectiveness
of traditional water pollution
control programs through
point/nonpoint source trading
Public meeting held,
April 27-28, 1992;
Provide guidance and
otherwise promote
application
Provides cost
savings to direct
dischargers;
within a
watershed, total
treatment costs
may be reduced by
up to an order of
magnitude
Incentives
Small Business
Small Communities
W3 Wise Water-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)
Hold meeting of
"partners" in May
1992
Reduces costs as
water supply and
water treatment
expenditures
decline
Incentives
Small Business
W4 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 Best
Available Treatment (BAT)
requirements are met
Publish study in FR
and seek comment on
feasibility
Provides costs
savings to
dischargers
Incentives
Small Business
PERMITTING
-226-
-------
REF.
NO.
OFFICE OF WATER
ACTIONS/COMMITMENTS
ECONOMIC EFFECTS
PRIORITY AREAS
W5 Stormwater Implementation Rule
(Phase I)
— extends application (leadlines
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 National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (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 toxicity
testing requirements, among other
things
Propose, June 1992
Reduces burden
and costs for
dischargers by
cutting red tape
Small Business
EXPAND USE OF INCLUSIONARY
RULEMAKING
W7 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
Indus ionary
REF.
NO.
AGENCY-WIDE ACTIVITIES
ACTIONS/COMMITMENTS
OFFICE(S)
ECONOMIC
EFFECTS
ADMINISTRATOR'S
PRIORITY AREAS
-227-
-------
M8
Mil
SMALL BUSINESS
Revise Guidance for Implementing
the Regulatory Flexibility Act
— look for cost-effective ways to
implement regulations impacting
small business
PERMITS
Coordinate Permitting and
Reporting Requirements/Provide
Technical Assistance for Pollution
Prevention in the Printing
Industry
Guidance Issued in
April, 1992
On- go ing during
1992
All
Aims to
make
regulations
more cost-
effective
Small
Communities and
Businesses
Permitting
Small Business
-228-
-------
APPENDIX 12
INCLUSIONARY RULEMAKING
-229-
-------
I. GENERAL OBJECTIVE
In his February 5, 1992 directive the' Administrator proposed
among other actions to "accelerate inclusionary rulemaking." In
subsequent meetings it became clear that this included a wide
variety of approaches designed to more fully involve the public
and regulated parties in decision making that would affect their
livelihood and well-being. The objective of this subcommittee
was to investigate ways to increase the use of inclusionary
approaches to develop more pragmatic, environmentally effective
rules and policies based on enhanced information on the practical
and economic effects.
The committee considered uses of inclusionary processes in
specific cases as well as broad procedural changes in the way
rules are developed and implemented.
A. Inclusionary Processes in Specific Cases
Inclusionary approaches involve a range of activities from
negotiated rulemaking to public meetings. This range is
illustrated in attachment 1. In addition, inclusionary
approaches can include the use of alternate dispute resolution
(ADR) in enforcement cases and other facility specific cases.
Negotiated rulemaking is an approach which brings together
representatives of various outside interest groups and a federal
agency to negotiate the text of a proposed rule. The goal of a
negotiated rulemaking proceeding is for the committee to reach
consensus on the text of a proposed rule. The process of
negotiated rulemaking is outlined in the Negotiated Rulemaking
Act of 1990 and is summarized below.
The Agency establishes a formal advisory committee under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act. A balanced mix of people is
invited by the agency to participate and represent some
identified interest or set of interests. Generally committees
are composed of between 12 and 25 members representing both the
public and private sectors. A neutral facilitator or mediator is
used to convene the committee and to manage its meetings.
Meetings are announced in the Federal Register and are open
to observation and comment by members of the public. Committee
decisions are made by consensus, not by majority vote. Consensus
is defined by the committee prior to the start of its
deliberations, however it is generally defined as an agreement by
all parties that they can live with the provisions of the rule.
The committee holds meetings on a regular basis, drawing on the
diverse experience and creative skills of the members to address
problems encountered in writing a regulation. Many times the
group together can propose solutions to difficult problems that
no one member could have thought of or believed would work.
If consensus is reached, the Agency uses it as a basis for
-230-
-------
the proposed rule. Committee members agree to support the rule
as proposed if there are no substantive changes from the
consensus agreement. The proposed rule is' still subject to
public comment. However, because the negotiating committee has
representatives of the major groups affected by or interested in
the rule, the number of public comments is reduced. The tenor of
public comment is more moderate. Fewer substantive changes are
required before the rule is made final.
Federal agencies that have used negotiated rulemaking have
identified several advantages to developing a rule by negotiation
before notice and comment. The regulatory negotiation process
allows the interested, affected parties a more direct input into
the drafting of the regulation, thus ensuring that the rule is
more sensitive to the needs and restrictions of both the parties
and the agency. Rules drafted by negotiation have been found to
be more pragmatic and more easily implemented at an earlier date,
thus providing the public with the benefits of the rule while
minimizing the negative time and cost impacts of a poorly
conceived or drafted regulation.
National policy dialogues are similar to regulatory
negotiations in many respects: numbers and distribution of
parties, scope of issues, a continuous series of meetings with a
stated goal. However, the goal of a dialogue is not to draft
regulatory language. Typical goals may involve reaching a joint
understanding of existing data and data gaps, or conducting an
examination of the practical effects of certain policies or
regulations. Some dialogues are formally chartered Advisory
Committees with responsibility to make a collective
recommendation to the Agency; some dialogues are primarily for
the purpose of information, data and/or opinion exchange.
Several of EPA's national policy dialogues have resulted in
widely accepted voluntary compliance agreements in cases where
regulation would have been difficult.
The less formal end of the range includes shorter term
collaborative problem solving and consensus building processes
for resolving regulatory and policy issues. These processes
encompass less formal, shorter term models for collaborative
input into decision-making than the Advisory Committees of
negotiated rule making and policy dialogues, and include such
activities as facilitated public meetings, workshops, forums and
roundtables.
These activities may consist of a single meeting or a series
of related meetings. They may involve a small group specially
selected for particular expertise or may involve a large, very
diverse group. The purpose may vary from a chance to air
differences, to information and data exchange, to generation of
alternatives and options. Common to all of the short term
processes is an approach that seeks to foster an early exchange
of information among affected interests so as to lead to greater
-231-
-------
communication and collaboration.
B. Broader Policy Changes
The Committee also considered a number of recommendations
for procedural changes that would involve the public and the
regulated community in Agency activities in more productive ways.
Two areas were the focus of this consideration. The first was
rule development procedures. Consideration was given to ways of
institutionalizing review and consultation procedures that would
involve outside constituencies earlier in the process. The
second was regulatory implementation procedures such as
enforcement and compliance activities, incorporating procedures
to manage case disputes in a more efficient manner.
II. OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT
A. Indus ionary Processes for Specific Cases
We have conducted an Agencywide examination of rules under
development and conclude that the rules listed below may benefit
from the use of an inclusionary process. The Agency has begun
feasibility studies on each of these rules to determine whether
the affected interest groups are interested in participating in
the process.
Regulatory Negotiations
o Hazardous Waste Manifest - Office of Policy, Planning
and Evaluation with technical assistance from Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Hazardous wastes transported from a generator to any
other site must be accompanied by a control and
transport document called a manifest. EPA regulations
specify the minimum data needed on the manifest but
states are allowed the latitude to request additional
data. This has led to a patchwork of inconsistent
formats and procedures generating inconsistent
information and making access to and dissemination of
this information difficult for both states and
industry. The Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials petitioned the EPA to
revise the manifest form. The goal of the negotiation
is to reach agreement on a uniform national manifest
form that meets the needs of the various states and
reduces the paperwork burden on industry.
o Architectural and industrial Maintenance Coatings -
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Under the Clean Air Act as amended, EPA must study
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
commercial and consumer products and submit a Report to
-232-
-------
Congress by November 1993. Based on this report, EPA
must list those categories that account for 80% of the
total emissions, divide this list into 4 parts, and
regulate one of the 4 parts every 2 years until all 4
are regulated. Architectural and industrial
maintenance (AIM) coatings are estimated to represent
20% of the commercial and consumer product VOC
emissions. The goal of the negotiation is to design a
market based approach to reducing VOC emissions and to
design an approach that minimizes state by state
variation in requirements that would complicate an
already complex manufacturing and distribution system.
Policy Dialogues and Other Consultative Activities
o Policy Dialogue on Lawn Care Pesticides - Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
The Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances (OPPTS) has obtained a FACA charter for a
proposed Lawn Care Pesticide Advisory Committee. This
Advisory Committee is an outgrowth of OPPTS' initial
effort at obtaining insight into the views and
experiences of a wide range of organizations on lawn
and garden care pesticide issues. The intent is to
obtain a widely diverse set of individual viewpoints,
working with industry to develop and distribute an
educational brochure on the use of lawn care
pesticides.
OPPTS believes that obtaining a FACA charter for this
policy dialogue will prove important as the direction
of the group's effort may change from information
gathering and exchange to developing voluntary
guidelines or "white paper" recommendations for EPA and
other governmental bodies and/or the lawn care
pesticide industry. The critical issues expected to be
addressed include: (1) the operation of registries of
people who are sensitive to, or may be affected by,
lawn care pesticide use; (2) posting and notification
schemes concerning lawn care pesticide use; (3)
communications, education, and training regarding lawn
care pesticide use; and (4) advertising of lawn care
pesticide services and products.
W7. Combined Sewer Overflow - Office of Water
In 1989 EPA issued the National Combined Sewer Overflow
(CSOs) Control Strategy which reaffirmed that CSOs are
point sources subject to NPDES permit requirements
including both technology-based and water quality-based
requirements of the Clean Water Act. The Strategy
directed states to develop statewide permitting
strategies by 1990. Under the authority of the Office
-233-
-------
of Water (OW) Management Advisory Group, OW will
organize a group of interested outside parties to
participate in a policy dialogue to identify ways to
accelerate construction of CSO controls for priority
CSO systems. The goal is to have the group help
identify and agree to support a CSO standard that would
provide an appropriate balance between needs for
national consistency and State/municipal flexibility.
81. Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
Concentration Based Exemption Criteria - Office of
Solid Waste Emergency Response
EPA's regulations under RCRA require that hazardous
waste mixed with nonhazardous solid waste and treatment
residuals be considered hazardous waste. This
rulemaking will exempt from the hazardous waste
regulations mixtures and treatment residuals where
there is minimal risk. An inclusionary process is
being used to design an approach that protects the
environment but does not result in unreasonable
regulation of low risk wastes. The rule will establish
concentrations of hazardous constituents below which a
waste, mixture or residue would no longer be considered
hazardous.
W7. Stormwater Phase II - Office of Water
In conjunction with the Rennsalaerville Institute, ow
will hold a series of public meetings in May and June
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. As part of these sessions, OW will
build support for a negotiated rulemaking.
W7. Governors' Forum on Implementation of Drinking Water
Program - Office of Water
OW will use the special panel of Governors being
convened to work with the Administrator to engage in an
informal policy dialogue on issues associated with the
drinking water program and alternatives for enhancing
program implementation.
W7. Contaminated Sediment Management strategy - Office of
Water
Three national forums have been or will be held in
April, May, and June to solicit public comment on OW's
draft strategy outline. The April forum will focus on
the extent and severity of sediment contamination; the
May forum on building alliances with State and Federal
-234-
-------
agencies; and the June forum on public outreach. OW
will solicit recommendations on the most cost-effective
approaches for implementing the strategy.
B. Broad Policy Changes
Rule Development Procedures.
In addition to the specific opportunities above, EPA issued
new Guidelines on the Regulatory Flexibility Act for all
rulemaking activities. (M8)
The Act requires that special consideration be given to
small businesses and small communities because they are more
easily overlooked in the regulatory process than their larger
counterparts. Small entities generally cannot devote staff
resources to follow regulatory developments and in many cases are
less likely to have their interests represented by trade
associations and lobbyists. For these reasons, agencies must
make a special effort to ensure that small entities are informed
about regulatory initiatives and are explicitly considered in
regulatory analyses.
The Act reguires that agencies develop Regulatory
Flexibility Analyses and alternative approaches for small
entities to comply with rules that have a "significant" impact on
a "substantial" number of small entities. Rather than spending
resources to define what is a "significant" impact or a
"substantial" number of small entities, the Agency's new draft
Guidelines for implementing the Act adopt a new approach to
regulatory flexibility: i.e., for purposes of the Act, any impact
is a significant impact, and any number of small entities is a
substantial number. The Agency's new policy shifts resources
from the effort to determine whether an analysis is required, to
the more productive consideration of regulatory options for small
entities subject to the rule. EPA will involve small entities in
the rule-writing process more often at an earlier stage, and will
consider alternatives to any regulation that threatens to impact
small entities. This new approach is intended to make the Agency
more responsive to the special needs and concerns of small
entities when it defines environmental requirements.
Rule Implementation Procedures.
Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) Processes refers to a
range of activities used in resolving disputes. The range
includes mediation, joint factfinding, early neutral evaluation,
and non-binding arbitration and binding arbitration. The
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act and Executive Order 12778
on Civil Justice Reform encourage and reaffirm agencies'
authorization to use ADR. The Committee felt that the use of ADR
promotes a more expeditious and fair resolution of a dispute with
a higher rate of final compliance. The 1987 "Final Guidance on
-235-
-------
Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution Techniques in Enforcement
Actions" describes relevant ADR mechanisms, proposes criteria for
selection of appropriate cases for ADR use', and establishes
procedures for obtaining the services of qualified ADR
professionals. The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1990
requires each agency to adapt an ADR policy. EPA has established
a workgroup to update and broaden the policy to all relevant
Agency activities.
In addition, the Office of Enforcement in conjunction with
several program offices (OSWER, OW) plans to develop the use of
ADR to provide cost-effective methods to expedite the resolution
of enforcement actions. Initiatives include:
o Convening of national conferences and meetings to obtain
information for future ADR policy development and promote
ADR usage by the regulated community. (First conference
held March 1992 - CERCLA)
o Inclusion of ADR provisions in model settlement documents
and administrative orders and/or guidance. (1992)
o Expansion of regional ADR case support. (1992)
o Training all Agency enforcement staff in the effective use
of ADR techniques. (April-September 1992)
III. POTENTIAL ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
EPA's experience over the last nine years has shown that
industry and environmentalists can work with the Agency to
achieve pragmatic solutions to each party's needs without
compromising on basic principles. Industry has testified before
Congress and has stated at numerous meetings that negotiated
rules have saved them money. Environmentalists have testified
that pollution reduction goals have not been compromised and that
implementation schedules have been reasonable.
Application of negotiated rulemaking to the rules described
in section II are predicted to result in cost savings to the
regulated industry while maintaining or increasing environmental
protection goals. In the case of the hazardous waste manifest
rule the reduced paperwork burdens will result in reduced cost of
compliance for industry, and reduced costs and increased accuracy
of tracking interstate shipments for states. In the case of the
architectural and industrial coatings, the negotiation should
result in a market based approach that may give manufacturers
flexibility across product lines and distribution patterns and
reduce potential state variability that could increase
distribution costs.
An agreement on factors influencing standards for diversion,
holding and storage of stormwater from combined sewer overflows
could reduce compliance and construction requirements faced by
-236-
-------
State and local governments. A settlement of the issues involved
in the mixtures and derived from rules could reduce the amount of
minimally contaminated wastes required to be disposed of at
Subtitle C facilities, reducing storage, transport and disposal
costs and better managing precious hazardous waste disposal
capacity.
IV. SUMMARY OF ACTIONS AND COMMITMENTS
All of the specific actions in section II are underway for
each of the rules listed. The results of the feasibility studies
will be available in early summer and will be announced at that
time.
In addition, we are continuing to seek out all possible
opportunities for involving regulated entities, State and local
governments, public interest groups, small communities, and small
businesses in our rulemaking efforts. Besides the four rules
listed in section II, a number of other rules are under early
consideration in every EPA program office and may be announced in
late spring or early summer. We will use negotiated rulemaking
and other inclusionary processes whenever we and the involved
parties agree that it makes sense.
-237-
-------
APPENDIX 13
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
IN RESPONSE TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
90-DAY MORATORIUM AND REVIEW
-238-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BACKGROUND 240
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS 240
DETAILED SUMMARY OF COMMENTS BY PROGRAM 249
Air Program 249
Waste Program (and Emergency Response) 252
Water Program 261
Toxic Substances Program 264
Pesticides Program 268
Other Comments of Agency-Wide Interest 270
Federal Register Notice 273
-239-
-------
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
IN RESPONSE TO THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE
BACKGROUND
EPA published a Federal Register notice March 3, 1992 soliciting comment on areas
which the Agency should investigate in response to the President's 90-Day Moratorium and
Review (a copy of this notice is in the overview report and attached to this Appendix). The
comment period closed on March 20, 1992 and EPA has reviewed all comments received by
March 27, 1992. Additional comments have been received and are presently being reviewed.
The comments have been collected in a public docket (#FRL-4111-8).
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC COMMENTS
Commenters
The Federal Register notice generated 720 comments from 221 individuals or groups. Trade
associations and individual firms represented over 90 percent of the commenters. Other
commenters included local governments, state governments, non-profit organizations, and a
private citizen.
-240-
-------
Review of Comments
Comments were received in all program areas - air, waste, water, pesticides and
toxics.! The air program received over 30 percent of the comments. Other program areas
receiving substantial number of comments included waste, water, and toxics substances. The
toxic substances comments include comments related to the reporting requirements under the
Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act. The Agency also received comments
(6%) concerning agency-wide issues in such areas as cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, and
regulatory effects on small businesses. Also included in this last category were comments
focusing solely on the 90-Day Moratorium and Review. The comments received in each of these
areas are summarized below.
1 Some comments related to more than one program or topic area. These comments are
counted as multiple comments (i.e., included as a comment in all categories that apply).
-241-
-------
Air Program
EPA received 233 comments related to its air program. Major areas of interest were the
air toxics, mobile source, non-attainment, and operating permit programs.
The air toxics comments reflected a general call for better risk assessments in setting
standards and priorities, as well as comments on specific rulemakings such as the Hazardous
Organic NESHAP. In the area of mobile sources, several small equipment manufacturers
commented that regulation of non-road engines would impose severe hardships on industry and
inconvenience consumers. The major domestic auto manufacturers raised several specific issues
focusing on the need to explore cost-effective alternatives. Comments related to the non-
attainment program covered a broad range of issues with the need for cost-effectiveness
considerations being the common theme. General themes of the comments received on the
permits program were a desire for operational flexibility, opposition to continuous emission
monitoring, and a concern over permitting delays.
-242-
-------
Waste Program
The Agency received 172 comments related to its waste and emergency response
programs. Nearly two-thirds of the comments received in the waste area focused on the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program. The Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) program, commonly referred to as the
Superfund program, accounted for the majority of the remaining comments.
The major RCRA issues addressed in the comments were definition of solid waste, used
oil, and derived-from and mixture rules. Definition of solid waste comments expressed concern
over the ambiguity of existing definitions. Used oil comments supported not listing used oil as
a hazardous waste. Some commenters advocated management standards for used oil while others
requested specific exemptions from existing regulations. Comments concerning the remanded
derived-from and mixture rules generally support hazardous waste determinations based on risks.
Some commenters requested a multi-tiered approach for managing hazardous wastes.
Lender liability was the issue most frequently commented on in terms of the CERCLA
program. The comments were generally supportive of the Agency's proposed rule. Other
CERCLA issues addressed included contractor indemnification, remedy selection and
settlements.
Other issues identified by several commenters related to the underground storage tank,
chemical emergency preparedness, and emergency planning requirement programs.
-243-
-------
-244-
-------
Water Program
EPA received 133 comments concerning its water programs. Comments principally
addressed regulations under the Clean Water Act. Relatively few comments were received
concerning regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
By far, the Agency's storm water application rule and associated permits was the key
area addressed in the public comments in the water area. Of primary concern were monitoring
requirements and deadlines for submission of applications. Several commenters also requested
general permits be issued as soon as possible for groups of facilities, similar to their own, as
allowed under the proposed rule. Other areas addressed in the comments include: wetlands
delineation; and the applicability of nationally derived criteria to specific locations in setting
toxic water quality standards (National Toxics Rule).
-245-
-------
Toxic Substances Program
The Toxic Substances Program was addressee Dy 111 comments. Nearly halt of these
comments focused on reporting requirements under the Emergency Planning & Community
Right-to-Know Act, particularly the Toxic Release Inventory. Overlapping reporting
requirements and requests for specific exemptions from reporting requirements were the primary
issues of concern. Other issues addressed by several commenters include the mandatory
reporting requirements under the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, several PCB regulations, the
premanufacture notification regulations and lead.
-246-
-------
Pesticides Program
Relatively few comments (less than 5 percent) were received concerning EPA's Pesticides
Program. Most of the comments received in this area relate to farmworker protection and the
registration and re-registration processes. Commenters generally felt that current worker
protection standards were adequate and that the registration and re-registration processes were
too burdensome.
-247-
-------
Other Comments
The Agency received 41 comments concerning general policies covering such areas as
cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, and effects on small business. Commenters generally
advocated improving cost-benefit analyses conducted to support specific regulations, multi-media
approaches to regulations, and improved risk assessments. In addition, several comments
focused solely on the 90-day moratorium and review. Comments ranged from supporting
continued periodic review of regulations to concerns that the 90-day moratorium and review
would delay rulemaking and potentially adversely affect human health and the environment.
-248-
-------
DETAILED SUMMARY OF COMMENTS BY PROGRAMS
The following pages describes the comments received in each of the Agency's program
areas as well as general agency-wide comments.
Air Program Comments
The Agency received a total of 233 comments related to its air program. The distribution
of comments is:
Non-Attainment (Title I) 52
Mobile Sources (Title II) 53
Air Toxics (Tide HI) 58
Acid Rain (Title IV) 12
Permits (Title V) 44
Stratospheric Ozone (Title VI) 14
Total 233
Title I
The 52 comments received pertaining to non-attainment covered 28 different areas. The
top-down Best Available Control Technology (BACT) policy received the most comments (5).
Most commenters opposed it, stating that the top-down policy often leads to the most expensive
control option, the process cost associated with top-down BACT are high, and that EPA has no
guidance on what is "affordable." The marine vapor recovery regulatory effort and visibility
issues each received the second most comments (4). Commenters on the vapor recovery rule
desired that cost effectiveness considerations guide regulation development and felt that the
regulations should apply only in non-attainment areas. Regarding visibility, commenters
recommended that EPA reject the Department of Interior position that new sources within 120
miles of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park not be issued permits. Other areas in which
multiple comments were received included the burdensome nature of new source review, a desire
to improve the emission trading policy, and a suggestion to revoke the "outdated" NSPS for
stationary internal combustion engines.
Title H
The 53 mobile source comments addressed 15 different topics. The most comments
received in any one area were 14 pertaining to regulation of non-road engines. The commenters
were mostly small equipment manufacturers such as Toro, Inc. and Case Corporation, which
-249-
-------
believe regulation of such sources will impose severe hardship on their industry and
inconvenience to consumers. The Department of Agriculture.provided similar comments. The
most common areas addressed by the "Big Three" domestic auto manufacturers were: a desire
for EPA to adopt California's onboard diagnostics regulations; a belief that the compliance costs
associated with the proposed evaporation test procedure are too high; a wish to develop cost-
effective alternatives to the existing certification process; and opposition to states' adoption of
the California Low Emissions Vehicle program. A desire was also expressed to explore cost-
effective alternatives to the recall program. Comments from oil companies centered on the
oxygenated and reformulated gasoline programs. These commenters expressed an opposition
to the proposed requirement of an independent CPA attestation of compliance and a desire for
"island" or "stand" labeling versus the proposed labeling of every pump. Pro and con comments
were also received pertaining to enhanced inspection/maintenance programs.
Tide III
The 58 air toxics comments addressed 21 different topics. The most common topic by
far was the use of risk assessment (23). Comments could be characterized as a general call for
the Agency to improve its use of risk assessment in setting standards and priorities. Most other
comments addressed specific rulemakings such as the effort to develop Maximum Achievable
Control Technology (MACT) for the wood furniture industry (commenters felt formaldehyde did
not warrant regulation) and the asbestos NESHAP (commenters believe the NESHAP should be
revised to consider such factors as the type of asbestos). Commenters also supported adoption
of plant-wide averaging in the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON) and expressed a desire that
standards be set that provide net societal benefits.
Tide IV
The proposed continuous emissions monitoring (CEM) provisions solicited the most
comments (6) in the acid rain area. Most of these comments focused on NOx monitoring
procedures with a consensus that EPA should propose alternatives for small and low capacity
units. It was further felt that the proposed requirements for approval and certification of
alternative monitoring systems are so unreasonable that they virtually eliminate all possible
alternatives. The only other area which drew multiple comments was the Nox rulemaking,
where commenters opposed the inclusion of overfire air in the definition of low-Nox burners and
desired an extension of the January 1, 1995 deadline for compliance for Phase I units due to a
belief that EPA will miss the May 15, 1992 deadline specified in the Clean Air Act.
Title V
The overriding themes of the permit comments were a desire for operational flexibility
in the final permit rule, opposition to continuous emission monitoring and support for less cosdy
-250-
-------
alternatives, a belief that permitting delays hurt competitiveness, support for simplified general
permits, and, most frequently mentioned, opposition to public notification of minor permit
amendments.
Title VI
More ozone comments (4) dealt with certification procedures than any other topic. These
comments ranged from a desire to eliminate certification for motor vehicle air conditioning
service to a desire for EPA to establish standards and requirements for heating, ventilating, and
air conditioning technicians. In other areas, commenters opposed labeling and third party testing
requirements and believed the phase out deadline of 2000 should be left in place.
-251-
-------
Waste Program Comments
#-
The breakdown of 172 waste and emergency response comments is as follows:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Definition of Solid Waste 15
Land Disposal Restrictions 11
Corrective Action 6
Derived-from and Mixture Rules 18
Toxicity Characteristic 5
Boilers and Industrial Furnaces 5
Used Oil 12
Coke By-Products 2
RCRA Financial Assurance 1
RCRA Reporting Requirements 4
Recycling 5
Municipal Solid Waste 7
Other RCRA comments 15
106
Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act
Lender Liability 9
Remedy Selection 5
CERCLA Liability (general) 3
Reporting on Voluntary Cleanups 1
Reportable Quantities-List of Substances-Ethylene Glycol 3
Settlements 4
Contractor Indemnification 7
Natural Resource Damages 1
Municipal Liability 3
Hazard Ranking System 2
National Priorities List 1
Superfund - Process 3
42
Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know 6
Underground Storage Tanks 8
Chemical Emergency Preparedness 10
TOTAL 172
-252-
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
The Agency received over 100 comments on its RCRA program. A brief summary of
these comments by topic area follows.
Definition of Solid Waste
Fifteen comments submitted by eight organizations dealt with the definition of solid
waste. Virtually all of the comments addressed the ambiguity of the definitions of solid and
hazardous wastes. Each constituency claims that the ambiguity in RCRA adversely affects small
business. The groups vary in their views on how to streamline the definitions: some say to
regulate more (thereby levelling the playing field); others say to regulate more efficiently; and,
finally, still others propose de-regulation.
One area drawing specific attention was the regulation of nickel-cadmium batteries. Two
commenters claim that regulating these products as a hazardous waste will impose excessive
costs on battery manufacturers and society.
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
The Agency received eleven comments on the LDR. The majority of commenters
believes LDR was overly broad and restrictive. Five of the commenters stated that wastes
should only be required to be treated to levels that minimize risks to human health and the
environment. Treating characteristic waste below levels that would define the waste as
hazardous was considered both wasteful and unnecessary. One commenter stated that allowing
organic wastes to be disposed in secure landfills, rather than incinerated, could save anywhere
between $57-131 million dollars. Finally, one commenter asked EPA to refrain from
prescribing specific technologies in setting Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BOAT)
standards.
Corrective Action
Six comments were received on the RCRA corrective action rulemaking. One commenter
suggested that EPA consider permitting exemptions or permits by rule for remediation units.
This commenter further suggested corrective action should be decoupled from sitewide 3004(u)
authorities. Two commenters thought that EPA should reconsider financial assurance
requirements pertaining to remediation. One commenter believed that EPA should complete and
consider economic impact assessment pertaining to clean-ups prior to issuing the final rule, while
another believed that corrective action should apply to only those facilities with significant
problems. Another commenter advised the Agency to streamline the formal corrective action
process and more fully utilize conditional remedies and appropriate institutional controls. Two
commenters suggested using realistic clean-up standards based upon peer reviewed science and
incorporating realistic cost-benefit analysis into decision-making. Another commenter suggested
-253-
-------
that the Agency remove disincentives to cleanup.
Derived-from and Mixture Rule
Eighteen comments were received on the derived from and mixture rules. The
commenters overwhelmingly believed that the rules were overly broad and recommended that
the Agency develop concentration based levels below which the waste is no longer hazardous.
One commenter recommended a multi-tiered approach for managing hazardous wastes. Another
commenter believed that the Agency should reinstate the remanded derived from and mixture
rules.
Toxicitv Characteristic (TO
Five comments were received on the toxicity characteristic. One commenter
recommended providing innovative environmentally acceptable disposal options for non-
hazardous petroleum wastes. It was claimed that this would result in a savings of $1 million.
Another commenter believed that silver should be deleted as a TC constituent. A third
commenter believed that the TCLP is causing "greater volumes of hazardous waste." EPA also
received a recommendation that petroleum products be excluded from the TC to avoid hampering
current state programs. It was also suggested that TC testing not be required for offshore
exploration when relatively non-toxic drilling fluids are used. This commenter further suggested
that EPA publish a list of relatively non-toxic drilling fluid materials, thereby saving several
million dollars.
Boiler and Industrial Furnaces (BIF)
The Agency received five comments on the Boiler and Industrial Furnace Rule.
Commenters expressed a concern over the economic burden placed on them by the Part A permit
and technological modifications requirements. These commenters claim that burning waste fuels
has all but ceased, contrary to the goals of resource conservation and recovery. In addition, the
BIF fuel testing requirements was considered to place a duplicative and undue burden on small
businesses since they have to test the fuel even though it has already been tested by the
generator. Interstate shipments of waste, for burning purposes, was also reported to expose the
public to potential hazards.
Used Oil
The Agency received twelve comments on used oil. All commenters requested that used
oil not be listed as a hazardous waste—some advocated reasonable management standards, while
others requested exemptions for their oils. The main concern over identifying used oil as
hazardous waste is the possible negative environmental effect caused by the imposition of
Subtitle C (via listing) or other similar management standards on the recycling industry. In
addition, comments expressed concern about the effects of potential management standards on
small, independent operators. Lastly, one commenter believed that management standards
-254-
-------
should be promulgated as soon as possible to stave off Congressional action.
Coke By-Products
Two comments were received on coke by-products. The first concerned the listing of
seven new coke plants and tar refining wastes. The commenter claims that existing regulations
adequately address disposal and that listing would discourage recycling. The second comment
was a request for a permanent exemption from the BIF Rule (as opposed to the current
administrative stay) of certain coke oven residual materials.
RCRA Financial Assurance
One commenter asserts that the goals of RCRA's financial assurance requirements can
be achieved in a more effective way.
RCRA Reporting Requirements
Four commenters generally believed that RCRA recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, particularly the biennial reports, are overly burdensome.
Recycling
The Agency received five comments on recycling. Some called for general regulatory
reform, others raised product-specific issues, and some urged that economic and technical issues
be considered when developing any national regulatory policy on recycling. Many commenters
felt that the current regulations are needlessly complex.
Municipal Solid Waste CMSW)
Seven comments were received from a variety of commenters. Two state agencies
commented on the need to allow states latitude in interpreting laws and regulations affecting
solid wastes, particularly in permitting. Another state agency commented that grants to states
could be better handled, and that Part 503 Septage requirements are unnecessarily burdensome
to small haulers. One commenter contends that state adequacy determinations for the purposes
of the MSW landfill criteria should be handled as expeditiously as possible. Another commenter
would like to see the Groundwater Protection Strategy integrated into all aspects of EPA's
Subtitle D groundwater protection efforts. Finally, one commenter believes that municipalities
should be able to recover costs imposed by the Subtitle D criteria.
Other RCRA
The Agency received fifteen other RCRA comments. Commenters suggested that EPA
-255-
-------
develop more cost-effective alternatives for small quantity generators, as the burden of waste
testing and hauling requirements is hindering small businesses* One commenter stated that EPA
should end duplicate sampling requirements. Another suggested that EPA should add an
unambiguous exclusion from the definition of solid waste for textiles that are to be cleaned for
reuse. Other commenters requested EPA reevaluate the definitions of "individual generator site"
and "on-site". Finally, one commenter suggested that EPA test its own regulations to assure that
they can be understood by the regulated community, and that EPA develop clear regulations
which can then be self-enforced.
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
EPA received 42 comments related to the CERCLA program. The comments are
summarized below by topic area.
Lender Liability
The Agency received nine comments regarding lender liability. Four commenters
supported the Agency's proposed rule on Lender Liability, with one of those also supporting
legislation that would create equivalent exemptions for lenders under both CERCLA and RCRA.
In addition to those four, two commenters suggested that the Agency promulgate the final rule
as soon as possible. One commenter suggested clarifying the statute through guidance. One
commenter noted that gas marketers and similar entities are bearing the brunt of lender fears for
underground storage tank (UST) sites, even though USTs are not covered under CERCLA.
Finally, one commenter claims that the lender liability rule would cause an unnecessary
paperwork burden for industry.
Remedy Selection
The Agency received five comments concerning remedy selection. One commenter
suggested revising selections of remedy to improve cost-effectiveness, and more equitable and
increased use of settlement and cost sharing authorities. Two commenters are concerned about
EPA's risk assessment methods, which are a basis for remedy selection. Another claims that
the goals of the land disposal restrictions component of the remedy selection rules can be met
in a more efficient manner, although the commenter does not offer an alternative. EPA received
one comment suggesting that there should be a clear definition of "how clean is clean." One
commenter claims that the courts do not have the technical expertise to evaluate competing
remedies.
CERCLA Liability
The Agency received three comments referring to the overall CERCLA liability scheme.
-256-
-------
One commenter claims that joint and several liability is a barrier to expedited cleanup, and that
retroactive liability has a chilling effect on settlement. The second commenter claims that
Superfund liability leads to large transaction costs, while the third claims that the Superfund
program is costly, without providing further details.
Reporting on Voluntary Cleanups
One comment was received suggesting that firms conducting voluntary cleanups in
Florida be relieved of the burden of reporting to both Florida and the EPA. Savings totalling
$1 million was claimed.
Reportable Quantities-List of Substances
One comment was received concerning the reporting level of ethylene glycol. The
commenter suggests that the reporting level should be increased from one pound to 1,000 pounds
in order to eliminate reporting due to airline deicing operations.
Settlements
The Agency received four comments regarding CERCLA settlements. One commenter
claims that de minimis settlements are not cost-effective, and that EPA should expand the use
of Non-Binding Allocation of Responsibility (NEAR). Another commenter suggests that EPA
should use mixed funding more often, using the Fund to pay for shares of various parties
(municipalities, bankrupt companies, orphan shares). The commenter also felt that potentially
responsible party (PRP) notices should be sent to all parties. Another comment recommended
that EPA adopt a procedure for allocating liability among PRPs. A national trade association
believes that NBARs should be used, that EPA is too hasty in invoking §106 rather than
negotiating settlements, that EPA's settlement policy is inconsistent with Congressional intent
with respect to de minimis settlements, and that non-settling parties should not benefit from their
recalcitrance.
Response Action Contractor (RAO Indemnification
The Agency received seven comments regarding RAC indemnification. Four commenters
suggested that EPA should delay promulgation of its RAC indemnification guidance (by
republishing for public comment), and instead continue to provide unlimited cost-free pollution
liability insurance to its Superfund contractors. One commenter claims that, when drafting its
RAC indemnification proposal, EPA did not consider the possibility of nuclear or mixed waste
at NPL sites, nor did it consider the increase in frequency of toxic tort lawsuits. The same
commenter claimed that inadequate indemnification will lead to increased cleanup costs, slower
cleanups, and retardation of the pace of introduction of innovative technologies (a second
commenter also claimed that the use of innovative technologies would be affected). One
commenter claims that EPA's proposal would discourage qualified contractors from bidding on
Superfund work. It was also suggested that restricted indemnification will cause consultants to
-257-
-------
perform work more slowly and carefully, thus increasing the cost to the government. Another
commenter notes that EPA's proposal would provide more restrictive indemnification than does
the existing interim guidance.
DPI Proposed Natural Resource Damage Rule
EPA received one comment on a Department of Interior rule. The commenter suggested
that the use of willingness-to-pay as a measure of value would generate large costs. Presumably,
the commenter wants to see a different method used.
Municipal Liability
The Agency received three comments expressing a concern over shifting a significant
portion of the burden to industry for the remediation of co-disposal sites. They claim that such
a policy would cost certain sectors of American industry an additional $4.5 billion, and would
have serious consequences in terms of competitiveness and overall viability for those industries
affected. Lastly, the commenters contended that all parties should remain under the CERCLA
liability net, and that any attempt to remove municipalities from the program would lead to its
failure.
Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
The Agency received two comments on the Hazard Ranking System. The commenters
claimed the HRS overestimates the relative risk of sites where fossil fuel combustion wastes are
managed and needs to be revised. It was also felt that the HRS creates disincentives to
voluntary compliance.
National Priorities List
The Agency received one comment which claimed that goals associated with the National
Priorities List can be achieved in a more cost-effective manner.
Superfund - Process
The Agency received three comments regarding the Superfund cleanup process. One
commenter believes that CERCLA processes lend themselves to abuse and exploitation, and that
Superfund should be replaced by a waste-end tax. Another believes that EPA should intensify
its review of the current Superfund liability and cleanup processes, and the third commenter
wants EPA to modify the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study process.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-know Act
(EPCRA, or SARA Title HI)
-258-
-------
The six comments EPA received on its Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act are summarized below.
List of Extremely Hazardous Substances (EHS)
Two commenters urged EPA not to designate commercial explosives as EHSs. They
assert that these substances are already extensively regulated, and the EPCRA reporting would
place unnecessary costs and burdens on makers and users of explosives. They also assert that
reporting to the Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) would make it easier for
"criminals, terrorists and mischief-makers" to locate explosive materials.
The Agency received one comment suggesting that barium sulfate be removed from the
list of chemicals under Section 313 of EPCRA. On the issue of SARA Title m reporting, the
Agency also received two comments suggesting that small sources be exempted from the SARA
reporting requirements. A second commenter suggests that penalties for improper reporting are
excessive for small businesses.
Section 312 Tier 2 Reporting
One commenter petitioned to raise reporting thresholds to substances handled by their
industry. For some substances, and for remote locations, it was suggested that EPA substitute
the posting of signs for the annual reporting to the LEPCs, local fire departments, and SERCs.
Underground Storage Tanks
The eight comments received concerning the Underground Storage Tank (UST) program
are summarized below.
Underground Storage Tanks - Financial Responsibility (FR)
The Agency received four comments on UST financial responsibility. One commenter
said the deadline to expand UST FR compliance deadlines is burdensome and considerable
resources have been expended in attempting to comply. Another commenter thought the
requirements are burdensome and costly to small business. An additional commenter claimed
the FR requirements are unreasonable for small business since some financial instruments are
unavailable to them and that levels of protection provided by state funds should be considered
sufficient. A trade association said the extension of compliance deadlines for any facility is
viewed as being a promising way to avoid the problems associated with the FR deadline because
it will enable states to delay compliance. A final commenter recommended exempting used
USTs from the FR requirement.
General
The Agency received four general comments about the UST program. One commenter
-259-
-------
said the 95% detection probability requirement should be delayed (effective December 22,1991)
until cost-effective technology is available. Another commenter said regulatory "gridlock" with
UST (paperwork/permits) cleanups is burdensome and the result is that straight forward cleanups
are delayed and costs increased. A trade association wants the Agency to eliminate duplication
of reporting requirements under UST and SARA Title in. Finally, a state agency wants the
exemption for USTs under the Toxicity Characteristic Rule to be made permanent because state
programs provide adequate protection.
Chemical Emergency Preparedness
EPA received ten comments on the Chemical Emergency Preparedness program. These
comments are summarized below.
Chemical Accident Prevention and Response Management Plan rule under the Clean Air Act
Amendments Section 112(r)
EPA received one comment recommending that the Agency review these rules under the
90-day moratorium.
Spill Pollution Control and Countermeasures (SPCO under the Oil Pollution Act
The Agency received nine comments on the SPCC regulations. One commenter said
EPA should better identify and categorize risk before subjecting a broad universe of large and
small facilities to a new mass of reporting requirements. Another commenter said the proposed
revisions to SPCC are unneeded since adequate, expensive regulations are already in place.
Another commenter said the proposed revisions are not needed since existing SPCC plans work
well and have accomplished the objective of reducing spills. A trade association said the
proposal will radically alter the SPCC plans currently in place and another said the SPCC
requirements should be consolidated so as not to be duplicative of existing plans. One
commenter said the proposed requirement for installation of expensive concrete pads & dikes
for earthen containment structures should be deferred or withdrawn and another company
believes that small tanks (1,000 gallons or less) should be exempt from the regulation. One
commenter wants to change the scope and timing of regulations for onshore oil production
facilities for a reported cost saving of $5,000 per facility while another firm wants to exempt
oil and gas extraction operations.
-260-
-------
Water Programs
EPA received over one hundred comments concerning its water programs. The
breakdown of comments on the CWA is:
Stormwater Application Rule/Permits 53
Wetland Delineation 12
Wetlands Permitting 8
Toxics Water Quality Stds, National Rule 13
Effluent Guidelines 9
NPDES Permit Program (gen.) 5
Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative 4
Contaminated Sediments Strategy 3
Sludge Rule 2
CZMA Nonpoint Program 2
WQ-based Controls on Ephemeral Streams 1
Other CWA comments 7
119
Comments regarding SDWA programs:
MCLs (Radionuclides) 6
Lead Treatment Rule 2
Disinfection By-products 1
UIC Class V 2
SDWA (misc.) 3_
14
Total 133
Stormwater
The largest number of comments received related to the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program for industrial sources of Stormwater. About a third of
these commenters expressed concern about the monitoring requirements for permit applications
and possible compliance monitoring requirements in the permits themselves. Nearly as many
commenters asked for further extension of the deadlines in the rule for submission of
applications. Several commenters urged that EPA issue a general permit that would cover their
type of facility as soon as possible. Another comment urged speedier processing of the group
-261-
-------
application in which they were included. A couple of commenters asked for simplification and
clarification of the regulation. One commenter said the appropriate permittee for getting a
permit for federally-assisted highway projects should be the state/local transportation agency,
not the contractor doing the work. There were also a number of general comments about overly
burdensome regulations and lack of evidence that industrial stormwater caused a problem.
Several comments suggested that the category of industry to which they belong be exempted
from the rule.
Wetlands
The issue of wetlands delineation received 12 comments. Several commenters supported
specific provisions of the August 1991 manual, including independent application of the soils,
vegetation, and hydrology indicators and lengthening the amount of time that an area must be
saturated before it is declared a wetland. Other comments were more general, referring to
overly burdensome regulation, overly expansive federal jurisdiction, and need to relax
requirements. Two commenters urged swift resolution of the delineation issue.
Six other comments about the wetlands program were received. They called for
streamlining of the 404 permitting process, and better coordination between EPA, Army Corps
of Engineers, and Fish and Wildlife Service. One commenter called for eliminating EPA from
the 404 process. One letter objected to EPA's veto of the permit for the Ware Creek Project
in southeastern Virginia.
Toxics Water Quality Standards
EPA's proposed promulgation of water quality criteria for those states not having adopted
such by the deadline set by Congress was commented on by 13 entities. The most common
concern was the inappropriate application of nationally derived criteria to the specific locations
in various states, given the variety in water chemistry, biota, etc. Another concern was lack
of mention in the proposed rule about issues regarding bioavailability of metals; one commenter
suggested the final promulgation of criteria for metals be delayed until they could be issued
concurrently with the guidance on metals analysis currently in preparation at EPA. Several
comments suggested that EPA give the states more time to adopt their own criteria.
Effluent Guidelines
Three companies covered by the organic chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers effluent
guidelines commented on this regulation. Two were mostly concerned with the pretreatment
categorical standards component of the regulation. One commenter indicated that EPA had
grossly underestimated the cost of the regulation. There were also comments on offshore oil
and gas effluent guidelines and certain aspects of the pretreatment program.
-262-
-------
Other Issues
The majority of the general comments on the NPDES program (as opposed to the
stormwater NPDES program) called for extending the permit term from 5 to 10 years.
Comments on the Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative called for further economic
analysis and review by the public and the Agency's Science Advisory Board. Concerns about
potentially very high costs were expressed. One commenter said the antidegradation provisions
would severely limit growth.
Comments on the contaminated sediments strategy focused on the methodology for
deriving the criteria and the potential costs associated with their application.
Miscellaneous comments regarding the Clean Water Act included two site-specific
NPDES issues, a call for greater use of the watershed approach, a suggested change in the
definition of waters of the U.S, and a complaint about a particular enforcement action.
The comments on the MCLs for radionuclides and sulfates suggested less stringent
standards. One comment concerned the lead/copper rule; it suggested that the compliance dates
be extended so the economic impact will be reduced.
The two comments on the Safe Drinking Water Act Class V Underground Injection Rule
argued for a risk-based rulemaking. The commenters said that certain categories of Class V
wells are being targeted unnecessarily.
-263-
-------
Toxic Substances Program
EPA received over 100 comments concerning its toxic substances program. The
comments received concerning reporting requirement of the Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) and Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) are included in this section. The breakdown of
comments is as follows:
EPCRA/TRI 53
PCBs 15
Premanufacture Notification 9
Lead 6
TSCA §8(e) 4
Environmental Hazard Communication 3
Pollution Prevention Act 1
Pulp and Paper Sludge 1
Acrylamide Grout 1
Formaldehyde 5
Used Antifreeze 1
Integrated Risk Info. Service (IRIS) 1
Definition of Processor 3
Low Volume/de minimis 1
Export Notification 1
Ozone Depletion 3
Product Stewardship 1
Retroactive Enforcement 1
Total 111
EPCRA/TRI
More than half of the comments received regarding the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Kriow Act and Toxic Release Inventory were requests for exemption from
the reporting requirements. Eleven commenters suggested that if companies have no releases,
or de minimis releases, of §313 chemicals during the year they should not have to report. Five
comments stated that small businesses are adversely affected by the reporting burden and should
be exempt. Nine comments concerned the application of EPCRA to the oil and gas industries.
They suggested that the statute apply only to the chemical manufacturing sector and that
redundant reports concerning the same materials are wasteful, expensive, and taxes the local and
state agencies that receive the reports. A commenter requested an exemption for the
manufacturers of animal feed and another for food processing releases.
Of the other EPCRA comments, nine were directed at the mandatory pollution prevention
requirements imposed under the Pollution Prevention Act. Four urged quick promulgation of
-264-
-------
the final pollution prevention reporting requirements while the other five indicated that these
requirements were unduly burdensome. Three comments opposed the peak release rule. Three
comments took issue with the burden imposed by EPCRA reporting. One commenter suggested
that there is duplicative reporting under EPCRA and the underground storage tank program.
There was a request that combustion of TRI chemicals for energy or heat be considered
recycling rather man waste treatment. One comment asked for greater flexibility in reporting
chemicals as recycled. A commenter asked that EPAs proposed deletion of non-aerosol sulfuric
acid be finalized and another asked that barium sulfate be removed. There was a suggestion that
offsite transfers to waste facilities is inappropriately included as reportable release. There was
also a request for changes in the proposed civil penalty administrative procedures and one to
impose deadlines on EPA's review of petitions to delist substances subject to §313. Three
commenters simply stated their interest in the toxic use, source reduction, and right-to-know
legislation.
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
The Agency received fifteen comments regarding PCBs. Six of these related to the
applicability of these rules to the gas pipeline industry. They involved the anti-dilution
requirements and the disposal of PCB articles. Four comments suggested that the storage
limitations be relaxed due to the lack of PCB incinerator capacity. Three comments suggests
that a new risk assessment for PCBs would allow the Agency to ease current restrictions. One
comment suggested that EPA accelerate its proposed retrofill rule and another asked that the
shredder fluff rule be expedited.
New Chemicals Program
Nine comments concerned the new chemical program. Three stated that this program is
costly and burdensome. Another suggested that the new chemical program use the OSHA
Permissible Exposure Limit levels for new chemicals that are structurally similar to OSHA-
controlled substances. There was also a request for relief from the Premanufacture Notification
(PMN) requirements for chemicals that are only slight modifications to existing chemicals.
Another commenter requested relief from fines imposed for inadvertent violations relating to
imported chemicals. There was one comment that indicated support for the upcoming change
to the PMN rules regarding exemptions. One commenter asked that the current Exclusion Policy
be changed to allow fewer chemicals and companies to be subject to §5 reporting requirements.
EPA was also asked to use its enforcement discretion in areas where interpretation of the policy
is underway.
Lead
There were six comments regarding the potential regulation of lead. One commenter
stated that the broad review of lead announced by EPA is unnecessary; the Agency should focus
-265-
-------
only on lead uses that pose significant risk. Another commenter opposed a broad ban on lead,
a ban on lead solder, and a ban on lead in plumbing fixtures. .All three comments related to the
effect of these bans on the recycling and reuse of used radiators. Two other comments opposed
TSCA regulation of sources of lead in drinking water.
TSCA §8(e)
Four comments were received regarding §8(e) reporting. One suggested that new policy
refinement include an exemption for the oil and gas extraction industry in order to avoid the
reporting of oil spills under this program. A second commenter requests that policy refinement
should not require duplicative reporting under any other authority and that it be based on
substantial risk. Another states that the Agency needs a better system for developing,
publicizing, and updating its §8 interpretations. The third objected to the levying of fines for
failure to submit information of minor importance.
Other Comments
Several comments simply stated objections to the cost and necessity of potential rules.
Three commenters opposed any environmental hazard communication rule. One objected to the
proposed acrylamide ban and five saw no justification for labelling furniture for its formaldehyde
content or regulating formaldehyde in particleboard. The risk assessment and the use of
incomplete data were faulted in the proposed rule concerning land application of pulp and paper
sludge. Two commenters suggested that TSCA regulations should routinely include low volume
or de minimis exceptions in order to reduce burden and three suggested a change in the definition
of "processor." Two commenters made suggestions for less burdensome ways to regulate the
phase out of CFCs and one asked for prudent scientific judgement to be used in assessing the
ozone depletion potential of methyl bromide. One commenter suggested that the export
notification requirements could be achieved in a more effective manner. There was an objection
to retroactive enforcement of new interpretive guidelines under TSCA.
A suggestion was made to require reporting of ingredients of chemical products on
Material Safety Data Sheets so that end users and processors would know with what chemicals
they were dealing.
A commenter suggested that FJ*A publish information on solvent degreaser substitutes
and issue grants for pilot pollution prevention programs.
It was suggested that if the Agency regulates used antifreeze the consumer market be
included as well as the service station segment and that there be minimum cooling requirements
for recycled antifreeze.
Peer review, public comment, and periodic updating of the Integrated Risk Information
-266-
-------
Service (IRIS) were suggested because of the system's use in formulating regulations.
-267-
-------
Pesticides Program Comments
*
EPA received 30 comments related to the its Pesticides Program. Comments were
received in the following areas:
Subject
Farmworker Protection Standards 11
Global Warming (methyl bromide) 1
Laboratory Practices 1
Groundwater Strategy 2
Labelling 2
Minor Uses 3
Pesticide Definition 1
Registration 3
Re-registration 3
Storage, Disposal & Transportation 2
Effluent Guidelines 1
Total 30
Farmworker Protection Standards
The only general pesticides area which was singled out by commenters was farmworker
protection standards. Commenters generally asserted that current worker protection standards
are adequate and asked for more time to comment on the rule. Small businesses expressed
concern that they were especially burdened by environmental and safety regulations such as the
farmworker protection standards.
Other Comments
One commenter recommended that EPA assess methyl bromide's contribution to ozone
depletion.
In order to ensure good laboratory practices for compliance purposes, one commenter
stated that sufficient time was needed to comply with new enforcement policies.
Two comments were received concerning groundwater State Management Plans. The
commenters felt that duplicative and inconsistent regulation should be eliminated.
Two commenters recommended allowing sufficient time to comply with new labelling
policies.
-268-
-------
In terms of minor uses, commenters felt that EPA should develop ways to reduce market
entry costs for new pesticides.
One comment was received from the U.S. Department of Agriculture stating that
fertilizers should not be included in the definition of a pesticide.
Three comments were received on the registration process. Commenters want EPA to
develop consistent, predictable and definitive data requirements. Modifications to the existing
registration process was suggested in order for EPA to meet its own deadlines. Finally,
comments suggested that Congressional appropriations could be used instead of some registration
fees.
EPA also received three comments on the re-registration requirements. Commenters felt
that re-registration data requirements have driven up user costs and that fewer products were
available due to higher governmental regulatory fees.
Small golf course owners felt that they would be disproportionately burdened by large
capital outlays necessary to meet new storage and disposal regulations.
Finally, one commenter felt that the broad scope of effluent guidelines disproportionately
burdened small pesticide users and is seeking regulatory relief.
-269-
-------
Agency-Wide Comments
EPA received 41 comments on general issues of interest agency-wide. Specifically, the
Agency received comments on the following topics:
Subject Comments
Economics/Cost-Benefit Analysis 7
Regulatory Development 8
90-Day Moratorium and Review 6
Small Business Concerns 5
Risk Assessment 4
Endangered Species 2
Goal Setting 2
EPA Auditing Policy 1
EPA/OSHA Overlap 1
Pollution Prevention 1
Trade 1
Reporting 1
National Historic Preservation Act 1
Metric Conversion 1
Total 41
Economics/Cost-Benefit
Seven commenters suggested economic/cost-benefit policies to EPA. Two comments
suggested the Agency develop and use input/output tables to assess the projected costs of
regulations. Another commenter felt EPA should consider cumulative cost effects rather than
costs associated with a particular regulation in isolation. One commenter stated EPA should
consider lost business opportunities, including job loss in evaluating regulations. Another
suggestion was for EPA to study the long-term business effects of regulation. Finally, one
commenter recommended that EPA assign priority ranking to its regulatory efforts based on
cost-benefit criteria.
Regulatory Development
The regulatory development process attracted eight comments. Two commenters
suggested that EPA test their regulations before promulgation. Two other commenters felt EPA
should refrain from prescribing specific technology requirements in favor of clearly stated, self-
enforceable standards. Single comments were received concerning the importance of meeting
legislative and self-imposed deadlines to avoid program disruptions, support for an EPA/industry
-270-
-------
partnership to work cooperatively in developing regulations, and a recommendation for EPA to
use a multi-media approach to regulatory development to avoid redundancy and conflict between
programs. Finally, one commenter felt that for EPA to consider any factor other than those
specifically mentioned in the statute was illegal.
90-Day Moratorium and Review
EPA received six comments specifically addressing the 90-Day Moratorium and Review.
Two commenters supported periodic reviews of regulatory programs such as the 90-day review.
Two other commenters expressed concern that the moratorium and review would delay
regulations and may adversely affect human health and the environment. One commenter was
skeptical of the moratorium and felt that neither EPA or the Administration would do anything
to provide regulatory relief to his firm. Another commenter felt that any change coming out of
the 90-day review would need to be submitted for review and comment.
- i- «.
Small Business
In terms of comments related to small business, two commenters expressed concerns over
specific regulations under development. Another commenter expressed concern related to the
air program's effect on small business. One commenter supported allowing states to use EPICS
to aid in compliance. Finally, a commenter suggested that better communication was needed
in reaching small communities.
Risk Assessment
The Agency received four comments related to its risk assessment procedures. One
commenter addressed 16 specific elements of a risk assessment. Other comments included
advocating development of epidemiology criteria as a priority, criticizing overly conservative
and scientifically flawed risk assessments as costly and burdensome, and recommending that
EPA propose general quantitative non-cancer risk assessment guidelines. In addition, one
commenter suggested that IRIS be open to public comment and review since it is sometimes used
as the basis of rulemaking.
Other Comments
Two comments were received related to endangered species. One commenter
recommended delaying the listing of the California Gnatcatcher as an endangered species. The
second comment was a general one asserting that the Endangered Species Act has been abused
by protecting species at the edge of their natural range rather than protecting truly endangered
species.
Two commenters suggested that the Agency establish and clearly communicate realistic
goals. An example where one of the commenters felt EPA did this effectively was in the
Agency's "Implementation Strategy for Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990."
-Ul-
-------
One commenter felt that EPA's auditing policy needs to be revised to provide amnesty
for facilities which initiated their own audits and immediately set about correcting problems
when they were found.
A commenter suggested that EPA and OSHA better coordinate their rules since EPA is
increasingly regulating the workplace.
One commenter felt that the Agency's pollution prevention program needs to be expanded
within EPA's regulatory agenda.
In terms of trade, one commenter stated a desire for a "level-playing field" by requiring
imported products to meet similar environmental standards.
One commenter felt that EPA relied too much on "negative declarations" (i.e., requiring
facilities to report when a process is not subject to a particular rule). The commenter felt that
exception reporting would be less burdensome.
One comment was received on the National Historic Preservation Act. The commenter
felt that existing EPA and Corps of Engineer requirements require reinterpretation.
One commenter inquired as to when all federal assisted projects would be required to use
the metric system.
-272-
-------
7564 Federal Register / Vol. 57. No. 42 / Tuesday, March 3, 1992 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Chapter I
[FRL-4111-e]
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 fullyJn 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
-273-
-------
Fated Reftetar / VoL fi7, No. 42 7 Twtday, March 3, 1992 / Proposed "Rules
7565
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.
ADDRESSES: 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 die 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 INFORMATION:
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.)
- to response to this directive, EPA has
.initiated a review of its regulations and
related activities, bi • memorandum to
key Ageney staff. EPA Administrator
• William K. Reffly stated that die
'_ 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 fulfil! die 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 die
President on the review at the end of 90
days, some of die analyses may
continue past that time.
For its review. EPA will select die
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 die
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 die normal notice and comment'
: process, and tins notice'does not extend
tiiose comment periods. Further, any
'revisions to regulations initiated as a
result of this review will be made only
after full notice and comment.
Thus, die purpose of this request for
public comment is to invite interested
members of die 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 die short time available for
this review, die Agency makes the
following requests concerning any
comments tiiat members of die public
choose to submit:
1. Each regulation or related activity
dial a commenter suggests for review
should meet die President's criteria as
well as meet die following tests:
(a) Any suggested changes that might
be made as a result of die 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
tiiat 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 die
review. Supporting materials may be
appended. EPA is particularly interested
in information concerning economic and
environmental effects.
4. The comments most usefu' to EPA
would be those that both (l) identify a
specific regulatory burden that can be
shown to be unnecessary, for instance,
due to changes in die regulatory context
or new data or analysis, and (2) include
suggestions for achieving die 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
-274-
-------
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: stonnwater
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 as
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 8(e}
policy on environmental releases under
the Toxic Substances Control Act For
further information contact: Judith
Nelson (202) 280-2890.
Dated: February 27,1992.
Richard D. Morgenstara,
.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 . •
Administrator*
Subject: 90-Day Economic Review of
Regulations ' .". . ..
President Bush has asked each federal
agency to review its regulations over the next
TO days. I fully support thit initiative, for I '-
•believe it present* 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. 1
have directed Dick Morgenstem 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'a regulations are .
exempt from the moratorium because of
statutory or judicial deadlines (including, I.
am assured by both Michael Bptkin 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 deadline* to ensure they are put into the
review process as early as possible;' •
Moreover, we should scrutinize every
regulation to assure that expected cost* 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
coil-effective approaches to achieving
environmental objective*:
• Reduce regulatory b.irdens for small
communities and small butt-nesses;
• Increase incentives for U.« use of clean
fuels such a* natural gas;
• Reform RCRA (through legisk':nn or
regulation—the mixture and derived from
rule offers a near-term opportunity);
• Expand market-baled approaches to '
regulations; '
-•• Accelerate mchiaionary rulemaking '
(particularly negotiated rulemakings. or "reg
negs"); . .
• Accelerate rules that reduce the •
regulatory burden oh the economy; and •
* Strengthen innovative technology
' development and export promotion efforts.^
In addition, we should explore ways to x
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 pur effort* with national economic
priorities of promoting jobs, investment and
growth. We have already made substantial
progress toward furthering economic
objective* through instituting regulatory •
reform* 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'
program* sensitive to economic concerns, I
am confident the review will be productive.!
have attached, for your review, a :
memorandum on this subject issued by the -
President on January 28,1992. ,
William K,RelUy. . :
[FR DOC.-92-5006 Filed 2-28-92:1:09 pm)
MJJNO COM SSSt-SS-M
-275-
------- |