-------
SIGNIFICANT
NATIONAL ISSUES
-------
SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL ISSUES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1 - OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR/OFFICE OF
INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Action on Prior Informed Consent for Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals In
International Trade
Antarctic Environment
EPA Involvement in Bilateral Agreements
Signing of Brazil Memorandum of Understanding
Broader Development of U.S. - Mexico Agreement
U.S. - Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
Caribbean Environment Program
Increased EPA Activity in Eastern Europe: Bilateral Agreements with Poland
London Ocean Dumping Convention
Pesticides Import Tolerances
South Pacific Regional Environment Program and Other Pacific Region Issues
Canadian Free Trade Agreement and Issues Related to the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade
Review of U.S. - Mexico Transborder Pollution Control Issues
U.S. - Canada Protection of the Waterton - Glacier International Peace Park
SECTION 2 - OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES
MANAGEMENT
Determining the Complete Cost of a Superfund Site Cleanup
Superfund Transactions Automated Retrieval System (STARS)
Meeting the Scheduling and Funding Requirements of SARA
Retention of EPA User Fees
PAGE
1 - 1
1 -3
1 -5
1 -7
1 -9
1 - 11
1 - 13
1- 15
1 - 17
1- 19
1 -21
1 -23
1 -25
1 -27
2- 1
2-3
2-5
2-7
-------
Significant National Issues
Table of Contents
Page 2
SECTION 3 - OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
MONITORING
Enforcement of Asbestos Hazardous Emergency Response Act (AHERA)
Arbitration Regulation
Attorney Training and Development
Clean Air Act Enforcement Amendments
Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) Civil Enforcement Delegations
Control Listing Program Issues
Coordinating Federal/ State Prosecutions to Avoid Defenses
EPA/Corps Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Enforcement of CWA's
"Dredge and Fill" Program
De Mlnlmls Contributor Settlements
EPCRA Section 313 Enforcement
Enforcement Strategic Planning Process
Expanded Enforcement Use of Contractor Debarment Procedures
Encouraging the Use of Global Settlements
Oversight of Non- Incarceration Sentences In Criminal Cases
Information Management for Enforcement
Innovative Enforcement
Compliance Inspector Training and Development
Love Canal
Missouri Dloxin Litigation
Model State Criminal Statutes
Municipal Enforcement Under Clean Water Act
Enforcement of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP) for Asbestos
Enforcement Relationship to Ocean Pollution Issues
3- 1
3-3
3-5
3-7
3-9
3- 11
3- 13
3- 15
3- 17
3-19
3-21
3-23
3-25
3-27
3-29
3-31
3-33
3-35
3-37
3-39
3-41
3-43
3-45
-------
Significant National Issues
Table of Contents
Page3
Section 3 - Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
(continued)
Use of RICO In Deterring Criminal Violations of Environmental Statutes
Investigation of Metal Sludge Waste Contamination
SIP Enforcement When Revisions Are Pending
Targeting Specific Areas of Criminal Activity
Texas Eastern Consent Decree Approval
SECTION 4 - OFFICE OF POLICY, PLANNING AND EVALUATION
The Administrator's Tracking System (ATS)
Strategic Planning and Management System
GAO Report to Congress: "Protecting Human Health and the Environment
Through Improved Management
Manage the Regulation Development Process
SECTION 5 - OFFICE OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Publications and Audio Visual (A/V) Review
SECTION 6 - OFFICE OF WATER
Significant National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Municipal Enforcement Actions
SECTION 7 • OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Regulations for Emissions from Hazardous Waste Incinerators, Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces
Corrective Action Workload
Consistency of Remedy Selection Under RCRA and CERCLA
Land Disposal Restrictions Rulemaklngs
Location Standards for Hazardous Waste Facilities
Medical Waste
Rule Defining the Scope of the Mining Waste Exclusion
3-47
3-49
3-51
3-53
3-55
4- 1
4-3
4-5
4-7
5- 1
6- 1
7- 1
7-3
7-5
7-7
7-9
7- 11
7- 13
-------
Significant National Issues
Table of Contents
Page 4
Section 7 - Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (continued)
Final Rule Revising Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills
Codification of Statutory Requirements for an Off-Site Policy
Transfer of Potychlorinated Blphenyls (PCBs) to RCRA
RCRA Listings on the Superfund National Priorities List
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Revised Hazard Ranking System
Superfund Contractor Indemnification
National Priorities List Updates
Risk Assessment and Risk Management
Technical Assistance Grants
Utilization of Treatment Technologies In Superfund Remedial Actions
Report to Congress on Wastes from Processing Ores and Minerals
State Authorization for the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units at Hazardous Waste
Management Facilities
Title HI Enforcement
Title in Reporting Threshold
Toxiclty Characteristic Final Rule
Financial Responsibility Requirements for Underground Tanks Containing
Hazardous Substances
Underground Storage Tank Program: Legislative Activity
EPA Approval of Underground Storage Tank State Programs
SECTION 8 - OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
1991 Urban Bus Partlculate Standard
Asbestos Accelerated Rule
Whether to Set National Air Quality Standards for Acid Aerosols
7-15
7- 17
7- 19
7-21
7-23
7-25
7-27
7-29
7-31
7-33
7-35
7-37
7-39
7-41
7-43
7-45
7-47
7-49
7-51
7-53
7-55
8- 1
8-3
8-5
-------
Significant National Issues
Table of Contents
Page 5
Section 8 - Office of Air and Radiation (continued)
Air Emissions from Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
Chromium Emissions from Comfort Cooling Towers
Cold Temperature Carbon Monoxide Emission
Diesel Fuel Quality Regulations
Electromagnetic Fields
Citizen's Guide Update and Consideration of New Radon Action Level
Heavy-duty Banking and Trading Regulations
Air Emissions Standards for Hospital Incinerators
Indoor Air
Proposed Standards for Land Disposal of Low-Level Radioactive Wastes
Municipal Waste Combustion
Decision on Role of the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
(NAPAP) in Resolving Acid Rain Scientific and Policy Issues
Noise Regulations
Nuclear Accident Response
Stratospheric Ozone Protection
Proposal of PM10 Increments
PM10 Nonattalnment
Radon Legislation
Revised Light-Duty Truck Emission Standards
Small Boilers New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
Stack Height Regulations
Repromulagation of Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 191, (Environmental Stan-
dards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level
and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes)
FY 1989 State/EPA Radon Survey Announcement
Court Order Remanding Portions of Standards on UMTRCA-Title I: Uranium
Mine Tailing Sites
8-7
8-9
8- 11
8- 13
8- 15
8- 17
8- 19
8-21
8-23
8-25
8-27
8-29
8-31
8-33
8-35
8-37
8-39
8-41
8-45
8-47
8-49
8-51
8-53
8-55
-------
Significant National Issues
Table of Contents
Page 6
SECTION 9 - OFFICE OF PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Asbestos Hazard and Emergency Response Act (AHERA)
Asbestos Ban/Phase Down Implementation
Asbestos Transport and Disposal
Dloxln Contamination of Industrial Chemicals
FIFRA Reauthortzatlon
Revision of Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) Regulations Under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodentlclde Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA)
Lead Paint Abatement
Additions to the List of Reportable Substances Under Section 313 of
SARA Title HI
Minor Use of Pesticides
The National Academy of Science's Delaney Report and Implementation
Planning
PCBs/PCB Disposal
Reauthorlzation of TSCA
Regulation for the Disposal of Pesticides - 40 CFR 165
Re-vamp the Pesticide Portion of the Federal Food. Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FFDCA)
SARA Title ni Section 313 - Compliance Monitoring/Enforcement Strategy
Regulatory Decisions on Special Review Chemicals
9- 1
9-3
9-8
9-7
9-9
9- 11
9- 13
9-15
9- 17
9- 19
9-21
9-23
9-25
9-27
9-29
9-31
-------
OFRCEOF
THE ADMINISTRATOR
-------
Significant National Issues Office of International Activities Page 1 - 1
ACTION ON PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT FOR PESTICIDES AND
INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE
BACKGROUND: Developing countries have been pressing for adoption of a procedure for giving prior
Informed consent of Imports of banned or severely restricted pesticides and industrial chemicals. In
1987. the United National Environment Programme (UNEP) directed staff to develop modalities of prior
informed consent that might be Incorporated in Guidelines for Information Exchange on Chemicals in
International Trade. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) was directed
by its governing body, the FAO Conference, to incorporate similar modalities into the International
Code of Conduct on Distribution and Use of Pesticides by the fall of 1989.
UNEP and FAO will be considering the modalities of prior informed consent at their meetings in May
and November 1989, respectively. In January 1989, FAO will hold a consultation meeting of member
government representatives on this issue; in February, UNEP will hold a second working group meeting
of experts.
Several expert groups have met on this Issue and seem to be coming to agreement on a procedure that
is consistent with the U.S. position. Although originally opposed to prior informed consent, the U.S.
has recognized its political reality and has made constructive Inputs into a procedure acceptable to the
U.S. The U.S. position has been clearly defined and the major players listed below agree with it. We
need to continue to participate and ensure the direction remains consistent. It would be beneficial to
host the next UNEP working group meeting In the U.S.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Chemical Manufacturers Association
National Agricultural Chemicals Association
U.S. Trade Representative
U.S. Department of Commerce
Greenpeace, representing U.S. non-governmental environmental organizations
International counterparts of U.S. environmental and Industry groups
-------
Page 1 - 2
Offke of International. Activities
Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
November 30. 1988
Jan. 5-9, 1989
Feb. 13-17,1989
March 1989
May 1989
Jane 1989
November 1989
Decision on USG funding UNEP Expert Group
FAO Government Consultation Meeting, Rome
UNEP ad hoc Expert Group Meeting. New York
FAO Committee on Agriculture Meeting. Rome
UNEP Governing Council Meeting. Nairobi
FAO Council Meeting. Rome
FAO Conference Meeting. Rome
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Principal Contact:
Scott Hajost, Acting Associate Administrator for International Activites
Other Interested Parties:
• Doug Campt. Director. Office of Pesticide Programs
• Charles Elklns. Director. Office of Toxic Substances
-------
Significant National Issues Office of International Activities Page 1 - 3
ANTARCTIC ENVIRONMENT
Background: The United States Is one of 20 consultative parties to the 1959 Antarctic Treaty. The
treaty provides that "it is In the Interest of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used
exclusively for peaceful purposes" and that substantial contributions to scientific knowledge can result
from international cooperation there.
Discussion and Current Status: EPA has actively participated in several activities relating to the
implementation of the Antarctic Treaty and the protection of the Antarctic environment. For example:
EPA helped develop the 1988 Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities.
EPA has advised the State Department on the environmental protection aspects of the Minerals
Convention. EPA will assist In seeking U.S. ratification of the Convention and in Implementing its en-
vironmental provisions when the Convention enters into force.
EPA advises the Department of State and the National Science Foundation on the environmental
implications of U.S. scientific research activities In Antarctica. Recently, this has included advice to
the National Science Foundation (NSF) on revising the U.S. Programmatic Environmental Impact
Statement for U.S. activities in Antarctica and on NSF's draft comprehensive environmental protection
agenda for the U.S. Antarctic program. EPA has encouraged the State Department and NSF to include
an environmental protection component in its Inspection of treaty-party research stations in
Antarctica. Forthe first time, in early 1989, the U.S. will include an environmental audit in its Antarctic
Treaty inspections. EPA is working closely with those directly involved in the inspection to develop a
sound environmental protocol. The U.S. has also worked closely with other countries to develop sound
environmental assessment procedures for activities taking place in Antarctica.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Tucker Scully, Director, Office of Oceans and Polar Affairs. Department of State
Tom Laughlin , Chief, International and Intergovernmental Liaison Staff, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Jack Talmadge . Head, Polar Coordination and Information Section, Division of Polar Programs,
National Science Foundation
Robert Hoffman, Scientific Director, Marine Mammal Commission
-------
Page 1 - 4 Office of International Activities Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
November 1988 Minerals Convention becomes open for signature (one year)
Spring 1989 Minerals Convention to U.S. Senate for Advice and Consent to
Ratification
January 1989 U.S. Inspection under Antarctica Treaty
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Scott Hajost, Acting Associate Administrator for International Activities
• Alan Slelen, Director. Multilateral Staff, Office of International Activities
• Richard Sanderson, Director, Office of Federal Activities
-------
Significant National Issues Office of International Activities Page 1-5
EPA INVOLVEMENT IN BILATERAL AGREEMENTS
BACKGROUND: EPA cooperates with counterpart foreign agencies under a number of bilateral envi-
ronmental and/or science and technology agreements: In the Americans with Canada, Mexico, and
Brazil; In Western Europe with the Federal Republic of Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom,
France. Italy, and the European Community (EC - in its own right and as representative of 12 member
countries); In Eastern Europe with Poland, the USSR, and Yugoslavia; in Asia with India, Japan, the
Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and the People's Republic of China; and in Africa with Nigeria. Activities
under these agreements periodically require the participation of the Administrator in formal meetings
under the agreements or in other meetings with his foreign counterparts.
DISCUSSION AND STATUS: Bilateral agreement activites cover the entire range of EPA's domestic
activities. In 1989-90. the Administrator will meet with most ofhisforeign counterparts. Someofthese
meetings will occur during regularly scheduled high-level meetings under specific agreements; some
will Involve special discussions on priority issues, such as with the Canadian Environment Minister
on transboundary pollution control (e.g., acid deposition); and some will take place in the context of
participation of multilateral meetings.
MAJOR PLATERS
Foreign Environment Ministers and senior officials
Foreign Ambassadors
The Bureau of Oceans and International Scientific and Environmental Affairs
of the Department of State.
ACTION DATES
During 1989 there will be high-level meetings scheduled under these bilateral agreements, as called
for in the agreements. They will be scheduled based on the need and the availability of the
Administrator.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Scott Hajost, Acting Associate Administrator for International Activities
-------
Page 1 - 6 Office of International Activities Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of International Activities Page 1 - 7
SIGNING OF BRAZIL MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BACKGROUND: Brazil Is a major power among Latin American countries and can be considered a
regional leader. Its government is beginning to understand the costs associated with development that
do not incorporate environmental considerations. These costs include tropical forest destruction in
Cubatao, mercury pollution from gold mining in Mato Grosso. industrial pollution in Puerto Allegre,
and air pollution in Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. As a result, the government is seeking ways to
ameliorate these situations and to prevent new ones from occurring as a result of future development.
U.S. cooperation with Brazil can have a multiplier effect in South America by helping to set an example
for other countries. Also. Brazil could be in a position, which the U.S. could foster, to provide expertise
to help others in the region with environmental problems.
In 1978. the Secretary of the Environmental Secretariat (SEMA) approached EPA with a draft
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). EPA amended and returned the draft, but SEMA took no
further action. Subsequently. SEMA moved from the Ministry of Interior to the Ministry of Urban
Development and Environment. SEMA's Secretary met in April 1986 for discussion with the EPA
Administrator and expressed interest in a cooperative arrangement.
To accomplish this objective a Memorandum of Understanding between EPA and the Ministry of Urban
Development and Environment was drafted. The purpose of this instrument is to strengthen existing
cooperation and to provide a formal mechanism to facilitate both exchange of information and technical
assistance and cooperation on assessing and controlling the pollution of water and air, managing
hazardous waste disposal, regulating pesticides, and managing other environmental areas as may be
agreed upon.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Currently, the government of Brazil is realigning its environ-
mental infrastructure. We are concerned that this shift in organization may delay the government's
final clearance of the memorandum. While officials at the U.S. Embassy will continue to monitor the
progress with their Brasilian counterparts, they are not optimistic that approval will be forthcoming.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Edwin L. Johnson, Director, Developing Countries
• George H. Patrick. Deputy Director, Developing Countries
-------
Page 1 - 8 Office of International Activities Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of International Activities Page 1 - 9
BROADER DEVELOPMENT OF U.S.-MEXICO AGREEMENT
BACKGROUND: Currently, the U.S. and Mexico have signed one bilateral agreement dealing with
environmental Issues under EPA's Jurisdiction, the 1983 Border Environment Agreement. This names
EPA and Mexico's Secretariat of Urban Development and Ecology (SEDUE) as National Coordinators
for resolving environmental Issues within a 60-mile zone on either side of the border. (SEDUE deals
separately with the Department of the Interior on issues involving natural resources, endangered
species, etc.) EPA has given SEDUE assistance In developing air quality programs throughout Mexico
on an ad hoc basis and has also sent technical experts to assist with water quality and hazardous waste
Issues.
Recently, EPA met with SEDUE regarding possible bilateral cooperation on Gulf of Mexico issues and
the Caribbean Action Plan. EPA also met with the Mexico City Federal District Department, which is
in charge of air quality programs In the Federal District.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: During the next year. EPA will decide whether to enter into
additional formal bilateral agreements with SEDUE to cover a broader range of technical transfer
activities than currently covered under the Border Environment Agreement. Administrator Thomas
has expressed interest In increasing our assistance to Mexico to combat the severe air pollution crisis
In Mexico City. EPA will also look at the possibility of an agreement with the Federal District
Department, either under the State Department's umbrella Science and Technology Agreement or
under a separate agreement.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
EPA's Associate Administrator for International Activities
SEDUE's Undersecretary for Ecology
Director, Mexico City Federal District Department
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
January 1989 Meet with SEDUE to discuss Gulf of Mexico Bilateral Agreement
June 1989 Review other cooperation with SEDUE at National Coordinators Meeting
Early 1989 Meet with the Federal District Department on possible agreement for
cooperation
KEY EPA CONTACT
• Scott Hajost, Acting Associate Administrator for International Activities
-------
Page 1 - 10 Office of International Activities Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of International Activities Page 1 - 11
U.S. - Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
BACKGROUND: In 1972, the U.S. and Canada signed a bilateral agreement to improve control of
pollution in the Great Lakes region. The 1972 agreement was renewed and updated in 1978 and 1987.
The current agreement is a framework for federal, provincial, state, and local governments, responsible
for managing and protecting the Great Lakes watershed, to work together on research and to plan and
achieve solutions to water pollution problems. Since four of the five Great Lakes are also international
boundary waters, neither country has the sole responsibility of protecting the entire watershed. To
assist governments in achieving mutual objectives, the agreement specifies an Important role for the
International Joint Commission (IJC). The IJC was established by the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty
between the U.S. and Canada/Great Britain. It Is composed of three U.S. and three Canadian
members, and It works on water quantity and water quality along the U.S. - Canadian boundary.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The agreement specifies that the U.S. and Canadian
governments are the principal parties responsible for carrying out the objectives of the agreement and
that the IJC serves in an advisory and supporting role. The 1987 amendments place special emphasis
"on development and implementation of remedial action plans for specific sites in the Great Lakes
system that require local plans and solutions, development and use of lakewide management plans,
and Increased efforts to stop pollution from a substantial number of toxic substances.
The agreement covers: phosphorus pollution control; certain priority chemicals, according to a list with
objectives for these chemicals; other potential and hazardous polluting substances of concern; a joint
contingency plan for response to Incidents; and cooperation on other research and pollution control
Issues.
The U.S. participates in agreement activities through the lead of EPA's Great Lakes National Program
Office in Chicago and the cooperation of EPA's regional offices. The IJC fulfills its role with assistance
of two binational expert boards, the Great Lakes Water Quality Board and the Great Lakes Science
Advisory Board, and a Great Lakes office in Windsor, Canada.
On December 31, the Parties will report on progress In implementing terms of the agreement including:
remedial action and lakewide management plans, further efforts to reduce levels of persistent toxic
substances, further control of nonpolnt sources, managing contaminated sediments, and research and
control of airborne toxic substances and ground water pollution. Follow-up biennial reports after
December 31 are required for a number of these priority areas.
-------
Page 1 - 12 Office of International Activities Significant National Issues
KEY PLAYERS
International Joint Commission
Canadian Department of External Affairs
Environment Canada
The Provinces of Ontario and Quebec
Environmental Protection Agency
States of Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan. Pennsylvania, and New York
Organizations such as Great Lakes United
ACTION DATES
December 31, 1988 The parties will make their progress reports
1989 The IJC will receive written reports from its two boards.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Scott Hajost. Acting Associate Administrator for International Actlvites
• Valdus Adamkus, Great Lakes National Program Coordinator, and
Regional Administrator, Region 5
• Carol Finch. Director, Great Lakes National Program Office
• William Muszynskl. Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2
• James Self. Regional Administrator. Region 3
-------
Significant National Issues Office of International Activities Page 1 - 13
CARIBBEAN ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM
Background: U.S. environmental priorities in the Caribbean center on pollution and environmental
stresses on U.S. shores in the Gulf of Mexico. Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The U.S. also
has Important economic and foreign policy interests In the Caribbean region.
The United States is a participant in the Caribbean Action Plan (CAP). Adopted in 1981 under the
auspices of the United Nations Environment Program's Regional Seas Program, the Action Plan is
aimed at providing a mechanism for regional cooperation in protecting the environment of the wider
Caribbean. A Caribbean (Cartagena) Marine Environment Convention, to which the U.S. Is a party,
was concluded in 1983 to support the Action Plan. Additionally, in 1987 a Regional Coordinating Unit
was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) to service the Action Plan and
to provide secretariat services for the Convention.
Discussion and Current Status: A Joint Meeting of the Monitoring Committee of the Caribbean Action
Plan (CAP) and the Bureau of Contracting Parties to the Cartagena Convention was held In Mexico City
on September 12-14,1988. The meeting approved the revised work plan for the 1988-1989 Biennium
and reviewed a long-term strategy and regional priorities for the Action Plan and the Convention
developed at a meeting of experts September 7-9. The long-term strategy is generally consistent with
U.S. environmental priorities and will be formally considered by the next intergovernmental meeting
of contracting parties in 1989.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Salvano Briceno. Director. Regional Coordinating Unit, UNEP Caribbean Program
Andrew Sens. Director, Office of Environment and Health, Department of State
Gary Mauro, Texas Land Commissioner
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Spring 1989 Panama will host meeting on Cartagena Convention Land-Based
Sources of Marine Pollution Protocol
Spring 1989 Intergovernmental meeting of Experts on Cartagena Convention
-------
Page 1 - 14 Office of International Activities Significant National Issues
April 1989 Meeting of the Monitoring Committee/Bureau of Contracting
Parties
October 1989 Cartagena Convention Meeting of Contracting Parties, Kingston
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Scott Hajost, Acting Associate Administrator for International Activities
• Alan Sielen, Director, Multilateral Staff. Office of International Activities
• Robert Layton. Regional Administrator, Region 6
• Greer Tldwell, Regional Administrator, Region 4
•Doug Lipka. Director, Gulf of Mexico Program, Region 4
-------
Significant National Issues Office of International Activities Page 1 - 15
INCREASED EPA ACTIVITY IN EASTERN EUROPE:
BILATERAL AGREEMENTS WITH POLAND
BACKGROUND: Most East European governments (Poland, the German Democratic Republic,
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria) are paying increasing attention to national and regional environ-
mental problems after decades of rapid Industrialization with little or no regard for environmental
protection. Environmental degradation in some areas is so pronounced that negative economic and
human health impacts are observed. Real environmental improvement In the region will be seen only
with an infusion of political will to enforce existing standards, to raise capital needed to install or
upgrade air and water pollution control technologies, and to reduce pollution from agricultural
sources.
In an effort to Improve their domestic environmental Infrastructure, several East European nations
have sought bilateral contacts with EPA. EPA participates in formal cooperation agreements when
promising Joint research or other beneficial activities are anticipated and when funds are available.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA has a bilateral agreement for cooperation with Poland and
participates in the U.S.-Poland Agreement for Cooperation in Science and Technology. Both Polish
agreements have modest resources to support Joint research projects or other mutually agreed upon
activities (workshops, symposia). In September 1988, Hungary and Bulgaria sought to establish
bilateral environmental programs. Hungarian proposals for projects are under review within EPA and
could be initiated under existing intergovernmental "general exchanges" agreements if funded by EPA
program offices, since no dedicated funds exist. EPA Administrator Thomas visited Sofia in early
November '88 for the Economic Commission for Europe Nitrogen Oxides Protocol signing. He also met
with Bulgarian environmental authorities, but no specific bilateral activity with Bulgaria is foreseen.
EPA is exploring with the State Department, the U.S. Information Agency, and private foundations the
possibility of organizing one or more regional or bilateral workshops on environmental themes. Ideally
these would address international topics of great concern to both EPA and the host government (e.g.,
stratospheric ozone depletion, climate change, acid deposition) and would also promote U.S. bilateral
and multilateral foreign policy objectives. The workshops would be funded by non-EPA resources and
would not negatively affect ongoing cooperative programs.
-------
Page 1 - 16 Office of International Activities Significant National Issues
MAJOR PLAYERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Department of State, especially its East European posts
US Information Agency
The Environment Ministries or equivalent of Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the
German Democratic Republic and production enterprises of those countries (e.g. metallurgy
processing Industries, power plants, chemical manufacturers)
U.S. non-governmental environmental groups such as the Conservation Foundation and World
Resources Institute.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
The EPA Administrator may be expected to host a visit by the Polish Minister of the Environment
in late 1989 to review progress under the agency-to-agency agreement and consider future coop-
eration. Other activities (projects, workshops) with Poland and other East European countries
would be implemented by staff.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Scott Hajost, Acting Associate Administrator for International ActMtes
• Erich Bretthauer, Assistant Administrator for Research and Development
• Bob Wayland, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning and Evaluation
• Richard Guimond. Director, Office of Radiation Programs
• Eileen Claussen. Director, Office of Program Development
• Valdas Adamkus, Regional Administrator, Region V
• Stanley Laskowskl. Deputy Regional Administrator, Region III
-------
Significant National Issues Office of International Activities Page 1-17
LONDON OCEAN DUMPING CONVENTION
Background: The 1972 London Dumping Convention provides the basic global framework for the
protection of the marine environment against the deliberate disposal of wastes at sea (or "ocean
dumping"). The Convention entered into force in 1975, and 62 countries are now contracting parties,
including the United States.
The London Dumping Convention's basic approach to regulation is embodied in Its three technical
Annexes. Certain wastes singled out for their potentially harmful effect on the marine environment may
not be dumped. These so-called "blacklisted" substances are found in Annex I of the Convention and
include such highly toxic or persistent substances as high-level radioactive wastes, organohalogens,
mercury, cadmium, oil, and persistent plastics. Wastes containing "significant amounts" of other
substances thought to pose less danger to the environment are listed in an Annex II "gray list" and may
be dumped with "special care." Materials not found on either Annex may be dumped under a general
permit. Annex III contains environmental protection criteria that national authorities must carefully
consider before issuing a dumping permit.
Discussion and Current Status: EPA is directly Involved In the following key issues:
o determination of the overall acceptability of sea
o disposal of low-level radioactive wastes;
o evaluation of the incineration at sea of hazardous chemicals;
o examination of alternative approaches to regulation under the Convention;
o liability for damage to the marine environment;
o review of substances on the Convention's black and gray lists;
o export/import of wastes for sea disposal; and
o guidelines for participation of non-governmental organizations in London
Convention meetings.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Geoff Holland, Chairman, London Dumping Convention (Canada)
Manfred Nauke, Head, Marine Science Section, Marine Environment Division,
International Maritime Organization
Fred Bernthal, Assistant Secretary for Oceans and International Environmental
and Scientific Affairs, Department of State
Kent Burton Assistant Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
-------
Page 1 - 18 Office of International Activities Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
January 1989 Meeting of Work Group on Convention Annexes
April 1989 Meeting of Scientific Group
June 1989 Meeting of Liability Task Group
October 1989 Meeting of Work Group on Legal. Political. Economic, and Social
Issues: Radioactive Waste Panel
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Scott Hajost, Acting Associate Administrator for International Activities
• Alan Slelen, Director. Multilateral Staff. Office of International Activities
• Tudor Davies. Director, Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection.
Office of Water
-------
Significant National Issues Office of International Activities Page 1 - 19
PESTICIDES IMPORT TOLERANCES
BACKGROUND: Under the Federal Food. Drug and Cosmetics Act. EPA establishes tolerances of levels
of residue that may legally remain on food or feed crops after harvesting. For domestic crops, EPA
establishes tolerances In conjunction with the registration of a pesticide for use in the U.S. under the
Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodentlclde Act. EPA is also responsible for setting tolerances on
Imported crops.
Food or feed crops Imported Into the U.S. can bear residues of pesticides that are not registered for use
In the U.S. In this area we face a number of Issues, both of domestic policy and of international trade.
The primary problems fall into two categories: (1) the perception of U.S. growers that less stringent data
requirements are applied to petitions for Import only tolerances (the reason for this perception Is that
domestic petitions also require the data necessary to regulate the use of the pesticide); (2) the
disruptions in trade and the confusion caused by differing tolerances among countries.
In the second area, countries have been working toward harmonization for several years, to some
degree In the trade arena (see paper on GATT and Canadian FTA) and in the Codex Alimentarius
Commission. The Codex Commission on Pesticide Residues brings together experts of the member
country who evaluate toxicology and good agricultural practices Information (similar to, but not
equivalent to. EPA data requirements), and establishes maximum residue limits that countries are
asked to accept as national standards.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: An EPA work group with the participation of representatives
from the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture Is grappling with a number
of U.S. tolerance policy issues. These Include Import vs. domestic tolerance data requirements and U.S.
policy on Codex maximum residue limits. These discussions have been triggered by two initiatives: (1)
EPA has stated that it will clarify its tolerance process and policies; and (2) the Food and Drug
Administration has formally requested that EPA Issue a rule adopting Codex limits. (Although we have
participated in Codex and supported harmonization, we have yet to find a way to reconcile Codex limits
with our domestic statute and tolerance-setting process).
The tolerance rulemaking is to be developed in 1989. However, the Food and Drug Administration and
the International community are pressuring EPA to address the Codex issues as soon as possible.
-------
Page 1 - 20 Office of International Activities Significant National Issues
MAJOR PLATERS
Food and Drug Administration
U.S. Department of Agriculture
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
1989 Development of tolerance rule.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Scott Hajost. Acting Associate Administrator for International Activities
• Doug Campt, Director, Office of Pesticides Programs
-------
Significant National Issues Office of International Activities Page 1-21
SOUTH PACIFIC REGIONAL ENVIRONMENT PROGRAM
OTHER PACIFIC REGION ISSUES
BACKGROUND: The South Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP) was adopted in 1982 by
26 governments and administrations in, or with interests in, the region. These include New Zealand.
Australia. France, U.K.. U.S.. Guam, the Federated States of Micronesia, American Samoa and Paulau.
The SPREP Action Plan was designed to coordinate and fund environmental projects of regional
significance (e.g., hazardous waste management, pesticides use, water quality, coastal zone manage-
ment, and endangered species). Although the U.S. has been one of the larger contributors to the
program, until recently we have not been Involved in SPREP management or participated In any
coordinated fashion, other than during the negotiation and signing of the SPREP Convention on the
storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous substances In the marine environment (not yet In force).
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: In June 1988, the Office of International Activities' then
Deputy Associate Administrator was asked to head the U.S. delegation to the second Intergovernmental
meeting on the SPREP work program (the U.S. did not attend the first meeting 1986). In preparing for
the meeting, we discovered (1) that a number of Federal agencies (the Coast Guard and Interior, for
example) had programmatic as well as regional Interests In more active U.S. involvement in SPREP,
including EPA. which has an active territorial program run out of Region IX. and (2) that the SPREP
presents an Ideal opportunity for the U.S.. and EPA In particular, to maximize resources already
invested In the U.S. territories on environmental Issues.
Thus, we have attempted to generate interest In SPREP within EPA and other Agencies, particularly
In specific policy areas Identified as training and technology transfer needs -- I.e., hazardous wastes.
The first concrete EPA Involvement In the SPREP will be on a regional hazardous waste management
training program to be held In late 1988 or early 1989. In addition, we have been approached by the
Pacific Basin Economic Council (PBEC), an Industry group Interested In sharing waste treatment
technologies and expertise toward sound hazardous waste management practices in the area. The
Council is to hold a 1- day workshop on environmental Issues In the region in May 1989 and has
requested that the new EPA Administrator attend with the heads of environmental agencies In PBEC
represented countries.
U.S. and EPA involvement in the environmental Issues in this region needs to be coordinated and
strengthened.
-------
Page 1 - 22 Office of International Activities Significant National Issues
MAJOR PLATERS
State Department
U.S. Agency for International Development
U.S. Coast Guard
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
The Department of the Interior
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONE
Early 1989 SPREP hazardous waste workshop
May 1989 PBEC meeting for heads of environment agencies
EPA CONTACTS
• Scott Hajost. Acting Associate Administrator for International Activities
-------
Significant National Issues Office of International Activities Page 1 - 23
CANADIAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND ISSUES RELATED
TO THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
BACKGROUND: Under the leadership of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Canadian Free Trade
Agreement (FTA) was made final in early 1988, and the implementing legislation is in place. EPA had
interests in and participated in the subgroups that negotiated the Technical Barriers to Trade and
Agricultural Standards portions of the FTA. The ongoing Uruguay Round of discussions to update the
General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade Is expected to continue over the next 2 or 3 years. We expect
that the Uruguay Round will, in time, pose the same EPA Issues as were Involved in the Canadian FTA
negotiations.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA needs to review the Implications and Implementation
needs of the Canadian FTA. The Technical Barriers to Trade portion of the FTA poses two issues for
EPA Implementation: (1) that a minimum of 60 days would be provided for comment on proposed rules
(EPA opposed this provision during the interagency discussions, as did other agencies), and (2) that
laboratory certification provisions would not discriminate against foreign laboratories {this was
characterized primarily as a National Bureau of Standards issue, but may affect EPA rules and
regulations).
The Agriculture subgroup led by USDA developed an annex specifying the process that the two
countries would undergo in an attempt to better harmonize pesticide residue limits (tolerances). This
language was carefully crafted to provide for the regulatory perogatives and the statutory criteria of
each country. However, since EPA was alone In opposing language that would have committed the U.S.
to harmonization, we must be careful to ensure Implementation of this provision In the manner
intended by EPA. EPA's constraints were made known to the interagency group, to the Canadians, and
to Congressional committees.
Similar Issues are expected to arise in the Uruguay Round. In fact a subgroup has already been formed,
and under USDA's leadership is considering the very same pesticides residue proposals that we
opposed in the Canadian FTA proposals. While EPA should support reasonable efforts toward
harmonization, we must ensure that limitations on our ability to respond to international factors is fully
considered. (See the issue paper on Import tolerances for more on this issue.)
-------
Page 1 - 24 Office of International Activities Significant National Issues
MAJOR PLATERS
U.S. Trade Representative
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Trade Representative
Food and Drug Administration
Department of Commerce
U.S. agricultural producers
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Should be addressed as quickly as possible.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Scott Hajost. Acting Associate Administrator for International Activities
• Doug Campt. Director. Office of Pesticides Programs.
-------
Significant National Issues Office of International Activities Page 1-25
REVIEW OF U.S.-MEXICO TRANSBORDER
POLLUTION CONTROL ISSUES
BACKGROUND: EPA's Associate Administrator for International Activities and Mexico's Undersecre-
tary for Ecology in the Secretariat of Urban Development and Ecology (SEDUE) have been designated
as the National Coordinators for implementation of the 1983 Border Environment Agreement. The
Agreement requires them to meet annually to review progress made on correcting environmental
problems In the border area. The last meeting of the National Coordinators was held In San Diego,
California on June 17. 1988.
Under the Agreement, four technical work groups have been set up to cover issues in the areas of (1)
water, (2) air. (3) hazardous waste, and (4) Joint emergency response. These groups usually meet several
times a year and report their progress to the National Coordinators at their yearly meeting.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Mexico will host the next National Coordinators meeting. EPA
should work with SEDUE (or Its successor In the event of a reorganization under the new Salinas
Administration) to assure that the meetings are scheduled In a timely manner. Current Issues of
concern include development of an annex to the 1983 Agreement to deal with air pollution In border
cities; resolution of discrepencles in EPA's and SEDUE's definition of "hazardous waste" in complying
with the annex on transboundary shipments of hazardous waste; resolution of the Tijuana, Mexicali,
and Nuevo Laredo sewage problem; and development of sister city plans for emergency response.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
EPA's Associate Administrator for International Activities
SEDUE's Undersecretary for Ecology
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
June 1989 Target date for next National Coordinators Meeting
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Chair of Water Work Group (Water Management Division Director)
• Chair of Air Work Group (Air Management Division Director.Region 9)
• Chair of Hazardous Waste Work Group
(Hazardous Waste Management Division Director.Region 6)
• Chair of Joint Response Team
(Director, Preparedness Staff, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response)
-------
Page 1 - 26 Office of International Activities Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of'International. Activities Page 1 - 27
U.S. - CANADA PROTECTION OF THE WATERTON - GLACIER
INTERNATIONAL PEACE PARK
BACKGROUND: Since the 1970s, the Province of British Columbia has proposed to authorize the
development of a strip coal mine six miles north of the U.S.-Canadian border. This proposed mine Is
within the Flathead River and Lake Watershed and within the ecosystem of protection of the Waterton
Park In Canada and the Glacier National Park and Flathead National Forest in the United States. Due
to U.S. concern about the potential adverse Impacts of the mine on this pristine and unique ecosystem,
the U.S. and Canadian Governments mutually referred the proposal to the International Joint
Commission (LJC) for Its assessment. The Waterton - Glacier International Peace Park Is managed by
cooperation of the U.S. Park Service and Us Canadian counterpart.
DISCUSSION AND STATUS: The LJC and Its blnatlonal. Flathead River Board held public hearings In
Montana and British Columbia on this proposed mine in September 1988. The hearings addressed
findings of the Board's report that reviewed the mine proposal and its potential impacts on water
quantity, water quality, and water uses that could occur at the border and downstream in the U.S. in
the Flathead watershed. The Board also reported on mitigation measures that need to be considered
to protect the watershed if the mine Is developed and operated. While the Board noted a lack of adequate
data to make a full objective assessment, it Identified several potential environmental Impacts in the
U.S., and it specifically acknowledged that the occurrence of a low probability event at the mine could
irreversibly damage the Flathead watershed in both the U.S. and Canada.
The hearings provided an opportunity for federal agencies, provincial, state, and local governments,
nongovernment organizations, and others to comment. The comments to the IJC at the hearings clearly
showed increased U.S. concern and opposition to the proposed mine.
In late 1988 or early 1989. the LJC may be ready to provide a written recommendation to the U.S. and
Canadian Governments. When this LJC recommendation is made, the U.S. may consider developing
a proposal that both countries should establish a special treaty or executive agreement to provide a
framework with specific objectives for protecting and managing the Waterton - Glacier International
Peace Park region In the long-term perspective. EPA will be a major player In the negotiations on key
issues such as water quality.
-------
Page 1 - 28 Office of International Activities Significant National Issues
MAJOR PLATERS
International Joint Commission
Canadian Department of External Affairs
Environment Canada
Premier of British Columbia
Provincial: Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Energy, Mines, and Petroleum Resources, and the
Coal Guidelines Steering Committee
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of Interior/National Park Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture/Forest Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Governor of Montana
Montana: Department of Health and Environmental Sciences,
Department of Fish. Wildlife, and Parks
Numerous public and nongovernmental organizations: such as the Montana Coal Board and
Flathead Basin Commission
Native Americans in the U.S. and Canada: Confederation of Sallsh and Kootenay
(Flathead Indians)
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
In 1989. after receipt of the IJC's recommendation, the U.S. could consider developing a special
protocol with Canada.
KEY EPA PLATERS
• Scott Hajost, Acting Associate Administrator for International Activities
• James Scherer. Regional Administrator, Region 8
• John Wardell, Director, Region 8/Montana Office
-------
ADMINISTRATION &
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Administration and Resources Management Page 2-1
DETERMINING THE COMPLETE COSTS OF A
SUPERFUND SITE CLEANUP
BACKGROUND: EPA's Superfund accounting policies are established to determine response costs by
site and assist in EPA's cost recovery program under the requirements of the Superfund Amendment
Reauthorlzatlon Act. Most Superfund costs are accounted for on a direct site-specific basis. However,
the costs of such efforts as program management, facilities, finance, and personnel services are ac-
counted for as indirect costs because the efforts Indirectly relate to many or all Superfund sites and
cannot be readily identified on a direct basis.
Indirect costs are allocated to sites using a formal methodology adopted by the Office of the Comptroller
in FY1985. This methodology results In Incomplete costing because: (1) not all Superfund indirect costs
are included in the allocation process, and (2) the allocation technique used to assign indirect costs
does not allocate all identified indirect costs to sites. These practices mean that a significant block (over
75 percent) of Superfund Indirect costs are not accounted for In a manner enabling them to be Identified
with sites.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: To achieve complete costing of all Superfund costs, direct and
indirect, the Comptroller has proposed a major change to the indirect cost methodology. This change
was communicated to interested parties in EPA and the Justice Department through meetings,
presentations, and formal position paper circulated for comment in August 1988. Comments will be
considered in reaching final decision.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATION
Several Congressional Committees have expressed concern over the Agency's cost recovery program,
specifically the relatively low level of recoveries. These include: House and Senate HUD and Independ-
ent Agencies Appropriation Subcommittees; House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations; House Appropriation, Survey and Investigations Staff; and Senate Subcommittee
on Superfund and Environmental Oversight.
Responsible parties, the site polluters from whom the Government seeks cost recovery, seek to
minimize their damages and challenge every aspect of EPA's costs including indirect costs.
The Department of Justice wants to ensure that EPA costs and accompanying policies and method-
ologies are defendable in court against the challenges of responsible parties.
-------
Page 2-2 Office of Administration and Resources Management Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
November 1988 Final decision on methodology by Comptroller
February 1989 Implementation through issuance of indirect cost rates
and accompanying documentation
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• David P. Ryan. Comptroller. Office of Administration and Resources Management
• Bruce M. Diamond, Director. Office of Waste Programs Enforcement,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
• Henry Longest, II, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (Superfund),
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Administration and Resources Management Page 2-3
SUPERFUND TRANSACTIONS' AUTOMATED RETRIEVAL SYSTEM
(STARS)
BACKGROUND: STARS Is an optical disc-based system to computerize the storage and retrieval of
Superfund financial records and automate the preparation of cost recovery documentation packages.
When the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorlzatlon Act was passed In 1986, the schedule of site
clean-up was accelerated and the amount of money available for clean-up actions was significantly
increased. As a result, an Increasing number of sites have moved through the cleanup and cost-
recovery process. As the number of sites grows, the volume of cost documents increases proportion-
ately. The current manual, paper-based, labor-intensive process cannot handle the increased volume
In a timely and responsive manner. Therefore, the Agency set out to study alternative systems to
support cost- recovery activities and decided to develop an optical disc-based system to store and
retrieve cost documentation and facilitate the preparation of cost-recovery packages.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The STARS project is presently under development. A concept
development phase has been completed, which included a cost/benefit analysis of optical disk
technology for various design configurations. Currently a prototype Is being developed, which
demonstrates the functionality of the STARS process and work is continuing on a detailed system
design. Next steps include developing and operating a pilot at selected sites, followed by Agency-wide
Implementation of STARS.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Develop Prototype November 1988
Complete Detailed Design Document April 1989
Install STARS Agency-wide October 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• David P. Ryan, Comptroller, Office of Administration and Resources Management
• Edward J. Hanley, Director. Office of Information Resources Management
• Willis Greenstreet, Director, Office of Administration and Resources Management
• Joseph Fransmathes, Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and Management, Region IV
-------
Page 2 - 4 Office of Administration and Resources Management Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Administration and Resources Management Page 2 - 5
MEETING THE SCHEDULING AND FUNDING
REQUIREMENTS OF SARA
BACKGROUND: A major EPA objective Is to ensure that the Superfund program has adequate
resources to meet Its statutory remedial cleanup schedules and to ensure that all on-going work is fully
funded. The unique nature of this large and complex Federally-managed cleanup program, the high
public and Congressional visibility it receives, and the high expectations set for It, present a constant
challenge to the Agency's resource managers.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: To meet Its statutory cleanup schedules and ensure adequate
funding for ongoing work, the Agency now estimates it will need the full $8.5 billion authorized In the
Superfund Amendment and Reauthorizatlon Act (SARA). However, EPA currently projects that only
$7.4 billion will be available through 1991. In 1988 and 1989, Congress and OMB have been reluctant
to provide EPA requested levels, as a result of the tight budgetary constraints facing the entire Federal
government.
To augment the pace of cleanup activity and remain within authorized resource levels, EPA is placing
a greater reliance on cleanup actions by responsible parties. In addition, the resource shortfall may
be reduced through more aggressive cost-recovery efforts and higher than expected interest income.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
House and Senate Appropriations Committees on HUD/Independent Agencies
House Energy and Commerce Committee (Dlngell)
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (Lautenberg)
Environmental Defense Fund
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
National Audobon Society
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club
U.S. PIRG
-------
Page 2 - 6 Office of Administration and Resources Management Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
October 17. 1989 3 year Remedial Investigation!/Feasibility Studies and
Remedial Actions start deadline
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• David P. Ryan, Comptroller. Office of Administration and Resources Management
Henry L. Longest, II, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (Superfund)
• Al Pesachowitz, Director. Budget Division, Office of the Comptroller,
Office of Administration and Resources Management
• Russel Wyer, Director. Hazardous Site Control Division,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Administration and Resources Management Page 2-7
RETENTION OF EPA USER FEES
BACKGROUND: In 1986 the Administrator created an Agency Task Force and directed each program
office to Identify programs where user fees might be feasible. The goal was to obtain additional EPA
revenues to help justify requested budget increases.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Thirty EPA programs have been evaluated for possible fees
since 1986. Two fees were Issued as a result of this process for pesticides registration and toxics
premanufacture notices. (Note: Pending legislation under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodentlcide Act would prohibit EPA from collecting the registration fee but authorizes collection for new
re-registration fees.)
Other fees have been considered (e.g., fees for Office of Research and Development quality assurance
samples, ocean disposal permits) but have limited program office support in the absence of EPA
authority to retain revenues from fees. Currently, any fees established by EPA must be deposited into
the General Fund of the U. S. Treasury. EPA proposed legislation to Congress In 1987 to provide
authority to retain fees in a Special Fund that would be available to EPA, but it was never introduced.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Natural Resources, Energy and Science, Natural
Resources Division, Environment Branch
House and Senate Appropriations Committees, Authorizing Committees, and Budget Committees
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• David P. Ryan, Comptroller, Office of Administration and Resources Management
• Gerald Yamada, Deputy General Counsel, Office of General Counsel
• Tom Kelly, Director, Office of Standards and Regulations,
Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation
-------
Page 2 - 8 Office of Administration and Resources Management Significant National Issues
-------
ENFORCEMENT &
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3 - 1
ENFORCEMENT OF ASBESTOS HAZARDOUS
EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACT (AHERA)
BACKGROUND: In 1982, EPA required, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), school
districts to Inspect buildings for friable asbestos-containing material. Many schools failed to conduct
inspections properly, undertook unnecessary removal actions, or used untrained or unqualified
contractors thereby exacerbating the asbestos hazard.
AHERA was passed by the Congress In October 1986 as an amendment to TSCA, directing EPA to Issue
regulations that required schools to inspect their buildings for asbestos and to use inspectors,
management planners, and abatement personnel who are qualified and accredited.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: AHERA specifically excludes school districts from the civil
penalty provisions of TSCA and makes them liable for penalties for only three types of violations --
(1) failure to conduct inspections; (2) submission of false information regarding inspections; and (3)
failure to develop a proper asbestos management plan.
EPA may not assess penalties against schools for failure to properly Implement response actions.
operations and maintenance programs, or management plans. EPA's limited ability to assess civil
penalties against school districts may substantially impede EPA's ability to enforce compliance with
AHERA. EPA is preparing its response strategy at this time.
MAJOR PLATERS
None outside the Agency at this time
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
An enforcement response policy will be issued by November 30, 1988.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Edward E. Reich, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Civil), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
• Frederick F. Stiehl, Associate Enforcement Counsel
-------
Page 3 - 2 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3-3
ARBITRATION REGULATION
BACKGROUND: Section 122(h)(2) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) authorizes EPA to promulgate regulations for the use of binding arbitration
as a method of settling CERCLA Section 107 claims for recovery of response costs. This authority Is
limited to cases In which total response costs for the facility concerned do not exceed $500,000,
excluding Interest. The proposed regulation, published in the Federal Register on August 4. 1988,
provides a voluntary procedure by which EPA and one or more Potentially Responsible Parties (PRP)
at a site may agree to submit some or all of the Issues that arise in a small cost recovery claim for
resolution by binding arbitration.
DISCUSSION: Binding arbitration, an alternative dispute resolution technique, can provide a useful
method for reaching settlements with PRPs In appropriate small cost recovery cases. It offers both the
Agency and PRPs an alternative to traditional litigation and negotiation. Arbitration can be relatively
quick and Inexpensive. In these cases, arbitration offers EPA an expedited means of seeking
replenishment of the Superfund and similarly offers the PRPs an expedited and potentially less costly
method of resolving their liability to the Government for reimbursement of response costs.
MAJOR PLATERS
Nancy Firestone, Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section. Department of Justice
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
The regulation Is tentatively scheduled for publication In final form on March 31, 1989.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Edward E. Reich, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Civil). Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
-------
Page 3 - 4 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3 - 5
ATTORNEY TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
BACKGROUND: EPA attorney training needs have Increased for several reasons: 1) more new
attorneys-Office of Regional Counsel (ORC) audits report a 30% to 50% staff turnover; 2) more State
bar association Continuing Legal Education (CLE) requirements-currently 30 States require CLE
credits; and 3) more complex EPA legal counselling and enforcement Issues that require special
knowledge, and skills.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: An advisory workgroup of Headquarters and Regional senior
attorneys has developed a career-cycle training plan that identifies the key knowledge and skill training
requirements for entry, mid and senior level attorneys. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring (OECM). Is Implementing this plan by building on Regional initiatives, creating in-house
courses and using the Department of Justice (DOJ). Legal Education Institute (LEI) courses.
In FY1989. OECM will provide a quarterly training calendar, increase offerings of existing courses, such
as new attorney orientation, negotiation skills and administrative litigation, and deliver new courses
on the judicial referral process, discovery techniques, advanced trial advocacy, and attorney manage-
ment.
MAJOR PLATERS
Department of Justice
State Agencies
State Attorneys General
KEY MILESTONES
No action-forcing events
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Gerald Bryan. Director, Office of Compliance Analysis and Program Operations
-------
Page 3 - 6 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3 - 7
CLEAN AIR ACT ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENTS
BACKGROUND: As part of the Agency's Clean Air Act amendments effort, the Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring (OECM) has led the development of proposed changes designed to improve
enforcement. After close coordination with the Office of Air and Radiation, the Office of Congressional
Liaison, and the Department of Justice. OECM provided technical assistance to the "Group of Nine"
Democrats in the House of Representatives who had been trying to engineer a successful compromise
between Congressmen Dingell and Waxman. Examples of the proposals which were embodied in the
Group of Nine legislative language are: 1) authority to continue federal enforcement when a state
proposes to revise its implementation plan; 2) provisions for administrative assessment of penalties for
relatively minor cases; 3) felony-level sanctions for knowing violations and elimination of the
requirement that notice be given to suspected criminal violators; and 4) clarification that work practice
standards may be enforced even when there is no evidence that a pollutant was actually emitted.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The 1988 session of Congress ended with the Group of Nine
introducing its bill and with "the Senate effort stymied by lack of consensus. While much progress Is
still required before we can expect comprehensive amendments, the pressure continues to build,
especially for acid deposition and ozone revisions. For this reason, we expect that opportunities to
enhance enforcement through Clean Air Act amendments will be on the agenda again in 1989.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Edward E. Reich, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Civil), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
• Terrell Hunt. Associate Enforcement Counsel
-------
Page 3-8 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3-9
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE ,
COMPENSATION AND LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA)
CIVIL ENFORCEMENT DELEGATIONS
BACKGROUND: Upon passage of CERCLA, the authority to refer, settle, and appeal civil judicial
actions was retained by Headquarters or delegated to the Regions with an advance concurrence
requirement retained by Headquarters. A Headquarters' concurrence role in referral of cases to the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and in all CERCLA settlements was deemed necessary to ensure a
nationally-consistent enforcement and settlement posture In the rapidly evolving CERCLA civil
enforcement and settlement programs.
DISCUSSION: To reflect the Increased maturity of the program, on April 1. 1988, EPA and DOJ
instituted a direct civil judicial referral process for the CERCLA program. Under this procedure. EPA
and DOJ simultaneously review the referral. In addition, on June 17, 1988, the Assistant Administra-
tor for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM) and the Assistant Administra-
tor for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) waived their concurrence
authorities for approving most cMl Judicial settlements. Settlement authorities retained in Headquar-
ters include cases with particularly high response costs, settlements waiving large amounts of costs
or with a high percentage of mixed funding, multi-regional cases, settlements involving complete
releases from liability, and certain precedent-setting cases.
MAJOR PLATERS
David T. Buente, Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Department of Justice
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Implementation guidance Is expected to be completed in the first quarter of FY 1989.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Edward E. Reich, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Civil), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
• Jon Cannon, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
• Bruce Diamond, Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
-------
Page 3 - 10 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3-11
CONTRACTOR LISTING PROGRAM ISSUES
BACKGROUND: EPA has the discretion (and In certain circumstances Is required) to bar facilities with
Clean Air Act (CAA) or Clean Water Act (CWA) violations from receiving Federal contracts, grants, loans
or other forms of Federal assistance. Contractor listing had been a powerful but infrequently used
enforcement sanction until adoption of new regulations and creation of a listing unit.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
(OECM) has recently established Agency-wide procedures, training, and guidance to encourage the use
of the listing remedy In new program areas. The number of listing actions has increased from three
facilities on the List on January 1. 1986. to 19 listed facilities, with seven discretionary listing actions
pending, and seven potential mandatory listing actions pending. The program expects expanded use
of listing under CAA and CWA. Listing may also assume additional activity as a result of the EPA
Federal Facility Compliance Strategy, which recommends listing as a possible tool against violating
goverment-owned/ contractor-operated facilities, and pending legislation authorizing listing under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
MAJOR PLATERS
The General Services Administration oversees listing sanctions through its procurement process
KEY MILESTONES
There are no specific action-forcing milestones
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Alex Varela. Chief Listing Official, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
• Associate Enforcement Counsels, (Air and Water)
-------
Page 3-12 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3 - 13
COORDINATING FEDERAL/STATE PROSECUTIONS
TO AVOID DEFENSES
BACKGROUND: With the development of state environmental criminal statutes and programs, it is
inevitable that, at some point In the future, both a state and the federal government will seek to prose-
cute the same entity - either Individual or corporate - for essentially the same crime. If this occurs, pre-
emption and the Department of Justice (DOJ) policy on dual prosecutions dictate the outcome of the
conflict.
DISCUSSION: Preemption of state prosecutions may occur when United States has acted to regulate
In a all encompassing manner a particular field of health and safety, such as the environment. An
example of such a comprehensive effort by EPA is in the toxic substance regulatory area, governed by
the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Therefore, for example, the federal prosecution of illegal PCS
dumping may preempt the state prosecution of that defendant. However, with the limited number of
investigators involved in this area, fostering state prosecutions of environmental crime is a primary
national goal that would be damaged if state prosecutions were preempted by the federal government.
Therefore, coordination between the two sovereigns is important to promote efficient utilization of
resources.
MAJOR PLATERS
Various states and EPA
ACTION DATES
No specific dates or milestones
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Paul Thomson, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Criminal), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
-------
Page 3-14 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3-15
EPA/CORPS MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT REGARDING
ENFORCEMENT OF CWA'S "DREDGE AND FILL" PROGRAM.
BACKGROUND: CWA, Section 404. establishes a permit program regulating discharges of dredged or
immaterial. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the permit issuing agency. EPA and the Corps
share enforcement responsibilities.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA and the Corps are close to agreement on a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) regarding enforcement. Under the proposed MOA: The Corps will continue to
handle most cases In which a discharger has violated a permit; EPA can pursue such cases If It asks
the Corps to take action, and the Corps declines; EPA will continue to focus on unpermitted discharges;
each agency must verify that the other Is not taking action in response to the same violation; and the
Corps will not grant an after-the-fact permit until enforcement related to the discharge is resolved.
The Department of the Army is reluctant to sign until the agencies agree on a related MOA regarding
the program's geographic jurisdiction. Acting Assistant Administrator Hanmer of the Office of Water
and Assistant Secretary of the Army Doyle will try to resolve the issue in October.
MAJOR PLATERS
Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Acting Assistant Administrator Hanmer told a Congressional committee in mid-September that the
agencies expect that the MOA negotiations will soon be completed
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Rebecca Hanmer, Acting Assistant Administrator for Water
• Edward E. Reich, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Civil). Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
-------
Page 3-16 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3-17
DE MINIMIS CONTRIBUTOR SETTLEMENTS
BACKGROUND: Section 122(g)(l)(A) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) authorizes EPA to enter into expedited settlements with waste contributors
whose contribution to a site is minimal in comparison with other hazardous substances at the site. A
de minimis settlement of this kind may be used if both the volume and the hazardous effects of the
substances contributed by the Potentially Responsible Party (PRP) are minimal in comparison with
other hazardous substances disposed of at the site.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: De minimis contributor settlements are designed to provide
certain types of PRPs with an efficient means of resolving their CERCLA liability early in the process
without large transaction costs. Such settlements also benefit the Government by simplifying the
litigation/negotiation process. To implement this provision. EPA issued guidance entitled. "Interim
Guidance on Settlements with De Minimis Waste Contributors under Section 122(g) of SARA".
Recently, Congress has faulted EPA for not using this settlement provision more frequently. EPA has
in fact entered into several de minimis settlements to date and we expect to use this settlement
authority more frequently as Regional staff and management become more familiar with the concept
and the process.
MAJOR PLATERS
House Energy and Commerce Committee Staff
Defense bar
Trade associations
Environmental groups
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
No specific deadlines or milestones
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Edward Reich, Deputy Assistant Administrator (CMl), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitrolng
• Bruce Diamond, Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
-------
Page 3 - 18 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3 - 19
EPCRA § 313 ENFORCEMENT
BACKGROUND: As part of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, Congress Included
the Emergency Planning and Community Rlght-To-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986. Under § 313 of EPCRA,
reporting of releases to the environment Is required each year for manufacturers. Importers,
processors, and users of more than 300 chemical substances above a minimum threshold.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Since resources are limited. EPA must establish enforcement
priorities to focus on the most serious violations. The Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS)
has budgeted for 600 inspections and expects to issue 30.000 Notices of Non-compliance in FT89.
These actions will result in approximately 224 administrative complaints and 27 hearings. Meeting
this demand will be a major challenge for both Headquarters and the Regions in 1989.
Although EPCRA has provided penalties for failing to report. Congress did not expressly provide EPA
with inspection authority. Since most of EPA's inspections are conducted with a company's consent,
the lack of explicit authority has yet to present a major hurdle to enforcement. Nevertheless, we believe
that while there is Implied authority to Inspect, It Is advantageous for EPA to set out the parameters
of EPA's Inspection authority in regulations.
MAJOR PLATERS
Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ). a drafter of EPCRA.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
A Start Action Request (SAR) has been submitted to initiate rulemaking. A draft rule will be
submitted to Red Border review by December 20, 1988.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Edward E. Reich, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Civil), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
• Frederick F. Stiehl, Associate Enforcement Counsel
-------
Page 3-20 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3-21
ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS
BACKGROUND: Since 1984, the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM) has
managed a strategic planning process which identifies major enforcement goals and reviews implem-
entation issues with each program. Its purpose is to ensure that enforcement goals are fully integrated
into program priority setting and the Agency's annual Operating Year Guidance.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Each Fall, OECM conducts a meeting with the senior
managers of each Program Compliance Office to Jointly review "where the program is" and to plan for
"where it is going." Topics include enforcement and compliance priorities for the upcoming year, new
policies, guidance or litigation strategies; and budget issues. OECM shares meeting summaries with
Headquarters, the Regions, and the Department of Justice, and uses it to develop and review Operating
Year Guidance. An annual article on EPA's enforcement priorities is published in the National
Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) publication, the NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCE-
MENT JOURNAL.
MAJOR PLATERS
State Environmental Agencies
Offices of State Attorneys General
KEY MILESTONES
Strategic Planning meetings are held during the first quarter of the fiscal year.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Gerald Bryan, Director, Office of Compliance Analysis and Program Operations, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
-------
Page 3-22 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3 - 23
EXPANDED ENFORCEMENT USE OF
CONTRACTOR DEBARMENT PROCEDURES
BACKGROUND: EPA may now suspend from participation In government-wide contracting Indictees
whose underlying causes of indictment indicate a lack of business integrity or competency. (40 CFR
§ 32.300, 53 FR 19208). Frequently, providers of environmental services who are under indictment
have achieved significant economic advantage over competitors by their Intentional non-compliance
with environmental requirements. Additionally. Indictees may intentionally underbid on government
environmental service contracts in an attempt to create the appearance of unfair Agency action.
DISCUSSION: Prior to October 1,1988. EPA suspension and debarment actions could only be facility-
specific and required conviction under the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act, or applied only to EPA
assistance programs. Now, however, the Agency Is empowered to Initiate or recommend government-
wide suspension actions upon the filing of charges against a party that Is or is likely to contract with
the government. By Immediately initiating a suspension action against such an indictee, EPA can
significantly curb the opportunities for such an entity to continue to endanger the public health and
environment, while simultaneously enhancing deterrence nationwide.
MAJOR PLATERS
None
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Immediate
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Paul Thomson. Deputy Assistant Administrator (Criminal), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
-------
Page 3-24 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3 - 25
ENCOURAGING THE USE OF GLOBAL SETTLEMENTS
BACKGROUND: The Agency Is working to Improve Internal criminal/ civil enforcement program co-
ordination. Such coordination Is essential to achieving global settlements which maximize deterrence
and achieve timely and effective remedial action with the most efficient use of finite civil and criminal
enforcement resources. From the viewpoint of the subject of an enforcement action, global settlements
are also welcomed since they bring finality to the enforcement action that would otherwise be lacking.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Although perceived as desirable, global settlements are
Infrequent. Working out such settlements requires close coordination and consultation between civil
and criminal enforcement personnel who are seeking separate objectives pursuant to different
procedures. Parallel proceedings issues complicate such coordination. Global settlements usually
result not as a consequence of Agency initiative, but because defense counsel actively and persistently
encourage such a course of action in his or her client's behalf. The infrequency of global settlements
is also attributable to the separate civil and criminal enforcement sides of the Land and Natural
Resources Division of Department of Justice. OCEC has assumed the task of developing a policy
memorandum to facilitate reaching such settlements.
MAJOR PLATERS
Department of Justice
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Not established
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Paul Thomson, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Criminal), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
• Ed Reich. Deputy Assistant Administrator (Civil)
-------
Page 3-26 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3-27
OVERSIGHT OF NON-INCARCERATION SENTENCES
EN CRIMINAL CASES
BACKGROUND: Previously, the EPA deferred to the Department of Justice and the Office of Probation
of the U.S. Courts the task of monitoring compliance with conditions of probation and the payment of
fines Imposed on individuals and organizations convicted of environmental crimes. As monitoring was
occurring on a happenstance basis, the Office of Criminal Enforcement Counsel (OCEC) decided to
establish a system to follow-up and assure that fines, required remedial action, and other conditions
of probation are being satisfied by convicted environmental offenders.
DISCUSSION: OCEC Is broadening Its defendant data base and consulting with the Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts to develop a system to verify the full payment of fines. OCEC is developing
a procedure to ensure it will receive a certified copy of all probation agreements. OCEC will then
distribute copies of such agreements to all the concerned compliance monitoring offices of the different
media with a memorandum alerting their personnel of the fact that the facilities identified in the
memorandum can be promptly sanctioned through a violation of probation hearing if new environ-
mental violations occur. OCEC is also consulting with the National Association of Attorneys General
to explore ways to alert state environmental enforcement authorities of state defendants who are on
environmental probation.
MAJOR PLATERS
Administrative Offices of U.S. Courts
National Association of Attorneys General
ACTION DATES
Program objective for FY 1988
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Keith Onsdorff, Office of Criminal Enforcement Counsel
-------
Page 3-28 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3-29
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT FOR ENFORCEMENT
BACKGROUND: Agency executives need to know a great deal about the status of environmental
enforcement -- in terms of both general trends and cross-media perspectives on a particular regulated
industry or entity. Timely access to complete, coherent and reliable data is an important factor in
national decision-making.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The Agency's enforcement information systems serve a
variety of management and oversight needs. They are designed to accommodate a very decentralized
decision-making system, and have sprung from diverse statutory mandates concerning targets,
priorities and types of actions. In addition, they have been developed in rapidly changing information
technology environments. The result is a diverse array of information-gathering and analysis systems,
which suffer some serious drawbacks from the perspective of national multi-media oversight.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM) is leading major efforts to improve the
coherence and accessibility of enforcement information systems, without infringing upon the media-
specific needs of program and regional offices. The success of these ventures will require the continued
understanding and active involvement of top management.
MAJOR PLATERS
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM)
Media Compliance Office Directors
Regional Enforcement Contacts (Deputy Regional Administrators)
KEY MILESTONES
There are no action - forcing events
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Gerald Bryan, Director, Office of Compliance Analysis and Program Operations
-------
Page 3-30 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3-31
INNOVATIVE ENFORCEMENT
BACKGROUND: EPA now has nearly 900 active civil Judicial and 4000 active administrative cases.
The average civil Judicial case runs over 700 days from Initiation to closure: while most administrative
cases are resolved quickly (165 days), some complex actions reach Impasse. The increasing number
of cases, long litigation periods, regulation of larger numbers of small pollution sources, and the
complexity of issues and interests being litigated suggest a need to streamline the process. EPA also
seeks to use Its enforcement program to enhance the future compliance status of violating flrms.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: New enforcement tools Include:
Field Citations: Notices of Violations Issued at the conclusion of a compliance Inspection, Identifying
violations, directing corrective action, and proposing a penalty.
Environmental Auditing: Internal oversight programs and management systems developed as a
condition of settling an enforcement case, and designed to promote compliance.
Alternative Means of Dispute Resolution (ADR): Use of neutral third parties to act as mediators,
arbitrators, fact-finders, or mini-trial principals in resolving enforcement cases short of full-scale
litigation.
MAJOR PLATERS
Trade associations, private Institutes, and environmental groups have actively encouraged the
trend towards environmental auditing and ADR
KEY MILESTONES
None
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Gerald Bryan, Director, Office of Compliance Analysis and Program Operations
-------
Page 3 - 32 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3-33
COMPLIANCE INSPECTOR TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
BACKGROUND: Growing Interest in enhancing the quality of the inspections which form the basis for
all enforcement actions culminated in 1988 with a new Agency-wide inspector training program. The
program is designed to assure that all EPA inspectors receive adequate legal and technical prepara-
tion for performing compliance inspections.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The Administrator signed a policy statement in July 1988 es-
tablishing the Agency-wide program, and encouraging State and local environmental agencies to
establish structured training programs, because they conduct more than 80% of inspections. EPA
Order 3500.1 (6/29/88) requires EPA inspectors to complete basic and program-specific training
before leading Inspections. The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM) will issue
final materials for the Basic Curriculum In February 1989. then Regions can begin full implementation.
Program-specific curricula have been defined by all but two programs and will be offered In FY89. In
FY90, OECM will begin to work with States to make the Basic Curriculum available.
MAJOR PLATERS
State and local environmental agencies are indirectly affected by the program
KEY MILESTONES
Basic Curriculum finalized February 15, 1989
Training requirements in effect for new Inspectors October 1, 1989
Pilot test of Basic Curriculum with States FT90
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Gerald Bryan, Director, Office of Compliance Analysis and Program Operations
-------
Page 3-34 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3 - 35
LOVE CANAL
BACKGROUND: Between 1942 and 1953, Hooker Chemicals and Plastics (now Occidental Chemical
Corporation) dumped over 20,000 tons of chemicals Into Love Canal, located In a residential area in
Niagara Falls, NY. In 1978, following complaints of chemicals in homes. President Carter declared an
emergency in the two rings of homes surrounding Love Canal. In 1987. EPA issued a record of decision
which provides for the excavation of sediment from several creeks and sewers in the area, the temporary
storage of the sediment at Love Canal, and the incineration of the sediment in an incinerator to be built
by EPA at Love Canal.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS OF LITIGATION: On December 20. 1979, the United States
filed four lawsuits involving four sites near Niagara Falls, (Hyde Park, S-Area, 102nd Street and Love
Canal). In early 1980, the U.S. and Occidental agreed to negotiate these cases seriatim. Consent
decrees have been entered in the Hyde Park and S-Area cases; a partial consent decree will be entered
soon for 102nd Street. There are now 10-12 attorneys for the U.S. working on Love Canal. In February
1988. the court granted partial summary Judgment to the U.S. holding that Occidental is liable for
response costs at Love Canal. We are now litigating the amount (approx. $100M) of that liability.
MAJOR PLATERS
Nancy Firestone, Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Department of Justice
Thomas Truitt. Piper and Marbury, Lead Counsel for Occidental Chemical Corporation
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Litigation and negotiations ongoing
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Edward E. Reich, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Civil). Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
• Bruce Diamond, Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
-------
Page 3 - 36 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3-37
MISSOURI DIOXIN LITIGATION
BACKGROUND: This litigation involves thirty-two sites in Missouri contaminated with dioxin that
originated from the production waste of a chemical plant in Verona. Missouri. In the late 1960's, this
facility produced, among other things. Agent Orange. When the Agent Orange operation was
discontinued in 1969, a portion of the plant was leased to and operated by NEPACCO, which arranged
for the disposal of its dioxin-contaminated waste through IPC. IPC subcontracted with Russell Bliss,
who sprayed the waste and used oil as a dust suppressant on roads, horse arenas and other facilities.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: In 1980, the U.S. filed United States v. NEPACCO (W.D. Mo.).
regarding five Western Missouri sites. Much of that contamination has been addressed by the EPA
mobile incinerator located in western Missouri. The more significant case involves 27 eastern Missouri
sites. In United States v. Bliss, et al. (E.D. Mo. 1984). the U.S. is seeking Injunctive relief and recovery
of about $100 million in past costs. In October 1988. the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response signed a record of decision calling for an excavation and incineration
remedy. Settlement discussions are ongoing. EPAis now excavating soil from several of the more highly
contaminated sites.
MAJOR PLATERS
Nancy Firestone and Myles Flint. Department of Justice
David Taylor, Missouri A.G.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Litigation/negotiations ongoing.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Edward E. Reich, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Civil), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
• Bruce Diamond, Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
-------
Page 3-38 Office of ^Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3 - 39
MODEL STATE CRIMINAL STATUTES
BACKGROUND: With a few exceptions, prosecution of environmental violations has been exclusively
a federal endeavor. Over the past six years, EPA has achieved remarkable success In this specialized
enforcement arena, due in some measure at least to the relative newness of this federal jurisprudence.
such that the defense bar was without significant environmental criminal law expertise. Since this
litigation advantage no longer exists, as well as the existence of new mandatory sentencing guidelines.
most EPA cases will go to trial, rather than result in negotiated plea agreement as was our prior
experience. This eventuality will strain the Agencies already extremely limited investigative resources
— less than one special agent per state. Accordingly, development of a state counterpart to EPA criminal
enforcement program Is crucial to the continued success of our deterrence objectives.
DISCUSSION: States have not been hiring criminal Investigators, nor prosecutors to try environmental
crimes cases primarily because they do not have statutes on their books making these intentional,
egregious violations criminal offenses. Development of a model criminal state environmental statute
being done In conjunction with the National Association of Attorneys General will provide this essential
foundation upon which states can build a reliable environmental prosecutions capability.
MAJOR PLATERS
National Association of Attorneys General
State Prosecutors Association
State Environmental Agencies
MILESTONES
No specific dates or milestones
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Paul Thomson, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Criminal), Office of Enforcement and Compli-
ance Monitoring
-------
Page 3 - 40 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3-41
MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT UNDER CLEAN WATER ACT
BACKGROUND: In January 1984, then Administrator Ruckelshaus signed the National Municipal
Policy. This policy requires Publicly-Owned Treatment Works (POTWs), which are municipal sewage
systems to comply with their final effluent discharge limits by July 1. 1988 with or without Federal
funding, except where physically or financially impossible.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Since 1984, EPA has filed more than 125 lawsuits against
municipalities to obtain compliance. The Administrator announced at a press conference on July 27,
1988 that 95 percent of the total sewage processed in the United States receives secondary or better
treatment. EPA continues to litigate with major cities, such as Boston, Philadelphia, St. Louis,
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Los Angeles, San Diego and Denver, as to compliance schedules and appropri-
ate penalties. Municipal enforcement to complete existing Federal litigation, file new cases and ensure
that cities meet agreed construction schedules remains a top water enforcement priority in FY '89.
MAJOR PLAYERS
Association of Metropolitan Sewage Authorities
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators
Senator J. Rockefeller (D-WV}
Congressman Howard (D-NJ)
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES:
Any compliance date after July 1, 1988 may only be set by court order. Key court filing dates will
occur in FY '89.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Edward E. Reich, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Civil), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
• Jim Elder, Director, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
-------
Page 3 - 42 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3-43
ENFORCEMENT OF NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZ-
ARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS (NESHAP) FOR ASBESTOS
BACKGROUND: The National Emission Standard for Asbestos regulates demolition and renovation of
facilities containing friable asbestos. It requires the source to notify EPA and/or delegated State and
local agencies before the Job. and to comply with prescribed work practices in removal and disposal of
asbestos. Asbestos cases constitute about one-third of the air enforcement cMl docket. EPA and
delegated agencies expect to receive 50,000 notices of asbestos operations in FT '88.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The current regulations pose a number of obstacles to
enforcement. For example, the regulations require advance notice of renovation operations but do not
specify a deadline. Also, the regulations apply to materials containing a minimum percentage of
asbestos by weight, but the test method determines asbestos content by area. EPA is planning to
propose revisions to the regulations in December 1988 to solve these problems and otherwise enhance
enforceability. It Is important to the air enforcement program that the Agency promulgate these
revisions in 1989. These changes do not affect the level of the standard.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
December 1988 Proposal in the Federal Register of the Revised Asbestos NESHAP
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Jerry Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
• Edward E. Reich, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Civil), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
• Terrell Hunt. Assocate Enforcement Counsel
-------
Page 3 - 44 Qflke of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3-45
ENFORCEMENT RELATIONSHIP TO OCEAN POLLUTION ISSUES
BACKGROUND: The wash-up on beaches of trash, including hypodermic needles and other medical
wastes, has dramatically heightened public and governmental attention to ocean and coastal pollution.
The sources of such pollution range from litter to combined sewer overflows.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: While not the solution In and of itself, tough enforcement of
existing programs can make a meaningful contribution to addressing ocean and coastal pollution. As
a step toward a coordinated Federal/State enforcement approach. EPA and the National Association
of Attorneys General (NAAG) co-hosted an East Coast Ocean Pollution Enforcement Conference
October 3 and 4. 1988.
MAJOR PLATERS
In addition to EPA and states as major players, the Coast Guard does surveillance, monitoring and
enforcement under certain statutes.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
NAAG may ratify a proposed blue print for Federal and State action and present it to the Agency
after its December meeting.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Tudor Davles. Director. Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
• Edward E. Reich. Deputy Assistant Administrator (Civil). Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
-------
Page 3 - 46 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3 - 47
USE OF RICO IN DETERRING CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
BACKGROUND: The Investigation of sophisticated environmental crimes requires a new prosecutive
tool for EPA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) such as Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organi-
zations Act (RICO) (18 U.S.C. § 1961 - 1968). There is currently underway the first prosecution of an
environmental crime using this statute. U.S. v. MacDonald and Watson Waste Oil Company et. al
(D.R.I.). where DOJ had to use mail fraud as a predicate offense to invoke RICO. The addition of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as a predicate for RICO, would grant both EPA and
DOJ a more powerful weapon against those enterprises violating RCRA.
DISCUSSION: 18 U.S.C. § 1962 of RICO provides substantial criminal penalties (up to 20 years in
prison and. per 18U.S.C.§3571. fines up to $250.000 for an individual and $500.000 for an enterprise)
for those engaging in "racketeering". In addition. RICO provides for civil remedies available to the
government (18 U.S.C. § 1964(a)). as well as a private right of action for treble damages to any individual
or enterprise injured In his or its business or property by reason of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (18
U.S.C. §l964(c)). The inclusion of RCRA In RICO would provide a potent tool to the government and
those truly harmed by the criminal infiltration and corrupt operation of legitimate RCRA facilities an
opportunity in federal court to regain their economic losses.
MAJOR PLATERS
EPA to Initiate/support this legislation and Congress (Judiciary Committees)
ACTION DATES
Not determinable
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Paul Thomson, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Criminal), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
• Office of Congressional Liaison
-------
Page 3 - 48 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3-49
INVESTIGATION OF METAL SALVAGE WASTE CONTAMINATION
BACKGROUND: The Agency is conducting an Investigation Into possible chemical contamination of
wastes generated by metal recycling and scrap facilities. Primary contaminants of concern are PCBs
and lead, though other hazardous substances may be present. Certain nonmetal components of auto-
mobiles and whltegoods are suspected of being the source of the contamination. The concern about
a potential finding by the Agency that metal recycling facilities are liable under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and Superfund for operations
and disposal of wastes has caused a number of facilities to stop accepting whltegoods, and some have
ceased operations totally. The impact on municipalities served by the metal salvage facilities has been
substantial.
CURRENT STATUS: An options paper is being prepared for the Administrator. The paper will suggest
a staged approach to resolving the current situation. Including notification of the Industry and state
authorities of current knowledge on the sources of contamination, consideration of appropriate
enforcement actions, and the Initiation of TSCA and RCRA rulemaking.
MAJOR PLATERS
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries
Several Northeastern states
Senator Baucus (D-MT)
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
The options paper was presented in the latter half of October. If a decision is made to proceed with
rulemaking, it will require up to two years.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Edward E. Reich, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Civil), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
• Frederick F. Stiehl, Associate Enforcement Counsel
-------
Page 3-50 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3-51
SIP ENFORCEMENT WHEN REVISIONS ARE PENDING
BACKGROUND: The Clean Air Act requires each State to submit for EPA approval a State Implemen-
tation Plan (SIP), to be reviewed by EPA within four months. The Act authorizes revisions to SIPs, but
does not set a time period for EPA review. In American Cyanamid Co. v. EPA, the court held that EPA
may not collect Section 120 penalties during the period between four months after a state submits and
the date EPA rejects the SIP revision. Two courts have indicated that the four-month period is
inapplicable to SIP revisions. However, in Alcan and GM-Framingham, district courts held that EPA
cannot pursue enforcement action under Section 113 for injunctive relief and penalties if the SIP
revision decision remains unresolved after a four-month EPA review period. In Arkwright, the district
court found that a four-month deadline applied but that enforcement action could proceed despite the
pendency of a SIP revision.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA and the Department of Justice (DOJ) continue to argue
that the four-month rule is inapplicable and that dismissal of an enforcement action is an inappropriate
remedy. The issue is or soon will be pending before two circuit courts and several district courts. EPA
has developed a streamlined SIP revision review process which allows delegation of some final decisions
to the Regions, early review of submittals for completeness, grandfathering of policies, and quick
decisions on insignificant issues. The SIP processing recommendations are being reviewed at the Office
of Management and Budget prior to publication In the Federal Register.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Edward E. Reich, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Civil), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitring
• Terrell Hunt, Associate Enforcement Counsel
-------
Page 3 - 52 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3 - 53
TARGETING SPECIFIC AREAS OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
BACKGROUND: Historically, the majority of the EPA's leads have been received from sources outside
of EPA. the primary one being disgruntled employees. This approach of reacting to "insider" informa-
tion has been very successful In creating an enforcement presence In all program areas. Now, it is timely
to apply this broad knowledge base to select cases for prosecution that are deemed most environmen-
tally significant.
DISCUSSION: Targeting of the Agency's limited criminal investigative resources — less than one special
agent per state — will enhance the productivity of this enforcement program by: (1) ensuring that
investigative priorities more closely match EPA's national and regional enforcemental policies, goals
and objectives, and (2) ensuring that case referrals to the Department of Justice (DOJ) will more closely
match the prosecutive interests of the U.S. Attorneys Offices. Meetings have been held In conjunction
with EPA-HQ managers. Regional Administrators and DOJ prosecutors to begin this process of priority
setting. These management planning efforts will continue and intensify over the next year.
MAJOR PLATERS
Departement of Justice
U.S. Attorneys
State Prosecutors and Environmental Agencies
MILESTONES
No specific dates or milestones
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Paul Thomson, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Criminal). Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
-------
Page 3-54 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Page 3 - 55
TEXAS EASTERN CONSENT DECREE APPROVAL
BACKGROUND: On June 6, 1988, a Consent Decree was lodged with the Southern District Court of
Texas settling the Agency's cMl action against the Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation (Texas
Eastern). Enforcement action was initiated against Texas Eastern for illegal use. storage, and disposal
of PCBs and other hazardous substances along the company's interstate natural gas pipeline system.
The Consent Decree requires the payment of a $15 million civil penalty, reimbursement of U.S. past
and future costs, and Initiation of a comprehensive program to Investigate and remediate on-site
contamination.
CURRENT STATUS: Following the lodging of the Consent Decree. New Jersey. Mississippi. Pennsyl-
vania and Kentucky filed comments and Petitions to Intervene in the case. The states raise concerns
about the effect of the federal action and Consent Decree on their ability to Initiate independent enforce-
ment action against Texas Eastern. The Intervention of states Into the federal action may delay
ratification of the Consent Decree.
MAJOR PLAYERS
Pennsylvania. Kentucky, Mississippi and New Jersey
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
The U.S. responded to the intervention petitions on September 30 and will provide a response to
the public comments before November 22. It Is anticipated that the court will set a hearing on the
comments and intervention Issue following receipt of the U.S. responses.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Edward E. Reich, Deputy Assistant Administrator (Civil), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring
• Frederick F. Stiehl, Associate Enforcement Counsel
-------
Page 3 - 56 Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring Significant National Issues
-------
POLICY, PLANNING,
& EVALUATION
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation Page 4 - 1
THE ADMINISTRATOR'S TRACKING SYSTEM (ATS)
BACKGROUND AND CURRENT STATUS: The Admlnstrator's Tracking System (ATS) was created in
1984 to monitor and facilitate regulatory development. Since that time, Headquarters offices have been
responsible for bi-weekly reporting against their schedules, including explanations when deadlines are
missed. With this bi-weekly information, an Agency-wide report is produced, which is the basis for an
Executive Staff meeting.
The Executive Staff meeting is an opportunity for senior managers, usually the Deputy Administrator
and Deputy Assistant Administrators, to review projects that have fallen behind or have moved forward.
At this meeting, they may work to solve problems that are delaying progress, to Identify emerging Issues.
controversies, and changing priorities; to consider cross-programmatic and cross-media issues and
to highlight general trends that affect EPA's regulatory and policy development process. This
automated data base continues to evolve as users articulate their needs.
Each fall, before Annual Operating Guidance Is developed, EPA offices review the complete set of
projects in ATS and assess whether they describe the most Important Headquarters work for the
upcoming year. After the review, called "open season," projects are added or sometimes deleted, and
schedules are updated for accuracy and completeness. Although schedules are often changed to reflect
delays, the ATS data base maintains a record of the originally planned completion dates.
An essential element of this process is active leadership and participation by the Administrator and
Deputy Administrator, along with serious attention at all levels to selecting appropriate ATS actions
and realistically planning and meeting ATS schedules. Without their leadership, the system loses its
planning and management function, thus becoming merely a series of schedules without serious
implications.
Among the sources of delays in items covered by ATS are policy debates internal to EPA, opposition from
the Office of Management and Budget, and difficulties in setting priorities in regulatory development.
A combination of solutions is needed to respond to these problems. But a key issue is the degree to
which managers and staff are expected to effectively plan and meet the schedules they create, and who
will hold them accountable if they do not. This issue needs to be resolved if the system is to continue
to be of use to the Administrator and Deputy Administrator and to the Assistant Administrators in
monitoring priority Agency regulatory activity.
-------
Page 4 - 2 Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation Significant National Issues
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Bruce T. Barkley. Director, Office of Management Systems and Evaluation
• Cynthia C. Kelly, Director, Management Systems Division
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Policy. Planning and Evaluation Page 4 - 3
STRATEGIC PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
BACKGROUND: Since 1984, Headquarters and regional managers have been served by the Strategic
Planning and Management System (SPMS). This management-by-obJectives system has become a
major driving force at all levels of the Agency.
The primary goal of SPMS is to integrate the planning, guidance, and evaluation of regional and State
environmental programs with Headquarters' annual and long-term environmental priorities. The
annual SPMS process is a mechanism for determining goals, setting priorities, developing annual
operating guidance, and evaluating performance in meeting program objectives.
The Annual Operating Guidance an annual implementation plan for EPA programs, is developed by
the program offices and reviewed by Regions and States from October through January for the following
fiscal year. The guidance is issued to Headquarters, Regional. State, and local managers and staff by
March 1 so that it is available for use in negotiating State grants. SPMS measures, the information that
program offices will collect to monitor implementation of their objectives, are developed in conjunction
with the Operating Guidance.
The tracking system, which began as a paper-intensive manual process, is nearly completely
automated. It is now a major database for EPA and State performance with a high degree of quality
assurance. A network of Regional and Headquarters staffuse the system to enter and negotiate targets,
to report performance, to identify and resolve discrepancies between the Regions and Headquarters
reported performance, and to prepare reports. As the management system evolves, the automated
system adapts to meet the needs of users and managers.
CURRENT STATUS: The continued vitality of the system depends on the extent to which the new
Administrator, Deputy Administrator, and senior managers use and develop it. As a management tool,
SPMS serves as a supplement to existing management practices. The system was designed to facilitate
face-to-face exchange between senior managers and to identify program implementation issues and
problems as they arise. While EPA may have one of the best systems in government, there are many
areas where the planning, management, and budgeting processes could be improved.
The Deputy Administrator holds Management Reviews quarterly with Headquarters program office
senior managers and semi-annually in each Region. These reviews are to evaluate progress toward
annual performance targets and to discuss other implementation and management issues.
-------
Page 4 - 4 Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation Significant National Issues
Limit SPMS to the Highest-Priority Activities: As the activities in SPMS tend to receive senior
managers' ongoing attention, there Is a pressure on the system to grow. In order to be an effective
management tool, the measures are limited in number and focus on the highest-priority program
objectives. Each year there is an opportunity to review and evaluate the measures in the system, to
delete those that are no longer strategically important, and to add new ones as programs emerge and
as more environmental data become available.
Manage for Environmental Results: The aim of SPMS is to monitor program progress that will lead
to environmental results. In most cases, the system tracks administrative surrogates that are directly
related to that program's strategic objectives. SPMS commitments ("targets") are the negotiated level
of accomplishment that Regions or States will perform to meet an objective. The annual commitment
negotiation process begins in July, with targets to be finalized by September 30.
As SPMS matures, there is increasing emphasis on ensuring that the performance measures are indeed
tracking environmental Improvement. Several projects are under way to design and implement
environmental indicators for major programs, including Superfund, groundwater, and surface water.
As these indicators develop and are incorporated into SPMS, the effectiveness of our program strategies
will become clearer.
Ensure Regional Flexibility: SPMS has been tailored to ensure that the Regions have adequate
flexibility to address their specific priorities in addition to those of the national program managers. A
Region that needs relief from SPMS commitments in order to pursue alternative priorities may present
a proposal, Justifying a reduced target, to the national program manager for consideration. Generally,
such negotiations occur outside of the SPMS target-setting process, but the Deputy Administrator may
be asked to resolve issues that cannot be resolved In the program.
KEY EPA CONTACTS AND REFERENCES
• Bruce T. Barkley, Director, Office of Management Systems and Evaluation
• Robert H. Wayland III, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy. Planning and Evaluation
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation Page 4 - 5
GAO REPORT TO CONGRESS: "PROTECTING HUMAN HEALTH AND THE
ENVIRONMENT THROUGH IMPROVED MANAGEMENT'
BACKGROUND: The Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) plays a major role in the
management of the agency's planning systems and the development of better working relationships
with the Regions and the States. Over the past four years, these planning processes have increasingly
considered Regional and State environmental priorities In setting national priorities, budget requests,
and operating guidance. EPA's operating guidance now highlights Region-specific priorities that may
fall outside the scope of the national program priorities.
Despite these reforms, there is still considerable tension among the national program managers, the
Regions, and the environmental managers in the States. The national requirements continue to grow
as the resources available remain steady or even decrease. Many States simply cannot meet program
expectations with the grant monies available. Both the Regions and the States want more opportunity
to leverage their needs In the competition for resources. Under a pilot project, OPPE has given
considerable support to Regions I. III. and X to help them more rigorously analyze where their greatest
risks are.
In August 1988, the General Accounting Office (GAO) completed Its two-year review of EPA's program
and financial management systems and Issued Its findings and recommendations In the report.
"Protecting Human Health and the Environment Through Improved Management." Three goals were
specifically recommended in the report: (1) managing programs and activities with emphasis on
achieving measurable environmental results; (2) establishing more effective working arrangements
with the States. EPA's key partners In Implementing environmental programs; and (3) obtaining
improved financial, management, and programmatic information to set priorities, administer pro-
grams, and assess progress.
CURRENT STATUS: EPA is charged with developing an implementation plan and monitoring progress
toward the management goals articulated in the report. Some of GAO's recommendations reflect
activities that are under way, while others suggest new initiatives. The following areas will need to be
addressed:
Setting Clear Priorities: GAO recommends that priorities be stated In measurable terms and then
ranked. We already have a ranking process for Regional environmental problems. However, clarifying
national priorities can be very controversial. In the past, EPA developed a ranked priority list. Later,
however, the development of a list was dropped because many programs became upset with "low"
rankings. With increasingly tight resources, it may be useful to have a national priority list to guide
program implementation and budget decisions.
-------
Page 4-6 Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation Significant National Issues
Linking Planning and Budget Processes: The planning process needs to be linked more directly to
budget decisions, so that it has a greater impact on the allocation of limited budget resources. EPA
has made some progress over the last few years, but the two processes need to be better integrated.
This will take commitment on the part of the new leadership to address some past institutional barriers.
Measuring Environmental Results: Over the last six years, several program offices have developed
environmental indicators with which to measure their programs' progress. Region X recently developed
Indicators for each of its media divisions. However, most managers rely on administrative outputs and
milestones to gauge success. In order to make further progress toward shifting focus to environmental
progress, the new Administrator must play a leadership role and reinforce the importance of having
a longer-term, environmental perspective.
Establishing a More Effective Partnership with the States: EPA's role in the future will gradually
shift from implementer to technical advisor as States take on a greater role in addressing priority
environmental problems. Many of the solutions to the problems of the 1990s -- e.g., ground-water
contamination, indoor air pollution — rely heavily on State and local action.
EPA needs to revise its planning and priority systems to allow greater consideration of the needs of the
States and of EPA's role providing technical and other support.
MAJOR MILESTONES
February 1989 Guidance for Annual Planning Meeting
April 1989 Annual Planning Meeting
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Bruce Barkley. Director. Office of Management and Systems Evaluation
• Cynthia C. Kelly, Director, Management Systems Division
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation Page 4 - 7
MANAGE THE REGULATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
PURPOSE: The regulatory development process Is designed to allow Agency-wide participation In
writing and reviewing rules. The process establishes systems that provide managers the opportunity
to be included early In a rule's development and the flexibility to set priorities and identify and assess
alternatives.
BACKGROUND AND CURRENT STATUS: The Steering Committee Is a focal point for the development
of Agency regulations. It Is a standing group with representation from each Assistant Administrator
and the General Counsel. Its key functions are to approve Start Action Requests (SARs) and charter
workgroups; monitor the progress of staff-level workgroups, especially regarding cross-media or Inter-
office problem-solving; and ensure that significant Issues are resolved or elevated to top management.
The following are the major elements In regulation development:
The Start Action Request (SAR) Is used to Initiate work on a rule or action and to establish the Agency
workgroup. It provides the Steering Committee the opportunity to discuss and plan for the Inter-office
or Inter-media aspects of the action.
The Development Plan sets forth the framework for developing major and significant Agency rules. It
explains the need for an action; Identifies regulatory goals and objectives: presents major regulatory
issues and alternatives; and presents the workplan.
The Options Selection Process Is designed to Incorporate senior management concerns early in the
development of major rules.
Workgroup Reports keep the Steering Committee Informed about workgroup progress on a regulatory
action. They describe Issues and alternatives being addressed and resolved; Issues to be elevated for
resolution; and the status of ongoing work and any anticipated delays.
The Workgroup Closure Meeting Is an alternative to Steering Committee review before an action is ready
for final Agency review (Le., Red Border). It provides a forum for confirming that the workgroup has
completed its job, resolved as many issues as possible, and defined alternatives for resolving
outstanding Issues.
Red Border Review allows the Assistant and Regional Administrators to comment and concur on the
proposal.
-------
Page 4 - 8 Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation Significant National Issues
Executive Order 12291 requires each proposed and final rule to be sent to OMB for review before the
Administrator signs it. The purpose of OMB review is to assure that, within the constraints of the
statutes, agencies choose the most economically efficient alternative.
Executive Order 12498 directs the Agency to participate in a government-wide review of regulatory
strategies. EPA submits plans and schedules for its most important 80-100 rules to OMB for review
and inclusion in the Regulatory Program of the United States Government.
KEY ISSUES: The Administrator's Options Selection Process is used as a way of alerting top level
managers across the Agency that a major regulatory action is under way and offers options for the
action's development. It allows the Administrator an early opportunity to hear each AA's proposed di-
rection for the rule. The new administrator may want to examine this process to determine how it can
work best In a new administration.
The Agency agrees that Regional participation in regulation development is essential in developing
regulations that are implemented at the Regional and local levels. The issue here is how to incorporate
Regional participation and perspective more directly.
The Agency is continually faced with OMB delays in approving EPA actions. OPPE serves a liaison
function between Program Offices and OMB in resolving issues associated with delayed actions.
MAJOR MILESTONES
February 1989 Semi-annual Regulatory Agenda published.
April 1989 Annual Regulatory Program published.
August 1989 Semi-annual Regulatory Agenda published.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Tom Kelly, Director, Office of Standards and Regulations
-------
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
-------
Significant National Issues Office of External Affairs Page 5 - 1
PUBLICATIONS AND AUDIO VISUAL (A/V) REVIEW
BACKGROUND: Publications and A/V Review was formalized to bring EPA into compliance with
existing laws and regulations governing print and other media. Because EPA produces about 2,000
publications annually, the process also provides a single point of access for printing and production
services and prevents release of reports without prior notice to top EPA managers.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The agency has Improved publication management and its
awareness of policy-oriented publications. The network of Publications Review Officers consolidates
responslbilty for policy-level review of printing, public-oriented documents, and audiovisual produc-
tions. EPA's management of Its periodicals and audiovisual capabilities Is now in compliance with the
law (OMB Circulars A-3 and A-114). EPA will soon have a data base of all of Its publications.
MAJOR PLAYERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Each region and headquarters program office has an individual who Is authorized to speak on behalf
of and approve information activities. Where Agency-wide review Is required (periodicals, A/V
materials or documents with policy Implications) final approval is retained by the EPA Publications
Review Coordinator In the headquarters office of External Affairs
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
EPA Publications and Audiovisual Production Policy
and Guide to undergo formal EPA
administrative review process: November 1988 to January 1989
Implemented as Agency Order: January 1989
First comprehensive listing of planned EPA periodicals: February 1989
First comprehensive listing of planned EPA
public Information products: April 1989
First comprehensive listing of EPA publications: August 1989
First comprehensive listing of planned EPA
information products: October 1989
Automated, centralized distribution of EPA publications: March 1990
KEY EPA CONTACT
• Richard Laska, Office of Public Affairs.
-------
Page 5 - 2 Office of External Affairs Significant National Issues
-------
WATER
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Water Page 6 - 1
SIGNIFICANT NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION
SYSTEM (NPDES) MUNICIPAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
BACKGROUND: The Clean Water Act requires all municipalities to provide secondary or better levels
of treatment to all their waste-water discharges to surface waters. EPA's National Municipal Policy
directs Regions working with States to place these municipalities on compliance schedules as soon as
possible and where adequate progress was not being made, to refer them for Judicial actions.
Settlement of these actions results In a schedule for compliance and Includes civil penalties for past
violations. Decisions on case settlements are normally handled at the Regional level. However, in
several cases because of nationally significant Issues, Headquarters is Involved.
CURRENT STATUS: Pending nationally significant cases and the Issues involved Include:
1. St. Louis. MO - Length of schedule and financing under State law.
2. Des Moines, LA - Amount of penalty for past violations.
3. Denver, CO - Amount of the penalty for past violations.
4. Boston, MA - Cbmpllance with a 1986 court-ordered schedule.
5. San Diego, CA - Compliance schedule and penalty amount.
6. Los Angeles, CA - Compliance with the construction schedule.
7. Minneapolis. MN - Deficient State action, the construction schedule and the penalty
amount.
8. Philadelphia, PA - Compliance schedule and the penalty amount.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Jim Elder, Director, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, or
Appropriate Regional Administrators
-------
Page 6 - 2 Office of Water Significant National Issues
-------
SOLID WASTE'S
EMERGENCY RESPONSE
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-1
REGULATIONS FOR EMISSIONS FROM HAZARDOUS WASTE INCINERATORS,
BOILERS, AND INDUSTRIAL FURNACES
BACKGROUND: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorizes EPA to establish air
emission standards for facilities burning hazardous waste. Final standards for incinerators were
promulgated in 1981 and were last amended in 1985. EPA did not promulgate standards for boilers
and industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste fuels at that time because studies were under way
to determine the types of wastes and devices engaged in recycling, the risks posed, and appropriate
regulatory controls. RCRA was subsequently amended in 1984 to require that EPA establish standards
for boilers and industrial furnaces. EPA proposed standards for such devices in 1987, and indicated
that it plans to amend the existing incinerator standards to conform to the more stringent standards
proposed for boilers and industrial furnaces.
DISCUSSION AND STATUS: EPA is publishing both a proposal to amend the existing incinerator
standard and a supplement to the 1987 proposed rule for boilers and industrial furnaces. The goal
of these actions is to achieve identical, protective controls for emissions of metals, hydrogen chloride
(HC1) and products of incomplete combustion (PICs) for all classes of facilities burning hazardous
waste. The rules would employ a risk-based approach along with emission limits in order to provide
the regulated community flexibility in complying with the regulations and to reduce the permitting
burden on both the regulated community and EPA permit writers.
To meet the November 1989 incinerator permitting deadline while providing protective permits, EPA
has developed guidance documents and has trained Regional and State permit writers on how to apply
the controls on metals. HC1, and PICs immediately under the general environmental protection
authority of RCRA, Discussions on these regulations have addressed the conservatism of the risk
assessment methodology, the use of general RCRA authority to implement the controls, and the
implications of the regulations for National Ambient Air Quality Standards developed under the Clean
Air Act.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
National Solid Waste Management Association
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Council of Industrial Boiler Owners
Portland Cement Association
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Office of Management and Budget.
-------
Page 7-2 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Publish Proposed Rules (both packages) November 18, 1988
Publish Final Rules (both packages) February 1990
KEY EPA CONTACT
• Sylvia Lowrance, Director. Office of Solid Waste
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-3
CORRECTIVE ACTION WORKLOAD
BACKGROUND: As more and more corrective action requirements are imposed on facilities regulated
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), a tremendous future workload is
developing for the EPA. The workload includes reviewing investigative studies, overseeing the
development of corrective measure alternatives, and selecting and overseeing the implementation of
corrective measures.
To date, 200 investigative studies have been formally imposed on facility owners/operators by EPA and
the States. A smaller number of these facilities have submitted study work plans for approval. Current
estimates are that 350 facilities will have these studies underway by FY 1990, leaving over 3.500
facilities still to be addressed In the outyears. Additionally, many RCRA sites that will be primarily
assessed and Investigated through the Environmental Priorities Initiative will most likely need
corrective action. This initiative provides a process for assigning priorities so that the most
environmentally significant facilities are addressed first, either through RCRA or the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Unless a facility is clearly abandoned or
the owner or operator Is unable or unwilling to pay for corrective action (as defined in policy). RCRA
enforcement or permitting authorities will first be exercised to obtain corrective action In lieu of using
the Superfund.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA's corrective action authorities Impose significant addi-
tional resource requirements on the RCRA enforcement and permitting programs. To date, resource
needs have largely been dealt with through increased delegations of the program to the States.
Additional resource relief by this avenue is unlikely. Meanwhile, responsibilities that involve new levels
of legal and technical complexities continue to grow. As the resource levels lag behind responsibilities
and expectations, remediation of many RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities could be
delayed. This is true, regardless of the balance of delegation between EPA and the States.
EPA has been attempting to ease some of the burden of this Increased corrective action activity by: (1)
setting priorities for the remediation needs of RCRA facilities not in the permitting pipeline using the
Preliminary Assessment and Site Investigation Process under CERCLA; (2) using flexibility in setting
RCRA program priorities through the revised Enforcement Response Policy and FY 89 RCRA
Implementation Plan; (3) delegating additional responsibilities to the Regions and the States to ensure
greater efficiency and reduce duplication of efforts; and (4) encouraging owner or operators to
undertake voluntary cleanup.
-------
Page 7-4 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
MAJOR PLATERS
Senator Proxmlre (D-WI)
Senator Lautenberg or Leahy In the 101st Congress
Congressman Boland (D-MA) or his replacement (Congressman Traxler (D-MI) In the
101st Congress)
Senators Baucus (D-MT) and Durenberger (D-MN)
Congressmen Dingell (D-MI) and Lent (R-NY)
Congressmen Luken (D-OH) and Whlttaker (R-KS)
The Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
The National Association of Attorneys General
ACTION DATES
November 8, 1988 Land Disposal Facilities Permit Deadline
November 8, 1988 Incinerator Permit Deadline
November 8, 1992 Treatment and Storage Facilities Permit Deadline
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Sylvia Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste
• Bruce Diamond, Director. Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-5
CONSISTENCY OF REMEDY SELECTION UNDER RCRA AND CERCLA
BACKGROUND: Regulatory control of both active and Inactive waste sites or facilities Is authorized
under several Federal statutes. The Superfund legislation and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) in particular provide the authority for addressing releases from toxic waste sites.
While Superfund is the major legislation for such controls at Inactive facilities, the RCRA corrective
action program potentially applies to releases from all sources at RCRA-regulated hazardous waste
facilities. Including any facility that has managed waste since 1980.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: While the Superfund legislation contains a series of standards
for controlling hazardous substance releases. RCRA Is essentially silent on such standards. Yet.
despite some differences in the character of their respective universes, both programs address many
of the same kinds of waste problems. The Issue has been how to make the programs as consistent as
possible where problems are similar or Identical, while respecting differences In the universes, statutes.
and operating programs.
In developing the revisions to the National Contingency Plan (NCP) under Superfund and the Corrective
Action Rule under RCRA. EPA achieved consistency by establishing the same fundamental standards.
The standards for RCRA corrective action — protection of health and environment, attainment of media
cleanup standards, control of releases, and compliance with applicable requirements -- are essentially
the same as Superfund's cleanup standards. Because of statutory differences, the presence of owner
or operators at RCRA facilities, and differences In the universes, some programmatic differences
remain. (For example, Superfund explicitly requires remedies to be cost-effective, while RCRA
mandates "consideration" of cost In remedy selection.)
EPA believes that substantially the same types of remedies will be selected for similar problems at RCRA
facilities as for sites addressed under Superfund. However, to Insure the greatest amount of
consistency for cleanups under these statutes, EPA will need to monitor the implementation of the
selected remedies at these sites.
-------
Page 7-6 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
A number of groups have shown interest in the development of remedy selection procedures and
cleanup standards under the NCP and Corrective Action Rule. However, to date, the issue of
consistency between them has largely remained internal to the Executive Branch. Congressional
committees that will show interest are as follows:
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Congressman Dingell (D-MI)
Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Oversight
Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ)
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
National Contingency Plan, Final in Autumn, 1989.
Corrective Action rule. Final in early 1990
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Henry Longest, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
• Sylvia Lowrance, Director. Office of Solid Waste
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-7
LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS RULEMAKINGS
BACKGROUND: The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 prohibited, with only minor ex-
ceptions, the land disposal of untreated hazardous wastes. EPA must set standards for the treatment
of all hazardous wastes by May 8,1990. These disposal levels or methods of treatment must diminish
the toxicity of the waste or reduce the likelihood of migration of hazardous constituents from the waste.
The treatment standards must be promulgated for particular groups of hazardous wastes in
accordance with a series of statutory deadlines. Land disposal of wastes that do not meet the standards
or for which standards have not been set is prohibited.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA has promulgated the first three of the five rulemakings
mandated by the law by their statutory deadlines. These rules covered: (1) solvent- and dioxin-
containing wastes; (2) liquid hazardous wastes; and (3) the "First Third" of a ranking of listed hazardous
wastes. The fourth rulemaking covers the "Second Third" of the listed wastes, and the fifth covers the
"Third Third" plus wastes identified as hazardous because they exhibit a hazardous characteristic
(corroslvlty, reactivity, Ignitabillty. or toxicity).
Several petitions for review were filed with the D.C. Court of Appeals on aspects of the First Third final
rule. The petitions oppose the application of the land disposal restrictions to landfill leachate and
ground water, the retroactivity of waste listings, and the availability of stabilization treatment capacity.
The court has granted stays on the First Third rule with respect to leachate and leachate-contaminated
material, and the treatment standard for electric arc furnace dust (K061) wastes. Oral argument of
these issues has been scheduled for January/February 1989. Resolution of these Issues may require
additional undertakings by EPA before promulgation of the Second Third and Third Third final rules.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
o Congressman Dlngell (D-MI)
o Congressman Eckart (D-OH)
o Congressman Lent (R-NY1
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism and Hazardous Materials
Congressman Luken (D-OH)
Congressman Florlo (D-NJ)
o Congressman Whittaker (R-KS)
-------
Page 7-8 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Hazardous Waste and Toxic Substances
Senator Baucus (D-MT)
Senator Durenberger (R-MN)
Senator Chafee (R-RI)
National Solid Wastes Management Association
American Petroleum Institute
Natural Resources Defense Council
Chemical Manufacturers Association
Steel Bar Mills Association
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
American Iron and Steel Institute
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Second Third Final Rule June 8, 1989
Third Third Final Rule May 8, 199O
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Sylvia K. Lowrance. Director. Office of Solid Waste
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-9
LOCATION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES
BACKGROUND: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requires EPA to promulgate specific
criteria for the acceptable location of new, expanding, and existing hazardous waste treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities. EPA began developing the location standards in October, 1986. The statute
also required a guidance document for identifying areas of vulnerable hydrogeology. It was published
as Interim final in 1986.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The Office of Solid Waste will propose national standards that
limit the setting of new, expanding, and existing land-based units (landfills, surface impoundments.
waste piles) and non land-based units (Incinerators, containers, tanks) in sensitive locations. These
locations include seismic impact zones and floodplains; areas of poor foundation conditions, mass
movement, and karst geology; and wetlands.
The proposal would enhance existing requlrments for Inspection and housekeeping and for contin-
gency planning (I.e., catastrophic air releases), would create a buffer zone requirement where needed.
and would improve protection of ground-water and surface water resources through siting considera-
tions. The goal is to enhance the effectiveness of the unit's design and operating controls by avoiding
the most sensitive locations, to decrease cleanup and prospective future Superfund sites and costs.
and to Increase long-term protection of human health and the environment.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee
House Energy and Commerce Committee
Chemical Manufacturers Association
National Solid Waste Management Association
Consortium of State Hazardous Waste Siting Authorities
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
Natural Resources Defense Counsel
Environmental Defense Fund
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Proposed Rule, June 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste
-------
Page 7-10 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-11
MEDICAL WASTE
BACKGROUND: Numerous incidents of medical waste washing up on beaches in the summer of 1988
heightened public and Congressional concern over present medical waste disposal practices. In
October 1988. Congress passed the Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA is currently developing the regulations called for by the
Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988. The Act calls for EPA to set up a demonstration waste tracking
system in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. Under certain conditions, the States may "opt-out"
of the demonstration programs; similarly, other states may "opt-In." EPA Is also gathering information
for a report to Congress required by the Act.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Subcommittee on Transportation. Tourism.
and Hazardous Materials
House Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Regulation and Business
Opportunities
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Subcommittee on Hazardous
Waste and Toxic Substances
The health care industry, especially the American Hospital Association
Federal agencies, especially the Centers for Disease Control
The waste management industry
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Jonathan E. Cannon. Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
• Sylvia Lowrance. Director, Office of Solid Waste
-------
Page 7-12 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-13
RULE DEFINING THE SCOPE OF THE MINING WASTE EXCLUSION
BACKGROUND: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act temporarily excludes "solid waste from
the extraction, beneflclatlon, and processing of ores and minerals" from regulation as hazardous waste
until EPA studies these wastes, issues a report to Congress on them, and makes a regulatory
determination as to whether application of hazardous waste regulations Is warranted. This provision,
sponsored by Cong. Tom Bevlll (D-AL). Is commonly known as the "Bevill exclusion."
On October 2, 1985, EPA proposed a "relnterpretatlon" of an earlier (1980) Interpretation of the scope
of the exclusion as It applied to wastes from the "processing" of ores and minerals. This reinterprelation
narrowed the scope of the Bevlll exclusion thus proposing to subject more wastes to stringent
regulation. However, the public's comments and EPA's own analysis convinced EPA that the proposed
relnterpretatlon could not be finalized for numerous technical and legal reasons. On October 9, 1986,
EPA withdrew its proposal. The withdrawal was subsequently successfully challenged in court thus
requiring EPA to again interpret the Bevill exclusion.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The D.C. Court of Appeals has ordered EPA to further define
(l.e., narrow) by Fegruary 15.1989 the scope of the exclusion with respect to ore and mineral processing
waste. Administrator Lee Thomas signed the proposed rule on October 14, 1988. Promulgation of the
final rule Is the first step In regulating many ore and mineral processing wastes as hazardous. The court
order also requires EPA to study wastes remaining within the exclusion. Issue a Report to Congress
(RTC) on these wastes, and make the subsequent regulatory determination. (See related paper on
Report to Congress on Ore and Mineral Processing Wastes.)
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Litigants:
Environmental Defense Fund
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
Department of Interior (Bureau of Mines)
American Mining Congress
Aluminum Association
Individual companies (e.g., Kennecott Copper, ASARCO)
-------
Page 7-14 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Final rule. February 15, 1939
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Jeffery Denit, Deputy Director, Office of Solid Waste
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-15
FINAL RULE REVISING CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS
BACKGROUND: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) directs EPA to revise existing
regulations for solid waste management for facilities that receive hazardous waste from households and
from small quantity generators. At a minimum, EPA must develop location restrictions, groundwater
monitoring, and corrective action requirements. The statutory deadline for this final rule was March
1988.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Revised criteria for municipal solid waste landfills were
proposed in August 1988. The final rule is scheduled for December 1989. Three major issues regarding
the proposed rule will have to be resolved before the final rule is promulgated:
1. Whether the final rule should specify a technology-based vs. a risk-based performance
standard for the design of landfills (e.g.. should a liner be required?)
2. Whether and under what circumstances municipalities should be required to demonstrate
financial assurance for closure, post-closure care, and corrective action for known releases.
3. By what criteria or standards should EPA evaluate whether the States have adequate
programs to ensure compliance with the revised regulations, once finalized.
A court-ordered schedule is expected as a result of a case brought by the Natural Resources Defense
Council to compel promulgation of standards for the disposal of sewage sludge. This suit will apply to
the municipal landfill regulations because sewage sludge is often co-disposed with municipal solid
waste.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Transportation. Tourism and Hazardous Materials
o Congressman Luken (D-OH)
o Congressman Florio (D-NJ)
Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Hazardous Waste and Toxic Substances
o Senator Baucus (D-MT)
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
National Solid Waste Management Association
Government Refuse Collection and Disposal Association
Environmental Defense Fund
National Resources Defense Council
-------
Page 7-16 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Final Rule. December 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Sylvia Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-17
CODIFICATION OF STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR AN OFF-SITE POLICY
BACKGROUND: On May 6.1985. EPA issued a policy, that outlined procedures that must be followed
when wastes are sent to disposal facilities off site. The 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthori-
zation Act (SARA) incorporated requirements similar to. but generally more stringent than, those of the
original Off-site Policy. EPA has incorporated the new requirements into a revised policy which will
be codified in the proposed rule.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The proposed rule generally provides that a facility used for
the off-site management of Superfund wastes must be in physical compliance with applicable federal
and state laws. Issues that have been resolved for purposes of the proposed rule but that may generate
comment in the responses to the proposal include: the role of States in making determinations about
a facility's acceptability to receive Superfund wastes; the definition of "facility" for purposes of this rule;
the applicability of the rule to RCRA or other wastes: the use of Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs) and recyclers for Superfund wastes: and the definition of "physical compliance" for purposes
of this rule.
MAJOR PLAYERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
House Energy and Commerce Committee—Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation
Congressman Dingell (D-MI)
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Organizations (ASTSWMO)
Chemical Waste Management/Waste Management Incorporated.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Target publication date is mid-November 1988. After the public comment period, work will begin
promptly on developing the final rule.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Henry Longest. Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
• Elaine Stanley. Deputy Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement.
-------
Page 7-18 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-19
TRANSFER OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENTLS (PCBs) TO RCRA
BACKGROUND: The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was enacted in 1976 virtually simultane-
ously with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). TSCA was designed primarily to fill
statutory and regulatory gaps that might be Identified in other environmental laws; however. Congress
placed management of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) entirely under TSCA. PCB provisions
included a production ban, use phaseout, and development of storage and disposal standards. In
contrast, RCRA regulates activities that relate to waste generation and management. Over the past
several years. Congress has expressed interest in transferring control of PCBs to RCRA.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: In 1984; the Administrator announced to Congress that EPA
intended to make this transfer, taking the position that a statutory change was unnecessary.
Subsequently, a working group composed of EPA staff. Industry, and environmental groups carefully
evaluated Issues related to the transfer and concluded that, due to the nature of the PCB universe, it
was not in the best interests of environmental protection. The Administrator accepted the working
group's recommendations that the most expeditious and least disruptive approach was to strengthen
regulations under TSCA rather than to transfer PCBs to RCRA. In 1988. the Congress again took up
the issue, and the transfer may be mandated by legislation passed In 1989.
A second PCB-related issue that will demand attention Is management of "fluff" -- the material that
remains after automobiles and white goods (e.g.. refrigerators and air conditioners) are shredded for
metals recycling purposes. Recent data suggest that fluff Is sometimes contaminated with PCBs, lead,
and other hazardous chemicals. Data collected during the summer of 1988 are now being analyzed.
The beneficial effects of recycling metals and the lack of available municipal landfill space for white
goods make resolution of this Issue both difficult and Important to the nation's waste management
practices.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATION
Congress:
Senators Baucus (D-MT) and Durenberger (R-MN)
Congressmen Florlo (D-NJ) and Synar (D-OK).
ACTION DATES
None currently set for transfer of PCBs; likely to be triggered by Congressional action.
Internally, "fluff" management options and policies are being developed.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Sylvia Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste
• Chuck Elkins, Director, Office of Toxic Substances
-------
Page 7-20 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-21
RCRA LISTINGS ON THE SUPERFUND NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
BACKGROUND: Since the first National Priorities List (NPL) rule was published, the Agency's policy
has been to defer placing sites on the NPL that could be cleaned up through the use of authorities under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Intent of this policy has been to maximize
the number of cleanups achieved through RCRA. thus preserving Superfund money for sites for which
no other authority is available.
On June 10,1986, the Agency announced the expansion of this policy by deferring the listing of non-
Federal sites subject to RCRA's hazardous waste corrective action authorities. However, it specified
certain categories of sites subject to those authorities that may be listed on the NPL because it believes
that corrective action Is unlikely to succeed or occur promptly. For example, in some cases, owner or
operators of facilities are either unwilling or unable to clean up certain sites. Finally, sites that are not
subject to those authorities may be listed on the NPL.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: On June 24. 1988. the RCRA deferral policy was applied to
43 RCRA sites that had been proposed for the NPL before the announcement of the policy. The Agency
proposed to drop 30 of these sites from the proposed NPL because they are subject to the RCRA
authorities, and it reproposed 13 sites to the NPL because EPA believes cleanup Is unlikely to succeed
or occur promptly, or they are not covered by RCRA authorities
On August 9, 1988, the Agency asked for comments on criteria for determining when an owner or
operator of a site is considered unable to pay for cleanup (known as "Inability to pay" criteria).
Currently, the sole financial criterion considered when a RCRA facility is proposed for the NPL is
whether the owner or operator has formally invoked the protection of the bankruptcy laws. However,
the Agency believes this criterion could have several unintended effects, Including forcing facilities of
limited financial means to eventually Invoke bankruptcy laws when they are unable to finance site
cleanups, thereby delaying the listing of these sites on the NPL and their subsequent cleanup.
In response to these concerns, the Agency Is proposing several options for demonstrating inability to
pay. For example, under one proposed option, EPA would place a RCRA site on the NPL if the estimated
cost of the EPA-proposed remedy is greater than the tangible net worth of the owner or operator.
MAJOR PLAYERS AND ORGANIZATIONS
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
o Congressman Dlngell (D-MI)
Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Oversight
o Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ)
-------
Page 7-22 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Final rule on the 43 RCRA sites. March 1989
Final policy on "inability to pay" criteria, March 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Henry Longest, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-23
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY INFORMATION SYSTEM
BACKGROUND: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System is being developed to
provide a computerized management system for the storage, tracking, and analysis of data relating to
hazardous waste program activities. The system is designed to provide data needed to support both
States and EPARegions in the Implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. as well
as data required by EPA for oversight. Once developed it will be a model for other EPA program systems.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The system Is now in the development stage. Personal
computer and mainframe versions of the software are being developed and tested. The system will be
piloted during the spring and summer of 1989 and be Implemented over a two-year period beginning
in September 1989. Implementation may consume a substantial portion of the State grants.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
National Governors' Association (NGA)
States
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Software Ready for Testing December 1988
Software Fully Tested February 1989
System Pilot March - June 1989
Evaluation of Pilot July - August 1989
Begin National Implementation September 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Jeffery Denit, Deputy Director. Office of Solid Waste
-------
Page 7-24 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-25
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
BACKGROUND: Superfund legislation requires that cleanup actions comply with "applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements " from other Federal and more stringent State laws.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA has been developing policies on Superfund compliance
with other laws for several years, particularly with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The most definitive statements of policy are In the revisions to the National Contingency Plan and in
the draft "Compliance with Other Laws Manual."
EPA has spent considerable time In the last few years attempting to resolve Implementation Issues
derived from the differences in Superfund and RCRA requirements for cleaning up hazardous waste.
Those Issues include determining when a Superfund action triggers compliance with RCRA require-
ments, interpreting the RCRA land disposal restrictions In Superfund situations, and applying RCRA
corrective action and closure standards to Superfund. New RCRA regulations under development will
continue to present complex questions to the Superfund program.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Transportation, Tourism and Hazardous Material
Congressman Luken (D-OH)
Congressman Whittaker (D-KS)
Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Oversight
Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Senator Warner (R-VA)
ACTION DATES
National Contingency Plan: Final, Autumn 1989
Compliance Manual: Draft - May 1988; Final - April 1989
KEY EPA CONTACT
• Henry Longest, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
• Sylvia Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste
-------
Page 7-26 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-27
REVISED HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM
BACKGROUND: The Hazard Ranking System (HRS) Is a scoring system used as the primary
mechanism to select sites for the National Priorities List (NPL), which In turn establishes eligibility for
Superfund cleanup funding. The current HRS was promulgated in 1982 and Is still being Implemented
by the EPA Regions and States.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) calls for
revisions to the HRS to make it a screening tool that assesses relative risks at sites as accurately as
possible. It specifies that food chain, potential air releases, closed drinking water wells, and
recreational use of surface waters be considered.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: In 1987 the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
developed, with an EPA-wide workgroup and in consultation with the Science Advisory Board, a
proposed rule Incorporating major revisions to the HRS. The proposal is expected to appear In the
Federal Register In November 1988.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Senators Baucus (D-MT). Durenberger (R-MN), Mitchell (D-ME), and Chafee (R-RI)
Senators Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Warner (R-VA)
Federal Agencies
States and EPA Regions
American Mining Congress
Edison Electric Institute
Clean Water Action Project
Environmental Defense Fund
Sierra Club
Chemical Manufacturers Association
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Anticipate final rule In January 1990 (or 15 months following proposal)
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Henry Longest, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
-------
Page 7-28 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-29
SUPERFUND CONTRACTOR INDEMNIFICATION
BACKGROUND: Since the start of the Superfund program, EPA has routinely indemnified its
contractors conducting site clean-up activities, known as Response Action Contractors (RACs), against
liability not covered by insurance. It has done this to limit expenditures on purchased Insurance (for
which EPA would pay through Its cost reimbursement contracts) and to ensure that qualified
contractors would continue to participate In the Superfund program while liability insurance was
unavailable.
Before the Superfund legislation was amended In 1986, EPA had no statutory authority to offer
Indemnification, and there was no specified source of funds for Indemnification. The Superfund
Amendments filled these gaps. The Indemnification, however, was to be much narrower In scope than
that previously extended by EPA.
EPA can Indemnify contractors working for EPA, States (under cooperative agreements with EPA), and
potentially responsible parties (under very restrictive conditions) for negligent liability arising from the
release of hazardous substances. However, It can do so only If reasonably priced pollution liability
insurance Is not generally available In adequate amounts. EPA Indemnification agreements must
Include limits and deductlbles.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: In October, 1987 EPA released Interim Indemnification
guidance. All EPA Superfund contracts (approximately 40) have an Indemnification clause. EPA has
agreed to Indemnify contractors working at approximately 15 fund financed sites. No contractors hired
by potentially responsible parties have been Indemnified. Also, EPA has indemnified contractors in
several miscellaneous categories (e.g., grantees who train and educate workers in the hazardous waste
area). Several options are being considered for the policy reflected in the final guidance. We have
solicited input from the contracting community, from the Insurance Industry, and from within EPA.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Contractors:
Camp Dresser & McKee
CH2M Hill
Insurers:
Corroon & Black (Insurance Broker)
-------
Page 7-30 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Sprixig 1989: Publication of Proposed Guidance in Federal Register
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Bruce Diamond, Director. Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-31
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST UPDATES
BACKGROUND: The National Priorities List (NPL) was developed to Identify waste sites that appear to
pose threats to human health or the environment, and that require further investigation under the
Superfund legislation to determine if remediation is necessary. Listing on the final NPL allows
Superfund trust fund monies to be used for site cleanup ("remedial action"). If there are no potentially
responsible parties willing or available to pay for cleanup costs.
Sites are placed on the NPL using informal rulemaking procedures in which sites are first proposed for
public comment and then made final based on those comments. Annual NPL updates are statutorily
mandated by the Superfund legislation. Final decisions (listing or dropping of sites) must be made on
all proposed sites before the effective date of the revised Hazard Ranking System (anticipated January
1990) or they will have to be rescored under the revised system.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: At present. 378 sites proposed to be added to the NPL need
flnallzation. Only about 70 of these proposed sites had no comments submitted during the comment
period and therefore can be listed in the next final rule (Update #5). The Federal facilities proposed rule
(Update #8) will proceed with EPA review after completion of Federal facilities policy language.
Approximately 35-40 Federal facility sites will most likely be proposed for addition to the NPL in this
update. Flnallzation of the Federal facilities RCRA/ CERCLA listing policy (which was proposed in May
1987). will occur at about the same time as this proposed rule.
Due to delays in the anticipated effective date of the revised Hazard Ranking System, another rule
(Update #9) to propose a limited number of sites is anticipated for publication in the Federal Register
in December 1988. Flnallzation of sites usually takes about one year to accomplish; however, this task
is going to take significant efforts over the next year given the number of sites that are currently at the
proposed stage.
MAJOR PLAYERS AND ORGANIZATIONS
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Senate Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Oversight
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
States
Federal facilities
Potentially responsible parties.
-------
Page 7-32 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Anticipated publication dates In Federal Register
Final rule (Update #5). November 1988
Proposed rule (Update #9), December 1988
Proposed rule (Federal facilities-Update #8). February 1989
Final rule (Update #6): March 1989
Final rule (Update #7): Jane 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Henry Longest, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-33
RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT
BACKGROUND: Risk assessment is an analytical tool to measure the potential for adverse health or
environmental effects. The Superfund program conducts a baseline risk assessment at each site as
a part of the initial study of site conditions. The data provide a basis for developing a site-specific clean
up approach that protects human health and the environment.
Other EPA offices also use risk assessment methods, but generally to support development of
standards (e.g.. ambient air quality standards under the Clean Air Act). To support these efforts, EPA's
Office of Research and Development is responsible for developing a framework of technical guidelines
for risk assessment methods to be used by all EPA programs.
In most EPA programs risk management is the establishment of a standard that applies to an entire
set of activities (e.g.. Safe Drinking Water Act standards that apply to all public water supplies). In the
Superfund program, because of the Individual circumstances at each site, the selection of a remedy
involves a site-specific risk management decision of how best to protect human health and the
environment and also comply with the other mandates of the law.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Several cross-cutting Issues exist regarding the use of risk
assessment and risk management. For example, where specific ORD guidance Is unavailable. Interim
program guidance in Superfund may differ from that of other offices. This could lead to potential
inconsistencies across programs (e.g.. Superfund may specify childhood soil ingestion rates to be used
In risk assessment, while another EPA office may or may not use the same rates). As another example,
Superfund sites frequently Include the need to control a complex mixture of chemicals when only some
of those chemicals are regulated. Despite the lack of regulatory standards, EPA must select remedies
that represent consistent application of risk assessment and risk management principles across the
country.
The revisions to the National Contingency Plan establish the framework within which Superfund risk
assessment and selection of remedy are addressed. Revisions to the Superfund Public Health
Evaluation Manual will provide program guidance on how to conduct a Superfund risk assessment.
The guidance for Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies will address setting remedial action levels
and developing alternatives that protect human health and the environment.
-------
Page 7-34 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
MAJOR PLAYERS AND ORGANIZATIONS
All EPA offices. States, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and potentially
responsible parties 'including other Federal Agencies). At each site, the public is interested in the risks
posed by the site and the level of protection to be achieved by any remedy.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual. Complete mid-1989
Interim Final Guidance on Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study to be issued December 1988
National Contingency Plan to be promulgated in autumn 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Henry Longest. Director. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-35
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE GRANTS
BACKGROUND: The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 provide for technical
assistance grants of up to $50,000 to be awarded to citizen groups affected by sites on the National
Priorities List (NPL). The grants are for the purpose of hiring technical advisers to help citizens
understand and interpret site-related technical information.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: On March 24. 1988. EPA published in the Federal Register
the Technical Assistance Grant Interim Final Rule. This interim rule allows the Agency to award grants
while developing the final rule. In September 1988. the Agency awarded the first grants. It is beginning
Its assessment of the program to date and developing the final rule.
Major issues that will require resolution in the final rule:
(1) whether the regulations will continue to require a 35% match from the grant recipient or
lower this level tp the statutory minimum of 20%:
(2) whether or not to require a 15% cap on administrative expenses related to the grant;
(3) whether a grant recipient must incorporate for the purpose of receiving the grant; and
(4) how to simplify and streamline the grant procedures.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Congressman Dlngell (D-MI)
National environmental groups including.
Clean Water Action and the Sierra Club
Citizens' groups at Superfund sites.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONE
Final Rule. September 1989
EPA KEY CONTACTS
• Henry Longest. Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
-------
Page 7-36 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-37
UTILIZATION OF TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
IN SUPERFUND REMEDIAL ACTIONS
BACKGROUND: The Superfund legislation strongly encourages that all remedies use treatment or
resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, it states that
alternatives that use treatment to address the principal source of contamination at a site (e.g., a hotspot
of concentrated highly toxic or highly mobile chemicals) are to be preferred over alternatives that do
not use treatment.
The National Contingency Plan (NCP) revisions will codify this mandate, and EPA is developing
guidance documents to help implement It. In addition, the Superfund Innovative Technology
Evaluation program, which assesses and demonstrates use of innovative technologies (e.g., biological
treatment or thermal treatment) at Superfund sites, currently has 30 projects under way.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: To meet the challenge of the Superfund requirements. EPA
has encouraged the use of innovative treatment technologies and the use of multiple treatment
processes to implement the most effective remedies. During FY 1987 and FT 1988 treatment-based
remedies were selected for approximately 70 percent of the control measures identified (excluding large
landfills). One of the major challenges has been to resolve the Inherent tensions between the statute's
mandate for treatment, permanence and cost effectiveness in remedy selection decisions.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Congress
Trade Organizations
Citizen groups
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Selection of Remedy Guidance, December 1988
NCP Promulgation, Fall 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Henry Longest. Director. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
-------
Page 7-38 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-39
REPORT TO CONGRESS ON WASTES FROM PROCESSING
ORES AND MINERALS
BACKGROUND: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act temporarily excludes "solid waste from
the extraction, beneflclatlon, and processing of ores and minerals" from regulation as hazardous waste
until EPA studies these wastes, Issues a report to Congress on them, and makes a regulatory
determination as to whether application of hazardous waste regulations Is warranted. "Processing"
covers such activities as smelting, which occur after mining the ore or mineral but before product
fabrication. This provision, sponsored by Cong. Tom Bevlll (D-AL). Is commonly known as the "Bevill
exclusion."
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: This report to Congress Is required by the same D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals order requiring EPA to promulgate a rule redefining the scope of the Bevill exclusion.
(See related Issue paper on the final rule further defining the scope of the mining waste exclusion.)
Issuing of the report by July 31. 1989 and the regulatory determination are the final steps in placing
the remaining processing wastes under appropriate RCRA regulatory control. Once this report is
completed no further studies or regulatory determinations related to ore and mineral processing wastes
as a group are required by statute or court order.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Litigants:
Environmental Defense Fund
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
Other key parties:
Department of Interior (Bureau of Mines)
American Mining Congress
Aluminum Association
Individual companies (e.g., Kennecott Copper, AARCO)
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Administrator signs Report to Congress, July 31, 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Jeffery Denit, Deputy Director. Office of Solid Waste
-------
Page 7-40 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-41
STATE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OP 1984
BACKGROUND: Before the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). States that
received federal authorization operated hazardous and solid waste programs totally in lieu of the
Federal program. Periodic revisions of State programs were required to ensure continued consistency
between the Federal and State programs.
However, HWSA changed the Federal-State relationship fundamentally. It mandated that its new
requirements and prohibitions be implemented by EPA Immediately In all States on the effective dates
regardless of whether the States were previously authorized. EPA continues to Implement the new
requirements and prohibitions until States receive HSWA authorization.
With no additional Federal grants given to the States to implement the resource-Intensive HSWA
provisions, there Is little incentive for them to seek State authorization. Unless States receive
authorization for the HSWA provisions, the entire base program could eventually revert to EPA to
Implement, causing EPA even greater resource burdens.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The Office of Solid Waste has traditionally provided guidance
to States seeking Federal authorization. The Office of Waste Programs Enforcement reviews draft and
final authorization applications and capability assessments to ensure consistency and equivalency
with EPA's enforcement program.
The HSWA components require more detailed, costly, and comprehensive Investigations of hazardous
waste facilities than have been required in the past. Additionally, Implementation is more difficult than
previously because the HSWA provisions are typically much more burdensome. Furthermore, EPA
surveys have shown great variance between EPA policy and existing State authorities.
Given the lack of additional resources for States to Implement the HSWA provisions, together with
inadequate State enforcement authorities. State capability to Implement the Federal program becomes
an issue. Decisions will need to be made as to what constitutes a capable and equivalent State program
and what are acceptable trade-offs with respect to capability. Currently, EPA is refocusing its efforts
to enhance State capability.
The deadline for States to modify their program to pick up the initial phase of HSWA requirements
(HSWA Cluster I) Is June 30, 1989. States must submit their applications 60 days after this deadline.
HSWA Cluster I Includes all HSWA requirements promulgated between November 8. 1984 and June
30, 1987. Some of the major provisions include those for small quantity generators, corrective action,
and the land disposal restrictions.
-------
Page 7-42 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
MAJOR PLAYERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
The State Waste Directors and Attorneys General
The Association of State and Terrilorial Solid Waste Management Officials.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
HSWA Cluster I deadline June 3O, 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Sylvia Lowrance. Director. Office of Solid Waste
• Bruce Diamond, Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-43
CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS
AT HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES
BACKGROUND: RCRA requires that any permit Issued after November 8, 1984 under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act address cleanup or "corrective action" for releases of hazardous wastes
from any solid waste management unit at the permitted facility. The Act does allow the Imposition of
schedules of compliance to be used to Implement corrective action after the permit has been issued.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Since November 1984, several hundred permits have been
Issued that contain requirements for corrective action. Thus far. Regions and States have relied on
limited guidance documents to implement the program. The proposed Corrective Action rule would
establish a comprehensive regulatory framework for Implementing the corrective action program.
The proposal specifies procedures and technical requirements for corrective action decision-making,
with particular emphasis on such issues as the establishment of standards for managing and cleaning
up wastes, selection of cleanup methods, the conduct of studies, and defining key terms (e.g.. "solid
waste management unit"). The preamble also contains a strong Implementation message, with
emphasis on streamlining the process and Initiating early cleanup actions.
The proposal was transmitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review on October 7, 1988.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Hazardous Waste and Toxic Substances
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee on Transportation. Tourism and Hazardous Substances
Regions
States
Environmental and industry groups
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Publication of NPRM, January 4, 1989
Publication of NRM, January 3O, 199O
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Sylvia Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste
-------
Page 7-44 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-45
TITLE ffl ENFORCEMENT
BACKGROUND: Federal Title HI enforcement Is a shared responsibility among the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER), the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS), and the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM). In addition to Federal enforcement
authorities. States and localities can enforce against violators through the U.S. district courts and
under State laws. Past Senate oversight hearings have highlighted a perceived lack of commitment to
enforcing this Act. Congressional scrutiny has focused on the adequacy of enforcement manpower,
on efforts to enforce the planning provisions, and on optimal use of enforcement tools under other
Federal laws.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: OSWER and OPTS have Issued an enforcement strategy for
Title III and have been meeting with State representatives to develop coordination and Information
sharing mechanisms for enforcement. OSWER has worked closely with States on several accidental
release cases to enforce against violations of the emergency planning, releases notification, and
reporting requirements. OPTS conducted over 160 toxic release inventory inspections In the last
quarter of FY 88 and plans to conduct over 700 inspections in FY 89. OPTS is also reviewing toxic
release Inventory reports for errors and omissions and has Issued Notices of Noncompllance.
The two offices will continue to work together and with the States to enforce against Title III violators.
Major enforcement concerns facing the Agency In 1989 Include Regional designation of enforcement
persons and coordination with States on enforcement actions. Continued emphasis on Title III
enforcement may lead to Identification of violators of other Acts administered by the Agency.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Congress: Senator Lautenberg (D-NJ). Congressman Florio (D-NJ)
States: Governors, State Emergency Response Commissions
Localities: Local Emergency Planning Commissions
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
All initial Title III reporting deadlines have passed and enforcement activities are under way. EPA
is not facing any new statutory deadlines.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Bruce Diamond, Director, OSWER Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Gus Conroy, Director, OPTS Office of Compliance Monitoring
Glen Unterberger. Associate Enforcement Counsel, OECM - Waste
-------
Page 7-46 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-47
TITLE m REPORTING THRESHOLD
BACKGROUND: The Community Planning and Rlght-to-Know Act (Title III of the Superfund Amend-
ments and Reauthorization Act) requires owners and operators of facilities that use or store hazardous
chemicals to supply State and local authorities with information concerning these chemicals. In
October 1987, EPA established threshold quantities for the first two years of reporting. At the same
time. EPA committed to further evaluate the appropriate level for the permanent threshold, which will
be effective October 17, 1989. Failure to publish an amended rule would result in a "zero" reporting
threshold, such that any amount of a chemical would have to be reported.
The facilities required to submit material safety data sheets under this program are the same facilities
covered by the Hazard Communication Standard published by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration. In 1988, OSHA extended Its Hazard Communication Standard requirements to non-
manufacturers. Therefore, the universe of facilities potentially required to submit data sheets under
Title III has increased nearly tenfold, and a "zero" reporting threshold could affect up to 4 million
facilities, including numerous small businesses.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA is currently conducting a cost-benefit analysis and
limited survey of State and local entitles receiving the reports in order to establish an appropriate
permanent reporting threshold. The goal Is to propose a threshold that Is an appropriate balance
between the broad right-to-know information objectives of the law and the need to avoid overwhelming
State and local governments with the submission of vast amounts of information.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Industry
State and local governments that are directly affected by the regulation
Office of Management and Budget
Small Business Administration
(The latter two entities have been extremely Interested In the rulemaklng because of the Informa-
tion management burden on the regulated community.)
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Proposed Rule, January 31, 1989
Final Rule. June 31, 1989
KEY EPA CONTACT
• Jim Makris, Director, Preparedness Staff
-------
Page 7-48 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-49
TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC FINAL RULE
BACKGROUND: The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requires EPA to examine deficiencies
in its current extraction procedure (EP) toxicity test as a predictor of the leaching potential of wastes
and to make whatever changes are necessary to ensure that the test better Identifies those wastes that
pose a threat to human health and the environment when mismanaged.
As a result, the Agency proposed in June 1986 to amend its regulations by modifying the existing EP
toxicity test. Specifically, the Agency proposed to (1) require the use of a new leach procedure, the
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP); (2) add 38 organic compounds to the characteristic;
and (3) use compound-specific dilution/attenuation factors in developing the regulatory levels that will
determine whether or not a waste is considered hazardous. The regulatory levels take into
consideration potential human health effects, the persistence of the constituent in the environment,
and the potential for constituents to migrate from a disposal site.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The Agency received numerous comments on the June 1986
proposal. These comments prompted the publication of several Federal Register notices seeking
additional comment on the TCLP, the regulation of wastewaters. and the use of the groundwater
transport model to establish the regulatory levels. In developing the preamble to the final rule and the
associated background supporting documents, the Office of Solid Waste is addressing comments from
the June 1986 proposal and the subsequent notices.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
The following have commented on this rulemaking:
American Petroleum Institute
Chemical Manufacturers Association
American Paper Institute
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
National Solid Waste Managers Association
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
States and various municipalities
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Environment Canada
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Final Rule, February 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS:
• Sylvia Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste
-------
Page 7-50 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-51
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
FOR UNDERGROUND TANKS CONTAINING HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
BACKGROUND: Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requires EPA to establish
financial responsibility rules for corrective action and third-party damages caused by releases from
underground storage tanks containing hazardous substances. There are approximately 54,000 tanks
containing hazardous substances at about 21.000 facilities.
EPA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaklng (ANPR) on February 9. 1988. It solicited
comments and Information about the regulated community and approaches for developing financial
responsibility requirements.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: This last major set of regulations to be developed for the
underground storage tank program Is in Its early stages. A proposed rule should be completed In 1989.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Associations representing small business and chemical manufacturers
Congressional committees, notably House Energy and Commerce and Senate Environment and
Public Works
Insurance providers
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Publish proposed requirements by December 1989.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Ron Brand. Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks
-------
Page 7-52 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-53
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK PROGRAM LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY
BACKGROUND: Because of the Ashland Oil spill In January 1988, numerous bills to regulate above-
ground tanks have been Introduced In Congress. EPA already regulates some of these tanks under its
Spill Prevention. Control, and Countermeasures Program, hi mid-1988 an EPA task force prepared
a report on existing efforts to address above-ground tanks .
Congress exempted heating oil as well as farm and residential motor fuel tanks from federal regulation
under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. EPA is required to submit a report
to Congress with recommendations on whether and how to address such tanks.
EPAconsldered requiring double-walled tanks in the technical standards rules published In September
1988. Single-walled tanks were ultimately selected as protective of human health and the environ-
ment. States were encouraged to require secondary containment in sensitive areas.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Several Senate and House bills on above-ground tanks are
pending, but are not likely to be passed this session. Senator Durenberger intends to propose a
program next year. EPA's position is that new statutory authority Is unnecessary; we could develop
new regulations and enforce under existing authorities.
EPA will submit a report on exempt tanks to Congress by early 1989. The report is currently in the
final review stages and will likely recommend that certain large. Industrial tanks be federally regulated
and that the others not be regulated. Congress could act on these recommendations and amend
Subtitle I to include certain tanks or respond with its own program.
Senator Durenberger has Indicated he may propose legislation to federally require secondary
containment or more stringent leak detection in sensitive groundwater areas. A proposal could be
made as an amendment to Subtitle I or as part of overall groundwater legislation.
MAJOR PLAYERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Durenberger (R-Mlnn)
Congressmen Luken (D-OH) and Walgren (R-PA)
Gary Klein, private counsel. Industry Oil Heat Task Force
Morgan Gopnick , Environmental Action
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES:
Exempt Tank Report to Congress January 1989
-------
Page 7-54 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Ron Brand, Director. Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Henry Longest, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Page 7-55
EPA APPROVAL OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
STATE PROGRAMS
BACKGROUND: The State Program Approval Regulations were Issued In September 1988. They
establish the criteria for evaluating States seeking EPA approval of their underground storage tank pro-
grams. About 10-20 States will likely apply for State program approval In 1989. EPA does not anticipate
running a major federal regulatory program and Is strongly encouraging States to run the program in
lieu of the federal government.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Once a State applies for program approval, there Is a
statutorily mandated 180-day limit for EPA to make Its approval decision. This decision-making
responsibility has been delegated by the Administrator to the Regional Administrators. Unlike EPA's
other delegated programs, the Region will not do a line-by-line comparison between State and federal
requirements. The Region instead is required to evaluate the State program application using a set of
flexible criteria.
This unique aspect of the State Program Approval Regulations will necessitate a more flexible review
process by the Regions than may have been the case in the past. The greater flexibility will most likely
make each approval decision complex, controversial, and predisposed to public scrutiny. Regional
Administrators may consequently be required to dedicate significant attention to these decisions.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
States
EPA Regions
Trade Associations (both state and national)
Environmental Organizations
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Efective date of the regulations December 22, 1988
180-day limit for Regional Administrators to make approval decision
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Ron Brand, Director, Office of Underground Storage Tanks
-------
Page 7-56 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Significant National Issues
-------
AIR & RADIATION
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-1
1991 URBAN BUS PARTICULATE STANDARD
BACKGROUND: In 1985, EPA promulgated dlesel partlculate standards for heavy-duty engines
(HDE). Tighter standards will be phased In with the 1991 and 1994 model years as follows, for 1991,
the standard Is O.25 g/bhp-hr except for urban bus engines which have a 0.1 standard: In 1994, the
0.1 standard will apply to all engines. The 0.1 standard is a technology-forcing standard which may
demand the development of trap oxidlzers for HDE. The more stringent bus standard in 1991 was
Judged to be feasible because as a group bus engines have less diversity in engine characteristics and
operating conditions than other heavy-duty engines. They also do not operate for sustained periods
at high loads, thus making trap durability less an Issue. Also, since urban buses are operated
exclusively in the urban environment where population exposure would be highest, the effectiveness
of applying tighter standards to urban buses was Justified.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: To date, no engine manufacturer has fully developed trap
technology which will allow it to meet the 1991 bus standard, thus raising the Issue of whether the
standard will be met In 1991 by diesel engines. It appears that methanol-fueled bus engines (and
compressed natural gas engines) that would meet the standard will be available in 1991; however, there
are significant additional operating costs for such buses. If In fact diesel engines are not available,
EPA must soon decide whether It will promote alternative fueled engines through Administration
financial support, revise the standard for 1991 bus engines or offer noncompliance penalties.
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Industry groups:
Engine Manufacturers Association
Environmental groups:
Natural Resources Defense Council
American Public Transit Association
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
None identified
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R. Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Richard D. Wilson, Director, Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Page 8-2 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-3
ASBESTOS ACCELERATED RULE
BACKGROUND: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) rules for
asbestos were first published in 1973 and covered building demolition and renovation, asbestos in
roadways and insulating materials, and 14 manufacturing operations. A general revision of the
asbestos NESHAP was initiated in 1980. Just as a proposed revision was about to be published in 1987,
the D. C. Circuit Court's Vinyl Chloride decision affected the reasoning behind the revised asbestos rule
and required it to be delayed. The asbestos NESHAP revision has now been split into two separate rules:
(1) an accelerated rule which would make needed enforceability corrections, and (2) a comprehensive
rule that will deal with the stringency of the standard and the issues raised by the Vinyl Chloride
decision. Portions of the accelerated rule will be proposed under both TSCA and Clean Air Act
authorities (see OPTS issue paper on asbestos).
CURRENT STATUS: The asbestos NESHAP accelerated rule is undergoing internal Agency review.
Work on the comprehensive rule has been suspended pending EPA's response to the vinyl chloride
remand in the Benzene NESHAP.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
National Assoc. of Demolition Contractors (NADC) - Bill Baker
Asbestos Information Association (AIA) - Bob Pigg
U. S. House of Representatives - Congressman Synar
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Proposed Accelerated Rule - December 1988
Final Rule - February 1990
KET EPA CONTACTS
• Don Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Gerald Emlson, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
-------
Page 8-4 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-5
WHETHER TO SET NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
FOR ACID AEROSOLS
BACKGROUND: The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) recommended that EPA prepare
an Issue paper to evaluate health effects directly associated with acid aerosols and to address whether
acid aerosols should be listed as a separate criteria pollutant, thereby requiring subsequent regula-
tion as a National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
CURRENT STATUS: In June 1988. the Acid Aerosol Subcommittee of CASAC reviewed the draft Issue
paper and reached the consensus, although not unanimous, that the full CASAC recommend that the
Administrator consider listing acid aerosols as a criteria pollutant. In addition, the Subcommittee pre-
pared a report on recommended research to address key needs.
On October 6, 1988. the full CASAC met to review the Subcommittee's findings and recommendations
and concluded that additional research and analyses were needed before a decision could be reached
on listing. Because of its genuine concern over the potential health effects of acid aerosols, the CASAC
strongly recommended that EPA Immediately begin to address certain monitoring issues and to
conduct studies aimed at characterizing ambient exposures as well as addressing other research
priorities.
CASAC will submit a letter presenting its recommendations to EPA by mid-November. In responding,
the Agency should reply that it is concerned about acid aerosols and Is committed to carry out the
needed analyses and research.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Dr. Roger McClellan - Chairman of CASAC
Dr. Morton Lippmann - NYU Medical Center
Michael Teague - Hunton and Williams (Utility Air Regulatory Group)
James R Bleke - Shea and Gardner (representing American Mining Congress)
David Hawkins - Natural Resources Defense Council
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Respond to CASAC Letter December 15, 1988
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Gerald A. Emison, Director. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
-------
Page 8-6 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-7
AIR EMISSIONS FROM TREATMENT, STORAGE/AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES
(TSDF)
BACKGROUND: The 1984 amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
require EPA to promulgate air regulations for hazardous waste TSDF within 30 months (i.e., by May
1987). EPA was unable to meet this schedule because TSDF Is a very diverse and complex source cate-
gory, very little data existed on emissions or control technology, and few analytical tools were available
to assess TSDF.
CURRENT STATUS: Regulations for organic emissions (the major air problem from TSDF) are being
developed under Section 3004(n) of RCRA In phases. The first phase of regulations, the "accelerated
rule," was proposed In February 1987 and covers sources for which technical Information was readily
available from other Clean Air Act programs. The second phase of regulations, the "comprehensive
rule" will cover the majority of TSDF air emissions. The third phase of regulations will be developed,
as necessary, to address specific Individual toxics that may not be addressed adequately by the
"accelerated" and "comprehensive" rules. In addition to RCRA, regulation under the Clean Air Act also
will be necessary to control air emissions from units exempt from RCRA rules (e.g., industrial
wastewater treatment systems).
Important regulatory decisions on the "comprehensive rule" were made by the Administration on
September 24, 1987 and September 15. 1988. Having these decisions made is critical to the success
of proposing this rule in a timely manner. Incorporating air rules Into a program that historically has
been focused on groundwater has required intensive coordination among the various offices involved.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Chemical Manufacturers
Environmental Groups
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Promulgate "accelerated rule" - June 1989
Propose "comprehensive rule" - November 1989
Promulgate "comprehensive rule" - March 1991
Propose "constituent rule" (as needed) - March 1991
Publish partlculate guidance document - June 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
-------
Page 8-8 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-9
CHROMIUM EMISSIONS FROM COMFORT COOLING TOWERS
BACKGROUND: In March 1988, EPA proposed a rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
to prohibit the use of hexavalent chromium (Cr+6) chemicals (considered potent carcinogens) in
comfort cooling towers (CCTs). Comfort cooling towers are used in heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning or refrigeration systems in commercial and institutional applications. Hexavalent
chromium is used In cooling tower water to protect the metal components of the heat exchanger, chiller,
and cooling tower from corrosion. Effective substitutes are readily available and are currently used in
75 to 90 percent of existing CCTs.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Public comments were solicited at the time of proposal and
copies of the proposed rule were distributed to Interested parties. A public hearing was held on June
13.1988. Twenty-six comment letters were received, and five interested parties testified at the public
hearing concerning Issues relative to the proposed rule. The Issues raised in the comments pertain
to the availability and effectiveness of chromium substitutes in warm areas, such as Florida. The
comments are being evaluated for incorporation in the final rule.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Mitco Water Laboratories. Inc.
Occidental Chemical Corporation
Hoffman and Felge. Inc.
National Association of Corrosion Engineers
Environmental Defense Fund
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Promulgate Final Rule - December 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Gerald Emlson Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
-------
Page 8-10 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-11
COLD TEMPERATURE CARBON MONOXIDE (CO) EMISSION
(key to CO nonattainment problem)
BACKGROUND: CO nonattainment continues to be a national problem. At the end of 1987, 59 local
areas were nonattainment for CO. The major source of CO Is motor vehicles; other sources are mu-
nicipal Incinerators and woodburning stoves. Several states, notably Alaska and Colorado, have been
advancing the concern that EPA has not done enough to control CO emissions from motor vehicles at
low ambient temperatures. While Federal vehicle certification testing Is conducted between 68 and
75T. about 90% of the ambient CO violations occur below 68'F. Although the current Federal CO
standard have significantly reduced CO emissions, reductions at colder temperatures are much lower
than at the warmer temperature where standards apply. CO emission standards at cold temperatures
would provide additional reductions to address the nonattainment problem. During 1988, Congress
considered a Clean Air Act amendment to set cold CO emission standards.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA held a public workshop in March 1988 on this problem.
One technical problem is a current lack of sufficient cold temperature test data for motor vehicles.
Efforts are underway to gather more data and to reevaluate the long-term nonattainment situation and
the need for stringent cold CO standards. EPA has determined that an Interim cold CO standard
implemented quickly would be beneficial and would facilitate the testing needed for the longer term
evaluation. The Office of Moblile Sources has begun a rulemaking effort for an Interim standard for
passenger cars and light trucks.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Motor vehicle manufacturers
State and local air pollution agencies
Environmental groups
Congress
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking: Summer 1989
Publish NPRM: Fall 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R. Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Richard D. Wilson, Director, Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Page 8-12 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-13
DIESEL FUEL QUALITY REGULATIONS
(key to particulate and air toxic problems)
BACKGROUND: When EPA promulgated the heavy-duty dlesel particulate standards In 1985, engine
manufacturers commented that EPA must regulate the sulfur and aromatics content of diesel fuel for
them to be able to meet these standards. In dlesel combustion, sulfur is converted to sulfates and
emitted as particulates, thus making it more difficult for engines to meet tight particulate standards.
In addition, high aromatics content reduces combustion quality, leading to higher levels of
particulates. In the final rule EPA agreed to study the need for diesel fuel quality regulations.
As a result of EPA suggestions, the oil Industry and the engine manufacturers worked together on this
issue and. In 1988, made recommendations to EPA on a mutually agreeable regulatory approach. The
industry recommendations were to limit sulfur to 0.05%, cap aromatics to current levels, make the
fuel regulations effective in 1993, and allow engine certification on low sulfur fuel starting with the
1991 model year.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The Administrator was briefed on this regulation in August
1988. EPA is moving toward publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in early to mid 1989.
The oil industry and the engine manufacturers have already reached concensus on many of the Issues
associated with this rule. For example, there is widespread support for a sulfur limit of 0.05% and for
an effective date In 1993. The NPRM will need to address other issues as well, such as whether to cap
or reduce aromatics, whether to regulate the quality of all distillate or Just on-hlghway diesel, and
whether to allow engine certification on low sulfur fuel prior to it being commercially available.
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Engine manufacturers
Oil Industry.
California Air Resources Board
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Publish NPRM: Spring 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS:
Don R Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
Richard D. Wilson, Director, Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Page 8-14 Qffke of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-15
ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS
BACKGROUND: A Notice of Proposed Recommendations for Controlling Exposure of the Public to Ra-
diofrequency (RF) Radiation was published in the Federal Register, July 30. 1986. This Guidance was
developed to protect public health and to meet Federal Agencies needs for Guidance to meet their
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) responsibilities. Most Federal agencies lack the capability
to Implement any NEPA guidelines and seek technical assistance from the Office of Radiation Program's
nationally recognized radiation facility at Montgomery. Ala. (EERF).
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: In order to focus limited resources on selected problems,
electromagnetic radiation activities will be deferred beginning in FY 90. Expected final RF Radiation
Guidance will not be Issued and other activities will be reduced to a minimal maintenance level. EPA
will no longer address a major portion of the radiation spectrum, and will not continue to address
whether exposure to extremely low frequency fields causes or promotes cancer and vascular system
damage. EPA's Cancer Assessment Group is evaluating the potential link between electromagnetic
field exposure and cancer. This Issue may be a major public health problem with Impact on the electric
power industry.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
House Subcommittee on Water and Power Resources, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
Foundation on Economic Trends
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
Federal Communications Commission
Department of Defense
Electromagnetic Energy Policy Alliance
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
None
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Richard J. Guimond, Director, Office of Radiation Programs
-------
Page 8-16 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-17
CITIZEN'S GUIDE UPDATE AND CONSIDERATION OF
NEW RADON ACTION LEVEL
BACKGROUND: When elevated radon levels were first discovered in 1984. the States asked EPA to
provide technical assistance including the development of public Information materials and the estab-
lishment of action levels for radon in houses. In cooperation with the States, other Federal Agencies,
and public health organizations, EPA developed "A Citizen's Guide to Radon" which provided basic
information for homeowners and established action guidelines. Over 1 million copies of this highly
successful brochure have been distributed since it was issued in August 1986.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The Radon Pollution Control Act of 1988 requires EPA to
update the Citizen's Guide to provide new information on: a series of action levels, radon risks of
specific populations, the cost and feasibility of reducing radon levels, relationships between short and
long term measurements, and outdoor radon levels across the country. Background information is
being collected and extensive review and coordination by EPA, other Federal agencies, and State health
and environmental offices will be required.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Energy
State Health and Environmental Agencies
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Act requires the update to be completed not later than June 1, 1989.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Richard J. Guimond, Director, Office of Radiation Programs
-------
Page 8-18 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-19
HEAVY-DUTY BANKING AND TRADING REGULATIONS
BACKGROUND: In March 1985. EPA issued a final rule for revised nitrogen oxide and diesel
particulate standards for heavy-duty engines. In the final rule, EPA promulgated an emissions
averaging provision for 1991 vehicles, as a means for reducing the costs of compliance. EPA also
agreed to consider separately the Issue of additional benefits from an emissions "banking and trading"
program to augment the averaging program. Such a program would allow all manufacturers (including
smaller limited line manufacturers) to benefit from the averaging provisions and could increase the
overall economic efficiency of the program.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) has been developed
and has completed Red Border review. The next step Is to submit the NPRM package to OMB for review
under E.G. 12291.
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Heavy-duty engine manufacturers
Office of Management and Budget
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
NPRM to OMB: October 1988
Publish NPRM: November 1988
Publish FRM: January 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R. Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Richard D. Wilson, Director, Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Page 8-20 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-21
AIR EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR HOSPITAL INCINERATORS (Policy)
BACKGROUND: As a result of recent Incidents, there Is growing public concern about the lack of
Federal standards for the treatment and disposal of medical wastes. Many states are placing more em-
phasis on incineration of these wastes as an alternative. However, there are potential environmental
problems associated with incineration. Including emissions of toxic organics. hydrogen chloride, toxic
metals, and pathogens. Presently, there Is little available information about air emissions, risks, or
control technology for these incinerators.
CURRENT STATUS: The Agency's Medical Waste Task Force work plan provides that by December
1988. EPA will decide If new Federal rules to control air emissions from hospital Incinerators are
needed. The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) has conducted public education and
technology transfer activities on hospital waste Incineration. In May 1988, OAQPS conducted two na-
tional workshops on hospital waste incineration. OAQPS Is also preparing a training course for
operators of hospital Incinerators. Finally. OAQPS is developing a hospital incinerator Inspection
manual to Instruct State and local agency personnel on how to properly conduct compliance/
enforcement inspections. These activities are also being used to satisfy the terms of a 1988 consent
decree with the Environmental Defense Fund regarding regulation of dioxin emissions.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
The American Hospital Association
Waste Combustion Equipment Council
Environmental Defense Fund
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Hospital Waste Combustion Risk Assessment Report. December 1988
Hospital Incineration Inspection Manual. December 1988
Decision on need for Federal regulations, December 1988
Development of Operator Training Manual and Training Course, March 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Gerald Emison, Director. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
-------
Page 8-22 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-23
INDOOR AIR
BACKGROUND: Indoor air pollution is an emerging concern because higher concentrations of many
pollutants are found indoors rather than outdoors and because people spend about 90% of their time
indoors.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The EPA position to date has been that Title IV of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorlzation Act gives the Agency adequate non-regulatory authority
and that current resources are sufficient, given the need to apportion available resources among a
number of serious air quality problems. With the Agency's current understanding of indoor air quality
problems and the needs of the public in responding to these problems, EPA policy makers may decide
to reevaluate the Agency's position on the need for additional indoor air legislation.
MAJOR PLAYERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Members of Congress
Major public health organizations
Unions
State and local officials
ACTION DATE
December 30, 1988 is the deadline for the second report to Congress required by SARA Title IV.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• David Dull, Director, Office of Atmospheric and Indoor Air Programs
-------
Page 8-24 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-25
PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTES (LLW)
BACKGROUND: The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaklng for EPA's Standards for Low-Level Ra-
dioactive Waste Disposal was issued In August 1983. Since that time, the Agency has performed a com-
prehensive risk assessment which was reviewed by EPA's Science Advisory Board. The scope of the
standard has been broadened to Include "Below Regulatory Concern" (BRC) criteria, predlsposal
operational standards, groundwater protection standards, and inclusion of high activity. Naturally-
occurring and Accelerator-produced Radioactive Materials (NARM) disposal standards.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: This standard exercises EPA's Atomic Energy Act (AEA)
authority to set generally applicable radiation standards.The Notice of Proposed Rulemaklng (NPRM)
has cleared Red Border review and is now under review at OMB. At a preliminary meeting with OMB
September 30, 1988. questions concerning the need for the proposed groundwater protection
standards were raised. EPA is to provide further Information to OMB and seek resolution of OMB's
concerns.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances - We are using TSCA to regulate NARM;
Office of Water- Proposal contains two options for groundwater standards;
NRC/DOE - Federal agencies that Implement the AEA authority;
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors - Represents interests of States.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Publish NPRM - January 31. 1989
Public Hearings - June 26, 1989
Submit FRM to Work Group - May 1, 199O
Publish FRM - August 19, 1991
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Richard J. Gulmond. Director, Office of Radiation Programs
-------
Page 8-26 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-27
MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION (MWC)
BACKGROUND: Municipal solid waste (MSW) combustion Is Increasingly Important in the overall
management of MSW in the U.S. Presently, 160 combustors Incinerate nearly 6 percent of the Nation's
refuse, with another 200 facilities expected by the mid-1990s. The overall growth prompts major
concerns about air pollution. MSW incinerators release particulate matter, carbon monoxide, heavy
metals, acid gases (sulfur oxides and hydrogen chloride), and toxic organics Including dioxins. In 1986,
an environmental group and three states petitioned for regulation of MWC. In June 1987, EPA issued
a major MWC study as a Report to Congress, followed by an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking
of MWC under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) In July 1987. Concurrently with the Federal
Register notice, the Agency issued operational guidance to the EPA Regional Offices and States on
appropriate air pollution control requirement for new MWCs.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA Is developing new source standards for MWC, written
so as to invoke Section 111 (d) of the CAA. This section will require States to develop emission standards
for existing MWC based on EPA guidelines. The evaluation of regulatory alternatives for both new and
existing MWC's and the performance of regulatory impact analyses are also underway.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
David Doniger, Natural Resources Defense Council
George Mitchell, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
James Florio. House of Representatives
Thomas Allen, American Society of Mechanical Engineers
David Gatton, Natural Resource Recovery Association
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Decision briefing Spring 89
Propose NSPS and existing source guideline by November 1989
Final by December 1990
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Gerald Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
-------
Page 8-28 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-29
DECISION ON THE ROLE OF
THE NATIONAL ACID PRECIPITATION ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (NAPAP)
IN RESOLVING ACID RAIN SCIENTIFIC AND POLICY ISSUES
BACKGROUND: The purpose of NAPAP. a ten-year research program authorized In 1980 legislation.
Is to examine the causes and effects of acid precipitation and make recommendatlonsss to Congress.
NAPAP's work is carried out by twelve federal agencies and the four national laboratories. Approxi-
mately $400 million of research has been funded under the program. NAPAP's final Integrated
Assessment is due out in September 1990.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The first question Is: what Is the proper forum for discussing
the policy Implications of the NAPAP work -- NAPAP Itself, the Joint Chairs Council, or the Domestic
Policy Council? EPA needs to decide : a) how policy-oriented the "integrated" assessment ought to be;
b) whether the Joint Chairs Council should take a technical assessment and develop policy
recommendations; or, c) whether the policy analyses should be left to member agencies to perform, and
discussed at the Cabinet level. The second question is: should EPA continue to wait for NAPAP's final
assessment, or act on the information currently available to us. The third question is: what happens
when NAPAP officially ends In 1990?
MAJOR PLATERS
James Mahoney, Director of Research at NAPAP
Department of Energy
Department of the Interior
Department of Agriculture
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
ACTION DATE
June 1989 mid-course review on scope of Integrated Assessment
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Eileen Claussen, David Dull. Courtney Riordan, Office of Atmospheric and Indoor Air Programs
-------
Page 8-30 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-31
NOISE REGULATIONS
(CITIZEN SUIT, INDUSTRY, AND LEGISLATION)
BACKGROUND: In September 1982, EPA closed its Office of Noise Abatement and Control (ONAR) for
budgetary reasons. However, closure did not include recission of existing noise regulations, with-
drawal of proposed regulations, or withdrawal' of a list of products Identified by EPA as major noise
sources under the authority of sections 5, 6,8, 17 and 18 of the Noise Control Act as amended by the
Quiet Communities Act of 1978 (PL 95-609).
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Citizen Suit: On June 15. 1988, Jeffrey A. Garrety filed suit
on behalf of John J. Ross, Jr., against Administrator Lee M. Thomas and Transportation Secretary
James H. Burnley IV, alleging both officials failed to perform nondiscretionary duties under the Noise
Control Act (NCA). The suit also alleges "arbitrary and capricious actions or inactions."
Incomplete Regulatory Actions:
o Proposed noise emission standards for Wheel Tractors; Crawler Tractors:
and Buses
o Noise emission standards for products identified as major sources of noise
per Section 5(b)(l) of the NCA.
Revisions of Regulations:
o Medium and heavy truck noise standards: test conditions
o Hearing protector labeling: measurement method and rating verification
Enforcement Action: The Federal Trade Commission has requested that EPA Investigate alleged false
labeling of hearing protectors.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Congressmen Florio and Dingell requested GAO report on EPA's Implementation of the Noise
Control Act. The Report is anticipated December 1988.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
None
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R. Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
-------
Page 8-32 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-33
NUCLEAR ACCIDENT RESPONSE
BACKGROUND: A major EPA mission Is to reduce risks from exposure to radiation from accidental
releases of radioactive materials. EPA must respond to radiological emergencies in support of the
Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP). Under this plan, EPA is responsible for
assessing the nature and extent of radiation hazards and providing guidance to the States on levels
of radiation in the environment at which emergency and other actions should be taken.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: While EPA's response to Chernobyl was adequate, the event
raised the question of whether EPA Is sufficiently prepared to deal with an event with widespread
radiation contamination In the U.S. This concern was again highlighted as EPA prepared to respond
to the potential reentry of the Soviet satellite COSMOS 1900. It Is essential that EPA's base emergency
response program be expanded in order for the Agency to fully respond to a radiological emergency.
The Office of Radiation Programs has developed a nuclear accident response strategy which Identifies
four key components of an effective response program: monitoring and assessment; response
capability development; policy development; and coordination. The strategy further outlines program-
matic needs to strengthen each of these areas. The Agency has made modest progress in Implementing
this strategy to-date.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
State and local governments.
Federal Radiological Preparedness Coordinating Committee (FRPCC).
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
None
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Richard J. Guimond, Director, Office of Radiation Programs
-------
Page 8-34 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-35
STRASTOSPHERIC OZONE PROTECTION
BACKGROUND: In response to Initial concerns about ozone depletion. In 1978 EPA prohibited the
use of CFCs in most aerosol propellents. While several nations followed our lead, other uses of
CFCs continued to grow substantially both here and abroad.
In 1982 the United Nations Environment Programs (UNEP) initiated negotiations for an interna-
tional response to this problem. Following extended negotiation, the Vienna Convention for the
Protection of the Ozone Layer was signed in March 1985 and the Montreal Protocol on Substances
that Deplete the Ozone Layer was agreed to in September 1987.
CURRENT STATUS: The Montreal Protocol calls for a 50 percent reduction in CFCs from 1986
baseline levels phased in over ten years and a freeze on halons, which are used as a fire exten-
guisher and also deplete ozone, beginning in 1992.
The current UNEP schedule calls for the Parties to hold their first meeting in April 1989 and for the
negotiations on possible changes to the control provisions to conclude by April 1990.
Final domestic regulations implementing the Montreal Protocol were published on August 12,
1988. This regulation allows current CFC producers to continue production but at reduced levels
based on the Protocol's phase-down schedule.
One major issue which results from this regulatory approach is the large "windfall profits" that are
likely to accrue to the seven CFC and halon producers. These wind-falls result from the higher
CFC prices paid by firms buying these chemicals from the producers who can only produce a
limited supply due to EPA regulations.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
None
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Eileen Claussen, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• David Dull, Director, Office of Atmospheric and Indoor Air Programs
-------
Page 8-36 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-37
PROPOSAL OF PM10 INCREMENTS (POLICY DECISION)
BACKGROUND: On July 1, 1987, EPA revised the national air quality standards (NAAQS) for
particulate matter from total suspended partlculates (TSP) to PM10. that Is, particles of smaller
size that are more dangerous to human health. The revision of the standard prompted EPA to
consider revision of the particulate matter "Increments". Congress established increments for
sulfur dioxide and particulate matter as part of the program to prevent significant air quality dete-
rioration (PSD). The Clean Air Act sets forth a procedure for developing new increments, which
requires increments of a stringency equivalent to the increments previously established by Con-
gress. EPA concluded that it could use the statutory procedure for new PM10 increments If the
new increments were equivalent to the existing statutory TSP increments.
CURRENT STATUS: EPA has a work group which has formulated PM10 Increments which are
considered to be equivalent in effect to the original TPS Increments. It is anticipated that the work
group proposal will be reviewed by Agency management by the end of 1988.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Natural Resources Defense Council
State and Local Air Pollution Control Agencies
American Mining Congress
American Petroleum Institute
American Iron and Steel Institute
Utility Air Regulatory Group
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Publish Proposal in Federal Register - May 1989
Publish Final Rule - April 1990
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Gerald A. Emlson, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
-------
Page 8-38 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-39
PM10 NONATTAINMENT
BACKGROUND: In July 1987. EPA published new standards to deal with airborne particulates.
Standards in effect since 1971 for total suspended particulates (TSP) covered particulates of all kinds
and sizes. The new standards are based on paniculate matter smaller than ten microns in size (PM10).
These smaller particles pose a greater health threat because of their propensity to become lodged in
the lungs. States were also required to revise their implementation plans to account for the change
toPMlO.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: States are currently developing plans to meet attainment with
the new standards in three to five years. It is estimated that about 25 areas, primarily in the West, will
not be able to show attainment primarily as a result of area sources such as fugitive dust, wood smoke,
and transformed sulfur and nitrogen oxides emissions. Deficiencies in the current law with respect
to sanctions will make it difficult to force state action and may ultimately lead to court mandates to
EPA to develop Federal Implementation Plans.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Representatives Henry Waxman (CA) and John Dingell (MI)
David Doniger - Natural Resources Defense Council
William Becker - STAPPA/ALAPCO
Carter Keithley - Wood Heating Alliance
William Sommers - National Wildfire Coordinating Group
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
State Implementation Plans due on various dates in 1988 and 1989 will require action: CAA
Amendments in the next Congressional session could potentially addresss the PM10 issue.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R. Clay. Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
-------
Page 8-40 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-41
RADON LEGISLATION
BACKGROUND: In 1984, extremely high levels of radon, a naturally- occurring radioactive gas that
causes lung cancer, were discovered In residences In Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey. Since
then, elevated levels have been found In almost every State. EPA estimates that about 20,000 lung
cancer deaths each year are attributable to Indoor radon, and that as many as eight million (about
10 percent of homes) In this country may have radon levels over EPA's guidance level of 4 picocuries
per liter. When high levels of Indoor radon were first Identified, there were no Federal. State or local
programs to address this serious problem. The Agency determined that the best way to reduce risks
was action at the State and local level, so EPA established a partnership with the States and the private
sector to develop necessary programs. In September 1985, EPA established the Radon Action Program.
It is a non-regulatory technical assistance program, consisting of both research and operational
components Including problem assessment, mitigation and prevention. State and private sector
capability development, public Information, and federal coordination activities. As part of this
program. EPA has undertaken a broad range of activities:
o Issued standardized measurement protocols
o developed national and regional geologic maps to help identify areas with
potential radon problems
o published the "Citizen's Guide to Radon." a guidance document for the
general public
o developed cost-effective mitigation techniques
o provided classroom and field training in radon mitigation
o assisted States with radon surveys
o developed guidance for radon reduction in new construction
o operated a radon measurement proficiency program.
The Agency recently released the results of the 1988 State Survey Program, announcing that one in
three homes in the seven States surveyed have screening radon levels above 4 pCi/L. The U.S. Public
Health Service Joined in the announcement, issuing a National Health Advisory on indoor radon. EPA
also made a recommendation that most homes across the country should be tested for radon.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS:
Legislative History
o In 1987. Senator Mitchell (D-ME) Introduced the State Radon Program Development Act
(S. 744). Soon after. Congressman Luken (D-OH) introduced a companion bill (H.R
2837) in the House. Both bills generally dovetailed with EPA's existing program, but
added Important new activities and authorizations.
o The Administration supported S. 744 which passed the Senate unanimously on July 8.
1987.
-------
Page 8-42 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
o Congressman Waxman (D-CA) delayed the bill for nearly a year in an effort to include
language requiring EPA to establish a national health-based standard for radon. EPA
maintained that a standard was premature and technologically infeasible. The bill now
contains Legislative History compromise language establishing a national long-term
goal that indoor air be as free of radon as the ambient air outside of buildings.
Current Status
o The House passed its bill on October 5.1988; the Senate voted to accept the House language
and passed the bill on Octobers. 1988. The President is expected to sign the legislation
before November.
Key Provisions of Radon Legislation
The bill authorizes:
o $10 million a year for FY 89-91 for EPA to provide grants to help States establish radon
programs.
o $3 million a year for FY 89-91 for EPA to provide technical assistance to State radon
programs.
o $1 million for EPA to conduct a study of radon in the nation's schools, and an additional
$500,000 to undertake diagnostic and remedial efforts in schools.
o $1.5 million for EPA to establish proficiency programs for firms offering radon-related
services, including testing and mitigation. Authorizes a user fee to defray cost of
proficiency programs.
o $ 1 million ayear for FY 89-91 for EPA grants to universities to establish at least three regional
training centers.
o EPA to develop model construction standards and techniques.
o EPA to update the Citizen's Guide to Radon
o Federal Agencies and Departments to study radon in Federal buildings
MAJOR PLAYERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Congress:
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee
House Energy and Commerce Committee
House Science and Technology Committee
Other Groups:
Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors
National Association of Realtors
National Association of Home Builders
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-43
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
o Congress earmarked $1.5 million of our FY 89 appropriation to implement regional training centers
and a mitigation contractor proficiency program.
o We do not expect to receive additional appropriations in FY 89 for other new activities authorized
in the bill. As a result, only limited implementation of those activities will be possible. We plan
to implement the following activities in FY 89:
GRANTS: Involve EPA Regional offices and States in developing draft criteria for evaluation of State
applications.
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: Continue current activities in radon Information, mitigation demonstra-
tion programs, assistance with State program development and State radon surveys; establish a
national radon database: Initiate feasibility study of radon Information clearinghouse; establish a
contractor proficiency program.
SCHOOLS: Continue work to establish protocols for radon measurements in schools and develop
interim guidance for mitigation to assist in implementing the school study. Identify high probabil-
ity areas and initiate development of the school survey design.
MODEL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS: Continue working with the National Association of Home
Builders to develop model construction standards and techniques.
UPDATE CITIZEN'S GUIDE: Begin to study the relationship between short and long-term radon
measurements and the health effects at various radon concentrations to incorporate this information
in the revised Citizen's Guide.
REGIONAL TRAINING CENTERS: Establish 3 regional training centers. When additional resources
become available, we plan to undertake several other activities required by the legislation. A detailed
implementation plan is being developed, Including specific milestones and deadlines. The plan should
be available In early November.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don Clay. Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Richard J. Gulmond, Director, Office of Radiation Programs
-------
Page 8-44 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-45
REVISED LIGHT-DUTY TRUCK EMISSION STANDARDS
BACKGROUND: Revised Light-Duty Trucks (LOT) are comprised of trucks up to 8500 Ib. gross
weight and are divided Into two classes: those up to and Including 3750 Ib. loaded weight (LDT1)
and those over 3750 Ib. loaded weight (LDT2). Presently the emission standards for both catego-
ries are the same, with stringency of the standards being based on the heavier category. In
September 1986, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) was published announcing
that EPA was considering more stringent hydrocarbon (HC) standards for both categories, with
the possibility of new standards for LDT1 being tighter than for LDT2. In the ANPRM. EPA also
took comments on the need for and feasibility of tighter LDT carbon monoxide (CO) standards.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA is currently finalizing a Notice of Proposed Rulemak-
ing (NPRM) for more stringent HC and CO standards for LDT. The approach being taken is to set
standards that will result in the existing emission control technology used for passenger cars
being applied to LDT.
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED
Motor vehicle manufacturers
State and local air pollution control agencies
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
NPRM to Red Border December 1988
NPRM to OMB: January 1989
Publish NPRM: March 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Richard D. Wilson. Director, Office of Mobile Sources
-------
Page 8-46 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-47
SMALL BOILERS NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)
BACKGROUND: The small boiler NSPS is being developed under a court order (D.C. District
Court, Civil Action #84-0352. September 4. 1985). This court order directs EPA to publish pro-
posed standards by June 1, 1989. and final standards by September 1. 1990.
Boilers are a major stationary source of particulate matter (PM). nitrogen oxides (NOx). and sulfur
dioxide (SO2) emissions. The NSPS regulatory program has subdivided boilers into three subcate-
gories: (1) utility boilers; (2) industrial boilers; and (3) small boilers. Standards for utility boilers
were promulgated in 1971. and were subsequently revised and made more stringent in 1979.
Standards for industrial boilers were promulgated in 1986 (PM/NOx emissions) and 1987 (SO2
emissions).
CURRENT STATUS: The major issues in this rule pertain to the degree of control required and
the scope of the standard (i.e.. lower size cut-off). A regulatory package will be ready for internal
Agency review by February 1989. Even if all major issues are resolved, the normal time frames for
internal Agency review will have accelerated in order to comply with the court- ordered deadline for
proposal.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Boiler Manufacturers
Environmental Groups
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Decision Briefing for Administrator - November 1988
Proposed Rule (court-ordered date) - June 1, 1989
Final Rule (court-ordered date) - September 1, 1990
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
-------
Page 8-48 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-49
STACK HEIGHT REGULATIONS
BACKGROUND: Concentrations of pollution In the ambient air can be reduced In two ways: by
reducing emissions or by dispersing the pollutants over a wider area, e.g., through a tall stack.
Clean Air Act section 123 limits the extent to which stationary sources may rely on dispersion in
lieu of constant emissions control to attain national ambient air quality standards. Specifically,
section 123 limits credit for stack height In setting emission limits to a height regarded as "good
engineering practice" and limits reliance on other techniques that can Increase pollutant disper-
sion as well.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Rules promulgated by EPA to Implement section 123 were
modified in 1985 to respond to Sierra Club v. EPA, 719 F.2d 436 (D.C. Clr. 1983). In NRDC v.
Thomas. 838 F.2d 1224 (D.C. Clr. 1988). the U.S. Court of Appeals again remanded certain provi-
sions for further review and revision as necessary. Several Industry petitioners unsuccessfully
sought Supreme Court review of this decision. EPA staff are presently evaluating options for
developing proposed revisions to the rules.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Environmental Groups: Natural Resources Defense Council (David G. Hawkins and Richard Ayres),
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc. (Howard Fox)
Industrial Groups:
Utility Air Regulatory Group (represented by Hunton & Williams. Henry V. Nickel and
F. William Brownell),
American Electric Power Company (Jeffrey White. Assistant General Counsel)
Congressional Representatives: Senator Robert Byrd, WV; Representative Alan Mollohan, West
Virginia; Representative Douglas Applegate. Ohio
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
None
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don Clay, Asslsant Administator for Air and Radiation
• Gerald A, Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards.
-------
Page 8-50 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-51
REPROMULGATION OF SUBPART B OF 40 CFR PART 191, (ENVIRONMENTAL
STANDARDS FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL OF SPENT NUCLEAR
FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL AND TRANSURANIC RADIOACTIVE WASTES)
BACKGROUND: The Environmental Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent Nu-
clear Fuel, High-Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes" were promulgated on August 15,
1985, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. Several States and environmental groups
filed suits in Federal Courts on a variety of grounds. The First Circuit Court issued its ruling in
July 1987. The rule was remanded for further consideration and either revision or reproposal of
Sections 191.15 and 191.16 which deal with ground-water protection and individual exposure. An
appeal was made to reinstate all of the rule except the two sections. In September 1987, the Court
did reinstate Subpart A but left Subpart B remanded.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: This rulemaking is mandated by the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act of 1982 as one of the keystones of the U.S. high:level radioactive waste disposal program. The
repromulgatlon is necessary in response to a ruling in September 1987 by the U.S. Court of Ap-
peals for the First Circuit.
Comments on the proposed 40 CFR Part 191 requested ground-water protection limits and individ-
ual dose limits. Many comments were received requesting such provisions. Promulgated 40 CFR
Part 191 included such provisions in Sections 191.15 and 191.16.
The Court found that the disposal of wastes in a mined, geological repository may constutute
underground injection under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and there was no consideration
of this aspect in the proposed rule. The Court also found that there was insufficient justification of
the 1,000-year time limit on doses In Sections 191.15 and 191.16. Finally, the Court held that
there was Insufficient opportunity for notice and comment for Section 191.16.
The project is funded for FY 1989 at a level of $1.3 million. Work is centering on establishing the
Agency workgroup and arranging for technical contract work.
-------
Page 8-52 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Congress
States, particularly New Mexico and Nevada
U.S. Department of Energy and Nuclear Regulatory Commission
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Proposed rule in Federal Register - November 1989
Final Rule in Federal Register - September 1991
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Richard J. Guimond Director, Office of Radiation Programs
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-53
FT 1989 STATE/EPA RADON SURVEY ANNOUNCEMENT
BACKGROUND: EPA estimates that as many as 20.000 lung cancer deaths each year are attrib-
utable to radon and 10 percent or 8 million homes have annual average levels above the 4 pCi/L
action level. The Office of Radiation Programs established the State/EPA Radon Survey Program to
help States identify high radon risk areas and estimate State-wide frequency distributions of
screening levels.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: To date, approximately 23,000 measurements have been
made in 17 States and about 25 percent of the measurements exceeded EPA's guideline of 4 pCl/L.
The surveys also Identified high risk areas in several States. This September, EPA and the Public
Health Service Issued a national health advisory and urged that most homes in this country be
tested for radon. In FY 1989, eight States and two Indian nations are participating in the State/
EPA Radon Survey Program.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Congress and the States
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Oct-Nov 1988 -- Training for State Officials
Dec-Apr 1989 — Place radon detectors
May-Aug 1989 - Analyze data
Aug 1989 - Announce survey results
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Richard J. Gulmond. Director. Office of Radiation Programs
-------
Page 8-54 Office of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Air and Radiation Page 8-55
COURT ORDER REMANDING PORTIONS OF STANDARDS ON UMTRCA-
TITLEI URANIUM MILL TAILINGS SITES.
BACKGROUND: The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) directs EPA
to set standards for disposal and cleanup of tailings at 24 inactive uranium mill sites. On Janu-
ary 5. 1983. EPA promulgated standards. These were challenged in the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals and on September 3. 1985, the court dismissed all challenges except one. It set aside the
ground-water provisions and remanded them to EPA. On September 24. 1987. EPA proposed new
standards to replace those remanded.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: A public hearing was held In Durango. Colorado, on
October 29, 1987. The public record for comments on the proposed standard was not closed until
January 29. 1988. Final standards are in the final steps of development
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Environmental Defense Fund
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Department of Energy
American Mining Congress
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Publish FRM In Federal Register April 12, 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Don R Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
• Richard J. Guimond, Director, Office of Radiation Programs
-------
Page 8-56 Qffke of Air and Radiation Significant National Issues
-------
PESTICIDES &
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Page 9-1
ASBESTOS HAZARD AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACT (AHERA)
BACKGROUND: The Asbestos Hazard and Emergency Response Act (AHERA) requires school districts
to Inspect 107,000 public and private elementary and secondary schools and develop plans to man-
age asbestos found In school buildings. AHERA also requires that persons hired to conduct Inspec-
tions or develop plans must be accredited by EPA or the State because poorly conducted Inspections
may miss the presence of asbestos material and poorly conducted abatement work may cause more
exposures than leaving the material in place. Congress has been very involved in this issue, passing
AHERA unanimously in 1986, and amending it In 1988 to extend the Inspection and planning deadlines
for schools.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: According to the law, by October 12.1988, schools must have
inspected and developed asbestos management plans, or requested from the State a deferral of that
deadline until May 9, 1989. That means that schools will have a maximum of 18 months to complete
inspections and management plans for every school with asbestos. Plans must be submitted to state
governors.
EPA has had Just over 18 months to set up accreditation courses and begin accrediting people but has
produced over 20,000 accredited persons. Due to the speed with which this program has been set up,
questions have been raised concerning the quality of some of these courses or accredited persons.
Congressional hearings are likely on the number and quality of accredited professionals under the EPA
program early in the next session.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS:
Rep. Mike Synar
Rep. James J Florio
Rep. Thomas A. Luken
National School Boards Association
National Parent Teacher Association
Environmental Defense Fund
Service Employees International Union
National Education Association
Asbestos contractors
-------
Page 9-2 Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Management Plans or deferral requests due to state governors October 12, 1988
States provide EPA with status of submissions from all schools December 31, 1988
"Deferred" Management Plans due May 9, 1989
Management Plans to be implemented July 9, 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Susan Vogt. Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator. Office of Pesticides arid Toxic Substances
• Charles Elkins, Director, Office of Toxic Substances
• A. E. Conroy II, Director, Office of Compliance Monitoring
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Page 9-3
ASBESTOS BAN/PHASE DOWN IMPLEMENTATION
BACKGROUND: In 1986, EPA proposed a rule to significantly reduce occupational and consumer
exposure to asbestos through a comprehensive ban and phase out of commercial products contain-
ing asbestos fibers. Because of the commercial Importance of asbestos, this action (now in final rule-
making) has generated intensive scrutiny and active comment from Industry, Congress, environmental
groups, and the Executive Branch.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA expects to promulgate a final rule Involving a staged ban
of many, but not all. asbestos products. The rule would include a system for possible temporary
exemptions for discrete uses of otherwise banned products if effective substitutes are not available. The
final rule is scheduled for Administrator's signature in January, 1989. The Office of Toxic Substances
is preparing an implementation plan for the rule.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
The Asbestos Institute and the Asbestos Information Association/North America strongly oppose any
ban of asbestos or asbestos products as does the government of Canada, a major asbestos producer.
Environmental groups strongly support the proposed ban, especially the Environmental Defense Fund
and the Natural Resources Defense Council. Producers of substitute products such as the Asbestos
Free Gasket Group and the Alternative Materials Institute have become more active. Rep. Dlngell ID-
MI) supports the proposed rulemaking and has opposed modifications by the Office of Management and
Budget.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
The rule is currently scheduled to enter final EPA review and to be sent to OMB In October, 1988.
The rule Is expected to be signed in January, 1989.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Victor J. Kimm, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
• Charles Elkins, Director, Office of Toxic Substances
-------
Page 9-4 Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Page 9-5
ASBESTOS TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL
BACKGROUND: EPA Is required by the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) of 1986
to promulgate rules to govern the transport and disposal of asbestos from any of the 107.000 school
buildings with asbestos abatement projects. This is Important because fiber release during transport
and disposal could cause exposure to this known human carcinogen.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: In October 1987, EPA promulgated its AHERA schools rule
for all sections except transport and disposal. The reason for this omission was that EPA was already
regulating asbestos transport and disposal from all buildings -- Including schools -- under Section 112
of the Clean Air Act. the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs).
Furthermore, EPA's Air Program was in the process of updating and expanding its asbestos NESHAP
requirements. Unfortunately, court action on the general NESHAP process delayed the asbestos
NESHAP significantly.
The asbestos NESHAP revision Is now moving again and has been modified into two packages -- an
"accelerated" rule (which increases the stringency of current standards), for near-term proposal, and
a "risk management" rule (which would set new standards) to follow later. In May. 1988, EPA was
criticized by Rep. Mike Synar, Subcommittee on Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources,
Committee on Government Operations, for both the lack of adequate disposal and transport
requirements for schools and the pace of finalizing even the accelerated rule. He promised additional
hearings to track this issue.
The delays in NESHAP promulgation have raised the Issue of whether OPTS/OTS should promulgate
an AHERA transport and disposal rule of Its own pertaining Just to schools. On September 21, 1988,
the Deputy Administrator decided to use Joint NESHAP/AHERA authority to pursue the "accelerated"
rule for all buildings including schools. This option has many benefits: it utilizes a single effort and
office (the Office of Air and Radiation) to accomplish EPA's obligation under two laws; it ensures
consistent coverage for all buildings, thus avoiding the confusion to the regulated community; and It
utilizes the AHERA authority as a "safety net" for school promulgation In case a subsequent challenge
jeopardizes NESHAP authority.
-------
Page 9-6 Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Significant National Issues
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
State and local governments
Building and transport contractors
Building owners (particularly schools)
Landfill operators
Rep. Mike Synar
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
The proposal of the asbestos NESHAP accelerated rule is expected in December 1988 to become final
by February 1990. It is not possible to determine when the asbestos NESHAP risk management rule
may be promulgated, as the Agency Is still trying to determine the best approach for such rulemakings.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Susan F. Vogt. Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
• Charles Elkins, Director. Office of Toxic Substances
• Gerald Emison. Director. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Page 9-7
DIOXIN CONTAMINATION OF INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS
BACKGROUND: Chlorinated dibenzodioxins ("dioxlns'T are among the most potent chemical toxicants
known. Dloxin contamination of Agent Orange, a defoliant used in the Vietnam War. has been the
source of major public concerns and lawsuits. Many industrial chemicals are manufactured by
processes that could cause them to be contaminated with impurities of dioxins or related chemicals.
In settlement of a petition and lawsuit by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). EPA has required
industry to test a number of chemicals for dioxins and dioxin-like impurities and has agreed to a
procedure and schedule for evaluating the resulting data to determine whether the products need to
be regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act fTSCA). The first industry data are due to be
submitted to EPA in July 1989 and the Agency will have to make a decision by December 1989.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA's dioxin/furan (DF) test rule requires manufacturers of
a specific list of industrial chemicals to test their products for DF contamination and report the results
to EPA on a specific schedule. EPA's settlement agreement with EDF allows the Agency 6 months after
receiving the data on each chemical to evaluate the data and do one of the following:
find the test data inadequate and require further testing
publish a finding that the impurity levels found do not pose an
unacceptable risk, or
begin a risk assessment and regulatory process to address the product's
risks.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Pesticide manufacturers
Brominated flame retardant manufacturers
Environmental Defense Fund
Greenpeace
-------
Page 9-8
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Industry submits data on chlorinated dloxlns and furans
EPA decision to Issue negative determination or start
risk assessment and regulatory analysis.
Industry submits data on bromlnated dloxlns and furans.
EPA decision to issue negative determination or start
risk assessment and regulatory analysis.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
July 1989
December 1989
July 199O
December 1990
Susan F. Vogt. Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
• Charles Elklns, Director. Office of Toxic Substances
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Page 9-9
FIFRA REAUTHORIZATION
BACKGROUND: Amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) were
passed In 1988. Several major Issues were so controversial that they were dropped from the final bill.
These Issues may be the subject of further Congressional action. They are: protecting groundwater
from pesticide contamination, liability for damages caused by pesticides, data compensation, and
patent term restoration.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Major Issues Involved In the protection of ground water from
contamination due to pesticide use Include protection level (should EPA be responsible for responding
to Individual contaminated wells), which waters to protect, and the level of State involvement. The
liability of farmers, for damages caused by lawful pesticide and cleanup costs under Superfund and/
or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). use Is of concern. Farm organizations argue
that individual agricultural users should not be held liable as long as the pesticide use Is lawful.
Controversy centers on the definition of proper use. and the limits of liability protection. Another issue
is compensation for shared use of pesticide registration data when a product's patent has expired.
involving a determination of appropriate compensation for the owner of the data used by a subsequent
registrant to gain market entry.
Left unresolved was a proposal to extend the duration of patent protection for new pesticide active
ingredients to take Into account the fact that companies cannot earn a return on the patented pesticides
during the period of regulatory review before marketing Is allowed. By extending the period of exclusive
marketing rights, patent term extension would reward product Innovators with longer opportunities
to reap returns for their efforts. Legislative proposals were made to require and Inspect records relating
to laboratory data submitted to the Agency.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
National Agricultural Chemicals Association
American Farm Bureau Federation
Chemical Producers and Distributors Association
Environmental Policy Institute
National Wildlife Federation
National Resources Defense Council
National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides
National Public Interest Research Group
The Audubon Society
The National Governors Association
Chemical Specialty Manufacturers Association
-------
Page 9-10 Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Possible Congressional action in 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Victor J. Kimm, Acting Assistant Administrator. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
• Douglas Campt. Director, Office of Pesticide Programs
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Page 9-11
REVISION OF GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICES (GLP) REGULATIONS
UNDER THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE , FUNGICIDE, AND RODENTICIDE
ACT (FIFRA) AND THE TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA)
BACKGROUND: Promulgation of final GLP regulations is essential because the 1988 Amendments
to FIFRA require that existing guidelines for data adequacy be reassessed and revised. Without
final revised standards. EPA will not be able to meet some of the new statutory deadlines for
determining the adequacy of pesticide test data. GLP standards specify practices that must be
followed and records that must be maintained by developers and submitters of data to EPA to
ensure the quality and integrity of data. EPA originally promulgated GLPs in November 1983. In
December 1987. EPA published a proposed revision to TSCA and FIFRA GLPs. These revisions
proposed to expand the scope of testing that Is covered by GLPs to Include environmental fate and
ecological effects testing, among others. The Agency proposed additional revisions to make the
GLPs consistent with those recently promulgated by the Food and Drug Administration.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The public comment period on the proposed rule closed
3/28/87. The workgroup has been meeting to discuss and respond to public comments and the
Office of Compliance Monitoring (OCM) is drafting the final rule, preamble and response to public
comment. The Regulatory Impact Analysis is being revised by OPP and GTS to reflect changes
from the proposed to the final rule.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Food and Drug Administration
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Draft final regulation to be submitted to the Assistant Administrator, OPTS November, 1988
Final regulation anticipated January, 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Victor J. Kimm, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
• A. E. Conroy II, Director, Office of Compliance Monitoring
-------
Page 9-12 Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Page 9-13
LEAD PAINT ABATEMENT
BACKGROUND: A recent U.S. Public Health Service report found that the Nation's children are at
significant risk of adverse health effects due to lead poisoning. The lead level in blood at which children
are believed to be at risk has dropped sharply due to new scientific findings. Now that lead in gasoline
has been decreased, lead-based paint and dust from paint Is believed to be the primary source of
exposure for children.
The EPA/HUD Appropriations Bill of August 3. 1988 requires that EPA and HUD negotiate a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dividing responsibilities for lead paint abatement and report
the new division of responsibilities to Congress by April 1. 1989. There are indications that the House
Banking Committee (with Jurisdiction over HUD) Intends to pursue the transfer of responsibilities to
EPA in the next session. However, adequate authority exists In HUD statutes and HUD has taken
recent steps to meet Congressional mandates while developing lead expertise. OTS presently lacks the
resources to easily assume such as responsibility.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The Congress, apparently dissatisfied with HUD's progress
on this Issue, appears interested in shifting increased responsibility for a national control program to
EPA. EPA does have experience and expertise based on the asbestos in schools program which may
be directly relevant to the lead based paint Issues. This Includes technical expertise in monitoring and
detection setting clean-up, standards and building the infrastructure of state/local officials, trained
and accredited professional, and knowledgeable building owners to carry out a self-sustaining and
effective program.
HUD and the Office of Toxic Substances staff have identified areas of technical and manage-
rial assistance which may be covered in the MOU: accreditation of abatement personnel, establish-
ment of training and information centers, intergovernmental relations, identification of gaps in existing
technical standards, new technical standard-setting, and public outreach and education. HUD asked
as well that the two agencies consider the adequacy of existing authorities and whether there is a Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) role. Other EPA programs which may become Involved are air
regulation and contract laboratory management.
-------
Page 9-14 Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Significant National Issues
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
House Banking Committee
House Appropriations Committee
HUD
National Bureau of Standards
National Institute of Building Sciences
State and local governments, especially New York State. Baltimore City, and Massachusetts.
Advocacy groups for children and for public housing.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Memorandum of Understanding due to Congress on April 1, 1989.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Susan Vogt, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
• Charles Elklns. Director, Office of Toxic Substances
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Page 9-15
ADDITIONS TO THE LIST OP REPORTABLE SUBSTANCES UNDER
SECTION 313 OP SARA TITLE
BACKGROUND: The Superfund Amendments, and Reauthortzation Act (SARA) Title m. Section 313.
provides a list of over 300 chemicals. Any manufacturer or user of these chemicals has to report every
year to EPA the annual aggregate releases of chemical emissions to the land, water, and air. This
emissions data is available to the public as the Toxic Release Inventory. Section 313 allows EPA to
add or delete chemicals to the list of toxic chemicals subject to annual release reporting. Modification
to the Congressional list so far has resulted from Industry petitions to delete chemicals from section
313 because they do not meet toxlcity or exposure criteria.
EPA recognizes that the deletion of certain chemicals on the section 313 list may be warranted.
However, there are also chemicals under scrutiny by EPA which should be added in order to make the
Inventory useful to EPA and the public. Since emissions data on these chemicals could provide valuable
additional information, the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPTS) is considering adding
chemicals of high toxlcity concern to the section 313 list.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: A candidate list for addition to the section 3 13 list has been
developed by OPTS from the CERCLAReportable Quantities (RQ) list. 'The RQ list identifies chemicals
which if accidentally* spilled in quantities above a specified amount must be reported to EPA. This RQ
list is also subject to spill reporting under Section 304 of SARA Title HI. Fourteen RQ chemicals which
demonstrate high concern for cancer and chronic toxlcity effects will be proposed as additions to section
313. One additional chemical is being Included to correct current listings. To date, OPTS has
submitted a Start Action Request to initiate rulemaklng and has drafted a schedule for developing a
rule to add the chemicals on the candidate list to the section 313 list. OPTS plans to propose the
addition of chemicals to section 313 In January 1989 and to finalize this action by November, 1989.
By meeting this deadline, chemicals added to the section 313 list would have to be reported starting
with the calendar year 1990. Any delay in this schedule would cause a year delay in reporting because
of the statutory requirements for adding chemicals under Section 313.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Environmental groups, especially the Natural Resource Defense Council
National Wildlife Federation
Environmental Policy Institute
Chemical and other Manufacturers
-------
Page 9-16 Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Proposed Rule to be signed by the Administrator In January, 1989
Final Rule to be signed by the Administrator In November, 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
1 Victor J. Klmm, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances.
• Charles L. Elklns, Director, Office of Toxic Substances
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Page 9-17
MINOR USE OP PESTICIDES
BACKGROUND: The Federal Insecticide. Fungicide, and Rodentlclde Act (FIFRA) requires Federal reg-
istration of all uses of pesticide products marketed In the U.S. EPA also requires additional data to
support continued registration of currently registered pesticide uses. For many small-scale, Infre-
quent, or specialty pesticide uses, there Is Insufficient economic Incentive to justify the development
of data needed to Initially register or to continue the registration of these uses. Such uses are generally
defined as "minor uses." For example. Beta Naphthoxe Acetic Add is a pesticide used as a plant growth
regulator to promote higher production from pineapple, strawberry, or tomato plants.^Only about 100-
200 pounds of this pesticide are produced peryear, yet removal of this "minor" product from the market
by the producer could have serious economic consequences for growers and consumers. In addition,
potential liability costs represent an economic disincentive to the companies that are considering
applying for a pesticide registration for minor uses or to continue the minor uses already registered.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The continued availability of pesticides registered for minor
uses is essential in the production of a diverse food supply and the Agency has taken an active role in
addressing the problem by giving minor uses special attention in its regulatory activities. Flexible
administrative policies have done much to improve the outlook for new minor use registrations during
the past several years. However, it is likely that many minor uses of existing pesticides will not be
reregistered because of the costs to the company to develop required test data. As the Agency reviews
all currently registered pesticides and requires submission of additional data, pesticide registrants will
voluntarily cancel or allow Agency suspension of those uses where the cost of the data development
would exceed their economic return. These problems will become more pronounced with EPA's Im-
plementation of the 1988 FIFRA Amendments which accelerate the data requirements for reregistra-
tion. However, the 1988 Amendments do call for the Agency to publish notices in the Federal Register
whenever registrants are unwilling to support a pesticide or any of its minor uses. In response to such
a notice, users would be allowed to come forth with an offer to supply data.
The Agency Is currently exploring the feasibility of extending the time allowed for responding to data
call-ins for minor use pesticides, and persuading user groups and the pesticide industry to become
more involved in retaining currently registered minor uses. These particular Issues are not addressed
in the 1988 Amendments to FIFRA and will have to be dealt with separately.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Spring 1989 Minor Use Implementation under 1988 FIFRA Amendments
-------
Page 9-18 Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Significant National Issues
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Victor J. Klmm, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
« Douglas Campt, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Page 9-19
THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OP SCIENCES (NASJ/DELANEY
REPORT & IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING
BACKGROUND: EPA commissioned the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to examine the scientific
and regulatory implications of varying standards of food safety contained in the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodentidde Act (FIFRA) and the Delaney clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), for potentially cancer-causing pesticides In food. The Delaney clause mandates
a zero-risk standard for oncogenlc pesticides which concentrate In food as a result of processing, while
FIFRA mandates the balancing of the risks and benefits of pesticide use. This difference has resulted
in inconsistent treatment of old and new pesticides and pesticides that require tolerances (legal residue
levels) only for raw agricultural commodities versus those requiring tolerances for processed foods.
which are governed by the Delaney clause. Strict application of the Delaney clause by EPA in the past
has prevented use of some new pesticides posing negligible risks which could otherwise replace older
products posing higher risks. The NAS report concluded that a consistent negligible risk standard
would enable EPA to improve the overall safety of food consumption, with only modest reductions In
benefits.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA's new policy was published In the Federal Register on
October 19,1988 and describes how the Agency Intends to proceed with regulatory decision-making
in cases where the standards of FIFRA differ from those in the FFDCA. The statement announces the
position EPA will take in future rulemaking proceedings, establishing tolerances under section 409 of
FFDCA concerning food-use pesticides which have been shown to cause cancer in test animals. The
Agency will consider pesticide uses presenting a negligible risk to be excepted from the Delaney clause
under the de minimis theory of law. If the risk is greater than negligible, but still low, risk/benefit evalu-
ations will still be applied to decisions not controlled by the Delaney clause (i.e.. tolerances on raw
commodities); however, the Agency has concluded that it still cannot achieve a consistent negligible
risk approach without a legislative change.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
National Agricultural Chemicals Association
Chemical Producers and Distributors Association
United Fresh Fruit & Vegetable Association
Grocery Manufacturers Association
National Food Processors Association
Natural Resources Defense Council
-------
Page 9-20 Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
The first attempt to apply this new policy Is likely to result In a legal challenge.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
« Victor J. Klmm, Acting Assistant Administrator. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
• Douglas D. Campt, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Page 9-21
PCBs/PCB DISPOSAL
BACKGROUND: 1.3 billion pounds of PCBs were manufactured and used for over 40 years before
Congress took action In 1976 to control their further manufacture, use and disposal under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). The stability of PCBs as well as their superior heat resistant and
dialectic properties made PCBs the material of choice for use in many diverse applications such as In
electrical transformers and capacitors, heat transfer and hydraulic systems, adhesives. plastics, inks,
paints, and coatings. Because of the environmental persistence of PCBs and the fact that PCBs
continue to be a priority of the public and Congress, OPTS, continues in its efforts to identify previously
unrecognized sources of PCB contamination in order to implement and enforce its program to
effectively control the disposal of PCBs. Examples include PCB contamination of Interstate pipelines
(e.g., Texas Eastern) and wastes produced during the shredding of scrap metals (i.e., the shredder fluff
>*" -
Issue). The Identification of these "new" sources of PCB wastes continue to create challenging
regulatory and enforcement problems.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA has changed its enforcement emphasis to target 25 to
35 percent of all PCB inspections at permitted disposal facilities and at brokers and commercial storers
of PCB wastes. The proposed Texas Eastern Pipelines Consent Decree was lodged with the court in
June 1988 and requires the cleanup at as many as 89 sites In 14 states over a 10 year period. PCB
Investigations of 17 other natural gas pipelines are ongoing. Investigation of PCB and other hazardous
material contamination in metal salvage wastes is ongoing with potentially significant impacts on the
scrap metals recycling industry.
The final PCB Notification and Manifesting Rule will be promulgated in FY89. This rule will require that
commercial storers of PCB waste obtain EPA approval, that PCB wastes be manifested for disposal, and
that all generators and transporters that store PCB wastes notify EPA and obtain identification
numbers. Final rules Issued in FY88 included two relatively minor amendments to: (1) the regulations
governing the processing, distribution in commerce and use of low concentrations of PCBs (less than
50 parts per million) and (2) the regulations controlling the fire-related risks posed by the use of PCB
Transformers. Inspections to monitor compliance of facilities subject to these new regulations must
be performed in FY89 along with frequent and thorough inspections of storage and disposal facilities
and natural gas pipelines. OPTS will begin formulating long term solutions to the metals recycling issue
in FY89. Texas Eastern Pipeline Consent Decree - EPA/DOJ must submit responses to the Court by
November 22, 1988. Consent Decree may be effective in FY 1989.
MAJOR DATES OR MILESTONES
Final PCB Notification and Manifesting Rule FY 1989
-------
Page 9-22 Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Significant National Issues
KEY EPA CONTACTS
1 Victor J. Klmm, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
• Charles Elklns, Director, Office of Toxic Substances
• A. E. Conroy H, Director, Office of Compliance Monitoring
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Page 9-23
REAUTHORIZATION OF TSCA
BACKGROUND: TSCA's current authorization has expired. The Environment, Energy, and Natural
Resources Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations has Indicated Its Interest
In Initiating Reauthorlzatlon Hearings next session. In Oversight Hearings held October 1988. Subcom-
mittee Chairman .Michael Synar strongly criticized EPA for Its failure to adequately perform in the area
of Section 4 test rules and in the management of risk from existing chemicals. In the October 1988
hearing, the Agency openly acknowledged that its past performance in these areas was Inadequate.
EPA testified that reforms had already been made or were being initiated in both programs as a result
of an 8-month internal study of the problems. At the Oversight Hearings, EPA made the point that even
with these reforms, work on existing chemicals and test rules will require considerable investment of
time and resources because of the demanding substantive and procedural requirements made by
TSCA.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: To address problems arising from TSCA Itself, the Office of
Toxic Substances currently has underway a review of possible changes to TSCA. The particular focus
of this review is the identification of areas in which changes in the Act could improve, speed up, save
resources, or otherwise facilitate EPA's Implementation of the intent of the Act.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Congress, especially Rep. Michael Synar
Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA) and other chemical industry trade associations
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
Labor Unions
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
OTS Policy Staff reviews of TSCA begin in January 1989. It is unclear when the new Congress
might initiate Reauthorlzation hearings.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Victor J. Kimm, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
• Charles Elkins, Director, Office of Toxic Substances
-------
Page 9-24 Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Page 9-25
REGULATION FOR THE DISPOSAL OF PESTICIDES - 40 CFR 165
BACKGROUND: The 1972 amendments to the Federal Insecticide. Fungicide and Rodentlcide Act
(FIFRA) required the Administrator to publish regulations and recommend procedures for the disposal
of pesticides. Recommended procedures were published under 40 CFR 165 In May, 1974. The
implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and other developments have
created a need to update the regulation. Pesticide users have frequently requested betterguidance from
EPA on disposal. Pesticides may be subject to the hazardous waste requirements of RCRA both In
normal operations (for example, containers and "rlnsate") and In cases of suspension and cancellation
of a pesticide by EPA.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: EPA has been planning to Issue new disposal guidelines
during the 1990-91 time frame. However.the 1988 amendments to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodentlcide Act (FIFRA) may alter the tlmeframe somewhat. The amendments require EPA to issue
regulations for containers and authorize the Agency to issue regulations in other areas concerning
storage and disposal. The Agency will need to evaluate the interface with this new requirement to
determine the best way to provide pesticide users with disposal guidance.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Most pesticide user groups have shown a keen Interest in disposal regulations. Among the foremost
are the State FIFRA Issues, Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG, a liaison organization of State
pesticide regulatory officials). National Agricultural Chemicals Association, and the National Agricul-
tural Aviation Association. Some other Federal Agencies have also indicated their interest in disposal
regulations.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
The project Is currently under OPP review, in conjunction with the evaluation of the new FIFRA
amendments.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Victor J. Kimm, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
• Douglas Campt, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs
-------
Page 9-26 Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Page 9-27
REVAMP THE PESTICIDE PORTION OF THE
FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, & COSMETIC ACT (FFDCA)
BACKGROUND: For any pesticide use involving food or animal feed crops and processed foods and
feeds, EPAis responsible under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) for setting tolerances
(maximum allowable residue levels) for pesticides in or on food and feed commodities. Tolerances
established by the EPA are enforced by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). Policies concerning regulation of pesticide residues in food, of
concern to the public, became the subject of proposed legislation in 1988 and are likely to be so again
in 1989. EPA Issued a policy statement on one aspect of this subject in October, 1988.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: hi 1988. several Congressional hearings on.amendments to
FFDCA were held. H.R 4739, also known as the Waxman Bill, was the most prominent piece of
proposed legislation that emerged from these hearings. None of the proposed legislation was enacted.
In 1989, similar legislation is likely to be introduced addressing such Issues as: (a) a consistent
regulatory standard between Section 408 (raw agricultural commodites) and Section 409 (processed
food), including the elimination of the zero-risk standards in the Delaney clause in Section 409; (b)
negligible risk standards versus the zero-risk of the Delaney clause; (c) Incremental risk reduction; (d)
clear Agency authority and administrativery efficient processes to set tolerances; (e) the point at which
actual pesticide residue levels should be regulated (e.g., retail level versus "farm gate" level); (f)
feasibility of risk estimates for population subgroups: (g) new action levels for cancelled or suspended
pesticides; (h) expiration dates for tolerances; (i) consideration of benefits in a way similar to the process
followed in pesticide registration when special review or reregistration actions are needed; and (J) the
primacy of State versus Federally established tolerances.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
The main proponent of Federal preemption of State authority to set tolerances has been the Grocery
Manufacturers of America, a trade association of firms Involved with the processing and distribution
of food. Preemption Is vigorously opposed by numerous environmental and consumer groups, as well
as representatives of State government officials, such as the National Governors' Association. Also
interested in all of these issues are pesticide manufacturers grower groups and the news media.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Amendments to FFDCA are likely to be introduced in the next Congressional session. The Agency's
legislative options for addressing these policy issues should be evaluated at this tme to prepare for such
renewed Congressional attention.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Victor J. Kimm, Acting Assistant Administrator. Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
• Douglas Campt, Director, Office of Pesticide Programs
-------
Page 9-28 Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Page 9-29
SARA TITLE HI SECTION 313 COMPLIANCE MONITORING/ENFORCEMENT
STRATEGY
BACKGROUND: Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (Title ffl
of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)) required certain manufacturers proc-
essors and users to report to EPA on July 1, 1988. and every year thereafter, the aggregate annual
emissions of 300 chemicals to the air, water, and land. Compliance monitoring and enforcement of the
section 313 toxic chemical release reporting is critical for the credibility of this visible community right-
to-know program. Based on early analysis, it appears that a substantial number of manufacturers
processors and users failed to report and many that did report made mistakes on the form. The
Compliance Strategy for section 313 sets a priority on inspecting those facilities which failed to submit
reports for chemicals. Businesses which are subject to section 313 requirements but did not report will
be assessed a civil penalty. The strategy also provides for EPA headquarters to identify readily
detectable errors and to issue Notices of Noncompliance to those violators. Failure to submit corrected
information within 20 days will result in a Civil Complaint with an assessed penalty. Inspections will
also be conducted to assure the quality of data on request from the program office or on the basis of
tips or complaints, including referrals from States.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: The Regions are currently conducting inspections under the
Strategy and are identifying non-reporters. EPA has estimated that up to 32,000 reports (out of 70,000
received) may contain major errors which will result in the issuance of Notices of Noncompliance. As
of October 4, approximately 500 Notices of Noncompliance have been issued. As the remainder of these
Notices are Issued, Headquarters will track the responses and followup with administrative civil com-
plaints for those that fail to submit the correct information. To streamline the process, an offer of
settlement for a low penalty, with the condition that the corrected information is sent in within 20 days,
will be made. Some States have enacted legislation allowing them to enforce section 313, and others
are in a position to provide useful information on who should have reported but did not. Within EPA,
the Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances is working with the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, which has responsibilities for enforcing other parts of SARA Title HI, to coordinate
enforcement activities. We are coordinating with other media enforcement programs to do some multi-
media inspections.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES
Regions must submit program management plans each August which include specific targeting plans
for enforcement. Based on our first year experience, the Strategy will be revised to better target
inspections, utilizing other Agency data bases as well as State information.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Susan F. Vogt, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
• A. E. Conroy II, Director, Office of Compliance Monitoring
-------
Page 9-30 Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Significant National Issues
-------
Significant National Issues Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Page 9-31
REGULATORY DECISIONS ON SPECIAL REVIEW CHEMICALS
BACKGROUND: Among the major products of the Pesticides Program are the outcomes of Special
Reviews of pesticides for which major questions have been raised about the appropriateness of
continued registration. EPA conducts a full and public risk/benefit analysis of pesticides suspected
of posing unreasonable adverse effects. These reviews are initiated on the basis of adverse effects data
which come to the Agency's attention subsequent to the initial registration or rereglstratlon review of
the pesticide. The data typically are generated by the registrant in response to EPA data requirements;
the Special Review may result in cancellation of some or all uses of the pesticide, the Imposition of risk
reduction measures such as protective clothing, or a decision that no action is necessary. This is an
important issue because suspension/cancellation of a pesticide can have a large economic impact by
affecting not just the registrant but those who use a pesticide, and ultimately the consumer.
DISCUSSION AND CURRENT STATUS: Fifty-seven pesticides have been subject to Special Review;
42 reviews are completed. In 1989, EPA will focus on pesticide categories where there are special
environmental or human health concerns, such as (1) potential cancer-causing pesticides (including
fungicides), (2) granular formulations of pesticides posing hazards to birds, and (3) certain classes of
pesticides which are ground water contaminants and cause cancer in animal tests.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Senate and House Agriculture committees,
Natural Resources Defense Council
Environmental Defense Fund,
National Agricultural Chemicals Association
State pesticide lead agencies,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Interior
-------
Page 9-32
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances Significant National Issues
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES:
Proposed decisions:
EBDC fungicides — oncogenicity; dietary and applicator risk
Daminozide -- oncogenicity; dietary risk
Bromoxynil — developmental effects; applicator risk
Carbofuran — hazard to birds and groundwater
Aldlcarb — reproposal oh groundwater or proposed decisions
on acute dietary risk or avlan toxicity
Final Decision:
February 1989
May 1989
August 1989
Early 89
Summer 89
Captan — oncogenicity; dietary risk
January 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
• Victor J. Kimm, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
• Douglas D. Campt, Director. Office of Pesticide Programs
-------
MAJOR
REGIONAL ISSUES
-------
I MAJOR REGIONAL ISSUES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REGION I • BOSTON
Boston Harbor Cleanup
Big River Reservoir Proposal, Rhode Island
REGION n - NEW YORK
Ocean Issues in the Northeast
Medical Waste
Ozone Transport In the Northeast
Ciba-Gelgy Superfund Site, New Jersey
Montclair/West Orange and Glen Ridge Superfund Sites, New Jersey
REGION m - PHILADELPHIA
Ware Creek Reservoir Proposal, Virginia
Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant, Washington, D.C.
Philadelphia Incinerator Ash Disposal
Chesapeake Bay Program
American Electric Power Company's Facility in Rammer, West Virginia
REGION IV - ATLANTA
State and Local Restriction on Siting and Management of Hazardous Waste
Potential Withdrawal of North Carolina's RCRA Program
Establishing a Viable Gulf of Mexico Program
Wetlands Protection
PAGE
1
3
5
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
25
27
31
33
35
37
-------
Major Regional Issues
Table of Contents
Page 2
REGION V - CHICAGO
Great Lakes National Program
Potential Ozone Federal Implementation Plan for Chicago
Need for Waste Water Discharge Limits for Dioxln
Potential Withdrawal of Wisconsin's NPDES Program
39
41
43
45
REGION VI • DALLAS
Vertac Superfund Site, Arkansas
Air Monitoring in International El Paso-Juarez Air Basin
REGION Vm - DENVER
Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund Site, Colorado
Western Water Rights
REGION IX - SAN FRANCISCO
Offshore Oil and Gas Development on the California Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS)
Potential Federal Implementation Plan for California South Coast
REGION X - SEATTLE
Potential Oil and Gas Development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
Alaska
Antldegradation Policy for Water Quality, Idaho
Hanford Cleanup Issues, Washington State
47
51
53
55
57
61
65
67
69
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 1
REGION I - BOSTON
BOSTON HARBOR CLEANUP
ISSUE STATEMENT: The effort by EPA to bring the metropolitan Boston area Into compliance with
the Clean Water Act Is among the agency's largest and most significant enforcement cases. The metro-
Boston system treats the sewage of almost one-half of Massachusetts' population plus over 5,000
Industries.
ACTION FORCING EVENT: EPA's suit against the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority In 1985
has resulted In a federal court schedule for cleaning up Boston Harbor. The schedule adopted by the
f -
federal district court In Boston requires the water authority to stop dumping sludge Into the harbor
by December 1991; to build a pew primary treatment facility by 1995; and to build a secondary
treatment plant by 1999. The water authority must also produce a plan to treat overflows from its
combined sanitary/storm sewer system.
BACKGROUND: During the 1970s, the Commonwealth entered Into a series of voluntary agreements
scheduling harbor cleanup. However, when none was complied with by the late 1970s, EPA consid-
ered bringing a federal court action to force progress. Commonwealth officials persuaded EPA to hold
off, arguing that progress would be greater If the courts were kept out of the situation. However,
virtually no progress toward achieving secondary treatment occurred between 1979 and 1985. Two
applications were made to EPA during this period for wafvers from the secondary treatment
requirement; both applications were denied.
In 1983, the City of Quincy, Boston's southern neighbor, filed suit In state court against the Boston
Water and Sewer Commission and the Commonwealth. In 1984, the Conservation Law Foundation
filed a suit In federal court, naming EPA among the defendants.
In December 1984, EPA announced its Intention to file a federal suit and, backstopping the overturned
decision of a state court judge, recommended a federal sewer hook-up moratorium. This action
prompted passage of state legislation which created the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority,
created a new autonomous state agency with responsibility for the sewerage system. The authority
came Into existence on January 1,1985, and EPA, now acting as a plaintiff, followed through with its
lawsuit on January 30, 1985.
CURRENT STATUS: Progress Is now being made. A site for the secondary treatment plant has been
selected, and construction work Is scheduled to begin In the spring of 1989. The water authority has
reached an agreement with the City of Quincy to use the Fore River shipyard as a short-term sludge
processing site.
-------
Page- 2 Major Regional Issues
However many hurdles remain, including decisions regarding long-term sludge processing and plans
for the collection and treatment of combined sewer overflows. Hie water authority and some state and
local officials are also becoming Increasingly concerned over the financing of the project in light of
dwindling federal resources in this area. The cleanup is regularly touted as a $6 billion project that
will be funded through sewer bills, which are projected to rise to as much as $1,200 per year per family
by 1999. or about $417 based on today's dollars (1987).
Even if no further slippage in schedule occurs, full compliance with the Clean Water Act will not occur
until 1999, 22 years after the 1977 deadline set by Congress.
MAJOR PLAYERS/ORGANIZATIONS
Hon. A. David Mazzone, federal district court Judge
Paul Levy, Executive Director, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA)
Douglas Foy, Executive Director, Conservation Law Foundation
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
Short-term action dates from the federal court schedule include:
December 31, 1988: Stopping scum discharges from the existing treatment plants
December 31, 1988: Making the preliminary decision on basic approach to solving the combined
sewer overflow problem (i.e., deep rock holding tunnels for overflow storage)
January 1989: Draft a plan for long-term sludge management
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Paul Keough. Deputy Regional Administrator, Region I
Richard Kotelty, Deputy Director, Water Mgmt. Division, Region I
Jeff Fowley, Asst. Regional Counsel, Region I
-------
Major Regional Issues - Page 3
BIG RIVER RESERVOIR PROPOSAL, RHODE ISLAND
ISSUE STATEMENT: The current Big River reservoir proposal would result In the loss of at least 600
acres of prime wetlands, eliminate twenty miles of streams and native trout fisheries, and would most
likely violate water quality standards in the Pawtuxet River and the Flat River Reservoir. It would be
the largest destruction of wetlands in New England since the inception of the Clean Water Act of 1972.
ACTION FORCING EVENT: On August 24,1988, EPA Initiated its formal review of the proposed project
under the authority provided by Section 404 (c) of the Clean Water Act. Neither Rhode Island nor the
Army Corps of Engineers responded to the opportunity to consult with EPA during the subsequent 15
day consultation period that is provided by regulation. The regional office will be proposing to either
prohibit or restrict the project
BACKGROUND: Talk of a reservoir on the Big River began In 1926 when state officials predicted
difficulties In meeting Rhode Island's water needs. By 1952 it had evolved into a firm proposal; state
officials wanted the $22 million project completed by 1968. In 1965 the state began buying land at the
reservoir site. Various developments, including uncertain funding, caused delays. On four different
occasions voters rejected necessary bonding proposals.
In 1978, the state, eager to get federal funding, requested that the Corps construct the reservoir as part
of a flood control project. The Corps agreed and became the lead agency. The Corps' proposal was
passed by Congress, but without any appropriation. The state lost hope of receiving federal money.
In 1986 the state applied for a permit under the Clean Water Act to build the reservoir solely with state
funds. During 1987 and 1988, EPA strongly encouraged the state to first explore conservation and
other source alternatives. The Corps (Col. Thomas A. Rh'en) agreed with EPA's view of the project's
serious environmental consequences, and Indicated in a July 1988 letter to Governor Edward DiPrete
that it will not issue the necessary permit. The price tag for the proposed reservoir has grown to $262
million.
In August, 1988, Col. Rhen (since retired) met with Governor DiPrete and suggested making the
reservoir a federal project. Rhode Island has since suggested that EPA cannot use its 404(c) authority
on this project because Congress had already authorized it in 1986. EPA has stated that this does not
exempt the project from its review.
CURRENT STATUS: The regional office is now on a course to publish a public notice of proposed
determination to either prohibit or restrict the project. It is also planning on scheduling the required
public comment period and public hearing.
-------
Page 4 Major Regional Issues
After public comment, the Regional Administrator will make a recommendation to the Assistant
Administrator for Water. The Assistant Administrator will make the final decision.
MAJOR FLAYERS/ORGANIZATIONS
Col. Daniel M. Wilson, Commander and Division Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New
England Division
Hon. Edward DiPrete, Governor of Rhode Island
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
November, 1988: Region will publish public notice proposing to either prohibit or restrict the
project.
Dec. - Jan., 1989: Public comment period and public hearing
Apr. - May, 1989: Recommendation from Regional Administrator
July, 1989: Decision by Assistant Administrator for Water
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Paul Keough, Deputy Regional Administrator. Region I
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 5
REGION II - NEW YORK
OCEAN ISSUES IN THE NORTHEAST
ISSUE STATEMENT: Public concern regarding the condition of the ocean waters In the New York Bight
has been building over the past few years with Increasingly frequent reports of harmful algal blooms,
contaminated and diseased seafood, and pollution related beach closures. Activities affecting the
ocean waters within Region n will be among the most important Issues in the next 12 months. The
Ocean Dumping Program, the New York Bight Restoration Plan, the New York-New Jersey Harbor
Estuary Program, and the treatment of floatables will all have national as well as regional implications.
ACTION FORCING EVENTS: The New York Bight Restoration Plan Is a response to this growing
concern. The authorizing legislation was promoted by a regional public interest group, the Coalition
for the Bight. National concern over the health and viability of important estuarine systems led to the
passage of the Water Quality Act of 1987, including the National Estuary Program. Concomitantly,
concern over the hazards and impacts of floatable waste, including "medical wastes," have led to the
passage of legislation dealing with the New York Bight and to additional efforts to tackle the problem
using existing authorities.
BACKGROUND: The Ocean Dumping Program is a response to a number of needs brought about by
the densely populated nature of the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area. The Port of New York is
among the most important shipping ports in the country, and requires the disposal of millions of cubic
yards of dredged spoils every year. The New York Harbor Drift Removal Project, administered by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is an ongoing project to remove decayed wood harbor structures and
vessels In order to eliminate the sources of floating navigation hazards. It generates thousands of tons
of wastewood for disposal every year. EPA has issued permits to bum the wood approximately 17 miles
off of Pt. Pleasant, New Jersey. Nine regional municipal authorities generate about 8 million wet tons
of sewage sludge every year, which are disposed of in the ocean, 106 miles off of Cape May. New Jersey.
Construction activities also generate large volumes of material needing disposal, as do chemical and
industrial manufacturing facilities. As a result, EPA Region II currently administers a permitting
program of ocean disposal activities for dredged material, cellar dirt, woodbuming, acid waste,
industrial waste, and municipal sludge.
The New York Bight Restoration Plan is a 3-year effort to develop a comprehensive program to restore
the water quality and marine resources of the New York Bight. The New York-New Jersey Harbor
Estuary Program is an element of the National Estuary Program, and will be a 5-year effort to develop
a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary.
-------
Page 6 Major Regional Issues
CURRENT STATUS: The Ocean Dumping Program has made a major effort to encourage dumpers to
use land-based disposal alternatives. There are currently no active permits for industrial waste
disposal, except for a single permit application for the disposal of acid wastes, and one permittee for
disposal at the Cellar Dirt Site. Three interim permits are active for woodbuming at sea. Nine municipal
authorities continue to dispose of sewage sludge at the 106 Mile Deepwater Municipal Sludge Dump
Site under court order, but the former 12-Mile Municipal Sludge Dump Site has been closed. The 6-
Mile Mud Dump continues to serve for the disposal of dredged material from the Harbor, and a site for
the designation of a new Mud Dump, in compliance with the Water Resources Development Act of 1986,
is being investigated. In addition, the designation of 8 disposal sites for inlet dredged material along-
the coasts of New Jersey and Long Island is being finalized.
Pending legislation will have a major impact on the administration of the Ocean Dumping Program. A
bill anticipated to pass prior to the adjournment of the current session of Congress has provisions that
will end all ocean dumping of municipal sludge and industrial waste after 1991. If this legislation is
enacted, most of the existing ocean disposal activities will be permanently discontinued. In addition,
Region n will be recommending de-designation of the Deepwater Industrial Waste disposal site later
this year, and will review the de-designation of the Cellar Dirt Site and the Acid Waste Disposal Site
when the current permits expire.
For the New York Bight Restoration Plan, an Interagency work group has been set up to oversee the
development of the plan. A first-year preliminary report Is being readied for submission by the end
of 1988. The preliminary report will identify the impacts of and the fate of pollutants. The Restoration
Plan Is being closely coordinated with the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program, which was
formally designated in October 1988. The Estuary Program Is currently preparing its 5-year workplan
to develop a comprehensive conservation and management plan. The two programs will be coordinated
In order to maximize efficiency in preparing comprehensive pollution control programs In the region.
A report for the New York Bight Plastic Study has been completed and is currently undergoing review
by OMB. This report will be used as the basis for developing a program to control floatables in the
estuartne and marine waters of the New York Bight.
MAJOR PARTICIPANTS
EPA Region II
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
US Army Corps of Engineers, New York District
US Coast Guard, Third District
Interstate Sanitation Commission
N.Y.S. Department of Environmental Conservation
N. J. Department of Environmental Protection
Authorities Association of New Jersey
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 7
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
New York Bight Restoration Plan:
First Public Meetings and Hearing November-December, 1988
Preliminary Report on Pollutant Inputs December, 1988
New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary Program:
Complete States-EPA Conference Agreement(Initiate Management Conference) April, 1989
Floatables:
Designate and Implement Short-term ControlMeasures May, 1989
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Bill Muszynskt, Acting Regional Administrator, Region n
Richard Caspe, Director, Water Management Division, Region II
-------
Page 8 Major Regional Issues
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 9
MEDICAL WASTE
ISSUE STATEMENT: Medical waste wash-ups on our nation's beaches, especially in New York and
New Jersey, have resulted in the increased awareness of potential public health and environmental
problems caused by improper medical waste disposal both on land and in our waters.
Adjustments to the way medical waste is managed and regulated are required to ensure its proper
handling and disposal, and to provide accountability of those responsible for generation, transport and
disposal. The problem is especially difficult to solve because a large portion of the improper disposal
problem relates to medical waste that has been generated by individuals outside of medical facilities,
and by small clinics that are difficult to regulate.
ACTION FORCING EVENT: Despite widespread investigation by federal, state, county and local law
enforcement agencies, including the FBI, very little success was achieved in identifying the sources of
the waste that appeared on our nations beaches (other than where local land disposal rules were
violated). This was attributable to the absence of a federal regulatory program and of identifying marks,
or a medical waste manifest system. In October 1988. Congress provided EPA with enabling authority
to address the tracking problem, starting with a pilot program in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut,
and the Great Lakes States.
BACKGROUND: The problem of floatables washing up on our beaches began in 1987 when concen-
trated slicks of solid waste washed up on miles of New Jersey beaches. Although the majority of the
material contained in the slick was heavy timber, wood, municipal garbage and other solid waste, there
were also various types of medical wastes (syringes, tubing, blood vials, etc.).
Congressional legislative initiatives were introduced in the spring and summer of 1988 when new
wash-ups, primarily of medical type waste, were discovered on beaches on Long Island and New York
City, Bayonne and Island Beach, New Jersey, and in several states in the Northeast and Great Lakes.
This led to a large number of beach closings and to severe economic hardships in communities that
depend on beach activity. Most common among the wastes were used syringes and vials of blood, some
of which contained AIDs antibodies.
CURRENT STATUS: The States of New York and New Jersey have implemented "emergency
regulations" requiring manifesting of medical waste for large generators. Both States are also revising
existing laws to expand the universe of regulated generators and to increase penalties.
On the national level, EPA has formed a national medical waste task force and has developed a work
plan to address the problem. In addition. Congress passed legislation in October 1988 providing (1)
for an EPA regulatory program proceeded by a pilot 10-state program, and for EPA and the Department
of Transportation to regulate barges carrying solid wastes.
-------
Page 10 Major Regional Issues
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Congress
EPA-Reglon H
New York
New Jersey
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
December 1988 - HQ publication of Federal Register notice
defining Infectious wastes.
February 1, 1989 - EPA plans for further actions to manage
medical wastes effectively.
Winter 1988-89 - Regional office to work with New York and New
Jersey to further revise our ocean monitoring program.
Summer 1989 - HQ report on the potential environmental, health
and economic Impacts of Infectious waste management.
•
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Jack Moore, Acting Deputy Administrator, HQ
Bill J. Muszynski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region n
Sylvia Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste, HQ
Conrad Simon. Director. Air & Waste Management Division, Region
Richard Caspe, Director, Water Management Division, Region II
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 11
OZONE TRANSPORT IN THE NORTHEAST
ISSUE STATEMENT: Northeast states responsible for developing programs to reduce ozone levels to
below air quality standards will have difficulty demonstrating attainment, due in part to the transport
of ozone from upwind regions. Downwind Northeast states are not satisfied with current EPA policy
on this issue, and are now pressing EPA to impose stronger control requirements on upwind states.
(The question of how to address regional ozone transport is being considered as part of EPA's post 1987
Ozone Policy, which is discussed in some detail in the OAR paper on Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
Nonattainment.)
ACTION FORCING EVENTS: EPA has requested updated State Implementation Plans. New York and
New Jersey have petitioned EPA for relief from upwind sources of ozone or ozone precursors. The
Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Lung Association have successfully sued New
York and New Jersey, forcing the implementation of more controversial emission control strategies.
(States In Regions I and HI are being similarly affected.)
BACKGROUND: Despite the passage of deadlines for meeting national standards under the Clean Air
Act and the implementation of numerous control strategies, ozone levels in the East In some major
metropolitan areas continue to exceed national standards. Ozone control programs have been effective
In reducing ozone levels in most areas, but pervasive violations of the standards continue. Current air
quality data analyses for the Philadelphia and New York Metropolitan areas indicate that achieving
the emission reductions in the existing State Implementation Plans, which were approved in 1982.
would not be sufficient to ensure attainment of the ozone standards.
Furthermore, photochemical modeling of the NY-NJ metropolitan areas shows that attainment of
standards downwind would not be possible even If every available control measure were implemented.
Ultimately, attainment would depend heavily on reduction of ozone and ozone precursors from upwind
areas.
CURRENT STATUS: The proposed Post-1987 Policy requires an expanded planning area that is
designed to ensure that demonstrations of attainment account for emissions throughout the larger
metropolitan areas. The proposed Post-1987 Policy also envisions that the results from the Regional
Oxidant Model for Northeast Transport (ROMNET) study (available in early 1991) will be used by EPA
and the states to address transport issues.
The Northeast Transport Committee, put together by the Administrator and chaired by Don Clay,
includes Regions I, n, and ffl, and states from each region. The committee is working to consider
strategies to handle the transport concern. In doing so. it may develop recommendations that are
necessary to achieve the goal but may require changes in EPA policy and the Clean Air Act.
-------
Page 12 Major Regional Issues
The proposed Post-1987 Policy requires the submlttal of State Implementation Plans before the results
from the ROMNET study are available. In finalizing this policy, EPA Is now considering allowing states
with regional transport Issues to wait until the ROMNET results are available, provided that they show
a 3% per year reduction In the interim. EPA is also considering whether to develop national measures
(e.g., gasoline vapor pressure controls, controls on consumer solvents) that would help with the
regional transport problem.
At this time, the downwind Northeast States are not satisfied with EPA policy on this Issue, and are
pressing us to Impose stronger control requirements both nationally and on the upwind States.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Northeast Congressional delegations
State and Territorial Air
Pollution Program Administrators/Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
Environmental Defense Fund
Natural Resources Defense Council
EPA Regions I, II and HI
EPA Administrator and EPA's Northeast Transport Committee.
ACTION DATES
The proposed Post-1987 Policy Is scheduled to be finalized in the
Spring of 1989, unless it is superseded by a revised Clean Air Act. Congress failed to amend the
Clean Air Act during 1988.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Don Clay, Acting AA, Office of Air and Radiation; HQ
Gerry Emlson, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, HQ
Paul Keough, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region I
Bill Muszynski, Acting Regional Administrator, Region II
Stan Laskowskl, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region in
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 13
CIBA-GEIGY SUPERFUND SITE, NEW JERSEY
ISSUE STATEMENT: Region n is developing a Record of Decision (ROD) for ground-water remediation
as the first stage of remedial action for the site. In June 1988, EPA announced its Preferred Remedial
Action Plan to discharge the treated ground-water to the Atlantic Ocean via an existing pipeline and
outfall. The local officials and citizenry are strongly opposed to EPA's tentative decision to use the ocean
outfall for treated ground-water.
ACTION FORCING EVENT: Contaminated ground-water continues to leave the site and enter the
Toms River. The interception and treatment of this ground-water will reduce a significant risk to the
public and environment. In late 1988, EPA plans to sign a ROD for contaminated ground-water
remediation at the CIBA-GEIGY Superfund site.
BACKGROUND: The CIBA-GEIGY Superfund site is located in Toms River, New Jersey. Plant
construction at the site began in 1950, and production in 1952. The CIBA-GEIGY Corporation
presently manufactures a variety of synthetic organic pigments, organic dyestuffs and intermediates,
and epoxy resins. The company treats process wastewater on site to the tertiary level prior to discharge
via a ten-mile pipeline to an outfall in the Atlantic Ocean.
The company has recently applied to the State of New Jersey to convert to a pharmaceutical
manufacturing facility. Local citizens have voiced strong opposition to the proposed pharmaceutical
facility, and have requested that the existing effluent pipeline and ocean outfall be closed down. This
issue has resulted in potential state legislation to close the pipeline and ocean outfall, which is the only
direct Industrial discharge to the ocean in New Jersey. In addition, citizens and environmental groups
have a suit in the New Jersey Supreme Court against the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection regarding the permit issued for the existing discharge of process wastewater.
EPA performed a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) from January 1985 through June
1988. The study identified several major areas of buried wastes, and Indicated that ground-water
contamination is migrating from these inactive disposal sites in an easterly direction toward the Toms
River. A Preferred Remedial Action Plan was issuedby Region II in June 1988, addressing the treatment
and disposal of contaminated ground-water currently leaving the site. Throughout the study, EPAmet
often with the community,particularly the Ocean County Citizens for Clean Water. Due to the intense
community concern related to EPA's preferred plan for grouncFwater treatment with ocean discharge,
EPA began weekly meetings with representatives of the nearby communities (particularly the shore
communities), several environmental groups, local agencies such as the county health department and
the water companies, as well as representatives of federal, state and local elected officials. CIBA-GEIGY
and the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection also participated In these meetings. The
purpose of these meetings was to explain more fully the existing alternatives, as well as other possible
alternatives raised by the community for remediation of the contaminated ground-water.
-------
Page 14 Major Regional Issues
CURRENT STATUS: The public comment period ended In October 1988. During the first quarter of
FY 1989, EPA plans to Issue a decision regarding the selected alternative for remediation of the
contaminated ground-water. Subsequent activities Involve designing the remedy and beginning the
next phase of Investigatory work. The public participation forum will be continued In order to address
other aspects of the CIBA-GEIGY site cleanup.
MAJOR PLATERS/ORGANIZATIONS
State Legislators and Local Officials
Ocean County Citizens for Clean Water
Save Our Ocean
Greenpeace
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
Nov. • Dec. 1988: Issue a Record of Decision
Feb. - March 1989: Judicial Consent Decree for Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) (If
CIBA-GEIGY does the work)
Feb. - March 1989: Administrative Consent Order for Second Phase of the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study - {If CIBA-GEIGY does the work)
Due to the citizens' distrust of the company and the fact that four company employees are cur-
rently under criminal indictment by the State of New Jersey for falsifying documents and for illegal
disposal of hazardous waste, the Agency may decide to perform all or part of the Remedial De-
signs/Remedial Action and/or the second phase RI/FS.
KEY EPA CONTACTS:
BUI J. Muszynskl, Acting Regional Administrator, Region H
Steve D. Luftlg, Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, Region II
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 15
MONTCLAIR/WEST ORANGE AND GLEN RIDGE
SUPERFUND SITES, NEW JERSEY
ISSUE STATEMENT: There is a problem in selecting and implementing a remedial action for the
Montclair/West Orange and Glen Ridge Radium Superfund sites, due to lack of storage or disposal
facilities for radium-contaminated soil. These sites are unique in that there are higher risks to more
people than any other Superfund site. the remedy has been significantly delayed because of great public
controversy over where to dispose of the radium contaminated soil, and the controversy is likely to erupt
again when EPA proposes the remedial action plan.
ACTION FORCING EVENT: These radium Superfund sites include 747 private properties. Of these
properties, 451 have radon and gamma contamination above normal background^levels, and 165
properties have contamination levels above health guidelines. Although we have already taken actions
to reduce the indoor radon and gamma levels at homes with levels above health-based criteria,
significant health risks still exist to the residents that warrant remedial action as soon as possible. The
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has issued two health advisories concerning the
continued risks to the people living on the radium-contaminated sites.
BACKGROUND: These radium sites are located in residential neighborhoods in the towns of Montclair,
West Orange and Glen Ridge, all located in Essex County, New Jersey. Radium-contaminated soil,
believed to be radium processing waste, was used as landfill where homes were later constructed. This
has resulted in unacceptable levels of radon, radon decay products, and gamma radiation in a number
of private residences. Contaminated material is found throughout three neighborhoods, covering an
area of about two square miles.
Several years ago, the State of New Jersey started to investigate a radium processing facility in Orange
that ceased operation in the 1920's. The possibility of off-site disposal of processing waste prompted
an aerial survey of surrounding areas for gamma radiation. In July 1983, a ground-level survey
Identified a number of homes with high levels of radon gas.
A remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS) was initiated by EPA on November 1984 and
completed in September 1985. A public meeting was held on November 1985 to discuss the study and
to receive public comments. At this meeting, EPA declared that excavation of the radium-contaminated
soil is the preferred permanent remedy of these sites. However, up until recently, efforts by EPA and
the State of New Jersey to find storage or disposal facilities to accommodate the radium-contaminated
soil have been unsuccessful.
-------
Page 16 Major Regional Issues
Risks associated with the radium-contaminated soil include exposures to indoor radon and its decay
products and indoor/outdoor gamma radiation. EPA has installed ventilation units to reduce the
radon levels, and gamma shielding to reduce radiation levels in affected homes. These measures are
considered temporary until a long-term remedy is selected.
EPA is presently preparing a supplemental remedial investigation/feasibility study. While the study's
original intent was to investigate interim remedies, it now includes both interim and long-term
remedies, such as soil excavation with on- or off-site disposal, and engineering controls to reduce
exposures. The recommendations are likely to provoke controversy.
CURRENT STATUS: The supplemental RI/FS is being finalized, and will be issued for public comment
in November 1988.
MAJOR PLAYERS/ORGANIZATIONS
Senators Frank Lautenberg and Bill Bradley
Congressmen James Florio, Robert Rowe (representative for Glen Ridge), and Dean Gallo (represen-
tative for Montclair and West Orange)
Governor Thomas Kean, State of New Jersey
Acting Commissioner Christopher Daggett, NJ Department of Environmental Protection
Edward Callahan, Mayor of Glen Ridge
Samuel Spina, Mayor of West Orange
Robert Jackson, Mayor of Montclair
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
November 1988: Issue Supplemental RI/FS to public with EPA's recommendations for site reme-
diation.
January 1989: Public Meetings
March 1989: Sign Record of Decision
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Bill Muszynski, Acting EPA Regional Administrator, Region II
Steve Luftlg, Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, Region II
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 17
REGION III - PHILADELPHIA
WARE CREEK RESERVOIR PROPOSAL, VIRGINIA
ISSUE STATEMENT: James City County, Virginia, proposes to construct and operate a water supply
reservoir on the Ware Creek. The proposed project win Inundate 425 acres of high quality wetlands,
and will have serious impacts on several hundred additional acres of wetlands, both upstream and
downstream of the project. In addition, the project will degrade downstream water quality and
potentially degrade the lower Chesapeake Bay. Further, the proposed project does not address the
possibility of alternative technologies. The Corps of Engineers has issued a Notice of Intent to Issue
the permit for this project over the objections of EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and several state
and private groups. EPA's Region III will be proposing to prohibit this project.
ACTION FORCING EVENT: In an effort to stem the destruction of valuable wetlands in the region, EPA
has initiated, under Section 404(c) of the Clean Water Act, an action to veto the Corps of Engineers'
permit.
BACKGROUND: In 1980. James City County had been experiencing several years of new residential
and commercial growth. Anticipating additional growth, the County sought a reliable source of potable
water for the new population. This led to the proposal for constructing a reservoir, and the development
and issuance of a draft environmental impact statement Injury 1985. Region Hi's review of the draft
resulted In an "environmentally unsatisfactory" rating and strong EPA opposition to the issuance of the
Section 404 permit.
Since 1984, Region in has also reviewed several other projects In southeastern Virginia that proposed
the development of reservoirs In environmentally critical areas (i.e., wetlands). In each case the regional
office has explored the development and implementation of other alternative technologies that are
technically sound and cost-effective methods of resolving the long-term water supply needs.
The final environmental impact statement for Ware Creek reservoir project was issued, virtually
unchanged. In October 1987. EPA recommended a supplemental statement to include a detailed
evaluation of alternatives. In Jury 1988, the Corps of Engineers issued a Record of Decision and its
Notice of Intent to issue the Section 404 permit.
CURRENT STATUS: EPA is preparing to issue a Notice of Intent to prohibit the project. Following a
public comment period, the County will most likely request a public hearing.
Due to the large quantities of valuable wetlands that may be affected by this project, and to the number
of other such projects either under construction or in the planning phase (at least four). Region HI has
taken the following position on this project:
-------
Page 18 Major Regional Issues
EPA will not support Ware Creek as a local water supply.
EPA will consider Ware Creek as a regional water supply only under the following circumstances:
Growth and demand figures for the region considered are substantial;
Ware Creek Is found to be the least environmentally damaging, practicable water supply
alternative;
Proponents must demonstrate ability and commitment to manage growth within the limits of
environmentally sound water resources available
Mitigation for regional water supply Is region-wide;
All local governments upon which regional supply Is dependent are shown to be committed to
it.
No new local water supply impoundment within the region shall be approved. EPA and the Corps will
cooperate in a Section 404(c) action to restrain the use of potential impoundment sites.
MAJOR PLAYERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Virginia State Water Control Board
Virginia Council on the Environment
Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries
James City County
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Chesapeake Corporation
Southern Environmental Law Institute
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
November 1988: Public comment period on EPA Notice of Intent
December 1988: Public Hearing (if needed)
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Stan L. Laskowskl, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region III
Greene Jones, Director, Environmental Services Division, Region in
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 19
BLUB PLAINS SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT, WASHINGTON, D.C.
ISSUE STATEMENT: Within the next few years, the Blue Plains Sewage Treatment Plant will be
producing nearly 450 tons per day of sludge, half of which is to be composted. The District of Columbia
wants to begin incinerating the remaining half. The D.C. government is nervous about continuing to
dispose of it by landfllling or land recycling (i.e., composting), because the land sites are located outside
of D.C. In Maryland and Virginia. However, Region HI will be advising D.C. that incineration is not the
most environmentally sound alternative.
ACTION FORCING EVENT; Region ni has received a grant application from the D.C. government to
fund incineration of the sludge. Such a grant would constitute a major federal action and would
therefore require an environmental impact statement.
BACKGROUND: The Clean Air Act requires an increase in sewage treatment levels which results in
increased solids production. Disposal within the District is impossible due to land constraints, and
incineration presents the most convenient way to handle the material.
CURRENT STATUS: Currently, the D.C. government is disposing of its' sewage sludge through
composting and land application outside of D.C. However, the D.C. government feels that state and
local influence over the sites and markets may close off these outlets. Incineration of up to 100,000
tons a year would not violate applicable air pollution regulations. On the other hand, recycling appears
to be a feasible alternative, since acreage for land application is actually increasing In availability
through state permits in both Maryland and Virginia. The Regional Office, has completed a draft
environmental impact statement which will be published for public comment in January 1989.
MAJOR PLATERS/ORGANIZATIONS
District of Columbia
Virginia State Govt.
Montgomery County
Maryland State Govt.
Prince Georges County
Fairfax County
Port America (proposed $1/2 billion development nearly next door)
Arlington County
National Capitol Planning Commission
National Park Service
Alexandria. Va.
Congressional Committee on the District
-------
Page 20 Major Regional Issues
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
October 1988: Internal review and printing/publishing.
January 1989: Public comment period and public hearing.
March 1989 : Final environmental impact statement and response to comments.
March 1989 : Comments on Final environmental impact statement and Record of Decision.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Stan L. Laskowskl, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region HI
Greene Jones, Director, Environmental Services Division, Region in
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 21
PHILADELPHIA INCINERATOR ASH DISPOSAL
ISSUE STATEMENTS: The shipping of Philadelphia Incinerator ash to Haiti and Guinea, and the
attempt to ship to Panama, Africa, the Bahamas, Dominican Republic. Puerto Rico, Dutch Antilles, etc.
raised the question of the need to control the export of non-hazardous (and hazardous) wastes (see
testimony at Mike Synar's Hearing of July 14, 1988). In addition, there are public health questions
concerning the proper storage, shipping, and disposal of Incinerator ash. especially In relation to dloxln
and heavy metals.
ACTION-FORCING EVENTS: The closing of a number of area landfills, plus negative public sentiment,
created an Incinerator ash disposal problem. Ash was accumulating, and federal and local court
actions required its removal by a given date, thereby setting the stage for the exporting of ash.
The question of dioxln contaminants within the ash raised widespread public health concerns. The
E.P. toxiciry test presently being used to define whether a waste is regulated as "hazardous" under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act does not analyze for the dioxln component. Pennsylvania has
recently enacted stringent regulations for the storage, transporting, and disposal of Incinerator ash.
There is strong public pressure to either regulate all incinerator ash under the act. or create special
storage, transportation, and disposal requirements for it.
BACKGROUND: In the early to mid-1980s, as landfill capacity/availability In New Jersey, etc., became
more expensive and eventually unattainable, the city of Philadelphia experienced increasing difficulties
In finding disposal facilities for its 75,000 to 100,000 tons per year of incinerator ash. This ash is
generated by the destruction of about 40% of its municipal solid wastes at two city incinerators.
The city's normal operation was to store a one-year's accumulation of ash at the northwest incinerator
and contract each year for removal of the ash. As public concerns grew over the toxicity of incinerator
ash and its potential dloxln components, the ash pile reached a size of some 250,000 tons. This
accumulation of ash caused great concern with area residents.
In September 1986, the ship "Khian Sea" left Philadelphia, under contract to the city, carrying 14,000
tons of ash. Over the next sixteen months the ship tried unsuccessfully to discharge its cargo in the
Bahamas, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, Dutch Antilles, etc. In January 1988, it unloaded all
14,000 tons in Haiti, but the government ordered the ash removed. Some 10,000 tons were reloaded,
arid the ship sailed in the middle of the night, leaving the remainder on the beach. It arrived back in
the United States in March 1988, but left in May 1988 before unloading. The ship, now renamed the
"Felicia", was recently escorted out of Yugoslavia after reportedly trying to dispose of its cargo in Turkey.
(Earlier attempts failed in West Africa, etc.).
-------
Page 22 Major Regional Issues
Meanwhile, the Haitian government is still trying to have the remaining 4,000 tons of ash removed from
Its shores. At the request of the Haitian government through the Pan American Health Organization,
an EPA technical advisory team was sent to Haiti to provide assistance.
hi a separate attempt at disposal in October 1987, the city of Philadelphia contracted with
Bulkhandling, Inc., who planned to ship up to 250,000 tons of ash to Panama as road building material.
Our Inspector General's office Issued a "Flash Report" outlining the environmental and public health
dangers to such a proposal. The Panamanian government passed a regulation forbidding the import
of any wastes. As a result of local court actions, Bulkhandling was to remove some 30,000 tons of ash
from Its Philadelphia pier. Most of this ash was delivered to landfills in Ohio. However, removal actions
were too slow to meet the established court deadlines, and 14,000 tons were loaded in the holds of the
ship "Bark" and deposited In Guinea. The Guinean government ordered the ash removed, and arrested
Norway's Honorary Consul. (Bulkhandling's parent company is based In Oslo.)
Bulkhandling removed the ash from Guinea and brought it back to the United States aboard the
"Banya". After much negotiation, the ash cargo was unloaded and trucked to landfills In Ohio.
CURRENT STATUS: The Haitian Government has again changed hands, and it is not known if they
will continue to press for removal of the 4,000 tons of ash on its shores. The recent hurricane may also
have washed much,'if not all, of this ash out to sea. The destination of the "Felicia" for disposal of her
cargo of 10,000 tons of incinerator ash Is unknown, as attempts to obtain this information have been
unsuccessful.
The two Philadelphia incinerators were shut down in June 1988, due to mounting ash disposal
problems, operational problems and continuing media attention to the various international and
national shipping attempts. Plans for a major resource recovery incineration facility to serve the City
of Philadelphia has created so much opposition that they have been abandoned, and the City has
entered into a five-year contract for landfilllng its municipal waste.
MAJOR PLATERS/ORGANIZATIONS
Congressman Mike Synar
Congressman Conyers
Congressman Luken
Congressman Florio
Greenpeace
Pan American Health Organization
United Nations
Environmental Defense Fund
Germany Hill Civic Association
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 23
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
State of Ohio
ACTIONS DATES/MILESTONES
Date Unknown: Final disposal of the ash aboard the "Felicia" (a.k.a. "Khlan Sea").
January 15, 1989: Some 50,000 tons of Incinerator ash located at the northwest Incinerator site
In Philadelphia must be removed In accordance with a federal court order.
June 30, 1989: Northwest Incinerator site must be closed, in accordance with the same federal
court order.
KEY EPA CONTACTS:
Stanley L. Laskowskl, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region ni
Steve Wassersug, Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Region III
-------
Page 24 Major Regional Issues
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 25
CHESAPEAKE BAT PROGRAM
ISSUE STATEMENT: The Chesapeake Bay Program will continue ongoing activities to comply with
the State and Federal commitments agreed to in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987. This will
require Regional and Headquarters cooperation arid assistance to State and local governments and
other Federal agencies, to insure that federal funds are appropriately and responsibly used in meeting
the 1987 commitments.
ACTION FORCING EVENT: There will be at least one meeting (possibly two) of the Chesapeake Bay
Executive Council during the first twelve months to review progress and decide future program
direction. The Executive Council Is composed of the Governors of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylva-
nia, the Administrator of EPA, the Mayor of Washington, D.C., and the Chairman of tRe Chesapeake
Bay Commission.
BACKGROUND: The Chesapeake Bay has seen significant changes in water quality and living
resources as a result of continued growth and development of population In the watershed. Waters of
the upper and mid-Bay are severely to moderately enriched with nutrients, causing anoxia or
conditions of low oxygen where fin and shell fish cannot live. Submerged aquatic vegetation vital to
water quality and certain species offish, have declined. Concentrations of toxicants are found in the
sediments near major Industrial centers. The Bay is stressed from a number of impacts, all of which
are directly linked to human population growth and activities.
At the request of Congress, EPA established the Chesapeake Bay Program, which incorporated the
States of Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Chesapeake Bay Commission,
and the public as equal partners in decision making. The initial effort was a $27 million, four-year
research program between 1979 and 1983. This research concluded that the Bay water quality was
changing, and that remedial action was needed to halt the environmental degradation and loss of
economically valuable living resources.
Following the presentation of the Research findings in 1983, EPA initiated the restoration and
protection program by signing the 1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement with the participating states, the
District of Columbia and the Chesapeake Bay Commission. The Commission coordinates legislative
issues with the state General Assemblies of the participating states.
CURRENT STATUS: The states and other Chesapeake Bay Program participants agree that EPA was
vital to the establishment of the Bay Program, and continues to be vital to the maintenance of the
Restoration and Protection effort. Prior to EPA's assistance, there was limited citizen or scientific
involvement and state coordination. Today, with the new 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the
Chesapeake Bay Program Is EPA's premier estuarine success story.
-------
Page 26 Major Regional Issues
The EPA Administrator represents EPA and all other Federal departments and agencies in the 1987
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This agreement contains extensive and specific commitments between
EPA, the states, the District of Columbia, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission on living resources,
water quality, population growth/development, public participation, public access, and governance.
The Chesapeake Bay Program continues to be the role model for all estuarine programs based on the
participation and support of the public; of all constituent groups; of state and local regional
governments; and of the scientific and technical community.
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
»
Governors of Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania
Mayor, the District of Columbia
Chairman, the Chesapeake Bay Commission
Chesapeake Bay Congressional Delegation
President, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation
The Citizens Advisory Committee
The Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee
Local Government Advisory Committee
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
Dec. 1988 - Jan. 1989: Meeting of the Chesapeake Bay Executive Council
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Stan Laskowskl, Deputy Regional Administrator. Region in
Al Morris. EPA Region in Water Management Division Director
Chuck Spooner. EPA Region HI Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office Director
-------
Major Regional Issues
Page 27
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER COMPANY'S AGILITY IN
RAMMER, WEST VIRGINIA
ISSUE STATEMENT: The American Electric Power (AEP) Company's cc
is currently a "significant violator" for excess S02 emissions under the C
EPA's determination that its Kammer facility cannot be exempted fix
ments of the Agency's July 1985 Stack Height Regulations. After an a
Appeals for the DC Circuit in January 1988, and a refusal by the U.S.
appeal, the company has Initiated a media and political campaign to a
EPA's decision in its favor.
-fired power plant in Kammer
an Air Act. The AEP appealed
complying with the require-
/erse decision by the Court of
upreme Court to consider its
use public sentiment to sway
ACTION FORCING EVENT: Promulgation of the revised stack heig
Implementing Section 123 of the Clean Air Act.
regulation on July 8, 1985,
BACKGROUND: Kammer is a 30-year old coal-fired power plant In N rshall County, West Virginia.
It was built to provide power for what Is now the Ormet Corporation's luminum production facility.
The facility is regulated for partlculate and SO2 emissions. High- sul r coal is supplied to Kammer
from the Consolidated Coal Company located adjacent to the plant..
In 1972, the EPA-approved West Virginia State Implementation Plan (S:
limit of 2.7 Ib/MMBtu. In 1978. the state relaxed the limit on SO:
However. EPA has delayed Its approval of this revision until Kammer co
tion. In the absence of this SIP revision, the federally enforceable limit
1978, Kammer has consistently emitted SO2 at levels greater than 2.'
Kammer as a significant violator for excess SO2 emissions. There are i
particulate emissions.
established an SO2 emission
emissions to '6.8 Ib/MMBtu.
pletes a modeling demonstra-
:malns 2.7 Ib/MMBtu. Since
On July 23. 1987. EPA listed
compliance data available for
Revisions to the stack height regulations adopted In July 1985 placed i :ater restrictions on pollution
sources such as the Kammer power plant. On June 28, 1985, EPA re esentatives met with Senator
Byrd and representatives from AEP, the Consolidated Coal Company, e Ormet Corporation and the
United Mineworkers Union to discuss the potential impacts of the revi d regulations on the Kammer ,
plant.
Petitions were submitted by the three companies requesting that EPA nnpt the Kammer plant from
compliance with the revised regulations. EPA denied the petitions on 1 grounds that the petitioners
had not provided any new information, or raised Issues that were not co idered during the rulemaking
process.
-------
Page 28 Major Regional Issues
The three companies then petitioned for judicial review of the stack height regulation. Oral arguments
were presented in September of 1987. Although EPA has met with the state of West Virginia and the
companies to present the steps or options which must be taken to provide an approvable demonstra-
tion, no positive action has been taken by AEP. A decision upholding EPA's rule was issued by the Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on January 22, 1988, and a petition for appeal was denied by the
Supreme Court in October 1988.
CURRENT STATUS: The state regulatory agency met with AEP on June 1,1988, but had no success
in initiating a meaningful discussion. The only outcome consisted of the state arranging a meeting of
all parties with EPA.
AEP has submitted a proposal to reduce Rammer's emissions by about 1/3. and to see^c "emissions
balancing" credit for prior reductions at the nearby Mitchell plant in order to meet the SIP limit for
Hammer. However this emissions balancing proposal does not conform with EPA policy. An area-wide
attainment demonstration is also required.
A modeling protocol was expected from AEP by mid-September as a result of discussions held on
August 10,1988, between AEP, the state and EPA. AEP informed EPA and the state that modeling runs
do not demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the air quality standard for SO2. Discussions were
held to examine possible reasons for failure.
AEP is refusing to forward any of its modeling calculations. The company has been reluctant to have
a free exchange of Information on any Issues prior to their Supreme Court petition.
MAJOR PLAYERS/ORGANIZATIONS
Senator Robert Byrd, West Virginia
Senator John Glenn, Ohio
Congressman Alan Mollahan. West Virginia
Congressman Douglas Applegate, Ohio
Congressman Clarence Miller, Ohio
Ohio Valley Citizen's Task Force, Donald Kruplca
United Mine Workers Local, James White
ACTIONS DATES/MILESTONES
October 15,1988: Letter to West Virginia specifying inadequacies of current SIP
November 15,1988: Letter to AEP requesting modeling data
December 31,1988: Technical meeting with EPA, the state & AEP
June SO, 1989: Protocol for evaluation
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 29
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Stan L. Laskowski, Deputy Regional Administrator. Region III
Tom Maslany, Director. Air Management Division, Region m
Don Clay. Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation, Headquarters
Gerry Emlson, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Headquarters
-------
Page 30 Major Regional Issues
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 31
REGION IV - ATLANTA
STATE AND LOCAL RESTRICTION ON SITING
AND MANAGEMENT OP HAZARDOUS WASTE
ISSUE STATEMENT: A number of state and local governments have recently passed, or are
considering the passage of, regulations that restrict the siting or operation of hazardous waste
management facilities.
For example, in June 1987. the North Carolina General Assembly passed a law that could have the
effect of limiting the capacity of commercial hazardous waste treatment facilities in the state, and
f >
restricting the state agency's authority to issue permits to owner/operators of these facilities. Other
states, such as Kentucky and Tennessee, have passed legislation ostensibly allowing a local veto of
hazardous waste permits. In South Carolina, a proposal to raise out-of-state fees for hazardous waste
disposal from $11 to $108 a ton is being considered.
What Is EPA's role Inthese issues, and what legislative authority should be pursued (CERCLA or RCRA)
to ensure that states do not take general steps to prohibit or unduly restrict the management of
hazardous waste within their borders?
BACKGROUND: States may apply to EPA for authorization to administer and enforce hazardous waste
management programs analogous to the Federal RCRA program. Forty-four States have now been
granted authorization. To retain authorization, however, states must maintain programs that are
equivalent to and consistent with the federal program. Under EPA's regulations, any aspect of a state
law or program that acts as a prohibition on the treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste in
the state, and that has no basis in human health or environmental protection, Is considered
inconsistent with the federal program. If a state adopts such a prohibition, EPA has the authority to
withdraw the state's authorization.
A number of authorized state and local governments have recently issued, or are considering issuing,
restrictions on the management of hazardous waste that, arguably, prohibit or restrict certain waste
management practices without a clear environmental basis. For example, a recent North Carolina law
has the effect of preventing the State Department of Human Resources from issuing a permit to the
owners of a proposed hazardous waste treatment facility In Laurinburg, North Carolina. Although the
basis for this bill was ostensibly the protection of human health and the environment, EPA Region IV
and Headquarters were concerned that it in effect was a ban on a particular treatment technology
without an adequate basis In health and environmental protection. In November 1987, EPA issued an
-------
Page 32 Major Regional Issues
Order to Commence Proceedings to Determine Whether to Withdraw Hazardous Waste Program
Approval for the State of North Carolina. Subsequently, however. EPA deferred action on this specific
case while it conducted an overall national policy review of consistency and capacity issues under RCRA
and CERCLA,
As a result of this policy review, conducted by a national task force, EPA now believes that the most
appropriate way to address this issue In North Carolina and comparable situations is through the
capacity certification process of section 104 (k) of CERCLA. This section requires each state to provide
assurance of hazardous waste treatment/disposal capacity for wastes reasonably expected to be
generated within the state In the next twenty years. If a state falls to make such an assurance by
October 17,1989, monies for Superfund remedial action will be withheld from that state. AsEPA'stask
force concluded, this CERCLA certification process offers a clear statutory tool through which EPA can
f *
ensure that a state has sufficient capacity to manage its own hazardous wastes and to cooperate with
other states In these endeavors. Therefore, the Agency now Intends to follow this CERCLA process,
rather than rely on RCRA program withdrawal, to ensure that states maintain adequate hazardous
waste capacity and do not prohibit the development of in-state capacity.
CURRENT STATUS: The task force recommendations on capacity assurances were presented to EPA
management In the summer of 1988. The National Program Office Is now developing guidance to states
In making CERCLA 104 (k) capacity assurances. (The guidance was published In draft form for
comment on August 31, 1988). State certifications are due by October 17, 1989.
•
MAJOR WATERS/ORGANIZATIONS
U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works and the Environment
National Governors Association
Environmental Policy Institute
Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
October 17, 1989: State capacity certifications are due
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Jonathan Z. Cannon, Deputy Assistant Administrator. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Re-
sponse, Headquarters
Sylvia Lowrance, Director, Office of Solid Waste, Headquarters
Lee DeHihns, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IV
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 33
POTENTIAL WITHDRAWAL OP NORTH CAROLINA'S RCRA PROGRAM
ISSUE STATEMENT: Region IV believes that a law passed by the North Carolina General Assembly
in June, 1987. renders the state's approved hazardous waste management program inconsistent with
the Federal program and with other approved state hazardous waste management programs. The
enactment impedes the flow of hazardous waste into North Carolina's borders, limits the capacity of
commercial hazardous waste treatment facilities, and restricts the implementing state agency's
authority to issue permits to owners/operators of commercial hazardous waste treatment facilities.
Other states, such as Kentucky and Tennessee, have passed legislation ostensibly allowing a local veto
of hazardous waste permits. In South Carolina a proposal to raise out-of-state fees for hazardous waste
disposal from $11 to $108 a ton is being considered. What is EPA's role in these Issues, and what
legislative authority is pursued (Superfund or Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) if EPA
involvement is deemed appropriate?
ACTION FORCING EVENT: The passing of a state law in North Carolina that limits the state's capacity
to handle hazardous waste forced action on this issue.
" •
BACKGROUND: States may apply to EPA for authorization to administer and enforce hazardous waste
management programs analogous to the federal program. North Carolina was granted such
authorization In December 1984. hi order to retain authorization, however, states must maintain
programs that are equivalent to, and consistent with, the federal program, and must provide adequate
enforcement of compliance standards. Failure to do so prompts EPA to withdraw authorization from
a state whenever the Agency concludes, after a withdrawal proceedings hearing, that the state is not
administering and enforcing an authorized program in accordance with EPA regulations
The ratified version of North Carolina Senate Bill SI 14 evolved from three drafts originating in the
Senate Committee on the Environment. In effect, the Bill prevents the Department of Human
Resources from issuing a permit to the owners of the proposed hazardous waste treatment facility in
Laurinburg, North Carolina. Each draft was sent to Region IVby the North Carolina General Assembly
for review and comment. In each Instance. Region IV believed that the language of the drafts would
compromise the state's hazardous waste management authority, thereby rendering the state program
inconsistent. Region IV expressed these views in three letters to the General Assembly in March, April
and May, 1987, and in a letter to Governor James Martin in June 1987. The North Carolina General
Assembly ratified Senate Bill SI 14. In July, 1987, Region IV asked the state to furnish additional
information. After reviewing the state's submission. Region IV determined that cause existed to begin
program withdrawal proceedings. In addition, GSX Chemical Services, Inc. and the Hazardous Waste
Treatment Council petitioned EPA to withdraw authorization of North Carolina's hazardous waste
program.
-------
Page 34 Major Regional Issues
CURRENT STATUS: In November 1987, EPA Issued an Order to Commence Proceedings to Determine
Whether to Withdraw Hazardous Wastes Program Approval. In January 1988, EPA Headquarters
requested that Region IV postpone the heating scheduled for February 23-25. 1988, for four months.
EPA Headquarters wanted to review this legislation, as well as similar legislation, at the national level.
In August 1988, the hearing was postponed Indefinitely, pending completion of the national policy
review of consistency and capacity Issues under RCRA and CERCLA.
MAJOR PLAYERS/ORGANIZATIONS
U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works and the Environment;
Governor James Martin, North Carolina;
Lacy Thornburg, North Carolina Attorney General;
North Carolina General Assembly
Secretary David Flaherty. North Carolina Department of Human Resources;
Rena Stienzor, Environmental Policy Institute;
John Runkle, North Carolina Conservation Council;
Stephen Earp, GSX Chemical Services, Inc.;
David Case. Hazardous Waste Treatment Council
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
Unknown: Completion of national policy review
Unknown: Hearing to discuss potential withdrawal of state program authorization
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Lee DeHihns, Deputy Regional Administrator. Region IV
Patrick Tobln, Director, Waste Management Division, Region IV
John Cannon. Deputy Assistant Administrator. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, HQ
Sylvia Lowrance. Director, Office of Solid Waste, HQ
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 35
ESTABLISHING A VIABLE GULP OP MEXICO PROGRAM
ISSUE STATEMENT: EPA is in the early stages of attempting to develop comprehensive strategies
aimed at protecting and promoting the beneficial uses of the national coastal resources. The Gulf
of Mexico, as a whole, is and will continue to be subjected to pressures from multiple uses.
ACTION FORCING EVENT: This is a joint Region IV and Region VI initiative, based on the national
attention being given to ocean and coastal issues.
BACKGROUND: The Gulf of Mexico is an especially important national resource: it annually yields over
40% of the total domestic commercial fishery landings; Gulf Coast wetlands comprise about half of the
national total; the Gulf shrimp fishery is in the nation's single most valuable fishery; 75% of migratory
waterfowl have critical habitat in the Gulf; and 66% of the contiguous U.S. drains*ihto the Gulf of
Mexico. However, the ecological integrity of the Gulf is at risk. As a result, some areas of the Gulf are
losing wetlands at a rate of over 60 sq. miles per year.
The continued health and production of the Gulf must become a national priority. The program is
envisioned to be a coordinated effort, with substantive participation by state and other federal agencies,
academia, and environmental groups. The holistic approach to assessing and resolving near-shore
trends and problems appears to offer the greatest opportunity to successfully develop and implement
sound resource management strategies.
•
EPA has committed significant resources to the Chesapeake Bay and Great Lake systems and to twelve
other estuary systems. There are a large number of agencies currently involved with the Gulf of Mexico,
but at this time. EPA's funding commitments are not in proportion relative to the Gulfs productivity
and value to the nation, hi the decision-making process for appropriate allocation of resources, EPA
must have access to accurate information on the relative status of the coastal ecosystems at risk in
order to establish priorities for efficient management of the coastal environment.
CURRENT STATUS: hi August 1986, Region IV hosted a workshop in Gulf Shores. Alabama, with the
purpose of bringing together the broad-based user groups active in the Gulf. All present encouraged
EPA to initiate the process to "institutionalize" the program. The overall response has been very
positive. A major milestone has been the commitment from EPA Headquarters to establish a Program
Office at the Stennls Space Center facilities near Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. -Additionally, Region VI
in Dallas has become a full partner in this joint effort, and other agencies are considering personnel
and funding support for this effort. NASA is providing office space and program support at the Program
Office. Plans for a symposium next year in New Orleans are being developed to initiate a comprehensive
assessment of the system and to develop and implement sound, workable management strategies.
Other actions this fiscal year included a State Directors' briefing in March and the establishment of the
Program office this past August.
-------
Page 36 Major Regional Issues
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS:
Since this program will establish a collaborative, coordinated forum Involving virtually all federal and
state agencies with regulatory or managerial mandates In the Gulf of Mexico, in addition to user and
citizen groups, the list of players Is quite extensive. The Technical Steering Committee Is composed
of approximately 40 members representing state, federal, local government agencies, academla, etc.
ACTION DATES OR MILESTONES:
December 5-7,1988: Policy Review Board - First Meeting
January 24-26,1989: Citizens Advisory Committee - First Meeting
November 16-18,1989: Galveston Symposium (Center for Environmental Education)
KEY EPA CONTACTS:
Lee DeHihns, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IV
Joe Winkle, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region VI
Doug Lipka, Director, Gulf of Mexico Program
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 37
WETLANDS PROTECTION
ISSUE STATEMENT: EPA's review of permits granted by the Corps of Engineers has shown that the
majority of the permits being issued have inadequate measures to replace the wetlands functions, and
significance acreages that are lost as a result of the projects.
ACTION FORCING EVENT: Region IV encompasses 35 million acres of wetlands, which is about 36%
of the nation's total wetlands (excluding Alaska and Hawaii). EPA's review of permit applications has
highlighted the need for a national policy to protect wetlands.
BACKGROUND: Historic losses of wetlands have resulted in a decline In the environmental quality
of our nation's waters. Region IV continues to review 3,000 permit applications each year and an
f -
annual enforcement review of 500 cases. Historic losses between 1955 and 1975 within the Region
were estimated to be 240,000 acres peryear. The Region's review of these past trends and of its present
permit load result in cases being elevated for consideration of a permit veto by the Administrator.
The major positive effect of these activities is the reduction of wetland conversion through permit
denials, modifications of permit applications to reduce the number of wetland acres affected, and
conditions attached to issued permits that lessen the impact of activities on wetlands. However, only
a small percentage of Section 404 permit applications are actually denied; denials accounted for only
2.7% nationwide in 1981. A much greater percentage of applications (31% nationwide) are modified
in the permitting process to lessen harmful Impacts.
According to statistics for 1980 and 1981, the Corps of Engineers' districts (excluding Alaska) processed
permit applications for filling approximately 100,000 acres of wetlands peryear. The projects that were
actually authorized by the Corps resulted in the loss of approximately 50,000 acres of wetlands, a 50%
reduction achieved through permit modification, withdrawals, and denials of Section 404 permit
applications. While this is much lower than the regional 240,000 acres per year during 1955-1975,
it is still a substantial loss of very productive acreage.
CURRENT STATUS: The Region deals daily with the Corps to affect a "no net loss of wetland function."
However, the Corps continues to issue permits that it considers to be in the public interest without
requiring the restoration/creation of the wetland functions that are lost.
There is a need to establish a national wetland protection policy in 1989. EPA should adopt the National
Wetlands Policy Forum's goal statement to (1) achieve no overall net loss of the nation's remaining
wetlands base, as defined by acreage and function and (2) to restore and create wetlands to increase
the quality and quantity of the nation's wetlands resource base.
-------
Page 38 Major Regional Issues
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
The Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) and the EPA Administrator.
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
Ongoing. Region IV annually reviews about 3,000 applications for 404 permits and about 500
enforcement cases.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Lee DeHihns, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IV
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 39
REGION V - CHICAGO
GREAT LAKES NATIONAL PROGRAM
ISSUE STATEMENT: Interest in the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem is at a high level, and is further
highlighted by the international nature of the Lakes and the high level of concern that exists on the
Canadian side of the border. Recently, specific initiatives have been mandated to address the presence
of toxics and "in place pollutants" within the Great Lakes Basin. These demonstration projects
represent some of the most significant initiatives to be undertaken by the Great Lakes National Program
Office in support of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as mandated by the Clean Water Act.
ACTION FORCING EVENT: The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement commits the tt.S. to "restore
and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes Basin
Ecosystem." Section 118 of the Clean Water Act requires EPA to coordinate and implement an In-Place
Pollutant Program for the control and removal of toxic pollutants from bottom sediments.
BACKGROUND: The problem of contamination within the Great Lakes ecosystem arose through
historic discharge of wastes from a major portion of U.S. population and industry into the virtually
closed lake system. While nearly all visible problems have been eliminated, the presence of significant
human health risks and continued damage to biological systems highlight the continuing environ-
mental problems due to toxic contamination.
CURRENT STATUS: A wide range of activities are under way to carry out EPA's commitments under
Section 118 of the Clean Water Act and the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. These include
developing and coordinating the implementation of the In-Place Pollutant Program; surveillance and
monitoring; developing and establishing ecosystem health indicators; developing and implementing
Lakewide Management Plans and Remedial Action Plans; and identifying and assessing point and
nonpoint source impact zones.
MAJOR PLATERS/ORGANIZATIONS
Region V of EPA is the Federal lead for coordinating and implementing Great Lakes initiatives.
Environment Canada is the primary Canadian Federal Agency involved. The International Joint
Commission, the LJC Great Lakes Water Quality Board and the Great Lakes Science Advisory Board
are all involved in Great Lakes environmental activities. The Great Lakes States are all active in Great
Lakes environmental Issues. In addition, various public interest groups have been very involved in
Great Lakes issues.
-------
Page 40 Major Regional Issues
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
Section 118 of the Clean Water Act calls for an annual report to Congress, due December 31, 1988.
In 1989, the Great Lakes National Programs Office will conduct an Assessment and Remediation of
Contaminated Sediments Project. Literature reviews on the biological effects of contaminated
sediments and on technological assessments/demonstrations for Great Lakes applicability will be
completed by 9/89. A strategy for proposed demonstration projects, including selection of sites and
technologies, will be developed, with recommendations for demonstrations projects proposed by 9/89.
A framework for evaluating In-place contaminated sediments, application of the framework to each
priority Identified, and a final report on each priority will be developed by 1/90.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Valdas V. Adamkus, Regional Administrator for Region V. and Great Lakes National Program
Manager. _ •
Carol Finch, Director, Great Lakes National Program Office, Region V
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 41
POTENTIAL OZONE FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR CHICAGO
ISSUE STATEMENT: EPA may be required to produce an ozone Federal Implementation Plan for the
Chicago ozone demonstration area. (This Issue is also discussed in the Office of Air and Radiation paper
on Ozone and Carbon Monoxide nonattainment.
ACTION FORCING EVENT: The State of Wisconsin has filed suit in U.S. District Court requesting that
EPA be forced to produce an ozone Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the Chicago area.
BACKGROUND: Violations of the ozone standard continue to occur downwind of the Milwaukee area.
The State of Wisconsin is convinced that the ozone violations are due primarily to emissions from the
Chicago area, and that EPA has not taken sufficient actions to ensure that the State of Illinois has
adopted and implemented all required emission control regulations.
CURRENT STATUS: The lawsuit remains before the District Court. Both sides have filed affidavits
on the relevant issues. EPA has issued final disapprovals of Illinois' and Indiana's revisions to the 1982
ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Chicago area. It has also Implemented a ban on the
growth of major Volatile Organic Compounds In the ozone nonattainment portions of the Chicago ozone
demonstration area.
On September 30,1988, the Illinois and Indiana Ozone SIPs were disapproved. On November 9,1988,
EPA met with Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin on the need to collect information needed for the FIP.
MAJOR PLATERS/ORGANIZATIONS
Donald Theiler, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Michael Hayes, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Wisconsin Congressional Delegation, in particular Senator Les Aspln.
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
November 1989: States are to complete preparation of updated precursor emission inventories for
the Chicago and Milwaukee ozone demo areas.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Don Clay, Acting AA, Office of Air and Radiation, HQ
Frank Covlngton, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region V;
Gerry Emlson, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, RTP.
-------
Page 42 Major Regional Issues
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 43
NEED FOR WASTE WATER DISCHARGE LIMITS FOR DIOXIN
ISSUE STATEMENT: The discharge of chlorinated dloxln and furan from bleach process kraft paper
mills results In dioxln contamination in fish, sludge, water column, sediment, and paper products. This
circumstance requires the establishment of waste water discharge limits for dioxin.
ACTION FORCING EVENT: The requirement for Individual Control Strategies (ICS) by States In
February 1989. and review by Regions as required by Section 304(1) of the Clean Water Act, ensures
that the Issue needs to be dealt with during FY1989. ICS refers to permits that require specific control
of each individual toxic pollutant. Also, waste water discharge permits are due for renewal, and several
large new sources of dioxln contamination are proposed.
j*-..
BACKGROUND: Studies by Region V and other Regions as part of the National Dioxin Study, and
subsequent joint investigations by EPA and Industry In the last several years, have demonstrated the
widespread dioxln contamination. Congress, States, and many Industries have a considerable degree
of interest, because of extensive recent publicity and congressional testimony related to the Pidgeon
River in North Carolina. Other controversial sites are in Minnesota, Ohio, Maine, and Michigan.
Technological remedies are not yet fully determined.
0
CURRENT STATUS: The Office of Water has issued an Interim strategy for permitted facilities, and
Is preparing a strategy for new sources. Water quality based limits are not yet required.
MAJOR PLAYERS/ORGANIZATIONS
Congress, the states, and many Industries are very Interested In this issue. There are also many
interested local environmental groups, and national environmental groups Including the Natural
Resource Defense Council, the National Wildlife Federation, and Greenpeace.
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
February 1989: Individual Control Strategies are due from States.
August 1989 : EPA review is completed
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Rebbeca Hanmer, Acting AA, Office of Water, HQ Frank Covlngton, Deputy Regional Administrator,
Region V
Chuck Sutfln, Director, Water Division, Region V
-------
Page 44 Major Regional Issues
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 45
POTENTIAL WITHDRAWAL OP WISCONSIN'S NPDES PROGRAM
ISSUE STATEMENT: Wisconsin had proposed to issue eleven water discharge permits that lacked
limits on toxic effluents. Based on that action, the National Wildlife Federation and other environ-
mental groups then petitioned EPA to withdraw authorization for the state's National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. EPA has deferred responding to the petition pending
state action to address the issues. The National Wildlife Federation filed a complaint in court over EPA's
failure to withdraw the Wisconsin program. Meanwhile, the state has been correcting its regulatory
deficiencies.
ACTION FORCING EVENT: The Court could direct EPA to respond to the petition. This would require
a formal EPA decision on whether to begin the formal program de-delegation process.
-*•
BACKGROUND: Wisconsin proposed issuance of 11 paper mill permits that failed to contain appro-
priate toxic effluent limits. The Region V office formally objected to these permits and held a hearing
on the objections. In February 1987, the National Wildlife Federation and associated environmental
groups petitioned EPA to withdraw the Wisconsin NPDES program, citing primarily the state's inability
to issue water discharge permits with toxic effluent limits. The environmental groups claimed that a
statutory defect and deficiencies in state regulations for setting toxic limits made it impossible to cure
the defects in the 11 permits.
While the state and the Region disputed these allegations, state legislative changes were enacted and
proposed changes to regulations were developed, to address some of the petitioners concerns. The
Regional Administrator and the Governor of Wisconsin entered into an agreement to promulgate
regulations on a set schedule ending in January 1989.
CURRENT STATUS: The State is on schedule to promulgate the rules by January 1989. The rules
are currently before the Joint Committee on Legislative Rules, the last step in final adoption. The 11
permits have been issued with appropriate limits, and EPA has withdrawn its objections. The state has
eliminated one-third of its permit backlog. EPA is in the final stages of responding to the National
Wildlife Federation's discovery case.
MAJOR PLAYERS/ORGANIZATIONS
National Wildlife Federation
Wisconsin Wildlife Federation
Citizens for a Better Environment
Wisconsin Environmental Decade
-------
Page 46 Major Regional Issues
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
American Paper Institute
Wisconsin Paper Council
Wisconsin Municipalities
Great Lakes United
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
January 1989: EPA to review state compliance with the agreement for the state to promulgate
regulations, and will review legislators' approval of regulations.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Frank Covington, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region V
Chuck H. Sutfln, Director, Water Division, Region V
Lee Schroer. Assistant General Counsel, OGC, HQ
Jim Elder, Director, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, HQ
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 47
REGION VI - DALLAS
VERTAC SUPERFUND SITE, ARKANSAS
ISSUE STATEMENT: The Vertac Superfund site in Jacksonville, Arkansas, is one of the major dloxin
sites in the nation. The area of investigation includes a residential area, a municipal sewage treatment
system. Rocky Branch Creek, and Bayou Meto (36 square miles). In addition, the State is presently
soliciting requests for proposals regarding the onslte incineration of 30,000 drums of contaminated
still-bottom wastes. The public is concerned about the health risks associated with cleanup processes,
especially the inclneratlon-of dioxln-contamlnated wastes in close proximity to residential areas.
•
ACTION FORCING EVENT: In 1978, Vertac participated in the National Dloxin Survey» and EPA found
dloxin at levels as high as 40 ppm in production wastes at Vertac. As a result, EPA and the State of
Arkansas began investigations of the Vertac site and offsite areas. In 1979, the State issued an order
that required Vertac to Improve operational practices. In 1980, the State of Arkansas and EPA filed
suits against Vertac and Hercules.
BACKGRpUND: For more than thirty years, pesticides were produced at the Vertac Chemical Corpo-
ration plant In Jacksonville, Arkansas. Dloxin is a chemical by-product of a pesticide produced at the
site. Dloxin contamination was identified at the Vertac plant site, as well as in adjacent off-site areas.
Vertac and Hercules began onsite remedial action in the summer of 1984, completing it in July 1986.
The remedy did not Include disposal of 30,000 drums of contaminated still bottom wastes or closure
of the plant site. In February of 1987, Vertac abandoned the plant area. Hercules remained on-site
to operate and maintain the treatment facilities for the leachate collection system that was Installed
as part of the companies' remedial action.
Because of extreme deterioration of the original 30,000 containers, a federal response action was
Initiated In February 1987 to redrum the wastes, place the containers in covered storage, and prevent
further degradation of the site. This action is scheduled for completion in December 1988. The State
has recently requested contract bids for the Incineration of the drummed wastes. Proposals and bids
are due no later than November 15, 1988.
CURRENT STATUS: Hercules Incorporated recently conducted a study of the residential area adjacent
to the Vertac Plant area, and found dloxin above the propose action levels for such areas. As a
consequence, Hercules agreed to remove this dloxin contaminated soil from the residential area, to
decontaminate any homes in that area, and to construct a fence around a contaminated wooded area.
The contaminated soil will be stored at the Vertac Plant site for later disposition. A public meeting has
been scheduled for late November to present a proposed plan for the remaining off-site areas to the
public for comment.
-------
Page 48 Major Regional Issues
The Federal removal action for drum maintenance is continuing.and it should be completed by
December 1988. The redrumming effort is not to be considered a resolution of the problem. It is
expected that the chemical and physical properties of the drum contents will cause continuous
deterioration of the containers, making thermal destruction necessary for ultimate disposal.
The State win not know until November 15,1988, if it will be able to incinerate the 30,000 drums within
the cost limit of $10.7 million in the trust fund established by Vertac before it abandoned the property.
Arkansas made a conscious decision not to follow Federal procurement practices, which precludes
directing any Federal funding to the operation of the Incinerator.
Funds have been set aside in the budget to start an onsite Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
in FY1989, although the funding level is well below what the Region believes is necessary to conduct
f..
these activities this fiscal year.
The Department of Justice has presently pending, in the U.S. District Court, actions against the
successor corporations of Vertac to determine their liability for the Vertac plant site. Settlement
negotiations are ongoing.
MAJOR PLAYERS/ORGANIZATIONS
Davis Pryor, U.S. Senate
Dale Bumpers, U.S. Senate
Tommy Robinson, U.S. House of Representatives
Bill Clinton. Governor of Arkansas
Doug Wood, State Representative
Mike Wilson, State Representative
Paul Means, Director, Arkansas Department of Pollution, Control and Ecology
M. Joycelyn Elders, Director, Arkansas Department of Health
Department of Justice
Department of the Interior
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Jacksonville People With Pride (JPWP)
People Against a Chemically Contaminated Environment (PACCA).
Arkansas Chemical Cleanup Alliance
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 49
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
November 15, 1988: Bids are due to State for incineration of drummed wastes. If the State does
not have an acceptable proposal for incineration, alternatives must be considered.
December 1988: Completion of federal redrummlng effort as a temporary solution.
January 1989: Record of Decision signature for Off-site Remediation is anticipated.
FY 1989: The RI/FS for onsite closure is to begin.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Joe D. Winkle, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region VI
AUyn M. Davis, Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division, Region VI
-------
Page 50 Major Regional Issues
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 51
AIR MONITORING IN INTERNATIONAL EL PASO-JUAREZ AIR BASIN
ISSUE STATEMENT: Conducting monitoring/emissions Inventories In El Paso-Cludad Juarez, and
planning the modeling of International transport of air pollutants In the El Paso-Ciudad Juarez air
basin, will be important tasks over the next twelve months In Region VI. The most important aspect
of this activity Is Its International dimension.
ACTION FORCING EVENT: The proposed Annex Vto the 1983 U.S.-Mexico Environmental Agreement
is currently under negotiation with Mexico. As now envisioned, it will require ambient monitoring,
emissions inventories, and atmospheric dispersion modeling In the entire international El Paso-Ciudad
Juarez air basin. EPA's requirement for a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for El Paso gives further
impetus to an extensive field study to characterize the partlculate pollution In the airshed.
f..
•V
BACKGROUND: Of the estimated 1.5 million people living In the El Paso-Ciudad Juarez airshed,
approximately 1 million live In Mexico. Although EPA's Mexican counterpart, SEDUE, is working to
address Border air quality problems, industrial and vehicular sources of air pollution In Ciudad Juarez
are essentially uncontrolled. El Paso is a nonattalnment area for 03 and CO, and is a high probability
area for PM-10. Although current levels do not exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
lead and SO2, these pollutants are of concern because of historically high levels. A "brown cloud"
frequently impairs visibility In the winter half-year. The highest 03 value ever recorded in El Paso
occurred during the summer of 1988, while no improvement In CO levels is noted in recent trends. This
is despite real reductions In CO emissions in El Paso.
CURRENT STATUS: A Post-1982 SIP revision for 03 and CO submitted to Headquarters In January
1987 is "on hold." Region 6 does not believe that the measures proposed by Texas in the post-1982
SIP revision are sufficient to attain the national standards. A post-1987 SIP call was made for El Paso
(03 and CO) on May 26, 1988. Texas Is currently collecting emissions data to support its post-1987
plan development. A long-term field study to collect data on PM-10 and possibly CO, 03, VOC, Nox,
and SO2 Is planned to start In Winter 1989. A Congressional "add-on" to Region 6's budget will enable
cooperative monitoring In Mexico. A meeting between EPA (Region 6 and Office of International
Activities) and SEDUE is planned for the week of November 14, to discuss the cooperative monitoring
and the proposed Annex V, which would facilitate a long-term analysis of the air basin's air problems.
MAJOR PLATERS/ORGANIZATIONS:
Congress ~ Rep. Ronald Coleman (El Paso)
Sen. Phil Gramm
Sen. Lloyd Bentsen
SEDUE (Government of Mexico) — Rene Altamirano (Mexico City)
-------
Page 52 Major Regional Issues
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
Early November 1988 -- EPA (Region 6) meets with Rep. Coleman's staff to discuss use of Con-
gressional funds In air monitoring.
Week of November 14, 1988 -- EPA meets with SEDUE In El Paso to discuss use of Congres-
sional funds.
Winter 1989 - Field sampling study begins In El Paso-Ciudad Juarez.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Don Clay, Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation
Joe D. Winkle. Deputy Regional Administrator, Region VI
William B. Hathaway, Director Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division, Region VI
Conrad Meveno, Director, Bilateral Staff, Office of International Activities
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 53
REGION VIII - DENVER
ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL SUPERFUND SITE, COLORADO
ISSUE STATEMENT: The Administrator may be called on to clarify the remedy-selection authority of
EPA under the Superfund legislation, in conjunction with the remedy-selection authority of the State
of Colorado under State law and under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. This issue is
blocking settlement of litigation surrounding Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA).
The Administrator may also make decisions on remedy selections for RMA Interim cleanup actions or
other national-precedent matters, such as the acceptability of EPA's cancer assessment methodology.
These situations would arise if the litigation were settled and if the dispute resolution.mechanism of
the proposed consent decree were invoked by one of the parties.
ACTION-FORCING EVENT: A consent decree between the Department of Justice, Shell Oil Company,
and the State of Colorado is expected to be completed In the near future. Achieving final acceptance
of that proposed decree in 1989, or implementing the decree, could trigger the need for addressing the
stated issues at any time.
BACKGROUND: There are numerous sites on RMA where industrial wastes generated by the Army
and Shell were routinely discharged to unlined evaporation basins, burled at various locations, or were
spilled. Contaminants from these sites have entered ground water, surface water, air, and wildlife and
have been transported off the post.
Manufacturing and military operations are now Inactive. The Army's sole charge Is to take the lead on
cleaning up the contamination. EPA oversees the state of the Army efforts and separate Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) work off post.
Three lawsuits exist among the Army, Shell, and the State of Colorado. Questions about Federal and
State jurisdiction complicate all the Issues, Including potential settlement. Negotiations on settlement
began May 8, 1987 and they continue, aided by a court-appointed Special Master.
CURRENT STATUS: Litigation settlement is possible, but Is blocked to date by the Issue of EPA or State
decision-making authority for remedies. Negotiations continue. Meanwhile, EPA, the Army, and Shell
have been Implementing a proposed consent decree that was filed with the court In February 1988.
Since 1984, the Army has been conducting an RI/FS on and off post. Final results are expected to be
available in 1989 (off post) and 1992 (on post). Several interim response actions have been completed
at a total cost of $49 million. Other similar actions that will be completed In FY1989 will cost another
-------
Page 54 Major Regional Issues
$57 million, and several other Interim actions are committed to beyond FY1989. The total expenditure
for interim clean up actions before selection of the final remedies Is now projected to be $198 million.
MAJOR PLATERS/ORGANIZATIONS
The dispute resolution process of the proposed decree Includes successive attempts by four groups to
resolve a formal dispute. At the first level, generally the highest ranking individuals who work full time
on the RMA cleanup are*on the ?1RMA Committee"; for EPA, that is the EPA Coordinator for the RMA,
Connally Mears, in Region VDI.
The second, or "Council" level, Is composed of Robert Duprey, Director of the Region Vin Hazardous
Waste Management Division; Col. Wallace N. Quintrell, the Army's Program Manager for RMA; Chris
Hahn, Shell's Denver Site Project Manager; and David Shelton, Director of the Colorado Hazardous
Waste Division.
The "Steering and Policy Committee" consists of Jim Scherer. EPA Regional Administrator; Walker,
Army Deputy for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health; Mr. Dillard, Vice President of Shell;
and Dr. Tom Vernon, Director of the Colorado Department of Health.
The EPA Administrator serves on the "Final Review Committee" with the Army's Assistant Secretary
for Installations and Logistics, .the Governor of Colorado, and the President of Shell.
The Colorado Attorney General has authority independent of that held by the Governor. The
Department of Justice Is actively involved in the RMA litigation and settlement negotiations.
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
It is impossible to predict at this time If or when the attention of a new Administrator will be necessary.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Jack McGraw, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region VIII
Robert Duprey, Director, Waste Management Division, Region VIII
Connally Mears, EPA Coordinator for all RMA activities, Region VIII
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 55
WESTERN WATER RIGHTS
ISSUE STATEMENT: Relative to EPA's responsibilities under the Clean Water Act and the Water
Quality Act to maintain and enhance water quality, the Administrator will be called upon to address
the Inherent conflict between national water quality protection and western water rights. Western
water rights treat water as property, and may disregard such public interests as water quality
standards, In-stream uses, aquatic life protection, and threatened and endangered species. When
conflicts arise. EPA can either defer attainment of the Clean Water Act's goals, aggressively pursue
water quality issues relative to water rights, or work toward compromise on each specific Clean Water
Act issue. This issue is equally applicable In all of the West, not Just Region vni.
BACKGROUND: The Water Quality Act advances the nation's objective to obtain flshable and swlm-
mable goals for all waters of the U.S. by providing authority to regulate all sources of water pollution.
Under this act. each state must further define the limitations of attaining clean water goals, and must
prevent degradation of high-quality waters.
In the western states, water Is appropriated out of water bodies for economic purposes under the
doctrine of "prior appropriation", without consideration of the environmental consequences. Prior
appropriation, also known as "first in time, first in right", is based upon putting water to economic use
outside of the river. Continued depletions of stream flow directly affect water quality standards or cause
higher costs for water quality protection, since there Is less water available to dilute the remaining
pollution sources.
Actions before EPA Include controversial private and federal agency water resource developments that
deplete flows. For example, the Denver Water Board Is proposing the Two Forks reservoir, which would
eliminate a nationally valued trout fishery and could degrade downstream water quality. EPA is heavily
Involved, due to responsibilities under both the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and
Section 404 of the Water Quality Act. These authorities are triggered because the dam is to be built
on federal land. Local water development agencies argue that, since no federal money is going to the
project, EPA should effectively stay out of the debate.
hi contrast, California has Improved its water rights laws so as to preclude. In many instances, the "first
in time, first in right" concept.
CURRENT STATUS: Many water quality Issues cannot be resolved within the constraints of water
rights appropriation law. Litigation often occurs, which results In delays and additional costs. Envi-
ronmental organizations have initiated litigation In Idaho. Texas, and Colorado, based on these states
failure to develop protective water quality standards and antldegradation procedures.
-------
Page 56 Major Regional Issues
MAJOR PLATERS IN ORGANIZATIONS
Many legal, political, and government Institutions concerned with water rights Issues play Important
roles In protecting their Interests. For example, there are more water rights attorneys in Colorado than
all other states combined. Water conservancy districts, private developers, state water resources
agencies, and federal agencies (Including the Bureau of Reclamation, the Soil Conservation Service,
and the Corps of Engineers) have mandates that often conflict with water quality goals.
Western Regional Administrators. Water Management Division Directors and Regional Counsels face
tough controversial choices on water quality/water rights related projects. Western states, in
implementing water quality standards, consider water rights and water quality issues to be oflf-limits.
In some cases, environmental organizations have attempted to work with developmental Interests to
resolve water rights Issues for new wilderness designations. Until such resolution occurs, wilderness
legislation is stalled in Colorado. Additional litigation is likely, as competing demands increase and
environmental organizations see their interests challenged or ignored.
Urban utilities, a key political power In the West, may at times even use their ownership of new and
existing water.rights to promote changes in water use. An example is Thornton, a Denver suburban
water utility, which Is attempting to use water from agriculture and to return treated sewage effluent
for continuing irrigation. 'Congressional leaders have a key role in developing the compromises needed
to avoid delay due to environmental litigation. Interstate conflicts, such as the Colorado River compact.
to cite another example, result in states resolving their water rights apportionment to the exclusion of
instream water quality values. The courts will be the final arbitrator of unresolved issues of whether
water quantity rights override water quality concerns.
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
It is important for a new Administrator to understand the various interest groups involved with western
water rights, and to be prepared to address these varied and complex challenges. Many of the bigger
battles, both substantive and political, in which EPA becomes involved in the West revolve around this
central issue.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Jim Scherer, Regional Administrator, Region VIII
Max Dodson, Water Management Division Director, Region vm
Bruce Ray. Assistant Regional Counsel, Region VIII
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 57
REGION IX - SAN FRANCISCO
OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT ON
THE CALIFORNIA OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF (OCS)
ISSUE STATEMENT: The leasing and development of oil and gas on the California Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS) have raised ongoing environmental concerns for many years, especially In Southern
California. New leasing proposals, recently recommended by the Minerals Management Service (MMS)
within the Department of Interior, have extended this concern to Central and Northern California.
ACTION FORCING EVENT: Most of EPA's actions, reviews of environmental Impact statements, and
reviews of air pollution control on the Outer Continental Shelf, are triggered ^y the Mineral
Management Service's actions. However, EPA also has the direct regulatory responsibility for issuing
water pollution permits.
BACKGROUND: State jurisdiction over the Outer Continental Shelf extends three miles from the
coastline; beyond that Is federal jurisdiction. The Federal Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act assigned
most of the direct regulatory responsibility for Outer Continental Shelf to MMS. However, the Clean
Water Act authorizes EPA to regulate waste water discharges from OCS exploration, development, and
production activities.
From 1980 to the present, annual oil production on the Southern California OCS increased three-fold
-- from 10 million to over 31 million barrels per year. Substantial increases are expected to continue
Into the early 1990s as the existing leases are developed and put Into production. Consequently,
Industry is spending millions of dollars installing new offshore and onshore infrastructure. This
includes platforms, pipelines, processing facilities, and other support facilities.
Major Outer Continental Shelf environmental concerns Include:
the cumulative Impacts of OCS air emissions on air quality downwind or onshore in the coastal
air basins of Southern California (Santa Barbara and the South Coast);
the Impacts of oil spills and other OCS activities on sensitive biological habitats;
the water quality and biological/ecological impacts from long-term discharges of drilling muds
and produced waters;
the Impacts on commercial fishing, including displacement from fishing areas, damage to gear,
seismic testing effects, contamination of commercial species from oil spills or
discharges; and
-------
Page 58 Major Regional Issues
the secondary Impacts upon coastal communities resulting from onshore production-related
facilities and population growth.
The three major EPA-related activities Involving the OCS are lease sales, water pollution controls, and
air pollution controls.
LEASE SALES: The Minerals Management Service defines the geographic scope and pace of future
OCS leasing activity through its nationwide 5-year lease plan. It develops a programmatic environ-
mental impact statement which generally assesses the environmental impacts of such leasing. When
specific lease sales are proposed. MMS also prepares site-specific environmental impact statements.
By law, EPA is required to review and comment on all these statements and on other environmental
documents prepared In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
•f -
•v
In 1987, MMS approved a highly controversial 5-year plan. It again proposed to lease OCS lands off
Northern California and Central California. If finally offered, these would be the first leases in these
areas In 20 years. However, because of unique circulation patterns and sensitive marine biological
habitats, discharges from platforms in these areas may have very serious Impacts on the marine
environment. In addition, intensive development of now-pristine onshore areas would raise major
questions about consistency with the California Coastal Zone Management Plan. The 5-year plan also
proposed to lease additional areas in Southern California that have been closed previously. Prior
attempts at expanded leasing have repeatedly met intense public and Congressional opposition,
including several Congresslonalty imposed moratoria since 1982.
CURRENT STATUS: In December 1987 MMS published the site-specific, draft environmental impact
statement for new leasing in the Northern California area. The proposal evoked objections from several
thousand protesters and strong opposition from local and Congressional representatives. EPA, in its
comments on the draft, expressed "environmental objections" principally because the draft downplayed
the risks to sensitive biological areas, especially from oil spills. We requested further analysis of
alternatives that might reduce the oil spill risk, adoption of leasing "stipulations" designed to protect
the environment, and more information on a variety of other issues.
Following intense public controversy during the early stages of the Presidential campaign, the
Secretary of Interior indefinitely delayed the publishing of Northern California's final environmental
Impact statement and the lease sale. He also delayed action on statements for other lease sale areas
in California. This delay was reaffirmed by a temporary Congressional moratorium imposed in
September 1988.
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
There may be some action on these environmental impact statements by the Department of the Interior
during 1989.
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 59
WATER POLLUTION CONTROLS: Under the Clean Water Act, EPA is authorized to Issue permits to
control the discharge of wastewater from various OCS facilities.
On February 18,1982, Region 9 issued a general permit to authorize discharges from OCS oil and gas
facilities. Including exploration, development, and production facilities. However, the general permit
expired on June 30. 1984. Region 9 has been working for over four years to issue two new general
permits (one for exploration, one for development and production). Until the permits are issued, Region
9 must issue individual permits for new OCS activities. Existing facilities that were operating under
the expired general permit continue to be covered by conditions of that expired permit.
CURRENT STATUS: On October 13. 1987, Region 9 sent draft general permits to EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Water for review and concurrence. At that time several Issues needed to be resolved.
On August 15, 1988, Region 9 forwarded revised general permits to Headquarters that reflected
resolution of all issues except one: whether it is necessary for the California Coastal Commission to
issue a determination that the general permit is consistent with the Coastal Zone Management Act. The
Office of General Council is currently considering several options.
OGC must determine, as soon as possible, what approach is appropriate regarding consistency
determinations. When this issue is resolved. Region 9 will proceed to publish its final pe'rmit.
AIR POLLUTION CONTROLS: There is concern that the projected Increases in offshore oil and gas
activities may impede the attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, particularly the
standards for ozone and nitrogen dioxide. This concern Is most pronounced in the Santa Barbara
Channel/Point Conception OCS area where substantial increases in emissions are projected. Region
9 has worked for several years with MMS, the California Air Resources Board, Santa Barbara, and
Ventura to quantify the onshore impacts of offshore oil production.
The OCS Lands Act and a U.S. Supreme Court decision (California v. Kleppe), gave the Department of
the Interior sole authority for direct regulation of air pollution. However, Region 9 and many others,
including the State of California, have remained concerned about potential onshore impacts of such
emissions, and their effect on the ability of onshore areas to comply with Clean Air Act requirements.
One major concern is the disparity between the stringent regulatory requirements for onshore facilities
and the less stringent requirement imposed by MMS on OCS facilities.
In response to these concerns, MMS began to promulgate revised air quality regulations for California
OCS facilities. It took the innovative approach of using a negotiated rulemaklng procedure. EPA has
actively participated In this process, as have representatives of industry and environmental groups,
and state and local agencies.
-------
Page 60 Major Regional Issues
CURRENT STATUS: Unfortunately negotiations on the new rules stalled, and MMS unilaterally
drafted a proposed rule. This summer, after reviewing this new rule. Industry groups and the state
renewed their interest in developing a consensus rule. Though problems still remain, progress is being
made.
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
Aconsensus rule should be assembled this fall. If consensus Is reached, we expect that the Department
of the Interior will publish the consensus. If not, Interior may publish Its own rule. EPA will review
the new rule when It Is completed.
MAJOR PLAYERS AND ORGANIZATIONS
There are an extremely large number of participants In the various OCS debates. The participation
varies dramatically depending upon the issue and geographic location Involved. However, many of the
principal participants are listed below.
Federal Agencies: MMS, EPA. NOAA, FWS
State Agencies: California Coastal Commission
State Water Resource Control Board
Air Resources Board
Department of Fish and Game
Local Agencies: Santa Barbara City and County, numerous coastal
cities and counties
Most of the Congressional delegation, including both Senators
The Governor supports Increased oil and gas leasing, with strict
environmental safeguards.
Environmental Groups: Sierra Club, Oceanic Society, NRDC,
Greenpeace and others
KEY EPA CONTACTS
John Wise, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region DC
Deanna M. Wleman, Director, Office of External Affairs, Region DC
Harry Seraydarlan, Director, Water Management Division, Region DC
David P. Howekamp. Director, Air Management Division, Region DC
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 61
POTENTIAL FEDERAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
FOR CALIFORNIA SOUTH COAST
ISSUE STATEMENT: How will EPA respond to the 1988 State Implementation Plan( SIP) for the South
Coast (Los Angeles area)? What are the Federal Implementation Plan options? (This issue is also
discussed in the Office of Air and Radiation paper on Ozone and Carbon Monoxide nonattalnment.)
ACTION FORCING EVENT: A November 1987 decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
mandated EPA's final action on the South Coast 1982 State Implementation Plan for carbon monoxide
and ozone, hi January 1988 EPA disapproved the plan's attainment demonstration. In February 1988,
the Coalition for Clean Air and Sierra Club filed suit, asking that the U.S. District Court order EPA to
prepare a Federal Implementation Plan for the South Coast for CO and ozone. In^July 1988 EPA
•»
conceded this responsibility.
BACKGROUND: The severity of the ozone and CO problem in the South Coast can only be solved with
massive emission reductions. The 1982 SIP was not stringent enough to attain the 1987 levels required
by the Clean Air Act. Instead of disapproving the plan and banning construction, EPA took no action.
hi an informal settlement of a citizen suit to compel EPAactlon on the 1982 plan, EPAinstltuted in 1985
the "Reasonable Extra Efforts Plan" program for the South Coast and the three other areas of California
whose 1982 plans failed to predict attainment for ozone or CO (Ventura, Sacramento, and Fresno). In
late 1986, the EPA General Counsel concluded that the Reasonable Extra Efforts Plan (and a similar
national post-1987 program proposed by the Administrator) presented major legal problems for EPA,
because the plan abandoned the Clean Air Act's requirement for an attainment demonstration by a
fixed near-term date, and Instead emphasized the state's continuing responsibility to adopt more
stringent control measures and Improve the effectiveness of its state plan implementation.
In July 1987, EPA proposed to disapprove the South Coast's SIP for ozone and CO, along with plans
for 13 other areas across the country. The proposal indicated that final disapproval would be taken
upon EPA's promulgation of a policy for post-1987 CO and ozone nonattainment areas. Disapproval
of the South Coast plan was expedited because of the Ninth Circuit decision mandating final action on
that plan. In partial settlement of citizen suits, EPA also disapproved the Ventura plan at the end of
September 1988, and is preparing to disapprove the Sacramento plan by the end of November.
CURRENT STATUS: The proposed South Coast plan was published in September 1988. It proposes
to contain a new air plan showing attainment of the CO standard by 1997 and the ozone standard by
2007. The proposed plan is also intended to demonstrate that "reasonable efforts" are being made to
submit a corrected plan, and that EPA therefore need not implement the highway and sewage treatment
sanctions.
-------
Page 62 Major Regional Issues
In accordance with a decision by the Administrator In July 1988. EPA has drafted an Advance Notice
of Proposed Rulemaklng setting forth various concerns and options regarding a South Coast Federal
Implementation Plan. Without expressing EPA's position, the notice identifies three options for the
Federal plan: (1) to provide attainment Immediately. (2) to provide attainment In five years, or (3) to
recognize the impossibility of the task and the unacceptable social and economic consequences of near-
term attainment, and to support, Instead, the proposed State plan's ambitious but longer-term
attainment goals.
The advance notice predicts that a five-year attainment Federal Implementation Plan would have
unavoidable devastating results for the South Coast economy and might be practically or legally
unenforceable. Two options for the longer-term Federal plan are identified to ensure achievement of
interim progress and eventual attainment: (1) enforcement of federal measures to meet a. schedule of
•*
basin-wide emissions reductions, or (2) enforcement of federal measures to substitute for any failure
of the state to meet the SIP's targets of control measure adoption or implementation. In both options.
the FIP measures (such as gasoline rationing) would not be triggered If the State plan makes acceptable
progress.
MAJOR PLAYERS/ORGANIZATIONS
U.S. Senator George Mitchell (D-Maine)
U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (D-Califomia)
California State Senator Robert Presley (D-Riverside)
California State Assemblyman Byron Sher (D-Menlo Park)
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Southern California Association of Government
California Air Resources Board
Southern California Edison
Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
Western Oil and Gas Association
Coalition for Clean Air
League of Women Voters
American Lung Association
Sierra Club
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
November 1988: EPA publication of the Federal plan advance notice.
NOT. 21, 1988: District Court Status Conference.
Unscheduled: Department of Justice filing of brief and oral argument on Federal plan schedule or
negotiated settlement.
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 63
Unscheduled : District Court order on FIP schedule.
Dec. 15-16. 1988: State Plan adoption hearings.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Don Clay, Acting AA, Office of Air and Radiation, HQ
Gerald Emlson. Director. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, HQ
John Wise, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region DC
Dave Howekamp, Director, Air "Management Division, Region DC
-------
Page 64 Major Regional Issues
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 65
REGION X - SEATTLE
POTENTIAL OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT IN
THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE. ALASKA
ISSUE STATEMENT: Whether to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas devel-
opment remains one of the major national Issues before Congress with environmental groups. Various
committees of Congress have sought EPA comment on legislation concerning this Issue. Likewise, EPA
has been asked to explain Its criticism of the Department of Interior's Legislative Environmental Impact
Statement prepared to assist Congress In its deliberations over the refuge.
ACTION FORCING EVENT: The decision to open the refuge to oil development rests with Congress.
The Senate Energy Committee, the House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, and the House
Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee all have jurisdiction on this issue. Each of these committees
of Congress will continue to experience heavy lobbying from the various special interest groups. EPA
will be called upon to testify before the committees, and to discuss the regulation of air, water, and
hazardous waste discharges and management as they may effect the protection of the refuge's
environmental resources In the event of oil and gas leasing.
BACKGROUND: In 1980 Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
Section 1002(h) of the Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to examine and quantify oil and gas
reserves within the refuge's coastal plain. Also, the Secretary was tasked with the assessment of
environmental resources within the "1002" area, and their sensitivity /compatibility with oil and gas
exploration/development. A report was prepared for Congress.
A February 1986 federal court ruling directed the Secretary, to give the public an opportunity to review
and comment on proposed oil and gas leasing recommendations for the refuge. Thus, the legislative
environmental impact statement was prepared. On receiving the statement. EPA Headquarters
delegated to Region X the authority to review and comment on the document. EPA recommended that
the Secretary of the Interior's final recommendation to Congress be modified to better reflect the
available scientific Information, and thereby provide for a wider range of alternatives. More specifically,
EPA sought:
1. Assurance that the overall significance of environmental impacts, and the ability to mitigate them,
would be properly stated;
2. The presentation of a more reasonable range of limited exploration/leasing alternatives, and
3. A clear explanation of whether the Secretary proposed any new regulations that may conflict with
existing law. .__„__
-------
Page 66 Major Regional Issues
CURRENT STATUS: Congress will resume in 1989 its deliberation of legislation for the refuge. Both
House and Senate committees have jurisdiction over the Issue. Additional Congressional requests for
EPA testimony should be anticipated. Past testimony has focused upon EPA's opinion of whether
existing laws and regulations would be adequate to protect the refuge's environmental resources in the
event of oil leasing and development.
As a related issue, the Secretary has published a draft legislative environmental impact statement
describing a proposed land swap agreement involving tracts within the refuge. Any land swap will
require Congressional authorization. The draft statement has been reviewed by EPA for compliance
with National Environmental Protection Act and has been rated EC-2: "environmental concerns -
insufficient information."
'•!„
MAJOR PLATERS/ORGANIZATIONS
U.S. Senate Energy Committee
U.S. House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee
U.S. House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee
EPA Region X
Department of Interior
The Department of the Interior remains the Administration's chief sponsor for opening the refuge to
development.
ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
Dates on the the refuge legislation are to be established by Congress. The final impact statement on
the land swap agreement is expected sometime in December 1988.
KEY EPA CONTACTS
Dick Sanderson. Director, Office of Federal Activities, HQ
Dick Bauer, Deputy, Regional Administrator, Region X
Al Ewing, Assistant Regional Administrator for Alaska, Region 10
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 67
ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY FOR WATER QUALITY, IDAHO
'.',\-^..-n.
ISSUE STATEMENT: The Idaho Conservation League has sued EPA of its failure to promulgate a?5
federal antidegradatlon policy to replace a deficient state of Idaho policy. d •&&:"
*•: •, fS
ACTION FORCING EVENT: The lawsuit by the Idaho Conservation League is forcing action on this
issue. .-.-••• ' :•:.-•>. b •••/•
. -tip *j»r«
BACKGROUND: EPA disapproved the Idaho antldegradation policy in June 1985 in response to statcpar
revisions that seriously reduced protection given to existing water quality. EPA then withheld rw
promulgation of a federal policy to give concerned parties in the state an opportunity to develop awu
compromise policy. When no compromise was forthcoming, the Idaho Conservation League sued EPA
I*" •
in December 1987 to force federal promulgation of both a policy and implementing procedures.
The Idaho Legislature adopted a policy in 1988 that fell short of the Governor's expectations. Governor
Andrus' veto of that bill was sustained by one vote in the senate, with the understanding that (1) both
sides would agree to a mediated negotiation process, with an October 1988 deadline for policy/
implementation acceptance: and (2) conservationists would agree to stay their suit.
State policies are required to be consistent with the national policy contained In EPA's Water Quality
Standards Regulation. That policy states:
Existing in-stream uses and the water quality necessary to protect those uses must be maintained;
water quality above that necessary to protect those in-stream uses canbe lowered only if the state finds,
after intergovernmental coordination and public participation, that lowering water quality is "neces-
sary to accommodate Important economic or social development in the area In which the waters are
located"; and water quality in waters which the state has designated an "outstanding national resource"
e.g., parks, refuges — must be maintained.
CURRENT STATUS: The Idaho legislature has adopted the federal policy verbatim as an emergency
measure pending the negotiation process outcome. In September, the parties reached an "Agreement
in Principle," and are now working hard on developing implementing rules and regulations.
The "Agreement in Principle" is a major step forward for the state. Developing the required
implementing rules and regulations for this agreement will be a critical, and very difficult task. Thus
fair, the state seems to be succeeding. If It Is successful, its work will be very beneficial in correcting
deficiencies in other state programs. If it fails, the resultant legal suits against EPA will create very
serious policy and resource problems for the Agency.
-------
Page 68 Major Regional Issues
5 WOT' V '
MAJOR PLATERS/ORGANIZATIONS
Idaho Conservation League
National environmental groups
'if,'
State of Idaho
,
.•• •••!.•
;".-••. ACTION DATES/MILESTONES
September 1988: Agreement in Principle signed.
Nov. 1988 - March 1989: Implementing rules to be adopted.
KEY EPA CONTACTS'
viot
Dick Bauer, Deputy Regional Administrator, Region X
Robert Burd, Director, Water Division. Region X
B •,
-------
Major Regional Issues Page 69
HANFORD CLEANUP ISSUES, WASHINGTON STATE
ISSUE STATEMENT: There are two potential Issues that arise within the current negotiations among
EPA, the State of Washington and the U.S. Department of Energy over a cleanup agreement for DOE's
Hanford Site:
on.v; • ••:
(1) HowjsJUEPA's oversight responsibilities In the Hanford agreement be funded? More broadly, the
Issue Is whether federal agencies with Superfund sites should pay EPA's oversight costs (as private
parties do), or whether EPA should tap the Superfund to pay for such costs.
1 • i ' "; 'r : ' ' '
• -• -• .- ... •., -..,
. '• '. '. . et.'!(.' ' -•- ,' ' .. a-\ : r
(2) How should overlapping legislative authorities at sites such as Hanford be sorted out, especially
given the corresponding overlap between EPA's role under the Superfund legislation and the State's
role under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act? f ^
ere A'.. .
ACTION FORCING EVENT: Hanford has been proposed for the Superfund National Priority List (NPL);
the Superfund legislation provides for a Section 120 Federal Facility Agreement governing cleanup at
NPL sites. RCRA has a series of deadlines for permitting and closure that DOE cannot meet; DOE and
the State must negotiate a compliance order to resolve how RCRA permitting at Hanford will proceed.
The combination of these two requirements create the need for the three-party Hanford Agreement, and
that raises the two issues described above. .
BACKGROUND: Large amounts of radioactive and chemical wastes have accumulated at the Hanford
Site over the 44 years of operation of the nuclear facility. Almost sixty different units have been used
for waste treatment, storage, or disposal since RCRA rules became effective in 1980. These units must
receive RCRA operating permits, or be closed according to RCRA rules.
Over 1200 different units were used for waste disposal priorto 1980. The contamination at these units
caused four major areas of the Hanford Site to be proposed to the Superfund NPL. These pre-1980 units
are also subject to cleanup authorities under the corrective action provisions of RCRA.
The State of Washington has been authorized to operate the basic RCRA program, and so it has the
primary responsibility for regulating the RCRA units at Hanford. EPA has the primary responsibility
for clean-up decisions under Superfund for the pre-1980 units. However, Washington plans to obtain
authorization for the corrective action provisions of RCRA, and it then would have nearly completely
overlapping jurisdiction with EPA This overlap of jurisdictions (created by the two federal laws) makes
it imperative to sort out the responsibilities of EPA and the State.
Oversight costs are a particularly troubling problem for both regulatory agencies. State and EPA law
provides for the recovery of oversight costs from all responsible parties. However, it is not yet clear
whether such provisions apply to federal agencies. The scale of the Hanford problem makes it
-------
Page 70 Major Regional Issues
impossible to shrug
------- |