<pubnumber>100R98003</pubnumber>
<title>Changing Nature of Environmental and Public Health Protection: An Annual Report on Reinvention</title>
<pages>54</pages>
<pubyear>1998</pubyear>
<provider>NEPIS</provider>
<access>online</access>
<operator>BO</operator>
<scandate>04/16/98</scandate>
<origin>hardcopy</origin>
<type>single page tiff</type>
<keyword>epa environmental new states compliance information based communities public program water industry regulatory programs performance data requirements under reporting trading</keyword>
<author> Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Office of Reinvention. United States. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Reinvention.</author>
<publisher>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,</publisher>
<subject>Environmental protection; Health hazards; Public health; Environmental issues; Law enforcement; Pollution regulations; Pollution standards; Compliance; Data base management; Marketing; Sectoral analysis; Intergovernmental relationships; Community relations; State government; Performance evaluation; Remediation; Waste management Health risk assessment--United States</subject>
<abstract>;Table of Contents: Executive Summary; Introduction; A Stronger Partnership With State Agencies; Sector- and Community-Based Approaches; Incentives to Encourage Better Performance; Market-Based Forces Guide Action; Managing in the Information Age; New Approaches to Enforcement and Compliance; Cutting Red Tape and Regulatory Burden; Conclusion; Appendix: Status of Reinvention Projects. </abstract>
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Reinvention
(1801)
11
w/ww.epa.gpv/refnyent
'-'•?;• ' • . f ' _ _ --,'„' *-*iA«*J.t I
i s
The Changing Nature of
Environmental and Public
Health Protection I H
An Annual Report on •„_,
Reinvention 3
image:
image:
THE CHANGING NATURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL
AND PUBLIC HEALTH PROTECTION
An Annual Report on Reinvention
MARCH 1998
image:
image:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5 INTRODUCTION
7 A STRONGER PARTNERSHIP WITH STATE
AGENCIES
7 A Framework for Collaboration
9 Measures to Track Environmental Results
9 Dialogue on Key Policy Issues
10 SECTOR-AND COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACHES
10 An Industry Commits to Improving
Environmental Performance
11 Addressing Industry Needs in Rulemaking
11 Empowering Communities
14 INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE BETTER
PERFORMANCE
14 Flexibility for Going Beyond Compliance
16 Less Reporting for Proven Performers
16 Public Recognition
18 MARKET-BASED FORCES GUIDE ACTION
18 A Marked Increase in Trading
20 ATaxFix
21 Fair Pricing
22 MANAGING IN THE INFORMATION AGE
23 Data Standards
24 Universal Access to Electronic Reporting
24 Reengineering Environmental Database Systems
24 Related Initiatives
25 SUPPORTING THE PUBLIC'S "RIGHT-TO-KNOW"
26 Consumer Labeling Initiative
27 Expansion of the Toxic Release Inventory
27 A Response to Beach Safety Concerns
27 Better Drinking Water Information for
Consumers
29 NEW APPROACHES TO ENFORCEMENT AND
-COMPLIANCE
29 More Choice in Measuring Compliance
30 Meeting Special Compliance Assistance Needs
31 Engaging Local Law Enforcement
31 Using Information To Boost Compliance
31 Encouraging Self-Policing
32 A Comprehensive, Corporatewide Focus
33 CUTTING; RED TAPE AND REGULATORY BURDEN
34 Avoiding; a Patchwork of Regulatory
Requirements ,'-_ ' ; v' J-;
35 Getting Safer Products to Market ,
36 Clarification for Waste Managers
37 Superfund Reform
i
A Common Sense Approach for a Common
-37-
" 38
38
Problem
Creative Permitting
Breaking Thro ugh New Technology Barriers
-39 CONCLUSION
40 APPENDIX: STATUS OF REINVENTION PROJECTS
image:
-——-T"l -—^^pg^^ms^*fj±=__
5v T"V3v t: SIC^ON
^SUMMARY
or 3 yean^JSPA Administrator Carol Browner has led EPA in pursuing
an unprecedented agenda for consistently delivering cleaner, cheaper,
smarter results from environmental and piiblic health protection pro-
grams. This agenda was developed in response to Vice-President Gore's
challenge to all federal agencies to reinvent government so that it works
better and costs less for the American people. It involves streamlining and
innovating within proven programs and testing more integrative, holistic approaches
with the potential to better address unresolved problems that threaten our people and the
natural environment.
EPA's reinvention agenda comes at a time when a
variety of forces are creating pressure for changes to
the nation's environmental regulatory system. This
year's report explains some of the most significant
changes that are taking place in environmental pro-
tection as the twenty-firstrcentury draws near, and
what these changes mean for the way EPA does
business. The results — the practical effects for
businesses, communities, and individuals — are
highlighted below.
GREATER PUBLIC ACCESS TO
INFORMATION
Because Americans have a right-to-know about
environmental risks in their communities and
because an informed, knowledgeable public can
play a meaningful role in solving tough problems,
EPA has expanded public access to environmental
information.
Expanded Reporting on Toxic Releases —
Another 6,400 facilities, representing seven addi-
tional industry sectors, are reporting information on
toxics released into their communities through an
expansion of the nation's Toxic Release Inventory.
Informing Citizens About the Safety of
Drinking Water and Swimming Conditions —
Community water suppliers
soon will be required to
report to their customers on
whether their drinking
water meets federal public
health standards while new
assistance for the States
aims to strengthen water
monitoring and public
advisory programs for
beaches and coastal areas.
Established "Plain English" Labeling
Requirements — New labeling requirements for
the pesticides industry provide consumers with
image:
-f=><=>7
clearer information for selecting and properly using
pesticides and other common household products
in and around their homes.
MORE FLEXIBILITY TO
OBTAIN BETTER RESULTS
In an effort to obtain better
results, EPA is providing businesses
and communities with more flexi-
bility in how they fulfill their public
health and environmental protec-
tion responsibilities. By condition-
ing this offer on a record of proven
performance and public account-
ability, EPA provides assurance that
strong protection will be main-
tained and creates an incentive for
facilities to improve performance.
Testing New Ideas — Through Project XL, EPA
is working with 27 companies to develop or test
innovative management strategies that offer promise
for getting better environmental results than what
would be achieved under current law.
Promoting Trading — New policies and pro-
grams allow and promote market-based trading as a
more cost-effective, environmentally protective
option for helping businesses and communities
address a variety of
problems, such as
smog, habitat loss and
water pollution.
Offering Options
in Rulemaking —
The nation's first ever
integrated (or multi-
media) environmental
rule, just issued for the
pulp and paper industry, allows companies to delay
compliance with more stringent water pollution con-
trol requirements if they commit to installing more
advanced technologies.
^ ~sf"
-
STRONGER PARTNERSHIPS
Because many of today's problems cannot be
addressed through regulatory action alone, EPA is
reaching out to diverse stakeholders to bring all
available expertise and resources to bear on the job
of protecting public health and the environment.
Established New Working Relationship with
State Agencies — EPA worked with states, its most
critical partners, to create a new framework for
jointly collaborating on environmental priority-set-
ting and decision-making to ensure that public
health and the environment are best protected.
Participation in the National Environmental
Performance Partnership System rose from 6 pilot
states in 1996 to a majority of 30 states participat-
ing last year.
Implementing Sector-Based Approaches —
Through the Common Sense Initiative, EPA reached
an agreement with the metal finishing industry
whereby firms obtain regulatory relief and other
benefits in exchange for going beyond compliance
— this action, potentially affecting 11,000 metal
finishing shops nation-
wide, could voluntarily cut
toxic emissions from the
industry by up to 75 per-
cent compared to 1992.
Encouraging
Voluntary Action —A
new voluntary agreement
with the car industry
means that, later this year, all vehicles sold in the
Northeast and District of Columbia will be
designed to emit 70 percent less pollution. By 2001,
these vehicles will be available throughout the coun-
try, providing Americans with safer, cleaner air.
Supporting Community Brownfields Cleanup
and Restoration — Cleanup of Brownfields —
abandoned, contaminated urban property — has
accelerated with over $24 million in seed grants and
technical assistance awarded to 121 communities. A
new tax incentive and an additional $300 million
investment announced last year will help revitalize
some 5,000 more communities in the future.
image:
4997 ArWN>UA4--
MORE COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE
With 1997 bringing the largest fines ever collect-
ed in the history of the Agency, EPA's record of
enforcing against irresponsible polluters is stronger
than ever before. At the same time, EPA is making
it easier to comply with environmental regulations
through targeted compliance assistance programs.
EPA recognizes diat most businesses and communi-
ties want to operate in an environmentally responsi-
ble manner — in some cases, they just need extra
help or incentive to succeed.
Compliance Assistance Centers —
Compliance assistance centers are being
established or expanded to provide
small communities and businesses in
eight sectors widi quick, easy access to
information on how to control and pre-
vent pollution.
Providing Incentives for Finding
and Fixing Problems — To promote
environmental compliance, EPA is
reducing penalties for companies (not
engaged in criminal activity) that show
good faith towards finding, publicly disclosing, and
correcting environmental problems. To date, 247
companies — ranging in size from Fortune 500
companies to small businesses — have voluntarily
disclosed violations at more than 760 facilities.
Support for Local Environmental
Enforcement — To help communities guard
against environmental violations, EPA is working
with local law enforcement agencies to support joint
investigations and to increase understanding of
environmental crimes.
LESS PAPERWORK AND RED TAPE
To ensure that environmental managers in the
public and private sectors can focus on the greatest
risks, EPA is simplifying and reducing paperwork
and regulatory requirements that detract from pub-
lic health and environmental protection.
^SSf?^^;;^^^^^
Eliminated
Unnecessary
Requirements — EPA has
eliminated more than
1,300 pages of environ-
mental requirements repre-
senting nearly 20 million
hours of regulatory burden
— that's die equivalent of
returning more than a half million work weeks, with
an estimated value of $600 million, back to business-
es and communities for more productive use.
Avoided Issuing Millions of New Permits — A
common sense, risk-based approach to storm water
management prevented millions of small businesses
and communities from becoming subject to new
permitting requirements.
Speeding the Cleanup of Toxic Waste —
Through aggressive administrative action, the
Superfund Program has cleaned up twice as many
contaminated sites in the past five years than in the
first 12 years of the program. Cleanups are now 20
percent faster and less costly.
Increasing Efficiency Through Electronic
Reporting — To modernize the current paper-
based reporting sys-
tem, EPA is working
with the states to pro-
vide all regulated facil-
ities with a more effi-
cient electronic option
for reporting regulato-^
ry inforrnatioft Wiitiiin
five years. _ . ,,;K, i^.'-v,:"
•?\..*.N
" """
image:
- - i- ^^ g- .--',' A ™p"*"TTaJru.r
,"••••' ^~^£_ 4 .'.>.''".;''' 3~- Jt
^ 'JilTROEbcTION
. ;;;;;/;"' "r""^'.^;'-'' ',-•'' 1
..to protect human health and to safeguard the~natural environment,
—4- Air mission for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the
Agency) is the driver for reinvention — a broad-based, agency-wide
strategy to consistently deliver cleaner, cheaper, smarter results from
public health and environmental protection programs. At EPA, reinven-
tion means streamlining and innovating within proven programs, but it
also means testing more integrative, holistic approaches with the poten-
tial to better address unresolved problems that threaten our people and the natural envi-
ronment. While such efforts have long been apriority for the Agency, in recent years, they
have intensified as a result of the Clinton Administration's commitment to reinventing
government. Three years ago, in March 1995, President Clinton, Vice-President Gore, and
EPA Administrator Carol Browner announced an ambitious reinvention agenda for EPA
aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of environmental programs.
Nationally, environmental programs are as varied as
the risks they are intended to address — they are vol-
untary and mandated, technology-based and market-
driven, targeted and broadly applicable. They involve
conducting scientific research, setting numeric and
qualitative standards for environmental quality and
public safety, issuing pollution control permits and
encouraging pollution prevention, registering pesticide
products, collecting data to monitor conditions and
assure compliance with environmental laws, and when
necessary, taking enforcement actions against polluters.
Collectively, environmental programs — managed
joindy in cooperation with state and local environ-
mental agencies — form what is generally referred to
as the nations environmental protection "system."
For more than a quarter century, this system has
served the American people well, significantly improv-
ing conditions in communities throughout the coun-
try. Today, our air, land, and water are safer and clean-
er despite continued population growth and economic
expansion. Nevertheless, lingering and emerging risks
still challenge environmental managers — polluted
runoff continues to degrade water quality; urban
sprawl reduces natural habitat and increases air pollu-
tion; increases in carbon dioxide emissions contribute
to global warming; and toxic chemicals increase cancer
risks and disrupt natural biological systems.
These challenges reinforce the need to continuously
improve the current system so that human health and
the natural environment are protected as fully as possi-
ble — without imposing unnecessary costs and regula-
tory burden on society. But other factors are creating
pressure for change as well. Rapid technological
advancements provide tools for detecting, evaluating,
image:
CHANGING THE SYSTEM —
OPINIONS BEGIN To CONVERGE
In the past few years, many organizations have come
forth with very specific recommendations on ways to
improve the nation's environmental protection system,
Among the most notable are two independent organize-
tions—the National Academy of Public Administrators
{NAPA) and the Enterprise for the Environment (E4E).
NAPA, a nonprofit organization chartered by Congress
that asststs federal, state, and local governments in improv-
ing their performance, has published two consecutive
reports on environmental regulatory reinvention. In a ~\Q95
publication called Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New
Direction for the Environmental Protection Agency, NAPA
underscored the need to move toward a performance-
based system that focuses on results rather than end-of-the-
plps controls, NAPA recommended that EPA design its pro-
grams to specify desired results, but allow businesses,
states, and communities to decide how to achieve that level
of performance. A followup report, Resolving the Paradox of
Environmental Protection: An Agenda for Congress, EPA,
Mid the States, released in September 1997, assesses
progress made toward a performance-based system since
W9S, Several of EPA's flagship reinvention initiatives, such
as Project XL, the Common Sense Initiative, and the
National Environmental Performance Partnership System,
are commanded for providing useful lessons that can shed
tight on strategies for broader innovation. However, noting
lhat the results of these initiatives have yet to produce major
changes in environmental programs, NAPA made recom-
mendations aimed at accelerating progress.
Another perspective on change was developed by the
Enterprise for the Environment (E4E), a broad-based, bi-
partisan group with representatives from government, business,
and the environmental community, chaired by former EPA
Administrator William Ruckelshaus. In its final report, The
Environmental Piotection System in Transition: Toward a More
Desirable Future, E4E emphasized the need for an evolutionary
"stepping stone" approach to changes in environmental protec-
tion. Based on a consensus vision for the future reached dur-
ing two years' work, E4E called for a 21st century system of
protection that is performance-based, information-rich, flexible,
accountable, open, and transparent to stakeholders.
While they showed some differences of opinion, in general,
these two organizations identified many of the same priorities
that EPA is focused upon. Their views reaffirm EPA's reinyen-
tton strategy and suggest some convergence of opinion about
what needs to be done to ensure continued progress in envi-
ronmental and public health protection in the future.
controlling and preventing pollution in ways never
before possible. The Internet, geographic information
systems and other new information management capa-
bilities are helping to transform environmental data
into a much more powerful, accessible tool to support
decision-making. The public is becoming more knowl-
edgeable about environmental issues and the need to
assure environmental justice for all people, particularly
our children. American industries are looking for ways
to become more sustainable and competitive in the
global marketplace by improving resource efficiency
and cutting waste. And years of implementing envi-
ronmental requirements has resulted in an extensive
network of state and local officials, industry profes-
sionals, and consultants and engineers with consider-
able knowledge and capability in managing environ-
mental affairs.
As a result, the nineties have proven an opportune
time for reinventing environmental and public health
protection programs. Providing flexibility along with
strong accountability, offering more compliance assis-
tance, improving public access to environmental infor-
mation, building stronger partnerships with other
stakeholders, and cutting red tape and unnecessary
paperwork that divert attention from more pressing
issues — these are some of the ways in which EPA is
acting to take advantage of varied, complex, and often
competing forces within society.
Many of EPA's reinvention efforts are reflected in
the following sections, which illustrate how the current
regulatory system is evolving as the twenty-first centu-
ry draws near. These sections highlight EPA's resolve
and commitment to-finding new ways of doing busi-
ness so that a strong system of environmental and
public health protection becomes even stronger.
image:
A STI^NQER PARTNERSHIP WITH
'"*" '"^ 'AGENCIES ...
ogether, EPA and the states share major responsibilities for protecting
public health and the environment. In the most general sense, EPA's
role has focused on developing the science and national standards that
protect our people and natural world from risk. While EPA regional
offices play a vital role in implementing these standards, the states
have been the primary, front-line delivery agents, working with other
governmental agencies, businesses, and communities to ensure that standards are met.
These roles still exist, but for a variety of reasons, they are becoming less distinct.
Years of managing environmental programs has pro-
vided states with more experience, expertise, and sophis-
tication diat was lacking in the mid-1970s when most
environmental programs got underway. As more envi-
ronmental responsibilities are delegated to the states,
their officials are demanding a stronger voice in deci-
sion-making and priority-setting. At the same time,
national efforts aimed at testing new approaches to
environmental protection often result in EPA working
directly in the states with businesses and communities
through pilot projects. As a result, EPA and the states
are going dirough a transitional period of questioning
how to best work together so that the skills and
resources of each are used for the greatest possible gains.
A FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATION
The most prominent outcome during this period
has been the establishment of the National
Environmental Performance Partnership System
(NEPPS). Signed by EPA Administrator Carol
Browner and state leaders in 1995, NEPPS was
launched based on a shared recognition that continued
environmental progress could be achieved most effec-
tively by working together as partners. NEPPS was
designed to promote joint planning and priority-set-
ting, and to provide states with more flexibility in
determining how resources should be targeted.
Under NEPPS, states and EPA develop
Performance Partnership Agreements that are based on
a comprehensive assessment of state environmental
problems. They include criteria for measuring environ-
mental and program management results, clearly
defined management and implementation roles, and
specific areas where EPA can reduce its program man-
agement oversight based on a history of strong state
performance. NEPPS also includes Performance
Partnership Grants, which allow states to consolidate
grants as a way of cutting paperwork and simplifying
financial management.
Now in its second year of operation, NEPPS is
expanding rapidly, with the majority of states choosing
image:
to participate. Just six states piloted Performance
Partnerships in 1996. By 1997, 30 states had signed
Performance Partnership Agreements with EPA, and
36 state agencies received Performance Partnership
Grants. This participation signals a growing accep-
tance of NEPPS by the states as a substantive, careful-
ly thought-out program diat can improve environ-
mental program efficiency and effectiveness. Although
participation is expected to continue to increase, all
states — whether participating or not — will benefit
from streamlined joint-planning and priority-setting
processes that have evolved as a result of state/EPA
collaboration.
One example of how NEPPS collaboration can
enhance program management can be seen in the state
of Florida. There, state and EPA managers in the
RCRA and water programs reviewed every reportable
document, including inspection reports, permit appli-
cations, and notices of violations, which had been
agreed to over the years. Based on this detailed evalua-
tion and the maturity of the RCRA program, they
were able to eliminate about 75 percent of the routine
reporting previously required. Many of the water pro-
gram reports were reduced as well without compro-
mising program operations. EPA's regional office in
Adanta is working now to extend these same benefits
to other state NEPPS participants.
Performance Partnerships
States With Agreements and Grants in 1997
Grant Only
Agreement Only •*•"*
Both
image:
MEASURES TO TRACK
ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS
During the year, a critical element of
the NEPPS structure was put in place
when EPA and the states agreed on a
set of Core Performance Measures to
track environmental results. In the past,
measures have focused more on pro-
gram management than environmental
progress. The measures adopted for
1998 move beyond this point, so in
addition to tracking the number of per-
mits issued to control waste water dis-
charges, a measure now exists to report
on the percent of watersheds with toxic
pollution at or below permitted levels.
Such measures will provide EPA and
the states with a basis for determining
and demonstrating whether NEPPS is
improving environmental program
management capabilities. In a broader
context, these measures will help link
environmental results in the states with
EPA responsibilities under the
Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA), a recent federal law that
requires EPA, along with all other federal agencies, to
develop a strategic plan with clear goals and measures
of success.
DIALOGUE ON KEY POLICY ISSUES
"While NEPPS represents a major milestone for
improving the state/EPA partnership, it does not
address every issue of importance to state and EPA
officials. As a result, EPA and the states continue to
engage in dialogue on key issues affecting environmen-
tal program management. For example, the states'
interest in reinventing environmental protection is cre-
ating a demand for more authority for experimenting
with innovative regulatory approaches. Over the past
year, EPA and the states have worked to develop a
joint agreement on how these innovations should be
managed in the context of broader regulatory reforms.
After months of consultation and negotiations, a draft
MORE MEANINGFUL REPORTING
A SAMPLE SET OF MEASURES FOR WATER QUALITY
Environmental
Goal
Environmental
Objective
Core Program
Outcomes
Clean Waters: All of America's rivers, lakes, •
and coastal waters will support healthy com-
munities of fish, plants, and other aquatic
life and uses such.as fishing, swimming, and
drinking water supply for people. Wetlands
will be protected .and .rehabilitated to provide
wildlife habitat, reduce floods and improve
water quality. Ground waters will be cleaner
for drinking and other beneficial uses/
By 2005, .pollutant discharges from key
point sources and nonpoint source runoff. .
will be reduced by at least 20 percent from
1992 levels.
Percent of watersheds with toxic pollutant
loadings at or less than permitted limits.
Percent of facilities implementing wet weath-
er control measures. Where available, report
the annual pollutant loadings of key parame-
ters associated with wet weather sources.
agreement was reached and published in the Federal
Register for public comment in October 1997. A final
agreement is expected in spring 1998. Reinventing the
collection and use of environmental data is another
key issue for state and EPA officials. Recognizing the
need to make better use of this important tool, in late
1997, EPA and the states agreed to work on a com-
mon vision and action plan to bring about the neces-
sary reforms. This effort got underway in early 1998
with a joint meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah. (For
more information on the challenges associated with
environmental data, see "Managing in the Information
Age" later in this report.)
image:
SECTOR- ANDOMMUNITY-BASED APPROACHES
I l\ i/ /I aking the current regulatory system more responsive to the
\ \ I / evolving needs and capabilities of specific industries and com-
*• ^ ' * munities is a key issue for reinventing environmental protec-
tion, and one that represents a natural progression for envi-
ronmental policy. Over the past quarter century, EPA has
developed a comprehensive set of national environmental
standards as required by 16federal environmental laws. As the essential underpinning
of the entire environmental protection system, these standards provide Americans citizens
with assurance that no matter where they live or work, a baseline level of protection will
exist. They also provide state and local governments and the private sector with a clear
understanding about what is expected in terms of environmental responsibility — an
important factor for long-range planning, development, and investment purposes.
Finally, they help assure a level playing field among economic competitors.
In an effort to build on these strengths, EPA is
working on sector and community-based approaches
that offer more tailored management options. As the
following examples show, they require in-depth analy-
sis, flexibility and a willingness to engage all affected
stakeholders in creative problem-solving.
AN INDUSTRY COMMITS TO IMPROVING
ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
In an effort to go beyond compliance and achieve
even cleaner operations, in 1997, the metal finishing
industry developed an ambitious strategic goals pro-
gram for addressing environmental performance. The
goals were an outcome of the industry's participation
in the Common Sense Initiative (CSI), a special forum
established by EPA Administrator Carol Browner in
The Common Sense Initiative
Sector Projects Address a Variety of
Environmental Management Issues
Regulation
31%
Recordkeeping
& Reporting
Environmental
Technology
" 12%
Compliance
& Enforcement
12%
Permitting
8%
image:
1994 to test multimedia, sector-based approaches to
environmental management as an alternative to the
pollutant-by-pollutant approaches that have long been
used. Through CSI, the metal finishers and other
selected industries work with their stakeholders to
look at a broad array of issues as a means to develop-
ing more flexible, cost-effective, and environmentally-
protective solutions tailored to industries' and stake-
holders' needs.
With support from state and federal officials, envi-
ronmental and other public interest groups, and their
national trade associations, the metal finishing indus-
try developed a comprehensive set of environmental
performance goals that go beyond compliance with
environmental requirements and aim for cleaner oper-
ations. Industrywide, these goals could cut toxic
chemical emissions to air and water by up to 75 per-
cent; while metal releases and hazardous sludge dispos-
al could fall by about 40 percent. To meet these goals,
the industry is striving to have 80 percent of all firms
participating, and supporting tough enforcement
action against firms that consistendy fail to meet their
environmental compliance obligations. Ultimately, this
unprecedented program, developed on a voluntary
basis, could become a model for other industries inter-
ested in improving their environmental performance
and stewardship in the future.
,
ADDRESSING INDUSTRY
NEEDS IN RULEMAKING
A move towards more tailored
management strategies can be seen
also in recent regulatory develop-
ments. For example, EPA is required
to develop an air toxics rule for the
pharmaceutical industry in 1998. The
pharmaceutical industry, which pro-
duces a wide range of existing and new/improved
products, has expressed concern that its frequent
changes may necessitate permit modification. The
industry has predicted that such permit revisions
would result in delays in implementing process
changes and cause significant new administrative bur-
dens on the facility and permitting authority. In order
to address the industry's operational needs up-front,
EPA established a partnership with affected stakehold-
ers to incorporate and draw upon their different views.
With this input, EPA launched a pilot program to
develop a flexible operating permit for a pharmaceuti-
cal facility and to identify flexible ways to implement
proposed air toxics requirements with other applicable
air pollution requirements. In addition to influencing
the final rule, the pilot project is expected to result in
useful guidance for developing flexible permits across
the pharmaceutical industry and for involving stake-
holders in the regulatory development process.
EMPOWERING COMMUNITIES
The need for more tailored approaches is not limit-
ed to business and industry — communities face this
challenge, too. For this reason, EPA is promoting
community-based environmental protection, or CBEP,
an approach for working collaboratively with citizens
in a specific geographic area. By protecting all parts of
the environment together — the air, water, land, and
living resources — while considering economic and
social objectives, this approach meets the needs of
local citizens for cleaner environments, vibrant
economies, and livable communities.
Many of EPA's reinvention initiatives support and
promote CBEP. For example, Performance Partnership
Agreements with states allow resources to be targeted
to particular problems rooted in communities;
Supplemental Environmental Projects, if negotiated as
part of an enforcement action setdement, require pol-
luters to perform cleanup or restoration projects within
the affected community; and the Brownfields Initiative
offers incentives for cleanup and redevelopment of
abandoned or under used industrial and commercial
properties where redevelopment is complicated by real
or perceived environmental contamination problems.
<M
image:
EPA Brownfields Pilots
121 Awarded as of September 1997
gelling ham
Duwamish
Tawrra
^ruyoiiup ii
of-Taconu
Ofsgcn
m
Panhandle
Health
Oslral
MT
ND
ID
.. '' Chippewa County
-NWRsglonal, ^:;:..y Kinross Twp.
- -Planning Comm. -
;'-- ' '- •' '*-
Sair~-" '
take .Ogden City
- OtvT =-•----.- -
North Stocktoi
" Vrovo . f
. |T Englewood
Ul CO
j^ ciiTOyvniK
tatt Palo Alto
CA ..„.,.
Sam. > Nalfon
OarbJra . -Pomona '.
County AZ NM
- SwiDtego >Phoenlx
...,*
Tucson ^
K sasCitv Stele of Indiana OH Baltimore^WD^r §
(KS and MO)We||st(jn'"'"ols Indianapolis «Cincinnati yyy *Ca''ll1c!hgt|S
^ St LOUISA **- *" ^Louisville Richmond Northampton County
Tulsa^
OK
-
TN •ar
^Memphis. ^Cowpens
B|fm, hajn sc
MS » ,.
•» Dallas ^Shreveport
AL
nchard
- IX
Houston +
'
" ^Laredo-
-' - LS
AL
T
Ketchikan Gateway Borough
4TaJlahassea'
^ao..
^Gainsville
^Clearwater
*St Petersburg
PR Puerto Rico
t^* Industrial Development Company
The Brownfields Initiative is a particularly useful
catalyst for helping urban communities make a come-
back from economic and environmental problems.
Left unaddressed, these problems can trigger a spiral of
declining property values and increased unemploy-
ment, leading business and industry to move to new
locations — often adding to urban sprawl. To avoid
these repercussions, EPA has provided $200,000
grants to 121 communities throughout the United
States to support Brownfield site assessments and to
explore redevelopment barriers and solutions. In many
cases, communities have been able to use this funding
to leverage local investments of funding and resources
far exceeding the amount of the original grant. For
example, in Cuyahoga County, Ohio — die first of
EPA's Brownfield pilots — $4.5 million have been
leveraged in cleanup and property improvements at a
former industrial furniture manufacturing plant. New
businesses there now provide over 180 new jobs and
payroll taxes amounting to more than $1 million. In
Bridgeport, Connecticut, a Brownfields pilot has led
to $15 million in private investment and $133 million
in public investment; and 400 jobs have been created,
adding $250,000 to the local tax base. In Emeryville,
California, a Brownfields pilot project has drawn $644
million in private investment. It is expected that
image:
10,600 jobs will be created over the next five years,
creating $6.4 million in tax base improvements for
Emeryville.
In 1997, community cleanup and redevelopment
needs led the Administration to announce the
Brownfields National
Partnership Action Agenda,
which included a new
Brownfields cleanup and rede-
velopment tax incentive and a
substantial, $300 million invest-
ment for Brownfields projects.
A centerpiece of the agenda is
the Brownfields Showcase
Community Project, which calls
for EPA and more than 20 fed-
eral agencies that share
Brownfield interests and respon-
sibilities to choose at least 10
communities that will serve as
national models for Brownfields collaboration. Each
showcase community will receive a mix of financial,
technical, and staff support, depending on the needs
of the community. Overall, the Action Agenda will
result in cleanup and redevelopment in up to 5,000
more communities in the future.
In addition to working with other federal agencies,
EPA works closely with state, local, and other national
governments to promote Brownfields action. To date,
EPA has signed agreements with 11 states outlining
state and federal roles at Brownfields sites and contin-
ues to work closely with states and communities to
integrate Brownfields projects with local efforts. In
Rhode Island, for example, EPA is working with the
Department of Environmental Management on two
sites as part of a broader effort aimed at promoting
growth and stability in the Woonasquatucket River
corridor. Internationally, EPA is working with public
and private sector organizations to share Brownfields
expertise with the United Kingdom, Germany, the
Netherlands, and Canada.
Another demonstration of community-based envi-
ronmental protection can be seen in South Florida
where efforts are underway to protect and restore the
Everglades and surrounding ecosystem. Following sev-
eral years' work, in January 1997, implementation
began on a consensus plan to accomplish multiple
goals, including restoring natural water flows to the
ecosystem and creating buffer areas to control polluted
runoff from urban and agricultural areas. As part of
this effort, EPA is working with other federal partners
and community stakeholders in Dade, Broward, and
Palm Beach counties to contain urban sprawl and ease
development pressures stemming from rapid popula-
tion growth. The objective is to direct new develop-
ment away from Southeast Florida's remaining envi-
ronmentally sensitive water resources and agricultural
lands and into previously developed areas. The Florida
Department of
Community Affairs, which
has the lead for the urban
component of the
Everglades restoration
effort, has requested EPA's
assistance in a number of
key areas, including
Brownfields redevelopment,
transportation, and public
participation.
image:
INCENTIVES TO ENCOURAGE BETTER
PA is promoting system changes that can encourage businesses and com-
munities to not just meet baseline environmental standards, but to aim
higher and go beyond compliance. Too often in the past, environmental
requirements have been regarded as a burden to be endured rather than
an opportunity for improving operations. But today, that perspective is
changing based on a realization that sound environmental management
can boost economic performance by cutting waste, saving energy, and reducing liability
concerns.
While this realization is leading many regulated
entities to invest in environmental improvements inde-
pendently, EPA is considering new incentives to accel-
erate the trend. Incentives can take many different
forms, and EPA is experimenting with a wide variety to
appeal to different interests. In some cases, the incen-
tive for improving performance might be operational
"If you have a proposal thairpromises bet-
ter environmental results than what would
be achieved under the traditional regulatory
system, and if you commit to engaging all
stakeholders in developing alternative
approaches and appropriate safeguards, then
EPA will give you the flexibility to put those
good ideas to the test."
flexibility that allows companies to move ahead with
product changes without regulatory delay. In others,
the incentive is public recognition of good environ-
mental stewardship that can be promoted to attract
environmentally-conscious consumers. As the following
examples show, these incentives can help spark progres-
sive action for improving environmental performance.
FLEXIBILITY FOR GOING BEYOND
COMPLIANCE
"If you have a proposal that promises better envi-
ronmental results than what would be achieved under
the traditional regulatory system, and if you commit
to engaging all stakeholders in developing alternative
approaches and appropriate safeguards, then EPA will
give you the flexibility to put those good ideas to the
test." That challenge issued from EPA's Project XL,
which stands for eXcellence and Leadership, was made
2 years ago as an incentive for regulated facilities to go
beyond compliance with environmental requirements.
image:
<STO
Since then, agreements have been reached with six
companies and a federal facility. They include: an Intel
computer chip manufacturing plant in Arizona; a
Weyerhauser paper mill in Georgia; a Merck pharma-
ceutical plant in Virginia; Jack M. Berry, a citrus com-
pany in Florida; OSi Specialties, a specialty chemical
maker in West Virginia; HADCO, a printed circuit
board manufacturer in New York and New
Hampshire, and the U.S. Department of Defense
Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara,
California. Another 20 project proposals are being
negotiated or developed. Ultimately, EPA expects to
test pilot 50 projects.
EPA's experience, to date, shows that the alternative
management strategies being tested through Project
XL can prove to be winners for the facility, for stake-
holders in the community, and for the environment.
As an example, Merck produces an active ingredient
for a drug used in treating adults with Human
Immunodeficiency Virus. As a result of its negotiated
agreement, Merck gained a streamlined environmental
permitting process for its Virginia plant so the compa-
ny can introduce desperately needed new products to
market more quickly.
In return for this benefit, Merck agreed to go
beyond compliance with air quality standards and
reduce its total air emissions by 20 percent. This
reduction will improve visibility and reduce acid rain
in nearby Shenandoah National Park, a favored tourist
attraction for east coast travelers. Among the actions
being taken to achieve this reduction is a multi-mil-
lion dollar investment to convert the facility from
coal-burning to natural gas, a much cleaner burning
fuel. As part of the final agreement, Merck also agreed
to join other stakeholders in conducting a five- year
study of air quality trends in the area, including the
national park. This commitment, which would have
never come about through the traditional permitting
process, was realized only because project stakeholders
identified the issue as a priority.
A PACKAGE OF INCENTIVES FOR THE
PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY
In what could represent a new trend for regulatory development,
EPA relied heavily on incentives in developing new regulations for the
pulp and paper industry. The regulations," which happened to be the
first integrated, or multimedia, rulemaking in the Agency's history,
aim for substantial reductions of toxic pollution to air and water.
Consisting of proposed and final requirements, they provide mills
with flexible alternatives for complying with air standards. For mills that voluntarily choose to invest in advanced
water pollution control technologies that go beyond regulatory requirements, the new regulations also provide more
compliance time, less monitoring and reporting, fewer inspections, additional certainty about future permitting
requirements, and public recognition. These incentives wit! help preserve sustainable development while encourag-
ing further industry progress toward achieving long-term environmental, goals. ...."'"•;.'.'.
The pulp and paper regulations were developed with extensive "stakeholder .involvement, and as the XL. program
intends, are at least.in part, reflective of lessons learned through the Weyerhaueser project. In the process of negoti-
ating the Weyerhauser agreement, EPA was made aware that what the industry most needed to improve perfor-
mance was overall flexibility in controlling pollution to various media. As the regulations were under development,
this preference was shared with the Agency and, ultimately, contributed to the content of the regulations.
image:
While individual facilities and their surrounding
stakeholders may realize environmental and economic
benefits from participation, the most significant benefit
of Project XL is die learning opportunity it presents.
Project XL provides a mechanism for testing innovative
ideas diat might lead to changes within the existing reg-
ulatory system, and innovative proposals will continue
to be selected with this goal in mind. As the program
moves into its third year of operation, evaluating pro-
jects to determine whether they have features that
should be transferred into into larger scale program
changes will be a major focus of management attention.
LESS REPORTING FOR PROVEN
PERFORMERS
Less frequent monitoring and reporting is the
incentive being used to promote better performance
for facilities discharging wastewater under the Clean
Water Act's National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES). While reporting requirements are
essential for ensuring compliance with environmental
laws, EPA recognizes that, in some cases, the resources
required to collect and report data might be better
spent elsewhere. Based on a comprehensive statistical
analysis of past effluent monitoring data that showed
accountability could be maintained with less report-
ing, EPA issued guidance to the states in 1995 that
allows water quality reporting to be scaled back for
facilities with proven records of environmental perfor-
mance. When fully implemented by states, this guid-
ance could reduce NPDES monitoring and reporting
burden by about 4.5 million hours, or 25 percent,
nationwide. On average, monitoring and reporting at
individual facilities would drop by about 25 to 30 per-
cent. However, certain facilities with exemplary com-
pliance and enforcement records would be eligible for
reductions of up to 80 percent.
'tt*!r;*ii^.;
1*8 :,]i_" _ • "
[jjatiffiiM rut**
H'ltaliiiJi"''!, r' ~ii •• ; -'" -1"111"1- '."'
jsdt&stp^ -• :
Ill !«!&',':-:'""
Oklahoma has been particularly successful in
implementation. Since assuming delegated authority
for managing the NPDES program in November
1996, all wastewater permits up for reissuance have
been screened to determine eligibility for monitoring
and reporting reductions. Consequently, approximate-
ly 70 percent of the dischargers were found to be eligi-
ble for some reductions. Oklahoma is in the process of
issuing these permits with reduced monitoring and
reporting, with no adversarial responses received
through the public comment process. In 1998, EPA
and die states will consider issuing the guidance as a
final product and take steps to increase the pace of
implementation.
PUBLIC RECOGNITION
Public recognition is one of the incentives EPA is
using to encourage membership in the Agency's volun-
tary partnership programs. These programs, which often
include technical assistance as well, help participants
increase efficiency by switching to more environmentally
sustainable practices. From EPA's perspective, they repre-
sent an attractive opportunity to address a broad range
of environmental issues, such as reduced pesticide use,
polluted runoff, energy and water conservation, recy-
cling, and greenhouse gas reduction that may not be
amenable to traditional regulatory approaches.
PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS CUT
POLLUTION AND COSTS
Measure
Toxics reduced (pounds)
Waste reduced (million tons)
COa prevented
(million metric tons)
Energy saved (trillion BTUs)
Water saved (million gallons)
Number of partners
Money saved (millions)
Current
750,000,000
5.2
247
199
1,280-2,375
6,882
$852
Projected 200O
At Least
750,000,000
8.3
935
7,190-10,457
13,055
$4,640
image:
MARKETING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PARTNERS
Recognizing the potential value to. partners, EPA uses different marketing
tools to help recognize sound environmental stewardship among voluntary pro-
gram participants. For example, EPA's Energy Star partners, who agree to pro- '
duce more energy efficient computer and office equipment, may use the Energy
Star logo in labeling'their equipment and in their advertising campaigns. The
Green Chemistry Program,, aimed at encouraging development of less toxic
chemical products and processes, includes a national Presidential Awards
Program. Other marketing opportunities include: signing ceremonies with partic-
ipants, public service advertising, and mention in Agency outreach materials,
such as press releases and senior official speeches. These opportunities pro-
vide tangible recognition for partners and a potential advantage, in the market-
place. They also provide other potential partners with reason to consider partici-
pation as well.
SAVING THE EARTR SAVMGtouR MONK
ENERGY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
Water Alliances For
Voluntary Efficiency
o
V \/J /EPA
WGreen
^Lights
an ENERGY STAR program
Ally
As the table on the opposite page shows, this vol-
untary approach is quite meaningful: as of January
1997, partners reduced toxic emissions by 750 million
pounds; saved 1.3 billion gallons of water; eliminated
5.2 million tons of solid waste from entering landfills
and incinerators; and reduced greenhouse gas emis-
sions by preventing 24.7 million metric tons of CO2
(nearly twice as much as the year before). By cutting
waste, preventing pollution, and reducing liability
concerns, participants can gain substantial economic
benefits. The public recognition that comes along with
participation can prove financially rewarding, too.
Most programs provide some form of recognition that
participants can use as a marketing tool for promoting
environmental stewardship in the marketplace.
Technical assistance, and in some cases financial sup-
port, are additional incentives used to encourage par-
ticipation.
Today, nearly 7,000 partners — representing nearly
every sector of the American economy — have signed
up for one or more voluntary programs. Based on the
positive results achieved, to date, EPA projects more
than 13,000 partners by 2000.
-IT
image:
A-NSOUA-U
<5>M
MARKET-BASED FORCES GUIDE ACTION
s the previous section noted, financial considerations can be a
strong incentive for encouraging better environmental perfor-
mance. This reality is true for American corporations, but it is
equally true for individuals, for communities, for small business-
es, and for nonprofit organizations. Recognizing the "power of
the purse," EPA is considering how financial instruments, such
as the federal tax code, federal subsidies, and community service fees can be used to
advance environmental and public health protection goals.
These approaches, used in appropriate circum-
stances, offer a number of advantages for society. The
increased affordability and flexibility means that stan-
dards can be set at higher levels than what might oth-
erwise be possible. They can ensure continued growth
and development opportunities in situations that
might otherwise warrant development constraints.
Perhaps most importandy, economic approaches offer
promise for addressing problems, such as polluted
runoff, that have not been brought under control
through traditional regulatory means.
A MARKED INCREASE IN TRADING
Trading, in particular, has become a standard envi-
ronmental management tool, with the number of
national programs offering this compliance option
increasing markedly in recent years. Previously, EPA's
air and water programs have relied primarily on per-
formance standards that set a minimum pollution
control level — for example, a numerical limit on
emissions or discharges. As a result, the vast majority
of rules do not require use of a particular pollution
control technology. Instead, they give industry flexibil-
ity to decide the best way to achieve the required level
of performance, considering cost and other factors.
During the 1980s, EPA began allowing companies
to comply with some performance standards through
trading options. For example, as the nation moved
toward use of unleaded gasoline, refiners were allowed
to trade credits under EPA rules requiring a national
phased reduction. Ultimately, these rules helped cut
lead emissions from motor vehicles by more than 90
percent. In the 1990s, EPA has expanded the use of
trading along with other economic incentive
approaches. In appropriate circumstances and with
proper design, trading can promote better environ-
mental performance and technological innovation
while providing industry with flexibility to reduce pol-
lution in die most economical way. EPA strives to
couple this flexibility with accountability, through
effective monitoring and enforcement, to ensure that
image:
environmental goals are met. Although not a panacea
for every situation, as the following examples show,
trading is being used to help solve a variety of environ-
mental problems.
Acid rain — Perhaps the best known example of
trading is the acid rain program, which is designed to
reduce U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions by 10 million
tons annually from 1980 levels. In 1997, EPA issued
the latest of a series of rules to implement this system.
Already, the trading system is helping to achieve cost-
effective reductions ahead of schedule — the annual
cost of meeting the full reductions is expected now to
be between $2 - 2.5 billion a year, about half the cost
estimated originally.
Smog and other common pollutants — In 1997,
EPA announced new national rules to cut pollution
from diesel locomotives, trucks and buses to help the
nation meet the new air quality standards for smog
and particulate matter. Rather than requiring every
engine family to comply with the standards, the rules
allow manufacturers to average emission limits, to
bank excess reductions for later
use, and to sell excess reductions
to other manufacturers. This
option gives manufacturers flexi-
bility to meet overall emission
goals at the lowest cost and
enables EPA to set emissions stan-
dards at levels more stringent than
they would be otherwise.
In addition to building in flexi-
bility in national rules, EPA is
working with states on flexible
ways to achieve compliance with
national air quality standards for
smog, particulate matter and other common pollu-
tants. EPA has developed guidance for the states on
ways to use trading and other economic incentives in
meeting standards, and has assisted the states in setting
up trading programs, such as California's RECLAIM
program for reducing sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxide emissions and the Ozone Transport
Commission's program for controlling nitrogen oxide
emissions among states in the Northeast.
How DOES TRADING WORK?
Trading programs enable a company or facility to earn
credits for making extra reductions at one pollution
source, and allow these credits to be used to meet
requirements that apply to another pollution source. One
.form of trading is emissions averaging. Rather than having
to meet the same limit for each emission point within a.
facility—or for each product made by a company—the facili-
ty or company can comply by averaging across multiple
emission points or products. Additional flexibility is allowed
by trading programs that allow a company to sell or trade
- reduction credits to other companies.
Ozone layer depletion — In gradually phasing out
production of chemicals that harm the stratospheric
ozone layer, EPA is giving producers and importers the
flexibility to trade allowances. Under the Montreal
Protocol, the United States and other industrialized
countries agreed to stop producing and importing one
of the most destructive chemicals for ozone — chloro-
fluorocarbons — (CFCs) and other substances by spe-
cific deadlines. With the United States' CFC trading
regulations serving as a model for other countries'
rules, phase-out of CFCs was completed in 1996.
Toxic Air Pollution — Emissions averaging is one
of several tools being used to provide compliance flexi-
bility as EPA produces new rules to cut toxic air pollu-
tion. During the past four years, EPA has provided
opportunities for averaging in final toxic emission
standards from printing and publishing firms, and a
variety of manufacturing operations, such as synthetic
organic chemicals, polymers and resins, wood furni-
ture, and primary aluminum production. (To avoid
shifting risks from one area to another, toxics averag-
ing is allowed only within individual facilities, with
appropriate safeguards).
Water Pollution — Under the national water pro-
gram, trading allows pollution sources to reduce pollu-
tion beyond what is needed to meet water quality
standards, and then sell or exchange the reductions to
other sources within the same watershed. Trades can
occur between point sources, nonpoint sources, or
point and nonpoint sources as long as they result in
pollution reductions equal to or greater than what
image:
JT-
would be achieved otherwise. The flexibility in this
arrangement capitalizes on economies of scale and
varying treatment efficiencies, thereby reducing overall
compliance costs within a watershed. It creates an eco-
nomic incentive for going beyond compliance and
preventing pollution, and it presents an opportunity
for expanding nonpoint source management and habi-
tat restoration efforts.
EPA provided guidance concerning trading options
in a Policy Statement on Effluent Trading in Watersheds
in 1995, and in a draft Framework for Watershed-Based
Trading'm 1996. With this guidance in place, in 1997,
EPA moved to encourage implementation through
pilot projects. In one project, EPA joined forces with
the state of Michigan and odier stakeholders to devel-
op a trading program in the Kalamazoo River water-
shed. The purpose of this project, which involves
point and nonpoint sources, is to improve river water
quality and, more broadly, to gain experience and
information for use in designing a potential statewide
water quality trading program.
Wetlands — Wetland mitigation banks are an
innovative, market-based way for landowners to com-
pensate for wedand losses authorized under federal
wetlands programs. Mitigation banks are established
when a public or private entity restores, creates, or
preserves wetlands for the purpose of providing miti-
gation to offset unavoidable losses that occur during
development. These banks help landowners save time
and money by having the option to simply purchase
"credits" from an
approved mitigation bank
rather than having to pro-
vide mitigation them-
selves. Moreover, this
alternative transfers
responsibility to an entity
with the financial
resources, scientific exper-
tise, and incentive neces-
sary to ensure that the
mitigation will be ecolog-
ically successful. Approximately 20 states have estab-
lished or are developing programs or formal policies to
encourage mitigation banking.
A TAX Fix
Another potentially significant mechanism for har-
nessing market-based forces for environmental gain
lies within the federal tax code. As an example, in
1997, a relatively minor tax reform was adopted to
encourage commuting by means other than driving
alone. The reform evolved from an obstacle the state
of California faced after passage of the Energy Policy
Act of 1992. This federal law stipulated that employers
who provided taxable cash as a commuting subsidy —
an offer some California employers were required to
make under a new state air quality improvement law
— would lose the tax exemption they previously
received for providing employees with free parking.
Furthermore, employees who continued to accept the
parking would be required to treat the parking as
income, creating additional tax liability for both
employers and employees.
As a practical matter,
these tax liabilities were
disincentives for the
more environmentally-
sound commuting sub-
sidies. As Congressman
Brian Bilbray (R-CA)
said of the tax problem,
"It had a way of killing
our clean air strategy in
California." California
explained the problem
to EPA, which was
looking at ways to use commuter benefit incentives to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the transporta-
tion sector. EPA developed a federal proposal, called
Parking Cash Out, that was modeled on the California
law and removed the federal tax disincentive to offer-
ing employees choice among commuting benefits.
Following unsuccessful attempts to have the proposal
adopted through other legislative avenues, EPA
worked with the Department of Transportation to
craft a new proposal for the 1997 transportation reau-
thorization bill. A similar provision sponsored by
Senator Chafee (R-RI) was enacted as part of the Tax
ReliefAct of 1997. Beginning with taxable year 1998,
this measure eliminates the federal tax penalty for
offering taxable cash in lieu of tax-exempt parking.
image:
Ultimately, this tax reform could prove a powerful
tool for improving air quality. In California, eight
employers who offered cash as an alternative to a free
parking space at work — despite the disincentive that
existed — found that solo driving to work fell by 17
percent, on average. The resulting emission reduction
is the equivalent of taking one in eight cars headed to
these sites off the road during rush hour, the time of
day when smog formation begins.
FAIR PRICING
In recent years, more and more communities have
begun to use fee structures to encourage environmen-
tally-preferable behavior. For example, as an alternative
to a set charge, "pay-as-you-throw" programs have
been established to charge customers based on the
amount of trash they throw away. Similar to gas, elec-
tricity, and water utilities, the more you use, the more
you pay.
EPA is supporting "pay-as-you-throw" for a number
of reasons. First, it reduces waste generation and
encourages recycling, which means less use of our nat-
ural resources. Communities with programs in place
have reported reductions ranging from 25 to 35 per-
cent, on average. Second, this variable-rate approach is
more equitable. When the cost of managing trash is
hidden in taxes or charged at a flat rate, conscientious
residents who recycle and minimize waste generation
subsidize their neighbors' wastefulness. Finally, it is an
effective means for helping communities cope with
soaring municipal solid waste management expenses.
Well-designed programs generate revenues which com-
munities need to cover their solid waste costs, includ-
ing the costs of complementary programs, such as
recycling and composting.
For these reasons, over the past several years, EPA
has developed technical guidance and other tools to
promote use of "pay-as-you-throw" programs. In
1997, the Agency established a new web site that pro-
"vides extensive information on community awareness,
pricing, and other issues related to implementation. In
addition, the Agency is providing financial support —
in the last two years, $400,000 has been offered to
help communities meet their outreach and technical
assistance needs.
Wi-f^'*? 's?f?'. ?'*"•'"*
2.-T
image:
MANAGING IN THE INFORMATION AGE
- mnsforming environmental data into meaningful, accessible information
far environmental decision-makers and concerned citizens is one of the
most important, yet challenging, reinvention issues EPA faces. Under vari-
ous statutory authorities, EPA and state agencies routinely collect a wealth
of data to help ensure compliance with environmental laws. Data are col-
lected on air emissions under the Clean Air Act, on wastewater discharges
under the Clean Water Act, on drinking water quality under the Safe Drinking Water Act,
and on contamination levels under Superjund, just to name a few.
In recent years, EPA has made strides to improve
public access to environmental information. EPA has
made its world wide web site more user friendly,
allowing users to search for environmental information
by zip code right from its home page. As the figure on
the opposite page shows, today, over 27 million users
access EPA's web site every month. EPA also has made
several key improvements to its information databases.
The Envirofacts database, which allows users to access
data on more than 700,000 sites where potentially
dangerous chemicals are used, was one of CIO (Chief
Information Officer) magazines 1998 winners of the
Enterprise Value Award — given for using web tech-
nology to improve customer service to the public.
Another electronic tool, Surf Your Watershed, allows
users to identify facilities and the pollutants they emit
in a given watershed.
Despite these and other advancements, the vast
reserve of environmental data is not being used to its
full strategic advantage. First, most data are still being
transmitted manually, via paper-based reports. This
mode of transmission creates considerable delay
between time of data collection and reporting. And
because of the manual duplication that often occurs at
each stage of transmission, (i.e., from a regulated facil-
ity to government agency or between government
agencies) this mode can be more time-consuming and
prone to error.
Second, and consistent with the evolution of the
nation's environmental laws and programs, data are
stored in separate, media-specific systems, each with
its own requirements and formats. Efficiently designed
for their original uses — tracking compliance with
environmental requirements — this arrangement cre-
ates a number of difficulties and inefficiencies. At a
practical level, it means that a facility might be
required to report basic information, such as name
and address, repetitiously into multiple systems. And
yet, because of a lack of common standards among the
various systems, state agencies and EPA may not be
able to extract, aggregate and analyze data on that
facility —a major limitation for conducting the cross-
media assessments needed to fully understand and
manage environmental risks.
Thus, while the current systems have served indi-
vidual environmental program needs as originally
defined, today, they are often ill-equipped to meet the
WVNSA«3*Otff IN) TWO
image:
The Growing Demand for Environmental Information
Traffic On EPA's Web Site
40
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
il i Hi
11/94 2/95 5/95 8/95 11/95 2/96 5/96 8/96 11/96 2/97 5/97 8/97 11/97
2/98
evolving informational demands of industry, the pub-
lic, and regulatory officials. Meeting these demands
will require fundamental changes in EPA's information
infrastructure — the policies, procedures, data defini-
tions, and technology used to store, process, and com-
municate data. They also provide an exciting opportu-
nity to apply a whole new wave of information tech-
nology, such as the Internet, geographic information
systems, and high-speed networks, to name a few.
These changes present organizational challenges for
the Agency in creating new business rules and in forg-
ing new working relationships with its partners in data
management — the states.
To meet these challenges, in July, 1997, EPA
Administrator Browner and Deputy Administrator
Hansen launched a special initiative to accelerate
information reform. Known as Reinventing
Environmental Information (REI), this initiative com-
mits the Agency to implementing several reforms that
READY FOR THE YEAR 2000
Like all organizations with data management responsibili-
ties, EPA is faced with modifying systems to handle year
2000 data. But based on preemptive steps already taken,
the turn of the century shoufd not be an obstacle for nation-
al environmental data base users. The necessary system
modifications are either completed or underway.
are crucial to moving environmental data management
into the information age. They include:
1. Establishing key data standards to improve the
value of environmental information and to enable
data sharing and integration;
2. Providing universal voluntary access to electronic
reporting as an alternative to paper-based reporting
in order to reduce burden and improve data quality
and timeliness; and
3. Implementing these data standards and electronic
reporting reforms in the Agency's national systems
and in partnership with the states.
DATA STANDARDS
Data standards are the key to sharing, linking, and
ultimately, integrating environmental data to gain a
fuller understanding of environmental conditions and
risks. They provide consistent formats and definitions
so that data in one system are consistent with the same
data in another. As a first step towards standardization,
in 1997, EPA and the states developed a facility iden-
tifier so that data from a single source, such as a man-
ufacturing plant, can be identified and tracked among
the various environmental data base systems. To illus-
trate, in the past, data from a single site might have
been identified as coming from "Company" X in one
system and "Facility" X in another. This seemingly
slight variation has presented a major obstacle for
environmental database and program managers.
IK)
image:
Additional standards for consistently identifying
chemicals and living organisms (i.e., biological taxono-
my) among systems are now being developed.
UNIVERSAL ACCESS TO ELECTRONIC
REPORTING
Providing universal access to electronic reporting is
another important data reform goal. As an alternative
to the traditional, but more laborious paper-based
reporting, EPA has committed to providing an elec-
tronic reporting option for all environmental require-
ments within five years. In addition to cutting paper-
work, this mode of operation should enhance access to
data, speed delivery, and improve accuracy by elimi-
nating errors that occur through manual data entry.
Some EPA national systems already allow regulated
facilities to report data electronically to EPA, or to del-
egated state agencies.
However, without the
benefit of standard data
formats, transfer proto-
cols, security and man-
agement procedures,
there is little consistency
in how the various EPA
programs and delegated
state agencies now handle
this function. To ensure
that both government
programs and regulated facilities can enjoy the effi-
ciencies of streamlined and integrated data transfer,
EPA is developing a coordinated, standards-based
approach to electronic reporting based on the needs of
all parties involved in data exchange. The approach
will offer states and regulated companies a range of
optional electronic reporting methods, but will also
allow participants to conduct electronic transfer in a
uniform, integrated manner.
REENGINEERING ENVIRONMENTAL
DATABASE SYSTEMS
The data standards and electronic reporting capa-
bilities described above will be implemented by reengi-
neering national environmental systems and by work-
ing with the states on modifying their systems. At
EPA, 13 national systems have been targeted as priori-
ties for reengineering, with an initial emphasis on
compliance systems.
Implementation will be an issue for state system
managers as well. In many cases, states are the collec-
tor and primary steward of the data contained in EPA
systems. In addition, states collect data to satisfy their
own unique legislative mandates and business needs.
Nationwide coordination of environmental data sys-
tems will require close cooperation among EPA and its
state partners. A framework for joint collaboration has
been laid through EPA's One Stop Reporting program,
launched in 1995 to reduce the reporting burden on
industry, to foster multimedia and geographic
approaches to problem-solving, and to provide the
public with meaningful, real-time access to environ-
mental data. In the past two years, EPA has provided
13 states with $500,000 grants to support data reform
projects, and REI commits EPA to expanding the pro-
gram to all 50 states by fiscal year (FY) 2003 . Results
from these individual state efforts will continue to
inform and drive specific information reforms, and
help to move EPA and the states towards a common
vision for managing environmental data in the wake of
new technologies and the growing public demand for
information.
RELATED INITIATIVES
"While REI aims to address the most basic short-
comings of environmental data management, it does
not represent the complete information reform agen-
da. To meet challenges that REI does not address, EPA
has launched other information initiatives, such as the
Center for Environmental Information and Statistics
(CEIS). Expected to open in 1998, this center will
focus on presenting integrated analysis of environmen-
tal data and reporting on environmental quality, sta-
tus, and trends. Similarly, the Environmental
Monitoring for Public Access and Community
Tracking (EMPACT) initiative is conducting a nation-
wide data needs assessment as a first step towards pro-
viding real-time data on environmental conditions in
85 metropolitan areas. Other smaller-scale information
reform projects continue throughout the Agency.
ItO THIS-
image:
.-«*——>• •• v'' /•
- %«/,.-f v'/
SUPPORTING THE PUBLIC ' s "RIGHT-TO - KNOW"
- ----;>-"" '' -O-*"?-^ ' ~\
telling sign of change in the current environmental protection
system is the increasing focus on the public's right-to-know. For
many years, attention to stakeholder needs often have been over-
shadowed by a regulatory agenda focused almost exclusively on
point source control. But, in most situations, point sources have
been brought under control and attention has turned to a differ-
ent set of environmental problems that are more diffuse and less amenable to regulatory
solution. Today, finding and implementing effective solutions to problems, such as pol-
luted runoff and urban sprawl, requires a different approach — one that more fully
involves environmental and public interests groups, businesses and industry, the academ-
ic community, other government agencies, and private citizens.
Today, these stakeholders are more interested and
prepared to engage in problem-solving than ever
before. Environmental education in the school system
has helped to raise awareness of and understanding of
environmental issues. The Internet is making it easier
for interested parties to go online and access environ-
mental information and data, and other new informa-
tional tools, such as geographic information systems,
can help to transform that data into much more
meaningful formats for technical and nontechnical
users. As a society, we are more aware of the need to
ensure environmental justice for all our citizens, par-
ticularly our children. The result is a new generation
of stakeholders that are willing and able to play a
much more active role in environmental issues.
Efforts to encourage and empower these stakeholders
can be seen throughout the Agency. Today, stakeholders
are being invited to join regulators in the early stages of
regulation development — a move that can help
improve buy-in and ward off litigation later on. Other
efforts are aimed at providing stakeholders with more
information so that environmental issues and risks
become more transparent and understandable for all.
TH-&-
image:
MORE INVOLVEMENT IN REGULATORY
DECISIONS
For many years, EPA has used a stakeholder process sanctioned under the Federal Advisory Committee Act .
(FACA) to gain external, views prior to developfng a new regulation. This process recently proved useful for helping to
address an unusually broad and nationally significant .set of, implementation issues, raised by the simultaneous estab-
lishment of new air quality standards for ozone and particulate matter, and a regional haze program to reduce visibili-.
ty impairment Recognizing the effect these new standards could haye on communities and businesses, EPA estab-
lished a FACA subcommittee with more than 80 representatives from federal, .state and local government, agencies,,,, „
tribes, business and industry, environmental groups, and scientific and,,academic institutions.^ obtain public input.
These representatives identified the critical implementation, issues, developed policy alternatives, and identified
options and made recommendations to the Agency. Based upon the interactions, with FACA representatives, EPA is,
developing implementation approaches that will reflect this input, providing flexible, market-based systems, positive
incentives to achieve emissions reductions, continuation of existing contra! programs that have worked well, and an
appropriate mixture of national, regional, and local measures. These approaches are being set forth in new guid-
ance and rules.
CONSUMER LABELING INITIATIVE
One method of empowering stakeholders is in the
commercial market place, and in 1996, EPA acted on
this opportunity through a special initiative to
improve consumer labeling information. EPA is work-
ing with a variety of stakeholders to help consumers
make more well-informed choices about pesticides,
cleaning supplies, and other common household prod-
ucts, based on their own needs and values, and to pro-
mote safe product use. Government agencies, con-
sumer product manufacturers, trade associations, pub-
lic interest groups, health and safety professionals, and
market research experts are conducting research and
gathering information in order to better understand
consumer behavior and needs.
Based on learning from the first phase of this pro-
ject, EPA has made several changes aimed at making
product labels more user-friendly. Now, labels should
include phone numbers so that emergency and prod-
uct information is easier to obtain. Rather than chemi-
cal names, common names are recommended so that
consumers can recognize what they are buying. And
because many consumers did not understand the term
"Inert Ingredients", the term "Other Ingredients" was
adopted.
-
.
These actions represent a greater sensitivity to
stakeholder needs. Rather than acting independently,
EPA took the time to listen to customers about what
they wanted and consulted with industry on the best
approach for making these important changes happen.
This approach, which has been commended by several
stakeholders, has provided a high level of creativity
and greater flexibility in dealing with various con-
sumer labeling issues. It also has meant that the
changes being made are more reflective of customer
needs and more acceptable to the manufacturers
expected to comply.
The next phase of the project will examine how to
standardize environmental information on product
labels, whether and how to further disclose the other
(or inert) ingredient contents of registered pesticide
products, and how to improve the storage and disposal
instructions. In addition, a consumer education pro-
gram, focused on "Read the Label," is planned.
image:
EXPANSION OF THE Toxic RELEASE
INVENTORY
As part of an overall Administration commitment
to strengthening community right-to-know opportu-
nities, in May 1997, EPA expanded the national Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI) to include seven additional
industry sectors: metal mining, coal mining, electric
utilities, commercial hazardous waste treatment, chem-
icals and allied products — wholesale, petroleum bulk
terminals and plants, and solvent recovery services.
Initially established in the late-1980s as a result of the
1986 Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act, TRI focused previously on manufacturing
industries. The 1997 expansion will result in new
information about toxic releases from sources that
were not previously required to make such informa-
tion publicly available. EPA expects the total number
of facilities reporting under TRI will increase by about
6,400, or about 25 percent.
In addition to adding new facilities, EPA also clari-
fied the range of activities that must be considered in
determining a facility's total emissions. Together, the
new requirements are expected to provide a more
complete picture of how toxic chemicals are being
managed within communities.
A RESPONSE TO BEACH SAFETY
CONCERNS
Every year, millions of Americans head to coastal
areas for weekend getaways and vacations. But fish
kills and water-borne illnesses from bacteria, viruses,
and other pathogens have led the public to raise perti-
nent questions about the safety of swimming, water-
skiing and other water-related activities. Traditionally,
concerned citizens have not had an easy, reliable
means for making safety determinations. Monitoring
and reporting requirements have varied from state to
state and community to community. Even where pub-
lic advisory programs have been strong, analytical lim-
itations have made it difficult
to detect problems in a timely,
accurate manner.
To overcome these obstacles,
in May 1997, EPA launched
the Beaches Environmental
Assessment, Closure, and
Health (BEACH) program to
help states protect the quality of
coastal and inland recreational
waters and to provide the public
with reliable information. As a
first step, EPA set up a new
Beach Watch web site that pro-
vides quick, easy access to the latest information avail-
able. In addition, EPA is surveying state and local
health and environmental directors on the quality of
inland and coastal recreational waters. The results will
be posted on the web site in 1998, and updated annual-
ly. By summer 1998, the web site will serve as a central
clearinghouse for health-related information on recre-
ational water quality in coastal communities and the
Great Lakes.
Through technical assistance, EPA's BEACH pro-
gram also will help states strengthen dieir water-quality
monitoring and public advisory programs. A new test-
ing technology will allow states to assess health-related
water quality problems more quickly, so as to improve
the timeliness of their monitoring information.
BETTER DRINKING WATER INFORMATION
FOR CONSUMERS
Americans generally enjoy one of the safest drink-
ing water supplies in the world. Because an informed
2-7
image:
and involved public is necessary to keep this level of
safety, in February 1998, EPA acted to provide con-
sumers with better information about the quality of
drinking water in their community. This information
empowers consumers to make important health deci-
sions for themselves and their families. Under a new
proposed rule, water suppliers would — for the first
time — be required to report to their customers at
least once a year. These consumer confidence reports
would provide practical information on a number of
factors, including the quality of the local drinking
water; whether or not the tap water meets EPA's pub-
lic health standards; likely sources of any contami-
nants; and, the health risks associated widi any conta-
minants found. Also included would be information
on sources of local drinking water, such as rivers, lakes
or wells; on violations and regulatory enforcement
actions, and — to educate vulnerable populations —
information on how to avoid cryptosporidium, a
microbe that is potentially dangerous to people with
severely depressed immune systems.
The rule applies to all of die nation's 56,000 com-
munity water systems, providing information to more
than 240 million people across the country. Large
water suppliers will have to mail their reports, either
with their bills or as a separate mailing. Smaller sys-
tems (those serving less than 10,000 people) may be
able to post their report in a central location or print
it in a local newspaper. Following
a public comment period, EPA
expects to issue the final rule
later this summer. The first
reports will be issued next year.
Consumer confidence report-
ing is the centerpiece of the pub-
lic information provisions of the
newly amended Safe Drinking
"Water Act. Signed by die
President in August 1996, these
provisions strengthened and
expanded die nations drinking
water protections to give con-
sumers more information on their drinking water and
to provide unprecendented opportunities to get
involved in protecting their drinking water. EPA devel-
oped this rule in consultation with water suppliers,
local governments, environmental groups, risk com-
munication experts and others during numerous pub-
lic meetings in 1996 and 1997.
image:
NEW APPRCMCHES to ENFORCEMENT AND
' —COMPLIANCE
he past year was record-setting for environmental enforcement actions:
EPA referred the largest number of civil and criminal enforcement cases
in its history to the Department of Justice and assessed the largest total
amount of civil and criminal penalties in any one year period. Despite
some notions to the contrary, these actions are consistent with, and in
fact, complementary to the Agency's reinvention agenda. In addition to
providing a level economic playing field among competitors, strong, consistent enforcement
against polluters is what allows EPA to support and encourage innovative approaches to
solving complex environmental problems. Strong enforcement provides deterrence against
future violations, and assures the American people that a baseline level of environmental
and public health protection remains in place.
To protect that baseline, EPA relies upon a mix of
environmental enforcement and compliance methods.
Today, EPA is looking for new ways to help facilities
achieve compliance, and even exceed compliance as
part of a company's broader strategy for improving effi-
ciency and profitability. In addition, EPA has adjusted
its program to meet the compliance assistance needs of
small businesses and communities. Making better use
of environmental data and local law enforcement per-
sonnel, encouraging facilities to police themselves
through comprehensive self-auditing programs, and
promoting innovative enforcement settlements to com-
pensate communities affected by environmental crimes
are just a few of the ways in which EPA is working to
make enforcement and compliance even more effective.
MORE CHOICE IN MEASURING
COMPLIANCE
In a departure from traditional efforts, EPA is giving
the regulated community flexibility to choose the mea-
surement technology they use when demonstrating
compliance with effluent permit limits, stack emission
limits, and other regulatory requirements. Previously,
regulated facilities generally have been limited to use of
an EPA approved method. However, a new
Performance Based Measurement System, announced
in 1997, provides much more choice so that environ-
mental managers can decide for themselves what works
best for their given opera-
tion. This approach may
help reduce costs for the reg-
ulated community; stimulate
development and commer-
cialization of innovative,
cost-effective technologies;
and improve the quality of
data. In addition, it will shift
more attention to the ques-
tion of whether compliance
is being achieved rather than
on how a measurement is taken.
image:
ANJNUA-U
This new openness to measuring compliance was
demonstrated through EPA's response to a request
from an Amoco refinery in Utah. Under the New
Source Standards in the Clean Air Act, refineries are
required to measure total sulfur dioxide emissions — a
procedure that involves climbing smokestacks over 2
to 4 hour increments, often under challenging weather
conditions. Amoco approached EPA to discuss the
possibility of developing an alternative approach
whereby emissions would be calculated theoretically
using data collected mechanically through ambient
monitoring devices. Through months ofdata analysis
and interpretation, EPA and Amoco developed a mul-
tiplier that allows total emissions to be calculated
based on ambient data. This alternative makes compli-
ance monitoring far less burdensome without compro-
mising compliance assurance capabilities.
MEETING SPECIAL
COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE
NEEDS
Environmental managers in small
businesses and communities were offered
a helping hand in understanding environ-
mental requirements in 1997 when EPA
expanded and opened new Compliance
Assistance Centers. In the past, the
Agency's focus on larger point sources has
meant lesser attention for smaller entities.
As a result, smaller entities have not been inspected as
frcquendy, and consequendy, have not become as famil-
iar widi environmental requirements.
The Compliance Assistance Centers are an innova-
tive approach to providing smaller operations with up-
to-date information so they know exacdy what is
required and what their options are for achieving com-
pliance and preventing pollution. Because of the easy
accessibility, they allow the Agency to assist many more
operations than would otherwise be reached through
traditional methods. The four new centers will serve
the printed wiring board manufacturing, chemical
industry, transportation, and local government sectors.
The decision to open new centers was based on suc-
cessful launches for the metal finishing, printing, auto-
MEASURING RESULTS
To better assess the, results of national enforcement,ajld .....
compliance assurance efforts, in 1997, EPA initiated the. .„.
National Performance Measures Strategy (NPMS) to, create
more meaningful measures of program effectiveness.
Traditionally, results have been measured in.terms of program.
activities (e.g., the number of cases settled). These.num,b,ers
remain important for assessing program performance and pro-
viding accountability to the public, but they do not reveal the ,....'
state of compliance among regulated entities, the environmen-
tal results and impact from enforcement and .compliance
assurance activities, nor the extent to which important environ-
mental objectives and problems are being addressed by,the ,
Agency.
With the new strategy, EPA,developed and has,begun to
use an enhanced set of measures that, in addition,to measur- „
ing program activities, also measures the effect and outcomes
of activities on, regulated entities, the environment, and.human „
health. These measures include: impact on. environmental and
human health problems; levels of compliance in regulated pop-
ulations; and environmental or human health improvements by
regulated entities. .In addition to improving EPA's ability to
report to the public, these measures are a powerful tool for
managing programs more strategically and for complying with.
the 1997 Government Performance and Results Act,, which
requires EPA to show progress towards specific goals.
mobile service, and agriculture sectors in 1995 and
1996. These centers, which were expanded in 1997 to
provide even more information for users, are meeting a
distinctive need. For example, a followup survey with
businesses that viewed a Printing Center Video
Conference showed that 92 percent of the participants
who answered the survey had improved environmental
compliance in their shops. A preliminary evaluation of
the Metal Finishing Center showed that 15 percent of
businesses in the industry were regular users.
image:
ENGAGING
LOCAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT
In an effort to deliv-
er better enforcement
action at the local level,
EPA is changing the
way it deploys its
resources for investigat-
ing environmental
crimes. Under the
national enforcement program, EPA uses special
agents for investigations. Historically, these individuals
have been assigned to the larger metropolitan areas
around EPA's ten regional offices. However, in 1997,
special agents were deployed in 40 different cities
across the nation in communities ranging from
Anchorage, Alaska to Miami, Florida. Today, EPA is
working with local law enforcement agencies in train-
ing exercises, task forces, joint investigations and
regional initiatives to detect serious violations of envi-
ronmental laws and to provide community based envi-
ronmental protection.
EPA's collaboration with the International
Association of Chiefs of Police in producing an envi-
ronmental crimes training video and curriculum for
police academies led police forces around the country
to incorporate environmental training into their basic
training programs. In another effort to expand com-
munity-based enforcement, support was offered for
city neighborhood watch and public outreach efforts,
such as Houston's Rat on a Rat program, which targets
illegal dumping. In December 1997, EPA held the
first national conference devoted to community-based
enforcement. Collectively, these efforts are aimed at
establishing a larger, more well-informed network of
individuals and organizations dedicated to finding and
addressing environmental crimes.
USING INFORMATION To BOOST
COMPLIANCE
In 1997, EPA continued developing the Sector
Facility Indexing Project (SFIP) to provide community
members greater accessibility to facility-level environ-
mental information. The SFIP is an innovative pilot
project that basically synthesizes environmental records
from existing data systems into a single system that
allows interested parties to analyze and compare envi-
' ronmental performance at the facility or sector level.
Indices are being created for five sectors: automobile
assembly, iron and steel, petroleum refining, primary
nonferrous metals, and paper mills. Based on individ-
ual facility permits and data records, the indices will
provide facility-specific information on compliance his-
tory and pollutant releases as well as facility size, local
demographics, and toxicity of released chemicals.
The sector facility indexing project is part of an
overall goal of expanding access to environmental
information to the states, to regulated facilities, and to
the public, in particular. Access to information about
environmental releases and the compliance history of
individual facilities should help improve the quality of
the data used to make decisions, boost compliance
with the law, and provide both local communities and
corporate managers with information for preventing
pollution and improving facility operations.
ENCOURAGING SELF-POLICING
In FY 1997, EPA's effort to encouraging self-polic-
ing under the national Audit Policy (Incentives for Self-
Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction and
Prevention of Violations, 1996) proved inviting. This
policy allows EPA to reduce as much as 100 percent of
the gravity portion of a penalty (i.e., the portion
beyond the economic benefit gained from noncompli-
ance) and recommend no criminal referral to the
image:
49=37
Department of Justice when a facility voluntarily dis-
covers its violations, promptly discloses them to EPA,
and corrects the violations in an expeditious manner.
To date, 247 companies have disclosed environmen-
tal violations at 760 facilities, providing information
that would not have been available otherwise. Self-dis-
closures have come from small businesses and from
many industry sectors, including communications,
pharmaceuticals, transportation, steel, and energy.
Many of these disclosures resulted in waivers. The
largest settlement ever reached under the policy was
with GTE Corporation in 1997. The agreement, which
resolved 600 spill prevention and right-to-know viola-
tions at 314 GTE facilities in 21 states, demonstrated
the policy's broad scope in promoting compliance at
facilities nationwide and provides a good model for
national companies that want to come forward and
resolve multiple federal violations.
A COMPREHENSIVE, CORPORATEWIDE
Focus
Throughout its history, EPA has enforced the
nations environmental laws by focusing on violations
of individual statutes at individual facilities. However,
in an effort to use enforcement resources more effi-
ciently and to maximize the environmental results
from taking enforcement actions, EPA recently devel-
oped a new multimedia enforcement approach that
addresses companies on a comprehensive, corporate-
wide basis. It aims to ensure that companies take
responsibility for all of their federal environmental
responsibilities at each and every facility.
A multimedia screening methodology was devel-
oped that allows EPA to assess violations at multiple
facilities and identify candidates warranting further
investigation. The initial cases involving use of this
new screening process are still in the investigative or
settlement negotiation stages, but word of the program
has already inspired several large corporations to
improve their environmental compliance efforts, and
others to evaluate and disclose their problems under
EPA's voluntary audit and disclosure policy.
One recent example of the success that can be
achieved through such a targeted multimedia effort is
the setdement with ASARCO, Inc. Under a settlement
announced on January 23, 1998, the national mining
and smelting company agreed to invest more than $50
million to correct hazardous waste and water violations
at two of its facilities in Montana and Arizona, to
cleanup water and soil contamination at these facilities,
and to reduce hazardous waste emissions from its
smelters nationwide. In addition, a penalty of $6.4 mil-
lion will be paid by the company for its past violations.
One unique aspect of this settlement is that ASARCO
has agreed to establish a court-enforced environmental
management system that is applicable to all of its facili-
ties nationwide. The detailed system that was devel-
oped in the context of the ASARCO settlement will
change the day-to-day operations of the company's 38
active facilities in seven states and require environmen-
tal training for the company's more than 6,000
employees in order to promote compliance with all
environmental requirements, and achieve pollution
prevention and pollution reduction at these facilities.
This new corporatewide enforcement strategy elim-
inates the need for the federal and state governments
to bring multiple cases to achieve the same final out-
come. In addition, a comprehensive enforcement
action can require comprehensive, companywide
changes with potential for long-term environmental
benefits, such as the environmental management sys-
tem required for ASARCO.
image:
s >
! - - -~*"* ^ -Wt^SS^
:;•••- '„•;. .,'.4*- .•'•_; Ji
? >•
*, H
jjfcf, .,. - , - •_.... . . .... .. ..-_ ...... --,i-.-^j
p-j -1997 ^VNINJUA-L' PT&PVS'PjT ^M fz)&IMVE-hOTl<S'K) H
~jf~r- -— —"*'•• ''•'•!• ••I"-'''
3fri
CUTTING
4<;*-vrf 0,-T r^-, \>;
^^^fafe, _^:
tl;5:i5'5
AND REGULATORY BURDEN
•••
omplementing efforts to test new approaches for achieving better
environmental results is an equally important commitment to fine-
tuning proven components of the environmental protection system
as it exists today. Predictably, the evolution of environmental pro-
grams over three decades has resulted in requirements that are no
longer applicable or necessary. Moreover, as acknowledged previously
in this report, the single-media structure of environmental laws and programs has result-
ed in requirements that are duplicative across programs.
To rid the system of unnecessary requirements
stemming from 16 federal environmental statutes, in
1995 EPA initiated an extensive line-by-line review of
all its regulations. Since then, the Agency has slashed
more than 1,300 pages of requirements from the Code
of Federal Regulations, reducing regulatory burden by
20 million hours. This reduction is the equivalent of
returning more than a half million work weeks, valued
at about $600 million, back to our society for more
productive use. In a continuation of this effort, EPA
expects to slash an additional 8 million hours in 1998.
"While this extensive line-by-line review has improved
the system overall, it has helped raise internal Agency
awareness about the need to continuously streamline
processes and improve efficiency, too. In a sign of inter-
nal culture change, managers and staff are showing
greater attention to customer service — to local officials
needing financial or technical guidance, to small com-
panies trying to achieve environmental compliance, and
to large corporations requiring permits to expand opera-
tions and bring new products to market. As the follow-
Burden Reduction Hours by Statute
12 i - - ,
10
8
planned
completed
•i i »•»
0
o
r?
O
rr
I
<
rr
f£
:oc
O
Q
W
Q.
tll
CAA (Clean Air Act), CWA (Clean Water Act), RCHA (Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act), TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act), FIFRA (Federal,
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), OPA (Oil Pollution Act), EPCRA/TRI
(Emergency Planning and Community Hight-to-know Act/Toxic Release
Inventory), CZARA (Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments),
CERCLA/SARA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act; Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act), SDWA (Safe
Drinking Water Act), Misc. (routine contractor support, quality assurance reports,
and purchase orders)
image:
ing examples show, today's system of environmental
protection works better for these customers — pro-
gram-by-program, it is becoming less burdensome and
more user-friendly. Quite simply, what began as a
"house-cleaning" exercise has evolved into a whole new
mind set and mode of operation within the Agency.
AVOIDING A PATCHWORK OF
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
One of the challenges associated with selling prod-
ucts across the country is having to comply with dif-
ferent regulatory requirements. In recent years, this
challenge has intensified for the automobile manufac-
turing industry as states have focused on reducing
tailpipe emissions from new cars to control smog
problems. Currently, mobile source emissions account
for half of the pollutants that cause smog.
The 1990 Clean Air Act prevents EPA from man-
dating tighter emission standards before model year
2004. This appeared to leave states that need to reduce
new motor vehicle emissions with only one option —
to adopt the California program, which is more strin-
gent than the current federal program. (Under the
Clean Air Act, California is the only state with author-
ity to develop its own standards). Some states, particu-
larly those in the northeast, have adopted or have been
considering adopting the California program. This
approach concerned the auto industry due to the diffi-
culty of complying with different requirements in dif-
ferent parts of the country. Under EPA's leadership,
the auto industry, the states, environmentalists and
other interested parties engaged in a lengthy public
process to find a better solution — a program that
would meet the environmental needs of the
Northeastern states, would bring about better environ-
mental results nationally more quickly than the statu-
tory timeframe would allow, and would help the
industry avoid a patchwork of state programs.
EPA brought this process to a successful conclusion
in February 1998 by brokering an agreement with the
auto manufacturers whereby they voluntarily agreed to
produce cars that emit 70 percent less air pollution
compared to today's models. These new clean vehicles
will be made available later this year in eight
Northeastern states and the District of Columbia, and
in model year 2001 for the rest of the country —
three years earlier than EPA could mandate under the
Clean Air Act.
The agreement means cleaner, safer air for millions of
Americans, as well as economic opportunity for areas that
might otherwise face growth and development con-
straints. Ultimately, nationwide availability of these clean-
er new vehicles will result in pollution reductions equiva-
lent to taking over 10 million cars off the road each year.
The agreement is beneficial to industry because it
greatly reduces the difficulty and expense of a patch-
"ONE PLAN" FOR
RESPONDING To EMERGENCY SITUATIONS
In the event of an actual chemical emergency, such as a spill, what would be most useful for facility man-
agers: one plan or nine plans? Obviously, only one, and in 1995, EPA joined several other federal agencies to
develop a single, consolidated plan for complying with multiple emergency response planning requirements
under nine federal statutes. One company acting on this new opportunity is Polyclad Laminates, a New
Hampshire-based laminator of printed circuit boards for the computer industry. In 1997, Polyclad worked with
EPA's New England office and the New Hampshire Pollution Prevention Internship program to evaluate its
operations in an effort to develop "one plan" for its six facilities. This option should make it less burdensome
for Polyclad and other companies to maintain a single, up-to-date plan. More importantly, it should minimize
confusion and response time in an emergency situation.
TAPIS- ANK? F)e-<SiUl-ATi?fz>Y'
image:
work of state regulatory programs. It also is beneficial
because it harmonizes federal standards and testing
obligations with those of the California program, thus
reducing design and testing costs. The auto industry
also is benefitting from the good will and positive
press generated by voluntarily agreeing to provide con-
sumers with cleaner cars.
GETTING SAFER PRODUCTS TO MARKET
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),
EPA serves as a gatekeeper, regulating potential unrea-
sonable risk posed by certain new chemicals before
they enter the market. Traditionally, EPA has used
enforceable consent agreements and new regulations to
manage new chemical risks. Rut these actions have
proven to be very labor intensive, time consuming,
and frustrating for industry as well as EPA. New
chemicals are subject to regulation even though similar
chemicals, in existence prior to TSCA, remain uncon-
trolled. Industry claims this discrepancy often creates a
barrier to new product commercialization and market
success. From EPA's perspective, manufacturers often
do not apply the same controls to existing chemicals
that are required for new chemicals even though risk
levels may be comparable.
To address these shortcomings, EPA launched a
special initiative, known as Environmental Technology
Initiative (ETI) for Chemicals, to eliminate red tape
and frustration from the review and risk management
of new chemicals. Working in partnership with indus-
try, a more flexible approach was created to overcome
regulatory barriers and allow for quicker approvals of
safer, environmentally preferable chemicals.
Furthermore, in cases where regulations are too limit-
ed to address risks of concern, the new approach
allows companies to look beyond regulatory compli-
ance and to come up with more comprehensive risk-
management strategies.
The benefits of this new approach can be seen in a
recent approval of a new product from Union Carbide
that essentially splits hazardous waste streams into non-
polluting, low-risk components. To realize this environ-
mental benefit, customers must handle the new prod-
ucts properly. Traditionally, EPA would have issued a
DEALING WITH PRODUCT BANS
While getting safer products to market as quickly and
easily as possible is an obvious priority, so too, is removing
products that have been banned due to high risks. In 1976,
Congress passed the Toxic Substances Control Act, which
among other things, banned the manufacture, processing,
distribution, and use of polychlorinated biphenyis (PCBs).
However, EPA was given authority to modify the bans,
through rulemaking, when it finds that no unreasonable risk
of injury to health or the environment will result.
In order to provide more flexibility in PCB management,
EPA developed a new approach that essentially reduces
duplication and costs for PCB sourcesihrough self-imple-
mentation of lower-risk activities, such as recycling or
decontamination, and by allowing risk to be taken into
account when determining disposal methods. It also modi-
fies or deletes outdated requirements; harmonizes PCB
requirements stemming from TSCA and other federal envi-
ronmental statutes; and fosters greater coordination of fed-
eral and state permitting processes. These reforms, expect-
ed to be adopted as a final rule in 1998, are based on the'
first comprehensive review of PCB regulations in the 19
year history of the program. Overall, EPA estimates the rule
will cut national PCB compliance and disposal costs by a
half billion dollars per year over the next 20 years.
regulation to ensure proper handling practices. But
under ETI for Chemicals, EPA developed an alternative
risk management agreement whereby the company
committed to a product stewardship campaign to
ensure customer knowledge about safe and proper use.
A vice president at Union Carbide stated that this
new product "might still be a gleam in the eye of our
scientists and regulatory managers if not for EPA's new
Environmental Technology Initiative." The company
estimates that its partnership with EPA enabled their
product to reach the marketplace 1 year earlier than it
would have had it gone through the traditional risk
management process. U.S. Senator Joseph Lieberman
"The ETI for Chemicals is an excellent
example of how to make government
work for the people it serves."
image:
(D-CT) has written that "the ETi for Chemicals is an
excellent example of how to make government work
for the people it serves."
CLARIFICATION FOR WASTE MANAGERS
During 1997, EPA continued work on important
changes to provide equally protective, but more cost-
effective waste management alternatives for businesses
and communities. Following continued consultation
with affected stakeholders in 1997, in early 1998, EPA
expects to propose a new definition of solid waste that
could substantially reduce the number and types of
operations subject to hazardous waste regulation.
Under die current system, companies that generate
and recycle hazardous waste are subject to full haz-
ardous waste treatment requirements. The new rule
would allow some hazardous waste recycling to occur
widiout imposing the burden of hazardous waste regu-
lation. It also would remove regulatory disincentives
that currently lead companies to choose incineration
or land disposal over safe recycling.
Another significant action underway is reproposing
the hazardous waste identification rule. Under the cur-
rent system, once a waste is listed as hazardous, it is
PLAIN ENGLISH REGULATIONS
The difficulty in understanding federal regulations has been a longstanding .criticism .of federal agencies, including
EPA. In order to reduce regulatory burden on our stakeholders,and,improve regulatory compliance, EPA has estab-
lished a pilot program aimed at improving both the clarity and comprehension of regulatory language. Under the pilot,
13 regulations cutting across all program areas are being written or revised using more concise language. In addition,
they are being restructured to allow users to find information, more quickly. Results from this effort-are becoming visi- .
ble. For example, in February 1998, EPA issued a "Plain English" revision to its Superfund Local Government reim-
bursement regulation. This regulation helps local governments,by making it easier to apply for reimbursement of
money spent when responding to certain chemical spills. More "Plain English" regulations are expected in the Spring, „
Before
§310.20 Eligibility for reimbursement
(a) Any general purpose unit of local government
may request reimbursement for temporary emergency
measures if all requirements under §310.30 are met,
(b) States are not eligible for reimbursement for tem-
porary emergency measures and no state may request,
reimbursement on its own behalf or on the behalf-of
politics! subdivisions within the state,
§310.40 Allowable and unallowable costs
(a) Allowable cost. In general, allowable costs are
those project costs that are eligible, reasonable, neces-
sary and allocable to the project. Costs allowable for
reimbursement may include, but are not limited to:,
(1) "Disposable materials and supplies" acquired,
consumed, and expended specifically for the
purpose of the response for which reimburse-
ment is being requested (hereafter referred to as
"the response");
After
§310.5 Am I eligible for reimbursement?
If you are the governing body of a..county, parish,
municipality, city, town, township, federally-recognized
Indian tribe .01, general purpose .unit of local govern- ~ "
ment, you are eligible for reimbursement. This does not
include special purpose districts,
§31O.6 Are states eligible?
States are NOT eligible for reimbursement under Ibis,
part, and states may NOT request reimbursement on
behalf of their local governments.
§310.11 What costs are allowable?
(a) Reimbursement .under, this part does NOT sup-
plant funds you normally provide for emergency
response. Allowable costs are only those necessary for
you to respond effectively to a specific incident that is: „ „
beyond what you might normally respond to.
(b) Examples of allowable costs are: .
(1) Disposable materials,and supplies you acquired
and used to respond to the specific incident;
image:
always considered hazardous — even if the toxic
chemicals have been removed. This approach, while
protective of human health and the environment, has
the disadvantage of discouraging innovative treatment
and pollution prevention — why
would a company invest in detoxi-
fying its waste if the detoxified
product was still subject to haz-
ardous waste requirements? In
1995, EPA proposed a rule that
would allow companies to test
their waste, and if all potentially
hazardous chemicals are at or
below safe levels, then it would no
longer be federally regulated as
hazardous waste. Instead, it would
be managed under alternative, but
equally protective, state programs.
(Because of the extensive comments received by the
public and EPA's Science Advisory Board, in 1997, the
Agency requested an extension to revise the underlying
risk assessment used in establishing safe levels. The
new deadline for proposal is set for October 1999).
SUPERFUND REFORM
Over the past 5 years, EPA has implemented three
rounds of administrative reforms covering a wide
range of Superfund concerns, including: fairness in
enforcement; public involvement; state and Tribal
empowerment; smarter cleanups that protect public
health at less cost; economic redevelopment; and pro-
gram efficiency. These reforms, which are not solely
responsible for recent program success, have strength-
ened and streamlined the program. Cleanup construc-
tion is underway or completed at 89 percent of the
sites on the final National Priorities List (excluding
federal facilities). Twice as many sites have been
cleaned up in the last 5 years than in the first 12 years
of the program. Today, cleanups are about 20 percent
faster and less costly — on average, cleanups are com-
pleted two years earlier. Reforms have removed 15,000
small parties from potential cleanup liability while
responsible parties are being required to pay their fair
share — these parties cover approximately 75 percent
of long-term cleanup costs, saving taxpayers more than
$12 billion to date.
A COMMON SENSE APPROACH FOR A
COMMON PROBLEM
Controlling storm wate r— runoff from the land
that carries pollution into the nations waterways dur-
ing wet weathe — has presented a substantial opportu-
nity for reducing environmental regulatory burden.
Under the Clean Water Act of 1987, new requirements
for controlling storm water greatly expanded the types
of operations requiring permits under the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System. For the first
time ever, the law required large industries and cities as
well as smaller businesses and towns to obtain permits
within specified time frames to control storm water
discharges from their properly. In 1990, EPA issued
regulations requiring permits for storm water runoff
from larger municipal sewer systems (serving popula-
tions of 100,000 people or more) and industrial facili-
ties. As a first step towards implementing these require-
ments, in 1995, EPA issued a rule that required per-
mits only for sources known to be contributing to
water quality problems. All other unregulated sources
were to apply for permits by 2001. At that point, per-
mits would be required for more than 19,000 munici-
palities and for millions of industrial and commercial
sources, no matter what the size.
To avoid this massive permitting burden — for
EPA and for the many public and private sources that
would be subject to the requirements — EPA worked
with multiple stakeholders to develop a more rational,
risk-based approach to storm water management. The
proposed rule, issued in late 1997, identifies sources
that need to be controlled through regulation, but
provides automatic coverage for two broad categories
of storm water discharges: small municipal separate
storm sewer systems located in urbanized areas, and
construction activities that disturb equal to or greater
than one and less than five acres of land. Other facili-
ties and industrial and construction activities, as well
as small municipal separate storm sewer systems out-
side urbanized areas, are to be permitted on a case-by-
case basis. The rule also provides an exemption for
industrial facilities that could certify their operations
resulted in "no exposure" to storm water by moving all
industrial activities and contaminants indoors or plac-
ing them under cover from wet weathe r— an excep-
tion that could apply to as many as 70,000 facilities.
<s-u.TTiw.5f
A-K>P>
image:
EPA believes this risk-based approach will reduce
adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat
by reducing storm water pollution while regulating
only those sources with potential for imposing envi-
ronmental harm. It will substantially decrease the
national cost of storm water management — in con-
trast to the billions of dollars estimated for permitting
all sources, the cost for the more risk-based approach
is estimated at $511 million.
CREATIVE PERMITTING
Because any change in operational status can trigger
the need for regulatory review of air emission permits,
companies can be hampered from rapidly responding
to changes in market demand. To address this problem,
EPA initiated the pollution prevention permitting pilot
(P4) to test ways of providing more operational flexi-
bility within the existing regulatory structure and of
achieving equal if not better environmental protection
in part through improved pollution prevention tech-
niques. Through a series of pilot projects, EPA is work-
ing with states and industry to develop innovative per-
mits that pre-approve certain operational changes over
the five-year life of an air permit widiout regulatory
delay.
EPA expects the P4 program to produce several
important benefits. First, promotion of pollution pre-
vention opportunities and overall net reductions in
emission levels will improve environmental protection.
Second, the experience of developing these innovative
permits on a pilot basis will help lay die framework
for potential broader application to other sources.
Third, operational flexibility may help companies
avoid unnecessary financial losses that can occur as a
result of regulatory delay. One company estimated
that the added operational flexibility provided by its
pilot permit helped save up to $1 million a day.
Finally, streamlining the review process is expected to
lower workload burdens for both air emission sources
and permitting authorities, allowing each to focus on
higher priority issues.
BREAKING THROUGH NEW TECHNOLOGY
BARRIERS
Numerous government and private groups have
identified the lack of an organized program to produce
independent, credible performance data as a major
impediment to the acceptance and use of more effi-
cient, less costly environmental technologies. Such
data are needed by technology buyers and permitters
both at home and abroad to make informed environ-
mental protection decisions. In general, buyers and
permitters have favored traditional, but proven, tech-
nologies rather than new ones.
To break through this resistance and to accelerate
the development of new technologies, EPA established
a five-year pilot program in 1995, called the
Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
Program, to verify the performance of innovative tech-
nologies. In its first 2 years of operation, 12 new envi-
ronmental technologies have been verified, and 35
additional verifications are underway. Preliminary
feedback from technology vendors indicates substan- -
tial market acceptance of the performance evaluations
and that the ETV verification statements are useful in
establishing new technology credibility. One vendor
reported approximately $200,000 in sales of a $30,000
field monitoring device within the first 3 months after
issuance of the ETV verification. EPA expects to verify
die performance of over 300 innovative technologies
within 10 years, gready expanding investment options
and providing decision-makers with more assurance
when confronted with major technology investment
decisions.
As a precursor to verifying new technologies, EPA
established a program to advance new technology
development. The Advanced Measurement Initiative
tests new methods for detecting and analyzing envi-
ronmental problems. Last year, the first year of pro-
gram operation, projects focused on finding better
ways of detecting wetland changes, characterizing con-
ditions at mining waste sites, and collecting air emis-
sions data from continuous monitoring devices.
Results from these efforts will inform and guide com-
panies interested in creating new products for the
environmental technology market.
image:
•*F*<Jy-S~*-4' Tr\J***r'T~^P.*f- '""A
t'-.i ?>\ • ;.... . ,:,^"**f .-' *
#'<•
. ,<>H,^-^iigg-SS,.^^. y> j
LUSION
roviding strong, consistent, environmental and public health protection
is not a simple process; it occurs through a highly varied system with
multiple dimensions, diverse players, and often complex challenges. As
this report shows, the opportunities for affecting progressive change
within such a system are great, and yet, consistent with the approach
advocated by former EPA Administrator William Ruckelshaus and his
fellow representatives on the Enterprise for the Environment project, this process is being
managed with great care. Where obvious common sense reforms are needed, the Agency is
acting swiftly. However, before permanently adopting fundamentally new approaches into
the nations environmental regulatory system, the Agency first requires thorough testing
and evaluation — an approach that sets the stage for continued progress without compro-
mising the substantial gains in environmental and public health protection that have
been achieved over the past three decades.
During the past year, progress toward advancing
public health and environmental protection was made
on a number of important fronts. State participation
in NEPPS rose to 30, up from the 6 that were
involved in the initial pilot; interest in testing alterna-
tive environmental management strategies outside the
traditional regulatory framework increased under
Project XL; sector-based management came to fruition
when metal finishers announced a voluntary program
to go beyond compliance and achieve even cleaner
operations across the industry as a whole; the nation's
first multimedia environmental regulation was issued
to further reduce toxic emissions from the pulp and
paper industry; efforts to increase public access to
environmental information increased; more compli-
ance assistance was offered while enforcement against
polluters was stronger than ever before; and regulatory
burden associated with unnecessary paperwork was
slashed by another 5 million hours.
These and other advancements featured in this
report demonstrate meaningful results for reinventing
the nation's environmental regulatory system; looking
ahead, EPA is committed to building on this success
through a continued course of prudent, but progres-
sive actions. These actions will draw upon the valuable
lessons learned through the reinvention process, to
date, such as the need to clarify how innovations will
be managed in the context of traditional regulatory
programs and the need to establish realistic time
frames for moving an idea from concept to reality. As
EPA pursues new reinvention opportunities, it must
take these and other important lessons and use them
to help shape responsible public policy. In so doing,
the Agency can propel environmental management
into a new era where continuous environmental
improvement is not only expected, but widely
achieved in society.
image:
APPENDIX: STATUS OF EPA REINVENTION PROJECTS
EPA's reinvention activities have increased and evolved considerably since the initial "Reinventing
Environmental Protection" agenda was launched in March 1995. The following matrix provides a brief descrip-
tion and status of the initial reinvention projects—with distinction for the 25 highest priority projects. It does not
reflect the full range of EPA's reinvention activity nor all of the projects featured in this report.
Initial "List A" (High-Priority) Projects
Project description
Status
Open-market air emission trading.
For smog-creating pollutants, establish an open
market for trading emission credits, with account-
ability for quantified results, and encourage new
trading options.
Proposed emissions-trading policy August 1995.
Draft final policy currently under internal Agency
review.
Provided guidance to states to facilitate interstate
trading.
Effluent trading in watersheds.
Promote use of effluent trading to achieve water
quality standards (e.g., establish a framework for
different types of trading, issue policy guidance for
permit writers, and provide technical assistance.)
Final policy on effluent trading issued in 1995.
Draft framework ("how to" guidance) published in
1996. Extensive stakeholder input being sought
and evaluated before a final framework is issued.
Numerous pilot projects in progress around the
United States.
Refocus RCRA on high-risk wastes.
Reform hazardous waste regulation so that: a new
"common-sense" definition of solid waste is devel-
oped to simplify industry compliance with RCRA
rules; low-risk wastes are exempted from hazardous
waste tequirements; and states have greater latitude
to design management requirements for low-risk,
high-volume wastes from cleanup operations.
Forthcoming proposed rule revising the definition
of solid waste: February 1999.
• Forthcoming proposed rule revising the definition
of hazardous waste to remove stringent require-
ments for low-risk wastes: October 1999.
• Forthcoming final rule reforming management
requirements for remediation wastes to promote
better and faster cleanups: June 1998.
• Forthcoming proposed rule shifting regulation of
lead-based paint debris from RCRA to TSCA to
make it easier to remove lead-based paint:
September 1998.
• Focus drinking water standard setting on
highest health risks.
Establish a risk-based approach to regulatory devel-
opment, and tailor drinking water monitoring
requirements to reflect local contaminant threats.
Successfully worked with Congress to revise the
former statutory requirement that EPA regulate
25 contaminants annually into a more flexible
mandate that allows EPA to set regulatory priori-
ties based on health risks.
image:
PjB-KS'PjT
Published ANPRN July 1997 to initiate process of
streamlining drinking water monitoring require-
ments for 64 chemical contaminants.
Finalized guidelines August 1997 on additional
monitoring flexibility for states.
Planned stakeholder discussions to help evaluate
data received in response to July 1997 ANPRN:
spring 1998.
Stakeholder input will help determine appropriate
direction for chemical monitoring revisions.
• Expand use of risk assessment in local
communities.
Promote risk-based decision-making at the local
and regional level by providing citizen access to
appropriate tools, resources, and information.
1 Developed online Green Communities Tool Kit to
provide community planning guidance including
basic elements of comparative risk assessment to
help communities determine their environmental
priorities.
1 Since 1995, provided technical assistance to more
than 20 communities on risk-based priority set-
ting, use of environmental indicators, community
planning, and consensus building (through coop-
erative agreements).
Also since 1995, promoted risk-based decision
making at local level through cooperative agree-
ments with the National Governors Association
and the International City/County Managers
Association.
• Flexible funding for states and tribes.
Provide an option for state and tribal govern-
ments to combine their existing grant funds to
reduce administrative burdens and to improve
environmental performance by allowing states
and tribes to target funds to their high-priority
environmental problems.
1 Developed National Environmental Performance
Partnership System (NEPPS) in 1996 as an
umbrella framework for Performance Partnership
Agreements (PPAs) and/or consolidated
Performance Partnership Grants (PPGs) for states
to direct resources where they are needed most to
address environmental priorities.
Approved performance partnership grants to 36
states by end of FY 1997 and arranged PPAs with
30 states.
Forthcoming regulations on PPGs and other
grants to states: proposal mid-1998; final by
year's end.
Sustainable development challenge grants.
Offer competitive action grants to encourage
place-based/community-based management that
combines sustainable economic development with
sound environmental practices.
Established Sustainable Development Challenge
Grant (SDCG) Program in 1996.
Announced 10 SDCG awards September 30,
1996.
image:
Expanded SDCG program in 1997 to fund 45
projects for $5 million.
Forthcoming 1998 SDCG grant solicitation:
April through May 1998.
• Regulatory negotiation and consensus-based
rulemaking.
Review all rules to identify candidates for negoti-
ated rulemaking — a process that involves all
stakeholders in developing agreement on how best
to regulate. Use the Common Sense Initiative
(CSI) process as a vehicle for identifying regula-
tions that might be developed through negotia-
tion and consensus.
Continued monitoring EPA's regulatory agenda
to identify appropriate candidates for negotiated
rulemakings.
Increased community and stakeholder involve-
ment, partnership programs, and consensus-based
project development in nearly all facets of EPA's
work.
Negotiated agreement with metal finishing industry
in October 1997 under CSI that will reduce pollu-
tion below what is required under current law.
• 25 percent reduction in paperwork.
Reduce existing reporting and recordkeeping bur-
den hours by 25 percent, beginning with local
governments and small businesses. Initiatives
already underway include expanded use of elec-
tronic reporting and recordkeeping.
Cut paperwork burden on the regulated commu-
nity by 20 million hours as of November 1997.
EPA's paperwork reduction initiative now con-
joined with OMB's governmentwide burden
reduction initiative, which targets a goal of 25
percent reduction in paperwork burden by the
end of FY 1998.
• One-stop reporting.
Create a consolidated system for environmental
reporting. Initiate as a pilot program in coordina-
tion with the states before applying more broadly.
Established one-stop reporting program in 1995.
In 1996 and 1997, awarded one-stop grants of
$500,000 each to a total of 13 states (to MA,
MO, NJ, UT, and WA in 1996; and to PA, WV,
GA, MI, MN, NM, OR, andTX in 1997).
In 1997, launched Reinventing Environmental
Information (REI), a broad information reform
initiative that incorporates one-stop program
goals in its action plan for establishing common
data standards, implementing electronic report-
ing, and reengineering the Agency's national
information systems in collaboration with the
states.
Up to 8 more one-stop grants of $500,000 will
be awarded in April 1998.
Consolidated federal air rules.
Work with key industries, beginning with the
chemical industry, to streamline federal air com-
pliance requirements.
Forthcoming proposed rule consolidating and
simplifying 16 different air-emission rules for the
synthetic organic chemical industry: spring 1998.
image:
• Risk-based enforcement.
Target enforcement actions against significant vio-
lations that present the greatest risks to human
health and the environment. Develop tools that
allow analysis of risk as well as patterns of viola-
tions among corporations and facilities within a
particular sector. Make results publicly available.
Developed sector-facility indices for five indus-
tries that provide compliance history and envi-
ronmental performance information on a facility
or sector basis. Internet posting of this informa-
tion is pending settlement of a lawsuit contesting
its publication.
Evaluated several potential risk assessment
methodologies for comparing relative risks of spe-
cific facilities, based on cross-media emissions;
expect to announce a decision concerning the
implementation of a particular methodology in
April 1998.
• Compliance incentives for small businesses and
communities.
Provide compliance assistance, without fear of
fines and penalties, to responsible small businesses
and small communities who volunteer to comply
with environmental regulations. Allow up to 180
days for small businesses to correct violations
identified through federal or state technical assis-
tance programs. Provide similar compliance assis-
tance for small communities.
For small businesses seeking compliance assistance,
authorized a 180-day grace period effective June
1996. Issued guidance in 1995 encouraging states to
allow small communities a 180-day grace period
when they have committed to compliance assistance.
To support states committed to offering compli-
ance assistance and incentives to communities,
offered technical assistance and some grant fund-
ing for compliance assistance and training. To
date, SD (FY 1996) and MO and WA (FY 1997)
have received grants.
EPA report on impact of compliance
incentives/compliance assistance on small busi-
nesses and communities due to Congress by end
of March 1998.
Small business compliance assistance centers.
Establish national customer centers for six small
business sectors that face multiple environmental
requirements. The centers should provide up-to-
date, easily accessible and understandable compli-
ance and pollution-prevention information.
Four centers (i.e., autos, metal finishing, agricul-
ture, and printing) established and operational as
of 1996.
Forthcoming opening of printed wiring board
manufacturing center: April 1998.
Three additional centers projected for startup fall
1998: chemical industry, local government, and
transportation.
• Incentives for auditing disclosure and
correction.
To reward responsible companies and eliminate
costly litigation and red tape, provide incentives
through reduced penalties for companies that dis-
close and promptly correct violations — except
for criminal violations, imminent and substantial
endangerment, or repeat violations.
Issued policy in January 1996 on incentives for
self-policing, disclosure, and correction.
Violations disclosed by 247 companies at over
760 facilities nationwide.
By January 1999, EPA is required to conduct and
publish a followup study on the results of the
audit policy.
image:
Self-certification.
Develop a self-certification program to handle
low-risk pesticide registration activities, and then
expand self-certification into other appropriate
program areas.
Began streamlined pesticide label amendment
process in 1996, allowing registrants to submit a
simple notification to EPA before making label
changes that do not create risks (rather than
applying for an amended registration).
Self-certification process established in January
1998, allowing registrants to satisfy product
chemistry data requirements for registration by
submitting a simple certification notice to EPA.
Forthcoming by end of calendar year 1998: EPA
report analyzing most common causes of pesti-
cide registration application rejections. This infor-
mation will be used to educate registrants on how
to avoid common, but costly mistakes.
Public electronic access.
Make information from all EPA programs avail-
able through Internet and other electronic means
that Americans and local organizations can access
in their homes, schools, and libraries.
Redesigned EPA web site <www.epa.gov> for eas-
ier public access to desired information.
Redesigned site includes news banners, keyword
and zip code-based search capabilities, and envi-
ronmental and regulatory information tailored to
the needs of various stakeholder groups.
Approximately 27 million users accessing web site
each month.
• Center for Environmental Information and
Statistics.
Establish a new Agencywide center charged with
assessing, consolidating, and disseminating envi-
ronmental information.
Administrator announced plans, in February
1997, to establish a new Center for
Environmental Information and Statistics (CEIS).
Startup date for new CEIS website: late spring
1998.
Project XL.
Manage Project XL to provide a limited number
of responsible companies a structured opportunity
to develop and employ an alternative environ-
mental strategy, replacing the requirements of the
current system if certain conditions are met.
Reached final XL agreements with sk companies.
Negotiations on seven more XL projects
underway.
Three additional proposals in technical review.
Ultimately, EPA expects to test pilot 50 proposals.
Alternative strategies for communities.
Join with states and communities to conduct pilot
projects that will demonstrate and assess the mer-
its of community-designed and directed strategies
for achieving environmental and economic goals.
The pilots will be undertaken with communities
seeking innovative alternatives to current
approaches and those grappling with limited abil-
ity to meet current regulatory requirements.
Project XL for Communities: Solicited proposals
from communities in November 1995. Five pro-
jects presendy under development or negotiation.
image:
Promoting community-based environmental pro-
tection (CBEP) on a broader scale, both by work-
ing directly in a limited number of communities
and by developing essential "capacity-building"
tools and resources for CBEP and making these
available to communities, states, and citizens.
These include: environmental information and
monitoring systems; guidance on socioeconomic
analysis; flexible grants; technical assistance; nego-
tiation and facilitation; and training.
Alternative strategies for agencies.
Starting with a pilot project focusing on two to
four Department of Defense (DOD) facilities,
work with other federal agencies having environ-
mental responsibilities to ensure that these federal
programs achieve results in the most cost-effective
ways, while eliminating needless bureaucratic pro-
cedures. Develop a memorandum of understand-
ing with DOD defining performance goals and
an optimal approach for achieving them. The
approach agreed upon must combine pollution
prevention, compliance, and technology research
projects.
Finalized Project XL agreement in November
1997 with DOD s Vandenberg Air Force Base in
Santa Barbara, California.
Two additional projects are in negotiation stage:
Plant Four (Lockheed-Martin), and Elmendorf
Air Force Base.
Two projects in technical review stage.
Signed Memorandum of Understanding with
DOD to implement specified performance goals
and approaches to achieve them.
Third-party audits for industry compliance.
As one approach for streamlining compliance
oversight, explore the use of independent, certi- •
fied, private-sector firms to audit industry envi-
ronmental performance. The Environmental
Leadership pilot program—with input from envi-
ronmental groups, industry, and states-^—will eval-
uate criteria for third-party audits that will assure
the public that environmental requirements are
being met, and any violations disclosed and
promptly corrected.
As part of nationwide Environmental Leadership
Program (ELP) pilot for industrial and federal
facilities, tested third-part auditing at several facil-
ities. Results being used as basis for potentially
developing a permanent performance-based
reward and recognition program.
Concurrent testing of third-party audit certifica-
tions at the New England regional level (through
Star Track).
Multimedia permitting.
Evaluate as a mechanism for addressing all releases
at a facility through a single permit and encourag-
ing facilities to pursue performance-based
approaches.
Issued report, Multimedia Pollution Prevention
Protocols (EPA 902-R-97-003), in 1997 summa-
rizing state multimedia permitting efforts and
giving recommendations on ways to promote the
multimedia approach.
image:
Design for the Environment — "Green
Chemistry Challenge."
Jointly sponsor, with the chemical industry, a pro-
gram to recognize and promote innovative chemi-
cal technologies that further pollution prevention
in industry.
Established Presidential Green Chemistry Award
program in partnership with the American
Chemical Society, the Council for Chemical
Research, the National Research Council, and
stakeholder groups.
Made five awards in 1996, five again in 1997, to
academic institutions, small businesses, and the
chemical industry.
Have received nominations for 1998 awards from
academic institutions and from companies in
numerous industrial sectors across the United
States.
image:
4997
Initial "List B" Projects (Other Significant Actions)
Project description
Status
Facilitywide air emissions.
Conduct demonstrations of facilitywide limits for
air emissions that allow companies increased man-
agement flexibility to use least-cost control options
to meet air-permit requirements.
Total of nine demonstration projects at industrial
sites around the country: five active, four com-
pleted or close to completion.
Guidance forthcoming, based on lessons learned
from demonstration projects, on facilitywide
permitting for air emissions: December 1998.
Flexibility in meeting effluent discharge deadlines.
Propose targeted Clean Water Act revisions to
extend compliance schedules for industrial waste-
water treatment standards for companies that apply
innovative treatment approaches that prevent
pollution.
Crafted proposed amendments to Clean Water
Act (CWA) that include incentives for pollution
prevention.
Further action contingent on Congressional reau-
thorization of CWA.
• Eliminate millions of stormwater permit
applications.
Work with stakeholders to develop a risk-based
approach to stormwater management by limiting
individual permits to only those sources that are
known to contribute to water quality impairment.
Consulted extensively widi small businesses and
other stakeholders to work through stormwater
permit issues affecting them.
Proposed rule January 1998 to cut requirements
for 7 million sites, including 3,500 small munici-
palities and 110,000 construction sites between 1
to 5 acres.
• Exempt low-risk pesticides and toxic chemicals
from regulation.
Exempt low-risk active ingredients from pesticide
regulation. Propose a similar exemption for low-
risk chemicals under TSCA, for which manufac-
turers must now submit premanufacturing notices.
Exempted 31 low-risk chemicals from being regu-
lated as pesticide active ingredients (final rule
March 1996).
Forthcoming proposed rule to exempt another 75
low-risk pesticide active ingredients from regula-
tion: December 1998 or early 1999.
TSCA premanufacturing notifications (PMNs)
no longer required for polymers that meet partic-
ular low-risk criteria (March 1995 final rule).
• Environmental forecasting to anticipate future
environmental problems.
Establish a program to help identify and character-
ize emerging environmental problems, taking
guidance from a new report by the EPA Science
Advisory Board (Beyond the Horizon: Using
Foresight to Protect the Environmental Future,
1995).
To help EPA lay groundwork for recommended
"early warning system," the SAB convened a series
of meetings and workshops to explore various
methods for projecting future environmental risks.
Prompted by the SAB's 1995 report, Beyond the
Horizon, the G-7 countries have devoted their
April 1997 and February 1998 meetings to dis-
cussions of transnational environmental forecast-
ing issues.
4-7
image:
State and tribal flexibility for municipal landfill
permits.
Encourage states and tribes to implement a flexi-
ble, performance-based approach for permitting
municipal landfills by proposing clear criteria for
state and tribal programs consistent with that
approach.
Proposed "land disposal flexibility program" rule
August 1997 outlining criteria for state programs.
Forthcoming final rule giving states flexibility to
run performance-based programs for permitting
municipal landfills: April 1998.
• Save billions on PCB disposal.
Revise PCB disposal regulations to reduce the
number of permits required, eliminate duplicative
state and federal controls, and give states and the
regulated community flexibility to choose less
expensive disposal methods as appropriate.
Notice of final rulemaking to amend existing
PCB disposal regulations: December 1996.
Forthcoming final rule giving states and regulated
community flexibility to choose the most cost-
effective PCB disposal methods: May 1998.
• Simplify air permit revision requirements.
Develop a streamlined process for revising air quali-
ty permits that allows states to build on their exist-
ing programs and avoid unnecessary regulations.
Proposed rule May 1997 streamlining revision
process for air permits.
Forthcoming final rule streamlining the air per-
mit revision process and giving states added flexi-
bility in administering air permit programs: mid-
1999.
• Simplify review of new air pollution sources.
Streamline EPA's new source review process to pro-
vide more flexibility, reduce the number of indus-
try activities subject to major review as new
sources, reduce permit review times, and create
incentives for use of innovative technologies.
Proposed rule July 1996 to streamline review of
new air pollution sources and encourage technol-
ogy innovations.
Forthcoming final rule reforming EPA's New
Source Review program: December 1998.
Simplify water permit paperwork.
Reduce paperwork burdens for municipalities and
businesses by simplifying the permit application
forms for water discharges.
Proposed rule in December 95 simplifying water
permit paperwork for municipalities.
Forthcoming final rule simplifying permit appli-
cation forms for municipalities: June 1998.
Forthcoming proposed rule simplifying water per-
mit paperwork for industrial sources: September
1998.
Final rule for industrial sources scheduled for
March 2000.
Streamlining RCRA corrective action procedures.
Promote "faster, better" cleanups under RCRA by
responding to a number of promising ideas identi-
fied through discussions with outside stakeholders,
such as reducing government oversight and expe-
diting use of interim protective measures.
Forthcoming final rule establishing flexible, per-
formance-based corrective action procedures:
mid-1999.
image:
Flexible compliance agreements for specific
industries.
Develop experimental EPA/Industry Compliance
Agreements to allow companies to voluntarily dis-
close violations and correct them in a timely man-
ner in exchange for reduced penalties.
In 1997, developed flexible compliance agree-
ments with three industry sectors: natural gas
processors (liability capped for 62 companies that
self-disclosed having not met TSCA reporting
requirements); the chemical industry ($1 million
liability limit for 89 companies that disclosed
chemical exposure and incident reports); and the
food sector (liability no more than $100 for 117
companies that failed to provide right-to-know
data to local emergency personnel).
Independent study on collecting and using
information more effectively.
Commission a study on ways to improve data col-
lection and management at EPA, and use the
study recommendations in designing a center for
environmental information and statistics.
Consolidated with initiative listed under "high-
priority projects" as Center for Environmental
Information and Statistics (CEIS)—CEIS opera-
tions scheduled to begin late spring 1998.
Electronic data transfer.
Establish a system to allow facilities to report
monitoring results electronically, thereby reducing
monitoring burdens while enhancing enforceabili-
ty or accountability.
Pilot projects in states being coordinated through
EPA's one-stop program.
"Reinventing Environmental Information" (REI)
initiative, announced July 1997, commits EPA to
making electronic reporting option available to all
regulated entities within five years.
image:
or more information on EPAs reinvention activi-
ties, contact the Office of Reinvention at
202 260-4261 or send an email message to
reinvention@epa.gov. Information can be found
on the Internet at <www.epa.gov/reinvent>. For
quick access to specific projects mentioned in this
report, see the following list of Internet addresses:
Beach Watch
www.epa.gov/ostwater/beaches/
Brownfields
www.epa.gov/brownfields/
Center for Environmental Information and Statistics (CEIS)
www.epa.gov/reinvent/notebook/ceis.htm
Common Sense Initiative
wvvw.epa.gov/commonsense/
Community Based Environmental Protection
www.epa.gov/ecocommunity/
Drinking Water
www.epa.gov/OGWDW/programs.html
Envirofacts
www.epa.gov/enviro/index_java.html
EPA Home Page
www.epa.gov/
Enforcement and Compliance
wwvv.epa.gov/oecaerth/index.html
One Stop Reporting
www.epa.gov/reinvent/onestop/
Partnership Programs
www.epa.gov/partners/
Pay As You Throw
wwvv.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/paytold/public.htm
Project XL
www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/
Storm Water Permitting
www.epa.gov/reinvent/notebook/rswp.htm
Surf Your Watershed
www.epa.gov/surf/
image:
