"Common Sense" reform initiative falters The automobile and petroleum refining industries have decided to back out of EPA's Common Sense Initiative (CSI), a voluntary program to encourage environmentalists, industry, and states to agree on ways to improve environmental protection controls within specific industry sectors. The withdrawal of these two key industries, and complaints from participants about the pace and direction of the three-year-old initiative, points to problems for what Administrator Carol Browner dubbed a major reform effort for th.e W3V pollution is managed. CSI began in 1994 when EPA enlisted six industries—metal finishing, printing, petroleum refining, automobile manufacturing, computers and electronics, and iron and steel—to meet regularly with environmentalists and state regulators with the broad goal of finding "cleaner, cheaper, smarter" ways to reduce pollution. Browner repeatedly told CSI participants to put "everything on the table" to try to reshape the way pollution is managed. Each CSI business sector has its own work group, which reports to a CSI council that makes recommendations to the agency. Browner has continued to pledge action on CSI recommendations, and her frequent appearance at CSI meetings seemed to drive that point home. A recent report on the program by Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research group, found that CSI's goals are too vague and have no statutory basis to drive concrete results. The report, "Industry Incentives for Environmental Improvement: Evaluation of U.S. Federal Initiatives," found that the debate among environmental and industry groups is generally characterized by mistrust and paranoia. The report said business and environmental groups have learned that statutes and related litigation radier than voluntary efforts determine what done "There is no shortcut no way around the difficult task of trying to legislate a better system " the report concluded It says a problem-solving negotiation mechanism rather than a consensus process would be more 222
appropriate for EPA's reform efforts. But the decision by die petroleum refining and automobile industries to leave CSI raises more questions about the program's effectiveness. "If it folds, it would have been a waste of time," said Steven Thompson, deputy executive director, Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, who served on the CSI petroleum refining work STOUD "We have to quit fighting among ourselves and take ownership of this thing " said Thompson who added that consensus building on the panel was "excruciatingly slow" and stood in the way of results Lois Epstein, senior engineer with the Environmental Defense Fund, said the petroleum refining work group has accomplished very little to date because the industry is reluctant to work within
"There is no shortcut, no way around the difficult task of trying to legislate a better system." —Resources for the Future report on EPA's reinvention efforts the consensus process. "They pulled out because for them it is not the most effective way of getting what they want," said Epstein. She said many in the group wanted to look at leaking aboveground storage tanks, an area not regulated by EPA, but industry would not agree to mat. "You need some sort of stick to get the petroleum industry to talk," she said. In December, the American Petroleum Institute (API) sent a letter to EPA explaining that its member companies were leaving because they thought the CSI process better served smaller, less regulated businesses. "We believe the refining industry's resources and those of EPA and the states can be more productively directed toward other approaches," API wrote. Charles Fox, assistant administrator of the newly created Office
A • VOL. 31, NO. 5, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
Both the automobile manufacturing and the petroleum refining industries said EPA's Common Sense Initiative was not worth their efforts.
of Reinvention, said CSI will continue with or without the automobile and petroleum industries. "There are still otiier very solid sector subgroups," said Fox, adding that it is too early to predict success or failure for CSI. A February report by The Scientific Consulting Group, Gaithersburg, Md., which was hired by EPA to evaluate CSI's progress, found that almough participants broke down some of the polarization mat existed before the project began, most of them complained about the process being slow. The six CSI groups have recommended 40 projects, only 4 of which have reached Browner. According to Larry Slimak of the American Automobile Manufacturing Association, the CSI process did not work well because participants stuck to their own agendas. He said the auto industry was interested in pursuing the "cheaper" angle of the cleaner, cheaper, and smarter goal by streamlining permitting as well as air toxics and new source review regulations. But environmentalists and others on the work group would not agree to mese industry goals said Slimak "Simply put there point of diminishing rpfiirrm for the auto industry" The report also said CSI cannot remain an initiative indefinitely and that the program's successes, such as fostering public deliberation of environmental policy and forging working rela-
tionships between traditional adversaries, should be institutionalized at EPA. But environmental statutes and state control of many environmental programs, such as permitting, enforcement, and reporting, make this institutionalization difficult, said the report. The four CSI recommendations made to Browner to date include greater accessibility to EPA policies; better implementation of Title V of the Clean Air Act; goals for development of iron and steel
brownfields sites; and an online environmental compliance and technical assistance resource center for die metal finishing industry, according to Robert English, EPA senior management analyst. One of the bright spots in CSI came with the metal finishing industry. Diane Cameron, senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), said the group began a successful demonstration of a technology that filters chromium out of air
releases, cutting the cost to industry by 90%. But she said most of the other efforts focused on streamlining regulations, which although good for business, may not do much for the environment. "It's only through better environmental results that we feel we've been successful," said Cameron, adding that the CSI effort ate up a lot of time without showing many of the environmental benefits NRDC sought. —VINCENT LECLAIR
Unified European water quality regulatory system proposed A plan to unify European water quality regulations around a system of transboundary water management districts has been endorsed by the European Commission. The proposal, approved Feb. 26, will create "a coherent structure for European Union (EU) water policy and it will systematize the collection of environmental information," said Ritt Bjerregaard, environment commissioner. "It identifies and tackles the two great threats to sustainability: overabstraction and pollution." The plan attempts to draw togetfier a fragmented raft of waterrelated regulations and bring European water quality up to agreed-upon standards by 2010. Water policy in the EU has suffered from lax implementation and enforcement. The proposal is a step toward filling gaps in existing water laws and unifying regulations that govern specific types of water use and discharges, from industrial wastewater to bathing water. The most innovative idea in the proposal is to use river basins to divide Europe into more than 50 water management districts. These districts would monitor water supplies and pollution along each river, including surface water and groundwater. Each district would ensure compliance with quality and quantity controls for water set by the EU. Water professionals working in tiiese districts would form a network throughout Europe to compare working methods and exchange information. No new water quality standards are set forth in the proposal, said Sally Mullard of the Institute for European Environmental Policy, but it does change the way mem-
ber countries administer their water programs. Responsibility for water protection is placed in the hands of member states and local authorities, but overall setting of policy, emission controls, and quality objectives would rest at the EU level. According to a commission spokesperson, the proposal also requires member states to ensure by 2010 that water users such as industry, domestic households, and agriculture pay the full price for water, including costs of extraction, distribution, and treatment. The commission wants water suppliers to fully recover their costs and develop reserves for complying with future legislation. In some cases, the price of food
may increase to cover agriculture's water use costs, or industry may pay higher water rates than households. Charges for users who pollute water are still being evaluated and are not mentioned in detail in the proposal. The plan also would establish designated protected areas with special requirements, such as bathing waters or areas intended for drinking water abstraction, as identified in existing or national legislation. These areas would not have to meet any new obligations. A draft of the directive is expected to be presented to EU environment ministers in December. It could be passed into law as early as December 1999. —MARIA BURKE, London
Genetically engineered microbes notification required EPA's new biotechnology rule regulating genetically engineered microorganisms for the first time under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires researchers to notify EPA before releasing microorganisms into the environment for field tests. The rule, issued March 27, covers all genetically engineered microorganisms not currently regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act or the Food and Drug Administration Act. Elizabeth Milewski, EPA special assistant for biotechnology, said the continuing debate about what constitutes genetic engineering means the rule may or may not regulate genetically engineered products exclusively. "The rule applies when companies manipulate genetic material to create a microorganism that has new characteristics," she said. The new rule requires companies to submit a 60-day TSCA environmental release application for field trials, replacing an interim 90-day voluntary approval process. It also created a new 90-day commercial use approval process, called the microbial commercial activity notification, to replace the TSCA premanufacturing notice used as an interim approval process since 1986. EPA estimates that biotechnology companies will spend up to $2.2 million this year to comply with the new rule. Alan Goldhammer, director of technical affairs for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said the new process will not be any more costly for manufacturers than the interim policy. He said genetically engineered microorganisms already approved under the interim process are used mostly in the production of enzymes. —VINCENT LECLAIR
VOL. 31, NO. 5, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 2 2 3 A
