ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS Sound science, regulatory review, top list as new Congress convenes
R
epublican congressional leaders began the 105th session last month pledging to soften their approach to reform of environmental laws such as Superfund. But although an overhaul of major environmental statutes is not expected right away, committee chairs have indicated that they plan to scrutinize EPA's regulatory decisions as they did in the past Congress. In 1996 President Clinton signed the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, which allows Congress new powers to review and veto major regulations. Using this law, Rep. David Mcintosh (R-Ind.), chair of the House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, plans to examine EPA's decision-making process through a series of hearings where officials will be asked to explain how sciused for proposed standards a subcommittee aide said "Our whole emphasis will be on the regulatory process to get the agency to focus on sound science and public input" the aide said This call for "sound science," popular in the past several Congresses, will continue as other committees review agency decisions under the small business act, several observers said. House Commerce Committee Chair Thomas Bliley (R-Va.) said he, too, intends to review EPA's decisions. "Not only do we fail to use sound science to assess the risks, we have no idea about the costs," Bliley said last December. "In the days ahead, we will continue the process of careful oversight of the departments and agencies within our jurisdiction " EPA's Clean Air Act standards for ozone and particulate matter, proposed last November, are
Sen. John Chafee (R.I.), a moderate Republican environmentalist, surprised many by questioning the rationale behind EPA's proposed air quality standards.
likely to be the jumping-off point for the review process, his aide said. Livening up the debate will be environmental supporter Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.), now ranking Democrat on Mcintosh's subcommittee. During a December press briefing, Waxman warned that he was prepared to defend any attack of the health-based provisions in the Clean Air Act. "If we end up in a Clean Air Act fight, it will be the mother of fights," Waxman predicted. On the Senate side, environmental observers fear the Clean Air Act may have lost a long-time Republican advocate. Chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee John Chafee (R-R.I.) said he questions whether the benefits from EPA's air quality proposals outweigh the expected costs, a comment that surprised many. In the past Congress, Chafee helped block Senate consideration of the House-passed Clean Water Act legislation, a bill dubbed the "dirty water" bill by environmentalists and he is well-known for his defense of the public health protections of environmental laws. The small business reform act is just one platform Congress will use to scrutinize EPA's decisions.
7 6 A • VOL. 3 1 , NO. 2, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) has warned EPA officials mat he plans to focus a "significant proportion of attention" on improving the science underpinning environmental regulations and hopes to introduce legislation to ensure that EPA's rules are "firmly grounded in sound science." With the backing of House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), Pombo has asked that 20year EPA scientist and agency critic David Lewis formally advise Congress on improving scientific review processes at EPA (ES&T November 1996 p 497A) The development of legislation to reform pollution control laws is apt to be less contentious in this Congress, according to business lobbyists. The debate over Superfund ended in a bitter stalemate last year, with Republicans originally proposing wide-scale changes to the program. After last year's debacle, the chairs with Superfund oversight won't take an "ideological" approach this year, industry lobbyists said. In December, House legislators, including Bliley and Rep. Sherman Boehlert (R-N.Y), who proposed a Superfund reform plan last year, indicated that passing Superfund amendments might be possible in this Congress. Boehlert has already met with EPA officials to discuss Superfund reauthorization in the 105th Congress, including only partial reforms, according to staff. Still, it is unclear what priority level Superfund reform is going to get at the start of this Congress. A full-scale overhaul of the Clean Water Act doesn't appear likely this year. When serious legislation does surface, it won't repeal as much of current law as did H.R. 961, the Republicansponsored bill passed by die House in 1995. "The rhetoric is that 961-type reform is gone," said Paul Schwartz of Clean Water Action. "But they are likely to seek more moderate-sounding reforms such as effluent trading schemes and mitigation banking,"
0013-936X/97/0931-76A$14.00/0 © 1997 American Chemical Society
Schwartz said. What might be a litmus test of the Republicans' approach to environmental reform is the upcoming reauthorization of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act. Expected to be a top legislative priority this year, the act provides states with funds for transportation projects. While it was being crafted in 1991, environmentalists fought to add several SIG6H provisions, inRep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y), a leading House environmental moderate, last year proposed a Superfund reform package originally backed by the Clinton administration.
cluding allowing federal dollars to be spent on public trsnsit sys~ terns. But these are now at risk under Republican leader-
ship, the groups said. The oudook for the 105th Congress may turn on whetiier revolutionary-minded Republicans of the past Congress continue to push their agenda or a more bipartisan approach is taken. "I think it all depends on which view wins out in the ongoing struggle over how to define the Republicans in Congress," said one long-time Democratic Hill staffer. "It is a question of whether sn ideological view wins or a morp practical, reasonable view wins " COONEY
CATHERINE M.
Army Corps closes regulatory loopholes for small wetlands fills The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has significandy tightened its wedands permitting program u n der changes that become effective this month. The move is opposed by oil, gas, real estate, and other developers, who charge that the change will prolong t h e time required to process permit requests for minor wedand fills. In a Dec. 13 notice, the Corps announced its intent to phase out in 1999 a nationwide permit category that allowed developers to fill u p to one acre without notifying anyone, and 10 acres in isolated wedands or those at the headwaters of a river or stream with a limited government review [Federal Register, 1996, 61 (241), 65874-922). Until Permit 26 requirements are phased out, projects c3J1 be approved without notification if they fill less than one-third Q^ QJ\ acre proved with 3.n expedited review if diey fill UD to three acres Most Permit 26 requests are for three or fewer acres the Corps said Known as Nationwide Permit 26, the permit class is highly valued by developers because it allows t h e m to fill small wedand areas a n d bypass the extensive government review of an individual project permit. Under a loophole known as stacking, developers can receive approval for several small fills in o n e spot without regulatory review of the entire project. According to the Corps, 80% of its wetlands regulatory activity has fallen under the expedited, permit classes. Environmentalists are frus-
trated by the 1999 implementation date for the nationwide permit program because it will continue to allow wetland fills without regulatory scrutiny. Although no national tally has been gathered, environmentalists estimate that Permit 26 alone fills tens of thousands of wetland acres annually. The Corps estimates that only 5020 acres are filled each year under Permit 26. The action is part of a larger regulatory package that includes revisions to 36 other general permit classes, each allowing quick Corps approval for projects that meet the national criteria. Responsibility for wetlands regulation falls to the Corps, EPA, and the U.S. Fish a n d Wildlife Service, but the Corps is responsible for regulating the dredging and filling of the nation's waterways, including wedands. When permit changes were proposed last June, the Corps did not suggest a phase-out of Permit 26. But EPA a n d Fish and Wildlife officials criticized the extension of Permit 26 and several environmental groups indic3.ted their intent to sue die Corps unless it was abolished Filling one acre in a 10-acre wedand area can significantly degrade a n entire wetlands ecosystem, said Tony Turrini, legal counsel for the National Wildlife Federation's Alaska Center for the Environment. Smaller, seasonal wetlands such as vernal pools and prairie potholes can easily be wiped out with no regulatory oversight, Turrini added. In place of Permit 26, the Corps
will issue permit categories for specific activities, rather than for acreage. At the same time, the Corps will work with its district offices to establish regional conditions for each activity-based permit class, designed to protect the specific aquatic functions and unique environmental assets of that area. The proposed abolishment of Permit 26 alarmed developers, who immediately argued that the Corps will not have any activitybased permits in place by the time it is phased out. This change will bump thousands of minor wetlands fill permit requests into the review for an individual permit, an often lengthy and costiy process. Unlike nationwide category permit requests, permits for individual projects require detailed review and extensive public input. The Corps staff will not be able to handle the increased workload, the developers said. "With each individual permit, you have a potential horror story going on," said Robert Szabo, executive director of the National Wetlands Coalition. In early December, the coalition wrote members of Congress asking them to review the phase-out of Permit 26 The Corps also promised to ensure that projects approved under a nationwide permit will not exceed a "minimal impact" on the wetlands in question, and to work more closely with the states on its Permit 26 approvals. The notice also disallows the practice of stacking. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
VOL. 3 1 , NO. 2, 1997/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 7 7 A
