managing" the Agency, according to the study, which itself came from a request last year by House and Senate Appropriations Committees. The report was prepared by an 11-member panel and was released April 12 by NAPA, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization chartered by Congress. In its review, the panel took on the thorny issue of risk assessment and, along with offering advice to EPA, found fault with much of the debate that is now taking place. For instance, the panel took issue with the assumption that environmental policy should be essentially sciencebased, saying that view was flawed in two respects: scientific tools available today cannot produce precise, objective risk assessments, and even if they could, the assessments would not resolve valueladen environmental management decisions. The review noted that EPA already uses risk assessments extensively: In 1993 EPA produced some 7595 risk assessments, of which 6100 were brief chemical screens and 249 were major projects requiring at least four person-weeks. The report, however, urged EPA to be more explicit about uncertainties, assumptions, and value judgments in risk analyses and to use more comparative risk and cost-benefit analysis. Setting Priorities, Getting Results: A New Direction For EPA is available from NAPA; (202) 383-7797.
Voluntary drinking-water program established Administrator Carol Browner outlined on March 29 a series of actions to be undertaken in voluntary cooperation with more than 250 drinking-water suppliers who use surface waters and with drinking water associations. The actions are particularly targeted at controlling microbials, including Cryptosporidium and Giardia. Participating systems have agreed to comprehensively assess their operations, maintenance, performance and management—and to correct any problems that do not require new construction. "These are commonsense steps we must take if we are to guarantee safe drinking water," said Browner. Members of what Browner labeled the "partnership for safe wa-
ter" must first be in compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule, which regulates a number of contaminants but not Cryptosporidium or Giardia. According to Stephen Clark, director of the Drinking Water Standards Division, within 180 days of joining the partnership these suppliers will collect 120 days of performance data that will be the basis of the self-assessment. Details of the self-assessment were yet to be developed at the time of Browner's announcement, but Clark said that EPA, utility, academic, and outside engineering experts are meeting and expect to produce a self-assessment document by "late summer." Problems uncovered during the self-assessment would be corrected and the utilities would then go through a formal third-party assessment. Alan Roberson of the American Water Works Association speculated that some sort of "big brother/ little brother" approach may be used to help the numerous smaller water systems that lack the technical expertise to conduct the internal reviews. How third-party assessments would be performed or paid for isn't clear yet, said Roberson. Browner also said that implementation of the partnership plan would give consumers more information about their drinking water, target safety standards and resources against the greatest threats to human health, provide technical assistance to smaller systems and communities, increase funding for community drinking-water facilities through programs such as federal loans, and allow states more flexibility to set program priorities including monitoring regimes. In addition, EPA has launched a series of open meetings to discuss prioritizing its drinking-water regulatory activities, revising the methodology for setting nonenforceable maximum contaminant level goals, loosening the current policy of setting a goal of zero for carcinogens, implementing performance-based analytical methods and standardized analytical techniques across water programs and, in some cases, allowing source water protection as an alternative to treatment of certain contaminants. According to Roberson, EPA's new flexibility will allow states, communities, and suppliers to focus on high-priority contaminants. "EPA is trying to push the limits of what
2 4 4 A • VOL 29, NO. 6, 1995 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
they can do under [the Safe Drinking Water Act]."
Clean air operating programs With a November 15, 1995, deadline looming for states and localities to get approval for their operating programs under Tide V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, EPA issued a proposed rule in April outlining the Agency's plans for administering Title V requirements in regions that do not submit or fail to win approval for an operating program. Title Y 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 70 requires states and localities to develop a federally approved plan for issuing operating permits for stationary sources that are "major" emitters of pollutants, including hazardous air and acid rain pollutants. Major sources have been defined in terms of emission— for example, greater than 10 tons per year of a toxic air pollutant. The Agency's authority to run the operating permits program also falls under Title V as Part 71. According to Kirt Cox of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (Research Triangle Park, NC), "We don't see Part 71 as the federal operating system, but rather a bridge for states and localities that fail to meet the November 15 deadline." As a result, the proposed rules in Part 71 look like those already promulgated in Part 70 for states, says Cox. Affected facilities should not see major new requirements. However, those areas that fail to submit operating programs run the risk of losing federal highway funding and facing tougher requirements for major new or modified sources of pollutants. Tribal regions, which are treated like states under the law, have until November 15, 1997, to gain approval for their programs. Cox said that some tribes may not want to tackle the complex program. In those cases, Part 71 "acts as a backstop for those who elect not to do the program." As of March 30, 46 of 56 states and territories had submitted plans, along with 59 local programs (such as Huntsville, AL, and Santa Barbara County, CA). EPA expects to approve the majority of the submitted programs; programs that substantially meet the federal requirements may gain interim approval for up to two years.
