EPA WATCH RCRA to be streamlined Eleven regulatory topics are being singled out by EPA in a proposal to streamline the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Agency recommendations will be forwarded to Congress by July 15, following public hearings in Chicago, IL, Houston, TX, and Washington, DC, the Agency said. In announcing the proposal April 27, EPA Administrator Carol Browner coupled the effort with others inside the Agency to simplify and consolidate regulations. She said the Agency would refocus RCRA on high-risk wastes; provide states with flexibility to design ways of managing low-level, high-volume wastes generated in environmental cleanups; and develop a "commonsense" RCRA definition of solid waste to simplify industrial compliance. The 11 areas under consideration by EPA are RCRA permit requirements for low-level waste management facilities, waste management requirements, waste listing determinations, general prescriptive requirements, untreated waste disposal for low-risk wastes, Indian tribal authorities, land disposal restrictions, treatment requirements, hazardous waste recycling, corrective action cleanups, and the hazardous waste manifest reporting system.
ORD reorganization completes first phase Phase one of the reorganization of the Office of Research and Development (ORD) is complete, according to ORD head Robert Huggett, and on April 30 formally went into effect. The structure divides ORD into national research laboratories centered on risk management, exposure research, and health and environmental effects as well as national centers for environmental assessment, extramural research, and quality assurance, coupled with a headquarters office. Huggett said that the next phase "addresses numerous staffing issues"
and will be the most challenging part of the reorganization. The staffing issues include new positions opened through the reorganization, new work descriptions, and positions left vacant during restructuring. By June, ORD expects to complete negotiations about new positions with unions that represent federal employees and to begin advertising these openings. ORD staff will be given first opportunity to fill the positions. Huggett expects full implementation of the ORD restructuring by this fall. However, he expects few rewards from Congress for ORD's reorganization and warned at a risk assessment forum in May, "I see little hope that our budget will increase." In a related development, EPA Deputy Administrator Fred Hansen announced in March that Huggett was now EPA's chief scientific and technical officer. This new responsibility came in response to a recommendation in a recent National Research Council report [ES&T, May 1995, p. 206A). William Raub, who was the EPA administrator's chief science adviser, now heads ORD's national center for extramural research and quality assurance. According to Hansen, Huggett will be responsible for strategic planning of scientific and technical activities across EPA and will prepare recommendations for the senior leadership of the Agency as part of the budget planning process. At the May forum, Huggett hinted that he may push for major changes, saying, "We will look at expanding riskbased research throughout the Agency."
EPA sets new guidelines for environmental projects EPA released new guidelines May 4 for using supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) in enforcement agreements, which the Agency says will make the system more predictable and will put the program on a firmer legal footing. In an enforce-
3 0 0 A • VOL. 29, NO. 7, 1995 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
ment agreement, SEPs allow a violator of environmental law to voluntarily conduct an activity that remedies the situation or prevents further violations. In return, the violator receives a penalty reduction. According to David Hinden of the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, the new policy is comparable to a "how-to manual" that details measures such as determining the amount of penalty reduction, establishing the "germaneness" of a project to the environmental violation, and stating what kind of projects are allowable under a SEP. "It gives a [violator] an idea of what to expect from an enforcement agreement," he says. Setting out what projects are germane to the violation is the new policy's major innovation, Hinden says. According to the new guidance, such a link exists "only if the project remediates or reduces the probable overall environmental or public health impacts or risks to which the violation at issue contributes." Over the years, EPA has faced congressional criticism concerning SEPs that did not appear to relate directly to a violation, especially SEPs negotiated for motor vehiclerelated environmental violations. In addition to the "nexus" requirement, SEP projects also must advance a declared objective of the violated statute. The project is laid out as part of a judicial settlement; EPA has no role in managing or controlling the SEP and the funds set aside for it. The SEP cannot require the violator to perform any EPA task. In the original guidance published in 1992, EPA established five categories: pollution prevention, pollution reduction, ecological (now environmental) restoration and protection, assessment and audits, and environmental compliance. The new guidance adds two categories, public health and emergency response, Hinden said. The new guidance covers any SEP initiated after May 8 or any agreement not signed by then.
0013-936X/95/0929-300AS09.00/0© 1995 American Chemical Society
