States pushing for greater regulatory flexibility from EPA Discouraged by what they consider the glacial pace of EPA-led regulatory flexibility initiatives such as Project XL and the Common Sense Initiative, some state environmental officials want EPA to step aside so states can develop innovative pollution controls. After months of negotiations, state and EPA officials appear to be moving toward agreement on how states can propose new ideas on pollution control to the agency. In a lune 5 letter to state environmental officials, EPA Associate Administrator Charles Fox in the Office of Reinvention said that EPA is committed to setting up a special process whereby the agency will consider state initiatives to reduce pollution control costs or improve environmental controls and make timely decisions on these ideas. "We make clear that some ideas will move through the process quicker than others," said Fox, who added that the proposed agreement would put eventual state initiatives on different tracks, depending on the complexity of the issue involved. For instance, EPA may need to verify whether certain proposals are scientifically valid or whether some ideas conform to federal statutes. Robert E. Roberts, executive director of the Environmental Council of States, said states are regrouping from EPA's February rejection of an agreement that was similar to what states and EPA are now discussing. Roberts said negotiations with EPA are back on track. We didnt want to start with any preconceived limits on what could be considered," said Roberts." [EPA is] heading in me ugiii uiiecuun iiuw.
agreement after months 01 negotiations, because he said it d d not ta get p tal performance. Foxs June 5 letter to environmental omcials appea s to p , P
g
g
y
consider some state proposals to com o s, e e p
p
p
EPA is "heading in the right direction now," said Robert E. Roberts, executive director of the Environmental Council of States.
would be willing to consider a wide range of regulatory flexibility proposals from states, revising Hanson's February stance that the goal was to "achieve minor changes to the system under which EPA and the states operate." Separately, some state environmental officials are moving on a track of their own, drafting a federal bill that would provide waivers from federal laws and regulations to allow state regulatory reform projects to move forward without EPA approval. The bill would allow EPA to stop a state effort only if the agency could show that the project would endanger public health or the environment. Mary Jo Kopecky, deputy administrator for air and waste programs in Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources, said the struggle to get innovative state programs or ideas through EPA is stifling state efforts to improve environmental regulations. For example, EPA quashed a stategenerated plan to measure mercury levels in wastewater treatment plant effluents, which interested several states, including Wisconsin. The plan would have tied permits to mercury levels in sludge rather than effluents. The agency determined that such a plan would contradict the Clean Water Act. But Kopecky said the agency might have figured out a way to make the plan work if it had a process through which to consider such innovations. "Environmentalists EPA municipalities and Wisconsin environmental officials all thought this TITO s
3 5 4 A • VOL. 31, NO. 8, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
a
good idea," said Kopecky. Peder Larson, commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, said states want a process that will ensure timely decisions, even on minor proposals. He said Minnesota could not get EPA approval to let the Mayo Clinic incinerate a process solvent. Instead, the clinic had to keep shipping the flammable solvent to a dump, even though the solvent burned cleaner than most fossil fuels, said Larson. Larson said Minnesota's environmental regulatory agency has "matured" over the past decade and is ready to tailor programs to fit local needs. "We have a different role to play in the partnership now," he said. "Ten years ago, we were funded 50% by EPA. Our 1998-1999 budget contains only 15% federal funds." He said his agency is trying to figure out how to balance community, business, and environmental goals. "We think that if anyone can experiment to find better ways to do things, [states] are the best ones to do it." EPA's Project XL is a study of how not to go about introducing ideas into the pollution control system, said Larson. In August 1996, Minnesota abandoned its XL project to install innovative pollution controls at a 3M facility because EPA was not flexible in its dealings with the state or the company (ES&T, October 1996, 428A). "We had some real philosophical differences [with EPA] on emission levels a company needed to meet and the assurances they needed to provide," said Larson. It just got very complicated after EPA came in, and the stakeholders couldn t understand what was going on. Environmentalists are concerned that states will use regulatory flexibility to circumvent federal standards, said Mary Wells, policy analyst for the Sierra Club Legal Defense Funti. We need more assurances before were going to give away federal standards for regulatory reinvention, said Wells. We would really nice to see implementation of the laws prior to reinvention of them.
—VINCENT LECLAIR
