# EPA’s Improving Environmental Rulemaking

Public Meeting

March 14, 2011

Summary

### Table of Contents Plenary Summary ...............................................

............................................................... ....................................... 1

Purpose........................................................

............................................................... .............................................. 1

Opening Presentation...........................................

............................................................... ............................... 1
Comments Received During Focused Comment Period ............... ....................................................... 3
Comments Received During Open Comment Period .................. .......................................................... 6

Overview of Breakout Sessions .................................

............................................................... .......................... 8

Observations from Breakout Sessions ...........................

............................................................... .............. 8
Compilation of Suggested Candida te Regulations or Actions for R eview ................................... 9
List of Participants ..........................................

............................................................... ....................................... 11
Air Breakout Summary – Round 1 ................................

............................................................... .................. 12
Public Comments Regarding Specif ic Regulations and Agency Actio ns ................................... 12
Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas ............... ............................................................ 16

List of Attendees .............................................

............................................................... .................................... 19

EPA Participants ..............................................

............................................................... ................................... 19
Air Breakout Summary – Round 2 ................................

............................................................... .................. 19
Public Statements Regarding Spec ific Regulations and Agency Act ions .................................. 19
Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas ............... ............................................................ 21

List of Attendees .............................................

............................................................... .................................... 23

EPA Participants ..............................................

............................................................... ................................... 23
Pesticides Breakout Summary – Round 1 .........................

............................................................... ........... 24
Public Comments Regarding Specif ic Regulations and Agency Actio ns ................................... 24
Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas ............... ............................................................ 26

List of Attendees .............................................

............................................................... ............................... 27

EPA Participants ..............................................

............................................................... .............................. 27
Pesticides Breakout Summary – Round 2 .........................

............................................................... ........... 27
Solid Waste Breakout Summary – Round 1 ........................

............................................................... ........ 28
Public Comments Regarding Specif ic Regulations and Agency Actio ns ................................... 28
Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas ............... ............................................................ 29EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

ii Suggested Data Sources.........................................

............................................................... .......................... 30

List of Attendees .............................................

............................................................... .................................... 30

EPA Participants ..............................................

............................................................... ................................... 30
Solid Waste Breakout Summary – Round 2 ........................

............................................................... ........ 30
Public Comments Regarding Specif ic Regulations and Agency Actio ns ................................... 30
Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas ............... ............................................................ 33

List of Attendees .............................................

............................................................... .................................... 34

EPA Participants ..............................................

............................................................... ................................... 34
Toxics Breakout Summary – Round 1 .............................

............................................................... .............. 35

General Comments ..............................................

............................................................... .............................. 35
Public Comments on Specific Regu lations Organized by Impact and Issue Areas ............... 35

List of Attendees .............................................

............................................................... .................................... 40

List of Attendees .............................................

............................................................... .................................... 40
Toxics Breakout Summary – Round 2 .............................

............................................................... .............. 40
Comments Regarding EPA’s Regulato ry or Regulatory Review Proces s .................................. 41
Public Comments on Specific Regu lations Organized by Impact and Issue Areas ............... 42

List of Attendees .............................................

............................................................... .................................... 42

EPA Participants ..............................................

............................................................... ................................... 43
Water Breakout Summary – R ound 1 – Surface Water .............. ........................................................... 44
Public Comments Regarding Specif ic Regulations and Agency Actio ns ................................... 44
Specific Questions and Discussion .............................

............................................................... ................. 46
Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas ............... ............................................................ 49

List of Attendees .............................................

............................................................... .................................... 50

EPA Participants ..............................................

............................................................... ................................... 50
Water Breakout Summary – R ound 2 – Drinking Water ............. ......................................................... 50

Opening Comments ..............................................

............................................................... ............................. 51
Public Comments Regarding Specif ic Regulations and Agency Actio ns ................................... 51
Specific Questions and Discussion .............................

............................................................... ................. 52
Specific Comments About Regulations ...........................

............................................................... .......... 53

List of Attendees .............................................

............................................................... .................................... 54EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

iii EPA Participants ..............................................

............................................................... ................................... 54
General Breakout Summary – Round 1 ............................

............................................................... ............ 55
General Breakout Summary – Round 2 ............................

............................................................... ............ 55

General Comments ..............................................

............................................................... .............................. 55
Comments by Impact and Issue Areas ............................

............................................................... .......... 55

Additional Discussion Questions ...............................

............................................................... .................. 58

General Comments ..............................................

............................................................... .............................. 60

List of Attendees .............................................

............................................................... .................................... 61

EPA Participants ..............................................

............................................................... ................................... 61

## Plenary Summary

Purpose EPA is beginning a new periodic retrospective review of its exi sting significant regulations to determine whether any such re gulations should be modified, s treamlined, expanded, or repealed. One of the primary goals of this effort is to make the Agency's regulatory program
more effective or less burdensome in ach ieving its environmental mission and regulatory objectives. As called for by President Obama in Executive Order (EO) 13563, EPA is developing a plan for how to con duct this retrospective review process.  For more information, please see the Executive Order at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2011/pdf/2011‐1385.pdf

On March 14, 2011, EPA held a pu blic meeting to receive input o n the plan and ideas about regulations that should be consi dered as candidates for review.



### Opening Presentation Michael Goo (Associate Administra tor for EPA Office of Policy) provided the opening presentation. He emphasized that protecting public health and t he environment is a
collaborative effort between EPA a nd stakeholders and that the Agency is always looking for ways to achieve its mission i n a cost effective manner. Alt hough the Agency already conducts periodic reviews of regulations based on statutory req uirements and judicial challenges, the Administration is requiring all agencies under EO 13563 to develop a plan for retrospective review of sign ificant regulations.  The Plan is due to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) by May 18, 2011 and will include a list of regulations targeted for review.

On February 18, 2011, EPA launched a website to inform stakehol ders of the process and to give them the opportunity to s ubmit comments.  EPA is particula rly interested in information and data that might support the justification for r ule changes. Michael Goo encouraged stakeholders to consider the following types of issu es and impacts: technological changes, different approaches to adopt (e.g., pla ce‐based), and job creation. The last one is of particular in terest/importance given the cur rent state of the economy.

Mr. Goo noted that this is a nat ional listening session but tha t EPA media offices and Regional offices are also holding meetings specific to their pr ogram or region.

Participants had the opportunity to ask questions about what wa s presented.

• Given that EPA wants detailed comments and data, why are we being given such a short timeframe for submitting comments?EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

2 o Mr. Goo noted that the timeframe is based upon meeting deadlines set by the
President and OMB.

• When you come up with the initi al plan, are the regulations that will be listed the ones that will be addressed first? Or, is the pr eliminary plan just a mechanism by which EPA
can show that it’s started the process?

o Mr. Goo noted that the priority of regula tions to be addressed has not yet been established. The time frame and priority will be established after comments have
been received.

• Can you confirm that OMB has given guidance that this review does not have to be limited to only large regulations and can include Information Collection Requests and other types of rules and documents?

o EPA responded that Executive Order (EO) 13563 clearly focuses on existing significant regulations with significan t being defined by EO 12866. However, OMB has noted that agencies are not pr ecluded from including other types of rules and documents, as appropriate.

• Could you explain the condensed process for this review?

o The time for this review was provided by EO 13563 which requires agencies to submit a plan to OMB within 120 days from the day the EO was issued. OMB subsequently requested that draft plans be submitted by April 29. Our timeline is based upon meeting these deadlines.

After hearing the public’s conce rns about the tight time frame for responding with comments, Mr. Goo extended the dea dline for submitting comments to April 4, 2011.

Tracey Westfield (EPA) provided a demonstration of the Web site ( http://www.epa.gov/improvingregulations ) that had been established for posting information about and gathering information on EO 13563 for EPA ’s regulations. It contains 14 different dockets categorized by media office and i ssue/impact areas. There is also a fifteenth docket for gene ral comments.  Those commenters that cannot easily apply their comments to one issue/impact or media office can use the general docket to submit their comments.  The public may a lso use the following email ad dress to submit comments: ImprovingRegulations.SuggestionBox@epa.gov

.

• Could you give some guidance on how to submit comments that are relevant to multiple
dockets?

o Ms. Westfield recommended just submitti ng the comment to the most relevant docket, or into the general docket if th ere was not another docket that seemed more appropriate. Comments will be revi ewed by EPA staff and distributed to the appropriate experts within EPA even if comments do not appear in every docket to which they may apply.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

3 

### Comments Received During Focused Comment Period Before addressing the pre‐identif ied questions that were posted in the Federal Register Notice, participants posed the following additional questions t o EPA regarding the schedule for developing the Plan:

o James Cooper , National Petrochemical & Refin ers Association – Is the May

18 th deadline for a draft plan or fi nal plan?  In a multi‐stakehold er process such as this, EPA gathers a lot of information very quickly.  I t could be
beneficial to form a task‐oriente d multi‐stakeholder group to h elp define this process over a longer period of time.

 EPA Response: The draft preliminary plan will be produced by end of April and the final preliminary document will be submitted on M ay 18 th

.

o Tyrone Wilson, Portland Cement Association – Will the draft plan be open for public comment before finalization?

 EPA Response: EPA is considering opening t he draft plan for public

comment.

o Howard Feldman, American Petroleum Institute – Should we be commenting on the exist ing review process and the development o f future review processes?

 EPA Response: Yes.

During the remainder of the focu sed comment period, the facilit ator asked participants the questions posted in the Federal Register Notice intended to hel p provide direction to EPA in its development of the Plan. Below are the questions and pa rticipant responses.

1) How should we identify candidate regulations for periodic retrospective

review?

o Andrea Field, Hunton & Williams LLP– Where there is a consensus that a regulation needs to be changed, i t should be done quickly (e.g. , less than 5 years).

o Susan Ferenc, Chemical Producers & Distributors Association – How are you defining what is a significant r egulation?  How are you handlin g the existing regulatory review process cycle?

 EPA Response: The EO and OMB guidance originally defined “significant regulations” as those regulations that had been re viewed by OMB.  EPA felt that this defin ition was too strict and has o pened up the review to all regulations.

 EPA Response: The review cycle varies by s tatute and EO.  EPA is still working out how existing review cycles should be considered wit hEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

4 retrospective review required un der the EO.  We would like advi ce on this matter.

2) What criteria should we use to prioritize regulations for review?

o Julie Becker, Alliance of Automobile Manufac tures – Regulations and rules that are coming out soon should be given priority (e.g. Labelin g Rule for vehicle fuel economy and greenho use gas emissions).  EPA and Na tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration coordinate fairly well on their labeling regulations, but the California Air Resources Board and Federal Trade
Commission are not as well coordi nated.  We should get things r ight from the beginning, rather than have to go back and make changes once re gulations are already in effect.

o Daren Coppock, Agricultural Retailers Association – Priority should be given to those regulations that are du plicated among EPA branches or between EPA and other federal agencies.  Also, if there has been signif icant changes in the technology or the underlying science on which a rule or reg ulation has been based, the regulation s hould be subject to review.

o Nick Goldstein, American Road & Transportation Builders Association – At what point will there be coordina tion between the various agenc ies that are reviewing their regulations?  Priority should be given to those regulations that conflict with other regulations from other agencies.

o Cordell Burton, Pella Corporation – Recently issued regulations present great opportunities to review their expected versus actual impa cts.

o Keith Onsdorff, Liquid Fence – Under the pesticides regime, there is no preemption of state regulations. There is a need for statutory reform in this case because the current landscap e of state regulations is a pa tchwork and causes great inconsistencies in labeling requirements.  Congres sional
intervention is needed to redu ce the burden on industry.

o David Baron, Earthjustice – EPA should con sider a series of steps for addressing those regulations that are required by statute to be reviewed. EPA is already behind schedule on these reviews. A second area for consideration should be those regulations that do the most to p rotect human health. EPA is already behind schedule on these reviews.

o James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association – It is important for EPA to understand the cumulative effect of report ing rules that require reporting to multiple agencies.  The information is oft en very similar.

o Julie Becker, Alliance of Automobile Manufac turers – Regulations that are impacted by significant scientifi c changes or depend on consume r uptake to adopt new behaviors or understan d new information should be a p riority.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

5 o Jennifer Cleary, Association of Home Appliance Manufactures – The Agency should more closely scrutinize t he costs and benefits of regula tions. Regulations that have a low bene fit‐to‐cost ratio should be ide ntified and given priority for review.

o Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver – Regulations that get caught up in litigation on a regular basis should be prioritized, because this is a goo d indication of where problems exist and clarity is needed.

3) How should our review plan be integrated with our existing requirements to
conduct retrospective reviews?

o Julie Becker, Alliance of Automobile Manuf acturers – Reviews should be timed so that the Agency can fu lly assess the statutory benchma rks that the regulation was meant to bring about.  Alternatively, the Agency should set statutory timeframes to guide th eir reviews—for example, Clean Air Act (CAA) 5‐year reviews and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS), and Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards.

o Jonathan Gledhill, Policy Navigation Group – EPA should look prospectively at reviews anticipated over the next decade and build other rev iews into those timetables. It should use OMB to help coordinate review o f related regulations between agencies.

o David Baron, Earthjustice – We would be very concerned if existing review processes were to be slowed down by this broader retrospective review process.  EPA is already behind on some of the existing reviews that are required by statute.

4) How should we solicit input from the public on the plan?

o Susan Ferenc, Chemical Producers & Distribu tors Association – If you are going to be conducting a rule‐by‐rule review, open the docket a s soon as EPA receives a date for review and not just 30 days before.

o Christopher Dana, Pella Corp – Please be more realistic with the timeframe for public involvement, particul arly in listening sessions, tha t require business owners to step away from the day‐to‐day operations of their companies.

o Cordell Burton, Pella Corp – The utilization of social media (e.g., Facebook or Twitter) would greatly help small business owners to comment and stay involved in the public input p rocess.  Many small business owne rs cannot take a day off work to come to a meeting like this.

o David Baron, Earthjustice – Another EO (EO 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐I ncomeEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

6 Populations, 1994) is relevant t o public outreach. EPA needs to make a special effort to get meaningful input from those communities t hat are directly impacted by these rules and regulations but are genera lly left out of the review process.

5) What should be the timing of any given regulatory review (e.g., should a regulation be in effect for a certain amount of time before it is reviewed)?

o Howard Feldman, American Petroleum Institute – In terms of timing,
reviews should be conducted init ially and should be done in all cases.  A trigger for the review process co uld be looking at projected ou tcomes vs.
achievements.

o David Baron, Earthjustice – For the CAA stan dards, a review is required every 5 years.  EPA has often asse rted that the 5‐year window i s not enough time to collect adequate data for a meaningful review.

o James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association – A lot of reviews are required by statute.  A cookie‐cutter approach is p robably not the best option.  Regulations cou ld be categorized and then add ressed in more specific terms.  The trigger for review could be milestone s, thresholds, or specific timeframes

o Susan Ferenc, Chemical Producers & Distributors Association – Information Collection Requests (ICRs) under the Paperwork Reduction Act co ntain an
evaluation of the costs and bene fits of regulations, including a timeframe for which of the costs/benefits are to be realized.  This would see m to be a natural trigger and timeframe fo r reviewing those regulations.

o Christopher Dana , Pella Corporation – Regulations impacting workplace
standards should be reviewed wit hin two years of going into eff ect and the results should be ground‐truthed against the actual burden with in that
timeframe.



### Comments Received During Open Comment Period During this portion of the comme nt period, the facilitator open ed up the discussion to additional comments and questions not addressed above.

• James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association – Commends EPA f or holding this type of meeting.  EP A should hold similar public m eetings for every rule under development and review.  He provided the following commen ts:

o Rules should be reviewed every 3 ‐5 years and efforts should be coordinated within and among agencies.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

7 o Consider conducting reviews when new and valid science has been
established.

o Reviews and adjustments of regulations should consider the impa ct on
stakeholders.

o Reporting rules should be review ed more often because of their cumulative impact on businesses.

o Timing for reviews should vary.

o EPA should not attempt to influe nce the market place through th eir regulations.

• Nick Goldstein, American Road & Transportation Builders Association –

o All federal agencies should coordinate with each other during t heir regulatory review process.

o The most recent data should be utilized during the review proce ss.

o When tackling larger issues, EPA should solicit as much public involvement as possible.

o With permitting issues, EPA should set deadlines where they can to give
affected businesses a timeline.

o EPA should consider the costs an d impact of a regulatory scheme

, particularly when determining the human health impacts of mater ials.

• Howard Feldman, American Petroleum Institute – EPA should be sure to utilize a
cost estimate.  EPA also needs to be careful to not double coun t costs or benefits. EPA should also avoid using guid ance in lieu of regulation, as regulation requires more extensive public involvement.

• David Baron, Earthjustice – EPA’s top priority should be to meet legally de fined responsibilities and to address those reviews that are overdue. There is a long backlog of reviews that are requ ired by statute.  Many of these statutes are important in protecting human health.

• Jeff Hannapel , Policy Group – Developing a ru le is a time consuming and expe nsive process.  The Agency’s budget is getting slashed and it is impo rtant that EPA ensure that it is taking on a manageabl e workload.  The Agency should also be careful in setting up retrospective reviews not to create more process and bureaucracy that costs more and produces less.

• Tyrone Wilson, Portland Cement Association – EP A should consider opening the draft plan for public comment.

o The number of dockets open for p ublic response is a little over whelming and confusing.

o EPA’s principal focus should ini tially be on the development of its preliminary plan for conducting a pragmatic retrospective revie w of itsEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

8 existing regulations and not sim ply an effort to compile a list of regulations to

review.

o EPA’s criteria for prioritizing regulations for review should i nclude final rules adopted with less than a 60‐ day public comment period.

o EPA should make public the scien tific research and other copyri ghted
materials on which it relies for the rulemaking process.  These documents should be added in a timely manner.

o The combined and cumulative effects of regulations should be co nsidered.



## Overview of Breakout Sessions
Following the morning plenary discussion, which was primarily f ocused on the development of the Plan for Retrospective Regulatory Review, pa rticipants moved to breakout sessions in the afternoon. The goal of these sessions was to provide participants with the opportunity to identify specific regulations and Agenc y actions that they felt should be candidates for review. The sessions were structured p rimarily along programmatic lines – Air, Water ( Surface Water and Drinking Wat er), Solid Waste, Toxics,
and Pesticides. There was an addi tional “General” breakout sess ion offered to capture broader comments that participant s may have had that were not m edia or program specific. Common themes from these breakout sessions are includ ed below. Full summaries are included in subsequent sections of this document.



### Observations from Breakout Sessions Although suggestions about speci fic regulations differed from s ession to session due to the programmatic focus, there were some overarching observations ab out the sessions that may be important for the Agency to consider as part of the its efforts to develop its plan or to identify candidate regulations. These observations include:

• Heavy participation by businesses, industry groups, and their affiliates

– Although environmental groups al so participated in the meeting, most sessions were dominated by industry repre sentatives. For example, of the total 58 participants, only about 5 represented environmental interests.

• Most comments focused on regulatory burden and costs and benefits of regulations

– There was very little focus acro ss the sessions on impacts to
vulnerable communities and burde n on state/local/tribal governm ents. This could be a result of the predominance of industry representatives.

• There is a cumulative burden to reporting and regulatory compliance

– Participants across sessions exp ressed concern about the cumula tive burden that multiple reporting requirements have on industry, especially sm all businesses.  The need to respond to multiple requirements often falls on one ind ividual or one part ofEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

9 the organization and can result in significant burden when repo rting deadlines are not spread out. For example, some participants noted the need t o provide similar information to comply with Toxic s Release Inventory Form R requ irements, the Greenhouse Gas Inventory, and the Refinery Information Collecti on.

• There appear to be diminishing returns from regulatory actions or reporting requirements

– Many participants felt that EPA should keep in mind the law of diminishing returns and should f ocus their regulatory efforts w here the most environmental benefits can be ga ined.  For example, participant s cited examples of reporting requirements related t o greenhouse gases on small app liances that do not have any emissions and tightening regulation on dust releases b elow the level that occurs naturally in some parts of the country.

• There seems to be information that is being collected that has little or no utility

– Participants expressed concern ab out the utility of some inform ation being collected by EPA. Given the burde n to industry to supply the in formation, the Agency should ensure that it needs and will use what it is requ esting and is not already getting the same or simil ar information through other m echanisms. For example, the Inventory Update Ru le (IUR) has made data publical ly available at a cost to industry, but there is a perception that this has not b een used for regulatory or risk management.



### Compilation of Suggested Candidate Regulations or Actions for Review

Below is a consolidated list of regulations or agency actions t hat participants suggested should be candidates for review. Context for these suggestions is included in the full
breakout session summaries that follow.

Air

• Clean Air Act (Subpart 812, Natio nal Ambient Air Quality Standa rds, Maximum Available Control Technology, P articulate Matter Reductions)

• Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (Subparts QQ and MM)

• Light Duty Vehicle – LEV 3 T ier 3 Emissions Standards

• Regional Haze Program

• Transportation Conformity Determinations

Pesticides

• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (40 CFR 152. 10, 152.15, and 25(b))EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

10 Solid Waste

• Resource Conservation and Recove ry Act (Subtitles C & D, Univer sal Waste Regulations, Definition of Solid Waste, Hazardous Waste Determi nations, Unexploded Ordinan ce Requirements)

• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Update Rule

• Non‐hazardous Secondary Material Rule

Toxics

• TSCA sections on Export Notification

• TSCA Section 402 – Lead Renovatio n, Repair, and Painting (RRP) rules

• Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rules

Water

• Clean Water Act (Fill Rule, Se ction 404, Section 208, Blending)

• FIFRA and NPDES overlap

• Phosphate Standards for Florida

• Safe Drinking Water Act (Maximum Contaminant Level)

• Underground Injection Control

• Consumer Confidence ReportEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

11 

## List of ParticipantsEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

12 

## Air Breakout Summary

– Round 1
The summary below represents feed back received during this brea kout session. It is not intended to be a transcript of p articipants’ statements. Partic ipants were encouraged to also provide written comments to t he docket to ensure that thei r suggestions are fully captured.



### Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions Julie Becker, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers

• There is a redundancy between National Highway Traffic Safety A dministration (NHTSA) and EPA in fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions co mpliance and certification processes. The se processes should be harmoniz ed across agencies so as not to result in duplicate or conflicting data.

• There are redundancies in the Gr eenhouse Gas (GHG) Labeling Rul es. There are labeling requirements put forth by the California Air Resource Board (CARB), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), N HTSA, and EPA. Each organizati on requires its own label. We would want a single national label if possibl e.

• Future Regulation of Criteria Po llutants – Low Emission Vehicle (LEV) 3 Tier 3, Light Duty Vehicles

o CARB is developing new LEV stand ards for Light Duty Trucks that will emissions essentially to ZERO, so that average emissions from t hese vehicles will be less than the cleanest vehicle today.

o There are non‐essential and dupl icative compliance and certific ation requirements for auto emissions. Automakers report 400 differen t parameters in two different data bases.  Different requirements are a waste of resources.

Jennifer Cleary , Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

• Under the GHG Reporting Rule, Su bpart QQ, there is a reporting requirement for equipment that contain fluorine refrigerants. These pieces of e quipment are pre‐ charged when they are imported or exported. They do not emit an y GHGs, but manufacturers are still required to report under Subpart QQ. Th is is a costly reporting burden for industry, especially small businesses, wit hout any
environmental benefit. There sho uld be a de minimis level below which less
onerous data collection and reporting are permitted.

David Friedman , National Petrochemical & Refiners Association

• The NAAQS regulatory review time frame in the Clean Air Act Ame ndments is five years. This is hard to meet already. There should be a mor atorium on new or revised NAAQS until the full bene fits of compliance with curren t standards areEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

13 realized.  What happens if this new process is in conflict with that required 5‐ year review cycle?

• For refineries, it is energy int ensive to make fuel cleaner and no credit is given to
refineries for the reductions th at result from these cleaner fu els. In fact, they are penalized at the refin ery level because their GHG emissions inc rease as a result of the additional energy it takes to make the fuel cleaner.

• Conflicting Regulations:

o Ethanol has a negative impact on ozone, although it helps us ac hieve energy independence.

o If there is a lowering of standa rds NAAQS, then there is a sign ificant energy expenditure – lots of mon ey and energy is spent to make more reformulated fuels (pull out sulf ur), and a refinery’s carbon f ootprint will increase (increase GHGs).

• The Office of Policy and Program Evaluation (OPPE) was a former office within EPA. It served a good purpose. We would like the EPA to reinst ate that office to serve as an internal “watch dog” to provide more insight and ov ersight when writing new regulations.

Howard Feldman , American Petroleum Institute

• Regulatory impacts are not fully calculated. Specifically, the economic impacts on stationary sources for recent GHG regulations were never calcul ated as part of the regulatory development proce ss. This should be addressed du ring a review process sooner rather than later.

• Guidance and ICRs are not going through the regulatory review p rocess. This is problematic because an ICR on refinery data that was estimated at $30 million is actually costing close to $70 mi llion to comply. There is no ap parent benefit to the data and no one appears to be reviewing it.

• There appears to be double count ing under Section 812 of the Cl ean Air Act that requires benefit‐cost analysis.  Specifically, the Agency is do uble counting benefits from Particulate Matter reductions (in the form of liv es saved) from
direct PM emissions reductions a nd from reductions under other rules (e.g., ground‐level ozone standards) tha t also result in PM reductions (from precursors). It would be best to separate the sets of populatio ns that benefit from each of these regulations and have a goal of meeting PM st andards across all regulations.  There is no ind ication that EPA is counting t hese benefits in an
incremental fashion. This sort o f double counting also happens when EPA
estimates reductions in criteria pollutants from both stationar y and mobile sources. There is an overall lack of clarity.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

14 o Andrea Field , Hunton and Williams LLP – Another example is that reducing SO 2 reduces sulfates, and it is u nclear if these particulate reductions are being counted und er the PM regulation as well as part of
the SO 2 regulations.

• NAAQS Process needs to be review ed. There is a great deal of ef fort spent on reviewing NAAQS standards every five years. There is now margin al benefit to further tightening of the standa rd, because the Agency initiall y picked low hanging fruit. Unless the Agency sees compelling new science th at indicates that
the additional 5‐10% in reductio ns that can be achieved is feas ible, it should spend its resources trying to ac hieve the existing standards an d work on attainment plans. It should specifically look at the review pro cess and determine if benefits are possible as well as the environmental engineeri ng/equipment aspects to determine what reduct ions are feasible before underg oing a review.

• The regulatory impact analysis does not include all costs.  For ozone, the analysis
left out areas of California tha t were in attainment from the a nalysis, so the Agency did not catch all the cost s in these areas.  This would dramatically change

cost estimates.

Andrea Field , Hunton and Williams LLP

• Information Collection Request Process

o The utility industry is in the m idst of responding to an inform ation collection request for the Utility MACT standards. The deadline is too short to complete the data colle ction.  There is not enough tim e to figure out what is being asked and to a nalyze the data being requested .  The estimated cost to respond to the ICR was estimated at $70 milli on, but closer to $100 million has been spent.

o The ICR process overall is broke n. People that do not have the technical expertise drive the process. Agencies should put all the people that are involved in an ICR together in o ne room to bring all of their r elevant expertise to bear.

• Congress generated a request for a snapshot of GHG emissions fr om large sources over a three‐y ear period.  The three years have expired and this data
collection should not continue. Other programs are collecting these data.

o Howard Feldman – The data should help inform the regulatory process but the regulatory process charge s ahead before getting the dat a.

o David Friedman – This data is for policy mak ers and not to trade carbon. The EIA (from DOE) is already co llecting this information on pe troleum products under Subpart MM. My su ggestion is to look cross agenc ies for
the same information.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

15 • Before consent decrees are put i nto motion, all interested part ies should be brought together rather than allo wing them to comment after the agreement is
reached.  This would reduce unrealistic schedules or the need t o rush through a regulation without sufficient da ta. Examples where this has occ urred include: Industrial Boiler MACT, ozone am bient air quality standards, an d GHG New Source Performance Standards (NSPS).

• There appears to be a movement to use modeling data instead of monitoring data in the regulatory process. I f there needs to be a reliance on models, then there needs to be a better process to improve the inputs into t hose models. An example is the CALPUFF model. Thi s model was not created by EPA but by a consultant, and the Agency has stopped incorporating the improv ements made to the model as the improvements are developed.  After meeting with Agency’s modelers, they have said that they have no resources to include the improvements and a rulemaking to include these changes would ta ke 3‐5 years. The Agency needs the best models for rulemaking.  This would be a great opportunity to create public‐pri vate partnerships to move the p rocess along more quickly and to stay cu rrent with the technology.

• The Agency needs to do a better job quantifying the benefits an d risks of regulations, especially in regard to the EPA nitr ogen dioxide a nd sulfur dioxide ambient air quality standards.  Currently, the Agency looks at risk to public health if the air quality degrad es, not if it stays the same ba sed on the current standards. Then, they look at the potential risk to public heal th under the new proposed standards, which creates an artificial comparison. The Agency should
look at the difference between t he current and the proposed sta ndards.

Joe Kubsh , Manufactures of Emissi on Controls Association

• Ensure that available technolog ies match the regulations on “th e books”.  I have been talking to Office of Transp ortation about aftermarket cata lytic converters, and the 25 year old policy and technology is long surpassed.  T here are new technologies available providing additional benefits, and there should be a new policy that mirrors the policy in California.  This is low on E PA’s list of priorities. Right now there are two differen t levels of performance and the public always chooses the cheaper options (the reconditioned converter) to pa ss emissions. Changing this policy to recognize the benefits of the new catal ytic converter technology would result in benef its for the environment and the consumer.

Arline Seeger , National Lime Association

• There is a lot of data being subm itted under the GHG Reporting Rule that raises
concerns about confidential busi ness information. Competitors c an look to seeEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

16 product formulations and use thi s information to unfairly adjus t their own prices.  The EPA should accept t he information but not make it available to the public until they understand ram ifications, which may be very b ad.  The Federal Trade Commission recognizes this problem.

• In the Preamble to the Hourly NO 2 and SO 2 NAAQS Final Standards, there is some confusing language that appears to compel states to modeling da ta to determine exceedences.  Later guidance did not appear to make this same r equirement, but it was not widely communicated. Please offer clarification to t he preamble statements and related guidance.

• Under the Regional Haze Program, there is an incremental assess ment of affordability and Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) bas ed on the
distance of facilities from National Parks. We are not finished with the first phase of data collection and assessment, but we are already moving on with the second phase.  The first reviews took p lace and found an insufficient reduction to submit
to EPA.  The next wave of informat ion is being collected under a 114 Letter.  This letter implies there is “foot‐dragging,” and it is a heavy‐hand ed approach to get the new data. The Agency should look at what was collected init ially and then use this data to inform decisions moving forward.



### Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas The section below highlights some of the key points raised duri ng the comment period summarized in the previous sectio n but groups these points acco rding to the impact and issue areas that were posted in the Federal Register Notice pri or to the meeting. These points are not re‐attributed to the person who provided them. Any new comments or statements that may have been pro vided during the specific revi ew of these impact and
issue areas in the breakout are provided below along with attri bution.

Regulatory Burden and Small Business

• GHG reporting requirements for s mall businesses who manufacture , import or export small appliances that have fully contained fluorinated r efrigerants are overly burdened by the requireme nt that has no environmental be nefit.

• Jonathon Gledhill – Small businesses and local ut ilities are being discouraged from using backup generators tha t are vital in e mergencies, bec ause too much use can violate permit requirements.

• David Friedman – In regard to the Refinery ICR , small refineries usually have one person that does all their reporting. This ICR requirement is particularly burdensome for these small facilities, especially because of th e tight deadline. There is just no time to do it with available resources.

Benefits and CostsEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

17 • Reductions of particulate matter from different regulatory requ irements where benefits such as lives saved may be double counted and thus EPA may be overestimating the benefits of particular regulations.

• Some ozone regulations had been developed without full cost inf ormation.

• Some of the incremental benefits gained from tightening ambient air quality standards may not be justified by the cost to achieve reduction s.

• Jonathon Gledhill , Policy Navigation Group – Ozone NAAQs should stop after a certain point.  Some parts of cou ntry can’t comply with the ozo ne NAAQs (Blue Ridge Mountains, southern areas) . As a result of this situation , cost estimates are incomplete, because there are no affordable ideas to include. T he Agency talks
about the benefits of the standa rd without a full accounting of the cost (e.g. California data missing in one example).

o Howard Feldman – Reminded the group abou t the example where the California data was missing from the cost estimate.

Science Obsolete/Technology Outdated

• If the Agency is going to rely m ore heavily on modeling to info rm regulatory processes, it must invest in the most up‐to‐date models. It als o needs to be clear
when models need to be use d versus monitoring data.

• Catalytic converter technology h as changed since the standards were developed on sale of these units 25 years ago. These standards need to be revisited.

State, Local, and Tribal Governments

• Andrea Field – States have motivation to m eet the sulfur dioxide ambient standard, but the short turn aro und in the regulatory review cy cle causes them to reassess frequently. EPA shou ld have discussions with states before changing
standards.

• Howard Feldman – States complain about NSPS and GHG requirements, and they need resources to meet these mandates.

Least Burden/Flexible Approaches

• Howard Feldman – Previously asked EPA to allo w petroleum facilities to use infrared technology to spot leaking valves. The current require ment is to use “sniffers,” which are labor intensive. Infrared technology woul d provide nearly
the same result at much less cost.

• Julie Becker – Under the Vehicle GHG rule, t he approval process for off‐cyc le
credits is a cumbersome and it would be nice to have a more str eamlined

process.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

18 • Howard Feldman

– Under the NSPS for GHGs, while there are flexibilities, the proposed date becomes the effect ive date for the rule (required under Clean Air Act) for utilities in July and r efineries in December.  This pr ocess of making the applicability date the date of p roposal discourages efficiency and improvement. Please take advantage of the Adv anced Notice of Proposed Rulema king approach that gives people more notice ab out compliance time frames.

• Howard Feldman

o The Preconstruction Permitting under the Clean Air Act is cumbe rsome. It takes years to get a permit, and the review process goes thr ough several courts. Financing is unattainable until the permitting process and review process are completed.  Furthermore, the appeals process is no less than a year and mostly more than a year.

o Many rules are developed in an unreasonable time frame because EPA misses deadlines and a ruling is issued with a time frame. Indu stry tried to work with EPA to extend the Boiler NAAQS rulemaking and EPA did not present the facts on resourc es spent on the rule. EPA shoul d specify the resources (more than just FTE, typically the same group of people responding to multiple rulemakings/reviews) devoted to meeting the deadline obligations so that the public can comment on these re sources.

• Joe Kubsh – Before developing the geologic sequestration rule, a technic al workshop was held beforehand and invitations were sent to all s takeholders. Then there were several rulemaking workshops to solicit ideas, bringing stakeholders into the process.  This was an effective way to pr oceed and these steps ultimately led to the rule not being challenged.

Integration & Innovation

• EPA should be looking across agen cies and other EPA programs to eliminate
redundancies in areas such as fu el efficiency labeling and GHG emissions
standards.

• Better integration is needed to e liminate conflicting standards that require
cleaner fuels to reduce GHG emi ssions and penalties due to incr eases in GHG
emissions at facilities that are working to make these fuels cl eaner because of the increased energy that is required to implement these new cl eaning

processes.

• Joe Kubsh – EPA should look across the UIC program and the Air program’s GHG reporting requirements at the re quirements related to injection of CO 2 . It should consider looking at a flexible a pproach that may just defer rep orting of CO 2 injections to the programs at the state or regional levels that manage these programs to avoid duplication.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

19 • Jonathan Gledhill, Policy Navigation Group – EPA does a good job with subpart 812 retrospective analyses and could use that as a road map.  L essons can be learned from the review process. Are we optimizing across medi a?



### List of Attendees Julie Becker, Alliance of Automo bile Manufacturers, represent 1 2 manufactures Jennifer Cleary, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers Howard Feldman, American Petroleum Institute Andrea Field, Hunton & Williams LL (On behalf of the Utility Ai r Regulatory Group) David Friedman, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association Dale Kardos, Dale Kardos & Associates, Inc. Joseph Kubsh, Manufactures of Emissions Controls Association Arling Seeger, National Lime Association Jonathon Gledhill, Policy Navigation Group Bob Van Voorheese, Bryan Cave Thomas Traceski, DOE Einik Daniella, Jones Day



### EPA Participants Lori Stewart, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Dennis, O’Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Glynis Hill, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency Jeremy Arling, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency Stewart Miles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Alex Cristofaro, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency Eric Ginsberg, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency



## Air Breakout Summary

– Round 2
The summary below represents feed back received during this brea kout session. It is not intended to be a transcript of p articipants’ statements. Partic ipants were encouraged to also provide written comments to t he docket to ensure that thei r suggestions are fully captured.



### Public Statements Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions

Daren Coppock , Agricultural Retailers Association

• There is no way that certain areas of the country can attain ze ro dust emissions, especially in the West.  EPA is proposing to lower dust standar ds to an unachievable level.  If this is evaluated on cost/benefit appro ach, then the cost would approach an infinite value .  What is the EPA’s science be hind itsEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

20 recommendation? What is the EPA’s approach? When are the econom ic impacts considered?  I recommend setting a standard with consideration of how
achievable the standard is and t he cost as the standard is deve loped.

o EPA Response – Cost is typically evaluated when assessing implementation and not when a standard is being developed. The standard would go through a publ ic comment period in the propos ed rule phase.  NAAQS standards are also peer reviewed and there are mu ltiple opportunities for public review and comment during multiple sta ges of the standard development process.

Nick Goldstein , American Road & Transporta tion Builders Association

• Transportation Conformity Determination:

o This is not an exact science. Th e Air Quality Multi‐Pollutant ( AQMP) process uses the most current dat a, not future data generated t hrough a
model. Model data is not current or realistic because they are prediction based. These processes should use the most current and most acc urate
information.

o Emissions Budget should have a b uilt‐in flexibility of 10‐15% b ecause a county may experience a temporary increase in emissions based o n a number of different events for a momentary period of time.

o Hot Spot conformity should be re pealed.  There may be temporary construction taking place that may actually contribute to an ov erall reduction in emissions (e.g., new public transportation or infr astructure that eases congestion). Stress th e predictability of future sta ndards (e.g. ozone standard).

• The NAAQS standard setting process changes too frequently. It i s difficult for local communities to make changes to meet NAAQS standards befor e the standards are up for review. Loca l governments need predictabil ity in order to achieve the standards. EPA should consider progress being made toward a particular standard before they consider changing it.

• The State Implementation Program process under the Clean Air Ac t is broken.
There are lots of discussions ab out the unyielding process and about how it may not be accomplishing its goals. T he Agency should look for alte rnatives such as the ones being proposed by siptransformation.org.

• It seems like standards are set i n a vacuum. The Agency should consider other regulations that may be taking e ffect when they consider modify ing or changing related regulations. Data from t hose other efforts will show re ductions in emissions when they come on line .  The Agency should look broad ly across its programs to evaluate emissions reductions.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

21 Beth Graves , Environmental Council of States

• When a new rule is promulgated, EPA should concurrently issue i mplementation plan guidance to states and loca l governments instead of states and local governments trying to guess about implementation.

• EPA should develop a web‐based t ool similar to the Regulation G ateway that shows existing rules that are going through this review or retr ospective analysis

process.

Burleson Smith , PNG

• Under the Clean Air Act statutory 5‐year review cycle deadline, EPA should incorporate the results that wer e achieved during that period i nto the next review process to determine if changes are needed. The Agency s hould also consider aligning the review tim eframe with the CAA reauthoriza tion process.

• Will EPA have a Master Calendar a cross the Agency to identify t hose regulations
under review?



### Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas The section below highlights some of the key points raised duri ng the comment period summarized in the previous sectio n but groups these points acco rding to the impact and issue areas that were posted in the Federal Register Notice pri or to the meeting. These points are not re‐attributed to the person who provided them. Any new comments or statements that may have been pro vided during the specific revi ew of these impact and
issue areas in the breakout are provided below along with attri bution.

State/Local/Tribal Governments

• State, local and tribal governments would benefit from having i mplementation plans when regulations are issued.

• Local governments in particular have longer planning timelines and this needs to be factored in when looking at results of regulations.

Regulatory Burden and Small Business

• Nick Goldstein – See trickle‐down effect when things are not working (cost impact, dust, fuel emissions s tandards).  Small businesses are impacted significantly by nonattainment designations.

• Daren Coppock – Proposed GHG (standard set fo r carbon emissions) may raise price of fertilizer and price of fuel (not far enough down the track yet to know), which could significantly impact small businesses.

Benefits and CostsEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

22 • Daren Coppock – Costs are limited to stat e and local governments and manufactures. They should be evaluated across the spectrum of i mpacted parties.

Compliance

• Compliance is difficult if the b ackground value is above the th reshold (e.g., for dust).

• A temporary increase in emission s (i.e. during a construction p hase) may lead to
lower emissions in the future an d overall, although it impacts a local government’s compliance in the near term.

Science Obsolete/Technology Outdated

• Ensure that the Agency is using the most appropriate data in it s processes, including the best modeling data or, if more appropriate, monit oring data.

• Daren Coppock – The Agency should consider wh ether there is a market that can supply or purchase the technology that would be recommended as part of a standard. What complies may not b e there on the market yet, or it may be prohibitively expensive, especially for small businesses.

• Nick Goldstein – How well is our air quality m onitoring doing at giving us an accurate picture of air quality? How often is it pulled and wha t geographic area does it apply to? Is it giving y ou representative information?

o Explain the process to the publi c more clearly as far as the in formation
EPA uses to make choices.  Publi c wants to comply but just don’ t understand – look across the whole regulatory review!

o Show people where the monitors a re and where the data is coming from, communicate the assumptions, and account for flexibility if pul ling from a
small data set.

o Factor how to extrapolate air qu ality based on limited data set s into decisions on NAAQS implementation and base flexibility on the l evels of certainty or uncertainty.

Least Burden/Flexible Approaches

• There should be more flexibility in the emissions budgets for l ocal governments related to transportation conformity determinations.

Economic Conditions/Market

• Daren Coppock – The best role for the governm ent to play is to keep a fair a nd level playing field not to encou rage markets or pick winners. The Agency should do more to encourage the private sector to innovate. EPA should set the rulesEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

23 and make goals more outcome‐base d and give industry the flexibi lity to meet those outcomes.   The Agency shou ld not interfere or compete wi th private‐ sector enterprises.

• Nick Goldstein – The Diesel Collaborative is an example of a successful ventu re to help the public get funds to m eet regulatory objectives, but it’s a non‐ regulatory program.

Integration & Innovation

• Look across programs and agencie s to avoid duplication and redu ndancy and to see what other regulations may b e having an impact on the emiss ions being targeted by a particular regulation under review (e.g., how are transportation regulations impacting NAAQS leve ls that could impact decisions to change the standard?).

• Create a master EPA calendar for rules, reviews, and retroactiv e reviews.

• Daren Coppock – Different states will have dif ferent emissions readings – ge t away from “one size fits all” and allow the states to fix the p roblem. Give States more flexibility to ma nage within their borders, but do more to share information on successes – create a repository of State strateg ies and
achievements.



### List of Attendees Daren Coppock, Agricultural Retailers Association Dan Newton, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates (S OCMA) Nick Goldstein, American Road & Tr ansportation Builders Associa tion Beth Graves, ECOS Aaron Lovell, Inside EPA Burleson Smith, PNG



### EPA Participants Lori Stewart, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Dennis, O’Conner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Glynis Hill, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency Jeremy Arling, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency Eric Ginsberg, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection AgencyEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

24 

## Pesticides Breakout Summary

– Round 1
The summary below represents feed back received during this brea kout session. It is not intended to be a transcript of p articipants’ statements. Partic ipants were encouraged to also provide written comments to t he docket to ensure that thei r suggestions are fully captured.



### Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver

• The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) failed to define the word mitigate in relation to antimicrobials, which has allo wed too much
latitude.

• 40 CFR 152.10 and 40 CFR 152.15 s pecifically exclude cleaners a nd deodorizers and bleach, but there is inconsistent interpretation and enforc ement of these
exclusions.

• MSDS requirements should be appl ied to antimicrobials. Professi onals need the toxicology information to justif y use of an antimicrobial. The toxicology information should be on the pro ducts, not just the signal word

.

• Bacteria can be structurally similar. Pesticides that work by s tructural impact
can work on an entire suite of b acteria that share a particular structure.  It does
not make sense that EPA should r equire pesticide retesting on a bacteria of the same structure just to show that it is effective.  For example, how many forms of Type A influenza do you really n eed to test to make sure the pr oduct works?

• The treated article exemption cl ause is not being applied in a practical way.  For example, HVAC cooling coils are coated in copper to prevent the growth of mold; however, they cannot be called antimicrobial.

Daren Coppock, Agricultural Retailers Association

• EPA should be commended for the regulations under FIFRA as scie ntifically rigorous, comprehensive, and generally predictable.

• One area of concern for the Agri cultural Retailers Association is the proposed change to the spray drift regula tions that would remove languag e about causing “no unreasonable adverse effect” and change the language to say “cause no harm.”  Without a specific and co mprehensive definition of “har m,” the proposed language change increases the potential for liability.  There i s a lengthy case history to define unreasonable a dverse affect, but this does no t exist for harm.

• There is too much duplication of effort when trying to respond to multiple regulatory programs—such as unde r the National Pollutant Discha rge Elimination System (NPDES)—one e ntity has to meet multiple repo rting andEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

25 permitting requirements under FIFRA and the Clean Water Act (CW A).  These programs should be coordinated. The NPDES requirement resultin g from the court case is costly, burdensome, and duplicative.

• The program to distribute legal labels via the Internet that is currently being piloted leads to the label being separated from the actual cont ainer.  This situation would open up addition al liability if there were issu es with a label being updated while a container was in storage and then used fo r an unapproved use.  EPA should keep the labels affixed to the container and d esignate the affixed label as the only legal label. Updates and changes to t he data on the label
could then be distributed via the Internet.

• EPA should not spend time review ing and deliberating over regul ations where the science has not changed.  An example of this is that EPA is reviewing atrazine for the sixth time, and the scie nce has not changed.  These reg ulations should not be a priority for the Agency to review and update.

• It is inappropriate for EPA to b e regulating to create an adver se effect on a market, technologies, or jobs.

• EPA should work with the Nationa l Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife service to get reasonab le counterpart regulations in p lace.

Keith Onsdorff, Liquid Fence

• A statutory amendment to FIFRA i s needed to address dilemmas in labeling. States maintain individual requirements for label content and a busine ss must then answer to 50 different sets of requireme nts when labeling a single pro duct. EPA should
mandate a standard for label review.

• We support local authority to ba n products if harmful to a loca le, but not inconsistent standards for having the label approved.  We are n ot advocating total preemption but consider mandating some national clearinghouse f or label reviews
so that we can have access to the market with a single label.

• Some states will not approve a label from another state, preclu ding products from the market unless they develop a new label.  This hurts interst ate commerce and
makes national distribution of t he regulated product impossible . A specific labeling requirement may be appropriate, i f there is a special environme ntal condition or situation that is unique to a pa rticular area, but just crossin g the state line doesn’t necessarily change the environment.

• We support the existing FIFRA 25( b) program.  In response to a 2006 petition to evaluate mosquito and tick repellents, EPA may propose to requi re regulation of 25(b) products.  This could unwind the entire program. The orig inal petition had a narrow scope, and EPA is going way beyond what was requested. This reaction isEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

26 counter to the White House manda te to streamline regulations an d reduce the
burden.

• EPA is considering toxicity stud ies on 25(b) products, but the products have already been deemed non‐toxic.  Our produ cts are efficacious, and we ha ve data to support that.  There is concern that there is a broader array of regula tions to be imposed on 25(b) products.

• We are not aware of any enforcement cases for insect repellants where repellant
claim was not true.

• In the context of providing data to show an existing need for r egulation, EPA should
also consider the absence of dat a and not increase economic bur dens when there
are no data to show a need.

Susan Ferenc, Chemical Producers & Distributors Association

• EPA should include significant g uidance in this review process, not just significant rulemakings.  Guidance can greatl y impact the burden on the reg ulated community, yet does not receive the same le vel of scrutiny.  EPA underesti mates the costs of guidance.  Guidance becomes so institutionalized that it is imp ossible to change, but it can drive decision‐making and data collection.

• EPA should not use market manipu lation as a mandate for regulat ion.  EPA should not attempt to influence market inefficiencies through regulati on.



### Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas The section below highlights some of the key points raised duri ng the comment period summarized in the previous sectio n but groups these points acco rding to the impact and issue areas that were posted in the Federal Register Notice pri or to the meeting.

Regulatory Burden and Small Business

• There is lack of definition about the limitations of the regula tions. For example, what is meant by “mitigate” for antimicrobials and the definiti on of “harm” in the proposed new language for th e spray drift regulations?

• An absence of data on detrimenta l impacts may indicate that the re is no need for regulation and imposing an undue burden.  Only regulate where t here is a
demonstrated need and a scientific basis.

• Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program is one example of a progr am where the Agency has underestimated the cost of the program. There is a g ood basis to evaluate the practical utility o f the program, and the strength of the science is
not there.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

27 Compliance

• EPA should mandate a standard fo r label review and requirements so that there is less disparity among stat e labeling requirements.

• There is inconsistent interpretation and enforcement of 40 CFR 152.10 and 40
CFR 152.15.

List of Attendees Daren Coppock, Agricultural Retailers Association Tim Creger, Nebraska Department of Agriculture Susan Ferenc, Chemical Producers and Distributors Association Keith Onsdorff, Liquid Fence Larry Pearl, Agra Informa Kate Rosenfeld, DC Legislati ve & Regulatory Services Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver Michael Wenk, m4 Consulting Burleson Smith, Policy Navigation Group

EPA Participants Bill Diamond, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency Martha Shimikin, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency Deborah Hartman, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency Cameo Smoot, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency Angela Hofmann, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency



## Pesticides Breakout Summary

– Round 2
No participants attended the second Pesticides Breakout, so no summary is provided.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

28 

## Solid Waste Breakout Summary

– Round 1
The summary below represents feed back received during this brea kout session. It is not intended to be a transcript of p articipants’ statements. Partic ipants were encouraged to also provide written comments to t he docket to ensure that thei r suggestions are fully captured.



### Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions Raymond Ludwiszewski, Gibson, Dunn and Cruthcher

• The retail industry finds Resource Conservation and Recovery Ac t (RCRA) regulations significantly burden some as many products in the st ore are viewed as hazardous wastes under RCRA. This is converse to the same pr oduct disposed of by homeowners classified as h ousehold hazardous waste exempt

.

• EPA should revive consideration of RCRA regulations as they per tain to consumer products contained in c onsumer packaging including pha rmaceuticals. This may include revising the Universal Waste Regulations. Abou t three to four years ago, the Agency had this i ssue on the regulatory agenda a nd there was some activity; however, no changes have been made to date relie ving the retail industry of making RCRA waste determinations.

• Retailers are challenged by not knowing what is in a product du e to trade
secrets. This makes it difficult to make hazardous waste determ inations.

• The RCRA program centers around one paradigm focused on waste t hat legally cross‐cuts into the area of prod ucts—ultimately the issue is ho w to determine a product versus a waste.

• Best source of data include the Retail Industry Leaders Associa tion. EPA can also contact Ray Ludwiszewski at rludwiszewski@gibsondunn.com that can help
obtain additional information.

Jonathan Gledhill, Policy Navigation Group

• In the past, EPA has thrown out consideration of comparable fue ls and issues surrounding the Definition of Sol id Waste (DSW) that has impact ed munitions and metal recycling. Public enti ties such as DOD and DOE deal w ith challenges of munitions disposal as do private entities such as blasting rang es and the mining sector.  These challenges are spe cific to unexploded munitions— what should be done with what is left in place? When left in place, these devi ces present a
hazard.

• Metals contained in unexploded o rdinance waste include lead, ti tanium,
chromium and others.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

29 • If unexploded munitions are pick ed up to be addressed, the enti ty could be considered a generator.

• Thermal oxidizing enclosed box t echnology currently exists and could alleviate these issues. This technology would facilitate explosion of the unexploded ordnance allowing recovery and recycling of metals such as lead , chromium, and

titanium.

• Aggregation is a big hurdle that prevents efficient recycling. Solutions to these issues could make disposal more efficient while recovering valu able metals. Aggregation does not occur now because of the DSW Rule.

• EPA could develop solutions that could be win/win for EPA and o ther agencies without throwing issues out during the rulemaking.

• EPA can use the military to test potential solutions. We would like to see EPA consider DSW reforms and continue the flexibility the courts ha ve given to these

issues.

• The Navy and DOD’s Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) are good sources of data. The Navy is the lead doing the majority of the work.



### Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas The section below highlights some of the key points raised duri ng the comment period summarized in the previous sectio n but groups these points acco rding to the impact and issue areas that were posted in the Federal Register Notice pri or to the meeting. No new
comments or statements are included.

Regulatory Burden and Small Business

• EPA should revive consideration of RCRA regulations as they per tain to consumer products in consumer packaging including pharmaceutica ls. Products are being characterized incorrectly as hazardous wastes under R CRA presenting significant burden to the retail industry and pharmaceuticals.

Compliance

• Potentially revise the Universal Waste Regulations clarifying a nd defining a product versus hazardous waste. Retailers are challenged by the difficulty in making hazardous waste determinations.

Least Burden/Flexible Approaches

• EPA should consider issues relat ed to comparable fuels and the DSW Rule as it relates to the handling of munitions.

• Unexploded ordinance pose a hazard, but if they are picked up t o be addressed, the entity could be considered a generator. Thermal oxidizing e nclosed box technology currently exists an d could alleviate this issue.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

30 • Aggregation is a big hurdle that prevents efficient recycling a nd should be considered to increase the efficiency of disposal and allowing recovery of metals.
EPA should consider DSW reforms and continue the flexibility th e courts have given to these issues.



### Suggested Data Sources

• Gather data from the Retail Indu stry Leaders Association. EPA c an also contact Ray Ludwiszewski at rludwiszewski@gibsondunn.com who can help obtain
additional information.

• The Navy and DOD’s Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) are good sources of data. The Navy is the lead doing the majority of the work.



### List of Attendees Raymond Ludwiszewski, Gi bson, Dunn and Cruthcher Jonathan Gledhill, Policy Navigation Group



### EPA Participants
David Nicholas, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency Betsy Devlin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Lucinda Power, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency Kathy Lett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gerain Perry, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency Charlotte Mooney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Jim O’Leary, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency



## Solid Waste Breakout Summary

– Round 2
The summary below represents feed back received during this brea kout session. It is not intended to be a transcript of p articipants’ statements. Partic ipants were encouraged to also provide written comments to t he docket to ensure that thei r suggestions are fully captured.



### Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions

Mike Stephenson, Wal‐Mart Stores, Inc.

• The retail sector can be hampere d by RCRA regulations that cons ider in‐store products as hazardous wastes. RC RA works when applied to its or iginal paradigm—chemical hazardous wast e. Retailers struggle in the ap plication of RCRA regulations to consumer pro ducts. The burden outweighs the benefits.

• Retailers do not have a cost‐effective way to make hazardous wa ste
determinations. Products are mad e across the globe and contain ingredients thatEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

31 are trade secrets. MSDS sheets do not provide su fficient inform ation to make a
determination.

• EPA should create a RCRA exempti on to consumer products and pac kaging. Homeowners can dispose of produc ts under the household hazardou s waste exemption; however, retailers struggle to deal with these same products that are
considered hazardous waste under RCRA.

• Products that should be exempt include:

o Multi‐vitamins (considered hazar dous waste because of selenium and chromium).

o Aerosol cans that make up a large percentage of the waste strea m because they are ignitable and uncertainty exists with reactivi ty. Many times, the disposal costs are more that the product itself.

o Consumer electronics such as ce ll phones. EPA has exempted CRT’ s; however, there are ambiguous gui delines pertaining to small con sumer electronics presenting significant risk to the retailer.

• EPA should expand the definition of Universal Waste. EPA previo usly considered this and found potential changes were appropriate. This could g ive the Agency a greater level of regulatory auth ority and limit environmental r isk.

• EPA should expand the finalized Pharmaceutical Universal Waste Rule. Most retail pharmacies deal with challe nges associated with this rul e and could be considered large quantity genera tors under RCRA. Generating as few as 65 pill bottles could bring this determin ation to retail pharmacies.

Stephanie Castorina, IPC‐Association Connecting Electronics Industries

• EPA offices should communicate m ore. For example, EPA’s Toxic S ubstances Control Act (TSCA) Inventory Upd ate Rule is being updated to be significantly more stringent; however other EPA programs conflict with this. A chemical
considered a RCRA hazardous wast e is considered a new chemical under OPPT’s New Chemical Program. These conflicts cause confusion and cause people to ask if chemicals need to be reported.

• There is a need for EPA’s Office of Policy to review regulation s from different
offices to avoid conflicts.

David Wagger, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries

• EPA should include an exclusion under RCRA for all scrap metal.

• EPA needs to reconsider the defi nition of “discard” under RCRA. For example, if
the intent is to refurbish more or less of a product or use par ts of one product in other products, this does not fit the definition of “discard”. However, if wasteEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

32 goes to a landfill, there is no i ntent to recover value, and it fits the current
definition.

• Including reclamation in the definition of “discard” impedes su stainability.

• Variations in state regulations and the issues of crossing stat e boundaries add
further difficulties and confusi on. Waste is handled one way in one state and
another as it crosses state boundaries.

• There are also conflicts between RCRA Subtitle C and RCRA Subti tle D. Scrap metal is exempt under Subtitle C ; however, states can regulate scrap metal under Subtitle D. Also, state regulati ons under Subtitle C may be mor e stringent.

• There is conflict among EPA regulations, and it is important fo r EPA to review regulations to ensure consistency and avoid confusion.

Fern Abrams, IPC

• Substances currently listed as a hazardous waste under RCRA are obsolete and need to be revised. This can be seen in the bath plating proces ses that produce sludge byproducts that are hazar dous wastes by RCRA definition.

• Sludge listed as hazardous waste from these processes tended to contain hexavalent chromium and cyanide, and when the process is change d so that the electroplating sludge no longer contain those toxics, they rema in listed and must be managed as hazardous waste.

• Listings that are retained even when processes change is a disi ncentive for companies from getting toxics out of listed wastes. Ultimately, the delisting process has a reputation for bei ng difficult, which is why the electroplaters have not gone that route.

• Reviewing the list of hazardous wastes and updating information can provide benefits without loss of e nvironmental protection.

Amanda Aspatore, National Mining Association

• There are concerns that cost/benefit analyses do no not take in to consideration cumulative economic impacts. Whe n multiple EPA rules are releas ed at once, the impact is significant. There is no current mechanism in place t aking into account all Agency actions to decrea se the economic burden.

Kevin Bromberg, Small Business Administration

• There is confusion as to the rea soning behind EPA’s legitimacy criteria under the Non‐Hazardous Secondary Material Rule.

• There are concerns related to the determination of tires, urban wood, and used oil as secondary waste material.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

33 

### Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas The section below highlights some of the key points raised duri ng the comment period summarized in the previous sectio n but groups these points acco rding to the impact and issue areas that were posted in the Federal Register Notice pri or to the meeting. No new
comments or statements are included.

Integration & Innovation

• EPA should review the areas of c onflict between RCRA Subtitle C and RCRA Subtitle D. For example, scrap m etal is exempt under Subtitle C ; however, states can regulate scrap metal under Subtitle D.

• There is conflict among EPA regulations, and it is important fo r EPA’s Office of Policy to review regulations to ensure consistency and avoid co nfusion.

• Reviewing and updating the list of hazardous wastes and removin g those substances no longer considered hazardous.

Least Burden/Flexible Approaches

• EPA should create a RCRA exempti on to consumer products and pac kaging. Homeowners can dispose of produc ts under the household hazardou s waste exemption; however, retailers st ruggle to deal with products th at are considered hazardous waste under RCRA. Products that should be exempt incl ude: multi‐ vitamins, aerosol cans, and consumer electronics such as cell p hones.

• EPA should expand the definition of Universal Waste. EPA previo usly considered this and found potential changes appropriate. This could give t he Agency a greater level of regulatory auth ority and limit environmental r isk.

• Reconsider the definition of “discard” under RCRA, and include an exclusion under RCRA for all scrap metal.

• Including reclamation in the definition of “discard” impedes su stainability.

• Listings that are retained even when processes change is a disi ncentive for companies from getting toxics out of listed wastes. Ultimately, the delisting process has a reputation for bei ng difficult and that is why th e electroplaters have not gone that route.

State, Local, and Tribal Governments

• There is variety in how State governments implement RCRA regula tions including requirements under Sub titles C and D. In some instanc es, State government regulations are more stringent causing issues when w aste is transported across state boundaries.

Benefits and CostsEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

34 • There are concerns that cost/benefit analyses do not take into consideration cumulative economic impacts. Whe n multiple EPA rules are releas ed at once, the impact is significant. There is no current mechanism in place t aking into account all Agency actions to decr ease the economic burden.

Regulatory Burden and Small Business

• EPA should expand the finalized Pharmaceutical Universal Waste Rule. Most retail pharmacies deal with challe nges associated with this rul e and could be considered large quantity genera tors under RCRA. Generating as few as 65 pill bottles could bring this determin ation to retail pharmacies.

• There is confusion as to the rea soning behind EPA’s legitimacy criteria under the Non Hazardous Secondary Material Rule.

• There are concerns related to the determination of tires, urban wood, and used oil as secondary waste material.



### List of Attendees Raymond Ludwiszewski, Gi bson, Dunn and Cruthcher Mike Stephenson, Wal‐Mart Stores, Inc. David Wagger, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries Amanda Aspatore, National Mining Association Stephanie Castorina, IPC‐Association Connecting Electronics Ind ustries Fern Abrams, IPC Kevin Bromberg, Small Bu siness Administration



### EPA Participants
Anne Bavuso, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency Betsy Devlin, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Kathy Lett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Charlotte Mooney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency David Nicholas, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency Gerain Perry, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency Tracey Westfield, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

35 

## Toxics Breakout Summary

– Round 1
The summary below represents feed back received during this brea kout session. It is not intended to be a transcript of p articipants’ statements. Partic ipants were encouraged to also provide written comments to t he docket to ensure that thei r suggestions are fully captured.



### General Comments The comments below pertain broadl y to EPA’s regulatory or regul atory review process.

Fern Abrams, IPC

• There is an implicit assumption that information made publicly available, via regulatory reporting requirement s, is invaluable, but rarely is there an adequate cost‐benefit analysis.  It is dif ficult to assign value to publ ically available
information because it is free f or the public yet costly to sma ll business. However, these costs are passed on to consumers in the price of products or services.  The value of this pub lically available information n eeds to be assessed in a cost‐benefit analysis – wha t is the public willing to pay?

• The EPA Office of Policy could h ave a stronger role in coordina ting regulations within the agency.  This would be easier for industry and provi de stronger regulations for the EPA.

James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association

• EPA has been working on a zero t olerance premise for lead expos ure even while toxicologists are still debating safe exposure levels.  Additio nally, EPA needs to consider the law of diminishing returns.  Eliminating small per centages of lead will cost disproportionately more than eliminating the large, e asily addressed areas of lead exposure.  EPA need s to convene a public debate o n the costs and benefits of this approach.



### Public Comments on Specific Regulations Organized by Impact and Issue Areas The section below highlights comments provided by session parti cipants on specific regulations organized according to the impact and issue areas t hat were posted in the Federal Register Notice prior to the meeting.

Environmental Justice/Children’s Health/Elderly Cordell Burton, Pella CorporationEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

36 • It is likely that vulnerable pop ulations will forgo installing new windows, which is dangerous to their health, bec ause of the added costs of the Lead Safe

program.

Regulatory Burden and Small Business Cordell Burton, Pella Corporation

• Contractors, of which many quali fy as small businesses, lose bu siness to those who are not compliant with the L ead Safe regulations.  There is a need for
enforcement to ensure those who are following regulations are n ot inadvertently being punished.

Chris Dana, Pella Corporation

• Contractors following Lead Safe r egulations have lost out, beca use of price, to contractors who do not carry the cost burden of complying with the Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) rule.

• The EPA recommends that businesse s maintain records for three y ears when contractors are working on a job that falls under the Lead RRP rule.  However, litigation often covers time periods that are longer than three years.  Thus, businesses are advised to keep r ecords for much longer.  This a dditional record keeping, beyond the mandated three years, is burdensome and cos tly to small businesses.  Therefore, when deve loping regulations, EPA should take into
account the accumulated cost of all necessary record keeping.

James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association

• In general, small businesses are disproportionately affected by basic regulatory reporting rules – those that are considered record keeping or d ata reporting and found in all EPA programs.  The i mpact of reporting requirement s on small
businesses is due to the cumulati ve effect, not a single regula tion.  Cost‐benefit analysis on a per‐rule basis does not capture this, and there i s only piecemeal
data available to demonstrate it .  The EPA should consider the burden of cumulative effects that their regulations have on small busines s.

David Wagger, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries

• Statistically, the cumulative environmental impacts of small bu sinesses are not significant.  To maximize effectiveness, reporting requirements should capture the large percentage of businesse s that have the most impact, w hich are the larger businesses.  The greenhou se gas rule employed this techn ique.

• The definition of a small busine ss needs to be consistent and r easonable.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

37 • With regard to the TSCA Inventor y Update Rule (IUR), the propos ed amendment to move the reporting threshol d from 300,000 lbs to 25,000 lbs essentially means all the scrap recyclers will need to report on every ship ment.  Due to its nature, scrap metal is often shi pped at weight much higher than 25,000 lbs, thus inadvertently triggering this regulation.  Since TSCA includes inorganic substances, this places a large regulatory burden on small busi nesses that are shipping non‐toxic metals.

Benefits and Costs James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association

• Publically available industry in formation – via regulatory repo rting requirements – comes at a cost to the economy and it is not cle ar the public is deriving great benefit from that information.  T he TSCA IUR, fo r example, has made data publically available a t a cost to industry but has no t been used for regulatory or risk management.  It is “nice to know” not “need to know” information.  Likewise, the Clean Air Act Risk Management Progr am, 112r, is redundant with an OSHA program, and that data has not been used for any benefit.  A stakeholder group wou ld be able to quickly identify the reporting requirements that are redundant or “nice to know.”  While much publically available information is important, there needs to be a discuss ion about the balance between the benefit of pu blically available information and the costs to businesses that provide it.

Compliance Chris Dana, Pella Corporation

• The following comments concern To xics Substance Control Act (TS CA) Section 402 – the lead‐based paint Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RR P) Rule.

o Pella agrees with the intent of this regulation, which requires the use of lead‐safe work practices and cer tification by EP A in these prac tices, but believes it is unnecessarily burdensome to the construction ind ustry. Even so, Pella has encouraged it s over 1,000 independent contra ctors to comply with lead certification a nd Lead Safe work practices pro visions.

o The results of the regulation ha ve included wasted energy – by keeping old windows and doors from being replaced – and a loss of busin ess for construction workers during difficult economic times.

o Even though older windows often contain lead‐based paints, the costs of complying with RRP rules are pas sed onto homeowners who avoid replacing older windows and door s containing lead‐based paint w ith newer, energy‐efficient windows and doors because of the added costs.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

38 o Contractors who do not comply wi th RRP rules are less expensive to consumers and outcompeting contractors who do comply.  Work don e by uncertified contractors puts peo ple at risk.  EPA should levy f ines against firms who do not attempt to follow the Lead Safe program.

o Pella asks EPA to reconsider the opt‐out clause that was elimin ated July 6,
2010.  This clause allowed homeowners to decline Lead Safe work practices if 1) no children were present; 2) the home is not a childcare facility; and 3) no pregna nt women are present.

o Even with the opt‐out clause, pr operly educated contractors sti ll employ work safe practices, but not to the unnecessary extent that the regulation requires.

o Those in or related to the building renovation industry feel si ngled out by the RRP rule, particularly the wi ndow manufacturers.  Projects that disturb a window automatically t rigger the RRP rule.  However, federal and state enforcement is nonexistent, putting those who comply at a disadvantage compared to those w ho do not.  Because states see minimal
enforcement at the federal level , they do not set aside the nec essary funding to enforce the rule.

Fern Abrams, IPC

• With regard to the TSCA IUR incl usion of inorganic substances, solutions containing metal are considered chemical stock when they should be considered by‐product.  Thus, they are trea ted as hazardous waste and must be reported as a new chemical.  This discourage s and confuses the recycling in dustry and acts
as a disincentive.

Dan Newton, Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates

• The TSCA IUR proposed amendment to move the reporting threshold from 300,000 lbs to 25,000 lbs greatly expands the range of chemical s that must be reported and is unnecessarily burdensome.

Least Burden/Flexible Approaches James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association

• EPA could avoid litigation if th ey used Section 8 IUR data gath ering, Section 8 PAIR reporting, and Section 4 test rules as Congress intended a nd in a proper order.  IUR was intended for compiling and keeping current a li st of chemicals in commerce, not for exposure data. This could be used as a tool to prioritize which
chemicals in commerce need to be looked at further.  Then, EPA would use the Section 8 PAIR rule to find more exposure information and, last ly, the Section 4
test rule.  This streamlined orde r would allow flexibility and be more efficient.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

39 • EPA is to be commended on their creativity and flexibility in t heir use of enforceable consent agreements that will get information in a t imely manner while avoiding litigation and angst.

Chris Dana, Pella Corporation

• Pella appreciates how good EPA ha s been to work with on the inn ovative work standards with regard to the RRP regulations that were issued l ast April, as exemplified by the FAQs on the re gulations.  They would like to see this continue
and would like to continue the c onversation on innovative work practices.

Economic Conditions/Market James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association

• EPA should never have a role in the marketplace, specifically w ith incentives because of the danger in picking winners and losers.  The Pollu tion Prevention Act of 1990 (P2 Act) i s an effective way to solve problems by w orking collectively with the regulatory program down the supply chain – this should be looked at as an example.

Matthew Watkins, NAHB, and James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners
Association

• Regulations unintentionally pick winners and losers.

Fern Abrams, IPC

• The Design for the Environment pr ogram gets this right by looki ng at substitutes rather than banning particular substances – this should be look ed at as an example.

Chris Dana, Pella Corporation

• Lead safe work regulations of RRP affect job growth because hig her costs of
renovation translates into homeo wners spending less on windows and doors, which impacts the manufacturers of those products.

Integration & Innovation Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver

• The Lead RRP rule should have fo llowed the example of asbestos and responsibility should be shifted to OSHA to avoid conflicts bet ween EPA and OSHA programs.

• According to EPA regulations, con tractors must test for lead, w hich violates state law that states only lead inspec tors may conduct lead tests.  F urthermore, a paint chip lab sample is relatively cheap and holds up in court.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

40 • Inconsistent action levels among federal agencies create risk t o contractors in the form of litigation, laws uits, and attorney costs.

Matthew Watkins, NAHB

• Historically, there have been som e inconsistencies between agen cies.  CDC action levels are different than the levels EPA is using in the ir public relations campaign.  This should be explained or reconciled.

James Cooper, National Petrochemical & Refiners Association

• There seems to be significant overlap between OSHA and EPA regu lations and
there needs to be coordination.

Fern Abrams, IPC

• The proposed TSCA IUR rule on re cycled material ventures into d omain covered by OSHA.



### List of Attendees James Cooper, National Petroch emical & Refiners Association Cordell Burton, Pella Corporation Chris Dana, Pella Corporation Aaron Lovell, Inside EPA Dan Newton, Society of Chemical Manufacturers an d Affiliates David Wagger, Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries Stephanie Castorina, IPC Fern Abrams, IPC Matthew Watkins, NAHB Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver



### List of Attendees
Anne Bavuso, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency Wendy Cleland‐Hamnett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Bicky Corman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Emily Dougherty, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency Marc Edmonds, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency David Giamporcaro, U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency Lindsay Moose, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency Tracey Westfield, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency



## Toxics Breakout Summary

– Round 2
The summary below represents feed back received during this brea kout session. It is not intended to be a transcript of p articipants’ statements. Partic ipants were encouraged toEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

41 also provide written comments to t he docket to ensure that thei r suggestions are fully captured.



### Comments Regarding EPA’s Regulatory or Regulatory Review Process

Matthew Watkins, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)

• There needs to be an accountabili ty process – approximately fiv e years after implementation – that reviews ho w well regulations are meeting their intended goals and the lessons learned.  T his would be particularly impo rtant for lead regulations.  Data from large man ufacturers could be part of th is review and is trusted enough that small busine sses would not need to be burde ned with gathering and submitting data fo r a regulatory review process.

Cordell Burton, Pella Corporation

• In the review of a regulation, the cost‐benefit analysis should include data from blood lead testing to determine if the regulations are resultin g in lower lead
levels in children.

• Industry uses “continual improve ment processes,” which convene the day‐to‐ day users of a policy or process to determine its effectiveness and lessons learned.  The same review process could be used on the lead rul es in five years and industry would be able to he lp EPA implement such a method.

• Enforcement is critical because those who comply are competing against those who are not compliant.  Often, wi ndows are replaced at the poin t of sale, either when buying a property and seeki ng to renovate or when selling to enhance the property.  This is the critical time for enforcement.  This sce nario should be part of EPA’s analysis.

Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver

• A five‐year review of regulation s should consider separately th e effects on upper‐ and lower‐income brackets, since those in the lower‐inco me bracket are more likely to spend less money on renovations and thus risk hi ring a contractor who does not follow Lead Safe practices.

• EPA needs to consider the impact of diet, outlier factors, and synergistic effects on chemical exposure with rega rd to endocrine disruptors.

• There may be a loophole in the regulations with regard to some cleaning products that allows the use of harmful chemicals in the ingred ients.

Howard Feldman, American Petroleum Institute

• There needs to be greater opport unity for stakeholder input int o the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) g iven its significance for regul ations.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

42 

### Public Comments on Specific Regulations Organized by Impact and Issue Areas

Environmental Justice/Children’s Health/Elderly Matthew Watkins, NAHB

• The lead rule, which is supposed to benefit children ages six a nd under, is mostly
focused on adults rather the vul nerable populations it was inte nded to protect.

Small Business Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver

• It is increasingly dif ficult to fulfill the requirements of the lead program reporting as profit margins for small business continue to shri nk.  EPA needs to study the industries involved in renovations when developing le ad regulations in
order to understand their needs and constraints.

Least Burden/Flexible Approaches Matthew Watkins, NAHB

• The lead RRP should be segregate d into two sector tracks if pos sible: homeowners and property managers.

Compliance Howard Feldman, American Petroleum Institute

• TSCA section 12B, which covers export reporting, creates a regu latory burden but does not provide any benefit s, to public health or otherwis e.

Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver

• Enforcement should be the responsibility of the states and, as a result, there
should be incentives for the sta tes to engage in enforcement ac tions.  The fines EPA collects should be given to states.

Cordell Burton, Pella Corporation

• EPA regulations should focus on testing the results rather than dictating the process – performance‐based regu lation vs. specification.  Test ing standards, as opposed to specifications, w ill speed up innovation.

Integration & Innovation Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver

• EPA needs more agility and to ha ve a process for quickly testin g and implementing innovative techniqu es, e.g., the quick turnaround that was needed for testing and implementing inn ovative dispersants during the Gulf oil spill.



### List of Attendees Cordell Burton, Pella Corporation Howard Feldman, American Petroleum InstituteEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

43 Larry Pearl, Agra Informa Greg Weatherman, Aerosolver Matthew Watkins, NAHB Kate Rosenfeld, DC Legislative & Regulatory Services, Inc.



### EPA Participants
Lucinda Power, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency Angela Hofmann, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency Tobias Schroeder, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Marc Edmonds, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency Wendy Cleland‐Hamnett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency David Giamporcaro, U.S. Envi ronmental Protection Agency Lindsay Moose, U.S. Environm ental Protection AgencyEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

44 

## Water Breakout Summary

– Round 1

– Surface Water
The summary below represents feed back received during this brea kout session. It is not intended to be a transcript of p articipants’ statements. Partic ipants were encouraged to also provide written comments to t he docket to ensure that thei r suggestions are fully captured.

Before the public was asked to c omment, EPA reminded participan ts that there will be an additional opportunity from Offic e of Water (OW), in the form o f a webinar, for public comment and involvement on March 17, 2011.



### Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions

Kate Rooth, Alliance for Appalachia

• The Clean Water Act (CWA) for a long time successfully regulate d the surface water bodies (e.g., rivers, stre ams, creeks, etc.) in the Appal achian community.

• In 2002, a court illegally ruled t hat mining waste could be use d as a fill material (aka. the Fill Rule).  This rule change was never approved by C ongress, yet mining waste was/is used as fill material.  Over 2,000 miles of streams have been buried, impacting critical headwaters for the East Coast. Even though in the past 2 years EPA has done mo re to protect against the negat ive impacts of mountain‐top mining, as long as the integrity of the CWA is not fully restored,
the waters and health of the A ppalachian community are still at risk.

• EPA’s Environmental Justice (EJ) program has become extensively involved, but we would like to see greater coor dination between EJ and OW sta ff on this issue. For instance, the Alliance’s constituency was not well informed about this particular public meeting, even though they would have wanted t o attend.

• Our constituency also has little trust in their states’ environ mental departments. Compliance offices at the state l evel are understaffed and cann ot respond to the number of complaints and reported violations that occur.

• The ability for citizen enforcement and compliance officers to handle the scale of
the issue needs to be addressed.

o The public needs better transparen cy in the enforcement process and with complaints to EPA.

o The recently found 12,000 violations in Kentucky against one co mpany and filed a citizen lawsuit.

o EPA needs to strengthen enforcement.

• Thank you for the webinar session on March 17 th

.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

45 Nick Goldstein, American Road & Transportation Builders Association

• When considering a technology‐ba sed standard, the availability of that technology being prescribed by EPA (e.g., stormwater treatment systems) can have a significant impact on the market for those technologies (e.g., cost, availability, etc.).  If the technology is not readily availabl e, it becomes a barrier for entities to comply with the standards set by EPA.

Steve Via, American Water Works Association

• A specific example of an opportunity for EPA to work across sil os is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sy stem (NPDES) permitting for p esticides under the CWA.  A similar regulation al ready exists under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ( FIFRA).  These two regulations are almost identical and EPA should not go down the path of duplicative re gulations due to a court’s ruling.

• There are simpler solutions like writing the general permit in such as fashion that compliance with FIFRA label ing would have been sufficient. This would have avoided the court case that has prompted the creation of t he NPDES permit.

• EPA continues to heavily regulat e point source pollution, which it has been doing for a long time, when it should be focusing on how best to regu late non‐point source pollution.

• Do not utilize the NPDES permitti ng structure for non‐point sou rce pollution
reductions.

• One way of approaching non‐point source pollution regulation co uld be to structure it as a place‐based re gulatory scheme for farms and o ther similar types
of areas.

Cynthia Finely, National Associations of Clean Water Agencies

• EPA should consider the cumulati ve economic impacts on business and more holistic approaches to measuring the costs and benefits of regu lations.  Instead of simply focusing on one particular type of pollutant (e.g., n utrients), the entire system should be considered.

Nick Goldstein, American Road & Transportation Builders Association

• The jurisdiction of the CWA shoul d be clarified without being e xpanded.

• EPA should use the formal rule m aking process rather than agenc y guidance if it is intending to expand the juri sdiction of the CWA, because the process requires EPA to engage the public in a fo rmal, complete, and understanda ble fashion. This is in contrast to guidance documents that do not require p ublic comment and should be used to clarify CWA jurisdiction.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

46 • Reforming the CWA 404 wetlands permitting process (e.g., wetlan ds permitting) is an opportunity to reduce proj ect delays.  These reforms shou ld include: firm deadlines for permitting decisio ns, the creation of a wetlands classification system, and not retroactively ve toing CWA permits unless the la w has been
broken.

• Stormwater regulations should al low for enough flexibility for the individual projects to be successful.  The i ssues of cost and liability ne ed to be considered to ensure projects are not delayed.

Colin Enssle, GE Water & Process Technologies

• EPA should consider using incent ives, such as an investment tax credit incentive.

Patrick Bradley, LimnoTech

• Since this retrospective review is driven by an Executive Order (EO), why not get the EO changed so that this can be a real dialogue instead of a one‐way listening

session?

Steve Via, American Water Works Association

• When looking at benefits and cost s, Environmental Assessments ( EA) generally only look at national averages and not how the local community is impacted. The disadvantaged community’s abi lity to handle the rates that generally follow from the implementation of regul ations does not seem to be give n priority in decision making.

• EJ communities are considered in the EA process but they do not generally get wrapped into the decision making process.

• There needs to be clear policy o bjectives where EPA picks the t op 2 or 3 issues that are pursued and completed. These issues should be decided upon through broad‐based stakeholder engagement.



### Specific Questions and Discussion

What are your thoughts on cumulative impacts? How do you define that term?

Kate Rooth, Alliance for Appalachia

• Cumulative impact on public heal th needs to be considered but w ithout appropriate and accurate data, a baseline cannot be established . Water quality data is outdated (2002 at best), so regional water quality meas ures are a big
focus for communities.  These co mmunities try to take it upon t hemselves to measure water quality, but this is a costly course of action an d EPA is not guaranteed to accept the data that is produced through these st eps.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

47 Cynthia Finely, National Associations of Clean Water Agencies

• Utilities need more flexibility to handle peak weather flows, e specially if they are meeting their permit limits.  Ble nding should be allowed to red uce economic impacts on industry.

Patrick Bradley, LimnoTech

• Cumulative impacts must take into consideration hydrologic chan ges as well as the number and type of pollutant s.  However, the CWA and existi ng regulations are not designed to handle hydrological changes.

The cost

­ benefit analysis (CBA) and a community’s ability to implement regulations

are considered during the decision

­ making process. In doing CBA and looking at
national statistics and data sub

­ sets, at what level does regulation get implemented?

In other words, is the level of environmental protection that a distressed/disadvantaged community can afford the level that everyone else gets? Is it
the lowest economic denominator?

Steve Via, American Water Works Association

• Once it is determined that there is an opportunity to make a he alth risk reduction, the rule must be stru ctured to allow that community to implement the regulation.

• Practically speaking, costs do inform the level of protection.

Patrick Bradley, LimnoTech

• There is an assumption that there is always a CBA, but that is not necessarily the

case.

o Jim Hanlon , EPA

 When EPA promulgates Water Quality Standards, a cost analysis i s conducted.

Beth Graves, ECOS – Specific Question and Response

• Can you talk a little about what areas work well and what needs to be improved during EPA’s retroactive reviews of regulations?

o Jim Hanlon, EPA

 The management of stormwater is a good example of this process. The National Academy of Sciences put out a report in 2006, ther e have been listening sessions, the re was a notice out in the Fed eral Register, and are now working towards the development of a regulatory proposal.  EPA participates in monthly work groupEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

48 meetings with states.  The proposal is to be published in September.

 The nature of this process is that more time and more money are always wanted, but you work with in the resource constraints tha t
are available.

 In many watersheds, the loads are weighted in favor of non‐poin t source rather than point source, yet point sources are generall y more regulated.   Given the struc ture of the CWA, what is the
alternative?

 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) indicate what the waste load limitations have aggressive permit limits.

Darren Coppock, Agricultural Retailers Association

• Standards for phosphates proposed by EPA for Florida would requ ire some communities to reduce the phosphate level to below pristine lev els.  This is particularly an issue for those communities that mine phosphate and have a higher background level than normal.

o Jim Hanlon, EPA

 The promulgation of the Inland Water Quality Standard does include several different eco‐regions in the State of Florida. If it is a specific question of nutrient levels in these specific eco‐re gions, it would be best to contact Regi on 4 staff or the EPA staff her e can take your name and pass along your question.

Given the statutory authority in CWA, what are the suggestions for addressing non point sources?

Steve Via, American Water Works Association

• EPA is putting the regulations i n place that force the point so urces to negotiate
on the local level.  This create s a challenging local situation .  If EPA needs more authority to act, this regulator y review is a perfect opportuni ty.

• If EPA needs more authority, th en they should ask [Congress].

• There is a long history of place ‐based community building in US DA, which suggests that there are other options besides NPDES permits to achieve water quality standards.

Cynthia Finely, National Associations of Clean Water Agencies

• There is some room in the CWA to think creatively about non‐poi nt source regulations.  For instance, Section 208 planning.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

49 What are your feelings that EPA is putting out information that the public can understand and utilize? We need a well

­ informed public to get the type of results in

water quality. There are tipping points in terms of pollutants and nutrients, so how
does the national waters program educate and inform the public so they act responsibly?

Darren Coppock, Agricultural Retailers Association

• Communication is a challenge for all of us and we just have to keeping hitting the point home through as many avenues as possible.

• Agencies ought to favor empirical data versus model output.

• There are practice‐based regulat ory options that can reduce the amount of
nutrient run‐off that could b e implemented and suggested.

• The duplication of regulations o n pesticides under FIFRA and NP DES permits is a regulatory issue that will add to the cost of doing business. The implementation process needs to be streamlined.



### Highlight of Comments by Impact and Issue Areas The section below highlights some of the key points raised duri ng the comment period summarized in the previous sectio n but groups these points acco rding to the impact and issue areas that were posted in the Federal Register Notice pri or to the meeting. No new
comments or statements are included.

Integration & Innovation

• Alternative regulatory schemes ( e.g., place‐based, practice‐bas ed, etc.) could be used to address non‐point source pollution regulation issues.

• Considering cumulative impacts and designing regulatory systems in a holistic, systematic manner can help to a ddress concerns about human heal th, the impact of regulations on utilities and businesses, costs and benefits, and implementation.

Environmental Justice/Children’s Health/Elderly

• The use of mining waste as fill material has a huge impact on t he water quality of Appalachian communities that have little or no recourse against the mining companies.

Benefits and Costs

• The benefit to cost ratio needs to be maximized as much as poss ible, especially for communities that are disadvantaged.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

50 Compliance

• FIFRA and NPDES permitting for p esticide/herbicide use in surfa ce water should
be considered an area for workin g across federal statutes.  Thi s issue is complicated by the federal court rulings and the nature of perm itting for the use of pesticides/herbicides.



### List of Attendees Amanda Aspastore, National Mining Association Patrick Bradley, LimnoTech Colin Enssle, GE Water & Process Technologies Cynthia Finley, National Associations of Clean Water Agencies Susan Gilson, NAFSMA Nick Goldstein, American Road & Tr ansportation Builders Associa tion Beth Graves, ECOS Daniel Heady, DCLRS Andrea Lamartin, URS Kate Rooth, Alliance for Appalachia Steve Via, American Water Works Association Matthew Watkins, NAHB



### EPA Participants Keith Bartlett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Sandy Evalenko, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Jim Hanlon, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency Andrew Hanson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Macara Lousberg, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency Tobias Schroeder, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Elizabeth Skane, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency



## Water Breakout Summary

– Round 2

– Drinking Water
The summary below represents feed back received during this brea kout session. It is not intended to be a transcript of p articipants’ statements. Partic ipants were encouraged to also provide written comments to t he docket to ensure that thei r suggestions are fully captured.

Before the public was asked to c omment, EPA reminded participan ts that there will be an additional opportunity from Offic e of Water (OW), in the form o f a webinar, for public comment and involvement on March 17, 2011.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

51 

### Opening Comments

Mike Shapiro, EPA

• Under the Safe Drinking Water Ac t (SDWA), EPA implements two pr ograms.  One is to work with states to ensure the implementation of protecti ve standards for public water supplies.  Maximum C ontaminant Levels (MCL) are es tablished and promulgated, set at a level to b e protective of human health. The creation of MCLs takes into account costs and available technology.  MCLs a re periodically
reviewed.

• The Underground Injection Control (UIC) program manages the inj ection of fluids into the earth.  Depending on the nature and size of an operation, permitting for this activity may be required.  In many cases th is program is implemented by the states.

• We are interested in two types of feedback:

o Specific regulations (part or whole) and

o How can we make our regulatory programs more effective? This is a broad question that can include better communication with our stakeholders, streamlining processes, etc.

Ron Bergman, EPA

• Every 6 years, EPA is required to review the primary drinking w ater regulations to see if have been any changes that would necessitate a change in regulations. EPA looks at occurrence, health e ffects, and changes in science

.

• The last time this review was done EPA performed a data call wi th the states on all the regulated contaminants.  Public comments were received. This review
resulted in a revision to the total coliform rule.



### Public Comments Regarding Specific Regulations and Agency Actions

Robert Van Voorhees, Underground Injection Technology Council

• EPA did a good job of engaging s takeholders in the development of the geologic sequestration rule.  EPA started with technical workshops, then had rule making workshops, and gave an opportunity for stakeholders to give sug gestions and
feedback.

• In the 1990s, the UIC program had an initiative called the Rein venting Government Program that was a good model for stakeholder engage ment.  One of the major products of this pr ogram was “The Mailbag” that wa s recommended by the Ground Water Protection C ouncil.  It served as a gatheri ng mechanism for regulatory suggestions from indu stry and other stakeholders.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

52 Alan Roberson, American Water Works Association

• The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDW A) presents a difficult situati on.  At risk populations (e.g., the elderly an d children) are not necessaril y the populations that are dealing with the cost burden of the regulations.

• An interesting health study done by Scott Rueben, a lawyer in P A, shows that if there are increased rates for treatment of drinking water then low‐income populations will reduce their spe nding on preventative health c are.

o Mike Shapiro, EPA

 The nature of the decision‐making process is that we strive to give everyone equal protection.  The re are some tough societal problems when dealing with costs and providing these services.

Alan Roberson, American Water Works Association

• There have been 18 regulations under the SDWA.  Of those 18, 3 regulations
cover about two‐thirds of costs a ssociated with the regulatory program.  These cannot be changed without impacti ng human health and environmen tal protection.  However, looking at those regulations with the hig hest aggregate costs is one way to prioritize regulations for review.

• Extending the timeframe for comp liance (similar to what was don e for the arsenic rule) so that those who are closer to new regulatory le vels have more time to get into compliance.



### Specific Questions and Discussion

One of the limiting factors for approving new methods is that it takes time and

resources. Are there changes that you would suggest to improve the data gathering, approval, and regulatory processes?

Alan Roberson, American Water Works Association

• The delivery of reports that are not statutorily required (e.g. , the Consumer Confidence Report (CCR)), or any official document is something that should be
taken into consideration.  The C CR was last published in 1998 a nd was delivered mainly via printed version.  With technology now, these documen ts need to be delivered electronically while ensuring that compliance is main tained.

• There are analytical methods out there that are not fully vette d.  Also, approval of online monitoring methods will be needed because this method will become more prevalent.

Robert Van Voorhees, Underground Injection Technology Council

• Electronic submissions for the program are an area where the pr ogram can cut costs and make the program more efficient.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

53 • Within the UIC effort there has b een a move to create a nationa l database.  This
has resulted in a shift in how d ata is collected.  Data reporti ng and collection regulations are quickly becoming out of date.

• In the Class 6 Rule, a real effort was made to identify within the regulation a specific performance standard an d not a methodology.  This was a successful effort.  This move from a practi ce standard to a performance st andard would help the regulatory process.  Thi s review could be a good oppor tunity to further
make this shift.

Steve Via, American Water Works Association

• Environmental Justice is about c ommunity‐level costs and indivi duals’ ability to pay the rates.  This means that t here are individuals out there who are focused
on basic needs.

• There needs to be checks somewhe re early in the process that lo ok at health risk
reduction and how to maximize th at reduction while minimizing c osts.  The Office of Water should look at pr ograms and opportunities to ut ilize non‐ regulatory mechanisms to affec t health risk reduction.

• It seems that there are substance s that are regulated just to b e regulated because of political pressure.

Alan Roberson, American Water Works Association

• An example of a substance that i s regulated but does not offer a real health risk reduction is the active ingredie nt in Roundup.  This substance falls under the
Phase 5 rule that came out in 199 3, but there have been no viol ations.  Its testing method is expensive but the MCL is so high that there have not been any
violations on file.

Are there any thoughts on opportunities for better public health protection?

Robert Van Voorhees, Underground Injection Technology Council

• Underground injection plays an important role in protecting the quality of underground water sources.  There are several examples where un derground injection has proven to be a way to protect drinking water sour ces.



### Specific Comments About Regulations The section below highlights some of the key points raised duri ng the comment period summarized in the previous sectio n but groups these points acco rding to the impact and issue areas that were posted in the Federal Register Notice pri or to the meeting. No new
comments or statements are included.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

54 Integration & Innovation

• The use of electronic delivery s ystems for programmatic uses (e .g., reports, payments, etc.) is something tha t can help to make the program more cost
effective and efficient.

• The use of online monitoring met hods and data collection method s need to be approved for use within the program.

Environmental Justice/Children’s Health/Elderly

• Community‐level costs and impacts of regulations need to be con sidered when reviewing and implementing regul ations.  Disadvantaged communit ies tend to bear a greater burden of t he costs of regulations.



### List of Attendees Daniel Heady, DCLRS Steve Via, American Water Works Association Alan Roberson, American Water Works Association Stacey Detwiler, American Rivers John Litynski, U.S. Department of Energy



### EPA Participants Mike Shapiro, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency Ron Bergman, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Elizabeth Skane, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Macara Lousberg, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency Sandy Evalenko, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Keith Bartlett, U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyEPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

55 

## General Breakout Summary

– Round 1
No participants attended this se ssion, so no summary is provide d.



## General Breakout Summary

– Round 2
The summary below represents feed back received during this brea kout session. It is not intended to be a transcript of p articipants’ statements. Partic ipants were encouraged to also provide written comments to t he docket to ensure that thei r suggestions are fully captured.



### General Comments

David Friedman, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Until the mid‐1990s, the Office of Policy was the Office of Pol icy and Program Evaluation (OPPE).  The value of this office was lost when it w as split.  It served a very good purpose in challenging and questioning what was being done.  It would be
useful if there was a mechanism for bringing it back—it made fo r smarter regulations before they went out.

• Asked if comments could be received by mail.

 Nicole Owens (EPA) confirmed co mments could be submitted in wri ting until April 4 th

.

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• It has been brought up in other s essions that programs have to talk to each other.
Sometimes it takes someone outsi de the agency to do this.  This lack of communication across programs can result in disjointed regulati ons.



### Comments by Impact and Issue Areas

Environmental Justice/Children’s Health/Elderly

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Office of Toxics deals with th is well.  Overall, EPA usually co nsiders sensitive sub populations.

State/Local/Tribal

David Freidman, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Has been hearing that at the state level, more money is needed.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

56 Regulatory Burden and Small Business

David Friedman, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

o The refining industry includes l ots of small refiners.  There i s a significant burden on these refiners related to Greenhouse Gas reporting, TRI, and th e Refinery Information Collection Request.  Timelines for small refiners t o do all the reporting within the deadlines are too short when they have limited resou rces and time.

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

o Small businesses are disproportio nally affected by the reportin g, as they are also reporting to other agencies.  This leads to a cumulative burden

.

Benefits and Costs

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

o There is a diminishing cost‐bene fit return.  A company may acco mplish 95% of its goals, but what are companies going to have to do to reach 100% ?  The burden can be high, but this is rarely discussed.

o The Inventory Update Reporting requirement is now used as a veh icle to collect detailed exposure information.  E PA has tools to collect this i nformation under Section 8 “reporting” and under Section 6 “actions”.  Considere d it was a burden to ask businesses to go through the same mechanism as a consumer c ompany.  EPA could, if they sequenced their regulations, use the IUR to coll ect this information.  If something is used in a consumer product, you collect more infor mation under Section 8. Could report to the IUR on the general use and produ ction volumes.

David Friedman, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

o Regarding the GHG reporting rule, companies are chasing down th e last 5% of information but spending 50% of their time doing this.

Compliance James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• EPA compliance tools are doing a reasonably good job.

Science Obsolete/Technology Outdated

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Commented that for toxics, new tests are in research and develo pment that are subject to rigorous testing.

• Electronic reporting makes thing s easier, but there are compati bility issues so it might be too much to make this ha ppen in the next reporting cyc les.  Not opposed to it, but suggested delaying implementation for one cycle to make sure it works.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

57 • When new science comes to light, the Agency revisits the regula tions.  There is an assumption that discussions are taking place.

• Field of toxicology is always dy namic, and there is always new testing going on.
Decisions should stand on their o wn scientific merits.  How do you weigh different tests and science against each ot her? He questioned how these a re weighted correctly and that the EPA proce ss is not always transparent.

David Friedman, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• This area was not an issue as he felt science/technology was dr iven by the best technology.

• The Ozone NAAQS is being reconsidered but there is no new scien ce.  Also mentioned EPA is operating outsi de the five year standard in re gard to the Ozone NAAQS.

Least Burden/Flexible Approaches

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Sequencing is good if EPA uses t he information that is collecte d.  EPA can use the information to justify getting more information.

• The last time EPA changed the IP R, there were stakeholder meeti ngs.  It was not the case this time, and meetings took place at OMB.  Time could hav e been saved if the discussion took place a t an earlier stage.

• Liked public meeting forums and a ppreciated today’s meeting but noted that he was expecting larger and more diverse attendance.

David Friedman, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Considered ANPRM more useful tha n NSPS.  Under NSPS, the propos al date becomes the effective date, which is a problem.

Economic Conditions/Market

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Agencies are using regulations to try and create market conditi ons.  There must be good information before this is done. He did not think it was a good idea for EPA to
do this.

• Acceptable to use programs as ve hicles under the Pollution Prev ention Act.

• There are federal agencies already involved in matters that aff ect the economy.   He
did not think EPA should do this but rather EPA should focus on protecting the environment and stay within their core tasks.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

58 • EPA’s approach should be as conv ener but not in a regulatory co ntext.  EPA has an important role in convincing sta keholders to problem solve.  In novative programs, some voluntary, can have significant results.

Innovation/Integration David Friedman, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Expressed concern about conflicting regulations.  He commented on problems with the NAAQS program.  GHG footprin t vs. NAAQS.  Example: when pul ling sulfur out of a fuel or stack, energy is used and the GHG footprint increases , creating inherent
conflicts.  Use of ethanol is ano ther example of inherent confl icts – which can result in ozone levels increasing in urban areas.

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Regarding IUR reporting and new chemical reporting, these are i tems that are already covered by RCRA. There i s a disincentive to recycle and there does not seem to be a mechanism to get these items resolved.

• Informed the panel that he appreciated the deadline for comment s being extended
and that written comments could be submitted.



### Additional Discussion Questions

Should we explore place

­ based approaches to achieve our environmental goals?

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Asked EPA for clarification/defi nition of what a “place‐based” approach meant.

o Alexander Cristofaro , U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, noted that geographic‐based programs focus on cost‐effective approaches fo r a given geographic area. In the past, EPA has piloted these approaches in a few areas. Although experimental, these appr oaches have been carried out i n addition to other traditional approaches.

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• EPA would face a debate on State vs. Federal intervention. Coul d see a role for EPA as a convener/resource provider.

How can we intelligently incorporate the review required by this EO with the reviews already required by law?

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Rules by law take precedence.  He was sympathetic to the Agency in taking on this job, but noted that this meeting is a good step.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

59 How can we improve the compliance of regulated facilities, while reducing the administrative and financial burden they may bear? Specifically, how can rules be improved to ensure that facilities that are out of compliance don’t get an economic benefit over those that are in?

James Cooper , National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Enforcement is key.  This exerci se of reviewing regulations is going to make it easier.  Streamlining and simplification make regulations easie r to comply with, especially for s mall businesses.

Gerard Kraus, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• Are regulations clear enough to be understood?

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Small refiners may need to outsou rce reporting depending on the rules and their complexity, although there are h otlines for people to take adva ntage of.  Guidelines can be as complicated as the reg ulations and knows there are ma ny small
businesses that have to hire Wash ington DC lawyers to help with compliance.

Matthew Watkins, National Association of Homebuilders

• Regulations must have objectives . The question should always be asked “Does the regulation meet the objective? Do es it meet the goal that is in tended?”

Nicole Owens , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• Do you have examples?

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Information collected should have a utility, not just be nice t o have. Many databases at EPA are not used by many peopl e. Practical utility should be revisited and balanced by the reporting burden.  Public information as a goal has to be discussed
in the context of the cost when h alf of the compliance dollars are spent getting the
last 5% of information.  It can be tough to pull information to gether in a short space of time, especially in a business area that is highly regulated

.

Matthew Watkins, National Association of Homebuilders

• Questioned the cost‐benefit analysis and the process for develo ping and reviewing regulations. Thought it would be beneficial to bring Small Enti ty Representatives into a room and ask how they have been impacted, something beyo nd notice and

comment.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

60 Andrew Hanson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• Asked Matthew if he could elaborate.

Matthew Watkins, National Association of Homebuilders

• Bring regulatory community back to discuss and review.  Any rul e under review should be discussed beyond the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Are there other options, such as self

­ monitoring by facilities or public disclosure of their performance that could build an environment of minimizing costs while maximizing compliance?

Matthew Watkins, National Association of Homebuilders

• Suggested expanding TRI to other fields and to other stove pipe s.

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Thought that this was already happening.

Alexander Cristofaro, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• Ask participants to give an example where direct economic actor s can have an effect on consumers.  For example:  lab eling versus work practice stan dards.

Stuart Miles

­ McLean, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

• Suggested the question be read more broadly to initiate more co mments.

James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Could benefit in an EPA stamp of approval, for example the Ener gy Star label. They are good motivators and companies see value.  Saw benefit in a consumer manufacturing stamp (e.g. safety).

Matthew Watkins, National Association of Homebuilders

• The National Green Building Stan dard is a housing standard.   E PA could be involved to review these green standards from an environmental protectio n perspective. Suggested an “EPA Green meter”/ stamp / gauge/ label that could be used.



### General Comments
James Cooper , National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

• Thought the Listening Sessions we re a healthy exercise.  Got to hear what others were saying.EPA’s Improving Environmental Regulations Public Meeting ‐ Summary

61 Matthew Watkins, National Association of Homebuilders

• Noted there are specific program s in the Agency that are behind , for example with statutes and/or court orders.

• In addition, the EPA is dealing with budget cuts.

• Commended the EPA for setting up the Listening Sessions.

Alexander Cristofaro ( EPA) thanked everyone for their time and comments.  Participant
comments would be considered at t he highest levels in the Agenc y. He encouraged participants to submit their comments online before the April 4 th deadline.



### List of Attendees James Cooper, National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association David Friedman, National Petroch emicals and Refiners Associatio n Matthew Watkins, National A ssociation of Homebuilders



### EPA Participants Alexander Cristofaro, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nate Folkemer, U.S. Enviro nmental Protection Agency Andrew Hanson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Gerard Kraus, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Stuart Miles‐McLean, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nicole Owens, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Richard Yost, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency