CHAPTER IV.-INADEQUATE ORGANIZATIONAL EMPHASIS ON HAZARDOUS WASTES: MEDIA TRANSMISSION APPROACH

GENERAL BACKGROUND

When the Environmental Protection Agency was created in 1970, the agency was charged with protecting the public and the environment from pollution transmitted through three distinct media: air, water, and land. As the threat to public health and the environment was perceived as emanating mostly from air and water pollution, the EPA was organized accordingly. Thus, the primary responsibility for regulation of air pollution fell under the Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation, and regulation of water pollution came under the Office of Water and Waste Management. Pollution derived of the other medium, land, was not given great emphasis as its potential threat was not realized, and regulatory responsibilities for land pollution were organized under the Office of Water and Waste Management in the Office of Solid Waste.

The Office of Water and Waste Management and the Office of Air, Noise and Radiation were, and still are, headed by Assistant Administrators who are directly responsible to the Deputy Administrator and the Administrator. The Office of Solid Waste, on the other hand, is directed by a Deputy Assistant Administrator who reports to the Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Management. As the Office of Solid Waste has direct responsibility for the implementation of RCRA, it appears that the hazardous and solid waste programs of EPA are on an unequal footing with EPA's other environmental protection programs.

Note that the legislative history of RCRA envisions an Office of "Discarded Materials" (Solid Waste) within EPA headed by an assistant administrator:

At the present time there are offices within Environmental Protection Agency for water and air. There is, however, no office for land management. This title creates such an office within the EPA to be designated as the Office of Discarded Materials, and headed by an assistant administrator. This statutory establishment would give management parity with the air and water offices. In addition to giving and pollution parity, the establishing language also sets out the duties and responsibilities to be undertaken by the office.

Under this bill it would be much more difficult to cut the personnel or budget of the Office or to sacrifice the waste management functions for the sake of air or water programs since all three offices would enjoy similar statutory authorization. [Emphasis added].

The language of RCRA as enacted, however, did not reflect this idea for organizational parity, as it created an Office of Solid Waste to be headed by a Deputy Assistant Administrator.93

The Subcommittee is concerned with the implications of EPA's current organization. It is clear that as the magnitude of the hazardous

93 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, the report of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives on H.R. 14496, Report No. 94-1491, p. 12.

waste problem is perceived as having increased tremendously in recent years, EPA must be responsive organizationally to this increase. As Chairman Levin stated in his opening statement during the August 1 hearing:

The fact that both water and waste programs are administered by a single administrator suggests to many the need for a more independent organizational structure for waste management, possibly headed by an Assistant Administrator, to ensure increased budget and organizational priority for the solid and hazardous waste programs."

EPA'S OWN VIEW

EPA's current official position on the creation of an Office of Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste is:

EPA, and particularly the Deputy Administrator's office, has studied the proposal for a separate Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste over a long period of time. EPA feels that at present such a course would not be consistent with the policy of integrating various parts of the Agency through consolidated permitting, consolidated grants, and regulatory reform policy. The Deputy Administrator's office is overseeing and coordinating a balanced approach between waste management on land and on water. If, after evaluation of any conflicts over the next year, the Deputy Administrator's office concludes a separate office for Solid Waste would be advisable, such a recommendation will be made to the Administrator." The agency also advised the Subcommittee that:

We are finding that attacking problems on a media basis can and does transfer the problem, in part, to another media.

96

Chairman Levin asked Mr. Early of the Sierra Club what he thought of EPA's "media transfer" theory:

The EPA ... has informed the subcommittee that it is opposed to an Assistant Administrator position because, "attacking problems on a media basis can and does transfer the problem in fact to another media.'

My question is this: Isn't that exactly what's happening now? That water pollution control has helped to create land pollution and will continue to dominate unless the two media, land and water, are put on an equal footing? Mr. Early. "I think that's probably true." "

In other words, efforts to clean up water and air pollution have directly promoted the use of unsound land disposal practices, resulting in an increase in the occurrence of land pollution.

It appears that EPA would be willing to accept a reorganization if it is demonstrated that the creation of an Office of Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste is justified.

Budgetary and program effectiveness considerations prompted a number of groups and individuals to inform the Subcommittee of their views in support of the creation of an Office of Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste. Support for a reorganization was unanimous among these groups and individuals, and among witnesses who testi fied before the Subcommittee other than the EPA Deputy Adminis trator and two Assistant Administrators.

There are several reasons justifying the need for the creation of an Office of Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste within EPA. First, there is a built-in conflict of interest in the Office of Water and Waste Management with respect to the obligations of the Assistant

94 Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management Hearing Transcript, p. 169.

25 November 20, 1979, letter from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management.

96 June 22, 1979, letter from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management. 97 August 1, 1979, Subcommittee Hearing Transcript, p. 185.

Administrator. He is responsible for implementation of both EPA's water programs (including the multi-billion dollar Construction Grants/wastewater treatment program) and EPA's solid waste program under RCRA. The conflict arises because there are limited resources for both program areas, and the political advantages of implementing_massive water programs make it difficult to fight for resources for RCRA implementation. If the Assistant Administrator requests additional resources to implement RCRA, it is likely that he will be forced to make a cut in the water programs.

Second, the water program is well established within the EPA hierarchy, and program level staff seem to be more influential in letting program needs be known than the less experienced RCRA program staff.

Third, as the solid waste program is a new program within EPA, and as Administrator Douglas Costle recently has pointed out, . . "it will have to grow essentially to [the] size that we need [to] allow us to handle the problems." The need for an assistant administrator to fight for resources during program development is crucial.98

Finally, continued program and resource emphasis on air and water programs rather than on solid waste programs will result in continued degradation of the land from environmental pollution.

As the National Governors Association pointed out:

The financial and staffing resources available to the Office of Solid Waste have not been comparable to that accorded development of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act. Yet the RCRA effort must encompass the management of the residuals of all these programs. Moreover the agency's utilization of those resources has emphasized enforcement and attendant legal activities without comparable emphasis and consideration given to planning and implementation activities. The latter are vital to the achievement of the RCRA goal of establishing a national program to manage and control hazardous wastes in an environmentally acceptable manner." "

Findings relative to EPA organization

The Subcommittee finds substantial evidence toward the elevation of the EPA Office of Solid Waste to the status of Assistant Administrator. The current organizational structure has resulted in mismanagement in the implementation of RCRA in several ways. These include: (a) Inadequate budget allocation to solid waste programs;

(b) Inadequate application of human resources to solid waste pro

grams;

(c) Continued delay in the promulgation of RCRA regulations; and

(d) Internal conflicts of interest and infighting throughout the implementation of RCRA.

Recommendation

Congress should hasten to enact legislation to create an Office of Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste within EPA.*

98 Press conference by Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Tuesday, February 26, 1980.

99 July 24, 1979, letter from Richard D. Lamm, Chairman, Natural Resources and Environmental Management Committee and Bill Clinton, Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Management, National Governors Association, to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management.

*Additional support for creation of such an office appears in Appendix II in a letter from the California State Solid Waste Management Board.

CONCLUSION

The Subcommittee believes that the insights provided in this report, both to the Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency, will be useful in our struggle to achieve control over the immense problem of land pollution. The recommendations expressed throughout the text, based on an intense Subcommittee investigation into the management of hazardous wastes will, if fully recognized and implemented, provide additional incentives to the EPA and the states in their uphill battle to fulfill the hazardous waste provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

The Subcommittee hopes that these recommendations will be carried out to the greatest extent possible.