Even though the state review process fell apart, it did not die. In late 1997, EPA conducted a series of facilitated meetings of stakeholders to see if the process could be salvaged. The meetings resulted in a recommendation that any future state review process should be controlled by a group of stakeholder representatives rather than by IOGCC. There was a further recommendation that, in addition to reviewing state regulatory program elements against the guidelines, performance audits measuring state program implementation should be conducted.
These recommendations were the subject of frequent and sometimes heated discussions among state officials at IOGCC meetings during 1997 and early 1998. During these discussions the value of the review process to the states was questioned. Consequently, in late 1997, the chairman of the IOGCC Environmental and Safety Committee formed an ad hoc subcommittee to review actions taken by states in response to recommendations contained in state review reports. The seventeen states that had been reviewed were surveyed and a report was written documenting program changes. In May 1998, IOGCC published a report titled "State Actions Based on State Review Process Recommendations" which summarized regulatory changes in each of the seventeen states. The report concluded that all seventeen states had taken steps to implement recommendations made by the review teams. Some states began implementing recommendations even before the report of the review was published. Some recommendations that required budgetary or regulatory action were still underway.
After considerable deliberation of the recommendations from the facilitated meetings, IOGCC made a commitment to attempt to get the state review process back on track. In March 1998, IOGCC forwarded to EPA a proposal for revitalizing the state review process. The proposal called for the formation of an independent Governing Body comprised of three representatives from each of the state, industry and environmental stakeholder groups to administer the state review process. The proposal called for performance audits of state program implementation. It also called for EPA funding to support the Governing Body and the state reviews. The proposal was approved by the unanimous vote of IOGCC.
At its June 1998 Mid-Year Meeting, IOGCC adopted a resolution in support of the state review process and called for EPA to respond to the March proposal. That resolution was also adopted by unanimous vote. At the same meeting IOGCC formed a new State Review Committee as a separate standing committee to give greater emphasis to the state review process. The committee coordinates state activities by providing state representatives for the development of guidelines and program implementation measures, providing review team members for state reviews and follow-up reviews, and providing state representatives to the Governing Body. In June, the committee selected three state representatives to serve on the Governing Body. Those names were forwarded to EPA along with a request that EPA convene a meeting of the Governing Body.
EPA shared the March IOGCC proposal with the environmental representatives. In July, both EPA and IOGCC again contacted the environmental representatives to update them on IOGCC activities and to encourage their continued participation in the process. In late July, the environmental representatives responded that they were not willing to restart the process unless EPA committed to a multi-year program that addresses risks posed by E&P wastes. They suggested that EPA should conduct multi-pathway risk analyses and suggested that the analysis might lead to revisiting the July 1988 regulatory determination where E&P wastes were exempt from regulation as hazardous waste.
In late September 1998, EPA responded to the environmental representatives by reaffirming EPA's support of the state review process and of the IOGCC proposal for revitalizing the process. EPA agreed that it was important to develop a multi-year plan for E&P waste management, and that the plan should include the review and analysis of risks associated with certain E&P wastes and waste management practices. EPA noted that development of the plan would require cooperation among the stakeholders, and that a functioning state review process should be the first step in establishing this cooperation. EPA also suggested that the Governing Body of the revitalized state review process could provide the forum for EPA to receive stakeholder input on development of the multi-year plan.
In November 1998, the environmental representatives indicated they were not interested in continuing their involvement in the state review process. They indicated that they could not commit to the process before EPA developed its multi-year plan.
Back to history overview
