82. 0*5-
Thursday
April 8,-:1982
Part ¥
Protection Agency
Hazardous Waste Management System;
General and EPA Administered Permit
Programs; Hazardous Waste Permit
Program; and Requirements for State v ' •
Hazardous Waste Programs; Final Rule
and Issuance of Regulation Interpretation
Memorandum
-------
15304 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 68 / Thursday, April 8,1982 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 122 and 124
lSW-FRL-2039-5a]
Hazardous Waste Management
System: General and EPA
Administered Permit Programs:
Hazardous Waste Permit Progarm
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency is today amending its
consolidated permit regulations to make
several minor corrections in the
regulations. The consolidated permit
regulations amended today apply to
EPA's issuance of permits to hazardous
waste management facilities,
underground injection control facilities
and facilities that discharge pollutants
to navigable waters.
These minor changes are being made
to correct and clarify the regulations and
are also in response to settlement
negotiations on these matters in a
lawsuit on the consolidated permit
regulations.
The Agency believes that these
amendments will minimally reduce the
annualized compliance costs to industry.
The changes should have no impact on
the environment, as they are changes in
paperwork requirements only.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 8,1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
RCRA hotline at 382-3000 or toH-free at
(800) 424-934S; or Deborah Wolpe,
Office of Solid Waste tWH-563), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, B.C. 20460 (202) 755-9107.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On May 19,1980, EPA published the
consolidated permit regulations which
govern, among other programs, the
hazardous waste management program
under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended
(RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. (45 FR
33230). Parts 122 through 124 pf these
regulations (which appear in Title 40 of
the Code of Federal Regulations) spell
out in detail the requirements to obtain
a hazardous waste management permit,
the requirements for states to receive
authorization to administer their permit
programs in lieu of the Federal permit
program, and the procedures for EPA
decision-making in the permitting
process. In addition, EPA developed a
set of consolidated permit application
forms to be used by applicants for EPA-
administered permits. A number of
industry groups, one State, and one
environmental group petitioned for
review of the consolidated permit
regulations as they relate to RCRA
issues. These groups raised a variety of
issues concerning the regulations.
Included in the RCRA-related issues
raised by petitioners were a number of
"common issues." Common issues are
issues which relate to more than one
permit program—issues which, for
example, relate to both the hazardous
waste management program under
RCRA and the national pollutant
discharge elimination system (NPDES)
program under section 402 of the Clean
Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1362.
EPA is today amending several
sections of the regulations to clarify and
correct them. Two of today's
amendments apply to all three permit
programs. These amendments (1) correct
a drafting error in the section which
requires submission of a topographic
map, and (2) change the caption of the
section on duty to halt or reduce
activities to better comport with the
substance of the section. The other four
, amendments affect only the hazardous
waste permit program. These
amendments (1) clarify that hazardous
waste permittees need only provide
"relevant" information upon request of
the permitting authority; (2) change the
section on inspection of, and entry to,
hazardous waste management facilities
to include the words "at reasonable
times" in desqribing when EPA, or its
authorized representative, may enter the
permittee's premises (3) delete the
requirement that claims of
confidentiality on hazardous waste
permit applications be substantiated at
the time the application is submitted
and (4) clarify that if a hazardous waste
permit is consolidated for
reconsideration in an evidentiary
hearing with a permit for discharge to
navigable waters, it need not always be
stayed.
These amendments are partially in
response to settlement negotiations on
these issues in "NRDC v. EPA," No. 80-
1607 and consolidated cases (D.C. Cir.,
filed June 2,1980). EPA has signed a
settlement agreement for the RCRA-
related and common issues, and has
agreed to promulgate a regulatory
interpretation memorandum (RIM), and
several technical amendments, as well
as to propose several substantive
amendments to the consolidated permit
regulations as expeditiously as possible.
If EPA fulfills these obligations, and
after notice and comment rulemaking
(on the substantive amendments),
promulgates regulations hi substantially
the same form as set forth in the
exhibits to the settlement agreement, the
RCRA petitioners will voluntarily
dismiss their petitions to review the
regulations in 40 CFR Parts 122-124 that.
were promulgated on May 19, ,1980 and
November 17,1980.
' The amendments promulgated today
are technical amendments to the
regulations. Today's promulgation
fulfills EPA's obligations for all of the
issues listed in Exhibit B to the
settlement agreement. *
II. Changes to the Regulations
A. Topographic Map
Section 122.4(d)(7) of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations requires
that all applicants for RCRA,
underground injection control (UIC), or
NPDES permits provide a. topographic
map, using EPA's standard consolidated
permit application forms. Section
122.4(d)(7) states that the topographic ;
map must extend one mile beyond the,
property boundaries, of the facility
depicting all known wells," springs, other
surface water bodies, and drinking
water wells "in the map area" (i.e.,
extending one mile beyond the property
boundaries). However, Item XI of the
instructions for Form 1 of the
consolidated permit application forms
states that the topographic map must
show all springs and surface water
bodies * * * plus all drinking water
wells "within V* mile of the facility" (45
FR 33547, May 19,1980).
EPA is today correcting this drafting
anomaly. Although the instructions for
Form 1 were correct, § 122.4(d)(7) was
wrong. This section today is amended to
require that the topographic map show
wells, springs, other surface water
bodies and drinking water wells within
%, mile of the facility property
boundaries. EPA stated in the preamble
to the consolidated permit application
forms that, in light of the slow
movement of groundwater, the _.
information within V± mile of the facility
property boundary should be sufficient
to prevent well contamination in cases
where the groundwater becomes
contaminated through faulty waste :
disposal or other practices. (See 45 FR
33519, May 19,1980). The regulation now
reflects this decision.
1 EPA expects to propose the substantive
amendments set forth in'Exhibits C and D to the
agreement over the next few months and will
consider carefully all public comments on the
proposals before making its final decisions.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 68 / Thursday, April 8, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 15305
B. Need To Halt or Reduce Activities
not a Defense • ~
As promulgated on May 19,1980,
§ 122.7 of EPA's consolidated permit
regulations contains conditions
applicable to all RCRA, UIC, NPDES
and 404 permits (dredge and fill permits
under Section 404 of the GWA). The
section itself requires that the conditions
applicable to all permits be incorporated
in the permits either expressly or by
reference. EPA today is making changes
to three paragraphs of § 122.7.
EPA is today changing the caption
from "Duty to halt or reduce activity" to
read "Need to halt or reduce activity not
a defense," to better comport with the
substance of the section, which is that a
permittee will not be allowed to defend
its noncompliance in an enforcement
action on the ground that it would have
otherwise had to halt or reduce the
regulated activity. Section 122.7(c) deals
only with the question of defenses to
liability in an enforcement action, and
not with the nature or extent of the
remedy for permit violations. In cases
involving civil penalties for
noncompliance with RCRA permits, for
example, the Agency is directed by
Section 3008(c) of the Act to take into
account the seriousness of the violation
and any good faith efforts to comply. As
stated in the May 19,1980 preamble, 45
FR 33303, the Agency recognizes that in
some instances halting or reducing
activities could have more deleterious
effects than to continue them, that hi
case of trivial noncompliance it might be
inappropriate for a permittee to halt or
reduce its operations, that it maybe
necessary to continue operations to
locate the problem, or that less drastic
means for assuring permit compliance
may be appropriate.
The wording and meaning^ of the
regulations are not being changed.
Ci Duty to Provide Information
Section 122.7(h)r imposes an obligation
on each EPA permittee to provide "any
information" requested by the permit-
issuing authority to determine if the
permittee is in compliance or if permit
modification, revocation and reissuance,
or termination is appropriate.
Today EPA is amending this section to
clarify that RCRA permittees need only
provide "any relevant information." '„
Although EPA's intent has always been
-.to request only relevant information,
this change in language clarifies the
Agency's intentions in writing for all
RCRA permittees. Among other things;
Section 3007(a) of RCRA, which is part ..
of the basis for this pro vision of the
regulations, requires any person who
handles or has handled hazardous
waste, to "furnish information relating
- to such wastes" upon request of any
officer, employee or representative of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
The change hi the language of the
condition, in § 122.7(h) that is inserted in
all RCRA permits; therefore, is entirely- .
consistent.with the underlying enabling
authority in RCRA.
D. Inspection and Entry
Section 122.7(i)(lJ of the consolidated
permit regulations currently provides
that a permittee must allow the .
Director 2 or an authorized
representative, upon the presentation of
any documents required by law, to
"enter upon the permittee's premises
where a regulated facility or activity is
located or conducted, or where records
must be kept under the conditions of the
permit." EPA is today amending 40 CFR
122.7(i)(l) to require a RCRA permit to
include a provision stating that the
Director or an authorized representative
may enter the facility only "at
reasonable times." This phrase is used
in Section 3007(aJ of RCRA, which is the
underlying RCRA authority for
§ 122.7(i)(l). The Agency is, amending
the regulation as it applies to RCRA
permittees to include these words in
order to make the words of the
regulation entirely consistent with the
statute, and alleviate concern expressed
by the regulated community over this
matter. EPA is still not precluded from
inspecting without notice or at any tune
when an inspection is reasonably
necessary to determine compliance or
noncompliance with a RCRA permit.
E. Confidentiality
Section 122.19(d} of the regulations
requires that- claims of confidentiality
for RCRA permit application
information be substantiated at the time -
the application is submitted. The
amendments today eliminate this
requirement for up-front substantiation
by deleting i 122.19(d) from the
regulations. Section, 122.19(d) was a
special exception to the general rules .in
§ 122.19 governing the submission to
EPA of information claimed as
confidential by the submitter. With the
deletion of paragraph (d), §-122.19 (a)
and (b}(l) will govern EPA's treatment
of information claimed to be . •
confidential by RCRA permit applicants
and permittees. These paragraphs, in
accordance with EPA's general
confidentiality regulations in 40 CFR
Part 2, require that any claim of
confidentiality must beasserted at the
"As defined in § 122.3, "Director" means the EPA
Regional Administrator or the state Director of an
authorized program, as the circumstances require.
time information is submitted to EPA. If.'
no claim is made when the information
is submitted to EPA, the Agency may
make the information available to the
public without further notice to the
submitter. If a claim is assertedr EPA
treats the information in accordance •
with the procedures in 40 CFR Part 2. To
summarize those procedures briefly,
they provide that before releasing any
information for which a claim'of
confidentiality has been asserted, EPA
will give the submitter an opportunity to
comment on particular points related to
the claim; EPA also gives'the business
asserting the claim notice of the
Agency's determination of whether
information is or is not entitled to
confidential treatment. However, even
confidential information may be
disclosed, after notice, in special
circumstances or when relevant in any
^proceeding under the applicable act of
Congress (e.g., RCRA).
When the Agency promulgated
§ 122.19{d), it believed that
substantiation of claims of .
confidentiality for RCRA permit
application information should
• accompany the information when it was •
submitted. The Agency believed this
because EPA wanted to be able to make
as much permit application information
as possible available to the public as
quickly as possible in order to expedite
permitting. The regulated community
, has complained, however, that such up-
front substantiation is unnecessarily .
burdensome to them because it requires.
. them to substantiate claims which they
might never be required to substantiate
under 40 CFR Part 2. Under those •
regulations no substantiation would be
required if EPA never needed or wanted"
to determine the validity of the claim,
Although EPA still desires to make •'
any necessary confidentiality
determinations as quickly as possible,
the Agency believes that the procedures
already contained in 40 CFR Part 2
provide an adequate mechanism to do
this. As noted above, me elimination of
§ 122.19[d] makes the treatment of
claims of confidentiality under the
RCRA permit program consistent with
their treatment under the other permit
•programs governed by the consolidated
' permit regulations, all of which rely on
the procedures in 4O CFRTart 2.
It should'be noted that if obtaining
substantiation of the confidentiality •
claim and determining the validity of the
claim would take longer than the time
estimated in the project decision
schedule (40 CFR 124.3(g» for issuance
of a draft permit arid an opportunity for
public notice and comment, the decision
schedule will be revised. This will allow
-------
15306 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 68 / Thursday, April 8, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
the public the opportunity to comment
on all aspects of the permit application
that may be disclosed under the
provisions of 40 CFR Part 2.
F, Stay ofRCRA Permits for New
Facilities
Section 124.16 governs when permit
conditions that are being contested by a~
permittee are, or may be, stayed. One
particular provision in § 124.16[a) has
been of concern to the petitioners in the
"NRDC v. EPA" litigation.
Section 124.16{a) provides in part that
when a RCRA permit is consolidated
with an NPDES permit for
reconsideration in an evidentiary
hearing * the effect of the contested
permit conditions is stayed and the
conditions are not subject to judicial
review pending final agency action.
Section 124.16{a) further provides that if
the permit involves a new facility, new.
source, new discharger, etc., the
applicant is without a permit for the
proposed new facility, etc., pending final
agency action. Section 124.60(a)[l]
reiterates that provision of § 124.1B(a).4
However, § 124.60[a}{2) provides that
the Presiding officer at a hearing on the
motion of "a source" may issue an order
authorizing the source to begin
operation before final agency action if it
complies with all conditions of its final
permit (received under § 124.15) during
the period before final agency action. If
a party opposes the source's motion to
begin operation, the source must make
certain demonstrations before the
Presiding Officer may issue an order
authorizing operation.
Petitioners in the "NRDC v. EPA"
litigation have protested that although
, § 124.60{a)(2) allows new sources, new
dischargers and recommencing
dischargers to begin operations under an
order from the Presiding Officer, the
section apparently does not allow, new
facilities—the term for new hazardous
waste management "sources"—to begin
operations when a RCRA permit has
been consolidated with an NPDES
permit for reconsideration in an
evidentiary hearing. They make that
assertion because § 124.6Q[a)(2) uses the
term "source" and does not mention the
term "facility." They argue that it is
unfair that a different result should
obtain for NPDJ3S and RCRA activities.
EPA agrees that Presiding Officers
should have the same authority to allow
the commencement of operations at
already constructed RCRA and NPDES
facilities. EPA believes that the
'This consolidation could take place under 40
CFR 124,74,124.82 or 124.114.
4 Section 12-].riO(a) Is cross-referenced in
S 124,10{a).
introductory paragraph of § 124.60(a),
which states that "the following
provisions apply to NPDES permits and
to RCRA or UIC permits to the extent
those permits may have been
consolidated with an NPDES permit in a
formal hearing" authorizes Presiding
Officers to allow RCRA facilities to
begin operations under the terms of .
§ 124.60(a)(2). However, to clarify this
issue, EPA is amending § 124.60(a)(2) to
add the word "facility" after the word
"source" each time it appears.
III. Effective Date
Section 3010[b) ofRCRA provides that
EPA's hazardous waste regulations and
revisions to the regulations take effect
six months after promulgation. In
addition,,Section 553(d) of the
Administrative Procedure Act requires
that substantive rules not become
effective until at least 30'days after
promulgation. The purpose of these
requirements is to allow persons
handling hazardous waste sufficient
lead time to prepare to comply with
major new regulatory requirements. For
the technical amendments promulgated
today, however, the Agency believes
that an effective date of 30 days or six
months after promulgation would cause
unnecessary disruption in the
implementatio'n of the regulations and
would not be in the public interest. •
Because these amendments are minor
clarifications, there is no need to allow
any lead time to prepare for conpliance.
Therefore these amendments are
^effective immediately upon publication.
IV. Final Rule
EPA has determined under Section
553[b)(B) of the Administrative
Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), that
notice and comment on these technical
amendments is unnecessary.
As explained hi the preamble, the
amendments promulgated today are all
very minor changes to the regulations,
which clarify the existing regulations
without changing the substantive
requirements of the regulations. Notice
and comment is unnecessary for such
minor technical changes.
V. Executive Order 12291
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"Major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis (RIA). A major ride is one
which results in (1) an annual effect on
the economy of $100 million or more; (2)
a major increase in costs or prices for
consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or (3)
significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic or export
markets. The Agency does not
anticipate that today's technical
amendments will have any of the effects
which characterize a rule as "major"
under the Executive Order and therefore
has not prepared an RIA on them.
This amendment was submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget for,
review as required by Executive Order
12291.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 122
Administrative practice and -
procedure, Air pollution control,
Hazardous materials, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Waste
treatment arid disposal, Water pollution
control, Water supply, Confidential
business information.
List of Subjects on 40 CFR Part 124
Administrative practice and -
procedure, Air pollution control,
Hazardous materials. Waste treatment
and disposal, Water pollution control,
Water supply, Indians—lands..
Dated: March 31,1982.
Anne M. Gorsuch,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, Parts 122 and 124 of Title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for Parts 122
and 124 reads as follows:
Authority. Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seg.; the Safe
Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300[f] etseq.;
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seg.;
and the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seg.
PART 122— EPA ADMINISTERED
PERMIT PROGRAM: THE NATIONAL
POLLUTANT DISCHARGE
ELIMINATION SYSTEM; THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE PERMIT
PROGRAM; AND THE UNDERGROUND
INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
2. Section 122.4(d)(7) is amended by
removing the words "in the map area"
and inserting in their place "within V4
mile of the facility property boundary,"
so that as amended, the paragraph now
reads as follows: v.
-§122.4 [Amended]
(7) A topographic map (or other map if
a topographic map is unavailable)
extending one mile beyond the property
-------
Federal Register / Vol, 47, No. .68 /Thursday, April 8, 1982 / Rules and Regulations 15307
boundaries of the source depicting the
facility and each of its intake and
discharge structures; each of its
hazardous waste treatment, storage or
disposal facilities; each well where
^fluids from the facility are injected
imderground; and those wells, springs,
ather surface water bodies, and drinking
water wells listed in public records or
otherwise known to the applicant within
Vi mile of the facility property "
boundary.
3. Section 122.7 is amended by
revising the caption to paragraph (c) to
read as follows:
, § 122.7 [Amended]
* * * * - * -
(c) Need to halt or reduce activity not
a defense. * * *
4. Section 122.7 is amended by adding
a second sentence to paragraph (h) so
that the paragraph reads as follows:
§ 122.7 [Amended]
***-'* * *
(h) Duty to provide information. The
permittee shall furnish to the Director, ,
within-a reasonable time, any \
information which the Director may
request to determine -whether cause
exists for modifying, revoking and
reissuing, or terminating this permit, or
to determine compliance with this
permit. The permittee shall also furnish
to the Director, upon request, copies of
records required to-be kept by this1,
permit. For RCRA only, this condition
shall include the word "relevant"
'mmediately following the word "any"
h the preceding sentence.
5 Section 122.7 is amended by adding,
a second clause to paragraph (i)(l) so
that that paragraph reads as follows:
§ 122.T [Amended]
,
(1) Ejiter upon the permittee's
premises where a regulated facility or
activity is located or conducted, or
where reP°rds must be kept under the
conditions-of this permit; For RCRA
only, this condition shall include the
phrase "at reasonable times" after
"enter"; x
§ 122.19 [Amended]
6. Section 122.J9 is amended by
removing paragraph (d).
_^— -.- ' **• * i
PART 124—PROCEDURES FOR
DECISIONMAKING-
7. The fourth sentence, of § 124.16[a)(l)
is removed and the'third sentence is,
amended so that tt>e paragraph (a)(l)
now reads as
§124.16 [Amended] _
(a) Stays, (1) If a request for review of
a RCRA or UIC permit under § 124.74 or
§ 124.114 is granted or if'conditions of a
RCRA or UIC permit are consolidated
for reconsideration hvari'evidentiary
hearing on an NPDES permit under
§ 124.82 or § 124.114, the effect of the
contested permit conditions shall be
stayed and shall not be subject to
judicial review pending final agency-
action. (No stay of a PSD permit is
available under this section.) If the
permit involves a new facility or new
injection well, new source; new.
discharger or a recommencing
discharger, the applicant shall be
without a permit for the proposed new
facility, injection well, source or-
discharger pending final agency action,
except as provided in § 124.60(a)(2).
* * A . * * *
8. Section 124.60(a)(2) is revised by
adding "or facility" immediately
, following each occurance of the word
"source" in that paragraph so that the
paragraph now reads as fpllqwst , •
§124.60 [Amended]
* * *'.#-# .
(a)***
(2) Wherever a source or facility
subject to this paragraph has received a
final permit under § 124.15 which is the-
subject of a hearing request under
§ 124.74 or a formal hearing under,
§'124.75, the Presiding Officer, on motion
by the source or facility, may issue an
order authorizing it to begin operation
before final agency action if it complies
• with all conditions of that final permit
during the period until final agency
action. The Presiding Officer may grant
such a motion in any case where no
party opposes the motion; where the
source or facility demonstrates that (i) it
is likely to prevail on the merits; (ii)
irreparable harm to the environment will
not result pending final agency action if
it is allowed to commence operations
before final agency action; and (iii) the
public interest requires that the source
or facility be allowed to commence.
operations. All the conditions of any
permit covered by that order shall be _
fully effective and enforceable.
*'*,*'*•*
[FR Doc. 82-9397 Filed 4-7-82; 8:45 am] ' — .-•
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
4QCFRPart123 ;
[SWFRL 2039-56]
Requirements for State Hazardous
Waste Programs
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of issuance of
regulations interpretation memorandum.
SUMMARY: EPA is issuing today a
Regulation Interpretation Memorandum
,(RIM) which provides official
interpretation of one of the requirements
for final authorization of State
hazardous waste programs under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. Questions have been addressed to
the Agency requesting clarification of
the requirement in 40 CFR 123.37(d) that
State permits issued prior to final
authorization be reviewed by the State
and modified or revoked and reissued to
require compliance with the ,
requirements of 40 CFR Part 123.
DATE: This Regulation Interpretation
Memorandum becomes effective April 8,
1982.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Deborah Wolpe, State Programs and
Resource Recovery Division, Office of
Solid Waste (WH-563), U.S. .
Environmental Protectiori.Agency, 401 M:
Street, SW., Washington; D.C«20460,
RIM 123-82-1, Regulation
Interpretation Memorandum,
Modification of Existing State Permits
Upon Final Authorization of State
Hazardous Waste Programs.
Issue •'.'
, EPA has received questions
concerning the interpretation of , : .
§ 123.37(d) of the Requirements for State
Hazardous Waste Programs. That
section provides that permits issued
under State law prior to the date of
approval of final authorization shall be>~^
reviewed by tha State Director and
modified or revoked arid reissued to
require compliance with.the ,
requirements of Part 123. Questions
have been raised concerning whether
such review and modification of permits
must occur before a State can obtain,
final authorization.
Discussion
EPA did not intend that review and
modification of existing State permits
necessarily occur before a State
program is approved for final
authorization. Rather, EPA intended that
States seeking final authorization make
a commitment to upgrade existing
permits so that those permits will
require compliance with the
requirements of Part 123. The preamble .
to this section states that the State "
Director must review and change
permits as necessary "after a State has
received final authorization" (45 FR
33396, May 19, 1980).
-------
15308 Federal Register / Vol. 47, No. 68 / Thursday, April 8, 1982 / Rules and Regulations
The State application for final
authorization will contain a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to
be executed by the State Director and
the EPA Regional Administrator. Section
123.6(d)(5) requires the MOA to provide
for State review and modification of
existing permits. That section states that
"the Regional Administrator and the
State Director shall establish a time
within which this review must take
place."
EPA intends that the schedule in the
MOA provide a reasonable time period
for the review and upgrading of existing
State permits, based on such factors as
the number of State permits and the
additional permit terms and conditions
needed to satisfy the requirements of
Part 123.
Dated: Februaiy 23,1982.
Approved:
Christopher J. Capper,
Acting Assistant Administrator forSotid
Waste and Emergency Response.
[HI Doe. 8J-8S57 Rkd 4-7-815 8:45 am]
BIU.INQ CODE 6560-50-H
-------
-------
United States
Eiwironmontaf Protection
Agency
Washington DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Postage and
Fees paid
EnvironrhentI
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Third-Class
------- |