Do not weed. This document
should be retained in the EPA
Region 5 Library Collection.
-------
A NATIONAL PERMITS STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
Permits and State Programs Division
Office of Solid Waste
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
August 1984
-------
PREFACE
This document was prepared by the Permits Branch in an effort
to improve both the timeliness and the quality of the permitting of
hazardous waste facilities. The National Permits Strategy reflects
the high priority given by the Environmental Protection Agency to
the issuance of permits under the authority of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The National Permits Strategy is organized into four sections
for easy review and understanding. Part I establishes the need for
this strategy, and outlines the problems and issues to which this
strategy is responding. Part II summarizes the key elements of this
strategy. Part III outlines four components of this strategy that
are designed to accelerate and improve the quality of RCRA permit
issuance. Finally, Part IV outlines a series of management
initiatives that are to ensure implementation of this strategy.
The National Permits Strategy was reviewed by EPA Regions and
the States, by EPA Headquarters staff, and by several public interest
and trade associations. Comments were analyzed and incorporated
in this document as appropriate.
Critical elements of this strategy were outlined both in the
FY 1985 Agency Operating Guidance and the recently issued FY 1985
RCRA Implementation Plan. This strategy will be implemented through
the FY 1985 grant work programs, and will be fully operational by
the end of the first quarter of FY 1985.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
I. A NATIONAL STRATEGY IS NEEDED TO ENSURE AN
EFFICIENT, HIGH QUALITY PERMIT PROCESS. 1
A. Four Problems Are Addressed By the National
Permits Strategy. 1
B* The Issuance of Permits is Central to the
RCRA Program. 2
C. A National Permits Strategy Will Guide
Regional and State Permitting Activities. 3
D. EPA Headquarters Activities Support
Implementation of the National Permits Strategy. 3
E. The National Permits Strategy; Permitting
Interim Status Facilities. 4
II. KEY ELEMENTS OF THE STRATEGY: AN OVERVIEW. 5
III. FOUR ELEMENTS OF THE STRATEGY ACCELERATE AND
IMPROVE PERMITS AND ESTABLISH PRIORITIES. 6
A. Accelerated Requests for Permit Applications
Will Yield Immediate Benefits. 6
1. Priority Attention on Requesting Applications
from Land Disposal and Incineration Facilities. 7
2. A Limited Number of Exceptions May Be Necessary. 9
B. Priority Permit Program Activities Include Closure
Plan Approvals. 10
C. Processing and Permitting Land Disposal
Applications Continues. 11
D. Coordinated Compliance Inspections and Permit
Writing Can Improve Applications. 11
1. Management of Coordinated Site Visits. 14
2, Exceptions to Coordinated Site Visits. 15
D. Earlier and Expanded Public Involvement Activities
for Selected Facilities. 15
1. Environmentally Significant Facilities are
Targeted for Public Involvement. 16
2. Meaningful Public Involvement Requires
Careful Planning. 17
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONT'D.
PAGE
IV. A MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ENSURES IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE NATIONAL PERMITS STRATEGY. 19
A. The Grant Work Program Implements the National
Permits Strategy in States. 19
B. State Authorization; Transition Planning Is 21
Necessary.
1. Need for Transition Plans. 21
2. Technical Assistance is Available. 22
C. Resources; Those Identified Must Be Used. 22
D. Regional and State Strategies Provide a Long
Term Planning Framework. 23
E. Evaluation of Strategy Implemetationt Mid-course
Corrections Are Possible. 24
-------
I. A NATIONAL STRATEGY IS NEEDED TO ENSURE AN EFFICIENT, HIGH QUALITY
PERMIT PROCESS.
The purpose of this strategy is to put in place an approach
to RCRA permitting that will achieve maximum environmental benefits
in an expeditious manner. The ultimate goal of the RCRA Permit
Program is to make final determinations on approximately 1700
interim status land disposal and incineration facilities by the
end of Fiscal Year 1988, and to conclude permitting interim
status storage facilities in Fiscal Year 1989 (see Attachment A).
The National Permits Strategy explicitly recognizes, however, that
achieving early closure of certain facilities is of sufficient
benefit such that delays in final permit determinations may be
acceptable.
Strategies are outlined to improve the quality of the data
on which permits are issued. Priorities are outlined that
emphasize permit actions likely to result in the greatest environ-
mental improvement.
A. Four Problems are Addressed by the National Permits Strategy.
Issuing high quality land disposal and incineration permits
is critical to the effectiveness of the RCRA program. Our careful
evaluation of the RCRA permitting process suggests a number of
areas in which this process as it is implemented is deficient:
0 State and Regional EPA offices have not dedicated the
resources that would allow them to meet commitments for
permit issuance. Resources initially allocated for
-I-
-------
permit issuance are diverted to other hazardous waste
management needs and, in some instances, non-hazardous
waste needs.
0 Those facilities that potentially cause the most serious
environmental problems do not always receive priority
attention.
0 Part B permit applications are seriously deficient.
Extensive additional data gathering is necessary long
after the permit application has been submitted.
0 Public involvement is often too formalized and too late in
the permit writing process to be as effective as it could
be in improving the permit or in assuring the public.
Public involvement can significantly delay the permit if
it does not begin until after the draft permit is written.
B. The Issuance of Permits is Central to the RCRA Program.
The permit program is the hub of the variety of hazardous
waste management activities that are conducted under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). A key objective of RCRA is
to ensure that all facilities that manage hazardous waste (through
land disposal, incineration, treatment and storage) do so in a
manner that protects public health and the environment. RCRA per-
mits are the means for implementing the environmentally protective
permit standards in Part 264. Other activities of the RCRA program
(e.g., inspections, enforcement) facilitate the permit process.
Progress toward issuance of environmentally sound permits is, there-
fore, a central concern of the RCRA program and a high Agency priority
-2-
-------
C. A National Permits Strategy Will Guide Regional and State
Permitting Activities.
The policies articulated in the National Permits Strategy
will be implemented by EPA Regions and States. These policies
will drive Regional EPA workload priorities and resource
expenditures in support of the permitting program. In addition,
these policies will provide a framework for State activities related
to RCRA permitting. In this regard, the National Permits Strategy
will be used by EPA in negotiating grant work programs and in
evaluating State activities.
D. EPA Headquarters Activities Support Implementation of the
National Permits Strategy.
Although the National Permits Strategy directs Regional and
State permit programs, EPA Headquarters will undertake a variety of
initiatives designed to support these programs. Headquarters ini-
tiatives during the remainder of FY 1984, and throughout FY 1985
will include:
0 Preparation of documents to clarify implementation of
specific sections of the National Permits Strategy and to
resolve major policy questions (e.g., public participation,
closure/post-closure).
0 Evaluation of the availability, use, and distribution of
permit processing guidance.
0 Development of a permit writers clearinghouse for
the distribution of model permits and related permit
documents.
-3-
-------
0 Increased permit writer and applicant training.
0 Direct permit writing support through Permit Assistance
Teams (PATs) and technical contractors.
0 Preparation of educational materials to support public
involvement in the RCRA permit issuance process.
E. The National Permits Strategy; Permitting Interim Status
Facilities.
This document focuses on the current universe of existing
facilities with interim status (as defined by §3005 of RCRA).
Although legislative reauthorization is not reflected in this
strategy, the timetable for permitting set forth here is consistent
with permitting deadlines that are expressed within the pending
RCRA reauthorization bills. The permitting schedules, ending in
FY 1988 for land disposal facilities and incinerators and in FY
1989 for storage facilities, illustrate that the Agency, like
Congress, considers timely permitting to be of paramount importance
to the success of the RCRA regulatory program as a whole.
-4-
-------
II. KEY ELEMENTS OF THE STRATEGY; AN OVERVIEW.
The National Permits Strategy sets in place an action plan
that will improve the quality, timing, and management of the permit
program by:
° Accelerating requests for permit applications from interim
status facilities. Priority attention will be addressed
to requesting Part B applications from land disposal and
incineration facilities. This activity will result in:
— Immediately directing the attention of owners and
operators on efforts to comply with permit requirements.
— Closing interim status facilites that do not intend
to manage hazardous waste under a RCRA permit; and
-- Improving our knowledge of facility compliance with
interim status standards.
0 Establishing priorities for Final Determination Actions.
RCRA/CERCLA sites, new treatment, and closure plans are
given new priority.
0 Coordinating compliance inspections and permitting activities
to ensure better quality applications.
0 Expanding public involvement activities for environmentally
significant facilities. Such activities will be encouraged
to begin as soon as the permit application is requested.
0 Implementing a comprehensive management approach. Grant
work programs, Regional and State strategies, dedicated
resources, performance based grants, and program evaluation
are important components of the management approach.
-5-
-------
III. FOUR ELEMENTS OF THE STRATEGY ACCELERATE AND IMPROVE PERMITS AND
ESTABLISH PRIORITIES.
A. Accelerated Requests for Permit Applications Will Yield
Immediate Benefits.
Acceleration of permit application requests is emphasized
because of the environmentally beneficial actions that such
acceleration yields. These actions include:
0 Precipitation of decisions to close facilities that will
have difficulty complying with Part 264 regulations or that
do not intend to upgrade to meet permit standards;
0 Application of Part 264 ground-water protection
standards through post-closure permits to regulated units
at land disposal facilities which choose to close; and
0 Stimulation of applicant decisions to begin improvements
necessary to meet final permit standards.
The emphasis on accelerated application requests will
cause a temporary slowing down of permit issuance. Resources
that might otherwise be used for the processing of permits will be
used to request permit applications and to process closure requests.
The benefits resulting from the National Permits Strategy are the
closure of facilities that will not meet RCRA standards for operating
facilities, and the issuance of high quality permits to facilities
that meet federal standards.
-6-
-------
1. Priority Attention on Requesting Applications From Land
Disposal and Incineration Facilities.
The National Permits Strategy places a high priority on
requesting permit applications from land disposal and incineration
facilities. As such, permit applications for all outstanding land
disposal and incineration facilities will be requested before the
end of Fiscal Year 1985 (see Attachment "A" for a more detailed
schedule). The general emphasis upon facilities with land disposal
units or incinerators is due primarily to their higher potential
for environmental and public health damage through surface and
ground-water contamination and air pollution. Generally, storage
applications will be requested only if they meet the criteria
described below. Permit application requests for storage facilities
should generally resume in 1986 and 1987 as permit issuance for
land disposal and incinerators nears completion. EPA's recently
proposed class permit regulation will be in place by that time and
will alleviate a large part of the workload associated with storage
permits.
Permit program managers will also need to establish priorities
within the land disposal, storage, and incineration categories.
In addition, there may be some environmentally significant storage
facilities whose applications should be requested. For this reason,
the priorities for actions called for in the National Permits
Strategy should be based upon facility-specific application of
the following criteria:
-------
0 Facility is a recipient of wastes from a CERCLA site.
0 Facility has caused environmental damage, violated
environmental standards or disregarded RCRA regulations
(i.e., has not yet installed ground-water monitoring wells),
as evidenced by designation as a "Significant Noncomplier"
or high priority violator for enforcement action.
0 Facility is suspected source of ground-water or surface
water contamination (e.g., ground-water quality
assessment has identified presence of hazardous waste
constituents).
0 Facility poses significant environmental risk, determined
on the basis of:
— Proximity to population centers and/or aquifers and
surface waters;
-- Facility size;
-- Amount, nature and complexity of waste handled by facility
and
— Age of facility.
If a given facility receives CERCLA waste, or is a known source
of environmental damage, it should always receive highest priority.
Facilities that are suspected sources of ground or surface-water
contamination, or pose significant risks (based on factors listed
above) will generally receive next priority. In addition, any one
of the optional factors listed below may cause the Region or State
-8-
-------
to give a facility highest priority, if that facility is also a
potential source of ground-water contamination and/or possesses a
significant environmental risk:
0 Degree of public concern about the facility;
0 Anticipated financial insolvency or inability to properly
close and conduct post-closure monitoring and maintenance;
0 Effect upon competition of permitting a facility or group
of facilities (e.g., applications for facilities that
compete with one another in the marketplace should be re-
quested and processed at the same time so that there is
no competitive advantage to a particular facility); and
0 Number of hazardous waste processes to be covered by the
permit (a site with a large number of complex processes
may pose greater risk of spills and other environmental
damage).
2. A Limited Number of Exceptions to Accelerated Permit Application
Requests May Be Necessary.
The structure of certain State programs may impede the
implementation of the National Permits Strategy. For example,
seventeen States have regulatory "clocks" or requirements that at
least parts of the permit process occur within a fixed period
after the application is filed. These "clocks" generally start to
run when an interim status facility's Part B application is
complete. If, in addition, there are a large number of applications
-------
to be requested in relation to available resources, the State may
request an exemption from requesting applications from all land
disposal and incineration facilities by the close of Fiscal Year
1985. In no case, however, will such an exemption be extended
beyond the close of Fiscal Year 1986. Finally, some States will
have already requested all of their land disposal and incineration
applications. In these States, priorities for additional permit
application requests will be assessed in accordance with the
criteria described in the previous section.
B. Priority Permit Program Activities Include Closure Plan
Approvals.
The National Permits Strategy assigns high priority to the
processing of closure plans for land disposal facilities. The
following permit program activities for final determinations
are listed in their order of importance; these priorities should
generally be followed in distributing Regional and State permit
resources and in determining commitments:
0 Emergency Permits;
0 Facilities receiving wastes from CERCLA sites;
0 New facility applications for treatment alternatives to
land disposal;
0 Closure plan approval;
0 Existing backlog of partially processed permit applications,
with emphasis upon those for land disposal and incineration;
0 Newly requested land disposal, incineration, and environ-
mentally significant storage permits;
0 All remaining permits.
-10-
-------
C. Processing and Permitting Land Disposal Applications Continues.
To date, applications have been requested from close to half
of the land disposal facilities operating under interim status.
The remainder of the applications for these facilities will be
requested during Fiscal Year 1985 (with some extensions possible to
fiscal year 1986). During this period, processing of backlogged
applications as well as new applications will continue with highest
priority going toward making final determinations for those land
disposal facilities that receive waste from CERCLA sites or
request closure plan approval, and toward obtaining the ground-water
monitoring information that will be necessary to write final permits.
D. Coordinated Compliance Inspections And Permit Writing Can
Improve Applications.
Some of the greatest delays in permit processing come from
incomplete Part B applications. In some cases, the inadequacies of
the application are due to a lack of understanding by the applicant
of what is required. In other cases, lack of understanding is
combined with a poor compliance record and a poor data base on such
critical areas as ground-water quality. A linchpin of the National
Permit Strategy is a coordinated enforcement/technical assistance
process designed to improve the quality of the Part B application,
bring the facility into compliance with Part 265, and address the
facility's attention toward compliance with Part 264.
One of the principal Part B deficiencies is the lack of adequate
ground-water data to satisfy §270.14(c). In many instances, this
inadequacy is related to the failure of facilities to conduct required
-11-
-------
ground-water monitoring during interim status. In other cases, data
which has been developed under interim status is not adequate for
issuing a permit. In both cases, facilities have failed to produce
information on aquifer characteristics, existing ground-water contam-
ination, and other aspects of ground-water protection which EPA needs
in order to write permits.
Joint site visits by enforcement personnel and permit writers
will be required to improve the technical quality of the permit
application. Within 30-90 days of the permit application request,
facilities should receive a joint site visit by enforcement per-
sonnel and the assigned permit writer. The purpose of this visit
is twofold: to bring interim status facilities into compliance
with interim status standards; and to provide technical and process
assistance to the applicant who must complete a Part B application.
The joint inspection/permit site visit should be announced in
the Part B application request letter. Facilities should be ad-
vised that the permit writer will be available after the inspection
to discuss the application process and the information required for
a complete Part B application. During the course of the site visit,
permit writers should focus the applicant's attention to aspects of
the application that will take the most time and that have been
found lacking in other Part B submittals.
If a violation of the interim status standards is identified
at the time of the joint inspection/permit site visit, appropriate
enforcement action should be taken. Enforcement actions should
-12-
-------
strive to achieve compliance with interim status standards as soon
as possible and no later than the time the Part B application is
due. If lack of compliance by a facility at the time the appli-
cation is due results in an incomplete application, a compliance
order (with appropriate penalties) should be issued consistent
with the Agency's September 9, 1983 late and incomplete Part B
enforcement policy. The exact nature of the appropriate enforcement
action will depend upon whether previous enforcement actions have
been taken. In all cases, enforcement action should be carefully
coordinated with permit writers to ensure that information required
for the Part B is developed in a timely manner.
During the coordinated inspection/site visit, the inspector
and permit writer should work together to conduct a full compliance
evaluation and permitting inspection including:
0 An interim status compliance evaluation. For facilities
with ground-water monitoring, this means either a compliance
evaluation inspection or a comprehensive ground-water
monitoring evaluation, as defined in the RCRA Implementation
Plan.
0 A confirmation of the Part A data.
0 Collection of interim status plans for a thorough desk
audit following the inspection/site visit.
0 An assessment of the amount and type of data necessary
to meet the information requirements of Part 270.14(c).
The coordinated visit should result in clear guidance to
the facility owner/operator on the type and level of detail of
information needed in the Part B application.
-13-
-------
1. Management of Coordinated Site Visits.
Regions and States are required to make adjustments to both
their permit application request and inspection schedules to ensure
the maximum availability of resources necessary to implement this
policy. In order to ensure that adequate resources are available
to implement this policy, permit application requests should be
spread throughout the year. Regions and States must, in particular,
avoid making all permit application requests at the end of the
fiscal year.
Phase I authorized States are responsible for conducting inspec-
tions, but not for permit issuance. These States should coordinate
Interim Status inspections with the EPA Regional Offices' request for
a Part B application. Accordingly, State grant agreements should
require that:
0 Interim status inspections for land disposal and incineration
facilities (and those storage facilities identified as prob-
lem facilities requiring immediate attention) be conducted
within 30-90 days of the Part B request;
0 EPA permit writers visit the facility at the time of this
inspection; and
0 Thorough desk reviews of Interim Status plans and documents
be conducted and review comments shared with EPA permit
writers.
Phase II authorized States and States with final authorization
are responsible for inspections, permit issuance, and the coordinatior
of the two. In these States, grant agreements should reflect the
implementation of this policy of early, coordinated facility visits.
-14-
-------
2. Exceptions to Coordinated Site Visits
When a complete interim status inspection has been conducted
recently at a facility, or when pending interim status enforcement
actions dictate an inspection schedule different from the policy
outlined here, the permit writer may, after discussion with the
inspector and review of the inspection reports, conduct the site
visit alone. In all cases, this visit should occur no later than
90 days after the Part B application request.
D. Earlier and Expanded Public Involvement Activities For
Selected Facilities.
The ultimate objective of public involvement is to improve the
quality of environmental decision-making by ensuring that all
relevant issues are addressed as soon as possible. Effective
public involvement must take place early enough in the decision-
making process to ensure that concerns made by the public can be
addressed in the draft permit, and that public involvement is a
positive, not disruptive, force. In order for public involvement to
be effective and to meet the ultimate objective of improving the
quality of the permit, the public must be well informed as to the
scope of decisions addressed by the permitting agency, the technical
issues involved, and the views of all parties to the decision-
making process.
The public may believe that the opportunity for their involve-
ment at the time of the public hearing is too late in the process.
Data has been gathered, the draft permit is written, and preliminary
decisions have been made. If the public has not been actively
-15-
-------
involved before this time, they may not feel prepared to present
well thought-out concerns that are within the purview of the
permitting agency.
Finally, the major concerns of the public are often addressed
to a variety of issues (e.g., siting, transportation) that are not
within the purview or jurisdiction of the permitting agency. These
same issues are, however, important public concerns. Controversy
surrounding these issues may impede progress in issuing final
permits. Involvement of both the applicant and other responsible
agencies (e.g., siting boards, land use commissions) in public
involvement activities may help clarify and resolve those issues
that affect the permit but cannot be directly addressed by the
RCRA permit process.
1. Environmentally Significant Facilities are Targeted for
Public Involvement.
Not all kinds of facilities will require the same level of
public involvement. Determining the appropriate level of public
involvement for a particular facility requires thoughtful planning.
EPA Regions and authorized States will plan the appropriate
level and type of public involvement for each environmentally signif-
icant land disposal and incineration facility for which an application
will be or has been requested.
In identifying these environmentally significant facilities, the
Region and the State will consider criteria on pages 7-9 of this
document. In addition, the possible contribution to be made by
-16-
-------
I
the public in improving the quality of the permit should be
considered.
Public involvement plans for those environmentally significant
facilities whose applications have already been requested should
take into account the stage of the facility in the permit application
process and the level of public interest addressed to date. Public
involvement planning for these facilities should be conducted in
stages over the course of the year, to ensure even distribution
of this workload.
2. Meaningful Public Involvement Requires Careful Planning.
For each of the environmentally significant facilities
identified, each Region or authorized State will develop an
expanded public involvement plan. Each expanded public involvement
plan will include a field assessment of community interests and
concerns and appropriate public involvement techniques. The
field assessment may take place at the time of the coordinated
inspector/permit writer visit. Expanded public involvement
plans should be designed with the following in mind:
0 The plan should be tailored to the distinctive and individual
characteristics of the site and its adjoining community.
0 Issues and interests that are outside the scope of the RCRA
permit process but that affect the permit should be identified,
0 The plan should address ways to involve decision-makers and
the applicant in public involvement activities outside
the scope of the permit (e.g. local siting boards).
-17-
-------
0 In most cases, small scale, informal, communications
techniques should be used to facilitate community involve-
ment .
0 The plan should include, where appropriate, measures to
actively reach out to the public to engage their interest,
and to provide the back-up educational material that support
informed public involvement.
0 Some of the expanded public involvement activities should
take place before the Part B application is submitted.
0 The remainder of the expanded activities should take place
between the time of permit application and completion of
the draft permit.
-18-
-------
IV. A MANAGEMENT STRATEGY ENSURES IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NATIONAL
PERMITS STRATEGY.
Implementing the National Permits Strategy requires a manage-
ment framework that will provide for clear objectives, and continuing
evaluation and adjustment. The major elements of this management
framework are:
0 Use of the grant work program to implement the Strategy
in FY 1985;
0 Regional and State strategies that demonstrate the manner
in which the National Permits Strategy will be implemented
over a three to five year time frame;
0 Better coordination with States to ensure that the transfer
of authorization for RCRA program operation to the States
or from States whose programs revert to EPA does not disrupt
the schedules called for in the Strategy;
0 Procedures to ensure that resources identified for permit-
ting are used in the permit program; and
0 Mid-course evaluation of the strategy.
A. The Grant Work Program Implements the National Permits Strategy
In States.*
The grant work program contains the quarterly and annual State
commitments to implement the National Permits Strategy. The Regions
will negotiate commitments with States, based on targets given by
Headquarters and an analysis of the capability of States to achieve
targets. Negotiated commitments should be realistic and achievable.
*Work program commitments outlined here are also found in the RCRA
Implementation Plan.
-19-
-------
The grant work program should include:
0 Quarterly Commitments,
- To request a specific number of permit applications.
For permit processing milestones (including public
notices and final determinations) consistent with the
schedule found in Table II, Attachment A.
0 A commitment to conduct coordinated inspection and permit
writer visits within 90 days of the permit application
request.
0 A commitment to develop public participation plans for
environmentally significant facilities.
0 A commitment by the State to complete a multi-year permit
strategy for submittal to the EPA Regional office before
the end of the first quarter of FY 1985. Any deviations
from the policies in this National Permit Strategy
should be outlined in the document, including:
- different criteria used to define high priority
facilities for permit processing;
unique State pricing factors that affect the adequacy
of resources for achieving the goals of the National
Permits Strategy;
0 Specific actions for orderly transfer of the permit
program upon State authorization or upon program reversion,
Performance-based grants will be used to ensure that State
programs support the achievement of permit commitments (see the
RCRA Implementation Plan for FY 1985).
-20-
-------
B. State Authorization: Transition Planning is Necessary.
1. Need for Transition Plans.
There is a significant potential for delay in permit issuance
as States achieve authorization and as the responsibility for issu-
ance of permits is transferred from the Regions to the States.
To ensure that the transfer of permit processing takes place in
an orderly manner that minimizes disruption to the permit
issuance process, the EPA Regional Offices must plan the manner
in which the transfer of the permit program to the States should
proceed. To the degree allowable by Federal and State law, the
Regions and States should develop plans to coordinate and not
duplicate permitting activities. These transition plans should be
described in the Memorandum of Agreement and implemented through
the grant work program (see Program Implementation Guidance 82-5
for further guidance in this area). At a minimum, such plans
should include:
0 Agreement by the State, if allowed by State
authorities, to request Part B applications at
the same time EPA Regional offices are making such
requests;
0 Agreement by the State to coordinate processing of such
applications with EPA, to the degree allowed by existing
State authorities;
0 Agreement by the State that the permit applications will
be requested beginning immediately after State Authoriza-
tion if existing State authorities do not allow the State
-21-
-------
to request and begin processing applications concurrently
with the EPA Region;
0 Agreement by the State that it will coordinate its efforts
with EPA to build upon the work already accomplished by
the Regional staff.
2. Technical Assistance is Available.
A key element of the orderly transfer of the permitting process
to the States will be a period of technical assistance provided by
the Regional Office permit writers, contractors, and Headquarters
Permit Assistance Teams. The level of this assistance will be
determined during the State Capability Assessment prior to final
authorization. At the request of a State, EPA permit writers may
work with State permit writers to conduct site visits, to review
the permit applications, and to assist in the writing of permits.
The anticipated level of requests from the States for tech-
nical assistance by Regional permit writers must be outlined in
Regional and State strategies. These documents should spell out
both the anticipated level of resources and the length of time that
these resources will be necessary.
C. Resources; Those Identified Must be Used.
The annual RCRA Implementation Plan suggests that 50 to 60
percent of RCRA grant funds (after State program development) should
be devoted to permitting. In some cases, there has been a diversion
of these funds to other activities.
-22-
-------
The implementation of the National Permits Strategy is one of
the highest priorities of the Agency. The work program developed
as part of the annual State grant process must be designed to ensure
implementation of the key components of this strategy. Resource
levels associated with commitments must be clearly identified and
demonstrate substantial adherence to the schedules and objectives
set forth in this document.
EPA Regional Offices will monitor progress toward goals, ensure
that resources are appropriately directed toward priority permit
activities, and identify needs for technical assistance. To
ensure that any problems encountered in achieving the objectives
and schedules established by the Strategy are revealed in a timely
manner, State grant work program progress will be reviewed by the
EPA Regions on a monthly basis.
D. Regional and State Strategies Provide a Long Term Planning
Framework.
During the first quarter of FY 1985, EPA Regions and authorized
States will prepare multi-year Strategies to demonstrate how the
national schedule, priorities, and policies will be implemented
in each Region and State. The basis upon which these strategies
will be developed are the annual and quarterly commitments made
through the grant work programs (or in the case where the Region
is operating the program, the Regional commitments). The multi-year
strategies will establish the manner in which the State and Regional
permitting programs will achieve the long term objectives embodied
in the National Permits Strategy. These multi-year strategies
-23-
-------
will address a three to five year planning framework and will
describe:
0 Scheduled milestones for final determinations for permit
issuance and closures that will lead to achievement of the
objectives of the National Permits Strategy.
0 Realistic commitments that will lead to achieving the above
schedule.
0 Any necessary staff and resource development plans that
can ensure the Region or State's ability to meet the overall
timetable of the National Permits Strategy.
0 Deviations from the objectives of the National Permits
Strategy, including deviations from the final determinations
schedule outlined in Table II, Attachment A.
0 Agreements between the EPA Region and the State concerning
technical assistance support that will be provided by the
Region to the State.
These multi-year strategies will be prepared by every State
that is authorized or expects to be authorized before the end of
FY 1985, and by EPA Regions for all other States. Regions
should submit individual strategies for their respective States
to the Office of Solid Waste by December 31, 1984.
E. Evaluation of Strategy Implementation; Mid-Course Corrections
Are Possible.
The National Permits Strategy is an ambitious effort to speed
up the progress toward environmental protection that is promised by
the final permitting of hazardous waste facilities. In recogni-
tion, however, that progress may not be as smooth or as rapid as
-24-
-------
desired, careful evaluation of achievements is an integral part
of the National Permits Strategy.
In March of 1985, the Office of Solid Waste will conduct a
preliminary examination of progress made by the Regions and the
States in achieving the objectives of this strategy. This
examination will address, to the extent data is available, the
following elements:
0 How many facility closures have occurred as a result
of the accelerated permit application requests and
examples of environmental benefits realized from these
closures;
0 How many withdrawals of protective filers have occurred;
0 Whether coordinated inspections have improved the quality
of Part B applications;
0 The nature and kind of public participation plans that
have been written as a result of the strategy. To the
degree that plans have been implemented, the evaluation
will also try to assess the impact of that implementation.
0 Progress made and projected to be made on requesting
permit applications from remaining land disposal and
incineration facilities in interim status;
0 The nature of special exceptions requested by the Regions
and the States;
0 The impact of State authorization on the implementation of
the Strategy;
-25-
-------
0 To the extent commitments are not being met, resources
being devoted to the implementation of the Strategy by the
Regions and the States; and
0 Identification of special technical assistance needs that
should be supplied by EPA Regions, Headquarters, or
contractors to enhance the State program.
0 Impacts of the National Permits Strategy on other facilities
whose permits had been previously called in.
0 Effects on the permit program and the National Permits
Strategy of RCRA reauthorization and regulatory changes.
The results of the preliminary evaluation will be considered
prior to making the final decision on an appropriate national
strategy for requesting permit applications from the remaining
interim status facilities.
An additional evaluation of progress and problems with imple-
menting the National Permits Strategy will be carried out in the
Fall of 1985. This more comprehensive qualitative evaluation
will address the above issues as well as:
0 The impact of the accelerated application requests
on permit issuance, especially for land disposal and
incineration facilities;
0 The nature and impact of public involvement activities
on the permits program; and
0 Additional progress toward improving Part B applications
through the joint scheduling of enforcement inspections
and permit writing visits.
-26-
-------
ATTACHMENT A: STATUS AND SCHEDULES
Table I
STATUS OF FINAL RCRA PERMIT ISSUANCE
Type of No. of Applications Withdrawals/ Applications Permits
Facility Facilities Requested Closures Received Issued
(estimated) (% total (% applications (% applications
facilities) requested) received)
Land
Disposal
Incin-
erator
Storage
1500
230
3950
38%
79%
51%
22%
33%
50%
252
118
876
2%
8%
21%
L.D.
Inc.
St.
L.D.
Inc.
St.
82
26%
20%
4%
5%
20%
29%
25%
2%
9%
13%
Table II
PROJECTED SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES
RCRA NATIONAL PERMITS STRATEGY
Requests for Applications
84 85_ . 86^ 81_
40%
9% - -
25% 25%
Final Determinations
40%
36%
5%
5%
32%
18%
14%
16%
35%
27%
15%
30%
12%
25%
83
89
14%
18%
2%
------- |