United Slates                   December £ 19 ^3
 Environmental Protection*"" '
 Agencv



 EPA Permits


 Consolidation Task Force




 Report to the Administrator
,-.-:.'. -  ,- *>'•

  ',i**, :

-------
       UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                        WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                             JAN   g 1373
                                                       OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM

TO:       The Administrator

FROM:     Chairman, Permits Consolidation Task Force

SUBJECT:  Permits Consolidation Task Force Reoort
     The Pemrits Consolidation Task Force has completed the work
requested in your memorandum of October 5, 1978.  Attached as a result
are three documents:  1} The Task Force Report; 2} comments from
Assistant Administrators and Regional Administrators, together with a
summary of those comments; and 3) a decision paper outlining the main
recommendations by the Task Force, with options corresponding to
issues raised by the Task Force and by commenters.  I commend for
your particular attention the Executive Summary in the Task Force
Report, the summary of comments and the comments or the"Assistant
Administrators for Enforcement and for Water and Hazardous Materials
and the Regional Administrator for Region II.

     The overall conclusion of the Task Force was that consolidation
of the Agency's permit programs woul~cT~re"sint~i~n sigrnTicant benefits
for the environment, the regulated public and the Agency and that
consolidation therefore should be pursued, keeping in mind certain
concerns and constraints summarized later in this memo.

     The main recommendations of the Task Force are as follows:

         o  permit program regulations and policy guidance should be
            consolidated to ensure uniformity and consistency, to the
            extent possible.

         o  single consolidated permit and a consolidated application
            forms should be developed and used for a source subject to
            one or more EPA-run permit programs, to the extent
            practicable.
                                            *«

-------
      j      o   for  those  permits  which  EPA  issues  itself,  permit  adminis-
     £^         tration  in the  Regional  offices,  (i.e.,  paoer  flow,  permit
      ,-rS       writing, hearings,  appeals and  general management  of the
     ^ i        permitting process)  should be consolidated  by  October 1,
\Y x>-\
-------
results.  Similarly, EPA must be sensitive to the costs and risks of
fostering permits consolidation at the State level  (potential  reorgani-
zation, disruption of ongoing activities, etc.)  and must be ready to
deal with anxiety occasioned by what may appear to the States to be
the threat of permits consolidation.

     While the Task Force succeeded in resolving most of the issues
raised during the course of its deliberations, two sets of issues
remain which must be given further consideration.  The first set of
issues relates to whether the Administrator or the Regional Administrator
should approve State programs and the roles of the various Headquarters
offices in the approval process.  The second set of issues relates to
whether Regional  Administrators or Division Directors should sign
permits and "the role of the Regional Administrator in the appeals
process.  While Option papers are attached on both sets of issues,
the second issue will be raised in the context of the consolidated
permit regulations and is probably better decided in that context.
The first set of issues and other issues raised by commenters that
must be resolved in order to proceed with permit consolidation are set
forth on the attached decision paper.
                                         .
                                 Jeffrey;G. Mil/ler
                                  /    ' '   '
Attachments

-------
                                                                VQLU?:E
                      EPA PERMITS CONSOLIDATION

                          TASK FORCE REPORT
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS


Executive Summary 	    i

Charge - Costle's Letter  	    1

List of Participants	    3

Introduction	    4

Discussion of Task Force Recommendations

  I.  EPA Permit Regulations	   14

        A.  Objective
        B.  Why consolidate this component?
        C.  Task Force recommendations for consolidation
              o  across programs
              o  across media
              o  across new and existing sources
              o  what programs are excluded
        D.  Implications of recommendations
        E.  Outstanding issues
        F.  Implementation plan

 II.  Policy Guidance for EPA Permit Programs   ....   27

        A.  Objectives
        B.  Why consolidate this component?
        C.  Task Force recommendations for consolidation
              o  across programs
              o  across media
              o  across new and existing sources
              o  what programs are excluded
        D.  Implications of recommendations
        E.  Outstanding issues
        F.  Implementation plan
                                                                  NOV 21  137?

-------
III.   Forms and Files	    33

        A.   Objectives
        8.   Why consolidate this  component?
        C.   Task Force recommendations  for consolidation
              o  across programs
              o  across media
              o  across new and existing sources
              o  what  programs are excluded
        D.   Implications of recommendations
        E.   Outstanding issues
        F.   Implementation plan

 IV.   Regional  EPA Permit Administration  	    39

        A.   Objectives
        B.   Why consolidate this  component?
        C.   Task Force recommendations  for consolidation
              o  across programs
              o  across medi a
              o  across new and existing sources
              o  what  programs are excluded
        D.   Implications of recommendations
        E.   Outstanding issues
        F.   Implementation plan

Appendicies

        A.   What is a  Permit	    48
        B.   Permit Programs Considered  for Consolidation   49
        C.   Basic Permit Program Activities  	    50
        D.   Diagram of Consolidated Permit Regulations    51
        E.   Diagram of Consolidated Permit Forms   ...    52
        F.   Relationship to New Source  Task  Force ...    53
        G.   EPA Permi t Program Descriptions	    71
        H.   OWE August Proposal

-------
                         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

              PERMIT CONSOLIDATION TASK FORCE REPORT
     The Administrator on October 5, 1978, requested that the Permits
Consolidation Task Force examine the benefits, costs and possible
extent and range of permit consolidation that could be undertaken by
the Agency.  The Task Force has completed its examination and has
concluded that consolidation of permit activities performed by EPA, if
well executed, could result in significant benefits for the environment,
^the regulated public and the Agency.  The benefits are discussed in tne
fulT report on pages 14-15, 27-28, 33 and 39-40.  The Task Force
also recommended a full range of consolidation measures, summarized
be! ow.

Recommendations

     1.  Regulations.  EPA should continue consolidation of permit
program  rejmlitions, partTjcj/harJjy_j3rjDc_e^^                for RCRA,
UIC, NPDES and 404 andThoul d immediately expand~thTsT~effort to include
Ocean "Dumping, PSD, NESHAPS, NSPS and NSR permit program regulations.
The focus of consolidation should be consistency and unification where
possible, although consolidation should not be a shibboleth for reducing
all programs to common levels of cumbersomeness or leniency.  The
substance of the recommendations differ substantially between programs
and are  detailed on pages 15-21 of the full report.

     2.  Policy and Guidance.  EPA should assure that procedural policy
and guidance for all permit programs are consistent and unified where
possible.   It should assure that substantive policy and guidance
affecting more than one permit program are coordinated and developed
jointly  by the programs affected.  Recommendations are detailed on
pages  29-30 of the full report.

     3.  Forms.  EPA should consolidated permit program forms (applica-
tions, permits, fact sheets, report forms).  Again, the focus of
consolidation should be on consistency and unification where possible.
Recommendations are detailed on pages 34-35 of the full report.

     4.  Headquarters  Implementation.  A Permit Consolidation Work Group
located  in the Permits, Division of the Office of Water Enforcement and
staffed  in part by representatives of the affected program offices,
detailed to the Work Group on a rotating basis would be responsible  for
carrying out those aspects of procedural consolidation set forth in
recommendations 1-3.   In addition, the Work Group would act as a point of
contact  for Regional permit writers to help resolve conflicting
signals  from program offices, to assure that needed policy and guidance
are developed, and to  assure that as gaps in governing standards are
                                                                  NOV "- i

-------
                                - 11  -
identified, they are addressed by program offices.   The Work Group
would not develop substantive policy and guidance—that would
continue to be a program office responsibility—but it would identify
substantive policy and guidance affecting more than one program and
assist the affected program offices in jointly developing such guidance.
Recommendations are detailed on pages

     5.  Regional Administration.  For those permits which EPA issues
itself, permit administration in the Regional  offices (i .e., .paper
f °w> J^^nniiJfflJjiPQ> hearings, appeals and general management of the
permitting process) should be consolidated by October 1, 1979, in one
permit writing unit located in either the Enforcement Division or a
Permits Division, as decided by the Regional Administrator.   Since RCRA
and UIC permits will not begin to be issued for 1-1/2 to 2 years and
the recommendation does not reach the development of technical require-
ments for UIC, RCRA or Air permits, the resource impact of this
consolidation is expected to be modest.  Recommendations are detailed
on pages 40-44 of the full report.

     6.  Development of Technical Permit Requirements.  The Task Force
recommended that the Regional Administrators determine whether the
responsibility for the technical aspects of RCRA, UIC or Air permits
should be consolidated in the permit writing unit or left in program
offices.   In the 1.onqer_ term, the objectives of consolidated permitting
and efficient permit writing would be served by such consolidation.
The extent and timing of accomplishing this goal, however, is a function
of the allocation by the Regional Administrator of scare technical
resources between competing demands of permit writing, promoting
responsible delegation to the States, revisions of SIPs and other
program activities such as technical assistance, program grants, etc.
He/she must make this allocation of resources in the light of (1) high
statutory  and Agency priority on delegation of permit programs to the
States, (2) the  need to institute speedy and effective control through
EPA-issued permits, and (3) the  need to develop the substantive basis
for environmental contols through technical assistance, SIP revisions,
etc.  The  Task Force therefore  recommended  that the extent and timing
of this phase of consolidation  be left to  the Regional Administrators
as part of their normal resource allocation and prioritization responsi-
bility, recognizing  that the allocation of  limited technical  resources
could vary by Region, by program and over  time.  Recommendations are
detailed on pages  41-42,  45-46  of the  full  report.

      7.  One Permit.  The consolidation of  regulations, forms and
Regional administration should  enable  one  permit covering all applicaole
EPA administered programs to oe  issued to  a new source  in the near
future.  This consolidation will enable one permit covering all such
programs to be  issued  to  an  existing source only over longer  term.  The
latter  goal  is complicated by existing permits with varying expiration
dates,  the necessity of imposing  toxic control requirements of various
                                                                   •: i  1378

-------
                               - 711  -
programs without waiting for other programs in particular instances,
etc.  The entire program will  be structured,  however,  to enable all
permits issued to an existing  source to eventually be  "folded into"  one
permi t.

     8.  Relationship to New Source Review Task Force.   The Permits
Consolidation Task Force endorsed the initiatives proposed by the New
Source Review Task Force and identified several areas  in which the two
task forces shared common goals and commitments including:

         o  harmonizing procedural regulations;

         o  developing an initial point of contact (facilitator/
            expediter), and

         o  working with States to foster a consolidation and stream!ing
            of State-run permit programs

It was agreed that the New Source Review Task Force would seek the
input of the DAA-level Permits Consolidation  Task Force as the former
continues to move ahead in its efforts relating to permit tracking;  the
development and use of "skeleton" permits for early reviews of conceptual
designs; the assessment of the economic cost  to industry of permit
delay, etc.

     9.  State Delegations.  No ^changes should be made  in the lead
program offices  responsibilities for facilitating and  approving
responsible delegation of programs to the States.  Procedures (not
criteria) for approving State  programs should be the same to the
extent that procedural requirements are shared.  Criteria and policy
guidance for approval of State programs should be consistent, but they
will continue to be developed  separately by the appropriate program
office to meet the statutory requirements and objectives of the program.
Options are presented for reconciling differences in Regional and
Headquarters roles in approving State delegations in the several
programs.  Recommendations are detailed on pages 16, 23, 40-44, and
46-47 of the full report.

    10.  External Consolidation.  EPA should  open a dialogue on permit
consolidation with States and  other federal agencies and establish a
joint task force to consider whether consolidation should be pursued
with them and, if so, what steps can be taken to effectuate consolidation
with and between permit program activities administered outside EPA.


Costs and Risks

     The Task Force believes that the costs and risks  of consolidation
must be recognized and accepted by top management of the Agency if
consolidation is to succeed.  If top management is not  willing t accept
the costs and risks, it must defer or reject  some or all of the
recommendations.

-------
                               - IV  -
     1.  Oversel 1 ing.   Bene_fj_ts_.of consolidation are J-Ong_.rjingjJ  not
immediate.  They  are by no means certain,  but depend on overcoming
problems highlighted here.  Their significance will  depend on  the
extent to which consolidation transcends permit activities administered
by EPA.  Overselling the benefits of consolidation at this point  could
adversely affect EPA's credibility in general  and the credibility of
EPA's permit programs  and of consolidation in particular.

     2.  State permit activities.  Full  benefits of consolidation will
be realized only  to the extent that consolidation can be fostered at
the State level.   While consolidation may be attractive to higher
levels of State government, it may be seen as a threat by  many State
program officials.  Their anxiety could affect EPA's dealing with them
in other contexts and could jeopardize fostering consolidation at the
State level.  For example, consolidation at State level could  lead to
reorganization of State government.  This in turn, at least in the near
future, could retard progress in implementing delegated programs  or in
making new delegations.

     3.  Internal  tensions.  Consolidation of permit programs  will
create a continuing tension between the permit office (concerned  with
the integrity and efficiency of the permit system where run by EPA and
possible tradeoffs between affected programs) and the affected program
offices (concerned with the integrity of their particular  programs
including promoting responsible State delegations, technical assistance,
etc.) both at Headquarters and in the Regions.  If properly managed,
this tension can be constructive; if not, it will be destructive.

     4.  Resources and the freeze.  Consolidation requires a commitment
of resources for start up work and to assure continuing intensive
coordination between affected programs, particularly at Headquarters.
Budget increases in 1979  scheduled for consolidation work  in the
Permits Division have been frozen.  Contributions of staff by  affected
program offices have been jeopardized by the freeze.  Unless relief
from the freeze is made available, activities other than those presently
underway (e.g., consolidation of the regulations for RCRA, UIC, MPOES
and 404) must oe deferred.

     5.  Success of consol idation efforts.  The consolidation  efforts
recommended plow new ground.  Although with the cooperation and hard work
of all concerned, sucess  would appear likely, it cannot be guaranteed.
Indeed, the work done to  date in consolidating permit program  regulations
for RCRA, UIC, NPDES and  404 indicates tha.t-Cpnsol idation_i s no easy
     anc*  thia_1^mjiCjT_£t^f__and ffla^ageme_nt_ time, atteh:£ioh"anar"c6op"eration
          "                 '
            ____            __
 is nece?sa"ry to produce reg'uTationfThat meet the goals of consolidation,
 while  serving the legislative dictates and requirements of the affected
 programs.
                                                                 NOV 24 1973

-------
                               -  V -
     6.   Complication vs.  Simplicity.   Great care must be taken to
assure that consolidation  does not lead to complication rather than
simplification of the permit process.   This is particularly  true in the
regulations and forms consolidation efforts.  The consolidated regula-
tions must be susceptible  to breaking  out those parts that relate to a
single program for use by  program offices and permittees where only one
permit is involved.  Consolidated forms must be susceptible  to simple
and easy application to small  permittees and permittees covered by  only
one program.

     7.   Impact on on-going efforts.   The permits consolidation effort
must be structured so that it does not result in significant delays in
promulgating program regulations (e.g., RCRA, UIC) and issuing permits.
Such delays could lead to  citizen suits and result in the environmental
drawbacks associated with  delays in implementing pollutant controls.

Focus of Task Force and Recommendation on State Involvement

     The Task Force concentrated its efforts on the consolidation of
permit program activities  performed by EPA itself.  EPA's permit
programs, however, are or  will be administered largely by States.
In addition,  States and several  Federal agencies have other  permit
programs which parallel EPA's.  The benefits of permit consolidation
appear to be much more significant if  consolidation is also  sought  with
permit programs or permit  program activities administered outside EPA.
At the same time, permits  consolidation may have associated  costs and
risks for States and other agencies (reorganization,  disruption of
ongoing activities, etc.)  that are significantly different than for
EPA.  The Task Force felt  it would be  premature to recommend consolida-
tion measures to States and other agencies without first exploring  its
costs and benefits with them and without demonstrating that  EPA can
successflly consolidate its own  permit activities.  The Task Force
therefore recommends that  a dialogue on permit consolidation be opened
with the States and other  agencies and that a joint task force be
established to consider whether  consolidation should be pursued with
them, and, if so, what steps can be taken to effectuate consolidation
with and between permit program  activities administered outside EPA.
The Permits Consolidation  Task Force is willing to made recommendations
to the Administrator on how such a joint task force should be structured,

Particular Concerns Regarding Air Permits

     A major concern of industry is that the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1977 have created unreasonable delay and uncertainty for  new
and modified sources.  The fact  that they must obtain both State and
Federal  new source permits exacerbates this problem.   While  the ultimate
solution to this situation is to have  the States issue all Air Permits,
the permits consolidation  effort can significantly improve both the
substance and appearance of the  interim EPA permitting process.  Only

-------
where the Agency fails to achieve the oojective of State  PSD program
approval  will  it be faced with continuing permit responsibilities.
It is estimated that this will be limited to 5-10 smaller States  after
the end of FY  1980.

     For the Air program, the recommended changes will  involve  the
adoption of formal  procedures for:

     1.  Receipt and handling of applications,

     2.  Drafting and issuance of permit documents,

     3.  Appeals process, and

     4.  General management of the permitting process.

     The recommended permit consolidation program would also result in
those activities being carried out in Regional  permit writing units.
This should help to assure consistency and eliminate some present
ambiguities in permit writing.  The consolidation recommendations would
not, however,  change the substance of Air permit reviews  or mandate
resource shifts during FY 1979 or 1980 to the permit writing units  for
the purpose of developing technical requirements for permits.  Nor  would
they be expected to cause changes in the current Part 51  PSD Regulations,
the current process of SIP approval, or the management of State programs.

-------
TASK FORCE
  CHARGE
                                    NOV 2 4 i978

-------
       uisi i =.u ^ i * i =.•=> t.J\ vi.KOIN MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                     WASHINGTON. D.C.  20^50


                       October  5,  1373
                                                      ~Kl ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TOR
     Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Enforcement
     Deputy Assistant Administrator for General Enforcement
     Deputy 'Assistant Adrrd.nistrator for Planning and
          Evaluation
     Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Program
          Operations
     Deputy Assistant Administrator for Drinking Water
     Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
     Deputy -Assistant Administrator for Water Planning
          and Standards
     Deputy Assistant Administrator for Air Quality
          Planning and Standards
     Deputy General Counsel
     Deputy Regional Administrator , Region III
     Deputy Regional Administrator, Region X

          Perr.it Consolidation
      As you Know, tne Agency is engagec  in  an  ezzort to
 consolidate the Administration of  the  various  perrr.it
 programs i~ administers as part of its overall regulatory
 reform initiatives.  This effort has already resulted, in
 initiatives to coordinate permits  for  new sources .   We are
 presently structuring the NPDES, RCRA  and "1C prccrrarr.s into
 a unified and consistent  set of regulations under tight:
 deadlines and we rnusz continue vi~h this effort.

      In irs budget  submission  to  01-13,  the Agency co.T^rirr.ed to
 "consolida-ce, to the  extent possible,  izs various permit cr
 permit-like programs" and defined  the  scope of this effcri r_c
 include the "KPDIS,  RCRA/  UIC,  ocean dumping, 434 dredge and
 fill, drinking wa~er  variances and exceptions, air  new  source
 and possibly  Spill  Prevention,  Control and Countermeasure"
 programs.  A  copy  of  the  Agency's  submi--a.l in z.his regard is

-------
            The  Acencv must now determine the extenz zo which
-t will  consolidate the oermit or permit-like asoeczs of
  "^ e s e  ore c~~am ^   e.c  unified or "oarallsl ~o—ocedu^es  utif i e c.
-crms, organizational and operational changes.  This effort
musz be  completed in time for the managemenz team of the
Agency to  make  basic decisions to be reflected in zhe
President's budge-.

     I am  appointing  you to a task force to assist in making
these  decisions.  The zask force should develop a document
which  identifies the objectives of permit consolidation; the
organizational  and operazicnal options available az both
Headquarters'  and Regional levels for festering the carrying
out consolidation, both in Z?A and the Stazes; and the pros
and cons and prograrrmatic implications of the various options.

      In  addition,  I  am asking you to work closely with  the  New
Source Task Force  created by the Deputy Administrator.   As  you
knew,  the Kew Source Task Force has developed valuable  initiatives
 for  streamlining  the Agencv's new source permit  program.   The
 group  should net  be  disbanded and  izs work  should  continue
 uninterrupted.   New  source  initiatives, however,  are  inevitably
 related to and  could be  greatly  facilizazed  by  permit integration.
 Close coordination of  both  these  tasks  is  therefore highly
 cesi_rable.  T'~ic  link, between  the  "Kew  Source  ^"'ask Force and
" the Ds.ou.tv Administrator,  of  course,  will  continue.

       I  am  constituting the  task  force at  zhe DAA/DP.A level,
 because the product,  to  be  useful,  must meaningfully reflecz
 program objectives and concerns.   However,  the task-force
 effort  must noz be encumbered by the self-protective interests
 of any  one prog-ran.   You occupy  positions in zhe Agency which
 s.:culc  enable  yoj. zc approach the problem from a bread-based,
 Agency-wide perspective.  For these reasons, your personal
 participation  in this effort is  requested.

       I  ami asking zhe Deputy Assistant Administrator  for Water
  Enforcement to chair the task, force and to have a final nrocuct
  on permit integration available for review by November  15.

  In particular  Cynthia Coulter, Mike Jar>^=, Andy.Mank,  Leonard
  Killer, Tvilliam Pierce, James Rogers/and; Cheryl Kassernar.
  should  be made available to the tas"k force because  of  their

                                ^ouclas  :•:.  Crstle
                                    ~*   /
                                      /
                                      r

-------
                                       3
                  PERMITS CONSOLIDATION TASK FORCE  MEMBERS
 Deputy Assistant Administrator
 Deputy Assistant Administrator
 Deputy Assistant Administrator
 Deputy Assistant Administrator
 Deputy Assistant Administrator
 Deputy Assistant Administrator
 Deputy Assistant Administrator
 Deputy General  Counsel
 Deputy Regional  Administrator.
 Deputy Regional  Administrator,
for General Enforcement
for Planning and Evaluation
for Water Program Operations
for Drinking Water
for Sol ?-d Waste
for Water Planning and Standards
for Air Quality Planning and Standards

Region I *
Region VI *
 Agency Staff Support to  PERMITS CONSOLIDATION TASK FORCE MEMBERS

 Cynthia Coulter
 Andy Mank
 Leonard Miller
 William Pierce
 Alan Eckert
 Cheryl Wasserman
/Nancy Hutzel    __
 Peter Perez
    Replaced original  designees,  Deputy Regional  Administrators,
    Regions III,  IX and X,  who were unable to attend task force meeting,

-------
INTRODUCTION





    An integral  part of the  Agency's  ongoing  regulatory  reform  effort



is the proposal  for consolidating  EPA-run  permit  programs.   In  its



oroadest sense,  permits consolidation can  be  defined  as  a coordination



of the administration,  procedures,  and decision-making of these  various



EPA permit programs in  order, to  realize certain benefits including:





        - Environmental benefits of controlling the entire  residuals



          stream from a given facility in  a consistent manner which



          does not omit controls over critical  aspects of the stream.





        - Economic benefits  for  permittees of preventing overlapping



          or inconsistent controls by different programs acting



          independently.





        - Regulatory burden  reduction benefits for permittees of



          reduced applications,  reports, points of contact  ana  numbers



          of procedures to master.





        - Institutional benefits of fostering program coordination.





        - Resource benefits  to EPA in reducing duplicative  overhead  and



          future resource needs  for permitting.





        - Political benefits of EPA proposed  regulatory  reform.
                                                                      ;M  "373

-------
                                  5



    In its FY 1980 budget submission to OMB,  the Agency committed to



pursue the consolidation of permit programs run  by EPA to the extent



practicable.   This proposal  for permits consolidation  addresses only



the consolidation of EPA-issued permits, not the consolidation of



State-issued  permits.   A separate task group should be formed to



explore with  the States the possibility of consolidation of state



permi t programs.





    The Administrator has requested that the FY  1980 President's budget



submission reflect with some detail the activities the Agency will



take to implement the consolidation of EPA-run permit programs and the



impact this effort will have on Agency resources.  In  order to develop



the required  information, the Administrator appointed  a task force



comprised of  Deputy Assistant Administrators and Deputy Pxegional



Administrators to explore the objectives of permits consolidation,  the



organizational and operational  options available and the programmatic



impacts.  This report is the result of that Task Force's evaluation of



consolidation.





    The first action of the Task Force was to define the scope of the



Administrator's charge, i.e, what permit programs should be considered



and what consolidation schemes should be applied.





    To assist in identifying permit programs to  be considered for



consolidation, the Task Force decided upon a generic definition of a



permit (see Appendix A).  Then, giving consideration to factors such as



whether or not a particular program met the generic definition of a

-------
                                  6



permit,  and whether there was  a  significant  overlap between  such  a



program  and other programs,  the  Task  Force arrived  at  a  list  of twelve



programs which would be examined within  the  scope of the  permits



consolidation effort (see Appendix B).   Some programs  within  the



original charge for examination  were  determined  not to  fit within the



scope of consolidation.  Some  programs which were determined  not  to  fit



within the scope of consolidation were nevertheless noted as  having



potential for linkage with particular permit programs  and it  was



determined that they should be evaluated further in the  future [i.e.,



Drinking Water variances and exemptions, permit-issuance  aspects  (not



State program approval  aspects)  of the 404 program, and  SPCC  plans].





    After identifying those programs  to  be considered  for consolidation



the task force determined to what extent such programs  might be



consolidated.  The key questions in the  inquiry  were:





         1.  Need a program be considered in  its  totality for consolidation?



            Might one consolidation scheme apply to  some basic



            permit program activities (e.g., regulation development,



            guidance) and an other scheme to other  activities?





         2.  What kind of consolidation schemes would  be applied between



            any two programs elements?  (i.e., might  the elements of such



            programs merely be made compatible?   Should elements  of



            the two permit programs be made  virtually  the same?   Is  there



            some middle ground?)
                                                                NOV

-------
                                  7
    In addressing the first question,  the  Task  Force  identified  four
elements which were typical  of all  permit  programs  (see Attachment C).
        1.  Regulation development and promulgation.
        2.  Policy guidance.
        3.  Forms and files.
        4.  Regional  administration of EPA-administered permit programs.

    In making its recommendations,  that task force  looked at the extent
to which each of these elements should be  consolidated across the
various permit programs.  The report which follows  sets forth the
recommendations of the Task Force with respect  to each of these  program
elements.

    The Task Force faced its most difficult task in determining  how to
characterize the various relationships which could  exist between
consolidated programs.  Three terms are used throughout this report to
characterize these relationships.

    1.  Where the Task Force has recommended that two or more programs
share a common procedure, organization, form, etc., the report simply
states that such procedures, forms, etc.,  shall  be  the same.

    For example, under the regulation development and publication section
(Section  I), the Task Force recommends that procedures for issuing permits
be the same for the RCRA, UIC, NPDES,  and  404 programs.  In other words
wherever  these programs have common statutory requirements for permit-
issuance  procedures,  (e.g., providing public notice of permit conditions),

-------
the programs will  use identical  procedures  (  e.g.  the  same  period  of



time for public comment).   Other examples of this  kind  of relationship



are the use of one application  form,  one  permit  or one  organizational



unit.





     2.  When the  Task Force recommends  that a certain  component (e.g.



regulation  development)  for two or more  programs  be  "consistent"



it means that each program shall address  this component in  a  manner



which does not conflict with another  program.  In  addition,  this



definition carries with it the  implication  that  the programs  will



strive to bring their respective program  activities into conformance



as far as is reasonable.   For example,  in  the discussion of the



regulation development and publication  component (section  I), the  Task



Force recommended  that the criteria for the permit issuance decisions



be consistent between the UIC,  NPOES, RCRA,405  and Ocean Dumping



programs.  By this the Task Force means that criteria used  by one



program will not conflict with criteria used by  another program  and



that, in addition, the programs will  take  positive actions  to see  that



the  criteria are made to conform as much as is  reasonable.   The  criteria



need not be identical, however, for if such were the  case,  the Task



Force would have recommended that the criteria  be the same.





     Other examples of consistency between programs include cases



where  time  frames may be similar, priorites for different  programs



may  be  similar and where program elements of two or more programs  are



made to conform generally to a  single model.
MOV 2
                                                                       4

-------
     3.  Finally, the report occasionally employs the term "coordinate."
When the task force recommends that two or more programs coordinate
a certain component, it is suggesting that one program be advised as
to how another program is dealing with this component and that the
programs should take reasonable steps to ensure that these programs
do not conflict.  The use of a work group system for developing policy
would demonstrate coordination between the members of the work group
as that term is used in this report.

     In reading the Task Force recomendations embodied in this report,
several considerations should be borne in mind.  First, permits con-
solidation is a two-step process.  The first and easiest,step is
consolidation of EPA_p_ernri.t_j-S-SiLiJKe_.activities.  As was mentioned
earlier, the  report which follows focuses exclusively on this first
step in examining EPA-administered permit programs.  However, since EPA
does not issue the majority of the permits in the programs for which it
is responsible, and seeks to approve State programs for permit issuance
wherever possible, permit consolidation by EPA alone will not begin to
achieve tne results that can be realized by effective consolidation.
Similar efforts must be generated at the State level if those results
are to be achieved.

     The Task Force identified the question of how State delegation
decisions are made as a major issue early in its deliberations.  The
issue has several aspects, including:  who develops and interprets the
criteria for approving State delegations; the division of authority

-------
                                  10

between the Regions and Headquarters  for approval  of  State  programs;  the
extent to which State delegations  should consider  only  pennitting  or
other aspects of the State's control  program;  and  the degree  to  which
EPA's relationship to the States is centralized or fragmented in the
Regions and in Headquarters.  How  these  issues are resolved can  signifi-
cantly affect the speed with which the  States  assume  responsibility  for
the program, the quality of the State program, the distribution  of EPA
resources among program functions, and  the magnitude  of combined State
and Federal resources allocated to control  programs.  While the  report
addresses many of the aspects of this major issue, it does  not grapple
with others, such as:  the acceptability of State  programs  which are
equivalent but different than Federal criteria or  whether only those
States which are fully capable of  assuming the responsibility should  be
delegated programs.  While such questions are  not  peculiar  to consoli-
ted permitting, consolidation increases the need to address such issues.
It is recommended that a separate  task group on Stats permit  program
consolidation be established to work with the  States  to address  the  long
term objective of consolidation of permit programs at both  the State  and
Federal  levels.

     Second, there is a close conection between the objectives of the
permits  consolidation Task Force and the objectives of  the  New Source
Task Force.  The attached report highlights areas  in  which  the activities
of these  two groups compliment each other.  In addition, appendix F  to

-------
                                  11

this report explores  in more detail  the  interrelationship  of  these  two
efforts including those areas where  the  mandates  of the  two task  forces
remain distinct.

     A third consideration which must be kept in  mind  while reviewing
this report is the potential costs,  in the  broad  sense of  the term,
of permit consolidation.  While it was the  general  consensus  of the
Task Force that the benefits of permit consolidation enumerated
earlier are far-reaching and deserve to  be  pursued, certain costs
associated with this  effort were identified.

     One of the more  prominent concerns  was that  the permits  consolid-
ation effort might result in delays  in promulgating program regulations
and issuing permits which, in turn,  could delay ongoing  efforts and  result
in citizen suits and in the general  environmental  drawbacks associated with
delays in implementing controls.  Another concern was  that the delegation  of
State programs might De retarded or  that States might  have strong
objections to extending the permits  consolidation effort to the State
level, thus impairing EPA/State relationships.

     The task force also pointed out that the benefits of  this effort
are generally long-term and may not  be visible  immediately.   Many
of the anticipated resource savings  are  prospective in that the
permits consolidation effort is expected to reduce the future demand
for additional resources needed to address  many of the permit programs
which are currently only in early stages (e.g.  RCRA, DIG).
                                                                   ncv

-------
                                  12





     The permits consolidation effort will  also incur costs in



the more traditional  sense of that term.  There will  be certain



resource needs associated with the development of consolidated regula-



tions, guidance, forms, and organizational  structures.  A major cost



of this effort in the near future will  be borne by the Permits Division



of the Office of Water Enforcement which will  need to devote several



full-time personnel  to directing the consolidation of forms and



certain aspects of program regulations.  The positions which the



Permits Division had allotted to this task through the FY 1979 budget



were lost through the hiring freeze.  In addition, the various program



offices which have committed a full-time position to the OWE permits



consolidation work-group have also been affected by the freeze and may



have difficulty sparing an individual for this work group.  If the



initial steps of the permits consolidation effort are to proceed, the



Administrator must provide some relief from the hiring freeze so



that new permit consolidation positions may be filled and program



office personnel may be freed to participate in the OWE work group



and to carry on individual program activities related to the permits



consolidation effort.

-------
     13
   TASK FORCE



RECOMMENDATIONS

-------
                                  14


I.   EPA PERMIT  REGULATIONS

    A.   What is the  objective  to  be gained  by consolidating  EPA permit
        regulations?

        1.   Regulations  would  appear  in  one place  in Federal Register.

        2.   Regulations  would  follow  the same format.

        3.   Criteria for making  decisions on permit-issuance
            would be coordinated,  recognizing different
            statutory requirements.

        4.   Redundant regulations  would  be  eliminated.

        5.   Common definitions and procedures would  be
            utilized.

    8.   Why consolidate  EPA permit regulations?

        1.   Benefits to  regulated community:

            o  improve consistency.

            o  reduce duplicative and overlapping  procedures/incompatible
               criteri-a, where multiple  permits  are  required.

            o  provide a single  source of regulations.

        2.   Benefits to  EPA:

            o  facilitates  coordination  of  program requirements by
               providing a  mechanism  for viewing regulatory  schemes
               together.

            o  simplifies permit-writers job:   permit  writer may  look  to
               a single procedural regulation with consi stent  requirements  in
               developing permit conditions.

               Note:  Because  of the  high level  of controversy over  the
                      recently promulgated  PSD  regulations,  adjustments
                      to them  may have to be deferred.

            o  avoids industry challenge to regulations  for  one program
               based on inconsistent  regulations of another  program

            o  may encourage States  to develop  consolidated  permitting
               procedures by providing a model
                                                                  NOV 2 4 1978

-------
                              15
        o  provides  for identification  and  early  resolution  of
           inconsistencies  between  program  regulations  which, in
           turn,  avoids airing  conflicts  before the  public  in court

        o  necessary precondition  to  having  one permit
           for al1  sources.

    3.   Benefits  to  the environment:

        o  procedural  consolidation will  lead  to  coordination of
           timing in issuing  permits.   Consistent timing  of  permits
           will  facilitate  integrated environmental  decision-making
           by enabling the  permit-writer  to  view  the entire  residuals
           stream of a facility at  one  time.   This in turn will
           assist the permit-writer in  determining whether any
           controls  have been omitted for a  critical  aspect  of  the
           waste  stream.  Where such  ommissions are a result of
           standards deficiencies,  the  Agency's attention and
           efforts can be focused  on  eliminating  the deficiencies.

C.  Task force recommendations  as  to  which  program regulations
    will be consolidated and  what  form  this  consolidation will  take

    1.   A permit program regulation generally  consists  of four
        components:

        a.  program descriptions and  definitions

        b.  State program approval  procedures  and criteria

        c.  permit-issuance procedures

        d.  criteria for making permit-issuance decisions

    2.   The task  force examined consolidation  options relating  to
        these four components from  three  perspectives:

        a.  between  permit programs within  media

            example:  The task  force  examined  the extent  to  which
                      program descriptions  and definitions might be
                      consolidated  for  the  RCRA,  Ocean  Dumping,
                      NPOES (including  405  sludge discharge  permits),
                      UIC,  404 and  programs  within the  water and
                      waste management  media.
                                                                   9. 4 '378

-------
                          16
    b.   between media

        example:   The  task  force  examined  the  extent  to which
                  the  program  descriptions  and  definitions of
                  the  Water and waste management  permit programs
                  might be  consolidated with the  program
                  descriptions and  definitions  of the Air
                  permit programs.

    c.   between new  sources and existing sources

        example:   The  task  force  examined  the  extent  to which
                  program descriptions and  definitions for new
                  source programs might be  consolidated with
                  those for existing  source permit programs.

3.   The task force recommended that the Water  and Waste
    Management permit  programs be consolidated  as follows:

    a.   Program Definitions and Descriptions

        1.  The program descriptions  for RCRA,  UIC, MPOES, 405
            and Ocean  Dumping  would be made consistent and would
            not overlap.

        2.  The RCRA,  UIC,  NPDES, 405 and  Ocean Dumping programs
            would employ the same or  consistent definitions of
            key terms.

    b.   State Program  Approval Procedures

        1.  Procedures (not criteria) for  approving State
            programs for the RCRA,  UIC,  MPDES,  and 404
            programs would be  the same  to  the  extent  that  a
            procedural requirement  is shared.

            Note:  The individual permit programs would  not be
                   required to conform  to  the  greatest common
                   denominator of procedural  requirements.
                   e.g., NPDES should not  be  assumed  to  be a
                   model for the  other  permit  programs.
                   Because the NPDES program  is the oldest EPA
                   permit program its procedures may  be
                   utilized as an outline  or  checklist when
                   developing  the other  permit regulations.
                   They would not dictate  form or substance
                   or the inclusion of  any requirements  or
                   criteria.  Substantive  issues would be
                   decided by coordination as  they have  been
                   in the past.

-------
                      17
    2.  The Ocean Dumping program was excluded from this
        consolidation process because the program does not
        have a State approval element,

c.  State Program Approval  Criteria

    1.  Criteria for State  program approval  would be
        published as parallel sections of the same regulation,
        but would be developed separately by the appropriate
        program office to meet the statutory requirements
        and objectives of the program office.  Criteria
        need not be based on any one model  and disputes
        over criteria are to be resolved in the normal
        manner.  See al so IE2.

    2.  Special consideration must be given to the coordina-
        tion of 404 and 402 State program approval criteria.
        There is substantial overlap between the criteria for
        approval of 402 programs and 404 programs, as set
        forth in the Clean  Water Act.  The NPDES program has
        developed approaches for addressing these criteria
        over the years.   In order to ensure a consistent
        interpretation of these common statutory criteria,
        the NPOES program should be involved in interpreting
        these criteria as they apply to the 404 program.

d.  Permit-issuance Procedures

    1.  Procedures for issuing UIC, NPDES,  RCRA, and
        Ocean Dumping permits would be the same to the
        extent that a procedural requirement is shared.

        As EPA does not issue 404 permits,  this program
        could not be considered for consolidation of
        permit-issuance procedures.

       NOTE:  See note b.l. above

e.  Criteria for Permit-issuance Decisions

    1.  Criteria for permit-issuance decisions for the
        UIC, NPOES, RCRA, and Ocean Dumping programs
        would be consistent.   Program offices would have
        the primary responsibility for regulation sections
        providing such criteria.
                                                     HOV 2 4 137&

-------
4.   The Task Force recommended that the Air permit programs oe
    consolidated as follows:

    a.   Program Description and Definitions

        1.  The Task Force has recommended that the program
            descriptions and definitions for the PSD,  Air NSR
            MESHAPS, and NSPS programs be examined to  determine
            if they should be published together in the
            same part of the  CFR.  (The program description
            and definitions for PSD and Air NSR are presently
            consistent and do not overlap.  Program descriptions
            and definitions for NESHAPS and NSPS are currently
            in separate regulations.)

            Note:  Because of the high level of controversy
            over the recently promulgated PSD regulations,
            adjustments to them may have to be deferred.

    b.   State Program Approval Procedures

        1.  The Task Force recommended that the PSD and the
            Air NSR and the NESHAPS and NSPS programs  employ
            the same procedures for State program approval to
            the extent that a procedural requirement is shared.
            Existing regulations for these programs must
            therefore be examined and modified where they do
            not employ the same State program approval  procedures.
            (The PSD and NSR programs currently employ consistent
            procedures for approval of State programs.  State
            approval procedures for NESHAPS and NSPS programs
            are currently in  separate regulations.)

            Note:  The Task Force recommended that NSPS and
                   NESHAPS State approval procedures also be
                   examined to determine whether they can be
                   restructured to avoid approval on a standard-
                   by-standard basis.

    c.  State Program Approval Criteria

        1.  Criteria for approving State programs should be
            consistent.  Program offices would have primary
            responsibility for regulation sections providing
            such criteria.

    d.  Permit-issuance Procedures

        1.  The  Task Force recommended  that permit-issuance
            procedures  for the NSPS and  the NESHAPS programs
            and  the  Air NSR  and  the  PSD programs be the  same
            to  the  extent  that a  procedural requirement is
            shared.
                                                              NOV 24  1373

-------
                          19
            Mote:   Because  of the  high  level  of  controversy
            over the recently promulgated PSD regulations,
            adjustments  to  them  may  have  to  be deferred.

    e.   Criteria for Permit-issuance Decisions

        1.   Many criteria for permit-issuance decisions  for  the
            Air permit programs  are  not presently  contained  in
            regulations,  or where  they  are,  they are  codified
            separately.   OGC and the permits consolidation work
            group,  working  with  the  Office of Air,  Noise  and
            Radiation, should determine whether  the criteria
            for permit issuance  decisions should be put  in
            regulation form.  To the extent  that they should be
            put in  regulatory form,  these criteria would  be
            published in  the same  part  of the CFR  and would  be
            consistent.

5.   Consolidation between the Air, Water and Waste Management
    Medi a.

    a.   The consolidated  Water and Waste Management permit
        program regulations and  consolidated Air permit  program
        regulations would be written in a parallel  fashion.
        This means  that the general  structure of the  regulation
        would be the same,  that  common  procedural  requirements
        (ie. public notices) would be dealt  with in the  same
        way and that the  substantive elements (e.g.,  definitions
        of  key terms) would be made  consistent where  appropriate.

    b.   Once the consolidated Water  and Waste Management
        permit program regulations and  the consolidated  Air
        permit program regulations have been developed,  the
        Task Force  recommends that a determination be made as
        to  whether  or to  what degree these two sets of reaula-
        tions should be  further  consolidated into  one set of
        regulations.

6.   Consolidation between new source regulations and  existing
    source  regulations.

    a.   The distinction  between  water and waste  management and
        air media permit  regulations largely reflects statutory
        differences between new  and  existing source requirements.
        Because of  these  differences, many new source requirements
        for UIC, RCRA and NPDES  permits may  have more in  common
        with Air new source permitting  requirements than  with
        Water and Waste Management existing  source requirements.
        For these reasons,  a separate set of new source
        regulations will  be written  for the  UIC, RCRA and

-------
                                 20

               NPOES programs which will  be consistent with  the  Air
               new source regulations and with  the  Water and Waste
               Management existing  source regulations.

           b.  The Task Force recommended that,  once  drafts  of these
               regulations are completed, the  potential  for  consolidat-
               ing these sets of regulations be  examined and, if
               feasible, that they  be further  consolidated.   It  is
               possible that the new source water and waste  management
               regulations, after this evaluation,  might be  consolidat-
               ed with the existing source water and  waste management
               regulations or with  the Air new  source regulations  or
               both.

       7.  The Task Force recommended that the  permit program regulations
           be consolidated in the following manner:*

           a.  The consolidated permit regulations  would be  divided into
               four components:

               1) program descriptions and definitions for  the
                  consolidated programs

               2} State program approval  procedures and criteria for
                  the consolidated  programs

               3) permit-issuance procedures for the  consolidated
                  programs

               4) criteria for permit-issuance  decisions for each  of
                  the consolidated  programs

           b.  For each of the first three components listed:

               1) There would be a  general introduction to  the components.
                  This general introduction would highlight the interrela-
                  tionships between the consolidated  programs.  To the
                  extent feasible,  it would also pull out those elements
                  of the consolidated programs  which  are shared in
                  common (e.g., the general introduction to  the "program
                  descriptions and definitions"  section might define  those
                  key terms common  to all of the consolidated programs).

               2) The general  introduction would be followed by sections
                  containing  the requirements  applicable to  each program.
                  Each  section, when read with the general  introduction,
                  would comprise a complete statement of the program
                  requirements.  While these sections would be consistent
                  in their use of common terms and procedures, it
                  should be  recognized that they would generally differ
                  depending  on differences in program requirements.
rSee  Appendix  D  for  a diagram of the consolidated regulation format

                                                                  NOV 2 4 1978

-------
                              21
        c.  The fourth component, criteria for decision making,
            would not include a general  introduction and nay
            include significant differences due to statutory
            requirements.

D.  Implications of recommendation

    1.  Consolidation of regulations could cause delays in existing
        regulation development efforts.   Citizen suits have been
        filed for delays in issuing the RCRA regulations.   For
        these reasons, further consideration should be given to
        whether the RCRA and UIC regulations should be issued
        separately in proposed form rather than awaiting proposal
        in consolidated form.  It has been agreed that the NPDES
        regulations will be issued in final form before the
        proposal of the consolidated regulations.

    3.  Ultimately, there would be positive resource implications
        in that less time would be spent answering questions from
        the regulated community on which regulations apply and how
        their requirements overlap.

    4.  Consolidation of regulations in itself would have no organiza-
        tional implications.

    5.  Consolidation of permit program regulations could result in
        a single document of great size.  However, if these regulations
        were to be promulgated separately, they could aggregate  to
        an even larger set of documents.

    6.  Because of its size and complexity, it may prove to be hard
        to understand the consolidated regulation in general
        or to track those requirements pertaining to a particular
        program.  The Task Force believes, however, that the
        consolidated regulations have been structured in such a  way
        that this difficulty would be avoided.  In addition,
        the regulations should be structured to enable a program
        office to break out and publish separately the general  and
        program-specific section of the regulations.  This will
        enable those affected by only one program to quickly scan
        regulations affecting them without being encumbered with
        regulations that don't affect them.  It is anticipated
        that program offices may do this after the consolidated
        regulations appear in the Federal Register.

              Example:  To assist permit applicants who might only
              need an NPDES permit, EPA could separately print and
              distribute a document containing the general and
              specific NPDES program sections.

-------
                             22
    7.  Consolidation of regulatory requirements in one document
       should make it easier for EPA to discern unregulated areas in
       the waste cycle and address them.  Converse!:/, consolidated
       regulations may make it easier for the regulated community
       to perceive these unregulated areas.

             Example:  An NPOES permit may require stream stripping
             technology which could result in the introduction
             into the air of pollutants unregulated by air standards.

    8.  The Task Force recommended that the definitions and
       procedures be made the same and criteria be consistent
       whenever possible.  The consolidation of EPA permit
       regulations would place before all readers at the same
       time  definitions, procedures and criteria for all of the
       EPA permit programs.  To the extent that the definitions,
       procedures ana criteria differ and these differences are
       not based on statutory requirements, the reader may
       question these differences.  The consolidation of regula-
       tions would therefore highlight such differences.

    9.  Authorizing statues for each of EPA's permit programs
       manifest a clear policy for State administration of permit
       programs.  Consolidation cannot result in significant
       interference with this goal.

   10.  One of  the long-term objectives of consolidating permit
       program  regulations is to issue a single permit to a source
       covering all aspects of the waste stream.  The programs
       considered for consolidation currently issue permits with
       varying  terms.   In order to achieve a single permit for a
       source  we must ensure that the reissuance dates for these
       permits  eventually coincide.  To achieve this, the regula-
       tions should provide the permit writer with the ability to
       coordinate permit issuance or reissuance dates and to use
       re-opener clauses where appropriate.

E.   Issues:   There are  two issues which affect the consolidated
    regulations.

    1.  The  first issue  is who signs the permit and what effect this
       decision will have on the appeal process.  The options include:

       a.   If  the Regional Administrator or delegee signs the
            permit, an  evidentiary hearing would be decided by an
            Administrative Law Judge, an appeal could be decided
            by  the Administrator.
                                                                  24 1978

-------
                     23

b.  If the Enforcement or Permits Division Director signs
    the permit, an evidentiary hearing could be decided by
    the Regional  Administrator.  A further appeal  could be
    decided by the Administrator.

c.  If the Enforcement or Permits Division Director signs the
    permit, an evidentiary hearing could be decided by the
    Administrative Law Judge.  A further appeal  could be
    decided by the Administrator, after consultation with
    the Regional  Administrator.

d.  If the Enforcement or Permits Division Director signs
    the permit, an evidentiary hearing could be decided by
    the Administrative Law Judge.  A further appeal could
    be decided by the Regional Administrator.  A further
    appeal could be decided by the Administrator.

One trade-off to consider in this issue is the advantage of
keeping the Regional  Administrator in the appeals  process
versus the need for the Regional  Administrator to  be the
permit signer so that he/she may also be in a position to
decide differences between the Program Divisions on
substantive permit provisions.

The second issue is who approves State delegations.  MPDES
delegations are presently made by the Administrator.
205(g) determinations are presently made by the Regional
Administrator.  The UIC regulations have proposed  that
primacy determinations be made by the Regional Administrators
with Headquarters concurrences.  The objective of  consistent
policy and procedures in the consolidated regulations
suggests  these differences should be reconciled.

a.  The Regional  Administrator makes the delegation
    determination with the concurrence of the applicable
    headquarters program office, the Office of General
    Counsel and the Office of Enforcement.

b.  The Regional  Administrator makes a delegation  recommenda-
    tion  upon which,  after concurrence of the applicable
    headquarters program office, the Office of General
    Counsel and the Office of Enforcement, a determination
    is made by the Administrator.

In both of these options the Headquarters program  office
would have the lead responsibility for obtaining review,
comment and concurrences from the other affected Headquarters
offices and for preparing the necessary action documents.
Adverse comments must be attached to any such communication
to the Administrator or the Regional Administrator.  All
State delegations of permitting would be reviewed  and
concurred with by OWE, OGC and the program offices.
                                                        NOV 2 4 1973

-------
 F.   Implementation  of Recommendations

     1.  A Permits Consolidation Work Group would be formed by
        December 1, 1978, within  the Permits Division of the Office
        of Water Enforcement.  This group would be comprised
        of one  highly qualified representative of each of the
        following offices:

        a.   Office  of Water Planning and Standards

        b.   Office  of Drinking Water

        c.   Office  of Solid Waste

        d.   Office  of General Enforcement

        e.   Office  of Air, Noise  and Radiation or,
             Office  of Air Quality Planning and Standards.*

        Staff  from  these program  offices will be assigned or
        detailed on a rotational  basis  to the Office of Water
        Enforcement for  specified intervals extending over a period
        of  several  years.  The expertise of the Mew Source Review
        Task Force, OWPO, the Regional  Offices, and OGC will be
        drawn  upon  as needed.

        These  individuals would be  physically located in the OWE
        Permits Division and would  work on tasks of interest to
        both offices, under the day-to-day supervision of the
        Permits Division.  They would be responsible for involving
        the  program offices, including  Deputy Assistant Adminis-
        trators, as appropriate,  and for drawing upon additional
        resources,  such  as program  policy or technical staff,  as
        needed.

        For  approximately the next  two  years there would be no RCRA
        or  UIC  permits  issued so  that representatives from these
        program offices  would be  involved only  in the regulations
        and  forms  activities.  They would, however, be responsiole
        for  review  of policy guidance and regional permit admini-
        stration activities to the  extent that  their future programs
        might  be affected.

        The  freeze  and  passback may seriously limit the resources
         that may be assigned  to the Permits Consolidation Work
        Group.   If  the  program offices  were unable to contribute  the
        equivalent  of a  full-time person to the Work Group it  is
        possible that the permits consolidation  initiative would
         stop altogether  as OWE would be unable  to assume responsibility
The physical  location of these offices outide  the  Washington  area
wi1V complicate their participation.

-------
                         25

    for directing  the  permit consolidation  effort  without
    adequate  resources and  sustained  participation  from  other
    program  offices.   A possible  alternative  to abandoning
    the permit consolidation effort altogether might  be  a
    significant restructuring of  the  responsibility of the Work
    Group  to  allow it  to address  permits  consolidation in a
    phased manner.  With less than full-time  support  from the
    program  offices, the Work Group might be  able  to  take on
    1imi ted  responsibilities, such as the development of
    consolidated regulations, while putting off other activities,
    such as  development of  consolidated forms, to  a later date.

2.   On-going  efforts by OGC, OWE  and  proram offices to consoli-
    date regulations for permit-issuance  procedures for  existing
    source Water and Waste  Management programs (RCRA, NPQES 405
    and UIC)  will  be completed by January 31, 1979.

3.   On-going  OGC,  OWE  and program office  efforts to develop
    consolidated regulations for  Air  new  sources and  Water and
    Waste  Management new sources  would be completed by
    January  31, 1979.

4.   The Work  Group would determine the definition  of  common
    terms  to  be used throughout consolidated  regulations and
    will  ensure that program descriptions are consistent (e.g.,
    not overlapping) by January 1, 1979.

5.   The Work  Group would identify issues  in compatabil ity of
    procedures for permits-issuance and procedures  for State
    approval  among programs  and will  propose  solutions by
    January  1, 1979.

6.   The Work  Group will follow-up on  the  procedural aspects of
    the consolidated regulations  (i.e., Part  124)  including
    holding  public meetings, receiving comments and making
    cnanges  in the regulations as necessary.  The  program
    offices  will carry out  these  activities with respect to
    their  respective separable parts  of 122 and 123.  The Task
    Force  did not determine  who would be  responsible  for these
    follow up activities with respect to  the  "general" sections
    of Parts  122,  123  and 124.  This  question must be resolved
    by the affected Deputy  Assistant  Administrators.

7.   The DAA/DRA task force  would be continued and  would  meet as
    needed to address  significant issues  raised by  the Work
    Group  and the  New Source Review  Task Force.   In  addition,
    tnis Task Force will make recommendations to the  Administrator
    on formatting a work group to address consolidation  of
    State-administered permit programs.
                                                          NOV 2 4 1978

-------
                          26
8.   The Work Group will  determine  and  document  those  statutory
    provisions that impede the  procedural  consolidation  effort.
    A report documenting such provisions  should be  submitted  to
    the Office of Legislation by July  1,  1979.
                                                            NOV 24 1978

-------
                                  27

II.  POLICY  GUIDANCE  FOR  EPA  PERMIT  PROGRAMS
    A.   What is  the  objective  to  be gained by consolidating policy
        guidance?
        1.   All  policy guidance relating  to  programs  incorporated  in
            the  consolidated regulation process  will  be consistent
            where  the guidance deals  with overlapping program  areas.
        2.   Policy guidance  is issued:
            a.   To address  issues outside the scope of regulations.
            b.   To address  issues not clearly addressed or  forseen by
                the  regulations.
            c.   Where flexibility is  desired.
            d.   To assure  national  uniformity and  consistency
        3.   Policy guidance  can generally be characterized  in  two ways;
            guidance dealing with permitting procedures and guidance
            dealing  with substantive  conditions  of permits.  "Substantive"
            and  "procedural" guidance may address  areas including:
            a.   Priorities  of  permit-issuance.
            D.   Variances  from regulatory requirements.
            c.   Effects  of judicial decisions.
            d.   Mew  permit-issuance criteria.
            e.   Information  systems.
            f.   Technical  support issues.
            g.   Determinations of equivalency.
            h.   Priorities  for delegation.
    B.   Why consolidate  policy guidance.
        1.   Benefit  to  regulated  community:
            a.   Clear and  consistent  interpretations  of
                regulatory  requirements.
                o   avoids  possible conflicts in  requirements imoosed on
                   a facility  which may lead to  delay in  instituting
                   required  controls  or  sub-optimization  of control
                   measures  selected  by the  facility  to comply with
                   pollution control  requirements.
                                                                    Why 2 4

-------
                          28

2.   Benefit to EPA.

    a.  Provides a mechanism for ensuring  continued  coordination
        of programs.

        o  policy guidance on the timing  and  priorities  of
           permit-issuance expiration is  a vehicle for ensuring
           that all  permits requirements  for  a  particular
           source eventually share a common term  and can,
           therefore, be issued in one permit.

        o  'consistent permit issuance/expiration  dates for  a
           regulated source can enable EPA to reduce the
           resources needed for procedural  matters (i.e.,
           one public hearing and public  notice.)

    b.  Facilitates  the coordination of program requirements.

    c.  Avoids industry challenges to policy  for  one program
        based on differing policy for another program on the
        same issue.

    d.  Inconsistencies and conflicts between programs can  be
        resolved at  an earlier stage.

        o  avoids resources needed to untangle  program conflicts
           at a later date when they are  more firmly entrenched.

3.   Benefit to environment.

    a.  Would establish a mechanism for viewing guidance on
        program operations across media thus  providing a view  of
        the multi-media regulation of pollutants.

    b.  As timing of permit-issuance, reissuance  and modifica-
        tions coincides eventually as a result of policy
        guidance on  permit-issuance priorities, EPA will be
        aole to see  the entire waste cycle of a particular
        facility at the time of permit-reissuance and can  thus
        identify whether controls have been omitted for  a
        critical aspect of the waste stream or whether there
        are deficiencies in standards.  When these are discovered,
       the Agency can move to resolve them.

4.  As is  indicated in section C, the benefits to be realized
    will result from the consolidation of guidance on procedural
    aspects of permitting programs.  It was determined tnat the
    interests of the Agency would be better served if development
    of policy guidance on standards, criteria,  the substantive
    conditions of permits, etc., remained an individual  program's
    responsibility.   However, this substantive policy guidance is
    to be  coordinated with affected program offices as necessary.
                                                           NOV  2 1 1978

-------
                              29
C.  Task Force Recommendations as to which programs will  have
    consolidated policy guidance and to what extent this  guidance
    will be consolidated.

    1 .   What programs will  issue consolidated guidance?

        All programs included in the consolidated regulations
        process are included within the scope of the consolidated
        guidance plan [i.e., RCRA,  UIC, Ocean Dumping,  NIPOES, 404
        (State programs only), 405, PSD, Air New Source Review,
        NSPS, and NESHAPS].

    2.   To what extent would guidance for these program  be
        consolidated?

        Generally

        The development of procedural  guidance on permitting and
        State program approval will be the responsibility of the
        Permits Consolidation Work  Group in the OWE Permits Divi-
        sion (for the composition of this Work Group,  see I.f.).
        The development of policy guidance on standards,  criteria
        for permit-issuance, the substantive conditions of permits
        and State program  approval  criteria will continue to be  a
        Headquarters program office responsibility.  The  Permits
        Consolidation Work Group would identify areas in  which
        substantive policy guidance affecting more than one program
        should be jointly  developed by affected programs  and would
        assist in the development of such guidance where  necessary.

        Specifically

        a.  Where the guidance to be issued relates to  permit
            issuance or State approval  procedures (not  criteria),
            the Permits Consolidation Work Group will  coordinate
            its development and issuance.  Coordination with
            program offices  will occur through the Work Group
            program representatives.

        b.  Where the guidance to be issued relates to  the substantive
            conditions of  permits (standards or criteria) or State
            program approval criteria,  the program offices will  be
            responsible for  its development and issuance, except
            as provided below:

            1) Where the guidance to be issued relates  to substantive
               permit conditions or State program approval  criteria
               for two or  more programs on which there  is substantial
               commonality  and which may involve trade-offs in
               controls (e.g., where RCRA is asked to develop
               guidance for  dealing with a pollutant also controlled

-------
                             30
               by  the  DIG  program),  the  guidance  should  be  jointly
               developed  and  issued  by the  affected  program offices.
               The Permits Consolidation Work  Group  would  identify
               conflicts,  help  assure  that  such joint  development
               occurs  and  review  and comment on consistency.

            2)  Where  the  guidance to be  issued relates to  substantive
               permit  conditions  or  State program approval  criteria
               and the guidance is judged by the  program office
               to  potentially  affect other  programs  to a lesser
               degree  than described in  paragraph 1  above,  the
               program offices  would be  responsible  for  coordinating
               its development  and issuance (e.g., an  opportunity
               for review  and  comment  and/or concurrences)  with  the
               affected program office.  The Work Group  would again
               help assure that this coordination occurred.

            3)  Where  the  guidance to be  issued relates to  substantive
               permit  conditions  or  State program approval  criteria
               and is  judged  by the  program office to  De a  matter
               unique  to  that  program, it may  be  directly  issued by
               the program office after  consultation,  where necessary,
               with OGC.

        c.   Questions  developed by permit writers regarding
            conflicting signals from different program offices  or
            the failure of standards to  address  segments of the
            waste  stream  should be raised to the  Permit Consolidation
            Work Group.  It would then be responsible  for  assuring
            that corrective joint policy is developed  or for
            alerting  program  offices to  the need  to  fill regulatory
            gaps.

D.  Implications of Recommendation.

    1.   Resources

        a.   The development of coordinated  and consistent  substantive
            guidance may  require a slightly greater  up-front
            control of resources than  continuing  to  develop such
            policy and guidance independently  by  each  program
            office.  The  resulting early elimination of possible
            conflict,  however,  should  result in  a longer term
            savings of recources. Since such  policy and guidance
            development and the related  responsibility of  the
            Permits Consolidation Work Group to  resolve conflicts
            and regulatory gaps raised by  permit  writers will  be
            ongoing efforts,  this incremental  resource demand  may
            be ongoing.

-------
                              31


        b.   The  coordination  of  procedural  policy  guidance  would  be
            a  major responsibility  of  the  Permits  Consolidation
            Work  Group.   Budget  increases  in  1979  schedule  for
            consolidation work in  the  Permits Division  have been
            frozen.   Contributions  by  affected offices  to  the Work
            Group have  been  jeopardized  by the freeze.   Unless
            relief from the  freeze  is  made available  for these
            activities,  they  must  be deferred.

        c.   Existing procedural  guidance would have  to  be  reviewed
            by the Work Group to determine whether the  new  consoli-
            dated permit regulations have  made it  obsolete  or
            whether it  may be consolidated.   Existing substantive
            policy guidance  would  be reviewed by the  program
            offices.

        d.   In order to increase program coordination and  integration,
            the  Task Force agreed  that staff  knowledge  of  other
            programs, policies,  procedures and requirements should
            be increased. Accordingly,  the Work Group  would
            explore transfers of staff between offices  on  a one-for-
            one  basis for limited  periods  of  time.

    2.   Organization

        a.   The  permit  consolidation Work  Group would develop and
            issue procedural  policy and  guidance.  Program  offices
            would continue to develop  and  issue substantive policy
            and  guidance on  issues  unique  to  their programs, but
            would jointly develop  and  issue substantive policy and
            guidance on issues common  to or affecting other programs.
            The  Work Group would serve as  a vehicle  to  assure that
            the  required coordination  and  cooperation takes place.
            In addition, it  will act as  a  point of contact  for
            Regional permit  writers to help resolve  conflicting
            signals from program offices,  to  assure  that needed
            guidance and policy  is  developed, and  to  assure that  as
            gaps in governing standards  are identified, tney are
            addressed by program offices.

E.  Implementation plan.

     1.   When  the consolidated regulations are promulgated
         (August 1, 1979), each  program  office would  examine all
         existing substantive guidance and policy  to  determine what
         has been made  obsolete  by  these regulations.   The  Permits
         Consolidation  Work  Group  would  review existing procedural
         policy  and guidance to  determine  what has been made
         obsolete.  These activities would be complete  by
         December 31, 1979.

-------
                          32


2.   Upon the completion of Task  1  (December  31,  1979),  the
    program offices would review all  existing  substantive
    policy and guidance and consolidate  it,  where  appropriate.
    The Permits Consolidation  Work  Group would review  all
    existing procedural policy guidance  and  consolidate it,  as
    appropriate.   These tasks  would be completed by  May 1,  1980.

3.   The permits consolidation  Work  Group will  be responsible
    for ensuring that substantive program office policy and
    guidance is appropriately  reflected  in procedural  permitting
    policy guidance developed  by OWE  and that  policy guidance
    issued by the program offices is  appropriately reflected
    in Office of Enforcement procedural  policy guidance.   In
    order to provide for this  coordination,  the Permits Consoli-
    dation Work Group would develop procedures for joint or
    coordinated issuance of policy  guidance  and implement  these
    procedures by January 1, 1979.   Where required,  concurrence
    or policy guidance would be  at the Deputy  Asssistant
    Administrator level.

4.   The Permits Consolidation  Work  Group would insure  that  policy
    guidance is issued providing for the harmonizing of permit
    terms.  This policy guidance must address  issuance and
    reissuance priorities, expiration dates  and the  use of
    re-opener clauses as means of achieving  consistent permit
    terms as soon as possible.

-------
                                  33


III.   FORMS  AND  FILES

      A.   Description  of  component - what  is  the  objective  to De gained
          by consolidation  of  forms and  files?

          1.  Use  of a single  form for applying for  permits.

          2.  Issuance of one  permit which  incorporates the permit
              requirements  of  the  various  programs.

          3.  Use  of a single  factsheet  for all permit requirements
              at a particular  facility.

          4.  Use  of a single  reporting  form  and  identical  reporting
              procedures  for the various permit programs.

      8.   Why_ consolidate forms and files?

          1.  Benefit  to  regulated community.

              o   reduced  duplicative information  requirements

              o   reduced  paper

              o   increased  clarity through  a  single  document that
                contains all  conditions for  the  site

              o   decreased  administrative  burden  through  a  single
                consistent set of reporting  procedures and, potentially,
                 reduced  monitoring

              o   decreased  administrative  burden  through  a  single
                 application,  and  a single compliance  report.

          2.  Benefit  to  EPA.

              o   reduces  administrative  burden  through a  reduced number
                of forms

              o   facilitates integrated  environmental  decision making
                 (e.g., insuring pollutants are consistently regulated
                 through  all media) by displaying all  regulated aspects
                 of waste cycle in a single application

              o   facilitates timely processing  of permits,  simplifies
                 permit writer' s job

              o   necessary  precondition  to  the  issuance of  a single
                 permi t to  a facil ity

          3.  Benefits to Public :

              o   consolidated  public notice and fact sheet  would provide
                 the  public with a more  comprehensive  understanding
                                                                  N3V  24 197$

-------
                            34

               of the  impact of  a  source  upon  trie  environment
               and a more  complete understanding of environmental
               regulatory  controls.

C.  Task Force recommendations as  to  which  programs would  have
    consolidated forms and files.

    1.  Scope of consolidation cross-programs  - RCRA,  UIC,  Ocean
        Dumping, NPDES,  PSD, Air new  source, NESHAPS.

        a.  The above  programs would  use  a  single  application
            form.

            o  application would consist  of a  basic document
               containing  all  common  items  (e.g. name  of facility)
               and attachments containing items of information
               unique  to each program

            o  All new sources would  use  a  consolidated  new
               source  questionnaire as indicated in 3(b) of this
               section.

        b.  A single permit would eventually be issued to  each
            source.  The single  permit would contain  the require-
            ments of one or more of the programs listed  above as
            applicable.

            1) The permit would  include a coversheet  containing
               permit conditions which are  common  to  all program
               requirements applicable to that source.

               example:   The coversheet would  contain  "boiler
                         plate"  language  on penalties  for  false
                         statements.

            2) Attachments to the coversheet would contain permit
               conditions unique to each  program

               example: An industrial facility might  have  attach-
                        ments setting forth NPDES  permit require-
                        ments applicable  to that  source  and
                        RCRA permit requirements  applicable to
                        that source

            3) A  single permit for existing sources containing
               conditions for all regulated aspects of the source
               is an  ultimate goal of this consolidation effort.
               The  programs considered for consolidation currently
               issue  permits with varying terms.   In  order to
               achieve a single permit for a source we must
               ensure that  the reissuance dates for  these  permits
               eventually coincide.  To achieve this,  the  consolidated
               regulations will  provide the permit writer  with
               the  ability to coordinate permit terms and  to  use
                                                           NQV 24 1978

-------
                        35
           re-opener or  reissuance clauses where appropriate.
           The  development of a  single permit should not
           interfere significantly with the present issuance
           schedules of  the various permit programs.  The
           decision to delay the  issuance of a permit in
           order  to coordinate that permit with the reissuance
           of another permit to  the same source should be
           left to  the program office and should be made on a
           case-by-case  basis.

        4)  While  a  single permit for existing sources is a
           longer-term goal, a consolidated permit for new
           sources  should be developed in the near term,

    c.   Where more  than  one program is addressed by a permit,
        a single  list of reporting requirements would be
        included  in the  permit.   The permit would, whenever
        possible, provide for consistent reporting periods
        and due dates for compliance monitoring reports or
        other required reports.

    d.   Exceptions  to this consolidation of forms and files

        1.  the  404  program is excluded because the Corps
           of Engineers  is responsible for issuing 404 permits
           and  employs its own forms and procedures.

2.   Scope of consolidation across the media.

    a.   Both Air  and Water and Waste Management permit
        programs  would use consolidated forms and files.

        example:  a facility would use the same application
                 form in applying for RCRA permit controls
                 and PSD permit controls.  The form would
                 consist of a general (common) section and
                 attachments for each prgram.

3.   Relation of consolidation to  existing and new sources

    a  There is a new source/existing source distinction to be
       made in  developing a consolidated fact sheet.

    b.   Mew source  questionnaires would be consolidated for
        all programs as  recommended by the New Source Review
        Task Force.

    c.   Separate  model fact sheets for existing and new source
        permit  programs  would be developed.  These fact sheets
        would  facilitate environmental trade-offs, display
        pollutant surrogates, facilitate public participation
        and set forth the bases  for permit limitations.
                                                          2 4 1978

-------
                              36
D.  Implications of Recommendations:

    1.  Approval by OMB for any new forms will  have to be obtained.
        While this will require considerable staff resources,  it
        is not clear that obtaining OMB approval  for individual
        program forms would require a smaller investment of resources.

    2.  The recommended consolidation of forms  (excluding the  new
        source questionaire)  could be more efficiently accomplished
        by the Work Group than by the program offices.

    3.  It is anticipated that the resource cost of producing
        consolidated forms would not exceed the aggregate resource
        cost of each program  developing its own forms (although  it
        could take more time  initially).  This  is largely due  to the
        fact that most EPA permit programs other than the NPOES
        program have not yet  developed their forms.  The NPDES
        program is already committed to revising its application
        form and could therefore incorporate any changes resulting
        from the consolidation effort without a significant
        investment of new resources.

    4.  The FY 1979-80 budget requested the resources necessary  for
        the program offices to develop permit forms and for the
        Office of Enforcement to revise its existing permit applica-
        tion form.  Resources for the development of these forms
        was eliminated with the initiation of the hiring freze.
        Unless relief from the freeze is obtained, the preparation
        of initial, revised or consolidated forms would either
        not be possible, would have to be at the expense of other
        high priority tasks (e.g., the implementation of the
        pretreatment regulations, development of second round
        permitting strategies, or industry studies) or would have
        to be phased over time.

    5.  The full benefit of forms and files consolidation would  not
        be realized until the time schedules for the issuance  of
        permits are made consistent.  This means that guidance on
        permit  issuance priorities and schedules should be issued
        as soon as possible to start to make permit schedules
        consistent.

    6.  The consolidated forms must be carefully designed to
        avoid intimidating smaller permittees especially where they
        require only one permit.  Short form applications or single
        permit  tear out forms should be developed.

    7.  The Regions would have to physically integrate existing
        permit  files which would involve staff resources.   This
        integration would not necesarily mean integration of

-------
                           37
     paperwork  within  existing  program  files, but  rather locating
     the files  in  a  common  place  and  assigning  them a common
     identifier.

 8.   The cost of developing and printing  consolidated forms
     would have to be  shared by affected  program offices.

 9.   The use  of consolidated forms  should result in considerable
     savings  to permittees  because  of reduced duplication  in
     application and reporting  requirements  (e.g., ultimately, a
     single consultant could be used  for  preparation of application
     studies, monitoring  reports  and  modified facilities planning
     and design).

10.   Consolidated  forms will  result in  more  efficent data
     processing.   The  development and continuation of separate
     ADP systems  for the  permit programs  should be evaluated.

11.   Consolidated  permits fact  sheets will provide a useful basis
     for making environmental  trade-offs.

12.   A single permit eventually would substantially assist the
     permitee in  understanding  the  compliance implications of all
     environmental limitations.  This,  in turn, should provide
     for planning  and  design of a single  modification of the
     facilities.   It should also  simplify the permi tee's obtaining
     of capital and minimize the  length of time the operations
     are disrupted.   It may also, however, serve to focus  the
     permittees attention on the  total  cost  of  compliance  with
     the various  permit programs  (the total  cost of compli-
     ance may have been obscured  by the piecemeal  permitting
     approach used to  date).

13.   In order to  achieve  the ultimate environmental goal of
     regulating pollutants  of concern through all  phases of the
     air, water and solid waste cycle,  it may be necessary for
     all permit programs  to deal  with a common  universe of
     pollutants in a consistent,  coordinated manner.  A determi-
     nation as  to  whether or how  to adress a common universe of
     pollutants would affect the  type and amount of data required
     in the permit application  and the  nature of permit limitations.
     These issues  require a concentrated  Agency effort beyond
     the scope  of  this task force.  The Office  of  Toxic Substances
     could be responsible for such  an intra-agency effort.

14.   The use of consultants for the development of consolidated
     forms should  be evaluated.
                                                          NOV  2 4 1978

-------
                              38
E.   Imp!ementation

    1.   The permits  consolidation  work  group would  review existing
        application  forms  for affected  programs  and,  by  May 1,  1979,
        would:

        a.   Develop  a common  coversheet.

        b.   Develop  a consistent set of attachments to  the coversheet
            reflecting the various programs' respective  application
            requirements to the  extent  appropriate.  The task force
            should,  for example, address  the question of the universe
            of  pollutants  to  be  covered by  the  application.

    2.   The work group would  identify those elements  of  the permits
        for each program common  to all  programs  and develop a
        coversheet for the consolidated permit  by August 1, 1979.

    3.   The work group would  identify the components  of  the con-
        solidated fact sheet  for Water  and  Waste Management permit
        programs and the consolidated fact  sheet for  Air permit
        programs by  August 1, 1979.

    4.   The New Source Review Task Force would  develop  a new
        source  questionaire by March 1, 1979.
                                                               MOV 2 4  1378

-------
                                  39


IV.   REGIONAL  EPA PERMIT  ADMINISTRATION

     A.   What  is  the  objective  to  be  gained  by  the  consolidation of
         Regional  EPA permit administration?

         1.  Centralize  the  receipt of the consolidated  permit  applica-
            tion and the development and  issuance  of  the consolidated
            permit in the Regional office.

     B.   Why consolidate  permit administration?

         1.  Benefit  to  the  regulated community:

            a.   One  point of contact alllows  for easier access to
                 information and ensures a consistent  response  to the
                 questions asked.

            b.   There may be less time between  application  and permit-
                 ting due to processing the  permit  in  one place.

            c.   Provides a  single consistent  statement  of  the  permittees
                 ooligations and liabilities.   This would minimize
                 business uncertainty.

         2.  Benefits to  EPA:

            a.   EPA  may  realize resource  savings because conflicts  in
                 permit requirements  can be  identified and  resolved
                 before  time has been expended  in developing  inconsistent
                 permit conditions.

            b.   Time and resources would  be saved  by  consolidating  the
                 procedures  attendant to permit-issuance.

                 Example:  In some cases,  one  public hearing  announcement
                          would cover the several  permit programs.

            c.   Accountability for procedural  permit  requirements
                 would now be consolidated in  one office, thus  avoiding
                 problems encountered with conflicting permit requirements
                 developed by separate programs  with differing  account-
                 ability.

            d.   The  consolidation of Regional  permit  administrtion
                 would facilitate  the following  New Source  Review Task
                 Force management  initiatives:

                 o  provision of a facilitator/expediter

                 o  harmonized  review schedules  for projects  involving
                    mul tip! e permi ts
                                                              NGV 24 1978

-------
                             40
            o   early  identification and  resolution of potential
               conflicts  among  environmental  requirements.

    3.   Benefits  to  the Environment:

        a.   A  consolidated  permit writing  group would facilitate
            viewing  all aspects of the regulated waste stream at a
            particular  source and thus would  facilitate  identifying
            areas in  need of additional  controls.

    4.   Benefits  to  the Puolic:

        a.   Consolidated  public notice,  fact  sheets and  hearings
            provides  the  public with  a more comprehensive under-
            standing  of the impact of a  source upon the  environment
            and of environmental regulatory controls.

    5.   Costs  of  Consolidation:

        a.   Where technical resources are  limited, a balance must
            be struck between the use of these resources for
            permit-writing, State delegation  support activities
            and program activities.

C.   Task force recommendations  as to  which programs should  be
    included in the  EPA permit  administration consolidation.

    RCRA,  UIC, Ocean  Dumping, NPDES,  PSD, Air Mew Source Review,
    NESHAPS programs  would  be included in  the permits administration
    consolidation.

    1.   A single  organizational unit  ("paper  flow office")  would
        be responsible  for  all  procedural  aspects attendant to
        permit-issuance  for new and  existing  sources including:

        a.   Hearing  announcements

        b.   Public Notices

        c.   Application  logging

        d.   Internal  and  external circulation of  draft permit

        The task  force  recommended  that  the  paper flow office  be
        located within  the  permit-writing  unit in the Regional
        office.  An  important  role  of this unit will be  to  maintain
        current status  on priority  permittees for the  initial
        points of contact (described in  the  next  section) and
        expedite  delivery of  all materials regarding permit
        actions assigned  to the initial  points of contact.
                                                            NOV 24 1978

-------
                         41
2.   One intial  point of contact would be  established  for  new
    sources and one would be  established for  existing  sources.
    All  permit applications  and all  permit-rel ated  requests
    for information would be addressed to these  points  of
    contact (the paper flow  office  will assure through  specific
    cooperative arrangements that the initial  points  of contact
    are kept apprised of all  activity with  regard to  the
    permit actions they are  assigned).

    a.  The task force recommended  that the  initial point of
        contact for existing sources would  be  located in  the
        permits-writing unit.

    b.  The task force recommended  that the  initial point of
        contact for new sources (i.e., the  facil itator/expeditor
        referred to in the New Source Review Task Force
        management initiatives) might be, but  need  not  be, in
        the permit-writing unit. Other options  for the
        location of the new  source  contact  were  the Intergovern-
        mental  Relations Office or  an EIS group.  It  was
        recommended that the Regional  Administrator determine
        the location of the  initial  point of contact  for  new
        sources.

3.   A single organizational  unit would be established for the
    purpose of drafting permits and managing the  permit process.

      Note:  No UIC or RCRA  permits would be issued for
             approximately two years.

    a.  The main responsiblity of this unit  would oe  ensuring
        the consistency, clarity and enforceabil ity of
        consolidated permits.

    b.  This unit would oe responsible for  the timely managment
        of the permit-development process.   The  degree  to
        which the unit would be responsible  for  actually
        developing technical  permit conditions would  vary from
        Region to Region.

        1) Ideally, the permit-writing unit  should  have the
           technical  resources necessary  for developing technical
           permit terms and  conditions and  such  staffing  for
           the unit should be  a long-term objective,  consistent
           with the competing  objectives  listed  below.
                                                       NQV 2 4 1978

-------
                 42
2) However,  where technical  resources  are  limited,  the
   Regional  Administrator will  employ  his/her  existing
   authority to allocate these  resources between
   the competing demands of:
   o  permit-writing;

   o  delegation of State programs;  and

   o  program activities.
3) In making this allocation,  the  Regional  Administrator
   should weigh the relative importance of  these  3
   activities for a particular program  in  light of
   considerations such as:

   o  the high statutory and agency priority  on
      developmental  work leading  to meaningful  delegation
      of programs to the States;

   o  the need to institute speedy and  effective
      environmental  controls through EPA-issued
      permits; and

   o  the need to develop the  substantive  basis for
      environmental  controls (e.g., water  quality
      standards, ambient air quality models).

4) Technical expertise for some activities  would
   always remain in the program offices.  The permits-
   writing unit would draw on  this expertise  in
   developing substantive permit conditions.   Such
   activities include:

   o  208 plans

   o  RCRA subtitle C and D plans

   o  water quality standards

   o  construction grants schedules

   o  SIPS

   o  PSD increment status

It was generally agreed that the permit writing unit
should be located in the Regional  Enforcement Division
or a "Permits" Division.
                                                   NOV 2 4 1379

-------
                         43
4.   One individual  will  be responsible for signing all  permits.

    a.   This individual  could be the Regional  Administrator,
        who may then delegate such  authority  to  the Director
        of the Division  with permit issuing responsibility.
        If the Regional  Administrator is to be part of  the
        appeals process, the signing official  would have  to be
        the Division Director of the Division  in which  the
        permit-writing unit is located.   This  issue should be
        resolved at the  Regional  Administrator,  Assistant
        Administrator and Administrator levels as part  of the
        consolidated regulation development effort.  (See I.E.I.)

5.   All existing and new sources regulated by  the permit
    programs to be  consolidated would have a  single identifier
    for ADP system  purposes.

    a.   This identifier  would be used consistently throughout
        the various permit program's information systems.

    D.   This would  facilitate the operation of the new  source
        task force  tracking system.

6.   Permit conditions must be consistent with  EIS determinations:

    a.   The EIS process  and the permit writing and issuance
        process must be  closely linked to insure that permit-
        issuance decisions are not  inconsistent  with EIS
        information and  findings.

    b.   Management  of EIS contractors and processes should be
        determined  by the Regional  Administrator.

    c.   Where the management of EIS contractors  and processes is
        not in the  permit unit, the permit management responsi-
        bility of the permit unit includes assuring that  the
        EIS and permit processes are linked appropriately.

7.   Program offices in the Regions  would have  lead responsibility
    for State program delegations in RCRA, DIG,  and 404.  The
    permits or enforcement Division would have lead responsibility
    for State program delegations in NPDES.

    a.   The lead office  would be primarily responsible  for
        arranging Regional Office assistance  to  the State in
        developing  its program and  completing  its application.
        The lead office  would receive and log  the application
        from the State,  provide for public notification and
        review and  coordinate review of and concurrence with
        the application  by other offices in the  Region.  At a

-------
                 44
minimum, concurrence with the application would
involve the regional  counsel, the enforcement division
and/or permits division, and any other program office
whose program is likely to be significantly  affected.
The lead office would be responsible for coordinating
any necessary negotiation and revision of the State's
application.  Finally, the lead office would be
responsible for preparation of the paper work and
recommendation to approve or disapprove the  State's
application.

While the process of resolving conflicts among the
concurring offices will vary in each Region, the  Task
Force agreed that any recommendation to the  Regional
Administrator prepared by the lead office should
identify the concurrence or non-concurrence  of review-
ing offices and include the basis for any unresolved
objection.

Where statutory or regulatory timetables permit,  the
State-EPA Agreement provides an annual process for
coordinating the delegation of programs; the revision
of delegation agreements; the priority, funding,  and
annual outputs of delegated programs; and the arrange-
ment of technical assistance to the State in developing
and operating the del gated program.

On  site audits of delegated programs (and reviews of
major individual permits) should be jointly  conducted
by  the program offices and the permits and/or enforce-
ment division.  Audits should be conducted at least
annually as part of the program grant review of State
and EPA performance under the State-EPA Agreement.,
The permits and/or enforcement division should have
lead responsibility for the audit of the State's
operation of the permitting aspects of a delegated
program.

As  is indicated  in I.E.2. where the delegation determi-
nation is made by the  Administrator, the Headquarters
program office would have the lead responsibility for
obtaining concurrences from other affected Headquarters
program offices, the Office of General Counsel and the
Office of Enforcement, and for preparing the necessary
action documents.

-------
                             45


0.   Implications of recommendations.

    1.  Organizational  implications.

        a.  It was recommended  that there  be  a  single  permit
            writing unit in  each  Region, located  either  in  the
            Enforcement Division  or as  separate  Permit Division.

        b.  By October  1,  1979,  the permit unit  should have
            the authority, responsibility  and attendant  resources
            to:

            1) Process  paper flow for all  permits;

            2) Prepare  documents  for all permits, e.g.,  permit
               drafting;

            3) Act as the  initial  point of contact  for all  permits
               to existing sources and  perhaps  as the  initial
               point of contact  for new source  permits;  and .

            4) Generally manage  the permitting  process.

            Mote:  Resource  shifts and  disruption of ongoing
                   operations from implementing  the recommendation
                   are  expected  to be minimal.   Since  Regional
                   Permits Branches are already  organized  in  this
                   manner  for NPOES, no resource shifts  or  disrup-
                   tion should  result from it.   RCRA and UIC
                   permits are  not expected to  be issued for  more
                   than a  year  after this  shift  takes  place,  hence
                   there would  be no immediate  effect  on those
                   programs.  As  new permitting  activity begins  in
                   those programs, it would start in the permit
                   unit.  The main immediate  effect is for  Air
                   permits.   Since this recommendation doesn't
                   include the  development of technical  require-
                   ments for permits, however,  the  effects  are not
                   anticipated  to be significant.   The main result
                   for  air permits should  be  a  desirable standard-
                   ization and  increased precision  and efficiency
                   in processing  and drafting.

        c.  In the longer  term,  the objectives  of consolidated
            permitting  and efficient permit writing would  be
            served by vesting the permit unit with  authority,
            responsibility and  attendant resources  for the
            development of most  of the  technical  requirements for
            permits (but not all, see  IV C 3  b(4)). However, the
            extent and  timing of  accomplishing  this goal  depends
                                                         NOV 2 4 $73

-------
                         46
        on  the  allocation of  scarce  technical  resources among
        equally compelling program objectives  in the RCRA,
        UIC  and air  programs, e.g.,  State delegations, SIP
        development,  etc.  (Mote:  The  development  of most
        technical  requirements  for NPDES permits is already
        the  responsibility of the Permit Branches and these
        recommendations  are not intended to  affect  this.)
        Moreover,  if the Agency is successful  in its objective
        of  delegating the great bulk of these  permit programs,
        the  need  for significant numbers of  technical support
        personnel  in the permit unit may not develop.  Therefore,
        the  Work  Group recommended that the  extent  and timing
        of  transferring  the authority,  responsibility and
        attendant resources for developing the technical
        requirements of  permits in these programs to the
        permit  unit  be left to  the Regional  Administrator as
        part of his  normal resource  allocation and  prioritization
        responsibil ity.

    d.   The  authority to arrange State  delegations  and prepare
        recommendations  on delegations  for the RA's considera-
        tion would be located in the program offices for RCRA,
        UIC, and  404 and in the permits or enforcement division
        for MPDES.  The  lead  office  would be responsible for
        ensuring  that appropriate offices, including the enforce-
        ment division, have opportunity to concur and that
        non-concurrences by other offices were simultaneously
        communicated to  the Regional Administrator.

2.   Resource implications

    a.   Consolidation of the  administrative  aspects of pennit-
        issuance  (e.g.,  application  logging, public notices)  is
        expected  to  result  in some  resource  and personnel
        savings over the resource needs which  are projected  if
        consolidation is not  implemented.

    b.   Similarly, use of a permit writing unit may eventually
        result in a  reduction in the total numbers  of permit
        writers needed (efficiencies of scale).

    c".   Resources required  to write  permits  are expected  to
        decrease  due to  increasing  delegation  of permit programs.

    d.   The savings discussed in a-c may be  off-set by the
        discovery of additional sources to be  permitted and  by
        the increasing complexity of developing the substantive
        conditions of permits.
                                                        N'GY  2 1 1573

-------
                         47
3.   Permit administration consolidation  places  a  burden  on  the
    Regional  Administrator to  ensure  that the permit writing
    office gets the support it needs  in  a timely  fashion from
    the program offices where  the  program offices retain a
    significant portion of the technical  expertise needed for
    permi t-writing.

4.   Regional  Administrator would be faced with  decisions on
    how to distrioute technical  expertise ,  where limited,  to
    support the:

    a.  permit writing unit

    b.  program offices

    c.  encouragement of State delegation

    The distribution of limited technical  resources would vary
    oy Region, by program and  over time.   It is anticipated
    that most State delegations will  be  completed by 1981.

5.   The Regional Administrator must ensure that adequate
    resources are available to restructure the  various programs'
    information systems so that they  all  employ a common
    identifier for each source.

6.   If substantive conditions  developed  by program offices
    conflict with each other or with  the  judgement of the
    permit-writing unit, these conflicts  would  have to be
    resolved at the Division Director level  or  by the Regional
    Administrator.  Where conflicts relate to Headquarters
    guidance on national standards, they  should be brought  to
    the attention of the permits consolidation  work Group.
    The VJork Group would identify  these  issues  to the affected
    program offices and would  assist  these offices in resolving
    the issues in a consistent manner.

7.   The consolidated development of permits  is  expected  to
    uncover uncontrolled aspects of the  residuals stream.
    Another implication of consolidated  permit  development  is
    a broadening of EPA's legal authorities  to  address such
    uncontrolled aspects.  The permit writer will be able to
    address a residual uncontrolled under one statute, regula-
    tion or existing standards through  the provisions of
    another statute to the extent  the statutes  have overlapping
    authorities for the same areas.

8.   EPA's authority to condition permits  to  address secondary
    impacts upon an unregulated media where  no  EIS is prepared
    should be the subject of a legal  opinion.
                                                        NOV 2 4 197$

-------
                            47a
    9.   If conflicts  in  inadequate application or other problems
        cause  one  part of a consolidated permit to be developed
        more  slowly than others, the other parts of the permit
        could,  in  the long term, be held up.  (This only applies
        once  the timing  of the various permit terms has been made
        to coincide in one permit).  This could mean that the
        slowest element  of a permit determines the permits schedule.
        The Regional  Administrator should have discretion in such
        instances  to  issue different parts at different times,
        where  this would be technically sound and circumstasnces
        warrant.

   10.   EPA' s  authority  to withhold action on one part of a
        consolidated  permit until all parts of the permit application
        are complete  and satisfactory should be the subject of a
        legal  opinion.

   11.   Consolidated  permit development and issuance could facilitate
        consolidated  surveillance and enforcement.

E.   Implementation Schedule

    1.   The  DAA Task  Force report will be distributed to the
        Regions by November 24,  1978, for review and comment.

    2.   Regions would designate  Regional "initial point! s) of
        contact" for  permit related matters by March 1, 1979.

    3.   Regions would consolidate permit writing and paper flow
        units by October 1, 1979.

    4.   OGC  should prepare a legal opinion on the extent to which
        actions on one  part of a consolidated permit application
        may  be held  up  until all parts are complete and satisfactory.

    5.   OGC  should prepare a legal opinion on the extent to which
        a permit  limitation may  be included in a permit to address
        a secondary  impact of  the permit upon an unregulated media
        when  there is no EIS.

    6.   The  Permits  Consolidation Work Group  should periodically
        meet with  the Regions  to determine problems and issues
        with  the  consolidation program so that appropriate
        modifications may be made.
                                                            NQV 2 4 1978

-------
                                                              APPENDIX A



                                  48
                          WHAT IS A PERMIT?



The basic elements of a permit are:

  - Individual  (facility) must apply

  - A government document is issued which applies to a specific individual

  - It provides a conditioned allowance to operate and/or construct

Stated more abstractly, a permit is a document that acts as a catalyst
or delivery mechanism to translate generally stated program requirements
or objectives into specific, enforceable requirements to be met by a
facility.  It assures that the facility has knowledge of the specific
requirements expected of it and the permit issuance mechanism contains
a process in which either the facility agrees to those requirements or
disagreements are definitively resolved.

-------
•a
 c
 OJ
 a.
 a.
     e
     a
    u

     u
     a
     C
     a
    u
                      H

                      41
a
Cons i i
a
00
a
w
a.
a
u
a
41
a
a

a

IdatlonT
0
a
a
M
a
| overlaj
ppeara
0
o
•***
JS
4J
s
y
Interft
e
a
u
a
0
u
o
4)
a
4)
J>
roRraraa?! |
h
-
u
a
3 a a s a s 3 a a a
o a a 3 3 a aaa a
***. ODU^tl-IUU "*^- ""^ 3 O ~*~ *^ ~-* 3 "*- 3 Si U 41 "^ O U

a aa a a 03 a 03 a aaa 
0
u










a


«
u
c
a
3
O

^4
4
"o

—


-3
3
a
**
a
^









u
o


c
a u

O 3

a *j
u a

c. o
o u


u

o -*

a -S
~ 5
S.-3

a •>-«



a a a a a n a a'n a a aaa a a

ZZ^^^^^^^ZZZSEZ^^^^Z^X^* >«Z>*








OO3J5JyiD5)3J4J5jOO!U4J4}4>V4)C'yy4) UV4J
Z Z^*^*^*^*^*^*^*9MZZ}M^1* ^* ^ >* >* Z >* >" ^* >•* ^* ^











aaaaaaa a a aaaaaaaa ana
zz^>>>i>^>iz^z^z>>i>i>J>i>2>> >>J>





                                                                                                                                     ,•3
          »4  4)
          a  u
          6  o
          .0  3
             u
          it  a •
-*• >»
a w a.


— ^ •»-»

-* a a
pi








8
a
a)
a
a.











3
Z









u
a
9
man if
i


a.
&






o
z







a
a.
e
3
"O
e
1
i


si
3i





a a
3J 5J



O.
a

T3

4)
U
a

a
M
1


S u
X 3
a 3
3 a



a a a a a
41 4) 41 9 3












30
C
f

M c en
 a 2 -T -T
a a o a a
o o o a a



• a
3 •





• 4)
a u
T3
W * U
W «
jtf

u aj
•H S
•— • U
Q a u
s c a.
C* a I
<-* a
u i, y
S) U — *
w o kJ 2
5 !N « =3





a
u





e
o
-H

a
u

a
u
M
1

*

a
a-





a
49



U



W

u
a
u
v4
a.
a.
t

•

a
a!





« 3
u o y
?^ Z >*


^J

o y



* T-i





j


3
U 1

> cn
3|
w vi
•»» a
z z

i i

lJ U
•< <
a a
e o








i
«j
a
^



1

V3
NliSllAl'

1

u
<





a
y



1)


a
3

 y
z >•


^
u a

3 s
s .=

o"
r^ U

> -J
U O
TJ ;
A* j
_a
] i/3

w 3
•< 2:
3
3
                                                                                                                           c  <3
                                                                                                                           —  c.
s a a    u
ao <*4 ^4 u o
•H *J 4J 3 ^3
a = s w a
   u a
90 *J 4J —* u
      333
      O.-4 J3
         u
      I  C C
      I  a —.
         - A
         3 —
         o. a
            a

         2.3
         *
         — U
                                                                                                                          S  C *4
                                                                                                                          •3  O  W

                                                                                                                          SO 4J  JJ
                                                                                                                          O  -3 -4

                                                                                                                          S.3  i

                                                                                                                          U  C  I
                                                                                                                          a  en  iJ
                                                                                                                          a  a  cj
                                                                                                                         ^  a  a
                                                                                                                         Pus

-------
                                                             APPENDIX C


             What Are Basic EPA Permit Program Activities?


Regulations Development

    Program description and definitions
    State program aoproval  process
    Procedures for permit-issuance
    Criteria - bases/methods for decisons -- not standards

Policy Guidance

    Program description and definitions (i.e., priorities for permit-
      issuance)
    State program approval  process (i.e, MOA content,  AG statement)
    Procedures for permit-issuance (primarily EPA)  (i.e., delegations,
      coordination with Administrative Law Judge, panel  selection
      approval)
    Criteria - bases for decisions (i.e., decision  documentation)

Forms and Files

    Application
    Permit
    Fact Sheet
    Reporting Forms/Procedures
    Mew Source Questionnaire

Regional EPA Permit Administration (Implementation/Permit issuance)

    Paper Flow (including preapplication review, appplication, public review,
      issuance)
    Permit Wri ting
    Technical Support for Permit Writing
    Issuance Decision
    Appeals
                                                                  NCV 1 7 i373

-------
•o
 c
 1)
 a.
 a.
          VI

          UJ  C

          <_)  ra
          35
          z o
(0
u
4>
e
aj
o

c:
a:
VI
UJ
a
a.
z

u
            =1
            o
                                   5        I





•^
4J
0)
C3




a.
VI
z
V)
«e
VI
Z


cs
z
a
V)
a.



^
a
s
a
ts




a.
VI
V)
a.
VI
z


OL
Z
a
VI
a.
                                                                                                                   a.
                                                                                                                   v)
                                                                                                                   Z
                                   I
I General ]
o
0
UJ
o
z
s
o
3
Ol
C
go.
4J £
£=


^
4)

<11


O
o
VI

C.
^
s.
o
5
           2    :
           o >—•
                              •g -^ —

                              i.  '*. •*-

                              O U 4*
                                                         •s  '-  O  ^ O

                                                         -J  4J  -  C. -

                                                         VI —  — < £.
                                                                                     2  3  U

                                                                                     •_  vn  c
 HI  C  "=  !.
a. = z u

-------
                                                           52

LU K-
CJ UJ
c: uj
C CO
CO
3 tj
UJ <
21 U_




1 rx
-
4J CJ
cj a)
< 3 CO
C. O



{J

_OJ U_
CO
L4
~
z
,

C.J
^

1
CO
3C
2"j— i.
L
Cl
^



i
CO
ic_
;~7*
|coicn
"~~ «-^ l~" ~ '"^
1 •y>|2"L-i
t^i 1 — '


^
 li

 i
,d
                        Ull
                        li
                        a      ~
                        §1
                                                                                            'O. *^ 0|
                                                                                          I
                                                                                       uii  |     «,(     ««!  2!  a
                                                                                     O =      =1        <_l|  =1
                                                                                     z wi|  ;<: = ^j     =i    i
                                                                                                          ;i
                        21

                        Si

-------
                                                     APPENDIX  F
                              53
     RELATIONSHIP OF THE PERMIT CONSOLIDATION TASK FORCE

            TO THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW TASK FORCE




This appendix will address two issues:



o  How would the New Source Review Task Force initiatives relate

   to the Permits Consolidation Task Force recommendations?



o  How would the objectives of the New  Source Review Task Force be

   affected by the Permits Consolidation Task Force recommendations?

   Are there any conflicting goals?
                                                              NQV 1 7  iS75

-------
                                    54



I.   How would the New Source Review Task Force initiatives relate to



    the Permits Consolidation Task Force recommendations?





    The Mew Source Review Task Force has proposed to undertake six



    groups of initiatives.   Some of these initiatives were not addressed



    by the Permit Consolidation Task Force.   In other cases the recom-



    mendations of the Permits Consolidation  Task Force parallel or



    reinforce these initiatives.  Where there is a parallel effort work



    commitments have been made jointly by both groups.  The following



    discussion highlights the interrelationships between the two task



    forces for the six groups of initiatives.  Starred initiatives (*)



    have alread been adopted within the Agency (see attached memorandum).





    A.  Undertake management initiatives:





       *1.  Designate a new source permit facilitator/expediter in each



            Region.





            a.  The Permits Consolidation Task Force recommendation



                that all permit paper flow and permit writing activities



                be consolidated within a single organizational entity



                should make the job of the facilitator/expediter easier.





            b.  The names of these persons will be published in the



                Federal Register as proposed, except that this listing



                may have to be  revised as a  result of the adoption of



                the permits consolidation recommendations by the



                Regional offices.
                                                                  NOV 1 7 197b

-------
                              55
*2.   Operate a permit tracking system with administrative
     milestones tailored to each permittee.

     a.  The Permits Consolidation Task Force adoption of common
         identifiers and the use of a single permit writer for
         all permits will  facilitate permit tracking.

     b.  The New Source Review Task Force should coordinate with
         the Permits Consolidation Task Force to determine what
         the actual  effects of the consolidation recommendations
         are and to  assist in the resolution of any conflicts.

*3.   Harmonized review schedules for projects involving multiple
     permits.

     a.  The Permits Consolidation Task Force recommended that
         separate consolidated procedural regulations  for
         Air, Water  and Waste Management new source permits be
         prepared and, if possible, that these regulations be
         further consolidated.  This was also an initiative
         requested by the Mew Source Review Task Force.  This
         recommendation should provide for more consistent
         processing  schedules, except to the extent that statutory
         procedural  differences exist or that Water and Waste
         Management  and Air procedural  regulations are not
         consolidated.
                                                           NGV 1 7 1373

-------
                       56






b.  Both the Permits Consolidation and New Source Review



    Task Forces recommended that single permit application



    forms be developed.   The use of a single application



    form should facilitate the development of consistent



    permit and issuance  schedules for projects involving



    multiple permits.





c.  The Permits Consolidation Task Force took a similar



    approach for existing sources and recommended that



    guidance be issued modifying permit issuance priorities



    and providing for the manipulation of permit issuance



    so that new source permit issuance dates may be consistent



    and single permits covering all programs may be issued.





d.  The Permits Consolidation Task Force recommended that



    Regional permit administration be consolidated into a



    single unit within the Enforcement Division or as a



    Permits Division.  The adoption of a single permit



    writer/manager and the issuance of a single permit



    for all programs applicable to a given site will



    necessarily result in more consistent permit schedules



    for projects involving multiple permits.





e.  The Permits Consolidation Task Force recommendations



    are supportive of this New Source Review Task Force



    initiative.  The two task forces should coordinate in

-------
                          57
        the preparation of the consolidated procedural  regula-
        tions,  guidance and permit application form and in the
        oversight of the implementation of consolidated Regional
        permit administration.

4.  Early identification and contact of new sources for clarification
    of requirements.

    a.  The Permits Consolidation Task Force endorsed the Mew
        Source Review Task Force initiative of consolidating
        existing questionnaires into a single new source
        questionnaire.   This consolidation by the New Source
        Review Task Force should facilitate early identication
        of new sources.

    b.  The Permits Consolidation Task Force recommended that
        the facilitator/expediter also be the initial  point of
        contact for a new source (the inital point of contact
        for existing sources will be in the permit writing unit.
        See IV. C. 2. of the Task Force's Recommendations).
        The duties of a facilitator/expediter include the
        identification  of new sources and the arrangement of
        pre-application meeting with potential  permit applicants
        and State staff.  This recommendation should facilitate
        the early scheduling of pre-application conferences  and
        should also result in only one conference being held,
        instead of one  for each new source permit.

                                                          HOV 1 7 197=

-------
                          58
    c.   The  task  forces  should coordinate  in  the  development
        of a consolidated new source questionnaire and  in  the
        oversight of the implementation of those  aspects of
        the  consolidated Regional  permit administration that
        relate to the facilitator/expediter.   The actual timing
        and  methods of early identification and contact of new
        sources for clarification  of requirements will  be
        determined by the New Source Task  Force.

5.   Formal agreements between EPA/States or localities  with
    parallel review responsibilities to avoid duplication  and
    confusion and to improve timing.

    a.   The  Permits Consolidation  Task Force  did  not resolve
        this issue; instead it recommended that another task
        force be  appointed to specifically address States
        issuance  of permits.

        It was noted, however, that the EPA permit consolidation
        recommendations may be viewed as an example by  the States
        and thereby encourage similar actions.

    b.   The New Source Task Force  should coordinate with the
        new task force addressing  the State-EPA and State
        permits consolidation issue.
                                                         NGV 1 7  1378

-------
                          59
6.  Early identification and resolution of potential  conflicts
    among environmental  requirements.

    a.  The Permits Consolidation Task Force recommendations
        will facilitate this initiative.  The consolidation of
        new source regulations (separate regulations  for Air and
        Water new sources which will  be further consolidated if
        possible), questionnaires,  applications,  fact sheets and
        permit should provide for the early identification and
        resolution of potential conflicts among environmental
        requirements since the entire residuals stream should be
        available for review at one time.

    b.  The Permits Consolidation and New Source  Review Task
        Force recommended that guidance be issued to  ensure
        consistent permit issuance dates priorities for new
        sources.  This again will allow for the viewing of all
        documents and data at the same time which will allow
        for early resolution of conflicts.
    c.  The Permits Consolidation Task Force recommended the
        consolidation of Regional permit administration such
        that there would be a single  permit writer/manager and a
        single permit for each site.   This will provide for the
        resolution of conflicts between environmental  require-
        ments by the permit writer, the permit signer or when
        necessary by the Regional Administrator.

-------
                          60
    d.   To some extent conflicts may result from differing
        program requirements or may represent differing levels
        of knowledge for each program or media.

Identify possible legislative/regulatory changes with respect
to consolidation of permits for one or more of the new source
environmental  permit programs.

1.  Harmonize multiple permit review procedures  and requirements.

    a.   The Mew Source Review Task Force and Permits Consolidation
        Task Forces both recommended that wherever possible,
        the same procedural requirements should apply to all of
        EPA permit programs.

    b.   Joint commitments have been made to both Task Forces to:

        (1)  Draft administrative procedures for Air new
             source permits/reviews.

        (2)  Draft consistent procedures, wherever possible,
             for Air Water and Waste Management new source
             review requirements.

        (3)  Consolidate these procedures in one regulation to
             the extent feasible.

    c.  A  single codification should facilitate any future
        reviews for statutory changes to all new sources to be
        treated similarly.

                                                        NOV 1 7  1379

-------
                             61




        d.   The Permits  Consolidation  Task  Force  recommended  that



            further examination be  given  to the extent  to  which  the



            new source regulations  should be consolidated  with  regula-



            tions  governing permit  programs for existing  sources.





    2.   Consolidation  of permits for one  or more  of  the new  source



        environmental  permit programs.





        a.   The Permits  Consolidation  Task  Force  recommended  that



            a single permit be  issued  to  a  given  new source  reflect-



            ing all program requirements.





        b.   Responsibility for implementing this recommendation was



            shifted to the Permits  Consolidation  Task Force  so  that



            it would be  consistent  with  other permit consolidations.



            It was also  agreed, however,  that the New Source  Review



            Task Force would maintain  a  review function to insure



            that its avoiding unnecessary delay would be  given



            adequate consideration.





C.  Explore the use of conditional/skeleton permits  for early reviews



    of conceptual  designs.





    This initiative was  not addressed  by  the Permits Consolidation



    Task Force.





    NOTE:  The skelton/conditional  permit initiative will  explore



    whether there are  permit issuance  approaches  which  can effectively
                                                                1 7 1978

-------
                             62




    use conditional  approvals to  give industrial  applicants increased



    certainty in project planning before large expenditures of



    funds have been  made in designing a new facility at a given



    site.  Programmatic  and economic reasons why  such aporoaches



    may or may not be desirable are being explored.   The Mew



    Source Review Task Force has  already recommended that a single



    permit be issued to  all phases of phased construction projects.



    Guidance is being prepared.






0 •   EPA/5tate ReJ_atioLi!h_i_p_s.





    The Permits Consolidation Task Force recommended that a separate



    task force be formed to explore the means for encouraging permits



    consolidation by States.  This group should coordinate its



    recommendations  with the New  Source Task Force.





E.   Industry Initiatives.  This initiative was not addressed by



    the Permits Consolidation Task Force.





    NOTE:  The New Source Review  Task Force is assessing how the



    industrial project planning process might be adjusted to better



    take multiple environmental considerations into account   The



    includes consideration of how EPA and industry can more



    effectively consider long term 0 & M pollution abatement



    equipment as well as initial  capital outlays, and avoid



    construction and/or operating delays due to permit reviews



    through proper scheduling.  The Task Force will  also explore

-------
                              63





    the economic impact of permit delay and application costs



    incurred in environmental  reviewing process.   The analysis will



    attempt to quantify the benefits of recommended reforms.





F.  Simplify Data and Procedural Requirements.





    1.  Exempt insignificant sources from more  lengthy and complex



        permit reviews.





        a.  This initiative was not addressed by  the Permits



            Consolidation Task Force.





    2.  Encourage use and development of baseline data by State and



        local  agencies which minimizes expense  and time of new data



        collection for each new applicant.





        a.  This initiative was not addressed by  the Permits



            Consolidation Task Force.





    3.  Single application forms.





        a.  The Permits Consolidation Task Force  recommended  that a



            single questionnaire and application  form be developed.



            This is consistent with the New Source Task Force



            initiative.





        b.  The two task forces should coordinate in the development



            of these consolidated forms.

-------
                                  64






        4.   Analysis  of  application  costs  and  options  for  reducing  them.





            a.   This  initiative  was  not  addressed  by  the Remits



                Consolidation  Task Force.





II.   How would  the objectives  of the Mew Source  Review Task  Force be



     affected by the  Permits Consolidation Task  Force  proposals?



     Are there  any conflicting goals?





     OBJECTIVES





     A.   Eliminate Unnecessary Delay



         1.   Problem:   Lengthy administrative  and  regulatory review



             times.





             a.  New  Source Review Task  Force  facilitator/expediter



                 initiative endorsed.





             b.  Consolidation of permits may  reduce  time  to develop



                 substantive  permit  considitions where multiple permits



                 are  involved.





             c.  It should be  recognized that  as a trade-off to obtain-



                 ing  non-conflicting, consolidated permits,  tne length



                 of time necessary  to produce  a  consolidated permit will



                 be determined by the length of  time  necessary to  produce



                 the  most time consuming of the  permit requirements.  The



                 Permit Consolidation Task Force recognized this problem

-------
                            65
            and directed the procedural  consolidation of new source
            review requirements to adopt innovative time -  saving
            reforms whenever possible.

    2.   Problem:   Lack  of information  on how long reviews take  for
        proper scheduling by industry  to avoid delays.

        a.   Consolidated permit issuance and paper flow should
            increase the amount of information available to the
            regulated community and the facilitator/expediter on
            how long it would take to  process EPA permits.

    3.   Problem:   Large or undefined data requirements.

        a.   The permit consolidation effort should only affect  this
            problem to  the extent duplicative application require-
            ments are eliminated.

8.  Eliminate Unnecessary Uncertainty:

    1.   The Permits Consolidation Task  Force did not address the
        following problems:.
        a.   Uncertainty of obtaining all necessary permits  for
            phased or long-term sequential  construction projects.

        b.   Permits require more data  than  corporate management has
            when committing to projects.
                                                            NQV 1 7  1373

-------
                             66
        c.   Alternative  site  analysis  required  by  certain  permit
            programs  is  completed  by  private  concerns  prior  to
            corporate commitment  to a  new  source project.

        d.   Moving Targets.

            (1)  The Permit Consolidation Task Force  did  not  resolve
                this  problem  except to note that it  is not unreason-
                able  to  expect permit  limitations  to change  as  our
                state of knowledge increases.

        e.   Possible  industrial  and commercial  growth  limitations.

C.  Reduce  Complexity of Mulitple  Permit Requirements

    1.  Problem:  Complexity  of multi-permit  processing  requirements,

        a.   The Permit Consoldation Task Force  recommendation  that
            consolidated permit procedural  regulations be  developed
            and that a single point of contact  is  to be  established
            for each  permit in each Region should  reduce complexity
            for permit applicants.

        b.   A single  paper flow office for all  permits is  to be estab-
            lished in each Region  within  the  permits office.  These
            recommendations should address the  existing  problem of  a
            large number of coordination  points.

-------
                        67






    c.   The Permit Consolidation  Task  Force  did  not address  the



        problem  of differing  requirements  and  interpretations



        under different reviewing authorities  at Federal,  State



        and local  levels.





    d.   The Permit Consolidation  Task  Force  recommended



        that public participation requirements for  all  permit



        programs be consolidated  in  the  revised  regulations.





2.   Problem:  Different "commence to construct"  and "new



    source" definitions among  the various  programs.





    a.   The revised consolidated  new source  regulations will



        contain  consistent  definitions.





3.   Problem:  Split Federal/State responsibilities.





    a.   The Permit Consolidation  Task  Force  did  not resolve  the



        problem  of split Federal/State responsibilities.   The



        Task Force, working with  the New Source  Review  Task



        Force, will make recommendations to  the  Administrator  on



        establishing a separate work group to  address this issue.

-------
                68                         APPENDIX F
                                           Attachment 1
MEW SOURCE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES
                                               NOV 1 7 1378

-------
                                    69


          UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                           WASHINGTON. DC.  20460

                               SEP  2 0 1978
                                                                     OFFICE OF THE
                                                                     ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM

TO:       Regional Administrators
          Assistant Administrators
          Office Directors

SUBJECT':  New Source Management  Initiatives
     I airi calling on all of you  today  to  implement the first set of
ceccrnr,endations of the New Source  Review  Task Force.   In summary,
there will be:

     c a new source permit facilitator/expediter in each region;

     o a permit tracking system  with administrative milestones with:

       30 day administrative  deadlines en both new source
       applicability determinations  and determinations of completeness
       of applications;

     o nar.Tonizec review schedules for projects involving multiple
       permits where consistent  with regulations and -3tat;t3L and
       where it improves permit  process implementation;

     o early identification and  contact of new sources for clarification
       of requireirents to encourage  industry to ccrr.e to us early;

     o formal agreements between EPA and  states or localities with
       parallel review responsibilities to avoid unnecessary
       duplication and confusion;

     o early __ certification and  resolution of any potential conflicts
       among -_nvironrnental  requirements.

     I believe that  this  is a very important step in regulatory
reform for  the Environmental  Protection Agency. First, we now have
in  place most of  the authorities needed to address environmental
problems related  to  new  construction.  These initiatives snould make
                                                                    HOV 1 7  1978

-------
                                    70
these authorities work together more effectively. Second, the initiatives
are responsive to concerns that the corrplexity of these new authorities
and of procedures for obtaining environmental permits are leading
to unnecessary delay, uncertainty and complexity for industry. These
initiatives will not only result in better management of our permitting
process but will also iirprove the harmonization cf permit procedures
with industry project planning.

     The attached memorandum describes the initiatives in greater detail.
I am requesting you to report to me by October 15, if you have
not already done so, on the following aspects of implementation:
     1. Facilitatcr/Exreditor:

          Location of new source permit facilitator/expediter in organization;
          lines of responsibility for carrying out the initiatives,  i.e.,
          who does what.
     2. Tracking system, for Ferm.it Status

          - Description of any interim tracking system on permit status;
            comments on the proposed system for agency-wide reporting
            on managerrent of permit processing

          - Any instances in which you exceed the  20 day time deadlines

          - Fespcnse to Cf3 request for status cf  coal-fired powerplants
            and coal mines

     3. Formal Acreements with States
           Status of  formal agreements with States—both  in planning
           grants and RA/Governor's  agreement; projected  completion date.
      Eased  upon  your  ccrrrrer.ts  I  know we  are  all  looking  forward
 to  rrakinc this svstem v,crk.
                                       Barbara Blum
                                       Deputy Administrator
 Attach rrent
                                                                    NOV 1 7  1973

-------
             71                            APPENDIX G
DESCRIPTIONS OF EPA PERMIT PROGRAMS
  (Included with last distribution)
                                                NCV  1 7 1373

-------
                     PROGRAM  DESCRIPTIONS
                           DRAFT
                       OCTOBER  23,  1978
                          CONTENTS

Page 1        Resource  Conservation  and  Recovery Act
     3        Safe Drinking Water Act  -- V  &  E
     6        Safe Drinking Water Act  — UIC
     8        Ocean Dumping Act
    10        Clean Water Act --  NPDES
    13        Clean Water Act —  404 Dredge and Fill
    15        Clean Water Act --  SPCC
    17        Clean Air  Act -- Stationary Sources
    19        Clean Air Act — Fuel  Suspension

-------
           RESOURCE CONSERVATION  AND  RECOVERY  ACT
1.   Who and What Activities Require a  Permit

       All  owners and operators  of facilities  which  store,
    treat or dispose of hazardous  wastes  are subject to  permits
    under the Resource Conservation and Recovery  Act (RCRA).
    Permittees must meet human health  and environmental  standards
    in operation, design and construction.

2.   State Programs

       States with hazardous waste control  programs  will  be
    authorized by EPA to conduct their permit  programs  in lieu of
    the Federal one.  These State  programs must provide  a degree
    of control equivalent to the Federal  program.

       EPA has oversight responsibilities in States  with authorized
    hazardous waste control programs.   This includes the review
    of an applicable percentage  of ipplications,  or  of  State-issued
    permits.  If a State fails to  meet its obligations  for
    authorization (as described  in guidelines  promulgated pursuant
    to section 3006), EPA has the  power to withdraw  the  authoriza-
    tion and to undertake independent  enforcement actions.   Where
    EPA issues the permits, the  State/local governments  can
    comment on the applications.  Funding for  State  programs is
    $15 million For FY 79.  A State may receive up to 100% of its
    needed funding to help develop a fully-authorized program.
    The funding level is at the  discretion of  the Regional
    Administrator.

3.  Permit Issuance Process

       It is presently anticipated that the permit application
    will be in two parts.  Part A, which includes administrative
    information about the facility, must be filed by existing
    facilities within six months after the section 3005 regulations
    are promulgated (expected January  1980).  Part B, which
    contains all of the technical  data about the facility will  be
    submitted at a time specified by the Agency.  This  will  be  a
    few weeks before the Agency will act on the application.  Mew
    facilities must file Parts A and B of the  application together.

         There is no time limit for issuing permits.  With
    present resource levels it is anticipated  that all  permits
    will be issued in six years.
                                                         DRAFT
                                                         OCT  2 3 1S78

-------
     4.  Apparent Overlap With Other Programs

         (a)  Ocean Dumping - Disposal  of hazardous waste by  means  of
              an Ocean Dumping permit rather than by means of a  RCRA
              permit at an approved treatment storage or disposal
              site.  However, a special RCRA permit is required  by
              owners/operators of vessels accepting "manifested"
              hazardous wastes for ocean disposal.

         (b)  Underground Injection Control - Disposal of hazardous
              waste by means of deep well injection rather than  at  a
              RCRA permitted facility.

         (c)  Stationary Sources - Incineration of hazardous  waste  at
              a RCRA permitted facility which (1) releases into  the
              air one of the seven criteria pollutants, or (2) releases
              into the air other pollutants.

         (d)  Pesticides - Proper disposal of containers which contained
              regulated pesticides pursuant to FIFRA section  19.

         (3)  NPDES - Approximately 16,000 NPDES permittees will require
              RCRA permits.  Clean Water Act 402, 405, 304(e) may
              require controls to protect  similar environmental  problems.

II.    RESOURCES

      1.  Universe of Possible  Permittees - 20,000

      2.  Permits  presently issued  - 0

      3.  Employee  Days Per Permit -

             31  days/permit for complex  permits

      4.  Permits  Planned  to  be Issued  FY  79  - 0

      5.   Percent of  Permits  Issued by  the  States  -  66%

             State  Resources-adequate Federal funding  to  pay  for 75%  of
          permit program  100% of  start  up  costs

      6.   Staff  Levels  in  Permitting
                                         -  HQ      -  FY  79 - 0 workyears
                                         -  Region  -  FY  79 - 7 workyears
                                                  -  FY 80 - 8 workyears
                                                    review State programs

      7.   Staff Levels  in  Standard  Setting

                              - FY  79 - 3 workyears
                              - FY  80 - 6 workyears
      8.  Staff Levels in Compliance Enforcement -  Unknown  at  this  time

                                   2
DRAFT
                                                                  OCT  2 3 F.78

-------
                           SAFE  DRINKING WATER ACT
                           Variances  and Exemptions


I.     PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

      1.   Who and What Activities  Require  a  Permit

             Variances and  exemptions  (Y/E's) are issued  to public
          water systems that are in violation of maximum  contaminant
          levels  (MCLs) estaDlished by  the primary drinking water
          regulations.  The primary drinking water regulations' MCLs
          are standards for finished  drinking water  and not raw water
          or wastewater discharges.   Y/E's can not be  issued  if the
          violation causes  an unreasonable risk to health or  if
          immediate compliance is  achievable.

             Exemptions are issued to allow  for construction  or
          modification of  necessary treatment facilities, whereas
          variances are provided when an MCI is unobtainable  despite
          application of the best available  treatment.  Exemptions have
          a statutory expiration date of January 1,  1981.  For systems
          joining a Regional system,  the deadline is January  1, 1983.
          Variances have no statutory expirations.

             There are approximately  50,000  community  water systems in
          the country.  Estimates  are that 5% or less  of  these community
          water systems will be issued Y/E's.

      2.   State Programs

             As of the end of FY 78,  40 of 57 States/territories  have
          assumed primary  enforcement responsibility for  the  public
          water system supervision program.   It is projected  that 10
          more States will  assume primary  enforcement  responsibility in
          FY 79.   These States/territories have total  authority for all
          aspects of the determinations and  issuances  of  V/E's.   EPA
          monitors State programs through  program grants  and  overviews
          of State activities including Y/E  issuance.   EPA is required
          to review State  issued Y&£  at least every  three years and
          publish its findings in  the Federal Register.

             EPA is responsible for implementation of  the public  water
          system in States that do not have  primary  enforcement
          responsibility.

      3.   Permits Issuance Process

             FY 79 will be the first  year  for  issuance of most  V/E's.
          In FY 78 five exemptions were issued  by  EPA.
                                    3
                                                                   DRAFT
                                                                  OCT  2 3 197B

-------
            EPA's function is to monitor the entire State process but
         under public water system programs regulations,  EPA cannot
         negate State action on individual  V/E.   The latter case
         occurs only if the State has abused its discretion in a
         substantial number of instances.  EPA issuance of Notices of
         Violations is provided for by the Safe  Drinking  Act where
         State does not adequately implement requirements for primary
         enforcement responsibility.

            In FY 79, where States do not have the authority, an
         application will be submitted by the water system and is
         reviewed by the Regional Water Supply Branch.  A survey  of
         system and the determination for issuance of a Y/E will  be
         made by the Water Supply Branch.  Determinations involve
         assessment of economics and health risk.  Y/E issuance
         responsibility will probably vary among Regions.  In some
         Regions Y/E's will be issued by the Water Division after
         consultation with the Enforcement Division.  In other Regions,
         the opposits wi "! 1 cccur.

      4.  Overlap With Other Programs

            Essentially no overlap with any other EPA program since
         the Y/E applies to finished drinking water only.

            The only instance where overlap is possible  (estimated at
         less than  1%)  is where  Y/E issued  to a water plant which has
         existing  NPOELS permit  -- the treatment imposed  by the V/E
         could cause a  change  in  the characteristics of  the discharge.
JI.    RESOURCES

      1.   Universe  of  Eligible  Systems

             Systems exceeding  MCL  that  are  unaole to  immediately
          comply  with  standards are issued exemptions.   Estimate 5% of
          community water systems or 2,500 systems nationally.
      2.   V & E's Presently  Issued

             40 Primary States  have issued  approximately  75-150 exemptions
          and 3 variances.   EPA Regional  offices  have  issued  about  five.

      3.   Employee Days Per  V or E

             A few variances and exemptions have  been  issued  at this
          time and a great deal of  guidance has been provided to  the
          States.  The days  per permit is very  high and  does  not
          reflect the ultimate workload.


                                                                   DRAFT

                                                                 OCT  2 3 1978

-------
4.   V & E's  Planned to  be  Issued FY 79

       Unknown .because  this  is  a State function and compliance
    monitoring  data is  not available at this time.

5.   Percent  of  Y & E's  Issued by the States

       95£ of all  permits

6.   Staff Levels in the Variances ana Exemptions Activity

       Due to the relatively new nature of the activity; the need
    for developing guidance, the workload is about 2 workyears/year.

       The Regional work  level  including support of primarcy
    States and  direct activities in non-primacy States is about
    .8.« workyears/year/Region  or 8 workyears.

7.   Staff Levels in Standard Setting

      Due to the rapidly  evolving nature of the water supply
    activity -  some 70 workyears/year are presently involved in
    the standard setting  activity.

8.   Staff Levels in Compliance  Enforcement

       Generally about 2  workyears/year are involved at HQ and
    about 2.7 workyears/year/Region or 27 workyears/year are
    expended at the Regional level.
                                                              DRAFT
                                                                  2 3

-------
                           SAFE  DRINKING WATER ACT
                        Underground  Injection Program


I.     PROGRAM  DESCRIPTION

      1.   Who  and  What  Activities Require a Permit

            Any  implacement  of  fluids below ground through wells is
          subject  to  regulation  under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
          This includes approximately 400 industrial and municipal
          wells,  130,000 wells associated with petroleum production,
          2,000 special  process  wells and 200,000 shallow wells.
          Approximately 30,000 existing wells used for municipal or
          industrial  pollutant discharges and brine disposal will be
          controlled  by permits.  There will be  an additional 5,000 new
          wells permitted  each year.  These permits will be individual
          or area!.   The remainng wells will be  controlled by either
          permits  or  rules.

            Permits  generally will  be issued for the life of the
          facility with five  year review.   Permits associated with
          other waste discharges will be  issued  so as to expire with
          permits  written  to  control  surface water discharges.

      2.   State Programs

            The Underground  Injection Control  (UIC) permit requirements
          apply only  to States  designated by the Administrator  as
          needing an  UIC program.   A designated  State can  receive
          primary enforcement responsibility and receive total  responsi-
          bility for permitting  activities.  There  is no EPA  veto
          power over State UIC permits although  there are  procedures
          for  issuance of Notices of Violation  where sources  are
          violating appropriate  UIC requirements.

              22 States have been designated.    It  is anticipated  that
          eventually all,  or most,  of the  57 States/territories will  be
          designated as needing  a  UIC program.

              Program grants are  available  to all designated  States  for
          a period of two years.  After  that,  States must  assume
          primary enforcement responsibility to be  eligible  for grants.

      3.  Permit  Issuance Process

              Presently there is no  permit process  since  regulations
          have yet to be promulgated.  Upon promulgation,  new wells
          must apply before injection takes place.   All  UIC  permits
          will be permitted over a  five  year  period from the  date a
          State receives or rejects primary enforcement  responsibility.
          In  EPA, permits will  be written by  Regional  Water  Supply
          Branch  or  the Enforcement Division,  with coordination
          between both.
DRAFT
OCT 23 1S73

-------
      4.  Overlap With Other Programs

            Overlap in the UIC program is in terms of various  permits
         issued under different statutes to the same facility.   For
         example, one facility may be suoject to UIC, RCRA,  and NPOES
         permits for controlling disposal of pollutants.   Recent
         court decisions have indicated that disposal of pollutants to
         wells associated with surface water discharges will  be
         regulated under the UIC program of the Safe Drinking  Water
         Act.

            Wells used for hazardous waste disposal will  be regulated
         in non-designated States by RCRA permits, using UIC requirements.


II.    RESOURCES

      1.  Universe of Possible Permittees

            30,000

      2.  Permits presently issued

            No permits have neem issued since regulations have yet to
         be promulgated.  Regulations should be promulgated in early
         FY 79.

      3.  Employee Days Per Permit

            Variable

      4.  Permits Planned to be  Issued FY 79

            Few  if any UIC permits will be issued  in FY 79.  After
         promulgation  in FY 79 of regulations or designated States can
         have  up to  1  1/2 years for  assuming primary enforcement
          responsibility.  Permits will  not be issued until a State
         receives or  rejects enforcement responsibility.

      5.  Percent of  Permits Issued by the States *

      6.  Staff Levels  in Permitting  *

      8.   Staff Levels  in Compliance  Enforcement *

            *   Breakout of staff levels  cannot be made  at  this  time
               since  program is  to regulation development  stage.
                                                                   DRAFT
                                                                 COT 23 1978

-------
            MARINE  PROTECTION,  RESEARCH,  AND  SANCTUARIES  ACT
                       (Ocean  Dumping  Act)   (MPRSA)
I.     PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
      1.   Who and What Activities  Require a Permit

             With the exception of those specific materials  which  are
          prohibited, i.e.,  chemical,  biological, and radiological
          warfare agents and high  level  radioactive material,  all
          persons desiring to transport  by ship for purposes of dumping,
          must have a permit issued by EPA under Title I  of  the MPRSA.
          Dredged material is permitted  by the Corps of Engineers
          subject to EPA criteria  and  review.

      2.   State Programs

             The MPRSA is not delegated  to the States.  It is strictly
          a Federal program - national and international.

      3.   Permit Issuance Process

             Permits are issued by the Enforcement Division  in the
          Region.  The process takes approximately six (6) months.
          Other Federal agencies,  State  agencies, local governments
          submit comments and present  testimony at hearings.  Technical
          evaluation are  in S and  A  and  Water Programs.

      4.   Overlap Wi th Other Programs

             Some ovarlap with dredge  and fill permits in che territorial
          seas.  Restrictions on landfill alternatives under RCRA may
          increase number of ocean dumpers.
 II.   RESOURCES

      1.   Universe of Possible Permittees

            approximately  75

      2.   Permits presently issued

            59
       3.   Employee  Days  Per  Permit                             QPJ £j 1973

             4.8 days/permit/year.   Permits  are  issued  every year.

-------
4.   Permits  Planned  to be  Issued FY 79

      50

5.   Percent  of Permits Issued by the States

        N/A

6.   Staff Levels  in  Permitting - FY 79
                              - HQ        0 workyears
                              - Regions  10 workyears

7.   Staff Levels  in  Standard  Setting

      1.5 workyears

8.   Staff Levels  in  Compliance Enforcement
                              - HQ        0
                              - Regions   3 workyears
                                                                 JT
                                                            OCT 2 ? 1S73

-------
                             CLEAN WATER ACT
            National  Pollutant  Discharge El iirri nation System
I.     PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

      1.   Who and What Activities  Require  a  Permit

             All  point sources  that  discharge  into the waters of the
          United  States need  a  National  Pollutant Discharge Elimination
          System  (NPDES)  permit.   In  addition,  304(e)  (Best Management
          Practices)  will  require  facilities to  have on hand a plan to
          control  direct  and  indirect discharges of toxics into the
          waters  of the United  States.   NPDES  permits  are reissued
          every five years but  can be reopened if new  toxic guidelines
          are promulgated. Typical  permittees are industrial facilities
          and municipal treatment  plants.

      2.   State Programs

             States with  the  name  capabilities as EPA  can issue permits
          in lieu of EPA.   To date 32 States issue NPDES permits.   EPA
          overview includes review of operating  procedures in a State
          and technical review  and veto  of permits that do not conform
          to guidelines and requirements of  the  Water  Act.  Grants
          under section 106 and 205  of the Clean Water Act assist
          States  in implementing the program.

             States have the  authority to  certify that permits issued
          by EPA comply with  State laws  or regulations.

      3.   Permit Issuance Process

             Applications must be  filed  180 days prior tc discharc2 or
          expiration of an existing  permit.   Some complex dischargers
          have required a year to  complete the process.  A simple
          permit can take 90  days.  Copies of  proposed permits are
          provided to  the U.  S. Fish and Wildlife Service, State
          Wildlife agencies and the  Corps of Engineers for comment.

             Terms and conditions  that are specified  in  NPOES permits
          are developed by technical professionals  that  apply the
          guidelines and  requirements of the Clean  Water Act  to  each
          individual discharger.  NPDES permits are  issued by the
          Enforcement  Division in  the EPA Regional  offices and either
          the Department  of Natural  Resources  or Health  in NPDES
          States.

      4.  Overlap  With Other Programs

              Office  of Water Enforcement estimates  that  16,000 permittees
          under  NPDES  will require RCRA permits and 1,650  permittees
          will require Underground  Injection  permits.
                                   10


                                                                  OCT 2 2
DRAFT

-------
      5.  NPDES Permits with Other Federal Government Programs.

           Outer Continental Shelf  (O.C.S) - Department of Interior
         and  in some cases Coast Guard regulate OCS structures in
         operation, maintenance, building procedures, etc.  Structures
         require MPDES permits besides following OCS Interior operating
         orders.   EPA and the Department of Interior have entered
         into discussion on consolidating some monitoring and enforcement.

            Deepseas Mining - In bills before the Congress, EPA is
         specifically given authority to require NPDES permits for
         deepsea mining ventures carried on by U. S. companies in
         the  oceans.  The Commerce Department will regulate all other
         environmental and production aspects of mining.  The present
         plan is to establish a MOU with NOAA to issue and monitor
         the  permits (Approximately  10 permits are expected in the
         first 5 years of operations).

            Surface Mining - Office  of Surface Mining regulates
         most phases of surface mining including effluent limitations
         covering  more discharges than NPDES.  Discussions have
         begun with the Office of Surface Mining to consolidate
         procedures and monitoring.
II.    RESOURCES  -  FY  79

      1.   Universe of Possible  Permittees

             7832   MAJORS
            61274   MINORS
            69106   TOTAL


      2.   Permits  presently  issued

             7692   MAJORS
            43703   MINORS
            51395   TOTAL

      3.   Employee Days  Per  Permit

               15  days/MAOOR
                5  days/MINOR

      4.   Permits  Planned to be Issued  FY  79

              850   MAJORS  (EPA)
             1780   MINORS  (STATE)
                                    11
                                                                 QGT 2 3  !S73

-------
5.   Percent of Permits Issued by the  States - 67*

6.   Staff  Levels in Permitting - FY  79
                              - HQ        51 workyears
                              - Regions  203 workyears

7.   Staff  Levels in Standard Setting  -  FY  79

       Criteria and Standards
                              -  HQ        7 workyears
                              - Regions    11 workyears
                              -5.8  million in contracts

       Effluent guide! ines
                             - - 101  workyears
                              - $18.2  million in contracts
8.  Staff Levels  in Compliance Enforcement FY  79
                              - HQ       77 workyears
                              - Regions  474 workyears
                            12
                                                             DRAFT
                                                            °CT 2 3

-------
                              CLEAN WATER ACT
                             404 Dredge and Fill


I.     PROGRAM  DESCRIPTION

      1.   Who  and  What  Activities Require a Permit

             Under section  404{a) the Corps of Engineers issues permits
          for  the  discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of
          the  U.  S.   Any person proposing to dredge or fill in waters
          of the  U.  S.  must have a permit to do so.  Federal  activities
          that are specifically approved and funded by the Congress are
          exempt  from such  permits,  (section 404(r)).  EPA does not
          issue section 404 permits.  EPA must prepare environmental
          guidelines, review permit applications and advise the permitting
          authority on  possible environmental damage, and may prohibit
          the  use  of proposed discharge sites if an unacceptable
          adverse  impact would occur.  Individual permits are issued on
          a  one-time basis,  and general permits are issued for 5 years
          or less.  Typical  permittees are port authorities,  wetland
          housing  and highway developers and dam builders.

      2.   State Programs

             Provision  is made in 404(g) for States to assume permitting
          authority after  receiving MPQES type approval.  States have
          not formally  applied for permission to conduct a permitting
          program  to date.   States may certify Corps of Engineers
          issued  permits.   EPA can veto State permit issuance or
          withdraw State permit programs for cause.  Seven or eight
          States  have registered  interest in taking over the program.
          Water Act grants  remaining after other programs implementation
          may be  used for  404 issuance.

      3.   Permit  Issuance  Process

             Section 404 sets specific time limitations on the issuance
          of public notices, public comment period, and Federal agency
          participation in  the permit  issuing process.  The Corps of
          Engineers undertakes a  public interest review which involves
          many Federal  agencies,  the appropriate State agencies, and
          the public at large.  EPA's  permit reviewers are at the
          Regional Offices  supported by Headquarters expertise in OWPS
          and OFA for controversial permit applications that cannot be
          resolved at the  Regional level.
      4.  Overlap With Other Programs

             Overlap with Ocean  Dumping  permits  in  territorial sea.
                                                                   nnir
ORAFY
                                                                  OCT  2 3 1S78
                                  13

-------
I!.    RESOURCES

      1.   Universe  of  Possible Permittees

             Estimated annual permit review requirement of 1,809 major
          permits (those  likely to have a significant impact),  5,824
          important permits  (those believed to have a moderate  inpact),
          and 6,146 minor permits.

      2.   Individual permits are issued for a one-time event and
          general permits are issued for 5 year periods or less.  There
          are estimated to be fewer than 250 general permits in existence.

      3.   Employee  Days Per  Permit

             Examination  of  dredged or fill material discharge  permit
          applications would require 75 work years annually in  the
          Regions alone.   That figure is based on 42 work hours for a
          major  permit, 12 hours for an important permit, and 1
          hour for  a minor permit.

      4.   Permits  Planned to be  Issued in FY 79

             The Corps of Engineers can be expected to act on
          at least  14,000 permit applications all of which EPA will review.

      5.   Staff  Levels in Permitting - FY 79

               EPA  has 33 Regional personnel and 1 Headquarter's personnel
          occupied  in  section  404 permit review and recommendation.

      6.   Staff  Levels in Standard Setting - FY 79

             EPA Headquarters  has  A personnel involved in standard
          setting (the section  404(b}(l) guidelines) with support from
          Regional  offices.

      7.   Staff Levels in Compliance Enforcement  -FY  79

             None.   EPA involvement  is  primarily  in negotiating  permit
          issuance with only incidental  effort  in enforcement  when  the
          Corps fails  to enforce.
                                                                    DRAFT
                                                                  OCT

-------
                            CLEAN WATER ACT
              Spill  Prevention Control  and Counter-measure
I.     PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
      1.   Who and What Activities Require a Plan

             Spill  Prevention Control  and Counter-measure is not a permit
          program.   Handlers of oil  and hazardous substances are
          supposed  to have a plan to control  spills.  EPA checks with
          the facility after there is an "event" and will levy fines
          for non or inadequate compliance.  Typical permittes are the
          petroleum and chemical  industries.

      2.   State Programs

             No State delegation.

      3.   Process

             Facilities are inspected and plans reviewed once an
          "event" takes place.  Such review takes about  4 hours.  All
          work is done by the Office of Oil and Special Materials.

      4.   Over! ap Wi th Other Programs

             Programs will overlap with best management  practices
          requirements in NPDES.   Plans that satisfy SPCC will likely
          satisfy BMP requirement for hazardous substances.


II.   RESOURCES
      1.  Universe of Possible Permittees

            Approximately 200,000-300,000 entities should have oil SPCC
            pi ans.

            Approximately 8,000 industrial facilities would be responsible
            to have plans for hazardous substances.

      2.  Permits presently issued

            N/A

      3.  Employee Days Per Plan

            2 or 3 plans are reviewed daily per employee


                                                                  ft"n>  2 2 A978
                                  15

-------
4.   Plans  to be Reviewed FY 79

      4,000 plans

5.   Percent of Permits Issued by the States

        M/A

6.   Staff  Levels in Permitting - FY 79
                               - HQ     -  1  ( support) for Regions
                                             typing)
                               - Regions  75 people who spend half
                                             their time in emergency
                                             response haif on SPCC

7.   Staff  Levels in Standard Setting - 1 work, year

8.   Staff  Levels in Compliance Enforcement
                               - HQ      - 0
                               - Regions - Approximately 5 workyears
                                                           OCT

                             16

-------
                               CLEAN  AIR  ACT
                            Stationary  Sources


I.     PROGRAM  DESCRIPTION

      1.   Who  and What Activities  Require a  Permit

             Every air pollution  source or modification  of  any  significance
          requires a preconstruction  permit.   Any  source or modification
          which would, without control  equipment,  emit 100  tons  of  any
          pollutant per year (for 28  listed  industries)  or  350  tons per
          year ( for any other source) must receive a  preconstruction
          permit for Prevention of Significant Deterioration  (PSD).
          Operating permits, in addition  to  preconstruction permits,
          are  required for hazardous  pollutants.   Similarly,  postcon-
          struction performance tests are required of those sources
          (approximately 30 types)  subject to  New  Source Performance
          Standards (NSPS).  The  Agency is now considering  regulations
          to require operating permits  for all  sources which  also
          require preconstruction permits.  The Agency is also  considering
          regulations to require  permit renewals.

      2.   State Programs

             EPA overviews most of the  larger  sources through program
          audits.  Because States have  yet to  upgrade their programs to
          meet 1977 Air Act Amendments, EPA  will  be issuing 1,600  PSD
          permits next year but much  less in  the future.  Most  sources
          need more than one permit and so EPA relies heavily on State
          programs for significant assistance.

      3.   Permit Issuance Process

             After receipt, of an application,  the  issuance of a permit
          from EPA for the smallest sources  can take  less than  30  days;
          for intermediate sources -  between 60 and 90 days;  for large
          sources - betwen 90 and 120 days;  and for the  largest sources
          with extensive air quality  problems  - from  4 to 8 months.
          The Agency is allowed to take up to  one  year to make  its
          decision on a permit application.   An application must be
          filed and approved prior to commencing of source construction.
          Permits issued by EFA are typically  written at tne  Regional
          Office level.  Within the Regions,  this  function is carried
          out in some cases by Air Programs  and in others by  Enforcement.

 II.   RESOURCES

      1.   Universe of Possible Permittees

            There are from  30,000 to 50,000  new air pollution sources
          per year.  About  4,000 of these are major sources (equal  to
          or greater than 100 tons per year  emissions potential) and
          4,000 of  these are PSD sources.  About 1,600 to 2,000 of the
          major sources will likely require  detailed  MSRs .
                                  17

-------
2.   Permits Presently issued.

       In 1977,  EPA issued less  than 200 PSD permits,  but under
    the new Act,  estimates of  up to 8,000 PSD permits  per year by
    EPA have been made.   This  will  decrease when States upgrade
    their programs.  Some additional NSR permits will  continue to
    be issued in those States  not having approved NSR  regs
    (currently 5).

3.   Employee Days Per Permit

       This varies widely with the size of the source  and the
    complexity of the air quality problem.  In general, minor
    sources can take less than a day of engineering time, while
    major ones locating in complex air quality situations can
    take months.

4.   Permits Planned to be Issued FY 79

       See above (£1 and ?2).

5.   Percent of Permits Issued by the States

       About 90* to 100% of relatively small sources are permitted
    or exempted by the States each year.  Approximately 60% to
    70%  of the major new sources are also handled directly by the
    States each year in the preconstruction mode.  An  estimated
    431  man years are now expended  at the State/local  level for
    NSR.   This may well increase due to  the recent Clean Air Act
    Amendments.

6.  Staff  Levels  in  Permitting  - FY 79

       HQ  - 3 workyears; expected  to remain relatively constant.
       RO  - Air  Programs permit staffing  is presently estimated
            at  50 workyears.

7.  Staff  Levels  in  Standard  Setting

       Approximately  68 workyears.

8.  Staff  Levels  in  Compliance  Enforcement
                                           - HQ          1/2 workyear
                                           - Regions   12    workyears
                                                           OCT 23 1978

-------
                            CLEAN  AIR  ACT
                           Fuel  Suspension


I.   Program Description

    1.   Who and what activities  require a permit

        Lead concentration requirements of  September 1,  1978,  may  be
        suspended until October  1, 1979,  if the refiner  can  show it
        was not possible to meet the  standard.

    2.   State Programs

        None - State can still  require more stringent requirements.

    3.   Permit Issuance Process

        Refiner that wants the  suspension must  show it will  meet the
        standard by October, 1979, and that it  cannot meet it now.

    4.   Overlap With Other Progrt'^

        Suspension, if granted  oy EPA, may  require construction which
        the State would not allow under its PSD requirements.

    5.   Universe of Possible Permittees

        244 refiners, of which  100 are small and exempt from the
        requi rements

    6.   Permit.; Presently Issued

        89
                                                                  OCT 23  ]9
                                 19

-------
                                APPENDIX H
OWE AUGUST 1978



   PROPOSAL
                                      11/24/78

-------
[
•5 i! ]
«'->-> 1
c a — i ij
"2 "H = >
i- a u o 3
O 4) U c
jj — .a «
03 = 01)
-3 40 3 J=
— C- 4) JJ
11 •»* U
U _£ 11 Q iw
4) — -3. £ O
3 a H _ _
« ~ "* jj
>, a . jj — i
o -H e a 3
c ~ Jj j3 a
11 41 -H JJ CJ
efl S s u
< 3-3
O 4) 41
4) «> C JJ JC
i O U JJ
-j >< -H a
Ut a 3, a
S -ri X C1
-4 •—• U «> N
^ CM 4) •*-(
JJ C JJ W
•*•( — o a
3 O j3 C £
4) u S
05 JJ a a 3 co
C JJ 1) -rl 50 t!
O -^ M
i-* = C JJ C! H
U £ -H i-i r-1 M
0 0 ^ J >
S cj jj . a 1-1
3 i-l U JJ H
«j ao 3 4) u
e > •* <1
u — i a 41 s
Ji ji 4) 3 TI C3
i-l C U 0 3 Z
r-| - jj — O l-l
1 U 3 -J H
<•> O F-I H
— >, 03 • O I-1
£ y 0) S u-i S
'- — u o si
4) O JC 4) UJ
c, eo «-i jj j3 c-
< C ri
we, <
c CN c c s-
P- o ^ • fcJ
4J -i «) a
— I >- JJ > 4) =Z
2 C* 3 4! 3 H
U .2 -S -, l-l
41 ^ -H a 3
c. — u o >
JJ JJ C
S e -3 w
W •« »H jS 4) H
O 4! -C U JJ •<
<- M -HS >-H
w C 41 J2. E U
0 J= 3 -H C
C. V JJ JJ U~
as S a c/:
JJ 4) ,£ i-l 4) <
a _2j JJ
.£ c-> -H 4) e; 01
JJ 5 £ j: -z
— < jj O
* • W JJ >--
a a a c E-<
a a — i -s — < i-i
y y — < 41 M
u s-i ij jj 3 C

a o a - o "~





























1













a (a u_ .-i — i
O r-j JJ
w >, u_i a
Lj U_I 
u w o
O C. £ JJ 41
^s a ~
5 4! l-i C! — 1
3 4) CC 3 3
C W C -=
— -J 3
"3 JJ C. 4) O
4! C —
-> <— 1 1 jr — i a
a o JJ u
•— >-4 3 w — <
JJ i) C. 3
C > 3 £ C
o '- _ -, 3
3 C
D a a jj a

~ = "5 ^
w O Cr ""^
Ul '-^ C -
l— . en 3 a


t;
U

U-l
^^
^ ,.t
e
2
c

1 1 |
1 ' '
1 i i
i
1



•c
<
CNl
01
03 CN
:> c
o =;
r\


>4
Al
a
w
4!
JJ
w
-•
C1
•a
a
4)





4)
O
•H
IJJ
UJ
O

f—
a
c
o

ac
OS 41
r-- ei










«
*
>T
in












«
en
0
CN


!Tv
1—1
><
b
—
s

_
=
i-
s
H £•
J •-
• vj:
c
r
,_





J
-•
51

i
U-.-I



w ^
1



•K
<
<
3












•K
•<
*
in
•
»»4












*
•K
•C
CM














*
<
*









^~*
JJ
£
C
£
c.
I—
c
1
1

* *
< -i
* -i
-c c
m -












*
«
*
vO












"St
a














«
«
*
•
, i •-• ^
•\ c
'! -u
\ —4 »«f — j—i —
un oiu^ vn r
O CNf O — t V
r") fst m c
a c^iu c.






j
-j «
n


^;
W

i *
nl
j .
-*
= -
- -i
41 f
:| =


^
3
>
: '- c
J 4) -
iii C
i Ko c
110 C
4| en c^
1

r ^
e n
-1 Ul
N ^c"












<
*
•K
^^












* »-N
* W
* — "
en C^
























































•<
*
I*
CM



1
1

* l~*
4,
c
JJ u^
C u-
4) O
c:
3 s
y -
Ul '-

•
^T\
w>
r^
CTv V3
fM M
O
CO Cu
S 'Z
—4
u w
a GJ
*c -a
f—
u 7
u
 jj a
O a -H c
co jj jj c o
v a o s
C" >< a 3 •— c
CJOsa r~ (a, JJ -3 r-4 — i
) u-i C
J fC ^
tiC- C
1 > i o — i u
-1 > £ o w 3 -i
4 1 iTj ^^ LJ i-M Q
•1 ffl G
s|m CI S 3 41 = £ —
: o CN| iJ sc 0 3 o
4 en en 1 s — ' u i-i e
:| =5 a|< <




r«
aq
-i Si '-
i 1 -
si .:
i Q
; f ! cq
•-* *
x
j| •
-1 >
I :
-
— 1
i >
i •• i
- -
— i
=1
ii
-"I ^
j si ,
e
_|





•4 «
-. C
- •,
3 C
t
J
aa :
il -
-M =
' 'U I
a c
j
3
— *j *>
;| ao — i «-i <-( jj w
— i S c ~ •-* ^
ji a i 41 - '-i
c vj = jj oo n
1 = a a c: 3
jl w a u = i- —
j -< sa -i •=
-1 O "3 O JJ 4) S
; si i) w s j= a
2 < S C- W r- =
1

J *•<•*; y^^ <-^ s~*
j -K •< ^ 2 —
^ •< *•«•••' '^-^ ^— '

- ~! ^
-^- 1 CJ 1
! •
J I!
n| -c| m| ve| r-,| crt(

-------
                          TABLE OF CONTENTS


     EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY

  I.  INTRODUCTION

 II.  THE  OFFICE OF  ENFORCEMENT  PROPOSAL

     A.   Permit Program Merger
     B.   Parallel  Permit Progr?ms
     C,   Coordinated Permit Programs

III.  RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

 IY.  CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

     APPENDIX A - Existing  Permit"Coordination Efforts
      APPENDIX B - Overlapping Controls and Coveraoe Under
                   NPDES, RCRA, and UIC

      APPENDIX C - Distribution of State/EPA Program Administration
                   for NPDES, RCRA, and UIC

      APPENDIX D - Existing Regional Arrangements cf Permitting
                   Functions
                                                                       AUG i 8  '-?.-.

-------
                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
     This report outlines and discusses/a proposal  for permit integration,
prepared by the Office of^Enforcement./ Three approaches  to  permit
ifTtfigfattoTr-are^rrKSTTSed,  coverTng~~tfie various pennitting  programs
under the Clean Water Act,  the Clean Air Act, the .Resource  Conservation
and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Ocean Dumping
Act. The three approaches arej}oj^cmp_rehensive alternatives, but are
complementary ways to integrate pennitting based on the NPDES experience.
To implement the OE proposal, the three approaches would be  initiated
concurrently (see chart below), with all Regional Permitting functions
focused in the Permits Branches of the Regional Enforcement Divisions
and all Headquarters permit programs focused in the Permits  Division
of the Office of Water Enforcement.

                         PERMIT INTEGRATION APPROACHES

1.  PERMIT PROGRAM MERGER [A single regulatory scheme, including
    the issuance of combined permits covering duplicated or related
    requirements of two or more programs.]

    Permit Programs Covered:   MPOES (Clean Water Act!
                               Hazardous Waste  (Resource Conservation
                                 and Recovery Ac")
                               Underground  Injection Control  (Safe
                                 Drinking  Water  Act)

2.  PARALLEL  PERMIT  PROGRAMS  [Using the  revised  NPDES  penr.it program
    regulations  as  a  model  ''or some or  all  aspects  of  other  permitting
    programs]

    Permit Programs  Covered:   Dredge  and Fill  (Clean  Water  Act)
                               Ocean Dumping
                               Public  Water Systems  (Safe Drinking
                                  Water Act)

 3.   COORDINATED PERMIT PROGRAMS [A single EPA contact point to  coordinate
     different permitting programs required for tne same facilities]

     Penr.it Programs Covered:  NPOES new source (Clean Water Act)
                               Air new source (Clear; Air Act)
                                                                       DP FT
                                                                       UlL i]  {

-------
INTRODUCTION
     EPA administers several  permit programs,  i.e.,  regulatory
programs which license and condition the release of  pollution  to
the environment.  Some of these permit programs are  already  estab-
lished and in operation;  others, while authorized by law,  are  now
in developmental stages.   These permit programs — seven  in  all —
were established by Congress as discrete regulatory  devices,
addressing different but sometimes overlapping environmental
concerns.  It remains EPA's responsibility to implement its  permit
programs in a manner that avoids needless duplication of  controls
and expenditures by EPA and the regulated community  alike.

     This responsibility has not gone unheeded by EPA.  In the
EPA Planning and Budgeting Guidance for 1379/1980, 1978-79 EPA
policy guidance, coordination of permit programs was declared to  be
an important new emphasis of the Agency.  In fact, several frag-
mented steps toward "permit integration" are already underway (see
Appendix A).  Nevertheless, there is presently no comprehensive
effort within EPA directed toward permit integration.  No effort
has yet been made to use the practical knowledge gained from
existing permit programs and the embryonic state of other permit
programs as an  opportunity to fashion an Agency  strategy covering
all of its permitting functions'.  To take the  first steps toward
filling this void, the Office of Enforcement has prepareo a proposal
for permit integration covering the following  programs:

     o The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
       program  under  section 402 of the Clean  Water Act,  including
        new sources.

     o The hazardous  waste  permit  program under section 3C05 of
        the Resource Conservation and  Recovery  Act.

     o  The underground injection control  permit program under
        Part  C  of  the  Safe  Drinking  Water  Act.

     o  The  dredge  and fill  permit  program under section  ^-04 of the
  _     Clean  Water  Act.

     o  The  ocean  dumping  penr.it program under section 102 of  the
        Ocean  Dumping  Act.

      o  The  variances  and  exemptions from  arinking water  regulations
        for  public  water  systems under sections 1415 and  1416  of  the
        Safe  Drinking  Water Act.
                                                                   D
RAFT

-------
        o  The  new  source  permit  program under  section 163
          of  the Clean  Air  Act.

        Because of the  five years  of  experience  gained  in  issuing
    and  enforcing  HPQES permits, as well  as  the  recent  updating and
    streamlining of the NPDES  program,  tnat  program  is  used  as a
    model  and  standard  of reference throughout this  report.

II.  THE  OFFICE Or  ENFORCEMENT  PROPOSAL    -

        The relationship between the  various permit  programs just
    listed goes beyond  their common  theme of regulating environmental
    pollution. Some —  such as the NPDES, hazardous  waste,  and under-
    ground injection control programs —  provide overlapping controls
    and  are likely to cover the  same  facilities  in  some,  but not all,
    instances.  Others  — such as  the public water  supply,  dredge  and
    fill,  and ocean dumping programs  -- cover different activities in
    similar ways.   The  remaining programs -- the new source programs
    for air and water — cover many  of the same  facilities,  but
    provide different kinds of controls in addition to  the overlapping
    controls that apply to  existing  and new sources.  The Office  of
    Enforcement proposal is bssed on  these three distinct relationships
    between permit programs.  Consequently,  the proposal  would establish
    a three-pronged approach  to permit integration, as  set out below:

    A.  Permit Program Merger

        In view of their overlapping controls and coverage  of facilities
    (see  Appendix 3),  the  NPDES,  Hazardous waste, ana  underground
    injection control  permit  programs woulo oe merges  into  one permit-
    ting  system.*  Tms  system would operate  according to tne
    following principles:
 *   Permit  program  merger will  most  significantly  impact  permitting
    activities  where  the  facility  is an  existing source under  all  three
    permit  programs or where a  facility  would  require  a NEPA precontruc-
    tion  environmental  review leading  to the preparation  of  an Environ-
    mental  Impact  Statement.  In  some  other  new  source or new  discharger
    situations  it  may not be desirable or practicaole  to  confine  EPA's
    activities  to  one permit.    For example,  if a facility  nas an
    NPDES permit and  wishes to  oegin disposing of  hazardous  wastes at
    tne facility,  it  may  oe necessary to issue a RCRA  permit pending
    the expiration and reissuance of the NPQES permit.  Where  tnis
    occurs, the new source aspects of the Coordinated  Permit Programs
    set out in  Section C  below transcend the merger approach.   Many of
    the complexities  resulting from the new source classification
    possibilities  are being addressed oy the New Source  Review Task
    Force  initiated by the Deputy Administrator.
                                                                           rr

-------
o A single EPA Regional  and Headquarters focal point would be
  provided for tnese tnree permitting activities.  This focal
  point would be the Permits 3ranches_jn. the Regional Enforcement
  Divisions and the Permits Division in the Office of Water
  Enforcement because of their familiarity with the__process of
  pe rmit a p p1i ca t i on, ne£otT_arion, TsTuance,_a ppeFT7~ccmpTTance
  monitoring, etc.      	        :~~"3:_r ",___:

o A single application and permit form would be compiled
  for  the three permit programs.  Wnere a permit applicant is
  covered by only one or two of the programs, certain sections
  of the combined application would not need to be completed,
  and  certain sections of the combined permit would  be deleted,
  as appropriate.

o Permit issuance procedures (including public notice and
  opportunity to comment and appeals) WOIMQ oe consolidated,
  using the  recently revised NPDES procedures.This approach
  will avoid  confusion on the p^rt of permittees  and the
  public as  to which procedures are  applicable; provide for
  smooth program  operations  in  the Regions  through  common
  procedures; and be responsive to regulatory  reform pressures
  on the Agency.  To the extent feasible,  less formal panel
  hearings would  be  used.

 o Permit  issuance  for hazardous waste  and  underground  injection
  control  should  be  prioritized in consideration  of the scnedule
  for  permit issuance unaer  NPOtS, wnere  appropriate.   Comoinea
  permits  would  be  issued  at tne  time  of  KPOES permit  issuance,
  modification,  or  reissuance.  Permit  duration  for all
  three  programs  would  be  identical.

 o  Permit  monitoring,  recordkeeoing,  and reporting requirements
  woulo  pe me shea so that  0)  all  reports are aue at tne
   same time; (2)  the solicited  oata  is  not applicative;  and
   (3)  redundant mcnitaring  is  not required.   This would
   diminish unnecessary  paperwork  burdens  on regulated  industry
   and  reduce the Agency's  associated resource burdens.

 o  Inspection visits to  determine  permit compliance would  se
   maae at tne same time ratner than on different occasions.
   Tnis would prevent permittee's  complaints of unnecessary EPA
   intrusion and may reduce administrative burdens on EPA.

-------
          o Stats program approvals would follow the same process,  using
            the revised NPOES/creage ana fill  procedures as me common
            model .*

          o Enforcement of merged permits would be consolidated and
            coorGi nated, to assure tr.at a't 1  compliance oojectives
            are achieved by use of the most efficient and appropriate
            enforcement tools.

      B.  Parallel  Permit Programs

          Because the dredge and fill, ocean dumping, and public water
      supply permit programs follow similar approacnes in their regulation
v\    of particular pollution proolems, tnere would oe a single EPA
v     "permitting model" for administering some or all aspects of
      these programs.  The permitting model would operate according to
      tne following principles:

     "-  o A  single EPA Regional  focal point would be  provided  for
            these  three discrete programs to avoid confusion on  the
            part of regulated facilities and interested  members  of
            the  public.  This focal point would be  the  Permits Branches
            in the Regional Enforcement Divisions and the  Permits
            Division in the Office of Water Enforcement, because of  their
            familiarity with  the process of permit  application,  negoti-
            ation, issuance,  appeal,  compliance monitoring, etc.

          ^ Some,  but  not  necessarily  all,  aspects  of tnese programs
            would  be identical  to  tne  NPQES model.   For example, ocean
            aumping  permits would  oe  issued using  the same procedures as
             the  revised  NPDES procedures.   However,  for dredge and fill
            permits, where EPA's permit program role  is not to issue
            federal  permits  but to approve  Stata  programs  and  review
            proposed permits,  the  revised  process for
             approval  *ould be the  appropriate  NPDES
           It should be noted that States may be approved to administer
       the NPDES, hazardous waste, ana underground injection control
       permit programs.  State administration of one or more programs may
       present problems for perr.it integration at the -ederal level.
       This situation is further complicated by the possioility of
       partial State program approvals now available under draft hazardous
       waste and underground injection control programs.

           Nevertheless, if EPA's permit  integration effort  proves  successful,
       it might  serve as a model  to  tne States.   In addition, EPA should
       require,  as part of any permit program approval, that tne State
       demonstrate how overlapping perrr.it programs will ce coordinated to
       avoid  duplication of controls  and  effort.

       This comoined process  for  State KPilES  anc  dredge and  fill program
       approvals is alreaoy reflectec in  tne  proposed  NPDES  regularicns ^ ^ _
       (new oart 123;.                                                  £ }^-. ?..

-------
        o Duplicated EPA regulations would be eliminated as far
          as possTDle oy cross-referencing common procedures for
          permit issuance, State program approval, etc.

    C.  Coordinated Permit Programs

        A single EPA Regional "contact" would be designated to coordinate
    the new source permit programs for air and water pollution, since
    these programs often cover the same facilities, out provide
    different controls.  This effort is already underway in EPA
    througn the Hew Source Review Task Force, and involves tne follow-
    ing principles:

        o The designation of a new source permit facilitator/  expediter
          in each Region.  This was called for in the  Deputy Administra-
          tor's memorandum on "Management Initiatives  for  New  Sources".
          The Office of  Enforcement has supported this approach,
          recommending that  this  responsibility be  assigned to
          the Regional Permits Branches because of  their expertise and
          the need for organizational  consistency.

        o A permit tracking  system with administrative milestones
          tailored to  each permit.

        o Coordinated  schedules  and procedures  for  new source  permits
          to  the  extent  possible, e.g., combined  punlic notices, etc.

        o Early  identification and  resolution of  potential  conflicts
          among  environmental  requirements.

III.   RESOURCE  IMPLICATIONS

          The  three-pronged  approach  to  permit integration offers  a
      significant opoortun-;ty for improving  tne overall £-ficiency
      and  effectiveness of EPA's  permitting  activities.  While existing
      resources  are  not adequate  to  issue  and maintain the  many thousanas
      of permits  that may oe  issued  under  existing legislation, integrated
      permitting  will  enable  greater productivity  and  effectiveness
      within EPA and  State regulatory  agencies.  A savings  in  tne
      private  sector and regulated governmental  operations  may also oe
      anticipated.

   iy__     The resource savings may  be expressed as a  reduction in
      tne number of people required to implement the several permit
      functions,  an increase in the number of pollution sources covered
      by enviroamental  permits, an improvement in the  overall  quality
      and effectiveness of permits or a cocioi nation of these assets.
      EPA's national  strategies and policies  can effectively direct the
      emphasis within given resource constraints.  The overall result
      vill oe an increase in environmental protection  per  person
      assigned to permitting.
                                                                      •JIT.

-------
  '"k     The  Office of Enforcement Z3B "Workload Model" for the
    NPDES  Permits-Issuance Decision Unit,  shows that in FY 1979
    the  Regions need approximately 340 people to handle tne permitting
    activities for  the high  priority major municipal and industrial
    sources.  The 1979 budget  allocates 210 positions  to that work.
    Thus,  some limiting  of even  the high  priority workload will
    occur.  If the minor  permits  were to be routinely issued and
    reissued, a regional  NPQES permit program work-force of about
    1000 people would be needed.   Indeed, during tne initial years of
    the  NPOES permit program total resources exceeded  800 people.
    While  many efficienclg_s_Jiaj/e been built into the NPDES program,
    many compVexTtT'el'lTave been  adaed by  legislative changes and
    court-decisions.  Other  permit programs can  expect similar
    experiences —  resource  needs in excess of those availaole,
    increasing complexity, prioritization of activity, etc.   It can
    be anticipated  that  the  total  EPA resources  applied to  all
    permitting activities will never be  large  enough to issue  permits
    to all potential permit  holders.  Only through  more effective
    management of available  resources can significant  environmental
     gains  oe achieved.   Permit integration using approaches compatible
    with existing legislation provides  such  a  management  scheme.

IV.  CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

         The overlapping  controls and  procedures  under  the  Agency's
    penm'tting programs  argue for an  EPA scheme of  permit  integration.
    Without such  a process,  affected  facilities,  and the  permit
    writers themselves,  may  be faced  with varying permit  procedures,
    inconsistent permit conditions, duplicated  EPA  information requests,
    and general  confusion as to who in EPA is regulating  what.   The
    Office of Enforcement believes that the burden  is on  EPA to
    provide a precise,  understandable permit system which  avoids
    needless  time and expense  to all  parties, while making clear their
    respective rights,  obligations, and responsibilities.

        The Office of Enforcement  recommends that this proposal
    be adopted, and that the necessary organizational  changes be
    made.

         For  the EPA Regional offices, organizational changes would
    involve  placing all  permitting functions in  the Permits Srancnes
    with sufficient technical  personnel and authority  to Ge£]  wl- -^ a]-|
    jut  thgjno_s_t_£fl5ig_lex_ pgiaits^r special relations.  In those
    comprex~"or specia, 1 situations  otfl^r- progrea-~o£fices may provide
    assistance.   For example,  in developing municipal  compliance
    schedules, continued coordination with construction grants is
    essential.  At  present,  some Regions  seem  to be moving  to  place
    all  permitting  functions in  the Permits Branch, but the situation
    is in  flux and  complicated by ongoing "turf" battles  (see  Appendix
    D).  The  Region  IX and X  Permits Branches are already being  organized
    alone  the lines of  this  recommendation.
                                                                      DRAF
                                                                      * I '« « *  I —I
                                                                      ^ ! I 11  i K  l37T

-------
     In Headquarters, penr.it program related function of NPDES,
RCRA, UIC, Drinking Water variances and exemptions,  ocean dumping,
and 404 would be consolidated in the Permits Division of the
Office of Enforcement (HPDES, Drinking Water variances and exemptionI
and 404- are currently administered by the Permits Division).          |
Office of Water and Waste Management will continue with its        ~~~
standard setting responsibilities and will provide technical
advice with regard to these programs to the extent it does so with
the permit programs currently administered Dy the Permit Division.

-------
                               APPENDIX A
                   EXISTING  PERMIT COORDINATION EFFORTS
1 .   New Source Review  Task  Force

         o Identified  problems  and  potential  responses for new
           source permitting.

         o Submitted a set  of  six management  initiatives for new
           source penrritting (May 1978).

2.  OE Regulations Work

         o Coordination between overlapping  permit  program controls
           required by certain parts of the  proposed  MPDES regulations
           (August 1978) and final  pretreatment regulations  (July
           1978).

         o Further coordination now being developed in  regulations
           for NPDES and RCRA controls on municipal  sludges.

         o Review of the hazardous  waste and underground  injection
           control permit  regulations, including a  recent  review
           in light of  the NPDES permit experience.

3.   Other OE  Activities

          o Prepared a  draft report  on  integrating NPOES and  hazardous
           waste permitting for OE  review (May 1973).

          o Prepared a  chart outlining  controls and mechanisms under
           nine  federal  acts  (July  1978).
                                                                       DRAF

-------
                              APPENDIX  B
                   OVERLAPPING CONTROLS AND  COVERAGE
                      UNDER NPDES,  RCRA,  AND UIC
I.  SUMMARY OF LEGAL AUTHORITY

    A.  NPDES.  The NPDES permit program under the Clean  Water
        Act regulates the discharge of pollutants from point sources
        into waters of the United States.  Regulation of  these
        discharges is through effluent limitations and management
        practices designed to minimize or prevent the release
        of pollutants to surface water.  For municipal dischargers,
        pretreatment requirements and sludge disposal conditions
        may be required in an NPDES permit.

    8.  Hazardous Waste.  The hazardous waste permit program under
        the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulates the
        storage, treatment and disposal of hazardous waste in order
        to control the release of pollutants to air, ground water,
        and surface waters.  Regulation of these activities is
        through operation and design  requirements, closure require-
        ments, financial  responsibility restrictions, etc.  Hazardous
        wastes may be lawfully disposed of only by a  permitted
        facility.

    C.  Underground  Injection Control.  The underground  injection
        control permit program regulates the  subsurface  emplacement
        of  fluids  by well  injection  in  oraer  to  protect  drinking
        water sources  (i.e.,  ground  water  which will  or  can be
        used  for  public  water supply).   Regulation of these activities
        is  through  operation  and  design  requirements  which will
        preserve  gound wate-  quality.

II.   OVERLAPPING  CONTROLS AND  COVERAGE

     A.  RCRA  and  UIC.   Both  the  hazaraous  waste  and  underground
         injection control  permit programs  have  legal  autnority to
         control  the disposal  of  hazardous  waste  by  suo-surface
         emplacement through  permit conditions designed to protect
         ground water.   However,  tne hazardous waste  program  clearly
         has a broader mandate,  since it may  go  oeyond concitions
         designed to protect  ground water and impose  conditions
         designed to protect  other aspects  of the environment (air,
         surface water).

     B.   RCRA  AND NPDES.   Tnere  are several areas of  overlapping
         controls ana coverage under tne NFOES and hazardous waste
         permit programs.  The most significant are the following:
                                                                    DRAFT

-------
         o The disposal of hazardous waste into waters of the United
           States, including wetlands, may be regulated under ooth
           programs.

         o The use of  "best management practices" to control hazardous
           waste storage, treatment, and disposal at an NPDES permitted
           facility is authorized under both programs.  This is
           significant because 80* of hazardous waste is now disposed
           on sits. However, NPDES permit requirements must have a
           relation to surface water, while hazardous waste permit
           requirements may be less narrowly drawn,

         o Controls on the disposal of municipal  sludge may be imposed
           under botn  programs.  Coverage under  NPDES exclusively
           and exemption  from the hazardous waste permit system is  now
           being considered for municipal sludges.

         o Closely  related controls on  indirect  dischargers to municipal
           systems  may be imposed under  ootn programs.  Municipal
           treatment  systems could  be  considered hazardous  waste
           treatment/  disposal  facilities under  RCRA.   Sludges  result-
           ing from the  NPDES pretreatment  program  must be  disposed of
           in accordance  with hazardous  waste  program  requirements.

      C.   KPDE5  and  UIC.   Both NPDES and  the underground injection
          control  programs may regulate on-site well  disposal  through
          "best management practices."   (NPDES  States are  required  to
          regulate deep well  disposal.)   In  addition, NPDES  permit
          limits  must be  adjusted  to take well  disposal  into account
          where part of a plant's  total  waste stream is diverted to well
          disposal.

I!!.   AH EXAMPLE  OF OVERLAP

          Pits, ponds, and lagoons located at an  NPDES permitted
      facility, or in wetlands,  may be regulated  unaer all  three permit
      programs.

-------
                                        APPENDIX C
                             DISTRIBUTION OF STATE/EPA PROGRAM
                          ADMINISTRATION FOR NPDES,  RCRA,  AND UIC
tv.
Chart 1      NPDES Approved States

Chart 2     Projected State Acceptance of Subtitle C Under RCRA

Chart 3     Hazardous Waste Generation (Stats Volume)

Chart 4     Underground Injection Control - Designated States

Chart 5     Public Water Supply - Primacy States

-------
= cs

-------
Z
UJ
o

p
w
UJ
i-
o

o.

_l
<

Z
 o
 fifi
!!
/.\
V
.x • y

a^
• • • • •
scKvns
JO
« LJ * ^
W * • J
*~ — • ^

-.•v ' X
                                                                                                                        s
                                                                                                                        ft

                                                                                                                        c
                                                                                                                        I

                                                                                                                        8

-------

-------
D  E

-------

-------
     c_J
1/1
00

-------
n    ^i
U    iiJ

-------
                                   APPENDIX 0
              EXISTING REGIONAL ARRANGEMENTS OF PERMITTING  FUNCTIONS
            (Based on a Regional Telephone Survey,  August 4 &  7,  1978!

                                 REGIONAL DIVISION
.ESI ON
         ENFORCEMENT
    WATER
    PROGRAM
    AIR &
  HAZARDOUS
    WASTE
 OFFICE OF
  FEDERAL
ACTIVITIES
OTHER
          NPDES, RCRA,
          UIC, 404, New
          Sources, Air
          (assist.)
                                       Technical
                                       assistance
                                       on RCRA,
                                       lead on air
                                                                          AIR,  RCRA,
                                                                          NPDES,  UIC
   1I72
       Water Enforce-
       ment: NPDES
       Air Enforce-
       ment:   Air a
       RCRA
                                Ocean Dumping
        NPDES,  404,
        New  Sources
        (i nf ormal ly)
UIC
                                           Air
           NPDES
                                        Air
                                 404
VI5
NPOES, Air
(recently),
404, UIC,
New Sources
RCRA5
VII
           NPOES
UIC
Air,  RCRA
   VIII0
        NPDES
404, UIC
   •TV?
   i A
        NPDES, Air,
        RCRA, UIC,
        etc.
           N=DES, Air,
           UIC, New
           Sources
           ( D c s s i b 1 e 1
                                                                                JVfU

-------
APPENDIX D FOOTNOTES


 Region II has a different organization than  most Regions;  permitting
is not done in Enforcement, but is done in the Facilities Technology
and Environmental Programs Divisions.

2
 Region III is currently studying integration of KPDES,  RCRA,  ana
UIC.  It is likely that all will be combined  under one  division  in  the
near future.


 Region IY is not certain who will administer RCRA; however,  it  is
expected to be the Enforcement Division.

 Region  Y  is not certain who will administer RCRA; however, it is
 expected to be the Air Division.
 "Region  YI  is  experiencing  a  dispute over whether RCRA should be
 administered by  the  Enforcement Division, but no change is expected at
 the  present time.


  Region  VIII has proposed  to  have  the Air Division administer RCRA;
 this is  being  disputed by  the Enforcement Division.
  Region IX has  all  permitting consolidated  in  the Enforcement
 Division.

 Q
  Region X s arrangements are new being established.   Washington, an
 NPOES State in  Region X, has a successful one-sicp  permitting  program
                                     20

-------
                                                             VOLUME  II
                     EPA PERMITS CONSOLIDATION

                        TASK FORCE REPORT

                             COWENTS



                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary of Comments
Option Papers - Who Approves Stata Programs? 	  6
              - Who Signs the Permits?	9
APPENDIX A - Comments

   Assistant Aciministrator
   Assistant Aciministrator
   Regional Administrator
   Deputy Regional Administrator
   Regional Administrator
   Enforcement Division Director
   Regional Administrator
   Regional Administrator
   Regional Administrator
- Office of Enforcement
- Office of Water and Waste Management
- Region II
- Region III
- Region IV
- Region Y
- Region VI
- Region VIII
- Region IX
APPENDIX 8 - Summary Table and Report Reference Guide

-------
                         SUMMARY OF COMMENTS

                PERMIT CQMSQLIDATION TASK FORCE REPORT

Regional Organization

     The Regional comments focused primarily on the organizational
implications of developing, a central permit-writing unit in each
Regional office—see pages 41-42, 45-46 of the report.  The predominant
vie* seems to be that the type and extent of Regional reorganization,
if any, should be left to the Regional office's determination (Regions
II, III, 1Y, VIII).  In general, however, there seems to be little
problem with the concept of shifting the authority to develop permits
and the administrative aspects of permit-issuance to a centralized
group—see page 45, section IV.D.l.b. of the report (Regions II, V,
VI, VIII, X; contra:  Region III which might envision a separate
permit group for each State).  Region IX, however, did take exception
to the report's recommendation that this,permit-writing unit be
located in the Enforcement Division or a separately organized Permits
Division, stating that that unit could be just as effectively located
in other divisions (Region IX comments, page 1).  Region VI, on the
other hand, Indicated that the administrative aspects of the permit
programs in that Region were already satisfactorily consolidated in
the Enforcement Division (Region VI comments, page 1).

     The problem seems to lie, rather, with the report's suggestion
that the interests of permits consolidtion would be best served if the
technical resources needed to develop consolidated permits ara eventually
shifted to this central permit-writing unit--see page 45-46, section
IV.0.I.e. of the report.  Some Regions felt that in the smaller programs
(e.g., UIC and RCRA), a division of the program's technical resources
for permit writing from technical resources needed for program activities
would leave the program activities understaffed (Regions III, IV,VI, VIII)
Another Region felt that the separation of technical resources for
permit-writing frcm program planning aspects would lead to an inadequate
JOD in doth areas, the rationale being that good technical people were
hard to come by and roust be shared (Region V, see page 3 of attached
comments fron the Air Division).

     Comments frcm some Regional officss indicated satisfaction with
the report's proposal regarding shifts of tachnical resources as long as
flexibility regarding timing and the extent of the shift remained
discretionary with the Regional Administrator.  Region X wished to
"particularly endorse the Regional flexibility" allowed by the report's
reconmendations regarding the allocation of technical resources and
Region  II expressed "strong support" of this same provision (Region II,
page 1 of comments).  Region Y comments endorsed the shift of technical
resources to a permit-writing unit, but stressed that a strong liaison
needed to be established between this unit and the program offices.
Region V also stressed that resource shifts must not result in reduced
capadility by the program offices to overview State programs.

-------
     Comments from the Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste
Management also indicated agreement with the report's statement that
the Regional  Administrators should be allowed flexibility in allocting
scarce technical  resources between competing demands of program objectives
(e.g., promoting State delegations) and permit writing.  The Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement, on the other hand,  had serious objections
to splitting the technical capability necessary to develop permit
conditions from the other aspects of permit writing.  He asserts that a
consolidated permit becomes a fiction if program offices retain autonomy
to develop permit conditions independent of each other or the permit-
writing unit.  In addition, according to Enforcement the Regional
Administrator in such a situation is faced with the burden of having to
continually oversee the balance of technical support used for program
purposes versus that used for permit writing.

     A second area dealing with Regional organization which received a
significant amount of attention was the establishment of an initial
point of contact for all permit inquiries and applications--see page 41,
section IV.C.2. and page 45, section IY.O.l.b.3. of the report.  The
predominant view seems to be that there be one initial point of contact
for new and existing sources rather than a one initial point of contact
for new sources and another contact for existing sources as proposed in
the report—see page 41 (Regions II, III, Y, VIII).  Region Y elaborated
further on the responsibilities of this initial point of contact and
asserted that "The real benefits to the public [of the permits consoli-
dation proposal] would be the availability of a single contact point and
source of information from within EPA.  Increased satisfaction by the
public is probably the greatest potential benefit to all concerned,
including EPA." (Region V, page 2 of comments).

Headquarters Organization

      Two Regions suggested that Regional and State personnel be included
in the Permits Consolidation Work Group to be formed within the Permits
Division of the Office of Water Enforcement (Regions  III, VIII).  The
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement opposes the format of the work
group (i.e., "a sort of mini-steering committee for permits") because
it creates a group with responsibility but lacking the authority needed
to carry out the considerable amount of day-to-day negotiation which is
anticipated.  He recommends that one existing group (i.e.,
Permits Division) be given the necessary authority, responsibility and
resources.  Along the same lines, the Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement objects to  the fragmentation of authority for coordinating
policy guidance (page 27-32 of the report) and states that the coordina-
tion  of substantive guidance which is necessary to assure that maximum
environmental benefits  are achieved, can only occur if "one group is
capable of assessing the  total situation and negotiating within the
Agency and with the pe ran tee."

-------
Consolidated regulations, .forms and files

     Regulations;  Another series of Regional  comments focused on the
consolidation of EPA permit forms, files and regulations - see sections
I and II of the report.  First, Region VI emphasized that regulations
must appear in consolidated form rather than being published separately
in order for EPA to receive the full benefits of this reform effort.
The report provided that consolidated regulations would be structured
so that individual program regulations could be broken out and published
separately—see page 21, section 1.0.6. of the report.  Region VI
asserted that their effort to coordinate existing permit programs has
been hampered by inconsistencies in the various program regulations, and
pointed out that an effort to make regulations consistent must precede
program consolidation efforts at the Regional  level (Region VI comment,
page 1).   Region IV expressed a concern that the NPOES regulation not
provide a model for procedural and substantive regulations dealing with
State delegations in other programs.  This concern was recognized in the
report which explicitly statas that MPQES regulations would only provide
a check list for the development of other permit program regulations and
"would not dictate form or substance or the inclusion of any requirements
or criteria"—see page 16, section I.C.3.b. of the report.  The Assistant
Administrator for Water and Wasta Management expressed a similar concern
in stating that the consolidated regulations must not result in rules
which are too confusing and complex for permittees or regulators to
understand and administer (AA for QWWM comments, page 25.

     Consolidated permit form:  Three Regions addressed the consolidation
of the permit forms for the various EPA permit programs—see section
Ill.C.l.b. of the report (Regions II, III, V).  Comments on this aspect
were quite varied.  On the pro side, Region II emphasizad that the
concurrent abatement schedules wnich would be a part of the consolidated
permit should result "in the most cost-sffactive way for a particular
industry, municipality, etc., to meet their environmental responsi-
bilities" (Region II, page 2 of comments).  Similarly, Region V Water
Division comments alloyed that a consolidated permit enhances EPA's
aoility to deal with the whole environmental context of a particular
source (Region V, page 2 of ccmments).

     Other commentators raportad varying concerns about usa of a con-  .
solidatad permit.  Region III faareq that an improperly designed form
would be too ccmplex and would entail significant EPA costs in following
up on the error? wnich could be anticipated to arise from such a complex
form (Region III, page 1 of comments).  The Region V Enforcement Division
felt that the consolidated permit mignt lead to delays in implementing
environmental controls, the rationale being that while a question or
adjudication was pending on one aspect of the permit, the permittee
would be hesitant to go ahead with the other permit requirements (Region
V, page 1 of comments).  As a solution, the Region proposed that clear
saverability provisions be included in the permit.  The Region also
suggested that flexibility be alloweo in utilizing the consolidated
permit, specifically that some smaller facilities be exempted frcm the
requirement of having a consolidated permit.

-------
     Finally, the Air Division in Region V agreed that the  consolidation
of all air permits was a desireable objective but expressed strong
opposition to consolidation of non-air and air permits (Region  V, page
3).  The consolidation of forms between the media was  recommended in
page 35 of the report--see III.e.2.

Resources

     Those Regions commenting on the resource implications  of permit
consolidation were generally split in their views.  Region  II and V
agreed that consolidated permitting would lead to decreases in  resources
devoted to permit writing in the long run (Region II,  page  2 of comments,
Region V, page 2 of comments).  Region Y warned,  however, as did Region
VIII, that this decrease might be consumed by increased resources needed
to oversee delegated State programs.  The Air Division in Region V,
however, felt that resources for permit writing might  actually  increase
due to permits consolidation.  The rationale for  this  comment was that a
split of technical resources for permit writing from technical  resources
needed for program support might lead to duplication of technical
personnel (Region V, page 3 of comments).  Region II also noted a
short-term increase in resources due to the need  to "maintain the
thrust" of existing programs while at the same time initiating  the
permit consolidation effort (Region II, page 2 of comments).

     The Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Management
predicated his support of the Task Forces recommendations on the
continuing ability of the Office of Enforcement to meet its other high
priority responsoilities, including the issuance  of second  round NPDES
permits.  In addition, he  asserts his intentions to follow through
with certain aspects of the consolidation program, i.e.,  the coordina-
tion of policy/guidance on substantive criteria and standards,  even  if
the Office of Enforcement receives no permits consolidation resources
(Assistant Administrator for OWWM comments, page  3).

State  Involvement

     The present  initiative

     The Regions which commented on opening a dialogue with the
States regarding permit consolidation seemed to express differing
views.  Region Y indicated a desire that State input be "integrated
immediately into  the Task Force process" (Region  Y, cover memorandum).
Region  III, on the other hand, declared itself to be "strongly  opposed
to opening dialogue with the States...until EPA has some successes  to
show"  (Region  III, page 2 of comments).  Region II similarly stressed
that EPA must  "set an example" first by at least  initiating the permit
consolidation  effort at the Federal level (Region II comments,  page
3).  The Assistant Administrator for Water and Waste Management
recommends that  immediate steps be taken to rationalise permitting  by
the  State and  by  EPA through the State/EPA Agreement process (Assistant
Administrator  for OWWM comments, page 2).  This recommendation  is
supported by Region  II comments (Region  II comments, page 4).

-------
     State delegation and audits

     The Assistant Aduri ni strator of Water and Waste Management emphasized
that program offices should have the lead in maintaining communication
with the States regarding the development of State capabilities and
delegation of programs (Assistant Administrator for QWWM comments,  page
1). Region IX Indicated that there was "good reason" for the 404 (dredge
and fill) delegation responsibility to be assigned to the division
responsible for NPOES program approval, i.e., Enforcement (Region IX
comment, page 1).  Region V suggested that the composition of State
audit teams and the frequency of State audits (see page 44, paragraph d)
be left to the Regions' discretion.  The Region specifically questioned
the need to have both program office and permit office personnel  jointly
conduct each audit (Region V, comments page 2).  Along similar lines,
Region IX suggested that it might be desirable to assign responsibility
for State program audits to a divison with little direct program involve-
ment rather than to the appropriate program division; the rationale
being that the former might have a greater capacity for independent
appraisal .

Comments on outstanding Issues

     Who approves State programs?  (Option Paper £1)

     The Assistant Administrator for Water & Waste Management proposes
that the issue of who approves State programs be solved by having tne
Administrator approve the first delegation in each Region for each
program, while allowing the Regional Administrator to make the determi-
nation on subsequent approvals (Assistant Administrator for QWWM
comments, page 2).

     The Assistant Administrator for Enforcement, on the other hand,
urges that the Administrator have final approval  authority in the
intarest of maintaining national consistency in approved Stats programs.
     Who signs the permits?  (Option Paper »2)
     The Assistant Administrator for Enforcement recommends that the
Enforcement Division Director sign the permit, an Administrative Law
Judge make a decision based on an evidentiary hearing and the
Administrator decide an appeal .

-------
                          OPTION PAPER 1

ISSUE;

Who makes the decision to delegate a State program, the Administrator
or the  Regional  Administrators?

BACKGROUND:

MPQES delegations are presently made by the Administrator.  Section
205(g)  construction grant delegations are presently made by the
Regional Administrator.  The UIC regulations have proposed that primacy
determinations be made by the Regional Administrators with Headquarters
concurrences.  The objective of consistent policy and procedues in the
consolidated regulations suggests these differences should be reconciled.

ALTERNATIVES

Option A:  The Regional Administrator makes the delegation determination
           with the concurrence of the applicable Headquarters program
           office, the Office of General  Counsel and the Office of
           Enforcement.

     pro:  There are three advantages which figure most prominently in a
           decision to give the Regional  Administrator responsibility for
           State program approvals.  First, the Regional Administrator
           is usually in a better position to judge the quality of a
           State submission than his/her counterparts at Headquarters.
           Because of his/her day-to-day dealings with the State, the
           Regional Administrator and Regional staff are sensitive to the
           unique abilities of a State to meet statutory and regulatory
           requirements for delegation.  Thus, a Region may be aware
           that the superior organization and quality of personnel in a
           State will enable it to carry out program responsibilities
           even though on paper the State might fall short of the strict
           organizational or resource requirements spelled out in
           applicable regulations.

           Secondly, the Regional Administrtor is often in a better
           negotiating position.  The State realizes that in dealing
           with the Regional Administrator it is dealing with the
           final decision maker.  This may in turn give the Region more
           leverage in its day-to-day negotiations with the State to
           exact commitments regarding program operations.

           Finally, when Headquarters concurs without problem or  delay
           on a State program approval, having the Regional Administrator
           as approval authority will reduce the State program application
           review time.  Instead of being sent on to the Administrator
           for approval, the State approval would become effective
           almost immediately upon Headquarters concurrence as the
           Regional Administrator had already made a decision reqarding
           approval before sending the package to Headquarters.

-------
     con:   The primary concern with this approach 1s that approval  by
           the Regional  Administrator may not result in nation-wide
           consistency between delegated programs.   Each Region would
           be more likely to set its own standards  for approval, thus
           disrupting the parity which States have  cone to expect
           between programs.  This problem may be somewhat alleviated by
           the Headquarters concurrence role, but the concern remains
           that Headquarters input would be less effective if the
           Regional  Administrator rather than the Administrator has
           ultimate approval authority.

           A second concern is that the Regional Administrator might
           be more inclined to approve a less than  sufficient State
           program in order to expedite relieving Regional  personnel
           of the burden and responsibility for issuing permits.  As
           Headquarters is not subjected to the same pressure to issue
           permits, it could be more neutral  and detached in its
           decision to approve.  This concern is somewhat offset by
           two factors; the fact that there is a Headquarters concurrence
           role and the fact that most Regions believe that overview
           of a poorly operated State program can involve a Regional
           resource commitment almost as great as the resources needed
           if the Region issues the permits itself.

Potion 3:   The Regional  Administrator makes a delegation recommendation
           upon which, after concurrence of the applicable Headquarters
           program office, the Office of General Counsel  and the Office
           of Enforcement, a determination is made by the Administrator.

     pro:   An important advantage of having the Administrator maka  the
           final  determination on whether to delegate a State program is
           that the Administrator is ensured of greater direct control
           over the delgation decision.  This can be imoortant where
           there ars sensitive political issues relating to a State's
           program which have implications beyond the Regional  level.

           In addition, and very importantly, a decision at the
           Administrator's level can ensure a greater uniformity and
           consistency among approved State programs.  A final  decision
           on all programs by one individual  can not only relieve the
           disparity among States in different geographical areas which
           tnay come with Regional Administrator approvals, but approval
           at the Administrator's level can also improve consistancy
           between the permit programs delegated to any one Stata.   The
           Administrator is the natural focal point for input from  the
           national program managers and is better able to integrate and
           consider their respectve concerns in examining the components
           of a Stata program proposal.

-------
      Conflicts which arise between programs on State program
      elements are more easily resolved at the Headquarters level
      not only because of this facilitated flow of comments between
      national program managers and the Administrator, but also
      because the Administrator wields more authority than the
      Regional Administrator to resolve impasses when they develop
      among the various program heads.

con:  The main concern attendant to having the Administrator make
      the final approval  decision is that the approval process may
      take more time as it all must funnel through one person.
      To some extent, this concern is balanced by the fact that
      under this option:   1) all program submissions must be
      funnelled through a Headquarters concurrence even when the
      Regional Administrator plans to grant final approval and, 2)
      it is the concurrence process which consumes the most time in
      Headquarters, not Administrator approved.  The additional
      time needed to obtain the Administrator's signature,
      barring the need for him to take and active role in resolving
      conflicts among program leaders, would be minimal, and
      would be offset by the advantages of national  consistency
      mentioned earlier.

-------
                           OPTION PAPER 2
ISSUE:
Who signs the permit and what impact does this determination have upon
the appeals process?

BACKGROUND:

There seems to be general agreement by the Task Force and commentors on
the first aspect of this issue, that is, who signs the permit.  The
report recommends that a single Regiojal Division Director should be
responsible for signing all permits.  In addition, the Office of General
Counsel  has determined thaT~IrTAdmini strati ve Law Judge {ALJ) should
make an initial decision on any contested permit condition  based on an
evidentiary hearing.  The remaining issue is, who acts on subsequent
appeals from the ALJ's decision?

ALTERNATIVES:

Option A:  The appeal goes to tha Regional Adninistrator for initial
           determination and subsequently to the Administrator for a
           final decision.

     pro:  The primary benefit identified with this option is that it
           provides increased sensitivity in the appeal decision as the
           Regional Administrator is in a better position to comprehend
           the nuances of the problem on appeal.  In addition, this
           approach gives the Regional Administrator more control over
           these important decisions which may affect the operation of
           the permit program in his/her Region.

     con:  The chief objection to this approach is that it complicates the
           appeal process by introducing a two-step procass (Regional
           Administrator then Administrator), when a one step appeal
           process is simpler, legally adequate and in conformanca with
           the practices adopted by most other federal agencies.

           In addition, many commentators are ccncamed about the
           possible impropriety of the Regional Administrator exercising
           an appeal authority over permit conditions which his/her
           office may have had a hand in formulating or at least
           implicitly sanctioning.

Option 3:  The appeal goes directly to the Administrator for a final
           decision.

     pro:  The benefits of direct appeal to the Administrator are
           three-fold and essentially parallel the concerns addressed
           aoove.  Fi**st, appeal to the Acministrator is less time
           consuming and complex than the two-stsp procass discussed in
           the first option.  Second, the Administrator is clearly a

-------
      disinterested party and his  independent appeal  decision  is
      not subject to the same objections  regarding  possible  conflict
      of interest which might accompany  a preliminary decision by
      the Regional  Administrator.   Finally,  the  one-step  appeal
      process envisioned in this option  is generally  adopted by
      other federal agencies.

con:  A possible concern with this option is that it  might consume
      a significant portion of the Administrator's  time,  the
      rationale being that if the  Regional  Administrator  were  to
      make the preliminary decision,  the  Administrator's  role  could
      be reduced to simply concurring by  way of  signature.  This
      concern may be offset by the important concerns of  possible
      conflict of interest at the  Regional  Administrator  level
      mentioned earl ier.

-------
EPA PERMITS CONSOLIDATION



   TASK FORCE REPORT



       COMMENTS
     APPENDIX A

-------
     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460

                     January 4,  1979          _^
                                             OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT


MEMORANDOM

TO:       The Administrator

FROM:     Assistant Administrator for Enforcement  (EN-329)

SUBJECT:  Permits Consolidation
     I strongly support, the efforts of the Permits
Consolidation Task Force and concur with most of  its  recom-
mendations.  However, I believe that the recommendations  of
the Task Force with regard to internal organizational
arrangements do not go far enough to create a structure that
can deliver the promised benefits of consolidation.   They do
not give the managers of the consolidated permit  program
sufficient authority to make the effort work successfully,
but rather fracture authority among several offices.  If the
benefits of permit consolidation are realized,  it will be a
major accomplishment of regulatory reform for the administra-
tion. If uhey are not realized, however, the effort will
ultimately be viewed as an empty gesture and will lead to
disillusionment with management initiatives by  the Agency.

     The recommendations appear to represent a  compromise by
all offices involved with which each can live comfm-^b. iy-
I doubt that a cask force composed of such offices could
reach any other recommendations.  To expect it  co do  so is
like expecting a legislature to objectively redistrict
itself.  I believe that our responsibility as top Agency
management, however, is to look beyond che concerns of the
offices involved to fashion a structure that will assure  the
benefits of permit consolidation are fully realized.  I do
not aaka that observation selfishly, for although I believe
that consolidated permitting should be an Enforcement
responsibility, I am perfectly willing that the permitting
functions of the Agency be located outside Enforcement if
that would facilitate giving the managers of consolidated
permitting the full authority they need to make the effort
work successfully.

-------
                           -2-
     My specific disagreements with the Task Force recommen-
dations are as follows:

          o Regional Organization.  Consolidated permitting
     must be in the same division in each region and that
     division should correspond to the Assistant Administra-
     tor charged with responsibility for the success of the
     program.  Without such organization, lines of communi-
     cation between Headquarters and the regions will be
     too diffuse to assure the success of the program.

          o Regional Contacts.  Contacts for all permits,
     whether for new or existing sources, should be in
     the consolidated permitting unit in the Regional
     Office.  The idea of having a single point of contact
     to expedite permit issuance, particularly for new sources,
     is a good one.  But the whole logic of having a con-
     solidated permitting unit dictates that all contact
     points for permits be located in that unit.  How does
     it help EPA or industry to have a single contact in
     each region if a score card is needed to locate the
     contact and the contact has no authority or resources
     to issue the permits?

          o Regional Permit Responsibilities.  The regional
     consolidated permit units should have lead responsibility
     for all permit matters/in delegated states, e.g.,
     delegations. overview, ar^i^a ^nd assistance.  Only that
     unit will have the needed expertise to do the job.  More-
     over,  if the Agency wishes to encourage, or at least
     facilitate permit consolidation at the state level, the
     Agency should be speaking with one voice to States
     regarding permits, not three or four voices, and that
     voice  should be expressing your policy.

          o Regional Technical Support.  To fully consolidate
     permitting and to assure expeditious handling of permits,
     all permitting functions and resources, including
     technical, should be  located in the regional permit
     unit.  For air permits,  this transfer of resources
     should occur by October  1, 1979, after the initial
     work on SIP approval  has been accomplished.  For other
     permit programs this  should occur immediately if permits
     are being issued now  (ocean dumping) or as soon as
     permits are to be issued  (RCRA and UIC).

-------
                      -3-
     o Headquarters Organization.  The Headquarters
permit organization must have responsibility and
authority to develop all nonstandard-setting regulations
and policy with regard to permits, not just procedural
policy as the Task Force suggests.  This responsibility
should be vested in the Headquarters permit organization
directly, not in the loose confederation suggested of a
task force of detailed representatives of program
offices working in the Permit Division.

     o State Delegations.  The Headquarters permit
organization must have the lead in developing policy
for and approving state delegations.  The policy should
represent a unified Agency position and should be
developed with participation of affected program
offices, and the Office of General Counsel as well as
any other interested offices.  This is necessary to
assure consistency.  Moreover, as with Regional in-
volvement with States, consolidation at the State level
will be better fostered if the Agency is speaking with
one voice to States with regard to permits rather than
with three or four voices.

     o Stats Participation.  The Task Force recognized
that consolidation mus-c occur at the State level if it
is to be fully successful and that state participation
should be sought in designing ways to foster such
consolidation.  I believe this effort should begin
immediately, should be launched by you or Barbara and
should be carried through by the Assistant Administrator
that is given responsibility for consolidated per-
mitting, with Regional participation.

     o Other Federal Permits.  The Agency should begin
immediately to develop consolidated permitting with
other federal agencies, particularly with the Office of
Surface Mining for strig mining permits and with the
Corps of Engineers for section 404 permits.  Again, I
believe this effort should be launched by you or
Barbara and should be carried through by the Assistant
Administrator that is given responsibility for consoli-
dated permitting.

-------
                      -4-
     o 301 Modifications.  The Task Force report does
not mention consolidating activities in granting or
denying marine outfall discharge modifications under
section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act. At present, both
the Office of Water and Waste Management and the Office
of Enforcement are involved with the decisions made by
Office of Water and Waste Management. This matter
should be further considered for possible consolida^
tion.  Recognizing Tom Jorling's personal involvement
in this area, it nevertheless should be examined for
long-term appropriate placement of responsibility and
resources.

     The Task Force recommends that the consolidated
permitting function be the responsibility of the Office
of Enforcement in Headquarters and either the Enforce-
ment Divisions or separate Permit Divisions in the
regions.  I agree that consolidated permitting is an
Enforcement responsibility and am ready to proceed
whenever authorized.

     I suggest that the time for organizational and
resource decisions is now, because:

     o  Almost all the existing permitting resources
of the Agency are in the NPDES program in the Office of
Enforcement and regional enforcement divisions. New
resources for hazardous waste permitting are not yet on
board and can be placed now without upsetting any
existing institutional arrangements.  There are no
significant existing or presently authorized resources
for  the other new permit responsibilities such as
underground injection control, ocean dumping, or state
delegations under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Transfer of some air permitting resources can wait
until October 1, 1979, so as not to interfere with the
SI?  revision review.

     o  It will take the Agency many months to carry
out  organizational changes, and the consolidated per-
mitting must begin before the bulk of NPDES second
round permits are issued.  This second round issuance
is now beginning to accelerate and will be at its peak
in calendar year 1980, less than a year from now.
Similarly, the first hazardous waste permits should
begin by  1980.

-------
                            -5-
          o  This program has been much discussed at high
     levels in the Administration and reported to the
     President.  Decisive action will continue the momentum.
                              Marvin B.  Durning       V
cc:  All Assistant Administrators
     General Counsel
     Director, Office of Legislation
     Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Program Operations
     Deputy Assistant Administrator for Drinking Water
     Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
     Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Planning
        and Standards

-------
USE.
     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
r?
**                      WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460


                         December 11, 1978
                                                              OFFICE OF WATER AND
                                                              HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
  SUBJECT:  OWWM Consents on Permits Consolidation Report
  FROM    :  Thomas 'C. Oorliing, Assistant Administrator
              Office of Water & Waste Management  WH-556
                         /
  TO      :  Douglas M. Castle
            Administrator A-1QQ
        I endorse the Consolidated Permits Report.  In considering the
   recommendations 1n this report, the following should be recognized
   before further actions are undertaken.  If you would like, I and the
   other Assistant Administrators could meet with you to discuss further
   the  report's recommendations and their implementation.

   (1)   I believe the Permit Consolidation Task Force has succeeded in
        balancing a number of difficult issues and strongly urge that
        the Task Force's recommendations be adopted.  Two recommendations
        are of particular Importance:

        (a) Regional Administrators should make the key decision of
           the extant and timing of resource shifts necessary to
           create a single unit within the Regional Enforcement or
           Permits Division for permit administration.  This arrange-
           ment enables Regional Administrators to allocate scarce
           technical resources between competing demands of promoting
           responsible delegation to the States, revision of SIP's,
           and permit writing.  Given continuing limited Agency
           resources for permitting, the Regional Administrator should
           be free to initially focus on responsible State delegations
           1n order to maximize permit coverage.

        (b) The program offices (including OE for the NPDE5 program)
           should have the lead in maintaining corcmunicazion with
           the States regarding the development of State capabilities
           and delegation of programs.  This is essential for successful
           Implementation of these efforts.

-------
                              - 2 -
(2)     In several  places  (pp.  ill,  v,  and 5),  reference is made to
       the establishment  of a  State/EPA Task Force to examine the
       matter of State permit  consolidation.  In addition the report
       should state that  at least in the interim, the State/EPA
       Agreement process—on a State-by-State basis—should be used
       as appropriate to  rationalize permitting by the State and by
       EPA.

       This  recommendation could be implemented by revising the MOA
       provision (s!23.5) of the proposed NPOES permit regulations
       to include a provision  which would state that "In FY 79 the
       RA and the State must develop the State/EPA Agreement suf-
       ficiently before executing a Memorandum of Agreement under
       this  subpart so that the latter is consistent with the State/
       EPA Agreement (SEA).  Beginning in FY 80, State programs
       under this sufapart will be part of the SEA and the SEA must
       be completed before execution of the MOA."

(3)     One of the issues  identified for your resolution concerns who
       approves State delegations.   Two options are identified for
       your consideration.  I  would recommend the second option (RA
       recommends, Administrator approves) for the first delegation
       decision in each Region for each program.  Thereafter, I would
       recommend the first option.   This approach would facilitate
       reconciling differencies between national and regional
       perspectives and enable the program offices to test policy
       against the "real  world" while perserving the RA's need to
       have the authority to represent EPA before the States.

(4)     My full and continuing  support of the recommendations of the
       Permit Consolidation Task Force are contingent upon two concerns:

       (a) That implementation not preclude the Office of Enforcement
           from meeting other high priority responsibilities, including
           issuance of second  round NPDES permits for controlling toxics
           and adequate staffing (4 positions were allocated) of CE's
           responsibilities in implementina section 301 (h) of the Clean
           Water Act.

       (b) That the consolidated regulations not result in rules which
           are too confusing and complex for permittees or regulators
           to understand  and administer.  Obviously, this judgment
           can only be made after consolidated regulations have been
           drafted and reviewed.

(5)    On p. 15 of the report (c. 1. b.), the words "and criteria"
       should be removed.  Their inclusion  is inconsistent with the
       conclusions of the Task Force and are a current topic of
       discussion between CWWM and the OE.

-------
                              - 3 -
(6)    While the report conditions the ability to consolidate
       permits upon the availability of resources, OWWH intends
       to coordinate the policy/guidance development process on
       substantive criteria and standards even if OE receives
       no resources.
cc:    Marvin Burning
       Jeff MUler
       David Hawkins
       Swep Davis
       John Rhett
       Victor Kinrn
       Staffen Plehn
       James Smith

-------
   QATE-.
                    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
          8   DEC 1978
SUBJECT'
EPA Permits Consolidation Task Force Report
   FROM:
     TO-
            Eckardt C. Beck
            Regional
            Jeffrey G. Miller
            Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Enforcement (SN 335)
            We have reviewed che November 22, 1978 memorandum from the Chairman
            of the Permits Consolidation Task Force and wish, to provide you
            with the following comments:

            Overall, we strongly underscore the basic concept that a consoli-
            dated permit program would, in the long run, benefit the Agency,
            the regulated community, and the environment.  Without such an
            effort, EPA'3 regulatory credibility and support would certainly
            diminish.

            General Comments

            The report is quite thorough and well written and we express
            general concurrence with the needs, goals and recommendations
            presented.  The report recognizes that short-term problems may
            ensue, although the long-term advantages of such an effort are
            noteworthy.  As would be appropriate for an initial study, the
            report did concentrate primarily on Headquarters1 activities and
            the implementation steps to be taken.

            We strongly support the recommendation that the extent and timing
            of the consolidation of the technical aspects of the various
            permits be left to the Regional Administrators as part of their
            normal rasourca allocation and prioritization responsibility.

            As is true in so many other programs, successful implementation
            depends upon the development of regulations, policies, etc. in a
            timely fashion.  This effort has a high priority in Region U. and
            you are assured my continued support of such, efforts.

            EPA Issued Parmits

            A goal of EPA as an environmental regulatory Agency is to achieve
            requisite environmental controls with the least cost to industry,

-------
 the  regulated  public,  etc.   Concurrent  abatement schedules,  i.e.,
 constructing facilities  to  handle air,  solid waste,  water problems
 in the same time frame should result,  overall,  in the most cost-
 effective  way  for a  particular industry,  municipality, etc.  to
 meet their environmental responsibilities.   Much detailed evalu-
 ation should be undertaken  to assess the impact of statutory dates
 and  the legal  rights/responsibilities of the public  and the
 permittee  upon achievement  of a consolidated, cost-effective,
 total regulatory program.   The Task Force Report does recognize
 that this  area deserves  more attention.

 Initially, we  anticipate that the added technical complexity of
 the  consolidated permit  approach, will require at least the same
 amount of  technical  resources that would be required to issue
 permits separately.   Although, in the long term, we expect that a
 reduction  would be evident.   In this regard, it is recognized in
 the  report that additional  resources are needed to maintain the
 thrust of  current programs  while providing adequate  work years to
 provide a  basic "start-up"  of the consolidated  permit effort.  In
 light of the current bleak  situation in terms of new positions,
 options for transferring staff to address consolidation include:
 a reduction in EPA oversight of; SEata programs and relying upon
 States to  provide more program support,  and possibly short-term
 transfer of staff from high resource programs to the consolidation
 effort.

 Region II  Organization/Implementation

 Fundamental considerations  in developing the current Region II
 organization were to provide an effective vehicle for permit inte-
 gration in the water media,  and centralized administrative services
 for  all permitting activities.  Region II has centralized all
 permit "paper  flpw"_actiyities in the Permits Administration Branch.
"in the Management Division.   The Permits Administration Branch also
 pr^vla^gs -atrlSIFial  'point" of contact for both existing and new
 source permittees.  This consolidation of permit administrative
 functions  in, one unit essentially meets the October  1979 deadline
 for  same in the report,  although our organizational  location for
 the  unit is different, i.e., the Management Division.

 Overall permit accountability, plus responsibility for the tech-
 nical aspects  of NPDES,  RCRA, UIC, Drinking Water (VSE), and
 Dredge and Fill permits, are currently located in the Water

-------
Division.  Deta-H ed__pl^"g for consolidation  of permit  responsi-
bilities are under way.  Should we decide  to incorporate the
Ocean Dumping function into the Water Division,  Region II will
have all water-related permits consolidated  under  one  Division
Director, in addition to the construction  grants function.   Having
the construction grant activity and the p emitting activity in. a
common Division is important for effective coordination of one of
the major regulatory programs the Agency is  now  undertaking -
pretreatment.

Technical consolidation of water and 3IT permits vill  be handled
as a second phase of implementation - more time  will needed to
consolidate due to greater organizational  issues both,  at the SPA
and State levels.  We plan a "Tsuildiog block" approach - rater
consolidation first followed by consolidation with air activities.

The Region II program for permit and regulatory  consolidation does
not preclude the establishment of a Permits  Division at a future
date, should the need be demonstrated.

One of the keys to any consolidated permitting system  is accurate
and comprehensive information management.  In this regard,  Region
II Management Division is conducting, with, OBM contract funding
support, a Pilot Facility Indes System.  The purpose of this
system is to integrate large volumes of facility information chat
currently exists in various EPA program computer systems.   The
experience gained through, chis project would be  very useful for OR
in the development of the consolidated permit information system.

State Co-nsolidatioti,

We support the concept that SPA mist taks  the lead internally to
set an example in tsrms of permit integration and  consolidation.
Ones a viable system has been worked out within  EPA for our own
activities, suasion can be used on various SGates  to promote the
permit integration at their level.  Many States, due to pressure.
from the Industrial section and constant complaints about ineffi-
ciency, duplication and over-regulation, have takan initiatives in
this area or have espoused taking initiatives.   A  successful start
in permit consolidation by EPA will certainly fae noted by the
industrial sector and business sectors, and  can  be a very influ-
ential factor on the States in getting them  to achieve permit
integration.

-------
The hub of our State/EPA activities and relationships in the water
media is through the State/EPA Agreement which sets priorities,
and will also provide the underpinning for 208 and program support
grant funding decisions.  Similar agreements are being developed
in the air media.  State/EPA Agreements, and supportive EPA
funding decisions, should provide the mechanism for addressing
and fostering permit consolidation at the State level.

In terms of external consolidation, i.e., with other Federal
Agencies, the field investigation coordination that has been
established with Consumer Products Safety Commission, Food and
Drug Administration, and the Occupational Health and Safety
Administration, demonstrates that such, activities are viable,
although they will require time for implementation.

Finally, it must be recognized that some legislative initiatives
may be necessary to achieve sensible permit consolidation and the
resultant cost-effective environmental control.

-------
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                Region III - Sth & Walnut SB.
                                   Philadelphia, Pa. 19106
SUBJECT:Permit Consolidation       I                           QAT£: Q£C  3 1978
FROM:   Alvin R.  Morris
        Deputy Regional  AdsMnistfitor (30AOO)
                                 \
TO:      Jeffrey G.  Miller
        Deputy Assistant Administrator for
           Water  Enforcement (EN-335)

        We have reviewed the recommendations  from the Permit Consolidation
        Task Force  submitted to us  by your memorandum of November 22,  1973.
        Our comments  are presented  as follows:

             1.  Region  III  supports  consolidation of permit regulations,
        policies  and  guidance and forms.   We  suggest regional  representation
        be included in the Permit Consolidation  Work Group  which will  work
        on these  tasks.   We  also believe  that those EPA regulates (e.g.,
        States, industries,  local governments) should have  input to this
        work group.  Regarding forms  consolidation, extreme care must  be
        taken when  forms are developed that several simple  forms aren't com-
        pressed into  one or  two extremely complex forms that no one can
        decipher.  This  was  a major problem for  the Permit  Form Task Force
        under permit  revision.  The errors made  in completing an extremely
        complex form  (with subsequent follow-ups) can far exceed the cost
        in time and money in correctly completing several simple forms. We
        would like  to see application forms packaged similar to the income
        tax forms,  with  basic information on  one page and attachments  for
        specific  programs.  The industry, etc.,  could fill  out the appro-
        priate attachments and ignore the rest.

             2.  We concur with the recommendation to develop one permit for
        all new sources.

             3.  On consolidation of  Regional  administration of permit programs,
        we need further study of when ana how the consolidation can best be
        accomplished.  The rationale  in the documents we reviewed is not clear
        on why permits should be included in  either Enforcement Division or  in
        a separate  division.  It seems more appropriate that the placement of
        a "consolidated grants unit"  would ccme  as a result of an overall  study
        of several  options in each  Regional Office.  For example, in this  study
        we would  consider forming geographical rather than  functional  entities
        to encourage  better State-EPA interfacing.  We also believe the recom-
        mendation of  a "paper-flew  office" is unacceptable  without additional
        information en which to base  the  decision.  This aooroach was  used in

-------
                                 -2-

1973-74 during the crash program on NPDES permit issuance.  The
proposed situation may well be better handled by allowing the unit
responsible for drafting the permits also to be responsible for the
paperwork.  We have found that this works better in Region III by
(1) consolidating responsibility for all phases of permit issuance
in one unit and (2) improving EPA-State coordination.  It is recom-
mended that the Regional Offices be given more flexibility in making
this decision.

On this point we should also add that the hiring freeze may retard
our ability to perform the studies that are necessary to address
Regional administration of permit consolidation.

     4.  We are strongly opposed to opening dialogue with the States
and others regarding permit consolidation at their level, until EPA
has some successes to show.  Before these contacts are made EPA must
have some substantive proposals and guidance on how permit consolidation
can be accomplished in the States as well as what the "costs" and
"benefits" are.

cc:   DRAS, EPA-Regs  I,  II  &  IV  thru X

-------
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

     :  December 3, 1978 Regi°n ™ ' Atlanta'

SUBJECT:  Permits Consolidation
  FRO**:  Regional Administrator
    TO:  Jeffrey G. Miller, Chairman
       Permits Consolidation Task Force
       This in response to your request for comments on the EPA
       Permits Consolidation Task Force Report.
       Force.   However, I believe that there are other organizational
       options than the two proposed (i.e., Permits Branch in the
       Enforcement Division and Permits Division).  The Regional
       Administrators should have the prerogative of implementing
       the best organizational option for his/her region that will
       satisfy the objectives.  The two organizational options
       proposed by the Task Force would seriously impact Region IV1s
       Air and Hazardous Materials Division when considered with
       other activities projected in the 1980 Z3B.  In addition, it
       is difficult to determine what affect Permits Consolidation
       will have on State agencies accepting delegations who must
       achieve technical implementation withour additional resources.
       Additional resources would have to be Federally funded.

       Please express to the members of the Task Force our appreciation
       for the excellent job done on this report.
     Qrl
      /XTohn C.  White
      /

-------
     :  December 8, 1973

SUBJECT:  Permits Consolidation
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
                     Regi°n W " Atlan^' Borgia
  FROM-.  Regional Administrator
    TO:  Jeffrey G. Miller, Chairman
       Permits Consolidation Task Force
       This in response to your request for comments on  the  EPA
       Permits Consolidation Task Force Report.
       Fores.  However, I believe that there are other organizational
       options than the two proposed  (i.e., Permits Branch  in  the
       Enforcement Division and Permits Division) .  The Regional
       Administrators should have the prerogative of  implementing
       the best organizational option for his/her region that  will
       satisfy the objectives.  The two organizational options
       proposed by the Task Force would seriously impact Region IV 's
       Air and Hazardous Materials Division when considered with
       other activities projected in the 1980 Z3B,  In addition,  it
       is difficult to determine what affect Permits  Consolidation
       will have on State agencies accepting delegations who must
       achieve technical implementation without additional  resources .
       Additional resources would have to be Federally funded.

       Please express to the members of the Task Force our  appreciation
       for the excellent job done on this report.
       Tohn C. Whit a

-------
              UNITcD STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                      REGION V
SUBJECT:
          D::    " 1878
        Permits  Consolidation
PROMi
  TOs
          James 0. McDonald, Director
          Enforcement Division

          Jeffrey G. Miller, Chairman
          Permits Consolidation Task Force (EN-335)

          We  have reviewed the Permits Consolidation Task Force report and
          although we support the concept of permit consolidation we are con-
          cerned with its implementation in view of the fact that all Region V
          states already have NPQES permit authority and two have PSD permit
          authority and this makes the Federal  consolidation effort more complex.
          While the Task Force indicated that it would be premature to recommend
          consolidation measures to the states  and other agencies without first
          exploring its costs and benefits with them and without demonstration
          that EPA can successfully consolidate its own permit activities, this
          matter needs to be integrated immediately into the Task Force process.
          Specific comments on the report are attached.

          On  the question of resources, shifts  in Regional resources will deoend
          upon the number and timing of permit  program delegations to the states.
          Until we can better assess other state permit program delegations,
          resource shifts would only be speculative.  It has been our experience
          with the MPQES permit program, that the Region must retain adequate
          staff resources to overview the administration and issuance of permits
          consistent with Federal requirements.  Without this overview, statas
          would feel very little pressure to issue and enforce permits in a
          timely manner consistent with Federal requirements and to maintain
          adequate staffing to effectively operate permit programs.

          We  appreciate the opportunity to review the Task Forca rsoort.  If you
          have any further questions about our comments, contact either myself or
          Al  Manzardo.
                                               James 0.  McDonald
        Attacnment
                                 -  -  -77^.  IM.

-------
                    PERMITS  CONSOLIDATION COMMENTS
                               REGION  V
                          DECEMBER  5, 1978


1.  Split Federal-State Issuance and  Enforcement Authority.  A situation
may arise where, e.g.,  a  given  state  has been delegated  responsibility
for the NPDES program but responsibility for the RCRA  and  UIC permit
programs remains with U.S. EPA  (Indiana would appear from  the Task Force
Report to be such a case).   How will  a consolidated permit approach deal
with this circumstance and avoid the  establishment of  two  parallel permit
programs within U.S. EPA and the loss  of the anticipated simplicity and
resource savings that a consolidated  approach offers?

State goverment organization is not  consistent  with U.S. EPA organization.
For permit consolidation  to  be  effective at the state  level, extensive
reorganization of many state governments may be required.  It is  difficult
to imagine that such reorganization  would be completed to  allow for
delegations by 1981.  Where  delegations are made to a  variety of  state
agencies a state consolidated permit  program will be more  difficult to
implement.

2.  Enforcement Aspects of a Consolidated Permit.  There is concern that
a consolidated permit will  provide recalcitrant dischargers an opportunity
to stall application of all  environmental measures in  a  single action.
Care should be exercised in  drafting  consolidated permit regulations  so
as to insure that they contain  adequate severability provisions.

In spite of severability in  NPOES permits, we find that  little progress
can be made with most dischargers as  long as any portion of their permit
is under adjudication.  The  aspect of a consolidated permit makes this a
greater problem and needs to be considered.

3.  Facilitator/Expeditor Responsibilities.  A  major area  of concern  which
could fall under F/E responsibilities  is that of state and EPA coordination
of review processes.  Page 39,  IV 8  2  b cites the time and resources  that
would be saved by consolidating the  procedures  attendant to permit issuance.
More important than consolidating in-house  hearings, is  the time-consuming
public notice procedure that both the states and EPA must  observe for
permit reviews.  A routine consolidation of this activity  could take  30 days
off PSD review time, making  that staff time  available  for  expanding permit
activities through the use of 114 letters  and making applicability determi-
nations.

Some resource shifts would be required within the Enforcement Division.
Either a Peraits Office is created,  or Enforcement  should  assume  permitting
responsibility.  Taking into account the  staff  we now  have for technical
review, responsibility for PSO would shift  onto a  few  more engineers  within
Enforcement.  Whereas page 47,  number 3  suggests that  the  "permits office'
receive the support it needs from program offices, the day to day review
situation would not appear to be altered  significantly in  Region  V.

-------
The hearing consolidation mentioned above could easily grow into  a
"superhearing" that could last as long as a week and miss the purpose
of receiving opinions on each specific permit review area by virtue of
unmanageable size.  Consolidation appears to be more suited to public
notice coordination than to the coordination of public hearings.

4.  The consolidated permitting process must remain flexible.  The
regulations and legislation alter frequently, which could upset a
fragile balance of inter-permit reviews by inserting new time consuming
requirements into any of the seven permit processes.

Some permits for smaller facilities might be better left outside  the
consolidation rather than being coordinated alongside major integrated
facilities requiring two or more permits.  It is suggested that sources
requiring two or more permit reviews be coordinated throught the  F/E.

5.  Reference 7d page 44.  We question the need to jointly conduct on
site audits of delegated programs by both the program offices and the
permits and/or enforcement division.  The Region needs the flexibility
to conduct on sita audits as needed.  We agree that at a minimum  an
annual audit of each permit program is needed.

6.  Reference page 46, Sections 2c & 2d - While resources required to
write permits will decrease, resources required to oversee permit
programs will increase.  Section 2d should include overseeing adminis-
tration and permit issuance of state permit programs.

7.  We have received comments from the Water Division and Mr and
Hazardous Materials Division.  Rather than rephrasing them we are using
them as submitted.

a.  Water Division.  The hopes for resource savings within EPA and time
savings in permit issuance are probably wishful thinking.  The real
benefits to the public would be the availability of a single contact
point and sourca of information from within EPA.  Increased satisfaction
by the puolic is probably the greatest potential benefit to all concerned,
including EPA.  From a programmatic viewpoint, the integration of permits
activities offers the potential of an improved ability to deal  with tne
whole environmental context and situation relating to the waste streams
and impacts on the environment.  The greatest programmatic risk is that
the permit writers will become so enamored of the writing and issuing
process itself that program issues will become submerged and the  intent
  f the respective laws and regulations will not be realized.

b.  Air and Hazardous Matarials Division

    1.  All air permits should be consolidated.  Generally at the state
level this is already a fact sines the same group of people review all

-------
air, NSR, NSPS,  NESHAP and  (where delegated) PSD permits.  This is
logical  and the most efficient  method  of  handling these  permits since
the engineer has to look at exactly the same kinds of information and
equipment for eacn one of those programs.

   2.  We are very strongly against consolidating non-air permits with
air permits.  Our major reasons for these  are:

a.  In our experience the physical separation of permit  writing from
technical reviewing is impractical, leads  to longer turnaround times,
leads to misunderstandings  and  other foul-ups.

b.  The engineers and scientists doing the technical review  for air
permits are presently and should, now  as  well as in the  future, be
integrally involved with the planning  aspects since these people should
and would have to participate in other activities such as:

    (1)  compile emission inventories  to  enable any planning  process

    (2)  plan control strategies based upon actual and expected per-
formance of control equipment

    (3)  assist in socioeconomic impact anlyses since costs  of controls
have to be related to decrease  in emissions

    (4)  air penalty analyses,  etc.

If you have two separate groups - one  doing permits and  the  other
planning - the consequences would be:

a.  duplication of effort and trained  personnel in the agency [we should
point out that currently we (and other air related programs)  are having
probl ens with finding adequately qualified engineers/scientists at this
time; therefore, if we do not have duplication, the alternative is a
lack of sufficient engineers/scientists  in either group].

b.  neither the permit nor  the  planning groups would be  doing an adequate
job.

   3.  We take exception to some of the remarks in the work  group's paper.
We will  not point out each  such remark.   However, as examples, we have:

a.  the  assertion that (p.  30)  in  the  long term resources may be saved.
This is  speculative.  If anything,  as  mentioned in 2(a)  above, technical
resources may be duplicated.  We should point out that it is  tougher  to
get good technical people than good generalist.  Savings of  resources
may, therefore, be negative.

-------
b.  p. 33-34 - the statement that  the  public would benefit since it
would have a "more comprehesive understanding of the  impact of a source"
ignores that there is a NEPA and large sources regularly write EIS's.

c.  p. 33 - "use of a single factsheet"  ignores that  few sources can
summarize adequate information on  a  single  sheet.  Where (e.g. inanEIS)
facts have been summarized in a single docunent, the  constant complaint
is "where is my section?"  and the  document  is divided into as many
portions as there are people who want  to review it.   Therefore, a single
factsheet or even a single document  serves  little purpose unless there
is a single reviewer.  It  is doubtful  even  if all permits were consoli-
dated that different engineers would not be reviewing air, water, etc.

d.  The joys of having a single form would  be somewhat dulled by the fact
that it would be much more formidable.  Onca again, this single form would
have to be duplicated as many times  as there are different reviewers.  We
would, however, concur that general  process details should and could be
consolidated into one form for all programs.

e.  U.S. EPA has enough expertise  in-house  to develop consolidated forms
on its own.  This would take U.S.  EPA  as much time and resources to
accomplish as write up a task order  or a new contract.

f.  There is'no basis for  the statement  that "there may be less time
between application and permitting due to processing  the permit in one
place."  We will not belabor this  any  further.

-------
                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE:  December 7,  1978

      Permit Consolidation

      Adi ene Harri son              -7 x   / ....
      Regional  Adnrinistrator (6A)   ^^ (/  frff&W

      Jeffrey G.  Miller
      Chairman, Permits Consolidation Task Force


      I am writing in response to  your request for comment on the Permit Con-
      solidation  Task Force Report.   The work of the task force is of extreme
      importance  to our agency, as I  believe we must find a way to achieve
      more consistency in our programs, while reducing the burdens we place
      on the regulated public.  Because of the large number of new sources in
      our region, and because most of our programs have not yet been  delegated,
      permit consolidation will have  a significant impact on our region.   The
      task force  has been sensitive to our concerns, and we appreciate the op-
      portunity to participate. We offer the following comments:

           1.  We are doing all we can to coordinate existing permit  programs.
      Some of this effort has been hampered by inconsistencies in the various
      regulations.  It is essential that efforts to make regulations  more con-
      sistent precede efforts to implement consolidation at the regional  level.

           2.  There are presently four active permit programs administered
      by our region: PSD, NPOES, Ocean Dumping, and NESHAPS.  We have already
      placed all  administrative responsibility for these programs in  the Enforce-
      ment Division.  Although some shifts within Enforcement would be required
      to fully consolidate these programs, we anticipate no inter-divisional
      transfers at this time.  It  should be mentioned, however, that  resources
      are extremely thin in these  programs right now, and any additional  respon-
      sibilities  that would accrue from permit consolidation would mean that  other
      necessary work may not get done.

           3.  We see the need to  t-naintain technical expertise within the various
      program divisions.  For example, although administrative responsibility for
      PSD is in the Enforcement Division, most of the technical review is being
      done in the Air and Hazardous [Materials division.  We would anticipate, at
      least initially, a similar arrangement for UIC and RCRA permits.  As these
      programs become better defined  and regulations are finalized, we will  be in
      a better position to estimate resource shifts necessary for consolidation.
          'REV. >7S)

-------
p
	""•"- -"     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
V5SB,
                                      RESIGN vm

                                   I860 LINCOLN STREET

                                DENVER. COLORADO 3O2O3
       DECS


     Ref:  SM-PE


     MEMORANDUM

     TO:       Jeffrey G. Miller (EN-335)
               Chairman, Permits Consolidation Task Force

     SUBJECT.  Permits Consolidation

          This is to document Region VIII 's comments on the subject report
     which Paul Ferraro transmitted by telephone to Nancy Hutzel an
     December 5, 1978.

          In general, we agree with the overall report and are pleased with
     the fine work performed by the Task Force members.  Our comments
     consist of six general comments and four specific ones, as follows:

          General Comments
          1.  The Regional staff believes that permit development and issuance
     in and of itself may not warrant a major regional reorganization without
     considering permit surveillance and enforcement.

          2.  We question the feasibility of consolidating technical and
     administrative permit writing for exceptionally small programs.  The Region
     believes that it may be difficult to separate a small technical staff to
     write permits in one organizational unit and also administer all other
     programmatic aspects in another unit.

          3.  We think tnat there should be only one initial point of contact
     for both new and existing sources.  This person should be located within
     the administrative unit.

          4.  The Permits Consolidation Work Group (page 24) should have
     Regional, and possibly Stata, representation.

          5.  The wording related to the one permit should clearly state
     that this refers to "one permit" for only EPA permitting programs and
     not for those that have been delegated to the states.

          6.  We believe that the reduction in overall workload of the
     permit writing unit when a state is delegated authority to administer a
     permit program will not be as great as is implied or stated in the report.
     Our experience with four states that have the NPOE3 permit program is that
     there can still be a significant workload involved in overseeing the stats

-------
permit program, depending on how well  the states' program is run.

     Specific Comments

     ].  Page ii, item 5 of the report indicates that there will 5e no
(JIG permits issued by the Agency for approximately two years,  This
definitely conflicts with information available to our DIG program
personnel.  Unless there is now going to be a lengthy delay in promul-
gation of UIC regulations, projected schedules will call for the regions
to issue permits for underground injection wells on Indian lands consider-
ably in advance of the two year time frame,

     2.  The recommendation to have a single identifier for ADP  system
purposes -(page 43, item 5) presents some short term problems, but in
the lony run is the most efficient method.  In developing the single
identifier, serious consideration should be given to utilizing the
existing NPDES numbering system because of the large number of permits
already involved with that system.

     3.  The note on page 45 under item D, 1, b, 4 should be clarified
as it  relates to the recommendation of technical requirements for permits,

     4.  The Task Force should seek the development of detailed  guidance
on broadening of EPA's legal authorities to address uncontrolled aspects
of residual management and disposal through the consolidated permit
program (refers to page 47, item 7 of the  re
                                                 \dministrator
                                      (/
cc:  Nancy Hutzel

-------
                UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
  OATH:  December 12, 1978

SUBJECT.  Permits Consolidation
PLA 3-1
                .*TT>. ^-^--^r-^-r^
        Regional Administrator  (HA)
               IX
    TO:  Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Enforcement
         (EN-335)
        This is in reply  to your  memo  of November 22,  1978 requesting
        comment on the Report  of  the Task Force on Permit Consoli-
        dation.

        The report,  in several areas,  applies constraint to regional
        office organization or operation in contrast with the
        objectives of the Task Force.

        You propose, for  example, to limit the permit writing
        function  to  a Permits  Branch in the Enforcement Division or,
        as an alternative, to  a Permits Division.  No rationale for
        this proposal is  presented nor am I aware of any persuasive
        arguments to the  effect that permit writing cannot affsctiveiy
        be performed in a division other than Enforcement.

        The responsibility for approval of 404 delegation would be
        assigned  to  a program  office.  There is good reason for the
        404 delegation responsibility  to be assigned to the same
        division  which is responsible  for NPDES program approval
         (ie., Enforcement).

        Similarly, you propose that audit functions be assigned to
        those divisions responsible for program administration in
        the Regional Office.   While there are good reasons co assign
        these responsibilities for audit, as proposed, thera are
        equally persuasive arguments supporting assignment of the
        audit function to a division or office with little direct
        program involvement and a greater capacity for independent
        appraisal.

        The above examples, I  believe, are supportive of the recom-
        mendation that the Report be directed at the regulatory
        reform needed 'to  enable permit consolidation and that con-
        straints  on  organization  and operation be eliminated.  This
        would also be in  keeping  with  the Administrator's caution
         (.Memo dated  October 5, 1973} that the Task Forca not be
        encumbered by self-protective  interests.
 £?». Form 1320-4 (3... 3-741

-------
EPA PERMITS CONSOLIDATION



   TASK. FORCE REPORT



       COWENTS
      APPENDIX 8

-------
a
M
s

as
    u
H  0
as  u
    £a
    u
a  u
as  a
    <
<
5-  U
<  c
 .  1
 I  a

S3  ~
U  as

C  
is!   -
W  30
j-1  U
•<  ,
ja

"S
a
a
a
a.
3
b
S.

•a

3

^
a
u
a
•a

,w
a
a
s
o
u

a
.2

-^
»•—
w4
3

a
^
e
~4
4J
v3
r-*
^
CO
_i)

a
rx
U
•

C
«N
































•«

5

•<
3
^^
U

«
-<
ss
^J
02

•
•u
iO
2*

a
u
a
3
^

-a

u
4)
u
3
3

U
c
'4-1

O
r-*.
31
-^

«
«^
n

•
5;
—
^
03
*
f*.
A
vfl
a
m «N
a *. a.
• • c.
^, ^ ^g
P"« ^^ ^C
«M
«N
i— i m i— i
CN SN in

























































«
•
a

^^

«»
a

3
b
a
3
U


4J
^,
3
u
a


<
2
CJ
a
u
•

4
f-l

1-1
a
b
a
a
a
ao

b
O
144

•
JJ
to
a
a



3
0

u
f4
3

a
^
c

^
a
b
a
e
a
ao

^^
u
T-t
3

e
a
t*
u
u
a
a

31
i

a
;
3

~
._<

a

a

4j
vri
a
— ^
0^
a
s.

S
3
b
tfl
3
w
i.

•
.-4
r- >»
U Cb
• •

c vn
«N «N
a
•W
at
b
a
a a.
4 4)
U 3)
M
a .s
M «
£ a
a
i) *~.
u b a.
« 0 3
T4 UJ 3
b b
C. £E3 O
0 3
b C ^
a. b
a. JT a
•< u 3
^i >^
• 3
u u
b 4) b
a u a
a. -p4 a.
^} *4 J
3 *4 3
a a a
























a
-u
b
3
a,
^
3
a

a
3
u
=a
a
u
a.

a
^j
a
u
3
a.
a
a

M5



j=
ri
O
•

vO
^4


p-(
a
u
41
S
41
ao
u
o

•
u
a
a
a

22
u
3
C

71
••4
3

i:
2
0





a
^4
b
a
u
^4
b
U

•s
e
a

a
a
b
2
T3
a
u
a
b
£*

^4
3
>

W
a.
^-
<

a
a
i-i
M
S
U
£4

a
u
a
u
en

•
r-4
u

a
b
a
e
a
£0

^
u
V4
3

g
3
—4
«4
U
a
a

sf
Ch

a
M
a

c
•H





A
<-*
U
•
|e4

C
(S
4)
M
b
a
a.
a
a

S.
u
a
a

b
O
44

33
2
Q

^2
U
~4
3
a
u
-4
44
44
a




i— i
a
*~i
r*
a
b
a
a.

a
u
a
b
a

a
a

•9

a

a
u
e
a
c
4i
b
•«
3
•••
41
U

-^
3
U

^
a
u
a
b
a.






















^^\
a
3
a
b
U

J!
b
a
3^

u
b
a
e.
A

a











a
™«
b
a
w
«4
b
«

— »*
^1
>

b
2-

S"

b
0
^4

3
w
b
"I
a.

3
a

S
SJ
b
•0
0
b






m
U
•
h^

r*»
r-f






•
w
a
a
a

w
a

•«
e
a

2
2



1j
^p4
3



C


^j
44
^H
3

C
a
•*M
U
U
a
a

as
i.

a
e
3

e


a
•j
b

•«
a
y
2
b


43
O

^
—
a
a


u
w^
s:
u
4)


(
tn
A
r*
U
•

C
«N



















^^
a.
3
a
b
C3
-^
b
a
3
•***•
s
a
b
33
3
b
a.

a
u
a
b
3

a
a

•3
S
3

a
u
a
41
2
a
_
^4
~
—
41
U

—
33
U
3

"a

«
^^
3
U
a

3
413

















































































a
u
b
3

,0*

a





                                                                                                                     a   o
                                                                                                                        U
                                                                                                                                a. a*
                                                                                                                    r*  i-*     m



a
a
o
f-i

«4
U
O
a

a"
2.





s


a
e
o
M4
3
—4
U
a
•a

a
u
2
3

a
a


u
~
b
4)
**-

b
O
44
a
•*H
b
a
.u
— *
b
U

•



















































3


•—
a
41
a

*•<
2U

a
3
b
a
a.
a
a




4J
b
a
a.
J3
3
a

•
s
a
ao

b
a
44

a
e
— i
s
b
a
u
a
•a
£


|

a
ao
a
b

•
u
33
a

a
u
a
3
3

JJ

U
41
w
3


3
a
^
-*•-
3
b

__
3

•^-
—
1
3

r~M
*—
3
a
a u
o a
C u
-< 3 «
OS 3
a M *a
-•» a
•< -H .
-5 1 , 3 b
J3 b • 3
a so-o
s c. s a
a b u
•* b a. a
u a b
3 a u a a 01
— i U 41 4)
a b a. b u i-<

b b 4) 44 a
^ CD o O u
43 a a • a.
3 3 .* b S3 a.
a J" b a. 3 <;
a a b
— 3 S-








a
a
so

3
•-
U

•
3
4i
— ^
>
a
b

•J

9
2
3

U

»
a
so
=
u
a
43


O
*•
f*
£l
~



a
4)
U
•H
U
44
O

3
-3
b
33
a
b
34
v3

u
^
0

4
U
U
o


b
3
44

a
4
4)
b

-3
"J
_J
•
~7
•—
—i
3
•3
^
^
a

C1
p-
0

*
F—
n

*
•5
^T

Ps
_2

^
3
—t
•J
>
•J
09
g
i— 1
r-l
O
LU
Q
























a
a
u
b
J3
a
a

3
a
c

•
u
33
S

a
_4
a
3


-3

u
•J
3


-a

a
'j
••j
b
Q
a

3
a
^j

b
—
                           a: —i
                           ti  u
                          SS  3

-------


01
CJ
4-1 C
Ja 01
O VJ
a. 01
01 U-l
OS 4J
as











<*-.
4-1
T4
Q
C

l-l
t~<
•H
3

O
g































c--
c
01
e
c.
a
•—

r-l
r_^
1-4
^

4J
a
;r
3


















>
4-1
4J
c a
0 XI
i-4 •
4.1 CJ
a •
Ol M
CO


oil
cq en
a] **
«^l




































03
CO
01
OS
•
4-1
CO
S

01
4a
03
a
3
*»^.
ij
0)
4-1
a
^g

1—4
41
—4
i— 1
a
u
a


03
CO
Ol
ss

s
a
u
CO
o
u
P-i

u
1-1
£
la
Ol
P-i

i-i
— 1

a
^T
•
CJ

M




CO
1—4



































31
C
o
T4
4J
T4
£
T4
•4-4
41
T3

t^J

C
O
^4
4-1
a,
T-l
1-1
O
31
41


e
a
ia
CO
Q
u
c.

.u
•H
P
C
01
c.

i-i
-H
a

01
c

—
a
X


•
i— i






















































ia
C
•a
4-1
CO
•r-l
ca
c
O
o

O!
•u
S


4)
A

-a
i— »
3
O

31

X
0)

4J

"4-1
•H

0)
c
—4
ci
U

41
rrj

CO
01
o
T-l
U-4
'o

E
a
V.
CO
o
}\d
c.
01
>
•H a
4J T-l
0 l-l
Ol 41
a 4J
03 i-4
01 U
*S CJ




4J
i-l C
a 01
> AJ
CO O CD
S- la -4
CO C- 03
Z a. e
o o
t^J CJ
S
co a o!
e- u .0
<; co
S O T3
fc3 la i— 4
Z O. 3
O
4) J3
• U 03
as a
en 4-j a
Z CO i-l
la
S-i Ol Ol
-H £ <->

03 W
u
C X
CO 0 r-4
PI 1-4 a
c. >
X S 0
•4-1 01 l-l
•H C.
•a o Q.
o 4J »,
a
S

03
4J
e
01
cr
4J
33
3
i-l
•C
a

e
o
T-l
4J
a
r—t
3
SO
4)





01

•
CJ
•
I— 1



 C 31
la 0 SO
CJ 41
41 M
CJ U
la 01 0)
-! ~* CJ
O " la
31 la 3
3 O
50 IM 33
C
•H 01 3
4J r-l 4)
01 jO C
— < f4
X 31 U -
01 03 -H
o a
• a.
4-J la
CO la O
" Q
'JJ 41
01 'J
4-J 31 l-l
31 SO 3
a 01 o
3 la 31


U")
•
Cm
•
1-4



U~l

so a
G U
la O,
c. —
a
CO
C 0)
O 4_i
S a
a u
en
>^
u -a
-H C
r-4 a
T4
A 01
a cj
4J 3
a a
c. -
£ '31
O 03
CJ —
































































<3"*
f*^
O^
r-a

«•
>— 4

•
3
a
—3

>^
.^3

•3
Ol
CQ
O

C*
)a
e.

03
C.
o
—4
4^
3

2
73

—J
3

CO    »
a

-------
    4)
    y
     4)
as  a
    a
    o
    a
    a
    —
    -.
    i
                          u
                         I—I

                         e
                                        ffi   •
Cl


O
    —i
for joint or coordinated laauance Work Group 32
and Implement by Jan. 1, 1979
a a
a y
b S
S a
•3 TJ

y r
O 00
b
— X
•J
O. -4
3 — i
<-* O
4) 8.
>
a "*•*
S C
a
>> c s
a -5 — •
procedural guidance vla-a-vla Uork Group 31
4C
C
•rt
a
a
•H
X
a

IM
a

3

— •(
>
3




4»4

£
2
£
w
u



o
en
u
a.
o
a
c
a
y

a
^3

O
.u

a

-2


b
3



auhutantlve guidance vlu-a-vla Iteapectlve Program Offices 31
2D
2
.»*
^ J
a
W4
X
4)

tu
3

3
a
^4
>
i)




(-1
•••*
_^.
3



llcy guidance on procedural aapecta Uork Croup 29
e or State approval and conaolldate 32
Q
c.

=3
S
^
4^
a
M
*
a

3

«•*
>
a
=:



CJ
a
2

S
3j
•IM

33
U
*•«
3
b
a
c*

uj
3







a
03
^
••4

•
f«4

>.

^

^
—



llcy guidance on anhatantlve ' Respective Program Offices 29
3


SO

Y^
4J
a
•H
X
a

3
a
•••*
>
a




•
U
^-1
w
b b
D a
£ a.
w
O •
0.
u b
0 U
a ^i
a b
4i a
S,3
11 b
•a o
ao-^
•H a
>»
b >
a S
~ aj
-t O
3 b
^-r 2^
a
<*4
b
4)
u
•H
b
y
a
a
b
=L
3
3
o a
b S3
a
a -^

a
e
3

«j
•^
*T3
C
^1
C

«i
•w.*
s
w
11




>^
^

u

2J
"3

— J
C
3J
C*
-3
^)

«
^j
33



itce ASAP for harmonizing permit Uork Croup 32
3
"3

«
5Q

>,
y

PH4
3
M*

a

^5
Z




ununce priorltiua, expiration dates
a
-^

;£
C
— «
•a
3

y
2
.••*

a
2
b
a
w



a
a
a
2
a

y

b
a

a

2
y
U

~
M
"



ruiu a tuff exliangea to broaden Uork Group 31
to
a
b
fi.
1
b
a
w
c
••*

a
b
a
*«
***.
X




incr. progr .coord. & lutlgrdtlon

-3

a

•a
a
p«4
3

M
J*

^4
'^»
•3
^j
a




-------
     a
     y
•U   C
u   a
o
a.  a
a
M   a
    tf
     E

     a
     3


     cs
^
a
M
1— 1
M

en































Uj
O

^j
£
0)
S
Q:)
O
i— I
a
^
a
TS

u
o
M-j

ea
;-]
s
a
ij
, — i
3
en
-;
o ca
y £
t4
4-1 Q
O 4-

a t)
en a
3 u
a
a T3

a r-i
3 C
r-i 33
a s
> o
f-1 y
O
--*
LJ
a
~z3
.^
r-.
en o
a eo
M B
o o
>±i CJ
3
C
1— 1
M
M

en


en
y
B
a
CD
f
3
CO
y
^^
X
o
H

U-l
O

a
y
MJ
1U
c










c

£
£
C
y

eS

en
en
a
p
T3
"3


O


3
O
^

1.4
Q

U
a

.u
a
^*.
^

a
3
^•t
E
ril
a
*J
a
»



/— \
rH
^3
U
a
c.
a
^
•-'



































i
1-1
r-i
C.

ST

4J
y
a CD
U-l U
UU — 4
a S

T3 i~4
i— I
-j ^
O —1
3 S
u
4j a
a a*
^—
j-l T3
^
a a
u
C -3
a a
u M
3 -H
i-l 3
r-l CT
o a
C. M

4-t 3]
0 u
«
a ^3
en
u fi
a o
> -i

s «
3 y












i--.
e
M
t-l
1— 1

en
































-t5
e
a

a
y
a
r—i
a.

a
s
a

3
•r-i

en
a
i-l M
—i a
4-1 T-i
tfc-l
4J 
a
•o

a
•u
aj
3

a

Ci"



s~*
r-J
a

a
c
a
o
^^



















































CQ
S
a
u
Q
c
u
C ,

u
•H
S
l^
a
a*

14
O


CD

a
u
en

CO

—
O













f-t i—(
•< CJ

en -*
en en














a.
3
o

CD

u
o
3







.J
O
H-l
 a.
a
t3 u
•H
a E
_= S-i
a
r-4 Q.
r-l
•rH •
3 u

S £

o a
U>4 4J
cn
s a
0 3
-H \
U jUi
a a
y 4j
^-i a
i— 1 3
0.
a ^3
gj g
CO
(U
r— ' tj
CO «H
c ^c
•M)
yj i— *
r-J
< «

G
o
T>!
iJ
a
CJ
-^
r-i £
d Ul
C. O
< fe
T)
r-l CN
CJ O

m m
en en





























ca
g 1
a 1-1
u a
co :>
0 Q
u y
0.
c
r-< 0
r-< B
« £
0
o y
i_) ^_ -

B S
g a

1 CO
Q O
y u
a.

CO ^
— • o
ij a
s- a
a
a. o
u
*-
u a
•H 3
3 cr
— ^
^-s C
vr 3
O
-cr cn
ij
ij i-i
a. a
a a*
y
X T3
a 3
•— - «5

^J
rj
a
c
C.
O
—1
a

a

CN r-l
a B
r M
^ CO
en en
























Y
3


•>,
•-O

x^v
31
jj
£
1)
e

o
«
-U
i-.
<3

U_(
0

u
CJ


u
d
4J
4j
cn
«4
cn
S
O
o

l^

iJ
0)
OJ
^
3













— *
m
cn















c.
3
o
jj
o
_>^
u
Q
^


>"l
Jp

O
05
3

U
O
M-4

T3
CJ
Cv
O
i— i
a
^
a


a


)—i
r— |
.v^
3

^j
3
g
p
O


^j
^
c
U
a


a
— .
CO
3
•H
31

^
JJ
a
^
C
o
u<

LJ
M-
3
^
?


5 -i 3
u o a
-? in m
en en en
























CO
jj 3
a. o
a cn £
y u a
x ^
a a >,
•—' c. y
s
03 T3 a
£ B u
a a cn
)-l >rJ
co en M
o e 3
M a a
&, -4 y
so
u 0 £
«*s S-4 3
£ a. £
U -H
a i-i x
O. r-i «
a £
•
J-> O ~
SO 1J ti
c *-^
3 3
a o
*J £ £
en E a
a c vi
3 y cu}
• — Q
Ui --« 1*
a en a.
u •*-*
« " J3
3 u a
m a
T3 a. a
C
(S3 j^ O
U J_l
J-4 "^
•H 3 a
a s
^— N C7"
rM -^ — -1
r-l 0 3
3 -3- _

u
^
a
£
o.
O
r-^
a
;>
a
c

CM

m
en


























Uj
O

co
u
3
a
s

i— i
a

^,
U-l
«—l
J-J
B
a
*r_3
WH


•
40
£
•r-l
U
i-l
£-
a.
a
u

X
a

_r*
CJ
3
ca

cn
B
O
— *
^j
— i
•^3
C
0
y














a
•a

--j
B
a

2

a
j^
CO
0
^
p. .

r-^
r-^
a

o •
U CT.
r*"
3 O^
2 ^
£
g «
O r-l
y
•
U 1C
— * 3
£ <

a >i
e. -a













en en rH CM en en CM
< a a c cj o a
en oc in ^o m in ^o
enenenen enenen *
S
3| »
r-*
1-4
1^1
O
UJ
a








a.
2
O
t-i
O
^
M
O
3


•U
-H
£
^4
a a co
u a. B
a —i
a >-i -u
£. -* Hi -
en a -H
X
•u M a
y a
a *^-i i-i
4-1 O

T3 S
a a co
U XJ
a /-. cO
T3 -^r u
i-i C j^ cn
i— i -er en £
o a
en u -j Vu
e cu y co
a 4) a o
o y o 4-1 u
x ^ a«
u-i a o\ —4
o ^^ r— i a -u
T3 — ^
ea u - OS
ij Ca2 r-J £ U
BE a
a • a —»
c a co j-i
o AJ 3 a a
a. CD •< '-< y
£ a a vj
0 3 >-, a. 3
y ~~- & a o
U 03 OJ
x a cn
u-i u = a. 3
T-I a a c a
u 3 u r- 1 3
s ec a *
a ti o > -a
•'S o vw a 3
>— < "-i a. o a

u
•u 3
a a
a £
^3 a.
cn o
r-i
u a
y >
« a
— a

-------




4)
U
•U C
u a
a <5
4) "4p4
as 4i
as









f*4
U


Q
*JJ

1-4
£
S

Q

5


























^-
C
^J
£.
£.
S3
M

r**i
*-*
••J
3

jj
53
^
3»

















>i
^ i
—
>
—
.•
4J
<


C .£)
o en -a1 >r

tJ O Cs3 •<«
a! M M M
U3i MM M
MM M
a<
sa in so "*
3 "
•^
M ^!
1-4 a
a c*
a a
c M
a u
u >
^
•< -3

u a
a -s s u a =
y s u a a -
u S S i. u =

3 — ~ «J •= C

3 a a y a
3 a > — c >
•j 3 u 41 ii u
2 C^ 32 2C i-i «



31

« ;
>*>,
-^

m M








w
o

qj
hi
u
«

e
"a
•3


P^
33
e
0

ao

as

a
"3 ^
4) fl
w ^4
a a
-4 0.
M a
43 a
a
U M
a o


^
c

c
gj V
— * 2
3)
w O
-M M
C 0
!» '*•>
2
3Q ItJ
C
•rt U

*4 ^
^4
3 S

w
^^ —
s a

a 33
Ca U
jg

«*4
a

9
W
•^
3
u
a
—
c
O
T
U
.J
g
^.

««
2
•5
<


j
FW M Pi
• « «
u a u
> > >

a
Q  -t
a ^~
i 0

•3

3 •—
a
« a
a a
y
u w
-i 3
s a
3 n
a
as V4

— -3
4j
— ^ ^
U -4
?^»
—4
vj —1
M *3
a -4
u a
a 3
a. 3

a a"
A a
r4 w













M C"4 ?n sr
A A A A
M M M tf^ M tf^

o a o u e u
> > > 3» > >

a a]








hi
a

4}
V4
90
4iJ
a
•rt
e
•g
^
^

^
a
a
a
M
SO
4)
ss
•o
c ^^
3 r^
i^.
a 1-4
4) ^

U
3 >•%
u a «o
u a
S 40 5fl
US -4
D -4 a a
& ±j a 4)
a 4) tj
MM U
MX a a
33) •-  0.

•9 S
4) O
S M
M a
1 M
U U
4) 4)
«J ^3
4)
•3 ad
e
4) 11
•—3 U
M
a u
f- 3





^4
t^
Q

33
•S
C
03
w
Q

'a4
Q
*4

qj

^3
— «
0)
£
a

33
?*


U
_^t

w
•^
— *
2

£J
a
a
u a
JJ u

»
a '-
3 -J













J ^a
• *
(9 <8
^* r*»

O CJ
> >


en tn










e
o
M
3)
•H
^
M a
c u
4,j 4uJ
C ^*w
4J C

•y s
U aj
M -
O 50
*4 O
C ^
MS4
-T
a
-T

t«g

'J

2
cn -
a -<
s 5
z =:

U -J
a c


•3 -3

J) y
M r^

• •
M M
a a
5- 3"
1
1
^4
3
>
C
U]
"*
C.
a

s
3
U
ifl
3

C.

•y
ij
3
j
w














TJ
'^

C
->


•T




a
u
^4
g
4>
64

•n

sj

o
41
U
M

a
i—

a
u
—
a
|
JJ
O

1-^
4lJ
J
£
jj
•"























a
u
M
a
41
ft.
^
>
M
a

u
^
4)
£
a
u
a
U»4
g
y

U
a

•s
e
a



14,4
a

2
a

u
u
a
^
C

SO
c
•vH
*T3
2
F*
U
c
•^

•J
c
5;

3
tj
u
^c
«a;

«
^
3
_j
yi
^••H,
^aj
CM
5J

4j
a
^
—
=























^
03
e
M
u
U
M
a
u
e.

4}
^

•a
a
41
t-4
•
UM
g
il

W
a

•a
c
a











a
£
3
U
£0
a
u
Q.

•3
a
>
a
u
^.
t^
3

'J-l
2

a
^j
y
a
2,
37
^3

?

— ^
u
«J
*4
=
Ui
li





















CD
c5
^
*•»
o

a























































































-------



CU
u
c
 >
CO H 1-1

ajj
ad m P-
col sr sr
P-l



o

CO
t4
4J
ta
•H
e
•H
s
•o


,•4
co
c
o
00
CU
*
0

ca
E 3
eu cu
•u C
en

03
sa
cu '*"i c
•C Hi -H
CO C 4J
S -< en
^^ -H
0) X
js c cu
o
O T- 1-1
i-i 4-1 i_4
co ca
CU 5
14 )4 14
ca o o
U4 {44
01 C
cu 1-1 en -3
o u e
p cu cu 4-1
13 l-i i-4 CO
o = M-I -a
en u -H — ,
—il cu ej u i— 4
•si M 3 e o



14 eu en
r— 1 iJ *T3 3
SI 33 —) C
e eu o
O to fl
-i o cu
00 O S ,a
a) *-: ~
si o o
CU O U
eu i-l
4-1 ,G CU 33
co co -3 ca
3 — 1 i-l CJ
cr 1-1 > i4
eu co c 3
•o > u o
* M4



r—
sr

r-l
C
O
M
«
^4
O

14
O
4-i
CJ
CU U
l-i O
— • 4-1
C co
^4
G JJ
O 01
i-l i-1
eo C
"> "e

C 
f— 1
•U 0
—4 tn
£ ca
M U
ca
c. cu
42
eu
> O
— i u
u
C en
C3 "3
i-l 14
en c3
.— 1 T3
3 C
03 CO
.u
S en

O
33 y
ij
0 73
•H ca
—1 U
(44 CO
C i-i
,9 a




Prote

fJl'L-1
eet ,



vO
•
^
»
>
)_4



r-
sr















O.
3
O
u
0

"2
Q
3

CO
T3

CO
T3
C
CO
ij
M

p4
rS

5

u
,^
e

3
0

ca
CJ
c
CS
•a

3
00

o
44

"3
eu
4J
«
—4
CU
14

cn
4-1
ej
i-i
T-^ 1—4
CU U4

CU 5
rJ a



otl or.

>" ',
iioon, i




























































33
J4
eu
u
14
CO

cr"
— j
CO
_eu


jj
CO

T3
CU
>

O
U3
CU
Vj

CU


O




Af


^



ON
•
Q

^
M


CS
r—
SJ*




O

9
(4
JJ
03
*r4
p
;
S
ITJ
-aj

r-l
ea
c
o
•^4
00
cu
pi






o


SO
e

S

^j

c
a
—4
jj
CO
p
•H
C. r-l
X cu
01 >
CU
"3 -H
c
03 i— l
CO
CU C
ej O
S iH
co 00
3 CU
01 a
ea
iH JJ
CO
C
1-1 -a

33 >
4-1 l— 1
0 0
— i en

U4 i4
£
O eu
CJ J2



*; "'





O
i— i sr
• «
Q C=3
• •
£> ^
r— * M


CO S)
r-» r^
^T *Cf"
-




















O
0
o


-J
w ^1
CO V4 14
e. cu o
£ •<->
cu 4j a
cos
O yj
I-H en
fl 1-4 -4
0 JJ U
C CO
si 3 a
0
-4 T3 73
AJ N CO
CO CO
p-4 CU
j_j CU 4-1
a TS eu
CU rH
4-4 cu C—
X J3 £
eu O
>1 CJ
C CO
C S eu
;4
C C -3
O O
-41-4S
C iJ O
— i ca 1-1
C« CJ U
O -H CO
i— 1 O
.-t a. v4
CO C. 1-4
00 CO 0.
cu o.

-4
CU S <4-J
14 14 C
a cu
ex a. en

W U4 U
P- O CO
,^5 14^ j^
S i^
T- 4J J_>
-1 U CO
ej o "3
< C. -i
o en M
en C
i-< e o
S -. u
























































































=
j_i

^j

a
1
i"
—1

CC u-l
• •
(M FT1
• •
•> ?*
1— 1 )— 1


ca
(^* r^-
sr sr





















O

O


^
U
« cn
T3 M
c w
o
a s
eu co
03
44
«3 3
a q

— ^J
3 -i
3
C
i i t i
_4
u 2

eu eu
•u C.
X
cU C
—4
e
0 -3
CU
C -3
q 3

C cj
-i C
C, — 1
o
CU
*— 1 ^
CO
00 ^
CU fl
*-i 2

CU M
V. U
a u
Q. CO
eu i
'-4 S
Oi -H











CO
•
fA
•
>»4



O
CN















C.
3
O
U
CJ

•jf
Q
s





CJN
r—
c?>
i— i

«
^4

eo >N
4J i—1
C 3
CU "-3
E
•H ^
TJ ,2

—4 3
S O
^j —4
;4
>-. "
^4 > -^
C 3

~ 'A
4J J
« ™

33 '4-1
o

O CU
a
e —i
O u-j
—1 U-l
4J O
C3
cj O
vl 4-1
U4
^ J-l
U U
C C
CU &
13 a











,_,
,
a
•
^
M


CO

sr











cu
u
u
o


S*J.
en
ca
H
^.
^*
c





>^
A

en
e
o
TH
00
cu
O3
03
O 4-1
U 3
CU
•a s
ca s
4J 0
3 O
j2
1-i T3
U C
4J CO
en
•* 3
-3 01

iJ >
14 a
0 J-i

eu" M
M O
^4
eu
O CD
(4 r-.
C 3%
—4 —4

^ *k
en sr
CO CN
C-l
•
*^ >

M


C3

sf




3
0
M
O

rvj
u
O
1g

T3
- C
CO

en
C
O
00
CU
CB!








o)
3
en
en
—4
i*^
e
cu
t— 1
^
3
14
d.

en
u
ca
^j
p
a
3 33
c- oo
"3 —
ea n
a u
— a
^- cu
— i s
-o
fl en
a c
— 1 O
00 1*4
CU 4-J
££ CO
O
CJ —1
•H u-i
"3 i-l
a -i
-i e
V4 ca
CU T3
Ca -H









CD
 O
 ui

-------