-------
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
-------