vvEPA
United States
Environmegtal Protection
Agency
Office of
Policy and Resource Management
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
June 1982
Streamlining
The Environmental
Permitting Process:
800R82101
A Survey of State Reforms
Final Report
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCT
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 *
JAN 5 1983
V£L
.oeacgL,
POLICY AJMMI
AGEMENT
Dear EPA Official:
We are pleased to be able to send you a copy of Streamlining
the Environmental Permitting Process: A Survey of State Reforms.
This report produced during 1981 and 1982 describes the
initiatives that all 50 states have taken to streamline and
expedite the environmental permitting process. Information for
this survey was gathered by our consultants, Temple, Barker, &
Sloane, primarily from telephone interiews with state officials
and from secondary sources of information. The resulting report
is a state-oy-state description of the environmental permitting
reforms that the officials interviewed considered to be the most
significant. It is designed to serve as a reference tool for
those interested in learning about the types of environmental
permitting reforms initiated across the country.
There are several limitations to the study that we would
like to make readers aware of:
1) Because of the manner in which, the survey was conducted,
there is a possibility that we missed an important reform
within an individual state. We are encouraging state
officials to submit to us additional or up-dated informa-
tion on the: r programs. We will prepare an addendum of
changes to the appropriate state summaries and send it
to everyone on our mailing list.
2) It must be emphasized that the report covers a broad
spectrum of state environmental permits. It does not
focus on one specific type of permit such as water or
hazardous waste. In some state summaries, it is difficult
to tell which reforms apply to which permits. It may
also be unclear whether a state's program is approved
by EPA or whether the state is Implementing its own
authorities which differ from the federal Clean Water
Act, Clean Air Act, etc.
Detail that some readers may want may be lacking.
For example, for those states with a one-stop permitting
process, our description of the process may not be
sufficiently detailed to Indicate whether federal permits
are included in the process or whether applicants must
-------
- 2 -
apply for them separately. Or where we indicate that a
state uses general permits, we often do not indicate the
specific permit programs for which the general permit
approach is used.
3) The purpose of this document is primarily informational.
The Office of Policy Analysis does not endorse one type
of state reform over another, nor, in all cases, do we
believe that whatever is cited as a reform is a success.
Reforms have been developed to meet the organizational
and environmental needs of each state and should be
reviewed with this in mind. For instance, some reforms
might be intended by a state not to accelerate permit
issuance but to afford the state the opportunity to
simultaneously review all aspects of a project's environ-
mental impacts. Such reforms may in fact slow permit
issuance.
4) Some state reforms may be legally acceptable in
independent state programs but would not be authorized
under federally approved or delegated programs. For
example, automatic issuance of a "default" permit once
a decision deadline is passed is a reform in use in some
states. Such an approach generally would not be accept-
able in a Federally approved NPDES program.
5) Our consultants felt that categorization of the reforms
that were reported to them required a good deal of
judgment. Consequently, the report should be viewed as
a somewhat subjective account of state permitting initia-
tives.
In spite of these limitations, we feel this is a useful study.
As the agency continues to turn responsibility for programs back to
the states, it is important for both state and federal officials to
be aware of the innovations being implemented in various jurisdictions
so that the most promising of these might be given consideration and,
where appropriate, be adopted so as to provide better service.
Additional copies of this report are available from the National
Technical Information Service (5285 Port Royal Road; Springfield,
Virginia; 22161). You may order by phone (703-487-4690) and charge
the report to your American Express, Visa or Mastercard. Please
refer to the report's number PB82-256983 when placing your order.
You may also order by letter by stating the report's number and
including a check in the following amounts. A paper copy is $18.00
now and $19.00 after January 1; microfiche is $4.00 now and $4.50
after January 1.
Sincerely,
Joseph A. Cannon K
Associate Administrator
for Policy and Resource Management
-------
STREAMLINING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PERMITTING PROCESS:
A Survey of State Reforms
Final Report
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF POLICY AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
June 1982 ^ Environmenta, Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
PREFACE
This document presents information obtained from tele-
phone interviews with officials in all 50 state governments as
well as from secondary sources of information. Special appre-
ciation is given to the many state officials who contributed
their valuable time and thoughtful review. Acknowledgement is
also made to the Southern States Energy Board, the Western
Interstate Energy Board, and the Regulatory Reform Institute
for their work in the early stages of the survey.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Energy
Facilities Branch within the Office of Policy and Resource
Management provided direction throughout the duration of the
project. The Office of Water Enforcement and Permits also
contributed extensively. Special thanks are given to Stu
Sessions and Sue Wilson for their valuable assistance.
This document was prepared by Temple, Barker & Sloane,
Inc. under contract No. 68-01-5845 to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
CONTENTS
PREFACE i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
PART I: INTRODUCTION 1
Objectives 4
Methodology 5
Key Reforms 5
Observations Concerning
State Permit Reforms 17
PART II: STATE SUMMARIES 23
APPENDICES
A. EPA Programs Delegated and
Authorized to States 225
B. Bibliography 227
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As the complex of state, federal, and local environmental
regulations has multiplied over the last decade, developers of
energy and industrial projects have increasingly faced prob-
lems of confusing and duplicative permit requirements and
delays in receiving permit approval. In response, many states
have initiated procedural permitting reforms.
During 1981, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
undertook a survey of the procedural environmental permitting
reforms in all 50 states. Information for this survey was
gathered primarily from telephone interviews with state offi-
cials and from secondary sources of information. The result-
ing report is a state-by-state description of the environ-
mental permitting reforms that each state considers the most
significant.
This survey is designed to serve as a reference tool for
state officials interested in learning about the types of
environmental permitting reforms initiated by their counter-
parts across the United States and in exploring alternatives
to implement at home.
In order to help state officials locate states where
similar procedures have been implemented and to provide a
structure for analysis, each state permitting reform was cate-
gorized into one of the following key reforms:
• Computer tracking
• Decision-making deadlines
• General permit
• Joint application
• Joint hearing
• Joint review
• One-stop permitting
• Over-the-counter processing
• Permit/application coordinator
• Site inventory/banking
-------
PART I: INTRODUCTION
-------
INTRODUCTION
State, federal, and local environmental laws and regula-
tions have reduced air, water, and solid waste pollution and
have mitigated many negative impacts associated with energy
and industrial projects. However, as these regulations have
grown in number and complexity, so has the difficulty for
agencies in administering the regulatory programs and for
project applicants in understanding and applying for the many
permit requirements associated with them.
The complex of environmental laws that exists today was
formed incrementally over time; each new law was passed to
address a specific, single purpose or need, and subsequent
laws were passed to fill in gaps left uncovered by the old.
Moreover, organizationally separate agencies and programs also
developed incrementally at the local, state, and federal
levels. As a result of this history, these agencies frequent-
ly have overlapping, duplicative, or contradictory regulatory
authority as well as inadequate communication networks.
The effect on industrial and energy project sponsors has
often been burdensome in terms of money and time. Inadequate
and conflicting information, constantly changing and duplica-
tive application requirements, and lengthy permit decision
times are factors that have contributed to added project costs
and delays in commencing projects. Government agencies have
also suffered in terms of their efficiency, coordination, and
quality of decision making. Just as regulatory overlaps oc-
cur, there may also be situations where poorly coordinated
review procedures fail to address environmentally unsound
aspects of projects. And ultimately, of course, the public
has paid through inadequate environmental protection, costly
government services, and higher priced energy or industrial
projects.
There are numerous examples of delay and cost due to this
regulatory maze. One of the more extreme cases was the Sohio
pipeline proposal which underwent five years of attempting to
meet 715 permit requirements before the effort was abandoned.1
The Kaiparowitz coal project in Utah spent 14 years in the
regulatory process before it was ultimately abandoned. Less
extreme examples occur on a regular basis.
^Tosco Foundation, Siting Major Energy Facilities, October
t 1979, p. 1.
2D. Linkhart, Western Governors' Policy Office, "Permitting
and Siting of Energy Projects," June 1981, p. 7.
-------
Naturally, the reasons for delay in a project are not all
regulatory. Projects may be delayed for technical—architec-
tural/engineering—reasons. In addition, an applicant might
postpone a project because it is not economic or does not meet
the company's criterion for minimum financial return. Final-
ly, a project might be delayed because it is unable to obtain
adequate financing. Even when the regulatory process is drawn
out, the cause may not be a duplicative, cumbersome process,
but legitimate environmental concerns or a project applicant's
inability or unwillingness to provide the necessary informa-
tion. Nonetheless, the regulatory maze is recognized by
industry and government representatives alike as an important
and controllable factor in the all too frequently lengthy
permitting process.
Efforts to improve permitting processes are taking place
at the local, state, and federal levels. For many major
projects, the bulk of permitting requirements occur at the
state level. This trend will intensify with further delega-
tion of federal responsibilities to states. Many states have
passed legislation, promulgated regulations, or made adminis-
trative changes to streamline, simplify, and coordinate their
environmental permitting processes.
OBJECTIVES
In order to ensure that states are aware of the success-
ful reforms initiated by other states, the Energy Facilities
Branch of the EPA's Office of Policy Analysis and the Permits
Division of the EPA's Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
undertook a survey of state environmental permitting reforms.
Preliminary work on the survey was performed by the
Southern States Energy Board, the Western Interstate Energy
Board, and the Regulatory Reform Institute. In August 1981,
the EPA requested that Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc. (TBS), a
management and economic consulting firm located in Lexington,
Massachusetts, complete the survey work and prepare a report
summarizing the findings.
In undertaking this survey, the EPA and TBS concentrated
only on those reforms that satisfied the following three
criteria:
• The reform had to expedite or facilitate in a
significant way the issuance of a permit.
-------
• The reform had to affect permits that regulate
activities that have environmental impacts
(e.g., air, water, solid waste, and facility
siting permits).
• The reform had to affect some part of the per-
mitting process, from initial permit applica-
tion to final administrative approval.
METHODOLOGY
In conducting the survey TBS primarily relied on second-
ary sources of information and on telephone interviews with
state officials. With respect to secondary sources of infor-
mation, TBS used numerous recent descriptions or evaluations
of state permitting reforms provided by either the EPA or the
individual states. A complete bibliography of the sources
used in the survey is included at the end of this report.
TBS also held telephone interviews with state officials
and asked them to describe those reforms they considered the
most important. Only those reforms that were mentioned by
state officials in the telephone interviews were included in
the survey. Not all the reforms, however, mentioned by state
officials are included in Part II of this report; some reforms
did not satisfy the three screening criteria mentioned above.
A list of the state officials who may serve as primary con-
tacts for further discussion of these reforms is included
after each of the state summaries.
Finally, neither the EPA nor TBS undertook an independent
evaluation of the effectiveness of the reforms that are in-
cluded in this report. Thus, the report is a compilation of
those environmental permitting reforms that the states believe
to be the most significant, and is not necessarily an evalua-
tion of those that are the most effective.
KEY REFORMS
The environmental permitting reforms that have been in-
itiated by the states concern all phases of the permitting
process, from initial permit application to final administra-
tive approval. The reforms include those that have been
adopted pursuant to statutes, regulations, executive orders,
-------
and informal administrative decisions. Moreover, different
states have implemented variations of the same kind of reform
and yet titled it differently.
In order to help the reader locate states where similar
procedures have been implemented and to promote consistency in
the state summaries, TBS grouped the many permitting reforms
into ten categories of "key reforms." These categories are
not intended to exhaustively define and differentiate among
the various environmental permitting reforms; new procedures
are constantly being tried and old ones modified. The cate-
gorization is intended primarily as a reference aid.
Where relevant, each state summary is organized around a
description of the state's implementation of one or more key
reforms. The key reforms are listed in the upper righthand
corner of the first page of each state summary.
Exhibit 1 presents a matrix of the ten key reforms imple-
mented by the states and mentioned in the survey. Defini-
tional criteria and relevant observations about each of the
reforms are set forth below.
Computer Tracking
• The use of a computer to track a permit appli-
cation or renewal or to monitor compliance with
a permit that has been issued.
Computerized data storage and retrieval systems are a
recent and rapidly growing management reform in the public
sector. Eight states noted the significance of systems that
are already in place or are currently being developed. Typi-
cally these systems are used as informational mechanisms to
track permit applications and to monitor compliance with
existing permits.
Some states use the computer to track individual permit
programs, and other states are developing comprehensive sys-
tems for all their environmental programs. Kentucky has in-
stituted a Surface Mining Information System to handle the
volume of permit applications and to monitor needs in the
mining area. Michigan tracks its dredge and fill permits to
assure that reviews are conducted within special time frames.
Many of the states with single permit programs are examining
the feasibility of adapting the system to other programs.
-------
Exhibit 1
MATRIX OF KEY REFORMS
DESCRIBED IN THIS SURVEY
EPA
Region
[y riv
'i ••*% « v%
!>'' #4' $^\
tw;;n>
^ '"«.'
;, $ «? «
'j / < **i
;* * ~iS -~
^ % * ^ M * J&
>,-.>??;
- -'0fA ,
£•' *C- %s ••
r -vk;
- -\v*.
o«- c
\ -f *V.>* v^
- s f ,**
i- , ' ^
A <
?, *:r^.
f r^
> , ••/
k.n - > , v
If ^ J.'
Lt
n ,>;,/,
t .. ~ >
L ^;'
,-•
,-••.,
<,' 'X-
% t ~V ffff
'..' •» f
t < f
* ''
> ^
tf-
c
t >
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New Jersey
New York
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
PERMITTING REFORM
Computer
Tracking
;::::::-:-:'::::::::&::::::x::-
;::::&::::::£:::::::::x:x
Decision-
Making
Deadlines
!il!lil
8s;3$$ii
mmmM
$Mim?m
:::!:;:;:x:S::iS§:;:?*
g!SSSS?;s$*
lllllii
Gtmral
Permit
lltlilill
Joint
Application
«Sfpi$
SSSS^SKS;
mmmm
wSiSg^gjs;
gSssSSSSSiS
5SSSJS:::¥S?::s
Wmtfmm
Joint
Hearing
%®i$mm&
::x::!:s:::S$S«S$:
:::::::iv:v:::::::::::::^::::::
Joint
Review*
•ft'-Vfftifffftttf:
S$5sS$ftW:S
If If III!
Illllllf
One-Stop
Permitting*
SS-sjSwSvS
fj:S;%fl:::j:j:j::^::;:i
SvyixiXxX:::':':^
5::S:::-¥:¥:©:::::::;x:
xX::::x:::v::::::Xx-::::
Over-the-
Counter
Processing
11^^
Permit/
Application
Coordinate
m®8$i%
Piv^sSliSlx::
^
r>
:
HSSSSSSSS
BJHvx'^x'SSw
l^x^x-vxix-Xv
:|:l:!::x§:-x:x:;:::x;
v.-x:X;:vX;'x ;[x;
jjgxjxfxvxjffil:
X'X'x'x-x'x-xv:':
Site
Inventory/
Banking
,
xSKSS®:
All joint review and one-stop permitting reforms include joint application and joint hearing.
-------
8
More comprehensive computer systems are now being developed in
states such as North Carolina and Hawaii. Hawaii's Permit and
Application Support System (HPASS) will include compliance
status data on air, water, and waste permits as well as the
state EIS, the A-95 Notification and Review, and other envi-
ronmental requirements. In addition, Hawaii intends to expand
the system to include permit applications and an environmental
data base.
Computer systems can also be used to share information
across levels of government. The Environmental Protection
Agency's Region II office is arranging with both New York and
New Jersey to share the EPA and state computer data systems.
Decision-Making Deadlines
• The use of fixed deadlines for administrative action
or permit application.
—The deadlines can be mandated by statute, regu-
lation, or executive order.
• More strict deadlines than are generally re-
quired by the state, usually by the state's
administrative procedures act.
—The intent is to reduce the total time neces-
sary to reach a final decision.
—Sanctions may or may not be attached to the
failure to meet the deadlines.
Most states have decision-making deadlines mandated com-
prehensively by a state administrative procedures act or asso-
ciated with individual permits or program-specific laws.
However, only 22 states noted the significance of decision-
making deadlines in their environmental permitting procedures.
One half of the cases where deadlines are described in
this report are for energy siting/permitting processes. For
these projects the deadlines to complete the decision-making
process range from six months in Arizona to 33 in Montana.
Typically decision-making deadlines date from the time
the application is deemed complete by the permitting agency.
Frequently the deadline varies, depending on whether a hearing
is required or not. In New York all permits (except for those
for powerplants) must be issued within 60 days of the last
-------
hearing or, if no hearing is requested, five days after a
decision-making conference. Missouri has different deadlines
for "minor" and "major" permits. Minnesota is planning to
require that all permits be issued or denied no more than 60
days after the state EIS has been completed.
In states where extensions are readily available or where
there are no sanctions attached to failure to meet the dead-
line, the value of a decision-making deadline in accelerating
the permitting process may be compromised. A few states, such
as California and Colorado, automatically grant a permit if
the agency does not act within a specified period of time.
General Permit
• The use of one permit document for an entire
category of permit applicants.
—The permit applicants who are "covered" by
the general permit category are those who
satisfy specified criteria, such as certain
types of dischargers whose rate of discharge
is less than a given amount.
• The use of a "self-certifying" permit in which
the applicant determines whether he satisfies
the specified criteria needed for issuance of
the permit. Such applicants need not undergo
an individual permit review.
—The self-certification process imposes legal-
ly enforceable standards upon the permit
applicant.
Under the EPA's Administrative Guidelines to the Clean
Water Act, several states have initiated the use of general
permits for certain categories of water dischargers. This
reform serves both to reduce the burden of administration and
enforcement on the state agencies and to relieve small dis-
chargers of time-consuming permit application and reporting
requirements. During this survey, Oregon, New York, and
Wisconsin noted the importance of general permits for small
dischargers. All three states issued their general permits
during 1981.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also issues "general
permits" for many categories of projects requiring dredge and
fill permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. (See
-------
10
North Carolina.) The Corps' general permit differs substan-
tially from the general permit described above in that Corps
officials determine on a case-by-case basis whether a project
is covered under the general permit, and applicable projects
must still obtain state permits. Therefore the key word
"general permit" is not used to describe the process used by
the Corps of Engineers.
Joint Application
• The submission of a single application form for
more than one permit.
• The distribution of the completed application
to more than one agency.
—The completed application can be directly
submitted to all the relevant agencies, or it
can be submitted to one agency which in turn
distributes it to the relevant agencies.
—The agencies that receive the completed ap-
plication can be federal, state, or local
agencies.
Although many states have explored the use of joint ap-
plications for a variety of permits, they have later found
certain types of permit combinations to be more feasible than
others. An ever-more-common area for joint applications is
the complex of local, state, and federal (Army Corps of Engi-
neers) coastal and dredge and fill permits. Five states noted
the importance of joint applications in reducing the duplica-
tive intergovernmental requirements in this area. Joint ap-
plications are also used for many energy facility permitting
processes. Since all one-stop permitting and joint review
processes by definition include the use of a joint applica-
tion, a separate key word for joint application is not listed
along with one-stop permitting and joint review. However,
many states have instituted energy facility permit processes
that are not one-stop permitting but do include joint applica-
tions. In addition, individual states have used joint appli-
cations for specific permit combinations. For instance,
Alaska uses a joint application to cover various applications
previously required by six state and three federal agencies to
permit placer mines. New Jersey actually uses one master
permit application for all permits and distributes xeroxed
copies to the different permit programs.
-------
11
Frequently permit coordination legislation and descrip-
tions of a permit coordinator's duties include a mandate to
encourage the use of joint applications. In most of these
cases joint applications rarely or never occurred, and so a
key word is not listed. Furthermore, "joint application" does
not describe the permit information forms used by states such
as Washington and Pennsylvania. These forms, often referred
to as master application forms, are used to identify which
state permits an applicant must obtain.
Joint Hearing
• The participation of more than one permitting
authority in one hearing.
Although many states broadly encourage the use of joint
hearings, their practice has by and large been limited to
states where agency participation is mandatory. Several
states, such as Washington and Maryland, have established
procedures enabling applicants to request joint hearings; in
these cases, the practice of joint hearings has been limited
only by reluctance on the part of the applicant. Other states
have routinely incorporated joint hearings into their permit-
ting processes.
Several of the states that mentioned joint hearings use
this vehicle routinely for energy facility permitting proc-
esses. As in the case of joint applications, since all joint
review and one-stop permitting processes as defined in this
report include the use of joint hearings, a separate key word
for joint hearing is not listed along with one-stop permitting
and joint review. Five states noted the use of joint hearings
for nearly all their environmental permits. For instance,
Washington and Maryland offer applicants the option of a joint
hearing for all required permits. Other states use joint
hearings for specific permits or projects. Illinois, for
instance, holds joint hearings for major construction projects
and Michigan holds joint dredge and fill permit hearings.
Although many states have attempted to institute joint
hearings across governmental levels, the reform has been most
successful at the state level. In Maryland, local agencies
may be invited to participate in hearings with state agencies,
while in Washington local agencies are required to participate
in the coordinated review process and joint hearing. Efforts
to combine federal and state agency hearings have not been
widespread. Except for the state programs categorized under
-------
12
"joint review," only the Michigan dredge and fill program
and the Wisconsin mining reclamation program were noted as
examples of joint state and federal hearings.
Not reflected under the joint hearing category is an
apparent trend toward reducing the total number of public
hearings required of applicants. Some states noted that they
have successfully streamlined the permitting process for small
or noncontroversial projects by eliminating the public hearing
requirement. In other situations, the EPA and individual
states have coordinated their permitting process so that only
one agency holds a public hearing.
As in the case of joint applications, permit coordination
legislation or executive orders often include a mandate to
encourage the use of joint hearings. However, unless agency
participation is mandatory, combined hearings rarely take
place.
Joint Review
• An approach to coordinating the issuance of
multiple permits needed by a single project.
• The involvement of more than one government
agency as part of a "team" in the permitting
process.
—The object is to include federal, state, and
local agencies from which permits are needed
on the team.
• The coordination of the schedule for permit
applications, permit hearings, or decisions on
whether or not to issue the permits.
• Written commitment by participating agencies at
the beginning to meeting the schedule.
—There may or may not be sanctions attached to
the failure of an agency to meet its written
commitment to the schedule.
Colorado's Joint Review Process, initiated by executive
order in 1978, has served as the model for subsequent efforts
in three other states. State legislatures in Tennessee and
Utah passed joint review legislation in 1981, and the governor
of Illinois initiated a joint review process through executive
-------
13
order during 1981. All four programs apply to major projects
in the energy and mineral resources development area.
The processes set up in these states are designed around
the basic concept of a review team composed of representatives
of state, local, and federal agencies and the project appli-
cant. However, in all these cases local and federal agencies
are not required to participate. Utah's structure differs
slightly from that of the other states in that the Resource
Development Coordinating Committee, a pre-existing intergov-
ernmental body which conducts A-95 and other reviews, oversees
the process.
The joint review process is designed to be a flexible
coordinating reform. Only applicants that request it and are
designated eligible by the governor are permitted under the
joint review process. The joint review team is given consid-
erable planning and enforcement discretion to arrange for such
streamlining vehicles as joint hearings, deadlines, and joint
applications. Because these reforms are generally available
under all joint review processes, separate key words for joint
applications and joint hearings are not listed under joint
review. The process is intended to be tailored to individual
project applications.
Because Tennessee, Utah, and Illinois initiated their
joint review processes in 1981, only Colorado has had any
experience with the reform. Seven projects have applied and
been accepted for consideration under Colorado's review proc-
ess. Utah is the only other state to have designated a
project eligible for joint review.
One-Stop Permitting
• One administrative process for all state per-
mits (at the minimum) involving both a joint
application and a joint hearing.
• One government body that issues a permit or
permits or that requires other agencies to
issue permits.
—The government body can be one agency or a
team consisting of a group of officials from
several agencies.
—In some cases, other agencies can attach
conditions to the permit that is issued by
the lead government body.
-------
14
As defined in this report, one-stop permitting processes
exist in eight states. However, modifications of one-stop
permitting, where many but not all of the criteria described
above are met, occur in many other states. For instance,
Ohio's permitting process for energy facilities is categorized
under "permit/application coordinator" and "joint applica-
tion," since the process does not include joint hearings and
each agency maintains authority to issue its permit. Some of
these states may actually label their process "one-stop per-
mitting" but fail to meet the definition contained in this
report.
Nearly all one-stop or modified one-stop permitting proc-
esses apply to major energy facilities and transmission lines.
Specific eligibility criteria vary from state to state in
terms of minimum, facility size and other types of energy proj-
ect coverage. A few states, such as New York and Florida,
have established one-stop permitting procedures for industrial
facilities. Connecticut is one of the initiators of one-stop
permitting for hazardous waste facilities. In all cases de-
scribed in this report, except for Florida's industrial one-
stop permitting process, project applicants are required to
use the process.
The decision-making structure also differs across states.
In many states, such as Arizona and New York, a special siting
council composed of state and local agency representatives
decides whether to grant the applicant the requested permit.
In Florida, the governor and his cabinet make the certifica-
tion decision. Maryland's Public Service Commission has final
authority over powerplant permitting. Local permits and agen-
cies are typically included in the one-stop permitting proc-
ess, although state power to override local decisions varies
among the states. Nearly all the states have deadlines for
their one-stop permitting processes, but the time frames range
from six to 24 months.
Since nearly all the energy facility one-stop permitting
programs were first developed in the early 1970s, this reform
has been well tested. Most states have certified at least
three or four major facilities under this reform.
To generalize, one-stop permitting has not necessarily
resulted in accelerated permitting of facilities. Instead,
the process seems to have provided states a forum for compre-
hensively assessing proposed projects and integrating these
decisions into long-range plans.
-------
15
Qver-the-Counter Processing
• Permit application, permit review, and permit
approval occurring on the same day and at the
same place.
—A preapplication discussion (often a tele-
phone conversation) between the applicant and
the relevant agency can occur at any time
before the one-day processing.
—Over-the-counter processing applies to minor
permits.
Although only New Jersey made mention of this reform, it
has proved very helpful to small project applicants.
Permit/Application Coordinator
• Any one of a series of coordination functions,
including the following:
—Master application or permit information form
—Mediation services
--Permit directories
—Permit expediters
—Permit information centers
—Preapplication conferences
This term covers a broad range of reforms initiated in
over half the states. Four states noted the actual existence
of a predesignated individual titled "permit coordinator," and
four states assign individual coordinators on a project-by-
project basis. In other states, a department, committee, or
task force might oversee one or more of the coordination
mechanisms listed above.
The permit/application coordinator reform may apply to a
variety of permits or projects. Seventeen states, including
Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Michigan, described procedures
that apply to all their environmental permits. The term is
also used to describe facility permitting processes in states
-------
16
such as Ohio and Massachusetts which do not meet all the cri-
teria of one-stop permitting but are highly coordinated.
Hawaii, Maine, and Vermont coordinate their land-use permits,
while other states' procedures apply to dredge and fill per-
mits, construction projects, or "priority" projects. Many
states have attempted to coordinate the local or federal per-
mitting process. These efforts have succeeded more in the
informational area than in the application, review, and
decision-making stages (excluding the Corps' dredge and fill
permits).
Typically the reform is aimed at "coordinating" the per-
mitting functions of many agencies so that project sponsors
may submit their applications and receive responses in a con-
sistent and timely fashion. Pennsylvania's regional system
and Ohio's energy siting process are examples of coordinated
systems. Several state reforms are aimed at "expediting" a
project through the permitting process, such as Kentucky's
proposed priority application procedure and New Jersey's pool
of permit expediters. Yet, increasingly, it is the "informa-
tional" reform that states and industry are finding most use-
ful. Washington, Maryland, and Hawaii have established a
variety of mechanisms to help both agencies and applicants
learn more, earlier, about issues associated with the project
review and permit application requirements.
Site Inventory/Banking
• The identification of an inventory of sites for
specific types of facilities by a state agency
using preselected criteria.
—The agency can either identify the site or
actually purchase ("bank") it.
Although several states have explored the concept of site
inventories or banks for guiding the location of new major
energy facilities, only three states noted actual use of this
reform. Minnesota has limited the scope of its inventory to
broad-corridor recommendations for powerplant facilities.
Illinois has issued broad area maps identifying suitable areas
for coal gasification and synthetic fuels facilities. Mary-
land, however, with separate financing from a surcharge on
electricity production, actually "banks" specific powerplant
sites for future sale to utilities. Although early designa-
tion of site criteria and areas for utility development is
intended to facilitate the permitting process, this reform has
often proved too complex to implement.
-------
17
OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING STATE PERMIT REFORMS
The primary conclusion that can be drawn from the survey
of state environmental permitting reforms is that there is not
an "ideal" reform which should be adopted by all states for
all projects. Not only do states have varied needs and con-
cerns which are the impetus for permit reform, but different
states have had contrasting experiences with similar types of
reform. Outlined below are some observations concerning how
state reforms differ in terms.of their objectives, benefits
and costs, applicability to different industries or projects,
manner of initiation, and flexibility in implementation. Two
final sections address the issue of regional differences and
provide examples of intergovernmental coordination.
Objectives of the Reforms
Procedural permit reforms are designed to serve a variety
of objectives and are a result of many different concerns.
Some reforms increase public involvement and governmental
oversight, some improve intergovernmental coordination, others
reduce duplicative or burdensome requirements, and others
improve the information flow. Most, however, are ultimately
intended to expedite the permitting process.
Some reforms are aimed mainly at improving public in-
volvement and/or governmental oversight of a project. With
the fragmentation of regulatory authority across many agen-
cies, states have found that issues have "fallen between the
cracks" or that project approvals have occurred without regard
for long-term planning needs. Examples of reforms directed at
this problem are the various types of energy facility siting
commissions found throughout the country.
Reforms may also be aimed at improving the coordination
between state agencies or agencies across governmental levels.
Problems of inefficiently used resources, jurisdictional
ambiguity, or conflicting time frames may all be the impetus
for these kinds of reforms. To this end, permit/application
coordinators serve to clarify requirements for an applicant,
improve communication between the applicant and agencies, and
reduce the amount of overlays and conflicts between agencies.
Some reforms are specifically designed to eliminate du-
plicative requirements which strain applicants' resources.
Joint hearings and joint applications are examples of this
type of reform.
-------
18
There is an increasing awareness of the unfair regulatory
burden placed on small project applicants, and a number of
procedural mechanisms have been implemented to address this
issue. General permits for classes of activities and one-day
over-the-counter processes are good examples of this type of
reform. Many states have also instituted ad hoc procedures to
expedite "minor" projects and/or have eliminated their public
hearing requirements for uncontested, small projects.
Informational mechanisms directed at reducing the uncer-
tainty for applicants and agencies alike are rapidly increas-
ing in use. Most states offer preapplication conferences
where applicants can learn about permit requirements and ex-
plore issues early on which might arise later in the permit-
ting process. Permit directories are published in most states
and several states have taken advantage of permit centers and
computer tracking of permits to serve both applicants' and
agencies' information needs.
Finally, there are reforms that are solely intended to
expedite the permitting process. Decision-making deadlines
are frequently imposed on permitting agencies in order to
ensure that agencies are not dilatory. Some states, anxious
to encourage specific types of development, have set up spe-
cial task forces to expedite the permitting process for these
projects, and certainly many of the reforms described earlier
are intended to ultimately result in a more efficient, coor-
dinated, and faster permitting process.
Benefits and Costs of the Reforms
The benefits and costs of these reforms are not always
apparent. While in many cases the state officials can point
to such records as the total reduction in permitting time or
the smaller number of hearings required, in other cases, where
the benefit is greater satisfaction on the part of the appli-
cant or improved communication, such quantification is diffi-
cult. This is especially true for the informal reforms such
as preapplication conferences and permit coordinators.
Moreover, the benefits for agencies and applicants are
not always the ones primarily anticipated. For instance, the
Colorado joint review process (CJRP), designed to coordinate
agency and applicant actions and improve the public participa-
tion process, also helps the state by explicitly identifying
the source of delay in the permit process. Where previously
the government was normally seen as the scapegoat for permit-
ting delay, under the CJRP, where the responsibilities of all
-------
19
parties are specified in agreements, the source of any delay
is clear. Often, the project applicant is responsible for the
delay.
Finally, many of the permit reforms clearly present
tradeoff situations. A tradeoff occurs when several steps in
a permitting process are eliminated so that decisions are
expedited, yet agencies' decision-making capabilities are
reduced and issues may "fall through the cracks." In other
situations, more agencies are involved at more steps in the
process, which may be more burdensome, yet decisions are made
more deliberately.
Industry/Project Differences
Permitting reforms also differ in their application to
specific projects or industries. Over time, certain types of
projects have experienced more attention in the area of permit
reform. Throughout the 1970s, many states enacted legislation
governing the permitting of powerplant facilities. Emphasis
in this area may have been due to such factors as the indus-
try's history of regulatory control, recognition by the public
and legislatures of the need for comprehensive energy plan-
ning, and the increased interest of local communities in de-
termining and understanding the environmental impact of new
facilities. Later, as other sorts of energy projects en-
countered permitting delays and as concern for national energy
self-sufficiency grew, several states amended their legisla-
tion to include a broader scope of projects such as coastal
refineries, pipelines, and mines. Currently, in the wake of
federal RCRA legislation, more states are passing hazardous
waste facility siting legislation.
Naturally, the characteristics of the reforms vary de-
pending on the type of project affected. Both the powerplant
and hazardous waste facility processes are oriented toward the
siting of facilities, although some of the processes cover all
permits required for construction of a facility, while others
only address the siting question. Intergovernmental coordina-
tion between local and state agencies nearly always character-
izes these reforms. Frequently, a siting committee, composed
of representatives from all affected state and local agencies,
is responsible for coordinating the process. The objective of
long-term planning often supersedes any objective of expedited
permitting with these kinds of reforms.
Permit reforms applicable to non-energy industrial devel-
opment have tended to be implemented less formally and on a
-------
20
voluntary basis. A few states have enacted siting legislation
for such development, but for the most part these reforms
cover a range of less formal processes aimed at coordinating
agency action, improving the information flow, and expediting
the process.
In addition to industry distinctions, many states have
implemented reforms specifically for "minor" or "major" proj-
ects. Some states have found that imposing the same require-
ments on projects of all sizes is too burdensome for both the
agencies and the applicant. They have instituted reforms to
expedite or eliminate requirements for "minor" projects.
Other states are developing processes to accommodate speci-
fically the numerous permit requirements of a "major" project.
Ad hoc permit expediting committees or joint review processes
are examples of this type of reform.
Statutory, Regulatory, or
Administrative Initiative
States have initiated their permitting reforms through a
variety of mechanisms. Many states have passed legislation to
implement their processes; other states have issued regula-
tions implementing existing statutes. In some states the
governor has issued an executive order for a reform, and in
others the reform has evolved out of changes in administrative
practice. The benefits and drawbacks of each of these types
of initiatives vary from state to state. Some state officials
believe that legislation restricts the agencies to cumbersome,
rigid procedures. In other states the legislation is flexible
enough to accomplish regulatory reform and additionally pro-
vides the authority to ensure a stable funding source and to
enforce the reform.
Flexibility of the Reform
There is a distinct trend in the nature of permit reforms
toward an increased emphasis on informal, flexible procedures.
Whereas much of the siting legislation passed during the 1970s
prescribed rigid procedures for permitting, the more recent
experiments with joint review are flexible and rely on volun-
tary cooperation. Several states that passed permit coordi-
nation legislation in the mid-1970s have abandoned the formal
procedures laid out in the statutes and use permit coordina-
tors in a more informal manner. State officials cite several
reasons for this trend, including: court challenges to formal
-------
21
procedures, evidence that new reforms are even more time-
consuming than the previous process, and industry criticism of
formal procedures.
However, many officials also commented on the problems
associated with the more flexible, informal procedures such as
permit coordinators. There is a possibility that the success
of many of the reforms is dependent on the abilities of the
individuals in charge. If the individual is not effective,
neither is the reform.
Regional Differences
Although it is difficult to discern clear regional dif-
ferences in permitting reforms, some regional differences do
seem to correspond to the type and level of industrial devel-
opment. For instance, many of the heavily populated, indus-
trialized Northeastern and Middle Atlantic states have estab-
lished informal permit coordinators. These permit coordina-
tors are very helpful to a large volume of not very compli-
cated projects. In contrast, several of the western states
with a great deal of new energy development have created
formal joint review and facility siting processes which are
best applied to only a few major, complicated projects.
Finally, the sparsely populated states with little energy or
industrial development presumably have little need for envi-
ronmental permitting reforms and, as a consequence, have
initiated relatively few reforms.
Intergovernmental Coordination
A pressing need in the area of permit reform today is for
more effective intergovernmental coordination. As both the
local and state agencies develop greater analytical and deci-
sion-making capabilities and as states assume a larger role in
the environmental review process, the problem of jurisdiction-
al conflict has grown. Moreover, many state officials noted
that differing federal and state statutory deadlines pose a
major obstacle to their efforts to streamline the review proc-
ess. For the applicant this may mean confusion over permit
requirements, duplicative demonstrations of compliance, and
lengthy review times. For the agencies this may mean agency
conflicts, wasted efforts, and inadequate environmental
review.
-------
22
State, federal, and local agencies are coordinating their
efforts in a wide range of ways. A common practice between
state and federal agencies is to sign a Memorandum of Under-
standing (MOU) or Agreement (MOA) which describes mutually
agreed-upon coordinating procedures and jurisdictional bound-
aries. Several states have established state/federal task
forces to explore new ways to coordinate their efforts.
Annual state/EPA Agreements (SEAs) often include goals for
coordinating state and regional EPA agency efforts. The
Department of the Interior has worked with several states to
combine EIS procedures. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dis-
trict offices have established an assortment of agreements
with state agencies to combine applications, hearings, and
review procedures for projects requiring permits from both
levels of government. Many states have designed one-stop and
joint review processes where local and/or federal participa-
tion is encouraged.
One major distinction between intergovernmental and state
agency coordination processes is the general absence of en-
forceability of the former and therefore its heavy reliance on
a spirit of cooperation. This is especially true for state
efforts to include federal review agencies. While some states
have legislatively given themselves pre-emptive authority over
local siting decisions, they are generally reluctant to use
this power.
The success of these intergovernmental efforts varies
from state to state. While many states cited the federal/
state/local interface as their most difficult problem, other
states commented on an excellent relationship between the
various governmental levels.
-------
PART H: STATE SUMMARIES
-------
OVERVIEW
There is no formal consolidation of state permits in
Alabama. Separate boards and commissions process state and
federal permits in the categories of air, water, solid waste,
drilling, mining, etc.
Over the last few years, similar versions of a bill have
been introduced in the state legislature to consolidate envi-
ronmental management and permitting into one agency, the
Department of Environmental Management. Department of Public
Health staff indicate that they expect passage of the bill
within a couple of legislative sessions.
Water Improvement Commission staff are considering a
proposal to issue general permits for 11 categories of dis-
chargers. They believe that the use of general permits will
effect significant savings in personnel time.
STATE CONTACTS
W. T. Willis, Director
Environmental Health Administration
Department of Public Health
State Office Building, Room 328
Montgomery, Alabama 3G130
(205) 832-3176
James W. Warr, Director
Water Improvement Commission
State Office Building
Montgomery, Alabama 3G130
(205) 277-3630
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
Joint Hearing
Decision-Making Deadlines
Joint Application
OVERVIEW
Alaska has established permit information centers in
several locations to disseminate to interested parties infor-
mation about permits required, qualifications for such per-
mits, application procedures, and state contacts. These cen-
ters serve as an initial intermediary between applicants and
the regulators. Additionally, a coordinated review process,
which includes a consolidated preapplication form, issuance of
joint public notices, and joint hearings, is available to any
applicant. This review, however, is limited in scope and
applies only to certain environmental permits. Finally, a
master application is required for the permitting of placer
mines.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
Alaska has established three permit information centers—
in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau—which offer a variety of
information about local, state, and federal permits. The
centers both provide potential applicants information on per-
mits required for specific projects and give them the names of
specific regulatory agencies. The centers function as clear-
inghouses for the master application and joint review proc-
esses as well.
The centers were created by the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation (DEC) in response to a legislative mandate
to "establish an opportunity for members of the public to
obtain information pertaining to requirements of federal,
state, and local law which must be satisfied before under-
taking a project in this state" (Environmental Procedures
-------
Alaska 28
Coordination Act, A.S. § 46.35). This legislation was
modeled, with minor adjustments, after the Washington Environ-
mental Coordination Procedures Act.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The centers provide information on all state and federal
permits, not solely environmental permits. Generic informa-
tion on local permitting is available, but the variation among
local practices makes it impossible to catalog specific
requirements.
Administrative Process
After the applicant furnishes a description of the pro-
posed project, the center will identify the agencies with
jurisdiction; the federal, state, and local permits that may
be necessary; and the appropriate contacts. To facilitate
this effort, the DEC has compiled a permit directory and lists
of permits required for specific types of projects. The
centers also function as the clearinghouse for master applica-
tions and the joint review process. Toll-free telephone
service with these centers is available throughout the state.
Experience with the Reform
The permit information centers are heavily used, receiv-
ing hundreds of calls per month.
JOINT HEARING, PERMIT/APPLICATION
COORDINATOR, AND DECISION-MAKING
DEADLINES FOR SPECIFIED STATE PERMITS
A coordinated review of certain state permits is avail-
able to any project requiring multiple state permits. The
process includes a master preliminary application, coordinated
notice activities, and joint hearings. These procedural
measures were authorized in 1977 by the Environmental Proce-
dures Coordination Act (A.S. § 46.35). The use of this proc-
ess is voluntary, and any project requiring two or more
permits is eligible.
-------
29 Alaska
Permits/Agencies Affected
The Environmental Procedures Coordination Act specified
34 environmental permits issued by the departments of Environ-
mental Conservation, Fish and Game, Natural Resources, and
Transportation and Public Facilities which must be considered
in the coordinated review process. This list includes many of
the major state environmental permits, such as air and water
pollution, land use, and mineral extraction. All other
permits issued by these as well as the other state agencies
are included in the process. Local and federal authorities
may, at their optidn, be represented at the hearings.
Administrative Process
The process is initiated when the applicant files a sin-
gle preliminary application with the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation through the permit centers. The DEC cir-
culates the application to the other eligible agencies, which
must determine within 15 days whether permits are required.
If an agency has a negative response or fails to respond
promptly, it cannot subsequently require permits. When these
determinations are complete, the permit center distributes the
necessary application forms to the developer. Upon filing of
the necessary forms, the participating agencies issue a joint
public notice and hold joint public hearings if any agency
deems hearings necessary.
Each state agency having an application for a permit must
be represented at the hearing. A DEC hearing officer chairs
the hearing, but representatives from the other agencies con-
duct the portions of the hearing relevant to their jurisdic-
tions. Following the hearing, decision deadlines (usually 90
days or less) are established by the DEC. No state permit may
be issued under the Environmental Procedures Coordination Act
unless the applicant can demonstrate that all necessary local
permits or certifications, if any, have been received. The
individual state permits are then issued through the permit
center.
If an applicant desires, he or she may use only the first
stage of this coordinated review process. In such a case the
applicant files the preliminary application. The DEC then
lets the applicant know what state permits are required and
furnishes him or her with the necessary application forms.
The applicant then follows the standard permitting procedure
required by each of the various state agencies.
-------
Alaska 30
Experience with the Reform
The coordinated review process has not been used exten-
sively since it was instituted in 1977. Twenty applicants
have entered the process, but only one has chosen to partici-
pate in the optional joint hearings.
JOINT APPLICATION FOR PLACER MINES
«
Alaska has consolidated the applications for state per-
mits relating to placer mines (operations which collect
minerals from sand or gravel deposits by washing or dredging).
The use of the master form is required of all placer mine
applicants. This practice was adopted by voluntary agreement
among the state agencies. This form replaces the various
forms previously required by the six state and three federal
agencies participating in the program.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The consolidated application is used for state permits
required for placer mining, including water permits, land-use
permits, and mining licenses. The federal agencies—EPA, BLM,
and USFS—accept this application as their annual report and
plan of operation. The local reviews are independent.
Administrative Process
The applicant submits a single application to the permit
center, which forwards the application to the interested agen-
cies. The agencies conduct their reviews independently.
Experience with the Reform
In 1981, over 600 master applications were filed and
processed, covering about 2,000 placer mine claims. A DEC
official noted that despite problems in 1980—the first season
that master applications were used—the program was well re-
ceived in 1981.
-------
31 Alaska
STATE CONTACT
Woody Angst, Permit Coordinator
Department of Environmental Conservation
Pouch 0
Juneau, Alaska 99811
(907) 465-2670
-------
One-Stop Permitting
Decision-Making Deadlines
OVERVIEW
The Arizona Power Plant and Transmission Line Siting
Committee conducts a one-stop permitting process for all major
electric utility facilities. The process includes a master
application, joint hearings, and a review deadline. If the
committee approves an application for an electric utilitv
facility, it issues a Certificate of Environmental Compati-
bility, which is the only state authorization required.
In addition, Arizona has within the Office of Economic
Planning and Development a liaison service which aids develop-
ers in identifying the state and local regulatory requirements
for projects contemplated around the state.
ONE-STOP PERMITTING AND DECISION-
MAKING DEADLINES FOR MAJOR
ELECTRIC UTILITY FACILITIES
The one-stop permitting process of the Arizona Power
Plant and Transmission Line Siting Committee is mandatory for
all new powerplants with capabilities over 100 megawatts and
transmission lines over 115,000 volts. The committee, com-
posed of eleven state agency representatives and seven public
members appointed by the governor, conducts a joint review in
which all interested state and local authorities participate.
If the committee approves a project, it issues a "Certificate
of Environmental Compatibilitv" (Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.
40-360.01 et seq.). The certificate is the only state
authorization needed by the utility; no additional approvals
from state agencies are required, though the agencies do
retain authority to attach conditions to the certificate.
-------
Arizona 34
Permits/Agencies Affected
Although the certificate is the only state approval
necessary for eligible projects, and no other permits are
required, the committee must ensure that all state regulatory
requirements are met. State permit requirements that must be
satisfied include those affecting air pollution, wastewater
discharge, water use, solid and hazardous waste, and land
use.
Local authorities may participate in the joint proceed-
ings in order to present any objections to a proposal. Al-
though local ordinances must ordinarily be met, the committee
can override local restrictions deemed unreasonably restric-
tive. The ability of local regulators to halt a project in
this process has not been tested. There has been no signifi-
cant federal participation in the process.
Administrative Process
In order to initiate the one-stop permitting process, a
utility files a master application with the siting committee.
The application is forwarded to the relevant state and local
authorities, and a joint hearing is scheduled. At the close
of the evidentiary hearings, the state agencies with jurisdic-
tion must inform the committee of any restrictions or condi-
tions to be attached to the certificate. The committee's
criteria for reviewing applications are consistency with
Arizona's environmental and economic goals and compliance with
state and local regulatory requirements.
Ten favorable votes in the 18-member committee are neces-
sary for a project to be approved. A decision, whether favor-
able or unfavorable, must be made within 180 days of the fil-
ing of the application. Any of the participants in the pro-
ceeding may, within 15 days of the decision, file an appeal
with the Arizona Corporation Commission.
Experience with the Reform
The statute was adopted in August 1971. There have been
57 applications under this program in the past ten years.
Although the great majority of these have been for transmis-
sion line projects, the applicants have included one nuclear
plant and one coal plant. None of these applications has been
denied.
-------
35 Arizona
STATE CONTACT
Torn Prose
Assistant Attorney General
Arizona Attorney General
1700 West Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
(G02) 255-3562
-------
OVERVIEW
There is no consolidation of state permits in Arkansas.
However, all environmental permit programs are administered bv
one agency, the Department of Pollution Control and Ecology.
This organizational structure facilitates communication among
the permitting program staffs. A Commission of Pollution
Control and Ecology officially makes all permit decisions
(except those concerning water quality, which has been dele-
gated to the department's water division), and department
staff administer the programs.
In the past, Arkansas has experimented with using a proj-
ect manager to coordinate the environmental permitting of
large projects. This approach has been dropped because of
insufficient staffing.
The department may hold preapplication conferences for
large projects requiring multiple permits. Representatives
from each of the permit programs will get together with the
applicant to discuss permit requirements.
STATE CONTACT
John Ward, Manager
Permits Branch
Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205
(501) 562-7444
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
Joint Application
Decision-Making Deadlines
OVERVIEW
California's major reforms in permitting result from two
state laws, the Warren-Alquist Act passed in 1974, and A.B.
884 passed in 1977. The Warren-Alquist Act establishes a
coordinated and expedited procedure for the siting of large
powerplants and transmission lines. The other law, A.B. 884,
sets deadlines for permit review and mandates information
exchange among agencies. A.B. 884 applies to construction and
development projects of all types other than those covered by
the Warren-Alquist Act.
To assist in implementing both laws, California has es-
tablished the Office of Permit Assistance (OPA) as part of the
state Office of Planning and Research. The OPA provides ap-
plicants with information such as the California Permit Hand-
book and arranges preapplication conferences and coordinated
reviews.
Finally, at least one attempt was made to inventory sites
desirable for industrial development in the San Francisco Bay
Area. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAC) per-
formed this study in cooperation with the state. Although a
report was issued, it has not had much impact on development
decisions, according to a government official who helped pre-
pare the report.
-------
California 40
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR,
JOINT APPLICATION, AND DECISION-
MAKING DEADLINES FOR MAJOR
ENERGY PROJECTS
The Warren-Alquist Act establishes what may be termed a
modified one-stop siting process for thermal powerplants gen-
erating more than 100 megawatts and their associated trans-
mission lines. The procedure is not described here as one-
stop because it is a coordination of individual agencies that
make separate reviews under time deadlines.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The process encompasses all the state air, water, and
solid waste permits issued for a facility. If federal agen-
cies' must approve a project, their participation is invited
but cannot be required by the state. The state Energy Com-
mission issues the final certification, which incorporates all
the state agency reviews. However, an applicant must receive
an additional permit (the Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity) from the state Public Utilities Commission
(PUC), which holds its review separately from the Energy Com-
mission .
Administrative Process
The California Energy Resources and Conservation Commis-
sion (Energy Commission), created by the Warren-Alquist Act,
oversees a two-stage process for applicants proposing energy
facilities. First, the applicant files a Notice of Intention
(NOI) which provides the Energy Commission, other agencies,
and the public with early information about a project. The
Act specifies that information about the size and location of
the facility be included, along with predictions of its econo-
mic, social, and environmental impacts. The sponsor must
include at least three alternative sites for the project. The
Energy Commission acts as the coordinating agency, sending
copies of the NOI to relevant federal, state, and local agen-
cies and citizen groups. The Energy Commission holds infor-
mal, nonadjudicatory hearings on the NOI while conducting its
own researbh on the proposal. Unless the Energy Commission
and the sponsor agree on a time extension, the commission must
issue its decision on the NOI within 12 months of its submis-
sion.
-------
41 California
If the commission approves the NOI, the applicant pro-
ceeds to the second phase, which is to file the Application
for Certification (AFC). The AFC is distributed to local,
regional, state, and federal agencies interested in the
project for their review and input. At this stage, specific
sites are identified, and in-depth studies by the commission
in cooperation with the sponsor are begun for the environ-
mental impact statements required by state and federal law.
The Energy Commission acts as the lead agency in preparing the
environmental impact report (EIR) required under California's
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Where a federal EIS is re-
quired, the commission attempts to coordinate state and
federal efforts by consolidating the information and hearings
required for both documents. Although the Energy Commission
takes lead responsibility for the EIR, it sends out informa-
tion on the project to other state agencies like the Air
Resources Board and Water Resources Board, which make their
own independent reviews, just as they would if they were
issuing PSD permits or NPDES permits separately.
The Energy Commission holds additional nonadjudicatory
and evidentiary hearings on the AFC during this second phase.
Other state or federal agencies may hold their own hearings as
part of their review. All the agencies must submit their
findings to the Energy Commission, which then decides, within
18 months of the filing of the AFC, whether to issue certifi-
cation. Since geothermal plants have been given a priority by
the legislature, the commission must rule on their AFCs within
12 months of filing. When the AFC is issued, it takes the
place of individual approvals by the state agencies. The
Energy Commission has authority under the Act to override
other state and local ordinances and decisions, but the courts
have construed this to require the commission to give substan-
tial deference to local government opinions and laws. The
Energy Commission does not have the legal authority to over-
ride federal requirements, even in cases where the state has
been delegated the program. In practice such conflicts do not
usually arise, since the process incorporates the views of
other state and federal agencies into the review process.
In addition to receiving the AFC, if the facility is in-
vestor-owned (nonmunicipal), the applicant needs to obtain a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the PUC.
The PUC's review concentrates on financial, rate, and reli-
ability concerns, as opposed to the Energy Commission's review
which one staff member described as a "site review."
-------
California 42
Experience with the Reform
Since passage of the Warren-Alquist Act eight plants have
been sited through the process. Seven of these were geother-
mal plants and one was a coal gasification plant. Staff from
the Energy Commission believe that the process works well,
significantly reducing time and paperwork.
DECISION-MAKING DEADLINES
FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
A.B. 884 sets deadlines for agency review and decisions
on development projects. "Development" is defined broadly to
include placement or erection of any structure, waste dis-
charge or disposal, mining, grading, dredging, or changes in
the density or intensity of land or water use.
Permits/Agencies Affected
A.B. 884 applies to all state agencies issuing permits
except the Energy Commission, which falls under the jurisdic-
tion of the Warren-Alquist Act.
Administrative Process
Under A.B. 884 the Office of Permit Assistance (OPA) in
the Office of Planning and Research (part of the executive
branch) oversees the deadlines and reporting requirements of
the law. The law requires the lead agency for a project to
approve or disapprove the project within one year of the re-
ceipt of a completed application. The lead agency is the
agency which under the California Environmental Quality Act
takes primary responsibility for determining whether an EIR is
necessary or for issuing a negative declaration. Other agen-
cies that also must comment or issue a permit for the project
must act within 180 days after the lead agency has made a
decision, or within 180 days after the application is com-
plete, whichever is longer. Furthermore, the Act specifies
that if a permitting agency fails to act on the application
within the given time limit, the permit is automatically
approved.
-------
California
When requested by an applicant or an agency, the OPA may
designate lead agencies and assist in determining the respon-
sibilities of other agencies. OPA staff often arrange confer-
ences for applicants with agency personnel and can informally
mediate disputes that arise.
Experience with the Reform
OPA staff report that the procedures under A.B. 884 re-
sult in the staff's receiving information on several thousand
projects per year, of which they actively participate in about
three to four hundred. One staff member commented that after
working through some initial start-up problems, the procedure
had expedited permitting a great deal. He did not feel that
requiring more consolidation in the form of joint hearings was
time effective or cost effective. According to him it is
difficult to gather decision makers on all aspects of a pro-
ject together in one place, and their concerns are so varied
as to make one large hearing counterproductive.
STATE CONTACT
Kent Fickett, Permit Coordinator
Office of Permit Assistance
Office of Planning & Research
1400 Tenth St.
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 322-2318
-------
Joint Review
Decision-Making Deadlines
OVERVIEW
Colorado has established the Joint Review Process for
Major Energy and Mineral Resource Development Projects. The
joint review process is a mechanism for coordinating project
review and schedule among local, state, and federal regulatory
agencies. The process was established administratively in
1978 and has served as a model for similar efforts in Illinois
and Tennessee. In a related effort, the Colorado Department
of Natural Resources publishes the Colorado Permit Directory
for Energy and Mineral Resource Development, which is updated
twice a year.
Colorado law prescribes strict review and decision-making
deadlines for all state air permits, NPDES wastewater permits,
and regular mining permits.
JOINT REVIEW PROCESS FOR ENERGY
AND MINERAL DEVELOPMENTS
Colorado's joint review process is initiated by the proj-
ect applicant. It is designed to bring the applicant and the
public together at an early stage in the development of a
project in order to accomplish four goals: (1) to determine
all applicable regulatory requirements; (2) to define agency
and applicant responsibilities; (3) to specify a schedule for
the various regulatory activities and proceedings; and (4) to
enhance and improve public participation in governmental
decision making. The process does not alter the substantive
requirements or procedures of any agency. Rather, the process
fosters early and constructive contact between the regulator
and the applicant. This contact in turn results in more
-------
Colorado 46
complete applications at the time of filing and better agency
understanding of the project at the time of application con-
sideration. The joint review process was established without
statutory changes.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The joint review process can accommodate all local,
state, and federal permits required for energy or mineral
development, and therefore may include local land-use permits
and state and federal permits for resource extraction, water
use, and air and water pollution control. Federal, state, and
local agencies all participate in the process on a voluntary
basis, but the governor may direct state agencies to take
part. In the first case to use the joint review process, 11
federal agencies were voluntary participants.
Administrative Process
The joint review process is initiated when the applicant
requests the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to under-
take a joint review. The applicant's proposal and a prelimi-
nary recommendation supplied by the DNR go first to the
governor's cabinet, which (with input from appropriate local
and federal offices) makes a recommendation to the governor
concerning the project's qualifications for joint review. The
project must meet three criteria: (1) the project must be "a
major energy or mineral resource development"; (2) the propos-
al must be submitted in an early phase of project development;
and (3) the state must have sufficient staff and resources to
support the joint review. The governor issues final approval
for use of the joint review process. This decision can take
up to one month.
The second stage in the joint review process involves the
designation of a review team and the planning by the team of
the permit review processes. A state agency (the DNR in all
joint reviews thus far) is designated the lead state agency by
the governor. This agency then consults with other agencies
in order to obtain commitments to participate and to designate
liad local and federal agencies. The lead local and federal
agencies are usually those with the greatest regulatory re-
sponsibilities for the project.
The project team is composed of the applicant and the
designated lead agencies. Currently, lead federal agencies
are the U.S. Forest Service, the USGS, the EPA, and the BLM.
-------
47
Colorado
Each lead agency represents the agencies on its level of
government in the subsequent discussions of scheduling and
application requirements. The team members sign a joint
agreement which publicly commits the three levels of govern-
ment and the applicant to participate fully in the joint re-
view process. All agencies (in addition to the team members)
participating in the overall review process sign a statement
of responsibilities, which carefully documents the regulatory,
coordination, and support responsibilities of all partici-
pants. For example, in the Rio Blanco oil shale project, a.
statement of responsibilities was signed by 4 local, 23 state,
and 9 federal agencies as well as by the proponent. The joint
review team then develops a project decision schedule and
conducts public meetings in order to present the project to
the public and to define the issues of major concern. This
second stage of the joint review process typically consumes
about eight months; however, the process is flexible to accom-
modate the pace at which the proponent intends to pursue its
permits.
The third stage is the implementation of the project
decision schedule. The schedule melds the regulatory reviews,
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (if neces-
sary), public hearings, the completion of the applicant's
design and feasibility studies, and the administrative proc-
esses of joint review into one logical sequence of events.
The schedule is not legally binding; however, a project deci-
sion schedule agreement is signed by all involved government
agencies and the proponent. The joint review team monitors
any changes made by the individual agencies and revises the
decision schedule accordingly.
Experience with the Reform
Thus far, seven projects have been accepted into the
joint review process. The projects include a molybdenum mine
and mill, the nation's first nahcolite mine, Colorado's first
coal-to-methanol plant, and four major oil shale developments.
AMAX, Inc.'s Mount Emmons molybdenum mine and mill was the
first project to utilize the process. The project decision
schedule is currently being implemented; however, project
construction has been pushed back for economic reasons. Rio
Blanco Oil Shale Co.'s surface retorting demonstration project
has also been delayed for economic reasons. Despite these and
other project delays, project proponents have not cited the
joint review process or other regulatory processes as causing
the delays. None of the projects that have formally applied
-------
Colorado 43
to the Department of Natural Resources for use of the joint
review process have been rejected, but some projects that have
approached the DNR Informally have been redirected to the
ordinary state permitting process. Joint preapplication meet-
ings have been used extensively. Joint public hearings have
also been held. In one case thus far, a modified master
application was used.
DECISION-MAKING DEADLINES FOR
AIR AND WATER PERMITS
Colorado has established specific administrative dead-
lines for the review and issuance of all state air permits
(Colorado Air Quality Control Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25 (7)
(114)). All state air permits are issued by the Colorado
Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division. The law
prescribes deadlines for determining if the application is
complete, performing analysis, issuing notice of a public
comment period, accepting public comments, and reaching a
final decision. Final decisions on major sources must be made
within 135 days of the filing of a complete application.
Cases that do not require a public comment period must be
decided within 95 days. If the agency fails to meet these
deadlines, the permit must be approved, but the agency can
negotiate with the source to extend the deadlines. The dead-
lines will apply to PSD permits when that authority is dele-
gated as expected in 1982.
In July 1981, Colorado established administrative dead-
lines for the delegated NPDES wastewater permits in the Water
Quality Control Act (25 Colo. Rev. Stat., Art. 8 (1973) (as
amended in July 1981)). The statute requires that the Col-
orado Department of Health's Water Quality Control Division:
(1) rule on the completeness of applications within 45 days of
their submittal and (2) either deny or issue a temporary
permit within 180 days of the submittal of the completed ap-
plication.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The joint review process was developed by the Department
of Natural Resources under a Department of Energy grant issued
in 1978. The Colorado General Assembly now allots funds for
operation of the joint review process on a yearly basis. A
DNR representative suggested that some sort of fee system may
be proposed in the future.
-------
49 Colorado
STATE CONTACTS
Adam Poe
Joint Review Process Program Director
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 723
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3337
John Clouse
Chief, Stationary Sources Section
Air Pollution Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
(303) 320-8333
Jeb W. Love
Chief, Permits Section
Water Quality Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
(303) 320-8333
-------
One-Stop Permitting
Decision-Making Deadlines
Permit/Application Coordinator
OVERVIEW
Connecticut's major permitting innovation is the Connect-
icut Siting Council, a body with exclusive authority over all
state permitting for the siting of energy, telecommunication,
CAT (community antenna television towers), and hazardous waste
facilities.
For other industrial project applicants, the Department
of Environmental Protection's Office of Adjudications performs
informal permit coordination services.
ONE-STOP PERMITTING AND DECISION-
MAKING DEADLINES FOR POWERPLANTS
AND HAZARDOUS WASTE FACILITIES
In 1971, Connecticut passed the Public Utilities Environ-
ment Standards Act (Conn. Gen. Stat. Annotated, §§ 16-50 et
seq.) which established a Power Facility Evaluation Council.
In 1981 the legislature passed the Hazardous Waste Facilities
Siting Act (Public Act 81-369) which changed the council's
title to Connecticut Siting Council and added to its jurisdic-
tion the responsibility for certifying hazardous waste facil-
ity sites. The two laws are very similar in their procedural
elements. For instance, both laws gave exclusive jurisdiction
to the council for issuing state siting permits, imposed pro-
cedural and decision deadlines, and gave the council override
over all local ordinances and regulations.
All energy transmission facilities (minimum capacity
69 kilovolts) and all generation, telecommunication, CAT, and
future hazardous waste management facilities (where it is the
primary business) must be certified by the Siting Council.
-------
Connecticut
Permits/Agencies Affected
Prior to the construction of energy and telecommunication
facilities, the Connecticut Siting Council must issue a Cer-
tificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need.
Before the construction of hazardous waste facilities, the
council must issue a Certificate of Public Safety and Neces-
sity. These certificates replace all other state and local
permit requirements except for local zoning approval.
The Siting Council is composed of seven permanent mem-
bers , five of whom are appointed by the governor and two by
the legislature; two commissioners of state agencies, which
vary depending on whether the council is reviewing an ener-
gy/telecommunications site7 (Environmental Protection and
Public Utility Control departments) or a hazardous waste site
(Health Services and Public Safety departments); and in the
case of hazardous waste applications, four ad hoc representa-
tives from the site and neighboring municipalities.
Prior to the commencement of any hearing, the council
must consult with and solicit written comments from the fol-
lowing state departments: Environmental Protection, Health
Services, Public Utility Control, Economic Development, Public
Safety and Transportation, the Office of Policy and Manage-
ment, and the Council on Environmental Quality.
Administrative Process
Upon receiving an application for generating plants and
transmission lines, the council must set a hearing to be held
within 150 days (180 for hazardous waste). Prior to the hear-
ing, the council must issue a public notice and circulate the
application among the state agencies named above as well as
among state officials, affected municipalities, and various
state and local commissions.
For each type of facility, the council must consider a
variety of environmental, safety, proof-of-need, and community
impact criteria in deciding whether to issue a certificate or
not. Applicants for hazardous waste facilities must also
demonstrate financial liability and community incentive plans.
The council must render a decision within 10 months for generT
ating plants and transmission lines, one year for hazardous
waste, and 120 days for telecommunication towers and CAT (with
a possible 60-day extension).
-------
53
Connecticut
The Connecticut Siting Council holds final authority over
the location of facilities and has override powers over local
zoning decisions. For powerplants, override is possible by a
vote of six out of nine members; for hazardous waste facili-
ties, eight out of thirteen votes are required.
Experience with the Reform
In its ten-year life span, the Power Facility Evaluation
Council has reviewed twenty-five full applications. Only one
application was for a powerplant; the remainder were for
transmission lines, CATs, and telecommunication towers. All
but two or three applications were approved. The new hazar-
dous waste siting legislation has not yet been implemented.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
For the past three years, the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) has had an industrial permit
coordinator located in its Office of Adjudications. All ap-
plicants may use the permit coordinator's services.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The permit coordinator will informally assist an appli-
cant with any state environmental permit. All state environ-
mental permits, including those for air and water quality,
solid and hazardous waste, and wetlands, are issued by separ-
ate units within the DEP. The coordinator does not track
local or federal permits, except the NPDES program delegated
by the federal EPA to the DEP.
Administrative Process
Applicants usually come in contact with the permit coor-
dinator through word of mouth or by writing to the DEP commis-
sioner for permit information. The Connecticut Department of
Economic Development also forwards requests for permit infor-
mation.
The coordinator will set up informal preapplication meet-
ings for applicants with the various state permitting staffs
and provide applicants with the Permit Authority Index. Ap-
plicants must apply for permits separately from each unit.
-------
Connecticut 54
However, if applicants have trouble with particular permits,
they may request that the coordinator informally act as om-
budsman .
Experience with the Reform
The industrial permit coordinator reports that he gets
inquiries from potential applicants several times a month.
STATE CONTACTS
Raeann Curtis
Connecticut Siting Council
1 Central Park Plaza
New Britain, Connecticut 06115
(203) 827-2604
N. Rex Altomare
Industrial Permit Coordinator
Department of Environmental Protection
State Office Building
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
(203) 566-4018
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
OVERVIEW
In 1978, the Delaware General Assembly enacted legisla-
tion entitled the Land Use Planning Act for purposes of
achieving consistency and coordination between the various
levels of government and between government and private enter-
prise. The Act also provides for the examination of regula-
tory and review agencies for purposes of improved coordination
and streamlining of such processes.
In order to address the mandate of the Land Use Planning
Act, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control (DNREC) has been examining its own permit and
review processes, and during 1981 proposed to establish a
Development Advisory Service (DAS) to assist applicants whose
projects require more than one state or federal permit.
Because of reorganization legislation that was enacted by
the Delaware General Assembly in November 1981, the adminis-
tration of the Land Use Planning Act, Coastal Zone Act,
Coastal Management Program, and Permit Simplification was
transferred from the former Office of Management, Budget, and
Planning to the Department of Natural Resources and Environ-
mental Control.
The DAS has been established since this reorganization
and the DNREC is in the process of developing a concerted
effort toward making people aware of the DAS and what it can
provide at an early stage in the development process (e.g.,
distributing brochures to banks and realtors for dissemination
to prospective developers and giving presentations to local
planning and zoning commissions).
-------
Delaware 56
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
The DAS is a pool of public officials qualified to assist
applicants in complying with permit requirements. The service
is available to applicants with projects that require more
than one permit.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The DAS coordinates all state and federal permits in the
areas of air, water, solid waste, NPDES, fish and wildlife,
sediment and erosion, state parks and public lands, wetlands,
and hazardous waste, as well as permits in special areas such
as the coastal zone and Land Use Planning Act.
Administrative Process
The advisory service builds on informal policies that
were already in place in the DNREC.
The department has assigned one contact person in the
Division of Environmental Control to be responsible for coor-
dinating meetings of the DAS, reviews of permit requests, and
related activities regarding assistance to the applicant and
streamlining the permit process. The contact pers.on for DNREC
works closely with the liaison person from the Delaware Devel-
opment Office in providing assistance to prospective appli-
cants interested in obtaining permits for industrial and
commercial developments.
If a project involves wetlands or subaqueous lands, the
coordinator may refer the applicant to the department's Wet-
lands Section for purposes of presenting his proposal to the
Wetlands/Corps of Engineers Section 404 joint processing meet-
ing which is held every month.
The service is also available to applicants at any time
during the permit process. Reasons for additional coordina-
tion could include changes in project design, new permit
requirements, and discussion or resolution of issues or
conflicts.
Since the service has just recently been established, the
department is currently advising local jurisdictions, appli-
cants, and prospective applicants of the service through the
Land Use Planning Act and related programs and activities.
-------
57 Delaware
A guidebook to permit regulations for business locations was
published last year and distributed throughout the state. The
book is available to new applicants.
Experience with the Reform
Figures for the number of permits that could utilize the
proposed service each year can be roughly estimated at 50.
The service will provide faster, more efficient processing of
permits and might be particularly useful for large residential
construction projects.
Although the service is new, the department has already
received very favorable responses from local jurisdictions,
state agencies, and applicants who have been advised of it.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Currently, the total administration of the department is
not housed under one roof, but it will be by 1983. After
relocating to its new building, the department proposes to
centralize its permits and license application points within
the facility.
STATE CONTACT
Mary L. McKenzie
Permits Coordinator
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
Division of Environmental Control
Projects and Planning Section
Edward Tatnall Building
P. 0. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19901
(302) 736-3079
-------
One-Stop Permitting
Decision-Making Deadlines
OVERVIEW
Florida's efforts to streamline and coordinate the per-
mitting process fall under three separate statutes: The Power
Plant Siting Act (PPSA), the Industrial Siting Act (ISA), and
the Transmission Line Siting Act (TLSA). Although the three
acts differ in their applicability, they provide for the same
general process, which can be categorized as one-stop permit-
ting.
In addition to this legislation, some coordination exists
between the state certification process and federal permitting
programs through a Memorandum of Understanding with Region IV
of the Environmental Protection Agency. Wherever possible,
joint permit applications and joint hearings between the two
government levels occur for a major industrial or energy proj-
ect. A joint application between the state and the Army Corps
of Engineers for the 404 dredge and fill permit is also
employed.
Because the Power Plant Siting Act is the most frequently
used of the three legislative processes named above, it serves
as the model for the one-stop permitting process described
below. Ways in which the Industrial Siting Act and the Trans-
mission Line Siting Act differ from the PPSA are then high-
lighted separately.
ONE-STOP PERMITTING AND DECISION-MAKING
DEADLINES FOR POWERPLANTS
The Power Plant Siting Act (Fla. Stat. 403.501-517; 1973)
sets up a process to coordinate long-range planning and permit
-------
Florida 60
applications for electric utilities. The key procedural ele-
ments in this process are (1) a single certification hearing
by an independent hearing officer in lieu of separate permit
applications, (2) specific review deadlines, and (3) a certi-
fication decision by a siting board composed of the governor
and his or her cabinet. The process is mandatory for all
powerplants whose size or capacity exceeds 50 megawatts, and
optional for powerplants below that size.
Permits/Agencies Affected
Nearly all state and local air, water, and waste permits
required for new powerplant facilities are affected by this
process. Among these are water pollution, sewage treatment
and disposal, industrial wastewater treatment and disposal,
consumptive water use, surface water management, air quality,
and coastal construction permits. On the other hand, local
building permits are excluded and federal permit requirements
are not specifically incorporated into the legislation. How-
ever, by means of the Memorandum of Understanding described
above, joint federal/state permit applications and hearings
may occur.
The Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) serves
as coordinator of the process, and the Public Service Commis-
sion (PSC), the Department of Veteran and Community Affairs
(DVCA), and the local water management district (WMD) are
always parties to the proceedings. Other government agencies
may request participation in the process.
Administrative Process
All Florida utilities must submit to the DVCA annual ten-
year site plans which estimate their power generating needs
and the general location of proposed powerplant sites. The
DVCA classifies each plan as suitable or unsuitable and sub-
mits its findings to the DER as a prerequisite to the certifi-
cation process.
Once a utility has filed an application for a powerplant
site, the legislation calls for a number of procedural steps
and review deadlines to accelerate the certification process.
Some of these are (from the date of application) the follow-
ing:
• The DER must designate the application complete or
incomplete within ten days.
-------
61 Florida
• The DER must commence all studies required by
statute regarding the suitability of the site
within 30 days. The DER considers such crite-
ria as land use, accessibility, environmental
impact on air and water quality, and technical
sufficiency of operational safeguards. These
studies must be completed within seven months.
• The DER (through a designated hearing officer)
must conduct a local land-use hearing within
90 days. The hearing officer must submit a
written order within 30 days of the hearing.
• The DER must submit a final report to the hear-
ing officer within eight months. Along with
the DER's recommendation on the proposal, this
report includes findings from all studies that
were conducted, comments from other agencies
regarding such issues as the need for the site
and its compatibility with state plans, and any
other comments submitted by interested parties.
• A certification hearing must commence by the
tenth month. The applicant, the DER, the PSC,
the DVCA, and the WMD always participate in
this hearing. Other agencies, local govern-
ments, and interested members of the public may
participate if prior approval is granted.
• The hearing officer must submit a recommended
order to the siting board within 12 months.
• The board must issue an order to approve, mod-
ify, or deny the site application within 14 months.
Experience with the Reform
As of September 1981, twelve facilities had been permit-
ted under the Power Plant Siting Act and two are in process.
ONE-STOP PERMITTING AND DECISION-MAKING
DEADLINES FOR INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS
The Industrial Siting Act (Fla. Stat. 288.501-.518; 1979)
is an effort to expedite permit decisions for industrial proj-
ects. The process is modeled after the PPSA, although it
-------
Florida 62
varies in a few key ways. Foremost among these is that the
process is optional for eligible applicants. Any business
that has the potential for creating 50 or more full-time jobs
and requires more than one permit is eligible.
In addition, the processing time for reports, hearings,
and decisions is shorter under ISA than under PPSA. For in-
stance, the certification hearing must occur within four
months of filing compared with PPSA's ten-month deadline, and
the entire process must be completed within six months versus
PPSA's fourteen-month time frame.
The ISA addresses the permit system at the state level
only. Local governmental approvals are not included, unlike
in the PPSA.
Finally, unlike with the PPSA, no industrial facility has
yet applied to the state to utilize the procedures of the ISA.
Instead, project sponsors have exercised the option to work
through the old permit-by-permit system.
ONE-STOP PERMITTING AND
DECISION-MAKING DEADLINES
FOR TRANSMISSION LINES
The Transmission Line Siting Act (Fla. Stat. 403.520-
535; 1980) is intended to provide an efficient and centrally
coordinated permitting process for the location and mainte-
nance of electrical transmission line corridors and the con-
struction of transmission lines. Most major transmission
lines that will carry 230 kilovolts or more and tnat will
cross a county line are required to follow the certification
process.
This process is also modeled after the PPSA, although its
time frame of six months parallels that of the ISA. Current-
ly, one certification has been approved under the TLSA.
STATE CONTACT
Hamilton S. Oven
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-0130
-------
One-Stop Permitting
OVERVIEW
Georgia has a one-stop permitting process for environ-
mental permits issued by the Department of Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Protection.
ONE-STOP PERMITTING
This process enables concurrent processing of air, water,
and solid and hazardous waste permits issued by the Department
of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection.
Applicants requiring any or all of these permits for an energy
or a construction project are eligible.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The state issues all the environmental permits for which
it has authority through its Environmental Protection Divi-
sion. These include NPDES permits, air permits under the
Clean Air Act, and RCRA (Phase I) permits for hazardous and
solid wastes.
Administrative Process
For information about a permit, an applicant may contact
any one of the branches of the Environmental Protection Divi-
sion (EPD), such as the Water Protection Branch or Air Protec-
tion Branch. Within each branch there is a program coordina-
tor who informs the applicant what other permits are necessary
-------
Georgia 64
and arranges concurrent reviews for those permits. The pro-
gram coordination branch gathers, analyzes, and combines all
the permit information and recommendations into one package.
The director of the EPD then reviews the information and
approves or denies all the permits at once. State law speci-
fies that only the director of the Division of Environmental
Protection has the authority to approve permits.
Experience with the Reform
Staff members from the Department of Natural Resources
believe that a key to Georgia's success in economic develop-
ment programs has been the one-stop permitting process. They
sav it provides expeditious, predictable administration of
environmental laws.
STATE CONTACTS
Jim Setser, Chief
Program Coordination Branch
Environmental Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington Street S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
(404) 656-6905
Gibson Johnston, Information Officer
Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington Street S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
(404) 656-3530
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
Joint Hearing
Joint Application
Computer Tracking
OVERVIEW
The Hawaii state government has developed and continues
to explore a variety of mechanisms aimed at streamlining the
environmental permitting process. The legislature passed a
bill in 1977 whic'h established countywide central coordinating
agencies for land-use permits. Currently the state is bring-
ing on-line a comprehensive computer tracking system to be
implemented at both the state and the county level.
In addition, Hawaii sponsored the publication of numerous
permit directories. The Coastal Zone Management office is in
the process of revising a directory of local, state, and
federal permitting agencies which was first prepared by the
Federal Executive Board.
The Coastal Zone Management office is also the lead
agency on an Interagency Task Force for State Permit Simplifi-
cation. In March 1981 this committee released a preliminary
report of findings and recommendations.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR,
JOINT HEARING, AND JOINT APPLI-
CATION FOR LAND-USE CONTROLS
The Hawaii Legislature passed a bill in 1977 (Chapter 46,
HRS) which mandated that each of Hawaii's four county govern-
ments establish a central coordinating agency (CCA). The
CCAs act primarily as information sources for land-use rules,
regulations, and permit applications. In addition, they pro-
vide a variety of coordinating services.
-------
Hawaii 66
Anyone may request information from a CCA. Applicants
requiring more than one permit are encouraged to use the CCA's
coordinating services.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The city and county of Honolulu established its CCA in
the Department of Land Utilization. Because the Honolulu CCA
is the largest and most sophisticated of these agencies, it
will be the model discussed here. The CCA provides informa-
tion on and attempts to coordinate with other local, state,
and federal permitting agencies which have control or regula-
tory powers over land development projects.
Administrative Process
According to the enabling legislation, the CCA has the
following three responsibilities:
• To maintain and administer a repository of all
laws, rules and regulations, procedures, permit
requirements, and review criteria of all fed-
eral, state, and local agencies having any
control or regulatory powers over land develop-
ment
• To maintain and administer a master file of
active applications for building permits and
subdivisions, petitions for changes in state
land-use districts, and general plan or devel-
opment plan amendments within the county
• Upon request by the applicant, to attempt to
schedule and coordinate referrals, public in-
formation meetings, or public hearings with
other federal, state, or county commissions or
agencies
In addition to carrying out these duties, the Honolulu
CCA has studied alternative methods for streamlining the
permit process. It has developed for the Department of Land
Utilization a master application form which covers seventeen
different kinds of land-use permits. The Honolulu CCA is also
bringing on-line a computerized permit register and monitoring
system which is independent of the HPASS system described
below. The system, which will be operational in late 1982,
will monitor the status of permit applications and provide a
complete land-use control inventory.
-------
67 Hawaii
Experience with the Reform
The Honolulu CCA has provided extensive information serv-
ices to the general public. In 1980, nearly 9,000 people
visited its public information counter, and over 20,000 phone
calls were made to it. During 1980 the CCA monitored almost
400 permits to ensure that applicants satisfied all permit
conditions. Where possible, the CCA has conducted joint hear-
ings among different permitting bodies and has worked to coor-
dinate the timing of different regulations.
COMPUTER TRACKING
The Hawaii Permit and Application Support System (HPASS)
is currently being brought on-line for the purpose of moni-
toring environmental permits.
Permits/Agencies Affected
Each county government and state agency in Hawaii will
have a computer terminal for tracking permits. The initial
system will include information on the following types of
permits and reviews: the coastal zone special management area
permit; the land-use conservation district use permit; the
shorewaters use permit; the state air, ground water and waste
permits; the delegated NPDES permits; the state EIS; the A-95
Notification and Review; and the Coastal Zone Management
Federal Consistency Review.
Administrative Process
Initially, HPASS will be used to monitor existing permits
and ascertain patterns of noncompliance. The state plans to
expand the system to include permit applications and an envi-
ronmental data base.
Experience with the Reform
HPASS will be on-line in late 1981.
-------
Hawaii gg
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
In June 1980 the governor of Hawaii established the
Interagency Task Force for State Permit Simplification and
requested that it develop and prepare recommendations for
improving the regulatory efficiency of state land and water
development permits. The task force consists of a working
committee, which consists of agency staff involved in day-to-
day permit program administration, and a policy committee,
made up of state department and commission directors.
The task force released a preliminary report in March
1981 containing short-term and long-term recommendations for
streamlining procedures.
Over the long run, the task force proposed that the state
do the following:
• Standardize or expand the lists of exceptions
endemic to individual state-level regulatory
processes
• Distinguish between major and minor development
and establish procedures to expedite minor
projects
• Develop an interagency system of preapplication
review for major state development permits
• Simplify, streamline, and coordinate public
hearing requirements between state agencies
For the short term, the task force recommended numerous
program-specific measures. These include memoranda of under-
standing between agencies in order to improve coordination,
organizational changes to eliminate confusing and overlapping
jurisdiction, master application forms at a department level,
coordination of time frames, etc.
The task force is currently collecting feedback from
state agencies and will incorporate it into a final report.
In the future the task force intends to study the issue of
local, state, and federal coordination.
-------
69 Hawaii
STATE CONTACTS
Dick Poirier, Project Manager
Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program
P. 0. Box 2359
Honolulu, Hawaii 96804
(808) 548-4609
Ian McDougall, Chief
Central Coordinating Agency
Department of Land Utilization
City and County of Honolulu
650 South King Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96804
(808) 523-4254
-------
OVERVIEW
Idaho has not implemented anv programs or passed any
legislation to formally consolidate permitting processes with-
in the state. However, some informal coordination does occur
in permitting such projects as small hydroelectric facilities
and dredge and placer mining activities.
In some cases, pro.iect sponsors need only submit one
application to obtain two permits. For instance, an applicant
proposing to drill for oil or gas may complete one application
for both the oil and gas drilling permit issued by the Depart-
ment of Lands and the injection well permit issued by the
Department of Water Resources. The same coordination might
occur for an applicant seeking stream alteration permits from
the State Department of Water Resources and the federal Army
Corps of Engineers.
Occasionally, the Public Utility Commission and the
Department of Water Resources will conduct joint hearings for
proposed hydro projects.
STATE CONTACTS
Phil Welker
Idaho Energy Office
State House
Boise, Idaho 83720
(208) 334-3800
-------
Idaho 72
A. Kenneth Dunn, Deputy Director
Department of Water Resources
State House
Boise, Idaho 83720
(208) 334-4437
-------
Joint Review
Site Inventory/Banking
Permit/Application Coordinator
Joint Hearing
Decision-Making Deadlines
Joint Application
OVERVIEW
Illinois has made several distinct efforts to streamline
and coordinate the permitting process. The Illinois Depart-
ment of Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) is implementing the
Illinois Coordinated Review Process (ICRP). This process,
which is modeled after the Colorado Joint Review Process,
facilitates permitting of major non-nuclear energy projects by
encouraging local, state, and federal government agencies to
plan a coordinated review schedule early in the development of
a project proposal. In another effort, the ENR has performed
an environmental siting study to identify favorable sites for
coal gasification and synthetic fuels facilities. The ENR is
also in the process of preparing a permit directory for energy
development projects.
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) uses
the Coordinated Permit Review Program to coordinate and inte-
grate some functions in the permit reviews of the divisions
within the agency. The process, available for all significant
construction projects, incorporates preapplication confer-
ences, joint notification, integrated hearings, and a single
IEPA decision on the total permit application. The focuses of
the ENR and IEPA processes are different: the ENR joint re-
view includes all permits for non-nuclear energy projects
while the IEPA program coordinates state evironmental permits
for all major projects.
State statute establishes strict deadlines for the review
of applications for all state environmental permits. Failure
to meet these deadlines results In automatic granting of the
permit.
-------
Illinois 74
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has also
implemented a master application for construction projects in
waterways or flood plains. The single form is processed by
three state agencies and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
JOINT REVIEW OF NON-NUCLEAR
ENERGY PROJECTS
In April 1981 Governor James R. Thompson issued Executive
Order No. 3, which directed the Department of Energy and
Natural Resources to expedite the regulatory process for ma.ior
non-nuclear energy projects. In response to this order, the
ENR developed the Illinois Coordinated Review Process. The
process is designed to coordinate the responsibilities and
schedules of the federal, state, and local agencies involved
in the review of project applications. However, the process
does not alter either the substantive or the procedural re-
quirements of these agencies. Streamlining mechanisms like
joint hearings, master applications, and regulatory deadlines
may be utilized by the review team in individual cases, but
such mechanisms are not a mandatory part of the review pro-
cess. Use of the Coordinated Review Process by the project
sponsor is voluntary.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The process can accommodate any permit that is needed in
order to construct a major energy project in Illinois (includ-
ing air, water, solid waste, etc.). However, since agency
participation is voluntary, local and federal agencies can
choose not to participate in the coordinated review process.
State agencies are required by the governor to participate.
Administrative Process
Energy project developers can voluntarily choose to par-
ticipate in the coordinated review process. The developer
first submits a formal letter requesting participation in the
ICRP, a completed project summary questionnaire, and/or de-
scriptive data on the project to the Department of Energy and
Natural Resources. The ENR screens the proposal to determine
that: (1) the project is a major energy development and (2)
the proposal is in the beginning stages of the planning and
regulatory approval process. The ENR prepares a pre-recom-
mendation report and submits it to the Energy Review Board,
-------
75 Illinois
consisting of the directors of seven key state agencies. The
Energy Review Board, in turn, makes a recommendation to the
governor, and if the governor agrees that the project qual-
ifies for coordinated review status, he specifies the state
participants. These steps typically take about one month.
The project-specific review team, made up of the project
sponsor and one lead agency from each of the local, state, and
federal governments, has primary responsibility for the coor-
dination role. The review team documents agencies' commit-
ments to participate, delineates regulatory responsibilities,
and establishes a detailed review schedule which coordinates
the various agency reviews. The review team also sponsors
public information meetings and scoping meetings prior to the
start of the agency reviews.
The governor assigns the state lead agency, which in most
cases is expected to be the ENR. The federal and local lead
agencies are chosen by consensus from among the agencies at
each level. The lead agency is generally the party with the
greatest interest in the project. The federal lead is
typically taken by the agency with responsibility for
preparing the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or, if no
EIS is needed, by the agency with the greatest permitting
responsibility. The local lead agency is typically the county
or municipal governmental unit. Other interested governmental
units such as regional planning commissions may also seek an
active role in the ICRP team activities. The review team
members are responsible for determining the needs of the
agencies in the government they represent and assimilating
their requirements into the coordinated review plan. Inclu-
sion in or exclusion from the review team does not affect
agency authority concerning the review of the proposed
project.
Experience with the Reform
The Illinois Coordinated Review Process is being de-
veloped in response to an Executive Order issued in April
1981. Although the preliminary program design was completed
in June 1981, the final program preparations were not to be
completed until the end of 1981. Thus far, several projects
have expressed interest in using the program, and one company
has formally applied for consideration.
-------
Illinois 76
SITE INVENTORY/BANKING
The Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources
has performed an environmental siting study and released a
report identifying areas suitable for construction of coal
gasification and synthetic fuels facilities. Site areas were
screened on the basis of a number of environmental criteria,
including air quality, water quality, geotechnical suitabil-
ity, and socioeconomic impacts. The final study includes
broad areas that are designated as favorable, potentially
favorable, potentially favorable with conditions, or re-
stricted. The study will be used by ENR staff to help syn-
thetic fuel developers identify appropriate sites on which to
construct facilities.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
AND JOINT HEARING FOR CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS
Coordinated Permit Review is a process for coordinating
construction project permit reviews conducted by the four
permitting offices within the Illinois Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. The key to the program is the creation of a
Coordinated Permit Review Group, consisting of one representa-
tive from each of the lEPA's permitting divisions, which meets
with the project sponsor to establish permit and application
requirements, resolves internal jurisdictional disputes, and
conducts joint public notice and hearing activities. The
procedures were developed by the IEP& under the permitting
authority granted in the Environmental Protection Act (111.
Rev. Stat. Ch. 111-1/2 1039).
The process is available for projects requiring construc-
tion permits from two or more of the IEPA divisions dealing
with air, water, land, and public water supplies. The project
must also be "significant," a term which is defined in the
regulations. A project is significant, for example, if the
uncontrolled air emissions will be 100 or more tons per year
of any contaminant or if the emissions include hazardous or
toxic pollutants. Participation by eligible projects is
voluntary.
This program has broader eligibility than the coordinated
review process described above. The Coordinated Permit Review
Program is open to any significant construction project while
the coordinated review process is open only to non-nuclear
energy developments. In the case of energy projects, the
-------
77 Illinois
Coordinated Permit Review Program can be incorporated into the
broader framework of the coordinated review process.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The four permitting divisions within the IEPA—Air Pollu-
tion Control, Water Pollution Control, Land/Noise Pollution
Control, and Public Water Supplies—are required to partici-
pate in the Coordinated Permit Review Program. The procedure
does not include other state agencies, local regulators, or
federal regulators. The process applies to all environmental
permits for construction projects issued by the IEPA, includ-
ing state air, water, solid waste, and drinking water, as well
as PSD, NPDES, and SDWA permits delegated by the federal Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency to the IEPA. The small number of
environmental permits issued bv other state agencies, such as
the departments of Conservation and Transportation, are not
included in this process.
Administrative Process
When an eligible project sponsor approaches the IEPA to
use the coordinated review process, one representative from
each division is chosen for the review group, and a project
coordinator is chosen from this group. The group first holds
a preapplication meeting with the sponsor to determine which
permits are needed and to outline information requirements for
applications. A project report is filed, including a descrip-
tion of the project and proposed pollution control systems,
followed by the more detailed "total project application."
During the review process, in which the application is
reviewed internally by each division, the review group meets
to resolve any jurisdictional conflicts and conducts joint
public notification. IEPA hearings deal with the full scope
of the project's environmental impacts, rather than focusing
on qualifications for a single permit.
Unless all requested permits are approved by the individ-
ual divisions, none of the IEPA permits will be issued. If
all divisions concur on the total permit application, all
permits are granted.
-------
Illinois 78
Experience with the Reform
The review process regulations were adopted in November
1979. Since that time one project, a low Btu coal gasifica-
tion project, has completed the process. About six other
projects ranging from hazardous waste treatment facilities to
powerplants are currently at some stage in the process.
DECISION-MAKING DEADLINES
The Illinois Environmental Protection Act (111. Rev.
Stat. Ch. 111-1/2 1039) requires the IEPA to either grant or
deny permit applications for any IEPA permits within 90 days
of the filing of a completed application. For cases in which
public hearings are necessary, the deadline is extended to
180 days from the filing of the complete application. The
permit is automatically granted if the agency fails to act
within these statutory deadlines.
JOINT APPLICATION FOR
CONSTRUCTION IN WATERWAYS
AND FLOOD PLAINS
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has -created
a single permit application form for construction activities
in waterways or flood plains. The four agencies utilizing the
application are the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Section 401, Clean Water Act), the Illinois Department of
Transportation (Division of Water Resources waterway regula-
tion under the Rivers, Lakes, and Streams Act, Illinois Re-
vised Statutes, Chapter 19, §§ 52 et seq.), the Illinois
Department of Conservation (review of fish and wildlife im-
pacts under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C.
661-664), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Section 404,
Clean Water Act). The single application must be filed with
all four offices. The permit reviews are conducted indepen-
dently by each agency, but if the application is submitted to
each agency at the same time, concurrent review is possible.
-------
79 Illinois
STATE CONTACTS
E. Wayne Bahr, Manager
Illinois Energy Review Program
Department of Energy and. Natural Resources
325 W. Adams Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 785-2800
George Benda, Manager
Energy Bond Fund Program
Illinois Department of Energy
and Natural Resources
325 W. Adams Street
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 785-2800
Tom McSwiggin, Manager
Permit Division
Division of Water Pollution Control
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
(217) 782-0610
-------
OVERVIEW
There is no consolidation of state environmental permits
in Indiana. The Stream Pollution Control Board, Air Pollution
Control Board, and Environmental Management Board are separ-
ately responsible for approving water, air, and solid waste
permits. The Indiana State Board of Health provides staff
support to these boards.
Informal intra-agency coordination does occur in several
program areas. Staff in the areas of air, water, and solid
waste frequently consult one another regarding permit issu-
ance, particularly where toxic substances are involved. The
State Office of Surface Mining expects to coordinate strip-
mine permitting with the state-delegated NPDES program in the
future.
The State Board of Health has hesitated to institute
formal coordination measures such as one-stop permitting out
of fear that such measures would increase permit delays.
STATE CONTACTS
Larry Kane, Permit Section Chief
Water Pollution Control Division
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
(317) 633-0761
-------
Indiana 82
Lonnie Brumfield
Water Pollution Control Division
Indiana State Board of Health
1330 West Michigan
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
(317) 633-0751
-------
One-Stop Permitting
OVERVIEW
The major permitting reform in Iowa has been the estab-
lishment of one-stop permitting for the construction of large
powerplants. In addition, state agencies try to make deci-
sions on permits promptly after application, though there is
no formal deadline. For the three utilities that have gone
through the entire one-stop process and been granted certifi-
cates, the average time was approximately 16 months from
initial partial application to certificate.
ONE-STOP PERMITTING FOR
POWERPLANTS
Iowa uses one-stop permitting in regulating the construc-
tion of powerplants with capacities greater than 100 mega-
watts. For such powerplants, the state conducts, under the
authority of the Iowa State Commerce Commission, a unified
application and hearing process encompassing all state and
local permit requirements. This process allows a utility to
submit a single application and to participate in only one
hearing in order to obtain the required comprehensive con-
struction and operation permit. Proposed facilities that meet
the eligibility requirements must use the one-stop process.
The procedures and authorities are prescribed in Chapter 476A,
Code of Iowa (1981).
Permits/Agencies Affected
The Commerce Commission's Certificate of Public Use,
Convenience, and Need functionally aggregates all state and
local permits and licenses for powerplant construction and
-------
Iowa 84
operation, although the individual agencies do continue to
issue permits as part of the certification process. The major
permits affected by the commission's one-stop permitting are
the following:
• Air, water, and solid waste permits required by
the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ),
including RCRA, NPDES, and SDWA permits
• Permits for water use and flood plain construc-
tion issued by the Natural Resources Council
• The Conservation Commission's permit for con-
struction in a navigable stream
• Compliance with city or county zoning
ordinances
As prescribed in the Iowa Code, the Commerce Commission
cannot grant a certificate unless all state and local regula-
tory requirements are met. However, agencies that fail to
participate in the commission's hearings are assumed to have
no objection to the application and may be ordered by the
commission to issue the relevant permits. Some state agen-
cies, notably the Bureau of Labor, have chosen not to partici-
pate in the unified hearings and have thus lost their author-
ity to deny required permits. The Iowa Code also prohibits
the imposition of further regulatory requirements by any state
or local agency after the certificate is granted. Finally,
the commission can overrule city and county zoning author-
ities, although the commission has never utilized this power.
Administrative Process
The procedures for processing applications for construc-
tion of large powerplants are outlined in Chapter 476A in the
Iowa Administrative Code. The process begins with the util-
ity's submittal of its master application. The commission
circulates the application to all regulatory and interested
agencies and seeks their input in determining if sufficient
information for commencing a hearing has been provided. The
commission has allowed itself 45 days to determine if an
application is complete.
After the application is complete, a unified hearing is
held. This hearing is in lieu of any other hearing required
for permits or licenses to construct, maintain, or operate a
-------
85
Iowa
facility. The formal hearing is conducted by a commerce com-
missioner and a hearing officer from the regulatory agency
concerned with the particular substantive area. State and
local officials must present any objections in these proceed-
ings, and dissatisfied agencies are required to propose amend-
ments that could bring the application into compliance. The
requirements of agencies which fail to appear are presumed to
be satisfied.
Following the hearings, the participating agencies render
permit decisions based on the final application. The commis-
sion then issues the certificate based on the agency actions
and its own findings. When the certificate is issued, the
permits issued as a result of this joint review process are
included in the certificate along with any conditions they
might impose. There are no decision-making deadlines speci-
fied, although the statute directs the commission to "render a
decision on the application in an expeditious manner" (Chap-
ter 476A.6, Code of Iowa). In addition, the statute (Chap-
ter 476A.2) signifies that there be one-stop judicial review.
Appeals must be brought against the entire certificate and not
against individual permits.
Experience with the Reform
Five facilities have used this permitting process. In
four cases the utilities were issued certificate's; in the
fifth case the certificate was denied because of a failure to
establish public need for the power to be generated. Three
utilities completed the whole process, which from initial
notification of the commission to the issuance of the certifi-
cate took about one and one-half years. The fourth utility
requested and received a significant alteration certificate
for an existing facility.
The interpretation of Chapter 476A was the subject of a
1979 court action between the DEO and the Commerce Commission
(Polk County District Court Docket Nos. CE 11-6046 and CE 11-
6082). The DEO issued conditional permits in the air pollu-
tion and waste water areas. The commission used these condi-
tional permits as indications that the DEO's regulatory re-
quirements had been met and issued a certificate. The court
found that the commission had acted properly and that the DEO
could not require further permits;
-------
Iowa 86
STATE CONTACT
Tom Houvenagle
Iowa State Commerce Commission
State Capitol
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
(515) 281-5920
-------
OVERVIEW
Kansas has taken no formal steps to streamline applica-
tion reviews for environmental permits. However, informal
mechanisms such as preapplication meetings and project
"managers" are used for some projects. These informal prac-
tices are effective because all state environmental permits
other than pesticide and coal mining licenses are issued in a
single agency, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment
(DHE). The preapplication meetings are an opportunity for the
applicant to present the project to DHE officials and for DHE
officials to outline the permit requirements and distribute
application forms for the various permit programs. Project
managers serve as the state contact for the applicant. These
practices are used whenever practical to minimize application
review time.
STATE CONTACT
Donald Carlson, Chief
Industrial Unit
Water Pollution Control Section
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Building 740-Forbes Field
Topeka, Kansas 66620
(913) 862-9360
-------
Computer Tracking
Permit/Application Coordinator
OVERVIEW
Kentucky's Department for Natural Rescmrces and Environ-
mental Protection (DNREP) has initiated and continues to ex-
plore administrative measures to improve the environmental
permitting process. The department's Bureau of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement has a computerized permit tracking
system, and early in FY1982 the DNREP will implement a coordi-
nated priority application procedure for certain types of
project applicants.
In addition to initiating these measures, in FY1981 the
DNREP consolidated its water programs, which had previously
been split between the Bureau of Environmental Protection
(BEP) and the Bureau of Natural Resources (BNR), into the BEP.
Also, all the offices of the BEP were relocated from three
physically separate sites into one building. Although these
actions have not reduced the number of necessary permits or
applications, they do promote consistency and better communi-
cation .
COMPUTER TRACKING OF SURFACE MINING PERMITS
The Bureau of Surface Mining has implemented a computer-
ized permit tracking system as part of a Surface Mining In-
formation System. All applications for any permit issued by
the Bureau of Surface Mining are included in the system.
-------
Kentucky 90
Permits/Agencies Affected
The Bureau of Surface Mining issues permits for surface
mining and enforces reclamation regulations. Delegation of
authority by the federal government will soon add permit
responsibility for enforcement of surface effects of under-
ground mining. The bureau's computer tracking system follows
all state mining permits.
Administrative Process
The tracking system of the Bureau of Surface Mining
serves as an information mechanism for the bureau's separate
divisions and as a monitoring device to ensure that permits
are processed expeditiously. The computer system tracks each
project as it moves through the three separate divisions
responsible for planning, issuing permits, and enforcement.
Experience with the Reform
The computer tracking system has been very useful in
monitoring the high volume of coal permits issued in Kentucky,
In a sample month, the bureau issued 123 new permits and moni-
tored 6,400 permits. The feasibility of implementing this
system in the DNREP's Bureau of Environmental Protection—the
regulatory bureau for water, air, and solid waste permits—is
currently being evaluated.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
FOR NEW TECHNOLOGIES
The DNREP plans to coordinate a priority application pro-
cedure for applicants with multiple permits whose applications
involve new technical processes. Applicants applying for per-
mits associated with certain kinds of electric power genera-
tion, ethanol production, tar sand, oil shale, coal conver-
sion, and other operations may fall into this category.
Permits/Agencies Affected
All environmental permits required by an eligible appli-
cant would be expedited by this procedure. All bureaus issu-
ing these permits, such as Surface Mining, Environmental Pro-
tection, and Natural Resources, would participate in an inter-
departmental task force.
-------
91 Kentucky
Administrative Process
The secretary of the DNREP will have authority for desig-
nating a project a priority application. In order to make
this determination, the Secretary will consider the project's
investment potential as well as its utilization of new tech-
nologies. The main vehicle for expediting the project will be
the interdepartmental task force, whose members will work
together to resolve application problems.
Experience with the Reform
If the priority application program proves successful,
its use will be expanded to other projects involving major
investments.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The DNREP is currently planning other improvements de-
signed to reduce the time involved in reviewing permits and to
increase communication between applicants and the agency.
These improvements include a permit coordinator, a revised
permit information document, greater use of preapplication
conferences, and concurrent permit review.
STATE CONTACT
Richard Shogren
Administrator
Office of Special Projects
Department for Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection
Capital Plaza Tower
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
(502) 564-7320
-------
Joint Hearing
OVERVIEW
The Louisiana Environmental Affairs Act (Act 449 of 1979,
L.R.S. 30:1051 et seq.) reorganized the state regulatory
structure to consolidate most environmental permitting
activities and place them within the Department of Natural
Resources' newly formed Office of Environmental Affairs (OEA).
Act 449 also created the Environmental Control Commission
(ECC), which is composed of the heads of seven state agencies
and is vested with final authority for granting or denying
environmental permits. The OEA serves as the staff for the
ECC, and its five divisions review applications for air
quality, water pollution, solid waste, hazardous waste, and
nuclear development permits. Permitting authority for some
categories has been delegated by the ECC to the head of the
OEA.
JOINT HEARING
The ECC holds a single hearing for any project that
requires multiple environmental permits. However, the appli-
cations and decisions for these permits are still handled on
an individual basis.
-------
Louisiana 94
STATE CONTACT
William B. DeVille
Director of Policy Development
Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 44066
Baton Roiige, Louisiana 70804
(504) 342-1254
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
Joint Application
Decision-Making Deadlines
OVERVIEW
Maine has developed comprehensive land-use programs under
the jurisdiction of several state authorities. In order to
minimize the duplication between the land-use regulations and
administrative programs, Maine passed the Environmental
Coordination Procedures Act. In addition, Maine has imposed
decision-making deadlines on many of its permit procedures.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR AND JOINT
APPLICATION FOR LAND-USE PERMITS
Maine has instituted a number of administrative proce-
dures to coordinate the permit application process. The En-
vironmental Coordination Procedures Act, known as the "One
Stop Law" (which is in fact a misnomer; it is really a coordi-
nated procedures bill), specifically prescribes that, depend-
ing upon the geographic location of the project, the Land Use
Regulatory Commission (LURC) or the Department of Environ-
mental Protection (DEP) act as lead agency to coordinate the
application and review of six land-use statutes, and broadly
prescribes coordinating activities (1977; amendment to 12 MSRA
§ 685-B). In addition, the LURC and the DEP signed a memoran-
dum of agreement in 1978 defining the situations in which each
would act as lead agency.
All applicants that are required to obtain a permit from
both the DEP and the LURC may benefit from the one-stop law.
In addition, for larger and more complex projects that require
multiple permits, a project coordinator procedure may be used.
-------
Maine 96
Permits/Agencies Affected
The Maine Board of Environmental Protection (BEP) has
statewide jurisdiction and issues environmental permits for
air, water, and waste as well as a number of land-use permits.
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) administers
these environmental permitting programs. The BEP land-use
permits affected by the one-stop law are site location (for
developments in excess of three acres or subdivisions of over
20 acres), minimum lot size (for lots smaller than 20,000
square feet), great ponds, and coastal wetlands. The DEP is
the lead agency in the incorporated and organized areas of the
state.
The Land Use Regulatory Commission has planning, zoning,
and permitting authority over land-use development in Maine's
unorganized territories (51 percent of the state) where no
municipal form of government exists. Its staff is located in
the Maine Department of Conservation. Applicants seeking
development in the unorganized territories must obtain a land-
use permit from the LURC and will probably require at least
one of the land-use permits issued by the BEP. The LURC is
the lead agency in the unorganized portion of the state.
In addition to these five permits, the one-stop law
covers the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife's
(DIF&W's) stream alteration permit. The DEP and DIF&W have
also signed a memorandum of agreement explicitly defining the
procedures to follow under the one-stop law.
The lead agency system may affect all permits required
by a project, including those issued by the BEP, the LURC,
and the DIF&W. Although they are not statutorily included,
air, water, and waste permits and licenses may be handled
through the coordination procedures, particularly for larger
projects.
Administrative Process
Under the one-stop law, applicants in the unorganized
portion of the state are required to submit only one applica-
tion form to the LURC for all six permits. A master applica-
tion form has not been developed. Rather, the most detailed
relevant form, such as the one for "site location" or "great
ponds" permits, is used. LURC staff coordinate the distribu-
tion of information to the permitting bureaus and attempt to
ensure consistent responses to the applicant as well as coor-
dinate the timing of responses. However, individual per-
mitting bureaus still issue the permits. To date there have
-------
97 Maine
not been any projects large enough to warrant joint hearings,
although these are envisioned in the law.
The process is essentially the same in the organized
portion of the state, with the DEP acting as lead agency.
As indicated, the LURC generally acts as lead agency for
all projects in the unorganized territories, and the DEP acts
as lead agency in the other areas. However, if a project in
the unorganized territories poses more technical problems
associated with air, water, or waste than associated with
land use, the DEP, because of its expertise, may take the
lead. When a proposed project is large or controversial, the
lead agency may appoint a coordinator to act as contact point
for both the applicant and the permitting bureaus. The coor-
dinator may arrange preapplication meetings and consolidated
hearings. On an informal basis there is always a great deal
of communication between the different agencies.
Experience with the Reform
The one-stop law has proved particularly useful to great
ponds and subdivision permit applicants. The LCJKC has not yet
permitted any major projects under this authority, although
several are under way.
DECISION-MAKING DEADLINES
Maine's Administrative Procedures Act specifies that the
final decision on all permits should be made no later than
180 days after acceptance of the application. In addition,
there are a number of permit-specific deadlines. For
instance, the site location permit must be decided on within
30 days of receiving a complete application. If a public
hearing is held, the final decision should be made within
30 days after the hearing.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Two other efforts aimed at simplifying the permitting
process are under way. The governor has charged the Land and
Water Resources Council with devising a one-stop permitting
process for hydroelectric facilities. This proposal is sched-
uled for review in the January 1982 legislative session.
-------
Maine 98
In addition, the governor has established a citizen com-
mittee to study the operations of the DEP and assess how they
can be improved. This report was scheduled to be released in
November 1981.
STATE CONTACTS
Thomas S. Radsky
Supervisor, Development Review Division
Land Use Regulatory Commission
State House, Station 22
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207) 289-2631
Hollis McGlauflin
Director, Bureau of Land Quality Control
Department of Environmental Protection
State House, Station 17
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207) 289-2111
Steve Groves
Director, Bureau of Water Quality Control
Department of Environmental Protection
State House, Station 17
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207) 289-3365
David Tudor
Director, Bureau of Air Quality Control
Department of Environmental Protection
State House, Station 17
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207) 289-2437
-------
Site Inventory/Banking
One-Stop Permitting
Decision-Making Deadlines
Permit/Application Coordinator
Joint Hearing
OVERVIEW
Maryland has one of the most comprehensive and sophisti-
cated energy siting programs. The Power Plant Siting Act
(PPSA), passed in 1971, includes a state site acquisition
program, ongoing research programs, and a one-stop siting
process for powerplants throughout the state. The Coastal
Facilities Review Act (CFRA), passed in 1975, is modeled after
the one-stop siting element of the PPSA and covers oil and gas
facilities along Maryland's coast.
In addition, in 1975 Maryland passed consolidated permit
procedure legislation in an effort to promote coordination
between state and local agencies as well as among state
agencies.
Maryland also has a Governor's Permit Simplification Task
Force, which is charged with the responsibility of improving
the permitting process of state and local governments. The
task force has circulated, but not yet proposed, a draft per-
mit simplification bill.
SITE INVENTORY/BANKING FOR
POWERPLANTS
The Power Plant Siting Act (1971; Md. Nat. Res. Ann.
Code §§ 3-301 et seq.) includes provisions for state acquisi-
tion of sites suitable for major powerplants. Under the PPSA,
the state has set up an Environmental Trust Fund, which is
financed by a surcharge on electricity production, to pay for
-------
Maryland
site purchases as well as to conduct ongoing research programs
for site evaluation and related environmental considerations.
The state is required to develop an inventory of suitable
sites. Utilities may then choose to purchase or lease sites
from the inventory or to acquire sites independently.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources' (DNR) Power
Plant Siting Program (PPSP) is the lead agency for the site
banking program and for conducting detailed technical studies
of the environmental impact of existing and proposed power-
plants. Other state agencies, such as State Planning, Eco-
nomic and Community Development, Health and Mental Hygiene,
and Agriculture are integrally involved in the process, but
the PPSP is vested with ultimate authority to purchase a new
site. State acquisition of a site or state approval of a
utility-owned site may pre-empt local zoning.
Administrative Process
The PPSA requires the PPSP to create an inventory of at
least one site for every major utility that has a peak demand
of 1,000 megawatts (at present, this covers three utilities),
up to a maximum of eight sites. Once purchased, the site is
banked and can be sold to utilities at fair market value or
under 99-year leases.
Experience with the Reform
Maryland has acquired only one site. The PPSP has iden-
tified a second site but has not been able to complete pur-
chase negotiations. The PPSP is about halfway through the
process of identifying the third site. No utilities have
sought to acquire a state site.
ONE-STOP PERMITTING AND DECISION-
MAKING DEADLINES FOR POWERPLANTS
The PPSA also contains provisions for one-stop permitting
of powerplants and transmission lines. Prior to the construc-
tion of any of these facilities (with a minimum capacity of 69
kilovolts) , a utility must receive a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity from the Public Service Commission
-------
101 Maryland
(PSC). This certificate replaces a number of other state and
local permit requirements. A single public hearing process
and decision deadlines are important elements of the PPSA.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity re-
places most environmental state permits, such as those relat-
ing to dredge and fill, air emissions, water appropriations,
and water use, as well as local permits and zoning. However,
the delegated NPDES and solid waste permits are issued
separately.
If the proposed facility or its appurtenances (e.g.,
water intake channels) involve the dredging or filling of
state wetlands, approval by the State Board of Public Works is
required. While the issues pertinent to a recommendation on
proposed alterations to state wetlands may be considered in a
single public hearing process and within the same decision
deadlines, a formal authorization must be granted by the State
Board of Public Works.
The PSC is the ultimate decision-making body for issuance
of the permit. However, the PPSP has a formal lead advisory
role. The departments of State Planning, Economic and Commun-
ity Development, Health and Mental Hygiene (which.ordinarily
issues air, water, and waste pollution permits), Transporta-
tion, and Agriculture issue joint recommendations with the
PPSP.
In general, there is little federal participation in the
proceedings. However, when Maryland was considering a nuclear
power site, the state worked closely with the Nuclear Regula-
tory Commission.
Administrative Process
The PSC receives and evaluates the annual plans of each
public utility. These plans, which include ten-year forecasts
of need for proposed sites, are sent to the PPSP. Within six
months of receipt of the plans, the PPSP must issue a. prelimi-
nary statement regarding the suitability of each site. If a
site is not initially declared unsuitable, the PPSP will
conduct a detailed environmental investigation that must be
completed within two years. These studies provide the basis
for the state departments' recommendations to the PSC on
-------
Maryland 102
whether to grant, deny, or grant with conditions a certificate
of public convenience and necessity for a powerplant at that
site.
Applications for certification must be submitted two
years prior to planned construction. Upon notification from
the PSC that an application has been received, the PPSP must
complete its environmental studies of the site. The PPSP then
makes a preliminary recommendation to the PSC on whether the
certificate should be granted or denied. This recommendation
is presented along with relevant data at a public hearing.
Within 15 days after the hearing, the PPSP must issue a final
recommendation to the PSC, which must grant or deny certifica-
tion within 90 days of the public hearing.
Experience with the Reform
Five applications for powerplant certification have been
submitted, and three of these have been approved. A fourth
application concerned a nuclear facility, but the utility has
elected to defer the certification process. A fifth applica-
tion is currently (as of October 1981) in process. To date,
no utility has elected to construct on a state-banked site.
An official in the powerplant siting program noted that
it has been impractical to abide by the deadlines in the PPSA
and that there are proposals to amend them.
ONE-STOP PERMITTING AND DECISION-
MAKING DEADLINES FOR COASTAL
OIL AND GAS FACILITIES
The Coastal Facilities Review Act (1975; Md. Nat. Res.
Ann. Code §§ 6-501 et seq.) is closely modeled after the
PPSA's one-stop siting procedures. It differs substantively
from the PPSA in that there is no stable source of funding
such as the Environmental Trust Fund, no ongoing research
program, and no state acquisition of sites.
The CFRA affects facilities related to crude oil and
natural gas in areas of Maryland adjacent to the Atlantic
Ocean and Chesapeake Bay. The CFRA procedures apply to off-
shore pipelines, production terminals and refineries, oil
storage facilities, and assembly areas for oil and gas
exploration, subject to certain size qualifications.
-------
103 Maryland
Permits/Agencies Affected
The CFRA certificate replaces all other state and local
permits, except local zoning. This exclusion differentiates
the CFRA from the PPSA. Again, the DNR acts as the lead
agency, and the action taken by the DNR secretary on the ap-
plication constitutes the department's position on all other
permits or licenses. In the case of projects involving alter-
ation to state wetlands, the recommendation on that aspect of
the project is forwarded to the Board of Public Works for
final approval.
Administrative Process
Procedurally, CFRA certification is very similar to PPSA
certification. Public hearings and time limits are an inte-
gral part of the process.
Experience with the Reform
There have been no eligible project applicants since the
CFRA's passage. Therefore, the legislation remains untested.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR,
JOINT HEARING, AND DECISION-
MAKING DEADLINES
The "Consolidated Permit Procedures" legislation passed
in 1975 and modified in 1979 (Ann. Code Md. Art. 78A § 56-67)
established the Office of Coordinator of Development and Con-
struction Permits and provided for coordinated permitting
procedures. The legislation includes formal procedures for
master application forms, joint and consolidated hearings, and
decision-making deadlines. However, the office believes that
it is more effective when it works on an informal basis,
acting as ombudsman and information source.
Any applicant may use the coordinator's informal serv-
ices, and any applicant requiring more than one permit may use
the formal procedures. Applicants are required to submit
master application forms but are not required to use joint or
consolidated hearings.
-------
Maryland 104
Permits/Agencies Affected
The Office of Coordinator is housed in the Board of Pub-
lic Works, which consists of the governor, the treasurer, and
the comptroller. The coordinator will provide information to
the applicant on all construction and environmental permits
issued by state and local agencies. Local agencies are in-
vited to participate in joint hearings, but state agencies
must participate in joint or consolidated hearings upon the
coordinator's request.
Administrative Process
The consolidated permit procedures legislation specifies
that the coordinator has authority to:
1. Require all applicants for any permit to complete a
master application form. This document helps the
applicant understand exactly what permits are needed
and where he or she can obtain them.
2. Conduct consolidated hearings between state agen-
cies. The coordinator has complete discretion to
enforce a consolidated hearing on state agencies and
the applicant.
3. Conduct joint hearings between state and local
government agencies. Joint hearings will be held
only upon the applicant's request and if the local
entity consents.
4. Intervene in a project review and enforce a 60-day
time limit for action by the agencies.
Experience with the Reform
The Office of Coordinator has rarely used its formal
authority granted by state legislation but rather has worked
more effectively on an informal basis. In the past seven
years, the office has conducted consolidated hearings only
five times and has yet found it necessary to intervene and
enforce the time limit on administrative decisions. Joint
hearings between state and local entities have been requested
rarely. The Office of Coordinator received 4,000 master
permit application forms in 1980.
-------
105 Maryland
STATE CONTACTS
Paul Massicot
Administrator
Maryland Energy Administration
Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
(301) 269-2788
Dr. Sarah Taylor
Coastal Resources Division
Tidewater Administration
Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
(301) 269-2784
Frances J. Aluisi
Coordinator
Development and Construction Permits
P. 0. Box 1510
Annapolis, Maryland 21404
(301) 269-2666
Thomas Andrews
Director
Water Resource Administration
Department of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
(301) 269-3846
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
Joint Application
Decision-Making Deadlines
OVERVIEW
The Massachusetts Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC)
expedites the review of permit applications for all hydro-
electric facilities of less than 100 megawatts by requiring
preapplication conferences and joint applications, and by
imposing decision deadlines. The EFSC also functions as an
appeal board for state and local permit decisions on these
projects.
The EFSC further serves as a forum for appeals of state
and local decisions on environmental permits for any energy
project that meets the definition of "facility" set out in
M.G.L.L. 164 § 69G. If an energy developer is dissatisfied
with an agency decision for one of a number of specific
reasons, including failure to make a timely decision, an EFSC
review may be requested. The EFSC has the authority (with
certain exceptions) to overturn agency denials or issue per-
mits if an agency has failed to act. There have been no
petitions for this review since the law was enacted in 1974.
The Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
(DEQE) has instituted a number of additional reforms. It has
relocated all DEQE offices to one location, published a permit
directory, and conducted a study to identify possible areas
for permit consolidation and procedural streamlining.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR,
JOINT APPLICATION, AND
DECISION-MAKING DEADLINES
FOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
The Energy Facility Siting Council is composed of four
cabinet members and six gubernatorial appointees. It serves
-------
Massachusetts 108
as the lead state agency for hydro-power development and is
responsible for coordinating the permitting and licensing of
hydropower generating facilities with capacities smaller than
100 megawatts. In this role the EFSC makes use of modified
master applications, prehearing conferences, and decision-
making deadlines. These procedures, adopted pursuant to Mass.
Stat. Ch. 164 § 69H1/2, are mandatory for hydroelectric pro-
jects with capacities less than 100 megawatts.
In addition, the statute established the EFSC as an op-
tional appeal board for the permit decisions or failures to
make permit decisions by state and local agencies concerning
eligible hydroelectric projects. The applicant may appeal
decisions to the EFSC or directly to the state courts.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The EFSC requirements, including a master application,
prehearing conference, and decision deadlines, apply to all
state agency and local conservation commission permits and
licenses applicable to hydroelectric developments, including
wetlands, dredge and fill, dam, and waterways permits. Al-
though federal agencies are not bound by the procedures,
application information is forwarded to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission and the Army Corps of Engineers.
Administrative Process
The process is initiated when the applicant files a pre-
liminary notification form with the EFSC. This application is
subsequently circulated.to all interested local, state, and
federal agencies and the utility in whose service territory
the site is located. The state and local permitting agencies
are prohibited from requiring the use of application forms
other than the master application, though they may ask the
developer to supply supplemental information and studies
specific to the project. Within 30 days the EFSC must call a
prelicensing conference at which the interested agencies
inform the applicant what permits are required and what addi-
tional information is needed to complete the application.
Following this conference and submission by the applicant of
the required information, the EFSC specifies decision-making
deadlines for the individual agencies not more than 90 days
from the completion of the application. If an environmental
impact report is required under the Massachusetts Environ-
mental Policy Act, the decision review periods start when the
report is completed.
-------
109 Massachusetts
The statute also allows any party aggrieved by the action
or inaction of any state or local permitting or licensing
agency in cases involving hydroelectric projects smaller than
100 megawatts to appeal to the EFSC within ten days of the
administrative decision. The EFSC jointly considers all pend-
ing appeals and must issue a decision, based upon cost, need
for energy, and environmental impact, within 90 days. This
EFSC decision is equivalent to the final agency action on the
appealed permit or license. Failure to appeal to the EFSC
does not sacrifice any rights to judicial appeal.
Experience with the Reform
The statute was enacted in November 1979 and the regu-
lations were adopted in April 1981. Two projects are current-
ly in the agency decision-making stage.
STATE CONTACTS
Robert Smart, Jr.
Senior Counsel
Energy Facility Siting Council
Room 300
73 Tremont Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 727-1136
Tom McShane
Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering
1 Winter Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
(617) 292-5520
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
Joint Application
Joint Hearing
Computer Tracking
OVERVIEW
Within the Michigan Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR), two major efforts have been undertaken to streamline
the environmental permitting process for both energy and in-
dustrial projects. The Environmental Services Division has
designated a permit coordinator for air quality, water qual-
ity, and solid and hazardous waste permits. The Division of
Land Resource Programs has developed a consolidated applica-
tion and review process for all federal and state land/water
interface permits. This latter reform will be tested in the
fiscal year beginning October 1981.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
The Environmental Services Division has designated an
individual in its Office of Environmental Planning to coor-
dinate environmental protection permits on a project-by-
project basis. Although any applicant may use this service,
it generally applies only to projects that are large in scope
or that require multiple permits.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The Environmental Services Division coordinates state air
and water quality and solid and hazardous waste permits.
These permits are issued either by other divisions in the
Michigan Department of Natural Resources or by special commis-
sions such as the Water Resources Commission and the Air
Pollution Commission.
-------
Michigan 112
Administrative Process
The permit coordinator provides the following services to
applicants:
• Organizes preapplication conferences
• Provides unified department responses advising
applicants of permit requirements, potential
problem areas, etc.
• Tracks permits of concern
• Distributes permit application packages
• Refers potential permit applicants to appro-
priate department divisions or to other
agencies
The permit coordinator attempts to enter early into an
applicant's planning process in order to clarify permit re-
quirements and to serve as a focal point for the applicant
from start to finish.
Experience with the Reform
The MDNR has performed some type of coordination service
for many years. The current structure was developed in the
past year.
The MDNR estimates that 5 percent of the projects re-
viewed by the agency benefit from this coordination service.
JOINT APPLICATION AND JOINT HEARING
FOR DREDGE AND FILL PERMITS
The Division of Land Resource Programs is currently
implementing a consolidated application and review program for
all state and federal permits that relate to the "land/water
interface" (such as flood and erosion risk areas, submerged
lands development, etc.). This program will apply to all
industrial and energy projects, regardless of size, that
require any of these permits. Joint hearings involving state
and federal, as well as multiple state authorities, are
routine.
-------
..-.o Michigan
Permits/Agencies Affected
The land/water interface process currently consolidates
permitting authorities of nine state statutes and four federal
authorities which involve the land/water interface. The rele-
vant state statutes are the Great Lakes Submerged Lands Act,
the Inland Lakes and Stream Act, the Soil Erosion and Sedimen-
tation Control Act, the Aquatic Nuisance Control Act, the
Great Lakes Shorelands Act, the Wetlands Act, the Floodplain
Control Act, the Dam Construction Act, and the Inland Lakes
Level Act. The relevant federal statutes are Sections 401 and
404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. The Divi-
sion of Land Resource Programs will administer the program.
Other participating agencies include the State Division of
Water Management, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers district
office, the regional office of the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, and the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Administrative Process
As a result of this program, applicants submit a single
application form, receive joint reviews, undergo one hearing
for all relevant permits, and receive a single department
response. A group of division staff members functions as a
consolidated permit processing unit and is the focal point for
the applicant throughout the permitting process. This group
is responsible for such tasks as receiving applications,
routing them, tracking their progress, notifying the public,
compiling all comments, conducting hearings, and ensuring
prompt review and action.
There will be one joint field investigation, one joint
hearing, and concurrent reviews on the project application.
The final decision to issue or deny a permit will generally be
made by the Division of Land Resource Programs, although other
divisions, such as Water Management, will occasionally be
responsible if the project falls more closely under their
authority.
Projects will be categorized as major or minor, and major
projects will require public notification of hearings. The
division will expedite the review of minor applications—ap-
proximately 75 percent of all projects—and hopes to complete
them within two weeks.
-------
Michigan 114
Experience with the Reform
The consolidated application process was just implemented
in October 1981. However, the Division of Land Resource Pro-
grams estimates that upwards of 75 percent of all applicants
will incur considerable cost and time savings with the con-
solidated process, in addition to avoiding considerable
federal duplication.
COMPUTER TRACKING
The Division of Land Resource Programs employs a computer
tracking and environmental warning system to assist in assur-
ing both that reviews are conducted within special time frames
and that key environmental concerns are given proper consider-
ation by all viewers. The system is further capable of serv-
ing as a list which on a biweekly basis notifies interested
members of the public of pending applications. The system
also facilitates the coordination of both internal and exter-
nal reviews at all levels. (This system is being evaluated
for its potential to consolidate almost all permitting re-
quests within the department.)
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
In the past, coordination between the Environmental Serv-
ices and Land Resource Programs divisions has been informal.
Generally one division took the lead for shepherding a project
through all environmental permit requirements. The Division
of Land Resource Programs is now exploring mechanisms for
coordinating the two divisions' permitting activities.
Michigan is currently undergoing a comprehensive regula-
tory review process and is pursuing several initiatives to
streamline permit programs. For example, there are several
pieces of proposed legislation introduced in the Michigan
legislature that would streamline the siting and permitting of
powerplant facilities. In addition, there is a proposal to
establish a one-stop information and referral service in the
Michigan Department of Commerce for all permits.
-------
115 Michigan
STATE CONTACTS
Tim Ervin
Office of Environmental Planning
Environmental Services Division
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
(517) 373-8542
Karl Hosford, Chief
Division of Land Resource Programs
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 30028
Lansing, Michigan 48909
(517) 373-3328
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
Site Inventory/Banking
Decision-Making Deadlines
OVERVIEW
Minnesota is currently developing several procedural
mechanisms aimed at reducing duplication and inconsistency in
its permitting programs. The Business Licensing Group is
preparing procedures for incorporating the Environmental Qual-
ity Board's (EQB's) permit coordination unit into its activ-
ities. The EQB is developing rules to govern the identifica-
tion of appropriate areas for a powerplant site inventory.
Finally, the EOB is in the process of revising the state EIS
rules to integrate decision-making deadlines and greater coor-
dination with the permit information collection process.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, which is the
state agency responsible for regulating air quality, water
quality, and waste disposal, is currently drawing up a set of
permitting rules designed to make state permit procedures more
uniform. These rules are modeled after the EPA's consolidated
regulations and will include a general set of procedural rules
as well as specific technical rules for all state programs and
federally delegated programs. Minnesota currently has author-
ity for the NPDES program and is seeking interim authorization
for RCRA. The agency hopes to complete the rules by March
1982.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
The Environmental Coordinating Procedures Act (1976;
Minn. Stat. §§ 116 c.22 - 116 c.34) provided for a state pro-
cedure for applying for environmental permits called the
-------
Minnesota 118
"Master Application Process" and the establishment of an envi-
ronmental management information center. The Permit Coordina-
tion Unit of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board admin-
isters this program.
In 1981 the legislature passed, the Business Licensing
Bill (Ch. 342, Minn. Laws), which established a Bureau of
Business Licensing with a mandate to consolidate, simplify,
and expedite the business license procedures of state agen-
cies. The EQB's unit will merge into the Bureau of Business
Licensing in late 1981 to form a coordination unit for both
environmental and nonenvironmental permits.
Any applicant may use the bureau's information services
or may elect to use its more comprehensive services.
Permits/Agencies Affected
Every permit necessary for the initial licensing and
continual operation of a business is affected by this program.
Examples of these are environmental permits for air quality,
water quality, and solid waste disposal, as well as nonenvi-
ronmental permits, such as a license to open a restaurant or a
hotel.
The Business Licensing Group is located in the recently
reorganized Department of Energy, Planning and Development
(EPD). The EQB is a policy-coordinating board composed of
agency heads and citizen appointees. Its staff is also
located in the EPD.
Administrative Process
The Business Licensing Bill gives the bureau authority
for the following functions:
• The bureau shall provide to applicants compre-
hensive information on required licenses.
Applicants may request preapplication confer-
ences. The director of the bureau may request
that each affected agency provide to the
applicant written reviews of license require-
ments within a time frame specified by the
director.
-------
119 Minnesota
• The bureau shall develop a master application
procedure. This process parallels the current
one administered by the EQB. Applicants may
complete a master application form describing
their proposed project. The bureau circulates
the form to all relevant agencies, which then
have 20 days to notify the bureau that a permit
is needed. If an agency does not respond, it
loses its authority to require a license. The
bureau provides the applicant with application
forms and related information. The applicant
may submit application forms to each agency
separately or channel them through the bureau.
• The bureau shall facilitate consolidation of
hearings among state agencies. This will be
done at the consent of participating agencies.
• The bureau shall encourage and facilitate the
participation of federal and local government
agencies in licensing coordination. The bureau
will advise applicants of federal and local
license requirements and will consult with
local government officials with respect to
coordination.
• The bureau shall make recommendations for
eliminating, consolidating, simplifying, expe-
diting, or otherwise improving licensing
procedures.
Experience with the Reform
In the past, the EQB's master application process has
been used rarely, but its information services have been
utilized extensively. Staff members offer several possible
explanations for this low usage of the master application
process:
• Those applicants who could benefit most from
the process (i.e., large projects needing many
permits) can afford their own lawyers and con-
sultants to work as advocates.
-------
Minnesota 120
• The Permit Coordination Unit is perceived as
just another layer of bureaucracy.
• Permit writing offices are not supportive and
remain protective of individual jurisdictions.
The head of the Business Licensing Group intends to aggres-
sively encourage project applicants to use the master applica-
tion process.
SITE INVENTORY
The Minnesota Power Plant Siting Act as amended through
1980 (Minn. Stat. §§ 116 c.51 et seq.) gives the Environmental
Quality Board authority to develop an inventory of "large
electric generating plant study areas." The EQB is currently
developing rules identifying the criteria it will use to
select this inventory. Powerplant sponsors are not required
to build on sites in the inventory, but if they choose other-
wise they must provide sufficient rationale. In addition to
developing an inventory, the EQB has authority to issue a
certificate of site compatibility for proposed powerplants in
excess of 50 megawatts.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The EQB's siting authority pre-empts only local and
regional zoning authority; all other permits required by the
facility must be applied for separately, including the Certif-
icate of Need issued by the Department of Energy, Planning and
Development.
Administrative Process
The purpose of the study area inventory is to provide
guidance to the utility for identifying reasonable sites for
new construction and to ensure that all possible sites are
considered.
The criteria that the EQB will use to select these areas
will include air quality, transportation, and water quality.
Study areas will not be specific because of the burden of such
a task in a large state, but will cover broad geographic
areas.
-------
121 Minnesota
The EQB does not purchase sites; it merely designates
areas as suitable in anticipation of a powerplant proposal.
Experience with the Reform
Because the EQB has only recently promulgated the rules
to establish selection criteria, it has not yet put any areas
into the inventory. The absence of powerplant construction
proposals has obviated the need for an inventory to date.
DECISION-MAKING DEADLINES
AND COORDINATION WITH EIS
The EQB is currently rewriting rules for determining when
and how a state Environmental Impact Statement must be pre-
pared. As part of these revisions, the EQB is developing
rules for coordinating permit information collection activi-
ties with the preparation of the EIS. All required environ-
mental permits, including local and federal ones, will be
identified early in the EIS process so that this information
can be easily coordinated.
In addition, the EQB intends to invoke administrative
decision-making deadlines on permit-issuing agencies. All
agencies will be required to issue or deny permits no more
than 60 days after the EIS is completed.
STATE CONTACTS
Charles A. Schaffer, Director
Bureau of Business Licensing
Department of Energy, Planning and Development
480 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(612) 296-0617
Nancy Onka
Power Plant Siting Program
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
100 Capitol Square Building
550 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(612) 296-2169
-------
Minnesota 122
Tom Rullard, Manager
Policy Analysis and Review
Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
100 Capitol Square Building
550 Cedar Street
St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
(612) 296-2319
Randy Burnyeat
Head of Municipal Unit
Division of Water Quality
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Road, B-2
Roseville, Minnesota 55113
(612) 296-7228
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
OVERVIEW
In 1981, the state of Mississippi passed a comprehensive
permitting bill which required each state agency to develop a
plan for one-stop permitting, to coordinate permitting with
other state and federal agencies, and to design master appli-
cation forms. The governor's Executive Order No. 371
strengthened the bill by designating the Department of Eco-
nomic Development the chief implementing agency for the legis-
lation, and by establishing an advisory council with reporting
duties to the governor. Since significant portions of the
bill do not go into effect until the spring of 1982, this
summary necessarily concentrates on reforms outlined in the
Act. Prior to passage of the permitting bill, the state
Bureau of Pollution Control made informal efforts to coor-
dinate air and water permits.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
The one-stop permitting bill, H.B. 629, declares that the
state's policy is:
"each agency of the state shall cooperate to the
greatest extent possible with other agencies of the
state and federal government which have separate,
but similar, related or interrelated jurisdiction,
so that the processing and issuing of permits,
licenses and other such instruments will be stream-
lined to reduce costly delays, duplication of ef-
fort, and unnecesary governmental red tape and so
that state policy will be carried out in an effec-
tive, efficient, predictable, and consistent
manner."
-------
Mississippi
Permits/Agencies Affected
The bill is broad in scope, applying to every state
agency that issues permits of any kind. The state Bureau
of Pollution Control, part of the Department of Natural
Resources, issues all environmental permits, including those
for NPDES, PSD, and RCRA (Phase I).
Executive Order No. 57, which complements H.B. 629,
lodges central authority for permit reform in the state's
Department of Economic Development. This department maintains
information for other agencies and the public on permit re-
quirements. The executive order authorizes use of a toll-free
phone line for public information. The director of the De-
partment of Economic Development chairs the Mississippi Busi-
ness Permitting Advisory Council, which includes representa-
tives from state and federal agencies and citizens from busi-
ness, labor, and environmental groups. This council is to
assist in implementing the permit reform bill, and to report
on its progress to the governor.
Administrative Process
Under the bill each agency must develop a plan for
achieving one-stop permitting, which takes effect in April
1982. The legislation defines one-stop permitting as enabling
an applicant to "complete all necessary applications at one
time and location, or to supply enough information to the
agency at one time and location so that each agency can
process [it] . . . [and] the applicant . . . [can] obtain
authorization."
In addition, agencies with "similar, related, or inter-
related jurisdiction or authority" must develop a single
application form which all these agencies can review "expedi-
tiousiy." Agencies must also attempt to use consolidated
hearings and joint permitting procedures for state and federal
projects. To enable state agencies to do this, the bill
authorizes them to enter into agreements with other state and
federal agencies.
Experience with the Reform
Because the legislation is so recent, most of the work to
date has been planning. The advisory council will issue an
interim report detailing progress on the reforms in November
1981.
-------
Mississippi
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Under the bill, the Mississippi Research and Development
Center was directed to design a "single or master application
form for all required permits, licenses, and other instruments
from agencies of the state." An official from the Department
of Economic Development reported that this effort proved in-
feasible; one cannot design a form that is straightforward and
compact yet comprehensive enough for review bv all state agen-
cies. Therefore, the current plan is to devise a master per-
mit information form that will enable applicants to find which
permits are necessary for their particular project.
STATE CONTACTS
Francis Geoghegan
Special Projects Officer
Department of Economic Development
P. 0. Box 849
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
(601) 354-6707
Charles Chisholm
Director
Bureau of Pollution Control
Department of Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 10385
Jackson, Mississippi 39209
(601) 961-5171
-------
Decision-Making Deadlines
OVERVIEW
All of Missouri's environmental permits are issued within
the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The DNR
is bound to comply with decision-making deadlines in reviewing
all air permits. In addition, the director of the Division of
Environmental Quality acts as an informal coordinator for
major projects requiring multiple DNR permits. The director
instructs the various permitting branches to synchronize their
review procedures in order to shorten the turnaround time.
DECISION-MAKING DEADLINES
FOR AIR PERMITS
Missouri has adopted decision-making deadlines for the
review of all air pollution permits. Air pollution permits
are issued by the Division of Environmental Quality within the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources and include the dele-
gated PSD program. For minor permits the agency decision nust
be made within 90 days of the filing of a complete applica-
tion. Permits for major emission sources must be granted or
denied within 184 days of the filing of a complete applica-
tion. These deadlines have been mandated by regulation, not
by legislation.
-------
Missouri
STATE CONTACT
Robert J. Schreiber, Jr., Director
Division of Environmental Quality
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
2010 Missouri Boulevard
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
(314) 751-3241
-------
Joint Application
Joint Hearing
Decision-Making Deadlines
OVERVIEW
Montana has established a coordinated review process for
major energy facilities. The process employs a master appli-
cation and joint hearings, and streamlines the number of state
and local decision-making bodies to two. The Department of
Natural Resources serves as coordinator of the process, and
the Board of Natural Resources serves as the final decision
maker. The Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
retains its authority to make permit decisions, although its
review process is coordinated into the larger process.
JOINT APPLICATION, JOINT HEARING,
AND DECISION-MAKING DEADLINES FOR
MAJOR ENERGY FACILITIES
The Montana Major Facility Siting Act (Mont. Rev. Codes
Ann. 75-20-101 et seq.) reduces the number of applications,
hearings, and decisions needed to obtain the requisite state
and local permits for major energy projects. However, the
process cannot properly be categorized as one-stop because
there are three sets of hearings and two distinct decision
points. An application must be approved first by the Depart-
ment of Health and Environmental Sciences and then by the
Board of Natural Resources before the certification is
granted.
A Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public
Need is required for construction of the following: power-
plants of 50 megawatts or greater; coal conversion plants with
a capacity of 25 million cubic feet of gas per day or greater;
facilities capable of producing 25,000 barrels of liquid
-------
Montana 130
hydrocarbons per day or more; any facility capable of utiliz-
ing or converting 500,000 tons of coal or more per year; any
additions to the preceding categories over $10 million; any
uranium enrichment facility; all transmission lines greater
than 230 kilovolts and transmission lines greater than 69 kil-
ovolts and over 10 miles long; and synthetic gas, water, or
liquid hydrocarbon product pipelines. The certificate is also
required for use of geothermal resources of more than 25 mil-
lion Btu per hour, and underground in situ coal gasification
plants.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The Board of Natural Resources (BNR) is the body respon-
sible for issuing the certificate. The Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) serves as the staff for the BNR and is respon-
sible for conducting the review process and preparing recom-
mendations for the BNR. The Department of Health and Environ-
mental Sciences (DHES) conducts independent reviews and ren-
ders decisions on its permits, though the act specifies review
schedules which coordinate the work of the DHES and the DNR.
Also, documentation prepared by the DHES is included in re-
ports prepared by the DNR. The DHES has responsibility for
air, water, solid waste, and hazardous waste permits. The
statute requires the DNR to request input from seven specific
state agencies (the Environmental Quality Council and the
departments of Public Service Regulation; State Lands; Com-
merce; Highways; Revenue; and Fish, Wildlife, and Parks) and
the appropriate local agencies in preparing recommendations
for the board. The state and local agencies may participate
as interveners in the BNR hearing, but the board retains final
decision authority and can override local ordinances. Federal
agencies receive copies of the application but do not partici-
pate actively in the review, although joint federal/state
reviews that also satisfy federal requirements may be
conducted.
Administrative Process
The review process is initiated by the filing of a master
application with the DNR and DHES, which have 90 days to
determine whether it is complete. Following the completion of
the application, the DHES conducts its reviews, and the DNR
prepares its report concurrently. This report is also pre-
pared in compliance with the requirements of the Montana Envi-
ronmental Policy Act. The DHES holds a single set of hearings
-------
Montana
for all of the permit programs it administers. Permit deci-
sions are made by individual offices within the DHES and must
be made within one year of the acceptance of the application.
These decisions may be appealed before the Board of Health.
Such appeals must be decided within 18 months of the date of
the original application. In the meantime, the DNR prepares
the draft environmental assessment and, if necessary, the
environmental impact statement, holds public hearings to re-
ceive comments, and issues the final report, including recom-
mendations for the BNR on the application. The statute re-
quires that these recommendations be given to the BNR within
22 months of the acceptance of a complete application.
After receipt of the DNR recommendations, the BNR pre-
sides over contested case hearings in which state and local
agencies as well as other interested parties may participate.
The BNR must rule on the application within 11 months of re-
ceipt of DNR recommendations.
Experience with the Reform
Since the process was established in 1975, Units 3 and 4
of the Colstrip coal-fired powerplant and about 12 transmis-
sion lines have completed the process and received a Certifi-
cate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need. The
Kootenai Falls hydroelectric project is now in the review
process.
STATE CONTACT
Bob Robinson
Department of Natural Resources
and Conservation
Facility Siting Division
25 S. Ewing
Helena, Montana 59620
(406) 449-4600
-------
Sfi
OVERVIEW
Nebraska neither has a formal consolidated permit pro-
gram, nor does it formally coordinate the permitting process.
Nonetheless, the state has streamlined the permitting process
through a variety of informal mechanisms.
The Department of Environmental Control (DEC) is respon-
sible for issuing all water quality, air quality, and solid
waste disposal permits. The DEC currently administers the
federal NPDES program and is in the process of taking over the
federal RCRA program. Moreover, the Water Pollution Control
and Solid Waste Pollution Control divisions of the DEC were
recently combined into the Water and Waste Management Divi-
sion. This division keeps a consolidated file for all water
and waste permit information and is exploring the possibility
of combining the two applications into one form.
The DEC is partially constrained by deadlines for issuing
these permits. Both air and water quality permits must be
approved or denied within 30 days after public notice has been
filed provided there is no significant amount of public com-
ment. When public comments are substantial, however, there
are no decision-making deadlines for issuing permits.
The Department of Economic Development will arrange pre-
application meetings between the permitting agencies and
industrial project sponsors who are new to the state. DEC
staff members may act informally as liaison between an appli-
cant and the permitting agencies by setting up meetings and
following up the applicant's request for information.
-------
Nebraska 134
STATE CONTACTS
Robert B. Wall, Chief
Water and Waste Management Division
Department of Environmental Control
301 Centennial Mall South
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
(402) 471-2186
Gene Robinson, Chief
Air Pollution Control Division
Department of Environmental Control
301 Centennial Mall South
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
(402) 471-2186
Dolores Wilson, Director
Industrial Development
Department of Economic Development
P. 0. Box 94666
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
(402) 471-3774
-------
OVERVIEW
The Nevada State Clearing House conducts prehearing con-
ferences for major projects at the request of the applicant.
These meetings include the applicant and representatives of
the state permitting agencies in a discussion of the project
characteristics and permit requirements prior to the filing of
an application. The state has not made any other procedural
reforms in the environmental permit area.
Most environmental permits, including those for air and
water pollution (NPDES), ground water use, and hazardous and
solid waste disposal, are issued by the Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection in the Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources. The Clearing House is within the State
Planning Coordinator's office.
STATE CONTACT
Lou Dodgin
Division of Environmental Protection
Nevada Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources
201 S. Fall St.
Carson City, Nevada 89701
(702) 885-4070
-------
Joint Application
Joint Hearing
Decision-Making Deadlines
OVERVIEW
New Hampshire has consolidated regulatory proceedings for
major energy facilities. The Energy Facility Evaluation Com-
mittee has authority over the required consolidated permit for
nonelectrical energy facilities. The Bulk Power Supply Facil-
ity Site Evaluation Committee has final authority over the
environmental and siting aspects of powerplant and transmis-
sion line permitting. Both committees utilize master applica-
tions, joint hearings, decision deadlines, and a comprehensive
state permit.
JOINT APPLICATION, JOINT HEARING, AND
DECISION-MAKING DEADLINES FOR ENERGY
FACILITIES OTHER THAN BULK POWER FACILITIES
The Energy Facility Evaluation Committee (EFEC) is
authorized to conduct joint reviews and issue final state site
permits for nonelectrical energy facilities (N.H. Rev. Stat.
Ann. § 1G2-H). The EFEC is made up of 13 members representing
11 different state permitting agencies. It includes represen-
tatives from all agencies issuing permits for energy develop-
ment and representatives from other agencies that have an
interest in energy development but do not have permitting
authority.
The coordinated review process incorporates use of a
master application, joint notice procedures, joint hearings,
and decision-making deadlines. Within this coordinated review
process, the applicant must obtain approvals from state agen-
cies prior to and as a condition for the issuance of the re-
quired comprehensive construction and operation permit by the
-------
New Hampshire 138
EFEC. An applicant that wishes to construct a facility other
than electrical generating stations and power lines, "to
extract, manufacture, or refine sources of energy," must use
the consolidated review process.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The coordinated review process coordinates the reviews of
all state permitting agencies with jurisdiction over an energy
facility that falls within the statutory definition. The
state permits involved cover air and water pollution, solid
waste, and wetlands protection. The law requires that an
applicant secure a permit from the EFEC. A condition for
granting of the EFEC certificate is the approval (possibly
with conditions) of the state regulatory agencies. The local
authorities may offer testimony in the joint hearings, but
their approval is independent of the EFEC's decision. Federal
agencies are not formally involved in the process, although
efforts are made to coordinate state and federal proceedings.
Administrative Process
The coordinated review process begins with the submittal
to the EFEC of a master application by the applicant. This
application is filed in lieu of all other state agency forms.
The application is forwarded to all agencies with jurisdiction
in the case. The agencies and the committee then evaluate the
application and, if necessary, ask the applicant to supply any
omitted material. Once the EFEC determines that the applica-
tion is complete, it must begin public hearings within 60
days. The first session is strictly a public information
meeting, and the subsequent joint hearings are in lieu of all
other hearings that would be held by state agencies. Agencies
that otherwise would conduct hearings are required to partici-
pate, and those that would not ordinarily hold hearings may
not take part.
Agencies must make permit decisions and submit them to
the EFEC within seven months after the application is deter-
mined complete. Within 14 months after a completed applica-
tion is filed, the EFEC must act on the comprehensive permit.
The EFEC can issue a comprehensive permit only if three condi-
tions are satisfied. First, no state agency can have denied
the applicant a required authorization. Second, the EFEC must
include terms and conditions imposed by other state agencies
in its comprehensive permit. Third, the committee must make
-------
139 New Hampshire
findings of its own on issues outside the scope of other agen-
cies' reviews, including the impact on the development of the
region, the environment, and the public health, and the abil-
ity of the applicant to construct and operate the facility in
compliance with all permit conditions.
Experience with the Reform
Since the law establishing the EFEC and the coordinated
review process was adopted in 1974 one gasohol plant in Ports-
mouth has gone through the entire joint review procedure. The
committee has considered a number of other energy-related
proposals but subsequently decided that the proposed facili-
ties did not fall within the statutory definition of an energy
facility.
JOINT APPLICATION AND JOINT
HEARING FOR POWERPLANTS
AND MAJOR TRANSMISSION LINES
The Bulk Power Supply Facility Site Evaluation Committee
(SEC) and the corresponding coordinated review process were
established in 1971 (N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 1G2-F). The same
state agencies that make up the EFEC are members of the SEC.
The SEC site review process is quite similar to that used for
energy facilities other than powerplants and transmission
lines and includes a master application, joint hearings, and a
comprehensive site approval decision by the SEC. This approv-
al is necessary before the New Hampshire Public Utilities
Commission (PUC) can issue a Certificate of Site and Facility.
Applicants proposing powerplants over 50 megawatts or
transmission lines over 100 kilovolts and over 10 miles in
length must receive SEC approval prior to construction.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The SEC site review process is part of a larger New
Hampshire PUC procedure for certifying electric power facili-
ties. All state environmental permitting agencies are re-
quired to participate in the SEC coordinated review. The SEC
will not approve an application unless all state environmental
requirements have been met and must give "due consideration"
to the views of municipal legislative bodies and planning
-------
New Hampshire 140
commissions. Local governmental agencies are not required to
participate in the joint review. There is no formal federal
involvement.
Administrative Process
Applications for a required PUC Certificate of Site and
Facility must be filed with the PUC at least two years prior
to construction. The PUC and the SEC must hold a joint hear-
ing within 60 days of the application. A single application
and a joint hearing are employed in place of the independent
state agency procedures. The SEC, like the EFEC, is bound by
the decisions, terms, and conditions of the state agencies in
its findings. The SEC decision is conclusive on all issues of
siting, land use, and air and water quality. These SEC
findings are submitted to the PUC, which must grant or deny
the certificate within sixteen months of application. In
making its decision, the PUC considers the SEC result and its
own conclusions on the issues of future demand and system
stability and reliability.
Experience with the Reform
The Seabrook project is the only major facility to have
completed the full site review process since the joint
review's establishment in 1971.
STATE CONTACT
Russell Nylander
New Hampshire Water Supply
& Pollution Control Commission
Health and Welfare Building
Hazen Drive
P. 0. Box 95
Concord, New Hampshire 03301
(603) 271-3503
-------
JEW SIB
Decision-Making Deadlines
Permit/Application Coordinator
Joint Application
Over-the-Counter Processing
Computer Tracking
OVERVIEW
New Jersey's most significant permitting reforms include
review deadlines for certain permits established by a state
"90-Day Review Law" passed by the legislature in 1975, and
permit coordination under Executive Order No. 57 issued by the
governor in 1977. In addition, the Department of Environmen-
tal Protection (DEP) has adopted a number of innovative admin-
istrative policies such as the use of a master permit applica-
tion form, a permit directory, and over-the-counter processing
of minor permits. In 1980 New Jersey's DEP participated in a
task force on permit consolidation with the Region II EPA and
New York's Department of Environmental Conservation which
recommended ways to consolidate permits and to share computer
systems.
DECISION-MAKING DEADLINES
The intent of the 90-Day Review Law (P.L. 1975 c.232) and
Executive Order No. 57, which complements the statute, is to
ensure that the DEP processes permit applications expeditlous-
ly. Any applicant requiring one or more of the five permits
that the law covers is entitled to receive a decision on his
or her permits within 90 days of the completed application.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The law applies to five categories of state permits
issued for construction projects: Waterfront Development
permits, Riparian Wetlands permits, permits under the Coastal
-------
New Jersey 142
Area Facility Review Act (CAFRA), Stream Encroachment permits,
and Sanitary Sewer Facilities permits. The 90-Day Law does
not apply to federally issued permits.
Executive Order No. 57, which complements the 90-day Law,
extends the decision-making deadline by requiring that all DEP
construction permit applications deemed complete be acted on
within the 90-day period. -iHowever, a process was established
within the framework of the executive order to exempt certain
permits from the 90-day provision. The DEP requested and
received a number of exemptions: solid waste registrations,
201 sewer grant discharge permits, and permits associated with
projects requiring a federal EIS.
Administrative Process
For all these state permits except those for CAFRA, the
DEP must render a decision within 90 days after the applica-
tion is complete. For CAFRA permits the decision is due with-
in 60 days of the required public hearing. Time extensions
are available, however, since there is an exemption procedure
for "good cause."
Experience with the Reform
The New Jersey DEP processes in excess of 10,000 new
construction permits a year. Of these, staff estimate that
about 3,000 fall under the 90-Day Review Law. DEP representa-
tives believe that the law and related reforms have signifi-
cantly reduced time delays and costs in the permitting
process.
Air permits form a large category not covered by the 90-
Day Review Law. DEP staff suggest that drafters of the law
omitted air permits because they thought that the technical
aspects might require additional time. In practice, however,
DEP officials say that air permits are consistently issued
within 90 days.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
A reform related to the 90-Day Review Law, Executive
Order No. 57 (1977), established a Cabinet Committee and a
Citizen Committee on Permit Coordination. The governor re-
quested the two committees to oversee the implementation of
-------
143 New Jersey
the 90-Day Law and to provide information to the public about
the permit process. The DEP also provides the assistance of
permit coordination officers within the department as a means
of simplifying the permit process.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The coordination and information functions performed by
the DEP permit coordinators and the Cabinet and Citizen Com-
mittees apply not only to the five categories of permits under
the 90-Day Review Law (see discussion above), but to all per-
mits administered by the DEP.
Administrative Process
Under the order, state departments must report regularly
to the Cabinet Committee what permit applications (if any)
consistently miss the deadline, which ones require extensions,
and the reasons for such extensions. After reviewing this and
other data, the committee is to report or recommend reforms to
the governor.
For projects over $500,000 the applicant may request that
the Cabinet Committee coordinate permit review. The committee
may appoint a permit expediter from the Office of Business
Advocacy, Department of Labor and Industry, who will set up
preapplication meetings, coordinate contacts, advise the
applicant on requisite state, regional, and federal permits,
and suggest ways to consolidate hearings and forms wherever
possible.
In consultation with the Cabinet and Citizen Committees
on Permit Coordination, the state has published a Detailed
Directory of State Programs for Regulating Construction, which
lists all permits required by the state for construction proj-
ects, the department that issues the permit, the purpose of
the permit, its statutory authority, the type of activity it
regulates, and the titles and numbers of staff who can assist
applicants. The directory also lists regional permits (such
as those for coastal or critical areas) and federal permits.
The DEP is required by law to publicly distribute at least
monthly a bulletin which lists pending applications for con-
struction permits and the status of review of those applica-
tions. In addition to indicating application status, the DEP
Bulletin is used as the computer tracking document to inform
the public of permit decisions, public hearing dates, press
releases, etc. The DEP publishes its own Easy Access guide to
-------
New Jersey 144
the department, which lists by subject area staff names,
titles, and numbers. It names the Office of Cultural and
Environmental Services in the DEP a central information source
on environmental regulations. Thus if an applicant is unsure
about whom to call even after reading the directory and guide,
he or she could call the Office of Cultural and Environmental
Services for assistance.
Experience with the Reform
Although it is difficult to evaluate specifically the
impact of these reforms, DEP staff state that better informa-
tion and improved coordination have made the permit applica-
tion process faster and more efficient, especially for larger
projects.
JOINT APPLICATION
The DEP has developed master forms for obtaining informa-
tion from applicants. The applicant or the state-appointed
permit expediter uses a "Master Permit Information Form" to
clarify features of the proposal. The form is circulated to
the appropriate permitting divisions, and their staffs decide
what permits are required. Next, the applicant completes a
Standard Application Form CP-1, which is used for construction
and discharge permits. The Standard Application Form has
taken the place of more than 20 separate application forms and
is included in a booklet which is a one-source document of
information on the DEP's permitting process. It includes
general background information on DEP permitting, contact
phone numbers and addresses, legal citations, and specific
requirements for each permit application. The CP-1 form is
designed to be xeroxed and given to different permit programs
so that processing proceeds concurrently. DEP staff use hand-
written response forms for certain permits as opposed to typed
letters to advise applicants of the completeness of their
submissions, a practice that has saved an average of one week
in response time.
OVER-THE-COUNTER PROCESSING
For minor stream encroachment, sewer extension, and
riparian permits that meet specific criteria, applicants can
-------
145 New Jersey
receive same-day or 24-hour service. Over-the-counter permit
applications are handled by appointment only, and application
requirements are essentially the same for all projects.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
DEP and federal agency staff meet regularly to discuss
projects under joint authority. The major purposes of this
effort are to identify key staff persons, review procedural
matters, and discuss potential conflicts.
Federal/State Task Force on
Permit Consolidation and
Computer Tracking
In 1980 the New Jersey DEP, the New York Department of
Environmental Protection, and the Region II EPA established a
task force to recommend ways to improve state and federal
permit processes and to share environmental information. The
task force met more than a dozen times during 1981 and issued
two interim reports. The final report, which was due in late
1981, will make specific recommendations for permit consolida-
tion and joint hearings as well as suggest ways to share and
expand the computer systems that the Region II EPA, New York,
and New Jersey are already using.
STATE CONTACTS
Lawrence Schmidt, Chief
Office of Environmental Review
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 292-2662
Fred Schultz
Office of Environmental Review
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 292-2662
-------
New Jersey 146
William McCarthy
Permit Coordination Officer
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
88 East State Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
(609) 292-4944
-------
Decision-Making Deadlines
Permit/Application Coordinator
OVERVIEW
Although New Mexico has not implemented a major permit
coordination program, the state has instituted organizational
and procedural mechanisms which serve to facilitate the per-
mitting processes. The Health and Environment Department, for
example, has strict decision-making deadlines for its air and
water permits, and the governor of New Mexico has initiated an
effort to coordinate the federal and state permitting process.
Coordination among the state permitting agencies occurs
on an informal basis. Applicants are encouraged- by each per-
mitting office to participate in preapplication conferences,
and a handbook describing permit requirements for natural
resources development was recently published.
In addition, several staff members noted that the struc-
ture of the Water Pollution Control Commission and the Coal
Surface Strip Mining Commission promotes interdepartmental
coordination. These commissions, which are responsible for
setting policy and establishing regulations in their respec-
tive areas, are composed of representatives from a cross-
section of state agencies.
DECISION-MAKING DEADLINES
New Mexico has established regulatory deadlines for
several of its environmental permits. The ground water dis-
charge permit must be approved or rejected within 60 days from
the time the application is complete. The state air quality
-------
New Mexico 148
permit carries a deadline of 30 days from the time the com-
plete application is received. The Health and Environment
Department does not have a deadline for issuing the state
radioactive material permit, but the state aims to complete
the process in half the time taken by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
FOR FEDERAL AND STATE PERMITS
The governor of New Mexico recently established by execu-
tive order a task force to explore alternatives for coordinat-
ing the "permitting review processes of the state and the
various federal agencies to provide timely, accurate permit
reviews without altering or impeding the authority vested by
the statutes and regulations in the various state and federal
agencies." The task force is composed of the secretaries of
the departments of Health and Environment, Energy and
Minerals, and Natural Resources, as well as the chairman of
the Public Service Commission and an assistant to the
governor.
The governor has submitted a proposal to the federal
Department of Energy requesting funds for a staff assistant to
the task force. The staff assistant would work closely with
state permitting agencies to help them implement reforms,
develop federal/state permit review agreements, coordinate the
state's review process, oversee state permit directory activi-
ties, and act as liaison between the state permitting agencies
and industry.
To date, the state has not been able to obtain the fund-
ing, and therefore the task force's activities are suspended.
STATE CONTACTS
George Scudella, Chief
Resource Bureau
Energy and Minerals Departmen
P. 0. Box 2770
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
(505) 827-3326
-------
149 New Mexico
Cubia Clayton, Assistant Director
Environment Improvement Division
Health and Environment Department
P. 0. Box 968
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504-0968
(505) 827-5271 Ext. 244
-------
One-Stop Permitting
Decision-Making Deadlines
Permit/Application Coordinator
Joint Application
General Permit
Computer Tracking
OVERVIEW
New York has instituted a one-stop permitting process
which the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) ad-
ministers and which applies to major projects other than steam
powerplants. The New York State Board on Electric Generation
and the Environment (siting board) oversees a similar permit
process for steam powerplants. Other reforms that New York
has adopted include use of application coordinators, specific
deadlines for agency decisions, joint applications, consolida-
tion of forms, general permits, and computer tracking of per-
mits. For energy projects, New York has instituted master
energy plans and a public participation fund.
Additionally, throughout 1980, representatives from the
New York DEC, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Pro-
tection, and the Region II EPA formed a permit consolidation
task force which met regularly to research and recommend ways
to streamline permitting and to share environmental data and
computer systems.
ONE-STOP PERMITTING AND DECISION-
MAKING DEADLINES FOR PROJECTS
OTHER THAN POWERPLANTS
All construction and development projects (other than
major steam electric generating facilities) that require more
than one environmental permit fall under New York's Uniform
Procedures Act (ECL, § 70-0107), which provides for one-stop
review of applications for regulatory permits. A similar
review process applies to major steam electric generating
-------
New York 152
facilities under Article VIII of the Public Service Law. The
DEC processes all permits concurrently and makes a single
decision following a public hearing on the proposal.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The DEC coordinates the 22 environmental permits that tlae
state issues, except those for major electric generating
facilities, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Mew York
State Board on Electric Generation and the Environment. The
one-stop process applies to all categories of state permits
and federal permits that are administered by the DEC.
New York issues its own NPDES permits (Clean Water Act),
underground injection control permits (Safe Drinking Water
Act), and dredge and fill permits (Clean Water Act), and has
partial authority for permits under the Clean Air Act and RCRA
(Phase I).
Administrative Process
Preliminary screening by the DEC of the applicant's pro-
posal identifies which environmental permits are necessary.
The New York Uniform Procedures Act sets deadlines for the
agency's review and decision on the construction or develop-
ment project and requires a hearing to be held if issues
raised by the public cannot be otherwise resolved. Where the
Act requires a hearing, the DEC must hold it between CO and 90
days after the completed application is filed and must issue a
decision on major projects within GO days after the close of
the hearing. For minor projects the DEC has 45 days to rule
on the application after the hearing is completed.
Where no hearing is necessary, applicants may request a
less formal decision conference. After the conference, the
DEC must issue a decision within five days, although an
applicant who is dissatisfied may request a full hearing.
Experience with the Reform
By handling all the applicable state and federal permits
in one administrative process and one hearing (where re-
quired) , DEC staff expedite the application process consider-
ably. According to staff, the DEC processes about 25,000 per-
mits or reapplications each year, of which about 10,000 or
-------
153 New York
fewer are for new facilities. However, many of these permits
are for minor sources such as wells. Only a small number (10
percent) of projects require multiple permits and planning
under the one-stop siting process, but these projects repre-
sent a large commitment of staff time. Because of their size
and complexity, these projects also tend to have significant
environmental impacts.
PERM IT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
New York has taken two steps beyond the Uniform Proce-
dures Act to further streamline its permitting process. All
major projects are assigned a specific project coordinator at
the outset to serve as a contact and to try to expedite the
review process. In addition, major projects are passed
through a "clearinghouse" review which brings environment-
related agencies outside the DEC into the one-stop process.
Permits/Agencies Affected
These coordination efforts apply to all environmental
permits issued in New York, including the 22 permits admin-
istered by the DEC and, when required, approvals issued by the
Adirondack Park Agency, Department of Health, and Office of
Parks and Recreation (historic preservation).
Administrative Process
A project coordinator is assigned to a project after the
applicant or potential applicant contacts the DEC. Each pro-
gram with jurisdiction assigns an individual to review the
project in order to identify permit requirements and identify
potential problems. The project coordinator relavs these
comments and other information between the agencies, the ap-
plicant, and the interested public. The coordinator also
attempts to resolve issues between public objectors and the
applicant before a decision is made about whether or not a
public hearing is required. A hearing is held only if there
is public objection to the project.
The "clearinghouse" review simply means that all environ-
mental reviews, not only those issued by the DEC, are handled
with one application, hearing, and decision.
-------
New York 154
Experience with the Reform
The DEC began using project coordinators in the middle of
1981. DEC staff state that these modifications have been well
received by both applicants and the general public.
ONE-STOP PERMITTING AND
DECISION-MAKING DEADLINES
FOR POWERPLANTS
Under legislation first passed in 1972 and re-enacted
with procedural changes in 1978 (N.Y. Pub. Service L. §§ 140
et seq.), the New York State Board on Electric Generation and
the Environment (siting board) has complete and overriding
authority for electric generating facilities of 50,000 kilo-
watts or more. The siting board consists of the Chairman of
the Public Service Commission (PSC); the commissioners of the
state departments of Environmental Conservation, Commerce, and
Energy; and a local representative who is appointed by the
governor and is from the area affected by the proposed plant.
The siting board issues a Certificate of Environmental Compat-
ibility and Public Need. This certificate differs from certi-
ficates issued by many other states in that it is the primary
vehicle for evaluating environmental impacts of the project.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The one-stop siting process for powerplants covers all
the permits that the DEC issues for construction and develop-
ment projects, but in the case of powerplants it is the siting
board, not the DEC, which coordinates the one-stop procedure
and makes the final decision on the acceptability of the
project.
Administrative Process
Project sponsors for proposed electric facilities of
50,000 kilowatts or more apply to the siting board for the
Certificate of Environmental Compatibility and Public Need.
Deadlines in Section 143 of the Public Service Law require
that within 60 davs of receipt of the application, the siting
board determine whether the information is complete enough to
docket. Within a "reasonable time" after docketing, the board
must hold the prehearing conference and public hearing. The
-------
155 New York
final decision is due from the board no less than 24 months
after the application has been determined to be complete.
When reviewing applications for steam electric generating
stations, the siting board is bound by the latest State Energy
Master Plan (SEMP) with respect to its determination of need
for a facility. The SEMP is developed by a state energy
board, which is required to consider economic growth; techno-
logical change; conservation; the health, safety, and welfare
of the .public; and the impact of alternative energy sources
and conservation on the economy and on the quality of the en-
vironment. The State Energy Law provides for public partici-
pation in the hearings on the SEMP, including reimbursement of
intervener's costs for expert witnesses and consultant fees,
but not for attorney's fees. The powerplant siting law also
makes provision for reimbursement of intervener costs.
As part of the powerplant siting process, the siting
board has also experimented with holding /joint hearings and
using joint forms for state and federal environmental impact
statements with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. A member
of the Department of Public Service described these joint
efforts as productive, even though the applications in the two
cases in which joint hearings were conducted were withdrawn
for other reasons. Similarly, the siting board has developed
joint state/federal applications for Section 401 and 404 per-
mits under the Clean Water Act.
Experience with the Reform
Since the Power Plant Siting Law's enactment in 1972,
eight applications have been considered. The siting boards
have certified four of these, and four were either withdrawn
or denied. No applications have been considered under the act
as amended in 1978.
JOINT APPLICATION
Although under federal legislation the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE) has ultimate authority to issue dredge and
fill permits under the Clean Water Act, the DEC and the COE
have developed a joint permit application form and coordinat-
ing procedures for those permits. Thus an applicant may sub-
mit a form to either agency alone, and that agency will coor-
dinate review with the other agency and channel the applica-
tion into the one-stop siting process. The DEC has estab-
lished similar procedures with joint forms and review with
-------
New York
156
other state agencies whose jurisdictions overlap, such as the
departments of Health and Transportation and the Adirondack
Park Agency. Thus, as part of this process, the DEC has
simplified and consolidated a number of different application
forms.
GENERAL PERMITS
With general permits, the DEC can review and approve the
environmental impacts of a class of activities as a whole
instead of conducting permit reviews and issuing approvals for
each project within a particular category. General permits
are issued for projects which are either caused by extraordi-
nary natural occurrences such as flooding or ice damage, or
which have been demonstrated to generically pose little or no
threat to natural resources. The latter category includes
certain dredging or filling projects, and maintenance or re-
placement, in kind, of docks, bulkheads, etc.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The Department of Environmental Conservation is the only
agency using general permits.
Administrative Process
The DEC publishes a notice of intent to issue a general
permit, reviews comments, and issues the general permit by
notice in newspapers. In some cases, applicants continue to
file a separate application and are told that work proposed
falls under a general permit. The project sponsor must notify
the DEC of the proposed project. No further action is
necessary.
Experience with the Reform
To date, New York has issued 54 general permits. General
permits have eliminated 400 to 2,000 permits each year, de-
pending on the amount of flooding or ice damage occurring.
Use of this mechanism allows a smaller staff to devote more
time to review of significant projects.
-------
157 New York
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Federal/State Task Force
on Permit Consolidation
and Computer Tracking
Suggestions for sharing of computer data and increased
cooperation in issuing permits were the main products of a
task force formed in 1980 by the New York DEC, the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, and the Region II EPA.
Representatives from these agencies met more than a dozen
times throughout the year to study ways to improve state and
federal permit processes. For example, the Region II EPA is
developing a "SCOPE" system to track NPDES, RCRA, UIC (under-
ground injection), and other permits, while the DEC's system
tracks NPDES and ground water permit issuance and compliance.
Region II and the DEC have arranged to share some of this
data. The task force has produced two interim reports on
permit consolidation and information exchange. One partici-
pant observed that not as much progress was possible on state/
federal permit consolidation because the legal deadlines and
procedures for issuing federal permits were inflexible and did
not allow coordination with state procedures.
STATE CONTACTS
Louis M. Concra, Jr., Director
Division of Regulatory Affairs
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-0001
(518) 457-7418
John Smolinsky (powerplant siting)
Chief Generating Facilities Analyst
Office of Environmental Planning
Department of Public Service
3 Rockefeller Plaza
Albany, New York 12223
(518) 474-53G8
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
Computer Tracking
Joint Application
OVERVIEW
The Office of Regulatory Relations (ORR) was created in
January 1980 by the North Carolina Department of Natural Re-
sources and Community Development (DNR-CD) in order to coordi-
nate the department's regulatory activities. In addition, the
ORR also serves to provide permit applicants with a central
place to obtain information.
The DNR-CD Office of Coastal Management, in conjunction
with the Wilmington, North Carolina, district office of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has developed a consolidated
coastal permit application process. Furthermore, the district
Corps office has issued a general Section 404 permit.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
In addition to providing information services to appli-
cants, and coordinating agency reviews, the ORR is committed
to assessing and recommending changes in regulatory programs
and processes. Any potential permit applicant may contact the
ORR and request assistance.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The DNR-CD issues most of North Carolina's environmental
permits, including the delegated NPDES and PSD permits and the
state's major coastal area management permit. The Department
of Human Resources is responsible for issuing hazardous and
solid waste permits and administering Phase I of RCRA. The
Department of Administration issues the state easement to fill
-------
North Carolina 160
in coastal areas. The ORR provides information on these state
permitting programs and works to coordinate state authorities
as well as, to a more limited extent, federal and local regu-
latory authorities.
Administrative Process
The ORR is divided into the following four sections:
Permit Information and Assistance, Environmental Assessment,
Economic Assessment, and Administrative Procedures Act Coordi-
nation. The Permit Information and Assistance section is most
directly involved in permit coordination activities and pro-
vides the following types of services on an informal basis:
• A central location and contact for information
regarding departmental permits and regulatory
functions. The office recently published an
Environmental Permit Directory.
• Assistance to applicants in scheduling and
coordinating the various regulatory processes
for complex or multi-permit projects.
• A forum for the discussion, clarification, and
resolution of issues and concerns between an
applicant and regulatory agencies prior to and
during the permitting process.
• Preparation of periodic status and monitoring
reports regarding departmental permitting and
regulatory activities.
• Establishment of more efficient and effective
coordination among permit, A-95, and environ-
mental review processes.
• Evaluation and recommendation of improvements
in regulatory relations and procedures among
related state and federal permitting agencies.
• Review of proposed regulations in regard to
their relationship and compatibility with
department-wide permitting and regulatory re-
sponsibilities and their impact on applicants.
-------
161 North Carolina
Experience with the Reform
The Office of Regulatory Relations became fully function-
al on June 1, 1980, and responded in an initial three-month
period to over 100 requests for permit information and assis-
tance from individuals, industry, local governments, and state
agencies. The office organizes approximately two to three
preliminary permit coordination meetings for clients each
month. Within the last year the office has provided the fol-
low-through for resolving 20 permit review conflicts between
applicants and issuing agencies.
COMPUTER TRACKING
In addition to providing the services described above,
the ORR is currently assisting in the development of a
computer-based permit application tracking system. Water and
air quality permits are in the system now, and other depart-
ment permits will be added in the future. The ORR has also
developed a computer-based A-95 and EIS tracking system which
notifies applicants of required permits. Both of these sys-
tems will be part of an overall state automated data process-
ing (ADP) system. When fully operational, the system will be
coordinated through the Office of Regulatory Relations.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
AND JOINT APPLICATION FOR
DREDGE AND FILL PERMITS
The DNR-CD Office of Coastal Management and the Wilming-
ton District Corps of Engineers have developed coordinating
procedures for applicants that require permits from both agen-
cies. All applicants benefit from joint application forms and
joint bimonthly coordinating meetings.
Certain projects may qualify under the Corps' general 404
permit (issued January 27, 1981) and thus not require separate
federal permits. The Corps' general permit differs from
state-issued general permits in that eligibility for the per-
mit is not self-certified by the applicant and the applicant
must still obtain the requisite state permits.
The Corps has broad discretion to determine eligibility
under the general permit. Eligible projects usually include
maintenance of existing projects as well as new projects such
-------
North Carolina 162
as boat channels and basins, bulkheading and filling, marinas,
canals, and cable and pipeline crossings. Projects that are
not eligible include those which have significant environmen-
tal impacts, involve unresolved state and federal agency con-
flicts, adversely affect habitats for endangered species or
sites in the National Register of Historic Places, or would
adversely affect wild and scenic rivers.
Permits/Agencies Affected
Applicants submit only one application for one or more of
the following permits and certificates: The Army Corps of
Engineers' permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; the Office of
Coastal Management's state dredge and fill permit and coastal
area management (CAMA) permit; the Department of Administra-
tion's easement to fill; and the Division of Environmental
Management's Section 401 water quality certification. The
following nine state agencies may review the application and
participate in the bimonthly meetings: the Department of
Transportation; the Department of Human Resources; Archives;
the Department of Administration; and within the DNR-CD, the
Division of Community Assistance, the Division of Land Qual-
ity, the Division of Environmental Management, the Office of
Coastal Management, and the Division of Wildlife Resources.
At a federal level, the regional offices of the Corps, the
EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Ser-
vices review the application and participate in meetings.
Administrative Process
Applicants submit copies of the joint application to both
the Corps' district office and the state field office of
Coastal Management.
If the Corps determines that an application qualifies for
the general permit, only the state field office conducts an
on-site investigation and writes up a report. If the general
permit does not apply, the Corps and the state conduct either
joint or separate visits and write up reports. The applica-
tion and report(s) are then circulated to the nine state
offices and four federal field offices named above for
review.
Applicants receive separate approval for each permit.
Therefore, from one application, an applicant may receive up
to four separate permits and one certification.
-------
163 North Carolina
If the general permit applies, projects that receive
state approval for CAMA or state dredge and fill automatically
receive federal approval for Sections 404 and 10 permits. The
Corps reviews state reports and may submit recommendations to
the state; however, it does not undertake an independent in-
vestigation. In addition to receiving notification of permit
approval from the state, the applicant receives notice from
the Corps that the project is covered under the general
permit.
The district Corps office also conducts bimonthly coordi-
nation meetings to which representatives of the nine state
agencies and four federal agencies are invited. These meet-
ings are used to discuss policy, regulations, procedures,
problem permits, and enforcement.
Experience with the Reform
Both the Corps and the state office of Coastal Management
feel that these coordinating procedures have been very suc-
cessful in shortening the permitting process. State officials
estimate that since the general permit was issued, the average
permitting time has been reduced by three weeks. This process
has reduced the number of contacts an applicant must make and
has made the permitting process less confusing. In addition,
the general permit has greatly reduced the burden on district
Corps staff.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
On a project-specific basis, the DNR-CD has experimented
with an innovative program for coordinating permit activities
and involving the public in the decision-making process. In
response to a proposal to build an oil refinery, the DNR-CD
set up several committees to expedite the permitting process.
A citizens' advisory committee was created to represent the
public in the decision-making process and to act as liaison to
the interested public. A Technical Steering Committee was
established to serve as a state contact for permit coordina-
tion, to act as a technical resource, and to coordinate with
the project applicant. Finally, a state government interagen-
cy task force was set up to ensure consideration of the in-
terests of other state departments.
In addition, the permitting agencies and the applicant
agreed to lay out a decision schedule for issuance of the nine
-------
North Carolina 164
required permits following completion of the EIS. The appli-
cant withdrew its application due to the world oil glut;
therefore the process was never completed. However, the ORR
(which was created during the middle of this process) intends
to use this coordinated process for other industrial projects
wishing to locate in the state.
STATE CONTACTS
Roger Schecter, Chief
Permit Information and Assistance Section
Office of Regulatory Relations
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
(919) 733-6376
John Parker, Permits Coordinator
Office of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
(919) 733-2293
-------
OVERVIEW
In North Dakota all state environmental permits (except
those for pesticides and mining) are issued by the Department
of Health. In addition, North Dakota has pursued delegation
of all possible federal permitting programs and now adminis-
ters the NPDES, PSD, RCRA Phase I, and SDWA programs. As a
result, permit applicants generally work with only one depart-
ment at one level of government.
The Department of Health has attempted to streamline
permitting through procedural mechanisms as well. The office
administering PSD programs has deleted its requirement for a
public hearing on every application. Effective January 1982,
public hearings will be held only on request. Department of
Health staff also encourage applicants to participate in pre-
application conferences. These conferences are generally held
for larger project applicants and conducted informally and
sequentially with each permitting office.
North Dakota passed siting legislation in 1975 which gave
the Public Service Commission (PSC) the authority to site
major energy facilities. Although it does not prescribe a
one-stop permitting process, the legislation does provide for
consideration of environmental criteria and for consultation
with other permitting offices during the siting process. The
original legislation called for the designation of a site
inventory by the PSC, but this concept was abandoned as im-
practical. However, the PSC does produce a computerized map
inventory of "avoidance and exclusion areas" for energy facil-
ity sites.
-------
North Dakota 166
STATE CONTACTS
Gene Christiansen, Acting Administrator
Department of Health
Chief of Environmental Control
State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota 58505
(701) 224-2371
Dana Mount, Director
Division of Environmental Engineering (PSD)
Department of Health
State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota 53505
(701) 224-2348
Wallace Owen, Chief Engineer
Public Service Commission
State Capitol
Bismarck, North Dakota 58505-0165
(701) 224-2400
Vern Fahy
State Engineer
State Water Commission
900 East Boulevard
Bismarck, North Dakota 58505
(701) 224-2750
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
Joint Application
OVERVIEW
In 1974 Ohio instituted a one-stop siting and coordina-
tion process for powerplants and transmission lines. The Ohio
Power Siting Board has jurisdiction over the siting of power-
plants and coordinates extensively with other permitting
agencies.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), which
issues NPDES and PSD permits as well as state air, water, and
waste permits, has also streamlined permit procedures in a
number of informal ways. The Water and Land Pollution Control
offices of the OEPA are decentralized into five regional field
offices, and the Air Pollution Control Office has sixteen
offices. Project sponsors submit their applications directly
to the field offices. Frequently the field office's recommen-
dation will expedite the permit application through the cen-
tral office.
In addition, if a new project requires both air and water
permits, it may receive combined approval for both permits
in a single document. Finally, the Office of Air Pollution
Control uses a computer to track the status of air monitoring
permits.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
AND JOINT APPLICATION FOR PQWERPLANTS
The Ohio Power Siting Board was established by leg-
islation in 1972 (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. Ch. 4906) and assumed
jurisdiction over the siting of powerplants and transmission
-------
Ohio 168
lines in 1974. A utility that plans new construction submits
only one application for all permits to the siting board.
However, each agency issues its own permit to the utility and
conducts separate administrative proceedings. The one permit
that is issued by the board is the Certificate of Environmen-
tal Compatibility and Public Need. Electric power generating
plants of 50 megawatts or more, gas transmission lines capable
of operating at 125 pounds per square inch or more, electric
transmission lines capable of transmitting 125 kilovolts or
more, and associated facilities must obtain the certificate
in addition to OEPA permits before commencing construction.
Any generating plant using solid waste as fuel is exempted
from the certificate requirement.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The board consists of the directors of the departments of
Health, Environmental Protection, Economic and Community
Development, and Natural Resources, and the Public Utility
Commission (PUC); a representative of the public who must be
an engineer; and four nonvoting legislative members. The
chair of the PUC is the chair of the board.
The board coordinates its reviews and decisions with nine
other state agencies: the OEPA; the departments of Natural
Resources, Energy, Economic and Community Development, Health,
Transportation, and Agriculture; the PUC; and the Ohio Histor-
ical Society. Local government agencies and officials are
integrally involved in the siting process, although their
authority can be pre-empted by the board.
Administrative Process
An application for the certificate must be filed two
years in advance for powerplant construction and one year in
advance for the construction of transmission lines. Upon
determining that the application is complete, board staff
distribute copies of it to all relevant state agencies and
local officials. A public hearing is scheduled 60 to 90 days
after the application is deemed complete. Board staff review
the application and prepare a report of recommended findings.
This report must be filed 15 days prior to the hearing. The
hearing, which includes an adjudicatory hearing and a public
hearing, is held before an administrative law judge. The
judge submits a recommendation to the board, which makes its
final decision by majority vote "within a reasonable time."
-------
169 Ohio
Throughout the certification process the board works
closely with affected local and state agencies. Affected
local agencies are notified of preapplication conferences with
the applicant. These agencies are also sent copies of the
application, although they must file a notice of intervention
to be made parties to the adjudicatory hearing. The board's
staff includes five coordinators to the following state agen-
cies: the departments of Natural Resources, Health, Energy,
and Economic and Community Development; the OEPA; and the PUC.
These agencies issue specific permits as required but receive
the application from and coordinate closely with the siting
board. The board is empowered to pre-empt local zoning.
The legislation encourages the board to hold joint pro-
ceedings with other state or federal agencies. To date, joint
hearings have not been feasible.
Experience with the Reform
Since 1974 two nuclear generating units have been certi-
fied. An application for two other nuclear units was with-
drawn subsequent to the hearings on it. Most of the commis-
sion's activities have involved electric transmission lines.
STATE CONTACTS
Robert Stamper, Secretary
Ohio Power Siting Board
580 South High Street
Suite 300
Columbus, Ohio 43215
(614) 466-6422
Charles Taylor, Chief
Division of Air Pollution Control
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
361 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216
(614) 466-6116
Ernie Rotering, Chief
Division of Wastewater Pollution Control
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
361 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216
(614) 466-7427
-------
Ohio 170
Donald Day, Chief
Division of Land Pollution Control
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
361 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43216
(614) 466-8934
-------
Decision-Making Deadlines
OVERVIEW
Permit reform in Oklahoma has been limited to the infor-
mal coordination of permit applications among offices within
the Oklahoma State Department of Health and to the establish-
ment of regulatory deadlines for air quality permits. The
majority of environmental permits are issued by the offices of
the Oklahoma State Department of Health, specifically the
Water Facilities Engineering Service (municipal treatment),
Air Quality Service (air pollution), and Industrial and Solid
Waste Service (solid and toxic wastes). These offices issue
permits independently. For projects requiring multiple per-
mits from the Department of Health, an informal meeting is
held with the developer and the appropriate offices to deter-
mine which permits are required and to exchange information.
Four other state agencies issue environmental permits: the
State Department of Agriculture (for pesticide use or confined
animal feeding), the Corporation Commission (for oil- and gas-
related discharges), the Bureau of Mines (for mine-related
permits), and the Water Resources Board (for stream water
allocation, ground water use, and industrial water dis-
charges). There is no formal coordination of permitting pro-
cesses between state agencies, nor are there mechanisms for
coordinating state and local regulators.
DECISION-MAKING DEADLINES
State law establishes regulatory deadlines for air qual-
ity permits. For all state air permits except PSD, the
Department of Health must either grant or deny the permit
within 90 days of the filing of a completed permit applica-
tion. For PSD applications, the state complies with the EPA's
-------
Oklahoma 172
12-month review deadline. When Oklahoma assumes respon-
sibility for PSD review in 1982, the state will review an
application within 6 months of the time the application is
completed.
STATE CONTACT
Judy Duncan
Environmental Health Service
Oklahoma Health Department
1000 N. E. 10th Street
P. 0. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152
(405) 271-5204
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
Joint Hearing
One-Stop Permitting
Decision-Making Deadlines
General Permit
OVERVIEW
Oregon has taken three distinct steps to streamline the
permitting process. The Permit Information and Coordination
Center, established within the Intergovernmental Relations
Division of the Executive Department, distributes information
about state permit requirements, offers both formal and in-
formal permit requirement definition services, and can serve
as the convener of joint hearings.
The Energy Facility Siting Council reviews all major
energy projects with a one-stop permit process. The process
includes a master application, joint hearings, and a single
decision maker.
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEO)
utilizes general permits for certain wastewater discharge
permits. General permits allow the DEO to develop permit
standards for specific types of dischargers on a category-wide
basis, leaving case-by-case review and most monitoring to the
discharger.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
AND JOINT HEARING
The Permit Information and Coordination Center offers
information about permits needed for particular projects, the
procedural process and substantive requirements for obtaining
those permits, and appropriate contacts in the regulatory
agencies (Ore. Rev. Stat. § 447.805 et seq.). The center
maintains a toll-free telephone number and publishes a permit
handbook to provide this information service.
-------
Oregon 174
The center is also directed by law to organize optional
master preapplication and joint hearing processes. The master
preapplication process enables an applicant to obtain a list
of state permit requirements in 30 days. This list is
"guaranteed" to contain every permit applicable to the proj-
ect. Permit requirements can also be identified informally
(and without a guarantee) in a matter of one or two days.
Joint hearings may be requested by the applicant, but since
the process has never been used, the procedural details are
not well defined.
In addition, the center can serve as a mediator between
applicants and state agencies. At the request of an appli-
cant, the center will contact a regulatory agency to try to
eliminate any problems in the review process and, if neces-
sary, set up a meeting between the agency and the applicant.
In 1981, the legislature gave the permit center the authority
to order state agencies to appear for mediation sessions
called by the center.
These services are available to prospective applicants of
any kind, and use of these services is entirely voluntary for
the applicant. The center handles all state permits, not
solely environmental ones.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The center operates within the Intergovernmental Rela-
tions Division of the Executive Department. The information
mediation and permit requirement identification services
relate to all state permitting agencies.
If the joint hearing process is invoked, all state agen-
cies objecting to the filed application must present their
views at the joint public hearing. The agencies retain their
powers to grant or deny individual permits in the joi*nt review
process.
Administrative Process
In order to use the formal master preapplication process,
an applicant must file a five-page application with the cen-
ter. The center then distributes the application to all
interested agencies, and the agencies determine which permits
-------
Oregon
175
must be obtained. Within 30 days of receiving the applica-
tion, the center must respond to the applicant with a defini-
tive list of permits developed from agency responses. Agen-
cies that fail to respond within this period may not impose
any permit requirements.
The informal preapplication process, which most small
businesses prefer, involves a meeting between the applicant
and the permit center official. During this meeting the proj-
ect is explained and permit requirements are roughly defined.
This informal process takes about one day as opposed to the 30
days that the formal process requires, but the list of permit
requirements is not legally binding.
The joint hearing process is initiated at the request of
an applicant. If held, the joint hearing replaces all hear-
ings otherwise required by law. The director of the Depart-
ment of Administration presides over the hearing, but repre-
sentatives of the relevant agencies conduct the portions of
the hearing relating to their jurisdictions. Individual
applications are used, and the agencies make permit decisions
independently.
Experience with the Reform
The permit center was established in 1975. The center
receives 400 to GOO calls for information per month. About 30
applicants per year use the formal master preapplication pro-
cess, and a similar number participate in the informal permit
identification meetings. Applicants with large or complex
projects tend to use the formal option, while smaller projects
typically prefer the informal and quick alternative. The
center calls 30 to 50 meetings between applicants and agencies
per year and makes some 200 phone call resolutions per year
under its mediation function. No applicant has chosen the
joint hearing option.
ONE-STOP PERMITTING AND DECISION-
MAKING DEADLINES FOR MAJOR
ENERGY FACILITIES
The Oregon Energy Facility Siting Council (EFSC) conducts
a one-stop permitting process for all major energy facilities
(Ore. Rev. Stat. § 469.010 et seq.). The process includes a
master application, joint hearings, and a single comprehensive
permit decision process. The state regulatory agencies may
impose conditions on the EFSC certificate, but the council
-------
Oregon
176
retains the final decision on issuance of the certificate.
State agencies must issue the relevant permits after the cer-
tificate has been granted.
The one-stop process is mandatory for the following kinds
of facilities: nuclear powerplants; electric generating sta-
tions over 25 megawatts; transmission lines over 239 kilovolts
and 10 miles; solar collectors covering over 100 acres; and
pipelines over 5 miles long and, for oil or geothermal energy,
greater than 6 inches in diameter or, for natural or synthetic
gas, greater than 16 miles in diameter.
Permits/Agencies Affected
All state and local permitting authorities participate in
the joint hearings. The state agencies may impose conditions
on the EFSC certificate, but once the certificate has been
issued all state and local approvals must he granted. The
state permits required for these projects include air, water
(NPDES), solid and hazardous waste, and land-use permits.
Federal agencies have participated in hearings in several
cases, although their permit decisions are distinct from those
of the EFSC. The local governments participate in the joint
hearings, but their permitting authority can be overridden by
the EFSC.
Administrative Process
In most cases, a utility must issue a notice of intent to
file an application one year prior to the actual filing. This
notice is circulated to the regulatory agencies, which deter-
mine what permits are needed and what standards must be met.
This one-vear period is also used to issue public notice of
the hearing and to allow interested parties to obtain inter-
vener status. The single application is filed with the coun-
cil. The joint evidentiary hearing is held before an admini-
strative law judge appointed by the council. The judge's
findings and the participants' comments on those findings
serve as the basis for the council's decision. The council
has broad fact-finding powers and may undertake studies
through its staff, the Oregon Department of Energy.
If the EFSC approves the certificate, it is required to
include conditions recommended by appropriate state regulatory
agencies. The EFSC is bound by legislatively prescribed
-------
177 Oregon
decision-making deadlines ranging from nine months to two
years, depending on the nature of the project. Following an
EFSC decision to grant a certificate, all state and local
authorities must issue their permits with the same conditions
recommended to the council. Although the statute establishes
this decision-making hierarchy, the relationship between the
EFSC and the state and local regulators has been cooperative
thus far. The EFSC has not approved projects objected to by
other regulators.
Experience with the Reform
The EFSC and the one-stop process were created by legis-
lation in 1971. There have been five applications in the past
ten years. A coal-fired powerplant, a cogenerator, and an
underground gas storage facility were granted certificates.
There has been no decision on a nuclear plant, and an applica-
tion for a major transmission line was just received.
GENERAL PERMIT FOR WATER PERMITS
The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality is devel-
oping an array of general permits for a variety of project
categories requiring water discharge permits. The DEQ general
permit establishes standards of operation, such as certain
suction dredges, for a type of discharger. The individual
operator need only check compliance with those standards and
notify the DEQ to gain operating authorization. Monitoring is
also accomplished by self-policing. The DEQ intervenes only
in response to complaints. General permits have been adopted
by the DEQ for seven specific activities ranging from boiler
blowdown to fish hatchery pond discharge. The general permits
were established by changes in regulations and required no
statutory amendments.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The DEQ issues NPDES permits for direct dischargers and
state wastewater discharge permits for indirect dischargers.
The general permits cover both types of water discharge per-
mits. The EPA may comment on proposed general permits within
the NPDES program.
-------
Oregon 178
Administrative Process
The DEQ initiates the general permit process by proposing
standards for a particular discharging activity. These
standards are open for public review through the customary
public notice, public comment, and public hearing process.
Following the agency decision, the NPDES portions are submit-
ted to the EPA for comment.
After the general permit has been adopted, the individual
discharger does not need to file an application or undergo
agency review in order to receive state authorization. In-
stead, the operator simply notifies the DEQ that the facility
complies with the standards, at which time the DEQ informs the
operator of the monitoring requirements.
Experience with the Reform
The first four general permits were adopted in February
1981. Three more were established in August 1981. The
general permits are expected to cut by 20 to 30 percent the
number of permit application reviews handled by Oregon's
wastewater discharge regulators.
STATE CONTACTS
Paul Haugland
Manager of State Regulation Services
Executive Department
Executive Building
Salem, Oregon 97310
(503) 373-1999
Don Godard, Administrator
Siting and Regulation
Oregon Department of Energy
111 Labor and Industries Building
Salem, Oregon 97310
(503) 373-1999
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
OVERVIEW
Pennsylvania has initiated a permit coordination system
through seven regional environmental protection offices. In
addition, a Governor's Energy Council, which has principal
authority for the development of energy policies and programs,
was established in 1973. This council has no jurisdiction,
however, over energy facility siting.
PERM IT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
Pennsylvania's permit coordination system differs from
those of many other states in its emphasis on regional direc-
tors. Applicants may elect to work either through the region-
al directors or directly with each permitting bureau in the
regional offices. Regardless of what an applicant chooses,
many of the administrative procedures described under permit
coordination are routine to every application. All industrial
or energy project applicants may use the regional directors as
permit coordinators.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
(DER) issues all environmental permits required for industrial
or energy projects. Separate bureaus exist within the DER for
such areas as water quality, air quality, resource management,
and surface mine reclamation. In addition, there are seven
regional DER offices. The directors of each regional office
take the lead for coordinating all environmental permit proc-
essing for applicants in their own areas. Except for dele-
gated NPDES and RCRA permits, neither federal nor local per-
mits are included in this coordination.
-------
Pennsylvania 180
Administrative Process
After the project applicant approaches the DER regional
office, the regional director circulates a brief written proj-
ect description throughout the department. Regional program
staff then advise the project sponsor through the regional
director of the necessary permits. A User Guide to DER
Permits is available upon request. The applicant must com-
plete separate applications for each permit, although these
can be channeled through the regional director. The regional
director will generally not issue any permits to the applicant
until all permits have been processed.
The DER attempts to minimize the number of public hear-
ings and will hold them only for controversial projects.
There are no statutory deadlines for application review.
Although the state has a target time frame of 60 days, the DER
finds that federal regulations, especially public participa-
tion requirements, make this goal difficult to attain.
Experience with the Reform
The regional permit coordination system has existed for
about two years. It is extensively used; however, specific
numbers were not provided.
STATE CONTACT
Richard Boardman
Associate Deputy Secretary for
Environmental Protection
Department of Environmental Resources
P. 0. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-4686
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
OVERVIEW
Rhode Island has not initiated major procedural reforms
in the area of environmental permitting, but the state does
formally coordinate the permitting process through a permit
coordinator and a permit guidebook.
In 1974, the Rhode Island General Assembly granted itself
the power of final approval or denial over the location and
construction of oil refineries and nuclear powerplants
(General Laws, § 42-64-14.1). This authority overrides any
state or local authority that might have declared a facility
acceptable or unacceptable. Since neither type of facility
has been proposed since 1974, the law remains untested.
In addition, in 1979 the governor established an Energy
Facility Siting Board with a mandate to expedite existing
permitting procedures for energy-facility siting. Although
the board is administratively responsible for setting project
decision schedules, it has no enforcement powers. No energy
facilities have been proposed since the board's inception, and
therefore its effectiveness is untested.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
The permit coordinator is located in the Department of
Environmental Management (DEM), Division of Planning and
Development. The coordinator handles requests for environ-
mental permit information and sets up preapplication confer-
ences for applicants with energy and industrial projects. Any
applicants requiring multiple permits may take advantage of
this program.
-------
Rhode Island
Permits/Agencies Affected
The coordinator is involved in all state environmental
permits issued by the DEM for energy and industrial projects
as well as in the permit issued by the Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Management Council (CRMC). In addition to approving
any development within 200 feet of the shoreline, the CRMC
must approve the construction of any large power generating
facilities and certain types of industrial facilities (i.e.,
those that may affect the groundwater) throughout the state.
Administrative Process
The permit coordinator arranges a preapplication confer-
ence between the applicant and the agency's staff. At the
conference, the permit requirements are reviewed and the
applicant is given a permit guidebook describing both state
and federal requirements. Subsequently, the project sponsor
submits to the coordinator a strategy for completing its per-
mit applications. The coordinator acts as liaison between the
applicant and the permitting divisions and helps monitor the
permit process. He has no authority either to make permit
decisions or to set deadlines for them.
Experience with the Reform
The DEM has performed permit coordination services on an
informal basis for many years. The permit coordinator posi-
tion has been formalized for about one year. The permit coor-
dinator reports that he sets up from two to four preapplica-
tion conferences per month.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
During its past four sessions, the legislature has con-
sidered, but failed to pass, an Energy Facilities Siting Bill.
This bill proposes the establishment of a separate siting
agency that would pre-empt all other authorities for the
siting, licensing, and permitting of major energy facilities
(not just oil refineries and nuclear powerplants).
In addition, the Region I EPA and the DEM are currently
exploring ways to streamline the permitting of energy facili-
ties. In the 1981 State-EPA agreement, the DEM agreed to
review its state permits in terms of their applicability to 14
-------
183
Rhode Island
different types of energy facilities. The DEM will prepare a
description of each permit it requires, review the range of
permit processing times for the different types of facilities,
and determine whether permit reviews are now handled concur-
rently or sequentially. The Region I EPA will produce a
similar analysis for 26 federal permits. Upon completion of
these analyses, regional and state staff will integrate the
information and decide what streamlining should be imple-
mented.
STATE CONTACTS
Victor Bell
Permit Coordinator
Division of Planning and Development
Department of Environmental Management
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
(401) 277-2777
Mary Kilmarx
Public Utility Commission
100 Orange Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02903
(401) 277-3500
-------
OVERVIEW
There is no consolidation of environmental permits in
South Carolina, with the exception of a. joint application for
Section 404 Clean Water Act permits developed by the State
Coastal Council and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Certain
provisions of the State Coastal Act serve in some degree to
streamline siting in the "critical areas" of the coastal zone,
but these provisions do not reduce the number of required
permits, nor do they amount to one-stop siting. Moreover,
they are largely based on directives from the federal Coastal
Zone Management Act.
In South Carolina the Department of Health and Environ-
mental Control (DHEC) issues NPDES permits, construction per-
mits for air emissions, wastewater system permits, and sani-
tary landfill permits. The DHEC also administers Phase I of
RCRA. Additional permits are issued separately by other state
agencies. For example, the Land Resources Conservation
Commission issues permits for mining operations, and the Water
Resource Commission issues permits for oil and gas facilities
and for projects affecting ground water capacity.
In addition, the Utility Facility Siting and Environ-
mental Protection Act governs the siting of electric generat-
ing plants. This act provides for joint investigations,
hearings, and compacts between state and federal agencies.
The language authorizing such joint efforts is broad. Accord-
ing to Public Service Commission staff, this provision has not
been used because there have been no powerplants sited in the
past several years in South Carolina.
DHEC personnel have investigated various permit reform
measures. According to DHEC staff, these measures have all
-------
South Carolina
been rejected because they either were too costly or added
another layer of bureaucracy.
STATE CONTACTS
Richard P. Wilson
Legal Office
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
(803) 758-5409
Duncan Newkirk (coastal permits)
South Carolina Coastal Council
Summerall Center, Suite 802
19 Hagood Avenue
Charleston, South Carolina 29403
(803) 792-5808
-------
OVERVIEW
In July 1981, South Dakota consolidated all of Its envi-
ronmental permitting authorities into the Department of Water
and Natural Resources (DWNR). In addition, most permits
required for energy development and mining, including all air
quality, solid waste, and mining permit programs, have been
placed under the jurisdiction of the Board of Minerals and
Environment within the DWNR. Water rights permits and permits
for underground injection not related to oil and gas produc-
tion are issued by the Water Management Board within the DWNR.
If a project requires multiple permits from the Board of Min-
erals and Environment, any hearings that are necessary for
these permits are held jointly before the board. However, the
application and decision for each permit are still handled on
an individual basis.
STATE CONTACT
Robert Neufeld, Secretary
South Dakota Department of
Water and Natural Resources
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
(605) 773-3151
Patricia DeHueck
Executive Secretary
South Dakota Public Utility Commission
South Capitol Building
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
(605) 773-3201
-------
Joint Review
Decision-Making Deadlines
OVERVIEW
Tennessee enacted legislation in April 1981 to coordinate
and streamline the permitting process for major energy proj-
ects. This legislation is modeled after Colorado's joint
review process.
In addition, for all environmental programs (air, water,
solid waste, and hazardous waste), Tennessee conducts informal
efforts to accelerate the processing of permit applications
for both energy and industrial projects. Since most of the
environmental permitting departments are housed in the
Tennessee Department of Public Health, Environmental Manage-
ment and Quality Assurance Administration, there is a great
deal of internal coordination. For example, department staff
help project sponsors effectively time their multiple appli-
cations. Also, the state Department of Economic and Community
Development will arrange preapplication meetings between
Tennessee staff and the applicant to review relevant permits.
JOINT REVIEW AND DECISION-MAKING
DEADLINES FOR MAJOR ENERGY PROJECTS
The Major Energy Project Act (Senate Bill 918) prescribes
procedures for joint review of permits for major energy proj-
ects. The key elements of this legislation are the establish-
ment of a joint review team, procedural and review deadlines,
and extensive public participation.
In order to be eligible for joint review under the Major
Energy Project Act, an applicant must apply to the State De-
partment of Economic and Community Development for designation
-------
Tennessee 190
as a priority energy project. The governor has final designa-
tion authority. Eligibility depends on whether the project
has a capital cost of one hundred million dollars or more and
whether it is likely to reduce the state's dependence on im-
ported energy. Participation in the process is voluntary for
the applicant.
Permits/Agencies Affected
All state, local, and federal permits that are needed in
order to build a major energy project may be affected by this
legislation. Examples of these include the federally dele-
gated PSD, NPDES, and RCRA permits issued by the Department of
Public Health; the Army Corps of Engineers' 404 water permits;
the Tennessee Valley Authority's 26A water permits; and local
zoning, noise, and construction permits.
State and local agencies are required to join the proc-
ess. However, there is no override of a local agency's inde-
pendent authority to ultimately approve or disapprove the
project. Federal agencies whose approval is needed for the
project are invited to join the process. If they do so, they
must make every effort to cooperate with the process schedule.
Administrative Process
The legislation is intended to be flexible. An applicant
may request joint review for part or all of the regulatory
process.
Once the governor designates a proposed project a major
energy project, he or she issues an executive order approving
the project for joint review and providing for a joint review
staff to assist in the process. A joint review team is formed
with state agencies designated by the governor, local agencies
contacted by the joint review staff, and federal agencies who
choose to participate. The applicant participates as an ex
officio member. The joint review team selects a member to be
team leader. The team develops a project decision schedule
which is monitored by the team leader. The team leader also
acts to resolve delays and disputes.
The legislation requires a preapplication meeting between
the applicant and the permitting agencies in order to clarify
what each expects from the other. The applicant is also re-
quired to meet, prior to application, with interested members
of the public to address their concerns.
-------
191 Tennessee
The Major Energy Project Act specifies a number of dead-
lines to accelerate the review process. The following are
examples of these deadlines:
• Approval or disapproval of a request for desig-
nation as a priority energy project must occur
within one month of the initial request.
• The first meeting of the joint review team must
take place no later than six weeks after this
approval.
• Petitions for judicial review of any action
under this legislation must be brought no later
than 20 days following notice of such action.
• The complete project decision schedule cannot
last more than two years.
Within this time frame, the joint review team has the
authority to specify and modify a project decision schedule.
If an agency fails to comply with the project decision sched-
ule, the team leader may bring an enforcement action in chan-
cery court. The joint review team may also request consoli-
dation of all or several agencies' applications and proceed-
ings. The joint review team has the authority to waive any
state or local statute, regulation, or requirement if neces-
sary to ensure timely and cost-effective completion of a
facility without the endangerment of public health or safety.
After all agency approvals have been granted or deemed
unnecessary, and if judicial review of these approvals is
required and completed, the joint review team issues a final
certificate of approval. This certificate indicates any con-
ditions and the expiration date of all approvals granted to
the project.
Experience with the Reform
Because the Major Energy Project Act only took effect on
July 1, 1981, no applicants have filed for the joint review
process. The Department of Economic and Community Development
is currently exploring alternative mechanisms for implementing
the Act.
-------
Tennessee 182
STATE CONTACTS
Ted Von Cannon
Department of Economic and Community Development
Suite 1007
Andrew Jackson Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
(615) 741-1888
Lee Munz
Executive Director
Tennessee Energy Authority
226 Capitol Boulevard Building
Suite 707
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
(615) 741-2994
Wayne Scharber
Director
Bureau of Environmental Health Administration
349 Cordell Hull Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
(615) 741-3657
-------
Computer Tracking
OVERVIEW
Although Texas does not have a formal consolidated permit
program, it has instituted and continues to explore methods
for streamlining the permitting processes.
The Texas Department of Water Resources has a Memorandum
of Agreement with Region VI of the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. This agreement closely links the procedures for
issuing state water discharge permits and federal NPDES per-
mits. In particular, once the state has held hearings and
issued a state water discharge permit, the EPA will usually
issue its permit without requiring a second public hearing.
In the last six years, there have been only a half dozen cases
where both agencies held public hearings.
The Department of Water Resources and the Division of
Surface Mining and Reclamation have signed a Memorandum of
Agreement which effectively precludes the need for a water
discharge permit for applicants who obtain a surface coal or
uranium mining permit. Applicants will be required to comply
with a discharge standard established by the Department of
Water Resources.
COMPUTER TRACKING OF
UIC PERMITS
The Division for Underground Injection Control is cur-
rentlv developing a computer svstem for tracking permit appli-
cations and monitoring activities. This system will be oper-
able in 1982 and will help track the 150 to 200 applications
received each month.
-------
Texas 124
During 1979 to 1980, the Texas Legislature's Committee on
Environmental Affairs investigated the potential for consoli-
dating state air quality and water discharge permits. This
option was rejected as both unfeasible and insufficiently
beneficial.
STATE CONTACTS
Bob Fleming, Executive Assistant
Department of Water Resources
P. 0. Drawer 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 475-3187
Jerry Hill, Director
Surface Mining and Reclamation Division
Railroad Commission of Texas
P. 0. Drawer 12967
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 475-8751
Jerry Mullican, Director
Underground Injection Control Division
Railroad Commission of Texas
P. 0. Drawer 12967
Austin, Texas 78711
(512) 445-1100
Doyle R. Pendleton, Assistant to Deputy Director
Control and Prevention Program
Texas Air Control Board
6330 Highway 290 East
Austin, Texas 78723
(512) 451-5711 Ext. 204
-------
Joint Review
Permit/Application Coordinator
OVERVIEW
Utah is in the early stages of implementing the Utah
Coordinated Review Process, which is modeled in part after the
Colorado Joint Review Process. According to the legislative
plan, the Resource Development Coordinating Committee (RDCC),
an existing body composed of representatives from 20 state
agencies, will assume a significant role in the process.
However, spokespeople from the governor's office cautioned
that all these plans are tentative, and untried. In addition,
the RDCC will act as an informal permit coordination function
for applicants not using the joint review.
Before the passage of the coordinated review legislation,
the governor from time to time formed special task forces made
up of representatives from government, industry, public inter-
est groups, and the general public to evaluate sites for
energy projects. In addition, the Department of Environmental
Health and the Department of Oil, Gas and Mining, the two
agencies that issue most of the state's environmental permits,
have extensively utilized preapplication conferences with
project sponsors.
JOINT REVIEW FOR ENERGY AND
MINERAL DEVELOPMENTS
Under the Resource Development Coordinating Committee Act
passed in 1981, the Resource Development Coordinating Com-
mittee in the State Planning Office will oversee the coor-
dinated review process. This committee consists of 20 repre-
sentatives from state agencies and three ex officio repre-
sentatives from the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bureau
-------
Utah 19C
of Land Management and National Park Service and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Until now the committee's function
has been to conduct OMB A-95 and other economic and policy
reviews.
Under the coordinated review process the committee will
assist applicants in identifying the environmental permits
necessary for their projects and in consolidating hearings and
application forms whenever feasible. In order to receive
approval for coordinated review, the project must (1) be a
major energy or mineral resources development, (2) be in the
early planning phase, and (3) have sufficient environmental
impact to justify the commitment of government staff and
funds. The coordinated review process will not change the
substantive permit requirements for each agency. Instead it
will facilitate early information exchange and establish an
orderly schedule for the issuance of permits. Finally, the
coordinated review process will be voluntary: both project
sponsors and government personnel can choose whether or not to
participate on the review team.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The joint review process can encompass preparation of
federal, state, and local environmental and land-use permits
as well as tribal permits. It can also incorporate state and
federal environmental impact statement preparation.
Administrative Process
Procedures for designating a project for coordinated
review have not yet been developed.
After initial designation of a coordinated review proj-
ect, the governor will assemble a team that will generally
include representatives of the state Natural Resources and
Energy Department and the Department of Health, Division of
Environmental Health. The governor, with assistance from the
Resource Development Coordinating Committee, will consult with
state, federal, and local agencies to select a review team
composed of the agencies with the greatest regulatory respon-
sibilities. The team will typically include representatives
from local resident and citizen groups.
-------
127 Utah
The review team will develop a statement of specific
responsibilities for the applicant and agencies, along with a
decision schedule. The team will also schedule public meet-
ings and hearings consistent with statutory requirements.
Experience with the Reform
Because the legislation is so new, the first project to
be subject to coordinated review has only recently been desig-
nated. It is the TOSCO Sand Wash Oil Shale project in Uintah
County, Utah. The company volunteered to be the first appli-
cant to go through the process. The team for the Sand Wash
project includes one local representative, two state agency
representatives who are also the chairman and co-chairman of
the Resource Development Coordinating Committee, a federal
official from the Bureau of Land Management, and one Indian
tribe representative.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
In addition to its role in the coordinated review pro-
cess, the RDCC may act as an informal coordinator for all
types of projects. Applicants will be encouraged to appear
before the RDCC in a preapplication meeting. At these meet-
ings, the RDCC will help applicants learn about permit re-
quirements and identify individual contacts in each agency.
This function is still in the development stages.
STATE CONTACTS
Carolyn Jones, A-95 Coordinator
State Planning Office
116 State Capitol
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
(801) 533-4971
Juline Christofferson, Physical Resources Coordinator
Governor's Office
State Capitol
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
(801) 533-6450
-------
Utah 198
Kathleen McGinley
Director Intergovernmental Relations
State Planning Office
116 State Capitol
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
(801) 533-6315
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
OVERVIEW
Vermont issues a land-use permit for commercial or indus-
trial projects (an "Act 250" permit) and an environmental
impact and planning certificate for electrical generation or
transmission projects (a Certificate of Public Good). Al-
though these two permits do not replace the need for other
permits, they do promote coordination and consistency in the
permitting process.
In addition, Vermont conducts informal efforts to expe-
dite the permitting process for industrial and energy project
applicants. The Agency for Environmental Conservation (AEC)
issues most of the state's environmental permits and maintains
informal internal communications on projects that require more
than one permit. Moreover, AEC staff encourage industrial and
energy applicants to participate in preapplication meetings
and to request written project reviews which summarize rele-
vant permit requirements.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
Vermont's Land Use and Development Act (1970; 10 VSA,
Ch. 151) created a mechanism whereby certain types of develop-
ments must obtain a land-use or "Act 250" permit prior to
commencing construction. Electric generation or transmission
facilities are exempt from Act 250 review, but must receive a
Certificate of Public Good instead.
-------
Vermont 200
Permits/Agencies Affected
Both the Act 250 permit and the Certificate of Public
Good are required in addition to normally mandated local,
state, and federal permits. These other permits can be used
as evidence of compliance with relevant criteria of Act 250.
Nine district environmental commissions located in five
regional offices throughout the state receive and rule on
applications for Act 250 permits. Each district commission is
made up of three commissioners appointed by the governor and
is staffed by an environmental protection coordinator. The
Vermont Public Service Board issues the Certificate of Public
Good.
Administrative Process
Although the Act 250 and certification procedures are not
examples of one-stop permitting, they can serve to coordinate
some permitting programs. Any directly affected state agency,
municipality, planning commission, or adjoining property owner
may act as a party at an Act 250 hearing. In reviewing a
project application, the district commission looks for evi-
dence that the project will not negatively affect any aspect
of the environment, including water, air, soil, traffic, and
aesthetics. Upon request, a district commission will hold
joint hearings with other decision makers to reduce duplica-
tive hearings and facilitate coordination. In addition, a
commission may issue consolidated land-use permits which inte-
grate such requirements as Department of Health, subdivision,
and public building regulations.
The Public Service Board also consults with other agen-
cies during its certification review. In considering an ap-
plication, the PSB looks at the possible adverse effect on all
aspects of the environment.
Experience with the Reform
Both programs have been extensively used. Nearly 4,000
Act 250 permits have been issued since the permit's inception
in 1970. No specific numbers in the use of the Certificate of
Public Good were provided.
-------
201 Vermont
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
The Public Service Board recently adopted General Order
65, which effectively exempts small power producers (10 kilo-
watts or less) who sell electricity only at the wholesale
level from various regulatory requirements. The objective of
this order is to encourage the development of alternative
forms of energy.
STATE CONTACTS
Jan Eastman
Executive Officer for the
Environmental Board
State Office Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
(802) 828-3309
Richard Saudek
Department of Public Service
State Office Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
(802) 828-2321
Gary Schultz, Permits Section
Richard Valentienetti, Air and Solid
Waste Section
Agency of Environmental Conservation
State Office Building
Montpelier, Vermont 05602
(802) 828-3345 (Schultz)
(802) 828-3395 (Valentienetti)
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
Joint Application
OVERVIEW
Virginia established a Council on the Environment in 1970
for the purpose of implementing the state's environmental
policy and coordinating environmental quality matters. The
council has statutory authority to coordinate and consolidate
multiple permit processes, although most of its coordinating
work is informal.
The Virginia Marine Resources Commission has initiated
several measures, including joint application forms and joint
processing meetings, to promote intergovernmental coordination
of the permitting process for marine resource areas.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
The administrator of Virginia's Council on the Environ-
ment may provide a variety of coordinating services for an
applicant who needs multiple state permits. Although the
administrator has statutory authority (Va. Code § 10-184.2) to
formally perform these services, he has tended to work on an
informal basis. Any applicant requiring more than one state
permit may request this service.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The council administrator will provide information on all
relevant state, local, and federal permit requirements to
project applicants. The council administrator may also in-
formally work with the state commissions or boards that issue
environmental permits, such as the Air Pollution Control
-------
Virginia 204
Board, the Water Control Board, and the Marine Resources Com-
mission. The administrator also works with relevant federal
agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers.
The Council on the Environment is composed of the chair-
people or commissioners of eight state agencies primarily
responsible for environmental protection, two gubernatorial
appointees, a chairman, and an administrator.
Administrative Process
Applicants generally learn about the permit coordination
services through referral from the governor's office or other
state agencies. Depending on the applicant's preferences, the
council administrator's assistance may range from simply noti-
fying the applicant of relevant permit requirements to actu-
ally working with the applicant and various permitting agen-
cies to modify the project, if necessary, so that it will be
environmentally acceptable. In the case of extensive coor-
dination, the administrator might serve as the channel for all
permit applications and communications with the permitting
agencies. At a minimum, A Guide for Permit Applicants is
provided to the applicant. The degree of council involvement
is entirely voluntary on the part of the applicant.
Experience with the Reform
As a result of an adverse opinion on the permit coordina-
tion statute released by the State Office of the Attorney
General, the council has been advising permit applicants not
to request formal permit coordination. The most popular of
the informal services offered by the council are preapplica-
tion meetings between developers and agency staff.
The council administrator reports that he provides in-
formational services to about ten or twelve applicants per
month, and more involved assistance to eight or ten per year.
JOINT APPLICATION AND PERMIT/APPLICATION
COORDINATOR FOR MARINE RESOURCES PERMITS
The Virginia Marine Resources Commission has formally
introduced state/federal joint permit procedures for projects
in, on, and over state-owned submerged land and vegetated
-------
205 Virginia
tidal wetlands. These include consolidation of four state and
federal permit applications into one joint application, prom-
ulgation of a joint federal/state public notice, and monthly
coordinated permit processing meetings between federal and
state agencies.
Permits/Agencies Affected
Applications for the following permits are consolidated
into one application form: the Virginia Marine Resources
Commission's permit to encroach in, on, or over state-owned
submerged land, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' permit under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps' permit under
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and the local wet-
lands permit. In addition, the State Water Control Board uses
the information from the application in processing its certi-
fication required by the Clean Water Act, Section 401.
In addition to the district office representatives of the
Army Corps of Engineers and the State Marine Resources Commis-
sion, other federal agencies and state commissions participate
in the monthly joint meetings. These participants include
representatives from the Region- III EPA, the regional Fish and
Wildlife Service (U.S. Department of the Interior), the
National Marine Fisheries Service (U.S. Department of
Commerce), the State Health Department, the State Water
Control Board (which issues Section 401 certification),, and
the Virginia Institute of Marine Science.
Administrative Process
The Marine Resources Commission assigns a single proces-
sor to follow each project application through all its proce-
dural steps. The processor prepares the necessary copies of
the application for the federal, state, and local agencies,
makes the initial site visit, presents the project formally to
the Marine Resources Commission, and performs any necessary
follow-up activities.
The Marine Resources Commission and the Army Corps of
Engineers issue joint public notice for project applications,
but they do not hold joint public hearings. State and federal
agencies, however, are exploring the possibility. The local
wetlands board must hold a public hearing prior to any state
or federal hearing and process the application within pre-
scribed time frames.
-------
Virginia 206
The commission tries to rule on state permits within 45
to 60 days. It holds public hearings monthly and considers
all projects against which a formal protest has been lodged.
In the federal permitting process, complex projects generally
take longer to resolve.
Joint monthly processing meetings are held to help coor-
dinate the applicant through the federal permitting process.
At these meetings state and federal representatives discuss
and resolve problems on individual applications with the
assistance of ground and aerial photographs of project sites.
Experience with the Reform
The Marine Resources Commission processes about 800 to
1,000 applications per year, all of which go through the coor-
dinative process. The program has been effective in reducing
conflict among agencies, improving enforcement, and reducing
permit processing time. The commission continues to be a
strong advocate for delegation by the Army Corps of Engineers
of its Section 404 dredge and fill permit authority in order
to provide a true one-step process.
STATE CONTACTS
Keith Buttleman
Assistant Administrator
Virginia Council on the Environment
903 Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 786-4500
Norman E. Larsen
Assistant Commissioner for Environmental Affairs
Virginia Marine Resources Commission
P. 0. Box 756
Newport News, Virginia 23607
(804) 245-2811
-------
One-Stop Permitting
Decision-Making Deadlines
Permit/Application Coordinator
Joint Hearing
OVERVIEW
Washington State has aggressively pursued new ways of
streamlining permit procedures. In 1970 Washington became the
first state to pass energy facility siting legislation. In
1973 Washington established procedures to coordinate environ-
mental permitting for projects not included under the siting
legislation. More recently, state environmental staff have
developed administrative procedures to coordinate with federal
officials in applications for "low-head" hydroelectric
projects.
ONE-STOP PERMITTING AND
DECISION-MAKING DEADLINES
FOR MAJOR ENERGY PROJECTS
Washington's Siting Legislation (1970; Ch. 80.50 RCW)
established the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council
(EFSEC) and a true one-stop permitting process. The following
energy plants and transmission facilities are required to use
this process: oil and gas pipelines of 15 miles or more;
stationary energy plants with capacity of 250,000 kilowatts or
more; floating powerplants with capacity of 50,000 kilowatts
or more; receiving facilities for liquified gas or petroleum;
underground reservoirs for natural gas with capacity of 100
million cubic feet; petroleum processing facilities processing
25,000 barrels per day; and associated facilities.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The siting council issues an Energy Site Facility Certi-
fication Agreement which is in lieu of all state and local
permits that would otherwise be required. Preparation of
-------
Washington 208
state and federal environmental impact statements is inte-
grated into the review process, but these documents must be
prepared separately from the certificate agreement. Occasion-
ally, the state and federal governments will publish one EIS
jointly.
The members of the EFSEC consist of a chairperson ap-
pointed by the governor, the directors of 14 state agencies,
and representatives from each local government unit that may
be affected by the project.
Administrative Process
The project sponsor must submit a detailed application to
the siting council describing the proposed project and site;
analysis of alternatives; compliance with local, state, and
federal standards; socio-economic and environmental impacts;
schedules for environmental studies; etc. Although there is
no check-off list for individual permit requirements, most
agencies that issued permits for siting approval prior to the
EFSEC legislation are members on the council. Certification
by the EFSEC replaces all state and local permit requirements.
The council may hire independent consultants to review the
application and, if required, write the EIS.
Within 60 days of receiving the application, a public
hearing is held in the affected county for the purpose of
determining consistency with local land-use ordinances. After
the draft EIS is completed, quasi-judicial public hearings are
held. There is ample opportunity for public comment through-
out the process.
Within 12 months after receipt of the application (or
longer if the EFSEC and the applicant mutually agree to extend
the deadline), the council makes its recommendation to the
governor on whether to approve or deny the project and under
what conditions. The governor must approve, reject, or direct
reconsideration of the project within 60 days of receiving the
recommendation. The governor has ultimate approval but may
not override a negative recommendation by the council.
The EFSEC is required by its enabling statute to coordi-
nate activities as much as possible with federal regulatory
agencies. In order to further this goal the council has often
adopted federal environmental impact statements for state
purposes, conducted joint hearings with federal agencies, and
arranged for cooperative environmental impact studies with the
Department of the Interior.
-------
i09 Washington
Experience with the Reform
To date, the council has issued four certificates for
seven nuclear powerplants (three twin projects). In addition,
the council is currently considering three applications (two
oil port/crude oil transshipment systems and one coal-fired
powerplant).
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR,
JOINT HEARING, AND DECISION-
MAKING DEADLINES
The Environmental Coordination Procedures Act (1973;
Ch. 90.62 RCW) set up permit information centers throughout
the state as well as a procedural coordinating mechanism for
securing permits. Any applicant for a new or an expanding
activity requiring two or more permits may elect to use the
process.
Permits/Agencies Affected
Both state and local agencies are required to participate
in the coordinating process. Examples of agencies and permits
that may be affected include the Department of Natural Re-
sources' surface mine and drilling permit, the Department of
Ecology's water quality permits, regional air pollution con-
trol permits, and local governments' shoreline management
permit. The Department of Ecology, which issues about 80
percent of all state environmental permits, administers the
program.
Administrative Process
An applicant may pick up a master application form at any
one of the 39 county planning departments or four regional
Washington Department of Ecology's offices, or at the Depart-
ment of Ecology's Master Application Center. The applicant
submits the six-page form as well as an environmental check-
list (to determine if a state EIS is needed) to the Master
Application Center. The Department of Ecology circulates
copies of the application among the state agencies, each of
which must comment within 15 days on whether a permit is re-
quired and, if so, whether a public hearing is needed. After
receiving a response coordinated by the Department of Ecology,
-------
Washington 210
the applicant may elect either to withdraw from the process
and approach agencies separately or to continue working
through the department.
If an applicant elects to use the process, he or she will
submit all forms and receive all information through the De-
partment of Ecology. The applicant must still complete separ-
ate application forms for each required permit, dnd each agen-
cy will reach its own decision. However, the Department of
Ecology will arrange for a joint public hearing .(if a hearing
is needed), which all permitting agencies must attend. The
department and the other agencies will establish a deadline
for making their decisions.
In addition, applicants may use the regional permit in-
formation centers to obtain preliminary information about how
many and which state permits may be required for their proj-
ect .
Experience with the Reform
Department of Ecology staff commented that the environ-
mental coordination procedures have produced tangible time and
cost savings for both industry and government. The element
most used by project sponsors is the initial stage, in which
agencies must identify which permits will be required based on
information contained in the master application. Through June
1981, 307 applications were submitted and 53 went through the
entire process. Recent interest in small-scale hydroelectric
projects, whose sponsors tend to be unfamiliar with the intri-
cacies of government, has greatly intensified the level of
use.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
FOR HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS
Because of the tremendous increase in small-scale hydro-
power applications resulting from the Public Utility Regula-
tory Policies Act, the Department of Ecology's Environmental
Review Section has instituted a number of procedures aimed ..it
expediting the permitting process. At present 20 new applica-
tions are submitted each month.
The Department of Ecology and the Federal Energy Regula-
tory Commission (FERC) have agreed that the environmental
analysis required under the state environmental policy act may
-------
211 Washington
be used to complete the environmental sections of the FERC
application. In some cases the state and federal agencies
will prepare a joint EIS.
The Department of Ecology has written a handbook for
hydropower applicants explaining step by step the process for
complying with state and federal requirements. In addition,
the department has conducted informational workshops around
the state.
The Department of Ecology is in the process of computer-
izing a tracking system for all hydropower projects. The
department keeps a master list of all hydro projects. It also
conducts special meetings with other agencies, such as the
Department of Fish and Game, in order to work out application
problems.
STATE CONTACTS
Nick Lewis, Chairman
Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council
Mail Stop PY11
Olympia, Washington 98504
(206) 459-6495
Greg Sorlie
Environmental Review Section
Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PY11
Olympia, Washington 98504
(206) 459-6016
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
OVERVIEW
In *Vest Virginia, the Governor's Office of Economic and
Community Development helps expedite the permitting process'
for industrial and energv projects by acting as an informal
permit coordinator.
PERMIT/APPLICATION COORDINATOR
Upon request, and on a case-by-case basis, the Economic
and Community Development Office assists developers as they
seek multiple permit approval. Projects for which the office
provides permit coordination include energy-related facilities
(such as coal mines, oil and gas wells, coke plants, and syn-
thetic fuel plants) and industrial facilities (primarily manu-
facturing ).
Permits/Agencies Affected
The coordination service performed by the Economic and
Community Development Office covers all state environmental
permits needed for a facility but does not cover federal or
local permits. Although the office coordinates these permits,
applicants must still apply to each department for individual
permits. For example, the Department of Health issues permits
relating to nonhazardous waste disposal and drinking water;
the Department of Natural Resources has authority over water
quality, surface mining and reclamation, and hazardous waste;
and the Air Pollution Control Commission is concerned with air
pollution discharge.
-------
West Virginia 214
Administrative Process
The Economic and Community Development Office assists
industrial and energy applicants by doing the following:
• Actively encouraging and arranging for pre-
application conferences with the relevant state
permitting agencies
• Tracking permit applications for individual
projects
• Intervening where appropriate to resolve con-
flicts between a developer and a permitting
agency.
Experience with the Reform
The Economic and Community Development Office has as-
sisted industrial project applicants for many vears and energy
project applicants for one year. In this past year, the of-
fice has helped approximately six developers of energy proj-
ects with their permit applications. Energy and industrial
projects currently under development in the state are being
monitored in order to track permit applications.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Permit catalogs covering coal mining and general indus-
trial facilities are currently being prepared by the Economic
and Community Development Office.
STATE CONTACT
Mark A. Scott
Energy Development Division
Governor's Office of Economic
and Community Development
Building 6, Room B-531
State Capitol
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
(304) 348-0400
-------
Permit/Application Coordinator
Joint Hearing
Decision-Making Deadlines
General Permit
Computer Tracking
OVERVIEW
Wisconsin's innovations in permitting result from the
Power Plant Siting Act of 1975, the Metallic Mining Reclama-
tion Law of 1978, and administrative policies of the state's
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The reforms include
joint and master hearings, issuance of general permits, and a
computer tracking system for permits.
Rather than review and issue all permits from DNR head-
quarters, the DNR is developing a program that will delegate
noncomplex NPDES permits and most solid waste permits to six
field offices by mid-1983. The director of the Environmental
Standards Division of the DNR reports that decentralization
should result in greater responsiveness to the discharger and
the public when dealing with localized problems. The DNR
hopes to decentralize other environmental permits, but it
recognizes that decentralization may not be desirable for
permits that involve complex environmental factors, such as
permits for water discharges. DNR staff have proposed the
appointment of a permit expediter who would supervise decen-
tralized permits, reviewing their regional and state impacts.
PERMIT APPLICATION COORDINATOR,
JOINT HEARING, AND DECISION-
MAKING DEADLINES FOR POWER
FACILITIES AND RAILROAD LINES
Under the Power Plant Siting Act of 1975 (196.491(3)
Wise. Stats, and P.S.C. 111.42 and 2.90-2.95, Wise. Adm.
Code), the DNR and the Public Service Commission (PSC) have
established procedures to coordinate the review of powerplant
-------
Wisconsin 216
(over 12 megawatts) and transmission-line (over 100 kilovolts)
proposals. The two agencies hold a single joint hearing on
the state environmental impact statement and the major permits
for these facilities.
Permits/Agencies Affected
The joint hearing covers all environmental permits that
the DNR oversees, including those for NPDES, underground in-
jection control, dredge and fill, and solid waste. The joint
hearing also applies to those permits for which the state has
only partial authority: hazardous waste and PSD permits. In
some cases separate hearings may be necessary for NPDES per-
mits, where DNR staff require additional data or extended
review of data.
Administrative Process
From the time the project sponsor's application for a
certificate of public convenience and necessity and the envi-
ronmental report (ER) required under Wisconsin's state envi-
ronmental policy act (§ 150, Wise. N.R.C.) are accepted as
complete, the coordinated review process should take no more
than 18 months for powerplants over 300 megawatts. For power-
plants of 12 to 300 megawatts and transmission lines, the DNR
has five months to act, and the coordinated review is sched-
uled to take six months. The DNR must approve the major envi-
ronmental permits under its jurisdiction within 16 months,
before the PSC can grant the certificate. The utility cannot
condemn land until the PSC issues the certificate. Once the
DNR and the PSC issue permits and approvals, no local regula-
tions can prevent construction.
The definition of issues that the environmental report
will address, known as "scoping," usually begins a year before
the ER is submitted and continues during the draft ER period
as part of the coordinated review process.
Experience with the Reform
The powerplant siting procedure has been used in three
different forms since its inception in 1975. At the time the
statute became effective, three applications were in the proc-
ess of being reviewed. The PSC and the DNR signed a memoran-
dum of agreement to employ the basic principles of the Siting
Act process for these applications, though the deadlines were
-------
217 Wisconsin
not applied. All three plants were successfully permitted
under these ad hoc procedures. One plant completed the entire
coordinated siting process under the 1975 Act. As a result of
that case, modifications to the original process were made to
include a "scoping" meeting for the ER and public participa-
tion opportunities early in the review process. Two applica-
tions began this modified process but were withdrawn because
of financial reasons before completing it.
GENERAL PERMIT
Rather than give individual environmental reviews and
permits to small sources on a case-by-case basis, the DNR
issues a general permit for the entire state or for a region.
This eliminates the need to prepare an individual document for
each source.
Permits/Agencies Affected
So far, the DNR has used the general permit system only
for small, noncontact, cooling water discharge permits but
plans to extend it to other permits such as those for sand and
gravel quarry settling ponds, monuments and cut-stone opera-
tions, ready-mix concrete plants, potable water treatment
(ion-exchange), and construction site runoff basins.
Administrative Process
If the applicant meets the overall criteria established
in the general permit, the applicant automatically qualifies
as a general permittee. Aside from obligations by the per-
mittee to maintain its facility in good working order and to
internally monitor its discharges, no special reporting re-
quirements or site inspections are necessary. The general
permit is nevertheless authorized by the Clean Water Act and
legally enforceable should the DNR receive a complaint on the
facility or wish to inspect it later.
Experience with the Reform
DNR staff report that general permits have eliminated
300 to 400 permits for small plant water cooling discharges
alone. According to the department, estimates show that the
average permit costs the state approximately $200 to process,
-------
Wisconsin 218
so that if 500 industrial permits are converted to a general
permit, a savings of $100,000 results over the normal five-
year permit cycle. The approach frees staff time formerly
devoted to supervision and duplicative individual contact.
JOINT HEARING FOR MINING PROJECTS
Under the Metallic Mining Reclamation Law of 1978
(§§ 144.80 to 144.94 Wise. Stats.), exploration and mining
projects can make use of a "master hearing" similar to the
joint hearing for powerplants. This would consolidate review
of all required state and federal environmental permits into
one hearing held by the DNR. The state has not used this
provision because there are no mining applicants far enough
along in a project to qualify. The Metallic Mining Reclama-
tion Law was under review by the legislature in 1981. Amend-
ments are expected.
COMPUTER TRACKING
The DNR employs a computer tracking system to assist
internally with permits. At present the system applies to all
the DNR's municipal and industrial waste discharge permits.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
In addition to assigning permits to categories routinely
used by state agencies and the EPA to classify permits, such
as major/minor and primary/secondary, the DNR divides permits
into complex/ noncomplex, and uses this categorization to
determine overall permit priority.
To determine whether a discharge is complex or noncom-
plex, the DNR staff asks three questions: (1) Is the source a
major discharge? (2) What are the applicable effluent limita-
tion guidelines? (3) If the EPA has not issued guidelines,
what is the staff's best professional judgment? In the case
of land disposal permits, a discharger is complex if its sys-
tem includes pretreatment before irrigation and requires a
ground water monitoring system.
Complexity is one factor that the DNR considers in set-
ting overall permit priorities. DNR staff analyze in depth
-------
219 Wisconsin
such factors as industry type, waste type, treatments em-
ployed, and a point value system to determine a permit's com-
plexity, time demands, and environmental significance. The
system assists the DNR in setting future program priorities,
assigning staff workloads, and setting assessments for dis-
charges.
By relatively ranking the permits, the point system helps
the DNR in its program planning. The most recent analysis of
approximately 1,500 permits resulted in about 25 percent being
classified as complex. Initially, the DNR has decided only to
delegate noncomplex discharge permits to the field offices.
STATE CONTACTS
Tom Kroehn, Administrator
Environmental Standards Division
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
(608) 266-1099
Paul P. Didier, Chief
(General Permits and Permit Priorities)
Industrial Wastewater Section
Environmental Standards Division
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
(608) 266-0289
Roy Christiansen, Director
Systems Bureau of Environmental Analysis
Planning, Environmental Review, and
Consumer Analysis Division
Public Service Commission
P. 0. Box 7854
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
(608) 266-5990
Jerry Mendl, Administrator
Systems Planning, Environmental Review,
and Consumer Analysis Division
P. 0. Box 7854
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
(608) 266-5990 ;
-------
OVERVIEW
Most of the efforts at expediting issuance of environ-
mental permits in Wyoming are informal in nature, designed to
foster cooperation among state agencies and departments that
issue permits separately. Preapplication conferences and
memoranda of understanding between state agencies and between
state and federal agencies help define permit responsibili-
ties. Decision-making deadlines found in administrative regu-
lations set time requirements for permit review and issuance
by the Department of Environmental Quality and the Industrial
Siting Council.
The Air Quality, Water Quality, and Land Quality divi-
sions of the state Department of Environmental Quality issue
air, water, dredge and fill, and solid and hazardous waste
permits. Large-scale energy pro.jects must obtain an addition-
al siting permit from the Industrial Siting Council. Appli-
cants proposing to drill oil or gas wells must receive a per-
mit from the state oil and gas supervisor. Those project
sponsors with plans for coal gasification plants, pipelines,
utility plants, and similar facilities must apply for a cer-
tificate from the Public Service Commission.
The Land Quality Division has made cooperative agreements
with boards of county commissioners throughout the state.
These agreements enable the division to coordinate its review
with local ordinances and requirements established by individ-
ual counties.
Staff at the Industrial Siting Administration noted that
efforts have been made in the past to hold joint hearings with
the state Public Service Commission and federal Bureau of Land
-------
Wyoming 222
Management. These attempts were halted when the projects were
withdrawn or rescheduled. The Industrial Siting Administra-
tion has a memorandum of understanding with the federal Office
of Surface Mining. This agreement makes the Siting Adminis-
tration responsible for the social and economic review of
proposals coming under the jurisdiction of both agencies.
STATE CONTACTS
Bob Sundin, Director
Department of Environmental Quality
401 W. 19th St.
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
(307) 777-7937
Dick Hartman, State Planning Coordinator
State of Wyoming
2320 Capitol Avenue
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
(307) 777-7574
Richard Moore, Director
Industrial Siting Administration
Suite 500
Boyd Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
(307) 777-7368
-------
APPENDICES
-------
Appendix A
EPA PROGRAMS DELEGATED AND AUTHORIZED TO STATES
MAY 15, 1982
iEPA
Region
:
i;. /"
I? ... .
*b
\ •• *""*
r, <
•£•>
So- -.
F ' , '
*
*-••
«?
^
*
&* . „..,...,
&
h
i • "
x
1 '• • •
|>« j -.
r;'&
|l|f^X £. , j ,S,/ ,
State
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
New Jersey
New York
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
Morth Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
EPA PROGRAM
PSD
SIP1
'$$$&'$t$88&.
SfeB!5:S-:SSiS-S-^
^S^^:::^S$:S
Full2
Partial3
Si&iSS
NPDES
Delegated4
RCRA
Phase I5
'
Phase II6
Application
^Indicates that the state has received full authority for the PSD program through a state implementation plan. The state
promulgates its own regulations subject to EPA approval.
^Indicates that the state has received full delegation of the PSD program from the EPA; the state handles the technical and
administrative aspects of permit issuance and implements the ERA'S regulations.
•^Indicates that the state has received partial delegation of the PSD program from the EPA. Usually the state performs the
technical work and the EPA actually issues the permit.
^Indicates that the state has been delegated the NPDES program.
^Indicates that the state has received authorization for Phase I of RCRA. Under Phase I, states enforce regulations
applicable to generators and transporters of hazardous wastes, and facilities granted interim status.
^Indicates that the state has submitted final application to receive authorization for Phase II of RCRA. Under Phase II,
states will permit treatment, storage, and disposal facilities under permanent status standards.
-------
Appendix B
BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Bar Associations. The Need for Power and the Choice
of Technologies: State Decisions on Electric Power Facil-
ities. U.S. Department of Energy. DOE/EP/10004-1, June
1981.
City and County of Honolulu Department of Land Utilization.
Guide to Land Use Laws in Honolulu. 1981.
Colorado Department of Natural Resources. Colorado's Joint
Review Process for Major Energy and Mineral Resource Devel-
opment Projects. December 1980.
Connecticut Council on Environmental Quality. Citizen's Guide
to the Permit Process. 1979.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Permit
Authority Index. March 1981.
The Council of State Governments. Untangling the Permit Web:
Washington's Environmental Coordination Procedures Act.
June 1978.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation. Manual of
State Regulatory and Review Procedures for Land Development
in Florida. January 1981.
Greenwood, Richard. "Energy Facility Siting in North Dakota."
North Dakota Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 4 (1976), pp. 703-
728.
Hamilton, Michael S. "The Permit Explosion: Siting New
Energy Facilities in the Western United States." Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. December 1980.
Hamilton, Michael S., and Wengert, Norman. "Environmental,
Legal and Political Constraints on Power Plant Siting in the
Southwestern United States." Report to the Los Alamos
Scientific Laboratory, March 1980, at Colorado State Univer-
sity.
Hawaii Interagency Task Force for State Permit Simplification.
Preliminary Report of Findings and Recommendations. March
1981.
-------
228
Hopping, Wade L., and Raepple, Carolyn Songer. "A Solution to
the Regulatory Maze: The Transmission Line Siting Act."
Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 8, No. 3 (1980),
pp. 441-461.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Procedures for
Coordinated Permit Review. November 1979.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Protecting Illinois
Waters, A Cooperative Effort by You and Illinois EPA, Illi-
nois Department of Transportation, Division of Water
Resources, Illinois Department of Conservation, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. June 1981.
Illinois Institute of Natural Resources. The Illinois Coordi-
nated Review Process for Major Energy Development Projects
Program Design. June 1981.
Illinois Institute of Natural Resources. Interim Report—
Synfuels Facilities Siting Permits. May 1981.
Kentucky Department for Natural Resources and Environmental
Protection. Report of the Permitting and Facility Siting
Task Force, Phase 1—Permit Coordination. April 1979.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering.
Permit Directory—A Guide to Programs and Procedures.
January 1980.
Minnesota Department of Economic Development. Business
Licensing Study. Minnesota State Legislature, January
1981.
Morell, David, and Singer, Grace, Center for Environmental
Studies, with the support of the Division of Technology
Overview, U.S. Energy Research and Development Administra-
tion. State Legislature and Energy Policy in the Northeast:
Energy Facility Siting and Legislative Action. Brookhaven
National Laboratory Regional Energy Studies Program. BNL
50679, P4/CES Report No. 40, June 1977.
National Governors' Association, Edward L. Helminski, Direc-
tor, Energy and Natural Resources Program, Ned Helme, Assoc.
Director, David W. Stevens, Consultant. "State Initiatives
in Expediting Energy Facility Siting Review Procedures."
NGA White Paper, Washington, D.C., August 1, 1979.
-------
229
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. A Guide
Through the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protec-
tion. January 1980.
New Jersey Office of Business Advocacy. Directory of State
Programs for Regulating Construction. March 1979.
New York, New Jersey, and EPA Region II Joint Task Force on
Permit Consolidation. Draft of Final Report of the Informa-
tion Management Committee. June 12, 1980.
New York, New Jersey, and EPA Region II Joint Task Force on
Permit Consolidation. Report of the Permit Administration
Committee. August 1, 1980.
North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community
Development Office of Regulatory Relations. North Carolina
Environmental Permit Directory. 1981.
Ohio Power Siting Commission. Citizen Participation. May
1978.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Division
of Planning and Development. Permitting Process—Major In-
dustrial and Energy Facilities. July 1981.
Rhodes, Robert M. "Streamlining State Environmental Permit-
ting—The Florida Experience." Natural Resources Lawyer,
Vol. XII, No. 4, pp. 727-734.
South Carolina Coastal Council. State Of South Carolina
Coastal Management Program and Final Environmental Impact
Statement. 1979.
Southern States Energy Board in cooperation with DOE Region
IV. "Energy Projects Proposed in Federal Region IV (1980-
2000) Including Specific State/Federal Permit Requirements."
Unpublished Report, Atlanta, Georgia, August 1980.
Southern States Energy Board in cooperation with Western
Interstate Energy Board and DOE Region VI (Dallas, Texas).
"Energy Projects Proposed in Federal Region VI (1981-2000)
Including Specific State/Federal Permit Requirements."
Unpublished Report, Atlanta, Georgia, February 1981.
Southern States Energy Board, Western Interstate Energy Board,
Regulatory Reform Institute. Survey of State Permit Consol-
idation Initiatives—Draft Report. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. Contract #68-01-5052, June 1981.
-------
230
Texas House of Representatives, Committee on Environmental
Affairs. Subcommittee Report on Joint Permitting Air and
Water Quality. October 1980.
Tosco Foundation. Siting Major Energy Facilities: A Process
in Transition—Executive Summary. Rockefeller Foundation,
State of Delaware, State of New Mexico, Tosco Corporation.
October 1979.
U.S. Geological Survey. Permit Requirements for Development
of Energy and Other Selected Natural Resources. Series of
reports prepared for the U.S. Geological Survey and the
following regional commissions: Appalachian, Coastal
Plains, Four Corners, Old West, Ozarks, Pacific Northwest,
and Upper Great Lakes. 1981.
Virginia Council on the Environment. Environmental Regulation
in Virginia, A Guide for Permit Applicants. November 1978.
Virginia Council on the Environment. Virginia's Environment,
Annual Report 1980.
Western Governors' Policy Office, Linkhart, Doug. "Permitting
and Siting of Energy Projects: Causes of Delay, State Solu-
tions." Study Report, June 1981.
Western Interstate Nuclear Board. Regional Factors in Plan-
ning and Siting Electrical Energy Facilities in the Western
States. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Contract
#(49-24)-0249, April 5, 1977.
Wisconsin Office of State Planning and Energy. A Citizens
Guide to the Wisconsin Environmental Policy Act. May 1977.
Wisconsin Public Service Commission and Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources. Docket 05-E1-13. Background material
for discussion at prehearing conference re the Joint In-
vestigation on the Effectiveness of Power Plant Siting
Procedures. January 1981.
* F.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1982 361-082/313
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Special Fourth-Class Rate
Book
Postage and Fees Paid
EPA
Permit No. G-35
Washington DC 20460
------- |