-------

-------
Additional copies of this report are available from the RCRA Hotline which can be
reached at 415/744-2074 or by calling the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS) at 703/487-4650 and referencing publication number PB95-170817

-------
                             Table Of Contents
Introduction	1
Background	'.	2
 National Stakeholder Meetings	3
 NPR Recommendations	4-5
 Presentations (Co-Chairs, Environmental/community Groups,
         Industry, Regulators)	6-15
 Stakeholder Recommendations	6-22
 Focus Group Reports	23-28
 Measures of Success	28-31
 Sakeholder Survey Results	31-33
Additional Public Input	34
Future Direction of the Permits Improvement Team	34-35
Appendixes	36-71
 Appendix A - Stakeholder Letter	37-38
 Appendix B - Meeting Format	39-40
 Appendix C - Stakeholder Survey	41-45
 Appendix D - Survey Tables A, B, C	46-51
 Appendix E - Permits Improvement Team's Action Plans	52-54
 Appendix F - Meeting Participants List	55-66
 Appendix G - Permits Improvement Team Membership List	67-71

-------
                                                           Stakeholder Report
                        PERMITS IMPROVEMENT TEAM

                           STAKEHOLDER REPORT

Introduction

      In July of 1994 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator, Carol M.
Browner, announced the creation of the Permits Improvement Team (PIT). The Team is
an outgrowth of both stakeholder's (regulated industry, regulators and environmental and
local community groups) dissatisfaction with present permitting systems, and formal
recommendations for reforming permitting processes adopted by the Vice President's and
EPA's  National Performance Reviews  (NPR).  Many stakeholders  have  expressed
frustration and dismay with current command and control regulations and one size fits all
structures which have produced  delays in permitting, been unresponsive to  public
involvement, and often promoted adversarial relationships among the parties involved.

      The  National  Performance  Reviews  were undertaken  to   identify  specific
opportunities to help the government be more effective in carrying out its mission.  Given
that environmental permits are a chief vehicle for achieving the Agency's primary mission
~ protection of the environment -- the Administrator believes it is essential that a multi-
media  and  government-wide  team  review  and  implement those permit  reform
recommendations that address the criticisms  cited above.  To this  end, the Permits
Improvement Team has become the Agency's primary vehicle for promoting reform of
environmental permitting systems. The Team's formal charge is to review and implement
recommendations (including but not limited to the Vice President's  and EPA's NPR
recommendations) for improving environmental permitting systems (national, state and
local) while  maintaining  high quality enforceable permits.   This charge is media and
program wide and will generate changes to air,  water, and waste programs.

       Issuing, monitoring, and enforcing environmental permits involves many different
levels of government. Recognizing this, the Team's chairs -- Elliott Laws, EPA Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER),  and
Jeanne Fox, EPA Region II Administrator-decided to create a team composed from EPA
(both headquarters and regional staff), state, tribal, and local governments (see Appendix
G).

      Reforming a permitting system which spans many layers of government and touches
virtually all industries will require a comprehensive and resource intensive approach.
While this effort will no doubt span several years, there are discrete actions which can be
taken immediately to improve present permitting systems.  Both short and long term

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
actions will, however, require the commitment of government, industry and the general
public. Focusing on the near term, one of the Team's first and most important efforts has
been the consideration of the over 100 recommendations for reforming environmental
permitting systems made by the Vice President's and EPA's National  Performance
Reviews.  In determining which recommendations to pursue, the team established three
principles to guide the direction of the reform effort. Reforms should :

       1) Improve the quality, certainty, and timeliness of permit decisions;
       2) Provide for earlier and better public participation; and
       3) Encourage the use of innovative technologies and pollution prevention.

       During the first six months of the PITs tenure, the Team concentrated on reviewing,
analyzing, and prioritizing the NPR recommendations with an eye toward implementation.
This was conducted in several ways including the convening of national stakeholder
meetings to obtain the input of the Agency's primary customers -- regulated industry,
regulators and environmental and local citizen groups -- on which recommendations to
implement.  After considerable stakeholder review and  input, the Team has developed
action plans to implement the most significant recommendations.  This report discusses
the work of the Permits Improvement Team thus far, including the results of the national
stakeholder meetings and the future direction of the Team.

Background

       Protection of public health and the environment is the fundamental  responsibility
of the EPA, as well as state, tribal, and local governments charged with protection of the
environment.  Stewardship of the public health and the environment has generally been
achieved through a variety of regulatory actions, including the issuance of permits for
certain types of activities. Historically, these permits have been  the primary vehicle to
obtain environmental protection by prescribing a level of protection that must be achieved.
Permits are used in virtually all environmental media. They set limitations established by
regulation (pursuant to statute) for pollution  discharges - to the  air, water, and land; and
for the handling of  hazardous  waste.  Permits  may be general (for similar  types of
operations) or specific (where exact operating conditions are specified).

       To date,  the investment  in permitting activities has been  substantial. EPA has
annually budgeted over 1,000 positions (most of which  are located in regional and field
offices) and several million state grant and contract dollars to conduct permit activities.
This has resulted in EPA and the states processing close to a total of a million permits.

-------
                                                           Stakeholder Report
      Since their inception, permits regulating pollutant discharges have allowed EPA
states, local and tribal governments to monitor and improve environmental protection.
These government agencies  have achieved success in improving  and maintaining
environmental protection through the use of permits and enforcement actions related to
permits. Overall, permits have abated environmental degradation and helped restore the
environment.  It is now universally recognized, however, that while environmental permits
themselves may still be an effective means of achieving environmental protection, the
processes and systems developed to implement permits have become overly complicated,
unresponsive to public involvement, unable  to accommodate  new technologies and
generally missed opportunities to encourage pollution prevention.  It is further recognized
that the breadth and scope of  environmental permits provides a key opportunity to use
permitting systems to expand and encourage compliance with environmental statutes and
regulations in a manner consistent with changes in  industry production and varying
environmental agendas. It is these and other issues which have motivated the Agency to
seek  reformed  permitting systems that incorporate  streamlined permit approaches,
provide for greater public participation, and encourage the use of pollution prevention and
innovative technology.

National Stakeholder Meetings

      The National Performance Review was a comprehensive effort which yielded over
400 specific  recommendations for the Environmental Protection Agency to  be more
effective in carrying out its mission.  Since the NPR process and recommendations were
solely an internal process, the  Permits Improvement Team felt it important to seek input
from those directly involved in environmental permitting -- regulated industry, regulators,
and environmental and local community groups -- before embarking on an implementation
plan related to reforming environmental permitting systems. To accomplish this, the Team
organized five national stakeholder meetings and invited participants to engage in a
dialogue on  present  permitting structures and  potential reforms to  these  systems.
Recognizing that limited resources would prevent the team from undertaking all the NPR
recommendations at once, the Team decided to ask its stakeholders to help prioritize the
recommendations. While not seeking  to achieve  consensus, the Team believed it was
important to obtain a relative  sense of which recommendations should and  could be
pursued in the short and long terms. To provide a context for the stakeholder meetings,
the Team reviewed the NPR recommendations related to permitting and  identified twelve
broad topic areas on  which to focus.  The twelve recommendations were provided to
meeting participants prior the meetings. They are as follows:

-------
                                                             Stakeholder Report
1-  State/EPA Joint Approach to Administrative Streamlining   Establish teams with State
and EPA representatives to review permit processes. Work with stakeholders to identify
barriers and obstacles to improving the permitting process. Identify and survey successful
permitting programs to learn and apply successes.  Encourage and authorize states that
have full statutory authority to take full delegation and responsibility for permit programs.
Develop capability of states to assume more responsibility for their permitting programs.

2. Target Permit Priorities - Issue permits only where it is necessary to apply tailored or
site-specific requirements.  Use alternatives where possible, such as, compliance with self-
implementing regulations (e.g., permit-by-rule), and general  or class permits.  Prioritize
permit issuance based on human health and ecological risk concerns, or on a geographic
basis.

3.  Regulatory and Statutory Barriers   Identify regulations and  statutes that prevent
flexibility in permitting and suggest possible follow-up actions, including revising applicable
regulations and working with Congress to amend appropriate statutes.

4. Encourage Pollution Prevention - Provide flexibility and create incentives in permits and
permit compliance, such as, differential fee schedules, extra time to comply, and expedited
processing for permit applications that utilize pollution prevention.  Prepare guidance on
how to implement innovative strategies and procedures.  Explore the appropriateness of
emission fee programs.

5. Implement a Cross Media Perspective - Coordinate permit issuance or reissuance for
environmentally significant sources  to  encourage cross  media pollution  reduction
strategies. Consider: 1) the creation of permitting teams in the regions to review permits
and identify cross media transfer issues; and 2) phasing in cross  media permitting with
several pilots covering a  wide range of alternatives (e.g., combining UIC/RCRA; air/water;
water/RCRA; or sludge/ground water).

6. Facilitate Meaningful  Public Participation - Revise permitting procedures to encourage
meaningful early public participation and identify more effective methods to  notify the
public.   Develop ways to be more responsive  to the public by drafting clear and
understandable guidance manuals for the general public, states, and applicants. Prepare
annual communication strategies and programs to educate interested citizens, including
holding training workshops in conjunction with citizen groups, state associations and trade
associations.

7.  Facilitate  Permitting of Innovative Technology  Facilitate permitting  of innovative

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
technologies by creating a special team of permit writers from EPA and the States to
conduct reviews of what works and what doesn't work in writing permits.  This would
determine  whether permits could be changed or modified to allow the use of more
innovative technology to accomplish the environmental mandate dictated by permits. The
team would also identify regulatory and statutory obstacles that policy and procedural
changes alone cannot fix.  The team would also work on alternative approaches to
conventional permitting processes.

8. Measure the Success of Permitting Programs  Develop ways to measure the success
of permitting programs.  This would include measures on both the effectiveness and
efficiency of the permitting programs. Effectiveness measures could include environmental
quality improvements,  degree of compliance, and level of satisfaction with the permitting
process.   Efficiency  measures  could  include timeliness standards and degree  of
understanding of the permitting requirements.

9. Design Training for Permit Writers - Establish an EPA Permits Institute and   require
State/Federal permit professionals to complete a core curriculum.  Review the permit
organization staffing to  ensure the appropriate skills mix.  Provide financial or  other
incentives and awards to permit professionals.

10. Permits Clearinghouse  Establish a permits clearinghouse to serve as a single point
of contact  for regulated industries and  local governments to  obtain information about
national and regional regulations and permitting requirements. This could include general,
simple-to-understand information, as well as  names and numbers of state and/or EPA
regional or headquarters contacts for technical assistance on permitting issues.   The
clearinghouse could also include a national EPA hotline and computer bulletin board.

11. Streamline State Reporting Requirements - Evaluate state reporting requirements and
eliminate excessive and artificial commitments. Modify oversight guidance to help states
implement their  permitting programs.    This  could include  revising the  existing
accountability/measurement system.

12. Integrated Permit Databases - Create an integrated database that provides information
useful for measuring performance by industry, sector, and facility and for devising long-
term multi-media pollution prevention strategies.  Pilot a cross-program permit tracking
system with one state and one region.

       In early October 1994,  the EPA announced in the Federal Register (Volume 59
#190)  its intention to hold five national stakeholder meetings to seek input on prioritizing

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
the work of the Permits  Improvement Team.  The Agency's primary objective for the
meetings was to obtain individual ideas and comments on the direction of the PIT, but not
to obtain group consensus. National meetings were held in Denver, Philadelphia, Seattle,
Dallas and  Boston.  To ensure ample and diverse participation, individual letters of
invitation (see Appendix A) were also sent to representatives of each stakeholder group
(local to the Regional area) in addition to the federal register notice.

Meeting Format

       As stated, the purpose of the national stakeholder meetings was to elicit input on
the relative importance of the twelve recommendations listed above and on which should
be implemented in the short and long term. The format of the meetings was designed to
introduce participants to the work and objectives of the team, encourage discussion on the
merits of the recommendations, and provide an opportunity for participants to voice their
opinions in an  open format and through detailed surveys.  Each meeting had identical
structures, consisting of presentations, roundtable discussion, focus groups, and a written
survey (see Appendix B).  Following is a brief discussion of the aggregate national results
of each component of the meetings.

Co-Chair Presentations

 Elliott Laws, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Jeanne Fox, Regional Administrator, EPA Region II

       The Co-Chairs spoke to the crucial role of environmental permits in protecting the
 environment and public health as well as how environmental permits are often the vehicle
to deliver  and ensure environmental protection.  They discussed the  need to have a
 permitting system streamlined enough to produce results quickly, responsive enough to
 provide for public participation, and flexible enough to accommodate the use of pollution
 prevention techniques and innovative technology.  They each echoed the Administrator's
 commitment to reforming environmental permitting systems and the need to ensure that
this effort  is aligned with other important Agency initiatives incorporating  permitting
 components. This includes the following initiatives:

 Common Sense
 The  Common  Sense  Initiative  (CSI)  is devoted  to examining  industry  specific
 environmental problems and solutions as a whole, rather than the traditional method of
 looking at the effects of and solutions to individual  pollutants nation wide.  Permitting is
 one of the six areas of  focus for the CSI and this effort will look for ways to "change

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
permitting so that it works more efficiently, encourages innovation and creates more
opportunity for public participation."  While the Permits Improvement Team initiative shares
similar goals with the Common Sense Initiative, the PIT'S effort will focus on the overall
environmental permitting system rather than the six industries targeted under the Common
Sense Initiative. In addition, it is anticipated that one of the targeted industries under the
CSI will serve as a potential pilot or demonstration project for implementing specific
improvements developed by the PIT.

Customer Service
The Customer Service Initiative is responsible for implementing Executive Order #12862,
"Setting Customer Service Standards."  Pursuant to the Executive Order, EPA must
identify its core business processes, and in consultation with its customers, establish
performance and customer service measures.  Permitting is a major EPA function and will
undoubtedly be part of the Agency's core businesses. Efforts have already been initiated
by the Permits Improvement Team to develop performance measures for environmental
permitting.

Ecosystem Management
The  Ecosystem  Management  initiative is examining a new approach to addressing
environmental problems.  This approach calls for addressing the problems created by all
environmental stresses to a specific media within a defined geographic boundary (e.g., a
watershed).  Determining the relationship between permitting and total pollutant loading
in an ecosystem is a top priority of this initiative.

Environmental Justice
The founding principle of the Environmental Justice movement is the need to ensure that
no group bears a disproportionate  share of environmental risk or burden. This  principle
will guide all  Agency initiatives and will be a core tenant of the Permits Improvement Team.
The efforts of the National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (NEJAC), a recently
established Agency advisory committee, are proceeding in parallel with the efforts of the
Agency's program offices to develop and implement plans for incorporating environmental
justice principles in their activities. Hence, a key activity of the PIT will be to work closely
with the Advisory Committee and the Office of Environmental Justice to ensure that the
PIT's  efforts are aligned with the goals of environmental justice.

State Capacity Enhancement
The  State/EPA Capacity Steering Committee has  developed new goals and guiding
principles for the  EPA/State relationship.  This new approach is based  on  EPA setting
standards, conducting constructive State program reviews, performing research, collecting,

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
analyzing, and sharing information, and providing technical assistance.  In these ways
EPA will support the states as the primary environmental managers with accountability for
achieving environmental and programmatic results.  Since environmental results have
often  been  measured through the permitting systems, it is imperative that this new
relationship  become part of any permit reform effort.

       Each of the initiatives discussed above will produce improvements to the permitting
process. Consequently, a comprehensive coordinated approach is essential to ensuring
that efforts are directed to the areas of most critical need.  Given that EPA has traditionally
set the national environmental direction, it is the appropriate agency to guide a national
permit reform effort.

Stakeholder Presentations

       To stimulate thought and discussion, a representative of each stakeholder group
was invited to give a presentation on either a successful permit reform effort they had been
involved in or their concerns with environmental permitting. Due to scheduling conflicts,
presentations were not made at some of the national meetings.

Environmental and Community Groups

Cynthia Peterson, Denver League of Women Voters

       Ms. Peterson indicated that she was encouraged that the Agency had identified the
public as a stakeholder in the permits process.  She noted that the public does not speak
with one voice although it is often viewed as a monolith.  She also noted that the public is
often viewed as slowing the process down, usually not being satisfied with the process and
results,  and usually reacting emotionally to technical issues. She cautioned that even
though these criticisms are often made about the public, the public has value added in the
process because the public helps make environmental decision making more broad-based
and comprehensive.  She indicated that if the public understands technical issues early
on in the process, they will be more satisfied with the results. Early public participation
diffuses conflict later in the process, thus speeding up the process and reducing costs.

       Ms.  Peterson  articulated a number of questions  the  public  has with regard to
environmental permitting and reform efforts in particular. These include: Will it be easier
to get information? Will  the public be able to provide public comments on the process?
Will there be time to understand technical issues? Will the improvements actually help the
environment or just  be  a paper exercise?  Will  economic considerations outweigh


                                        8

-------
                                                             Stakeholder Report
environmental concerns? Why are pollution prevention or innovation technologies better
than existing solutions? Will human health and the environment be better served?  Will
the public be streamlined  out of the process?  Will changes in public participation be
substantive rather than procedural? How will accountability be measured?  Finally, Ms.
Peterson urged the Team to consider these questions and offered that the public can have
value added since they often  have knowledge of local matters which can help focus
resources.

Patty Jackson, Virginia Lower James River Association

      Ms. Jackson confined her comments to the permitting activities of the Virginia
Department of  Environmental  Quality (VA  DEQ).  She discussed Virginia's pollution
prevention law  and its voluntary nature.  She indicated that environmental groups are
concerned that pollution prevention should not be a voluntary goal.  She relayed that the
VA DEQ is currently decentralizing its permitting activities and that environmental groups
are concerned  that to much decentralization to Virginia regional offices may promote
inconsistencies. She  noted that the public has no legal standing in Virginia's permitting
process except for a narrow provision in the state's  air program.  Environmental groups in
Virginia are concerned that  citizens in Virginia do not enjoy the same access to the permits
process that citizens in other states enjoy.  Ms. Jackson discussed the significant backlog
of permits in Virginia and indicated that this was due to foot-dragging by permittees and
the failure of the state to give adequate resources to the processing of permits. Finally,
Ms. Jackson articulated a concern with the Team's pursuing the use of general permits,
as she believes that they do not provide much opportunity for public involvement.

Kathy Fletcher,  People For Puget Sound

      Ms. Fletcher indicated that her organization  is concerned largely with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. She indicated that an EPA-
state joint approach to permitting is very important. She would like to see ways that EPA
staff could be used to add to the state's resources. She indicated  a need to have EPA
staff guide the  state rather that looking over the  state's shoulder.  Bioaccumulation of
toxics is a significant concern of Ms. Flectcher's organization.  She maintains that toxics
have not been dealt with effectively.  Ms. Fletcher suggested concentration limits as  a way
to deal with toxics rather than dilution. Ms. Fletcher echoed her support for pollution
prevention techniques but cautioned that they could be used as a way to avoid regulations.
She also cautioned that there may be an inherent conflict is the use of general permits and
the need to provide flexibility. She suggested that the Team needed to define its  goals.
Concern and attention should be given to both the  end product and the process. Finally,

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
Ms. Fletcher urged improvement in technical assistance and resources.  She indicated that
there is a need for better training of Agency personnel and offered that the quality of work
becomes vital when staff are reduced.

Neil Carman, Sierra Club

      Mr. Carman discussed the problems behind citizens' complaints about water, soil,
and air pollution. He indicated that the biggest problem is the writing of poor or weak
permits. He indicated that there has not been enough attention paid to the issue of poor
or  weak  permits.     He also suggested  that cumulative  environmental impacts to
communities from facilities have not been  addressed in permits.  He noted that better
writing of permits could prevent some of our environmental problems as well as citizen
complaints. Mr. Carman noted that citizens are completely baffled by the regulatory
process and the technical issues involved in environmental permitting.  He suggested that
most communities do not have the resources to get involved.  Communities do not have
the funds to travel to Regional offices to review information and records. He offered that
it could be beneficial to companies to resolve permit issues with citizens without the
involvement of the government. In the area of environmental justice, Mr. Carman noted
that very  little  attention  is being  paid to area-wide impacts and suggested that
environmental justice be incorporated into permit decision  making.  He  offered that
communities want  to  see  a buffer zone between themselves  and permitted facilities.
Finally, Mr. Carman indicated that more resources needed to be devoted to enforcement.
He stated that weak enforceability of permits coupled with a lack of resources disfavors
communities (particularly environmental justices communities).

Regulated Industry

George Larsen, Martin Marietta Astronautics

      The majority of Martin Marietta's Astronautics permitting activity is  with the state.
Mr. Larsen sees the biggest problem with environmental permitting is the time it takes to
go through the process.  He stated that  a permitting system based on the principles of
concurrent engineering, (where permits are issued concurrently rather than sequentially
as is presently done) would be helpful.  He recognized that government  environmental
agencies are reluctant to do so since design plans for projects are not always one hundred
percent complete until the end of the project and it is difficult to issue permits based on
incomplete plans.   He stated that pollution prevention techniques should eliminate the
need for much of the current regulatory oversight and that compliance schedules should
recognize the time required to implement such plans.
                                       10

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
      Mr. Larsen believes that barriers imbedded in present permitting systems are the
result of an Agency culture which promotes prescriptive regulations and processes rather
than an improved environment.  He stated that industry needs to  move beyond pure
compliance  to  pollution  prevention, and government needs  to move  beyond pure
enforcement and provide incentives and encourage industry to move beyond compliance.
He also stated that the federal EPA tends to micro-manage states and that states are in
fear of having their authorization pulled. Industry, in turn, is in fear of EPA over filling on
specific permits. Finally, he stated that the government needs to develop a strategy which
encourages the regulated community to move in a direction where permits are not needed
and are obsolete.

 Edward Mongan, E.I.  DuPont DeNemours and Company Incorporated

      Dupont is a major manufacturer which is vitally invested and interested in permitting
activities.    DuPont  actively comments  on legislation  and regulatory  matters both
individually and through trade associations. Mr. Mongan stated that three things need to
happen in the  permitting area.  First, reduce complexity in permitting requirements. He
stated that complexity  often increases the cost of compliance and that cost often has no
relationship to benefits. He further stated that the complexity and cost of compliance often
distracts industry away from pollution prevention initiatives.  In  the area of state-EPA
relationships,  complexity could be reduced by setting  clear performance  goals and
pursuing them.  Second, significantly reduce the time required for issuance of permits. He
discussed unacceptable time periods and offered one example where a renewal of a
DuPont permit with no new changes took fourteen months to complete.  He stated that
these delays and expirations are simply not good for the environment or anyone else.
Third, identify barriers to pollution prevention. He stated that the public demands pollution
prevention and  that it can be a means of meeting regulatory requirements.  He stated that
the timing of bringing facilities into compliance often can not accommodate new options
such as source control.   He  believes that pollution  prevention activities  should  be
encouraged through the use of multi-media permits and by offering priority in the permitting
process for permits that incorporate pollution prevention.  He also suggested that the time
for compliance should  be extended for facilities with pollution prevention plans. Finally,
Mr. Mongan offered that an open and frequent dialogue between industry, states, and EPA
should be encouraged.

Terrence J. McManus, Intel Corporation

      Mr. McManus discussed a project Intel Corporation has launched with the Oregon
Department of  Environmental Quality (DEQ), EPA Headquarters  and Region X, and the
                                      11

-------
                                                              Stakeholder Report
Pacific Northwest Pollution Prevention Research Center to develop an implementable Title
V air permit.  This project will provide Intel with operating flexibility and incorporate
pollution prevention.  The project participants also hope to determine the best way to
proliferate this initiative. Some of the factors that motivated Intel to participate in this
initiative are frequent manufacturing process changes  which may potentially require
changes in permits. Mr. McManus noted that Intel has 30-45 process chemical changes
per year and several hundred process-related "tweaks" per year. He also noted that most
changes involve no net emission increases and that many changes are decreases. The
participants are hoping for results that produce an implementable Title V permit for Intel,
the identification and documentation of barriers to pollution prevention within Title V, a
documented case study incorporating pollution prevention into a Title V permit and the
development of permitting options and alternatives for other industries and states.

       Some of the unique features of the Intel  project  include incorporating pollution
prevention conditions into a Title V permit, having a permit with operating flexibility, having
certain activities pre-approved, and an implied linkage between pollution prevention and
flexibility/pre-approval as well as a team approach.  Some of the components of the permit
include emission limits and unit  production standards, plant site emission  limits,
reasonably achievable control technology standards, pollution  prevention prequirements,
monitoring requirements and reporting requirements,  among others.  Finally, the value of
the project to  Intel is that it emphasizes pollution prevention rather than end of the pipe
treatment, it provides flexibility to make process modifications, it is federally enforceable
and will be potentially transferable to other industries.

Helen Johnson, DOW Chemical Corporation

       Ms. Johnson spoke of the need for flexibility in permitting. She noted that DOW's
Texas' Operations have a permitted incinerator and will have to obtain a number of permits
for boilers and industrial furnaces (BIF). She noted that due to the diversity and types of
units DOW has, a "one size fits all" approach to permitting could jeopardize DOW's ability
to function. A "one size fits all" approach, particularly with regard to timing, could make
comprehensive trial burns for multiple BIF units difficult.  She discussed DOW's support
for the Agency's waste minimization strategy and noted that DOW's waste minimization
project is due to come on line in 1996. She noted that DOW's BIF permitting activities and
any related waste minimization projects may need permit modifications to allow adequate
time schedules.
                                        12

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
Regulators

Scott Anderson, Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UT DEP)

      Mr. Anderson discussed the Agency's effort to streamline its permit application
process in its air, water, and underground storage tank programs.  The Agency set up
Quality Action Teams and asked people how they perceived what the Agency did (with
regard to permitting). The problems identified included the time it takes to get a permit,
the need for a consistent point of contact, and the level of detail required in an application.
Utah  DEQ then implemented specific recommendations to address  the  concerns
articulated. These included establishing specific Agency points of contacts for information,
developing a tracking system, looking at the level of effort being spent on permit reviews,
and scaling down the number and levels of review and approval signatures needed on
permits.  Successes included cutting the  average  time it takes to get a permit.  For
example, in the air  program, the average time it takes to get a permit has dropped from
270 to 90 days. Other media programs developed books and pamphlets on the permit
process to assist potential permittees. These reference materials include information on
the process and contacts for permits.

Dennis Hart, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJ DEP)

      Mr. Hart stated  that  environmental permitting is  important since it  is  where
environmental policy is made.  He also  noted  that environmental  permitting  is not
inherently complicated, although governments often  make it that way.  He discussed the
need to lay out clear goals and objectives in an environmental permitting system. Mr.  Hart
discussed the need to look at the role permits have in environmental protection.  He
offered that permits must be part of an overall strategic environmental protection plan.

      Mr. Hart briefly discussed the NJ DEP's water program's permit reform project.  The
NJ DEP  had a backlog of permit applications in the water program due to the need to
concentrate on full implementation of the Clean Water Act Amendments. This created a
backlog of both permits and enforcement actions. To address this, the NJ DEP undertook
a  number of  initiatives including the use  of general permits when applicable; having
industry draft their own permits (with the state reviewing and editing these draft permits);
publishing upfront notices on who would be getting permits in the coming year; conducting
separate administrative  and technical reviews;  using newsletters to provide factual
information to the general public and regulated industry; and holding periodic meetings
with interested parties throughout the year.
                                      13

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
      In the first year of the reform effort, the program doubled outputs (permits).  Permit
outputs were again doubled in the second year. By the end of the third year, a number of
major rule revisions had been adopted to streamline the permit issuance process.  In
addition, the NJ DEP made a substantial investment in computerizing the program with
many of its functions  now conducted electronically. These reforms have resulted in the
reduction of permit adjudications from 100 to 3 percent, greatly reducing transaction costs.
The NJ DEP anticipates that by the end of calendar year 1995 the backlog of permits will
be eliminated.  Finally, Mr.  Hart  noted that the reform initiatives addressing permit
backlogs were undertaken with a 30% reduction in staff.

Karen  Lane, Fred Hutchinson  Cancer Research Center, Chair,  Washington State
Governors Task Force On Regulatory Reform

      Ms. Lane briefly discussed the Task Forces' efforts at permit reform.  She noted that
the Task Force is looking at how to streamline all  permits, not just environmental permits.
She  highlighted the  need to recognize the unique problems of small businesses in
permitting. The Governor's Task Force has received comments from small businesses
indicating the need for streamlining and consolidating permits. Small businesses have
commented that they can not keep track of all the permits they need to comply with. They
indicate that at times they have been fined for non-compliance with regulations they are
not even aware they must comply with. They have commented that while they may not
disagree with the objectives  of the statutes and regulations, there are simply too many
regulatory entities. Ms. Lane urged the Permits Improvement Team to "think outside the
box" and suggested  an integrated multi-media based regulatory approach be piloted.
Finally, she cautioned against setting up the wrong measures of success. She urged the
measuring of the process as well as the results.

Patrick Deviller, Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LA DEQ)

      Mr. Devillier indicated that reforming the permitting process is an important initiative
that must somehow be integrated with  ongoing,  mandated program responsibilities. LA
DEQ has already committed substantial resources to obtain NPDES permitting authority
in the Office of .Water  Resources, and to establish various programs under the Clean Air
Act Amendments (enhanced vehicle inspection/maintenance, air toxics, and especially
Title V permitting, among others) in the Office of Air Quality and Radiation Protection. By
state law, all completed permits received by LA DEQ must be approved or denied within
410 days. LA businesses currently receive permitting assistance from DEQ personnel, the
Governor's Office of Permits' Ombudsman, multi-media pre-permit meetings conducted by
the DEQ Secretary's Office, and the Small Business/Technical Assistance Programs. The
                                       14

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
agency is also establishing community panels made up of citizens, industry, and local
officials to resolve environmental justice issues (that may involve permitting), as well as
a Geographic Information  System (GIS), to help them identify concurrent multi-media
environmental impacts. He concluded that since federal statutes govern permit complexity,
EPA should secure legislative revisions from Congress, or reinterpret existing laws so that
states can offer more efficient, sensible permitting standards and procedures.

Arlene O'Donnell and Carl Dieker, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
(MA DEP)

      Ms.  O'Donnell  and Mr.  Dierker spoke about  a  recent permit  reform  project
undertaken by the MA DEP's Division of Wetlands and Waterways.  As part of its ongoing
effort to streamline its permitting program,  the MA DEP has consolidated its wetlands
protection programs authorized  under federal and state laws.  This includes the water
quality certification under Section  401  of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the
Massachusetts' Wetlands Protection Act (WPA).  Under the reform effort, applications  for
both programs are reviewed by DEP's Regional staff and standards for review have been
clarified so that only a limited number of projects with potentially high wetlands impact
receive an individual review under  the federal statute. The vast majority of projects with
lesser wetlands impacts are reviewed by local Conservation Commissions under state
statue. Transferring most  of the programs' functions to regional offices has resulted in
an easier application process (although both federal and  state laws still apply to most
projects, proposals are reviewed at the state level in one place), a common sense review
(most projects approved by the local conservation  commission are considered to  be
adequately reviewed and do  not need further state review), enhanced environmental
protection (staff are devoting  more time to those projects which likely result in the most
significant wetlands impacts), better communications (by consolidating)  and consistent
results (by clarifying current standards and making review procedures consistent).
Stakeholder Recommendations

      After the stakeholder presentations, the first roundtable was devoted to discussing
additional permit improvement recommendations.  Since the stakeholder meetings were
the first opportunity for participants to review and comment on the recommendations
developed by the National Performance Reviews and their prioritization by the PIT, the
stakeholders were invited to suggest recommendations that were distinct and different from
those recommendations already developed. Stakeholder were also asked to consider
which could be accomplished in the short and long term.
                                      15

-------
                                                           Stakeholder Report
      Listed below are the  stakeholder recommendations. Many of the recommendations
are related to or are part of the NPR recommendations, and have been grouped as such.
Thirteen truly new recommendations were offered and considered by the stakeholders.
These recommendation are: Ability of Applicants to Fund Resources; Settle National
Issues; Culture Change; Consistency of Goals and Strategies; Relate Environmental Goals
to Enforcement and Permitting Strategies; Linkage to Economic Agencies; Environmental
Justice; Develop New Permitting System; Focus On Bioaccumulative Toxics; Stakeholder
Involvement Throughout the Regulatory Process; Consider Land Use Rights in Permitting;
and Evaluate the  Impact  of Unfunded  Mandates.   Recommendations in the form of
comments are also listed in the tables below.

1.    State/EPA Joint Approach To Administrative Streamlining
*    Increase dialogue between EPA and states
4    Clear definition of state/federal roles
*    Authorize states
4    Federal oversight of states should not be duplicative
4    How does EPA add value in delegated permitting
4    Focus on eliminating dual government permitting  issue one permit per facility
      eliminate  institutional barriers that require two permits
*    Save resources now spent on Headquarters/Regions mico-management of states
*     Develop state capabilities including resources and training
4     Improve state oversight of permitting programs
4     Examine  process to see what is "value added" zero based budget approach
4     Focus on what the work is - make the work easier for everyone
4     Examine  steps in application process and clarify what has to be in the permit
4     Assess level of detail contained in permits
4     Streamline permit form and process for small and areas sources (Clean Air Act
       Section 507)
4     Establish model applications and check lists
*     Permits should be written in plain  english
4     Permits should be user friendly
4     Provide suggested  language for permits and permit applications
4     One stop shopping
4     Look for ways to speed up applicants submittal process
4     EPA, not facilities should write permits
*     Ability of  states to issue simplified permits where regulations are specific
4     Ensure accountability is built into process
4     Conduct peer review of draft process
4     Encourage sound timely decision  making. Some states have timeline mandates


                                       16

-------
                                                             Stakeholder Report
4     Don't ask for information for information's sake
4     Review the need to have engineering text spreadsheets/schematics in permits
+     Keep approvals on a set schedule
4     Learn from other agencies
4     Look at what states are doing, make sure these initiatives do not affect other state
      actions
*     Accelerate modification procedures
*     Review what triggers a modification
+     Allow grouping of pollutants if there  is  going to be a  critical  impact to  the
      environment
*     Use cross-media permitting teams
*     Have permit teams look at details of regulations to ensure that they truly effect
      environmental quality, eliminate unnecessary permit details (e.g., RCRA)
*     DeveJop  a consistent nation-wide approach to permitting
*     Ensure consistency across permits
+     Establish alternative mechanisms for problem resolution
*     Streamline the permit appeals process
     Utilize arbitration, mediation, alternative dispute resolution  before  evidentiary
      hearing
+     Ensure risk assessment is part of permit decision-making
*     Provide clearly defined, scientific based priority risk decision making
*     Permits need to be federal permits but enforceable by states and applicants
4     Keep limited resources of small businesses in mind
4     Need for simplifications - streamlining does not necessarily mean simplification
*     Find a permitting "champion" in the regulatory process
*     Ensure states adopt streamlining standards
4     Look at disincentives for doing things  faster   loss of resources (for both
      states/EPA)
+     Develop enhanced relationship  between stakeholders, permittees,  and permit
      writers

2.    Target Permit Priorities
*     Establish class and general permits for small businesses
4     Prioritize permits - eliminate nuisance permits
*     Identify areas for permit flexibility
*     Develop clear and concise definition of which sources should be exempted from
      permitting process
+     Accelerate modification procedures
     Prioritize permit modifications
                                       17

-------
                                                             Stakeholder Report
4     Clarify permit renewals for state agencies
4     Develop and implement comparative risk processes in setting priorities
4     Ensure risk assessment is part of permit decision making
4     Provide clearly defined, scientific based priority risk decision making
4     Add resource  base perspective    look for  increased  flexibility - e.g., holistic
      watershed approach - timing of permits
*     Look at ways to promote voluntary actions at facilities which are not priority facilities
4     Think about how to resolve fairness and environmental benefit approaches
4     Focus resources on largest environmental challenges
4     Determine how to get resources that enables tailoring of permits
4     Establish  performance based permit standards
*     Establish  model applications and check lists

3.    Regulatory and Statutory Barriers
4     Examine discretionary decisions
4     Integrate  basic RCRA permit process with corrective action process
*     Give permit writers greater input into regulations
4     Recognize research and development exemptions in state programs
4     Establish  exemptions for demonstration projects.
4     Need  rule changes  requiring too much information which can not be processed
      (Title 5)

4.    Encourage Pollution Prevention
4     Pollution prevention investments
4     Greater flexibility in use of pollution prevention without losing status
4     Ensure permits are not a barrier to pollution prevention

5.    Address Multi-Media Pollution
4     Implement one stop shopping
4     Jointly administered programs do not provide gain for industry (one point of contact)
4     Have facilities deals with one entity (multi-media permit teams)
4     Establish  multi-media permits
4     Recognize cumulative and synergistic concerns
4     Ensure research education and technology transfer is multi-media based
4     Find a permitting "champion" in the regulatory agencies

6.    Enhance  Public Participation
4     Set the appropriate public involvement level
4     Standardize public participation procedures   have minimum federal requirements


                                        18

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
      then each state develops their own
4     Survey communities before permits are issued
4     Improve communication throughout the process
4     Look at public participation process
4     Involve local communities in communication process
4     Customer terminology offends citizens
*     Open meetings - meetings with regulators requested and not granted (closed door)
4     Industry is not EPA's customer - ensure community is treated as the customer
4     Throw out "customer service"  labels for industry - EPA is a policing authority,
      customer is general public
4     Recognize credible technical support for communities
4     Provide  more technical  assistance to the  regulated community  instead of
      enforcement activities
4     Identify existing environmental stress and burdens in communities where permitting
      is occurring
4     Data collection in under served in certain communities and is critical to protecting
      human health.
4     Develop clear guidance for siting decisions   eliminate extraneous arguments and
      identify proper forum for siting decisions
4     Develop enhanced relationship  between stakeholders, permittees, and  permit
      writers
*     Provide education for everyone involved in the permit process

7.     Facilitate Permitting of Innovative Technology
4     Permits as a tool for innovation
*     Regulatory flexibility - recognize research and development exemptions in state
      programs
4     Exemptions for demonstration projects
4     Look at mobile technology (non-stationary technology)
*     Innovative technology needs to apply to analysis and monitoring requirements
4     Centralize the  permitting of new technologies which can then have application in
      all states vs. state-by-state approach

8.     Measure the Success of Permitting Programs
4     Environment key measure
4     Need common environmental baseline to start from
4     Selected success measures have an impact on resource allocation
                                      19

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
9.    Train Permit Writers
4     Train permit writers to get more consistency
4     Expand training
4     Ensure permit writer managers are trained
4     Increase technical training for permit writers
4     Get permit writers out to the facilities (technical training)
*     Empower permit writers to make decisions - define bounds - training/field visits
*     Provide better training for permit writers and definition of roles
*     Create a strikeforce for permitting as has been done in enforcement (cross-training
      for permit writers)
*     Provide permit application training for industry
4     Improve communication throughout the process
*     Compensate government permit writer at industry levels

10.   Permits Clearinghouse
*     Implement a customer assistance approach - non-regulatory forum (group) to assist
      outside groups
4     Implement more  consistent application  of guidance and provide access to EPA
      guidance

11.   Streamline State Reporting Requirements
4     Save resources now spent on Headquarters/Regions micro-management of states.

12.   Integrate Permit Databases
4    Look at opportunities for greater efficiency and value in Information management
4    Reduce  duplication, increase  public  access  in  an  integrated  information
      management system
4    Government bears all - clear presentation of facts
4    Identify  existing  environmental stresses and burdens  in communities  where
      permitting is  occurring

13.   Ability of Applicants to Fund Resources for Permit Reviews
4    Find a way for applicants to fund permit reviews

14.   Settle National Issues
4    Settle national issues  e.g., metal criteria in water permits
*    States need guidance from  EPA on certain national issues - consistency in
      interpretation
                                       20

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
15.   Culture Change
4     Examine State/Federal relations in regard to turf competitiveness
*     Examine agency culture - micro management
4     Assess need for degree of certainty in permit decision
4     Change culture of EPA/States - to accomplish all recommendations

16.   Consistency of Goals and Strategies
4     Develop better permit strategy definition for states
4     Communicated clear goals and objectives of permitting programs
4     Consider state resources for permit programs
4     Establish consistency in requirements for emergency response plans for different
      programs/agencies
4     Improve permit consistency "environment is customer"
4     Improve consistency between states and regions
4     Define maximum extent practicable  for regulated community  (important  to
      stormwater)
4     Provide greater definition of bio-criteria in permit (important to stormwater)

17.   Relate Environmental Goals to Enforcement and Permitting Strategies
4     Target permits to enforcement initiatives/strategies - relate to environmental goals
4     Stand behind permit program with enforcement
4     Improve technical assistance, enforcement, clarity and distinction
4     Tie permit re-issuance to compliance and enforcement process
4     Give greater consideration to preliminary injunctions and permit revocation
4     Permit process should allow for termination of permits
4     Allow facilities to operate before they have permits
4     Make permit writers  inspectors and enforcers - this will help keep/retain people
4     Modify RCRA to give incentives to go beyond interim status
4     Don't disregarded compliance and enforcement advisory group recommendations

18.   Linkage to Economic Agencies

19.   Environmental Justice
4     Environmental justice needs to be part of this effort

20.   Linkage of Mission. Process.  Product, and  Results
4     Examine context in which permits are issued
4     Tie permit decision making to enforcement
4     Focus on the product not just on the process
                                      21

-------
                                                           Stakeholder Report
21.   Develop New Permitting System
4     Build a permitting system around prevention goals and positive incentives

22.   Focus on Bioaccumulative Toxics

23.   Stakeholder Involvement Throughout Regulatory Process
4     Utilize advisory groups in the development of rules, regulations, and guidance
      documents related to risk assessment
4     Review and challenge mechanism for permits that are based on bad data
4     Review risk assessment model used in permitting

24.   Consider Land Use Rights in Permitting

25.   Evaluate the Impact of Unfunded Mandates

      General Comments
4     Reduce exemptions for strong lobbying groups
4     Remove politics from permit issuance and enforcement
4     Depoliticize Section 319
4     Remember client is public health and the environment
4     Do not allow limited resources as an excuse to for more polluting
4     Examine permit requirement adjustments with state-of-the-art technology
4     Don't reinvent the wheel
4     Guard against further degradation of existing programs
4     Do not allow permit limits below detection
4     Incorporate emergency response
4     Give permit writers greater input into regulations
4     Do not turn permit process over to the states
4     Agencies should bear burden of getting permits out in a timely manner
4     Don't try to do to much (shifts may not accomplish much)
4     Put teeth into mandates of reporting requirements to Congress (e.g.,. medical
      waste)
4     Let applicants pool together resources and find the people to conduct review of
      permit (e.g.,. Memorandum of Agreement for voluntary cleanup in New Jersey)
4     Ensure that states and Federal facilities are in compliance
                                       22

-------
                                                           Stakeholder Report
Focus Groups

      After preliminary roundtable discussion of the twelve NPR recommendations and
the new recommendations offered by meeting participants, stakeholders were divided into
three focus groups and asked to further consider the recommendations. This included
the relative importance of each recommendation, how the recommendation could be
implemented, the potential barriers to or pitfalls of implementing the recommendations,
and any outputs or outcomes that would be produced when the recommendation was
implemented. At every meeting, each focus group (1,2, and 3) was given the same set
of recommendations to consider, in addition, each focus group was assigned one or more
of the new recommendations  depending on the  number of new  topics offered by
stakeholders.   Below is a brief summary of the aggregate focus group  discussions.
Recommendations are discussed in their order of importance within the focus group (as
indicated  by  the  focus  groups and the  amount of discussion  devoted  to  the
recommendation).

Focus Group #1 -  Recommendations Considered

State/EPA Joint Approach to Administrative Streamlining - Overall, the focus  groups
believed that this was an  important recommendation for the team to pursue.  They
indicated that streamlining needs to be across the board  should apply to  all  groups
(federal,  state, tribal and local).  Focus groups offered that  environmental permitting
processes need to  be streamlined programs so that micro-management  and redundancy
are eliminated.  Consistency needs to be built into the process as well as benchmark to
measure progress. Resources should be directed towards environmental improvements,
not just administrative improvements. One size  does not fit all and EPA and the states
should mutually agree on changes.  Barriers/pitfalls include the need for individual
decisions by EPA for some permits, possible inconsistencies between states and the fact
that this will be a considerably large effort to undertake. Outcomes include striving to
delegate all programs to the same degree, and performing in-depth analysis of programs
in several states.

Regulatory and Statutory Barriers -  Overall,  the focus groups felt that the identification of
barriers is  a primary activity that the Team should undertake immediately.  It was
acknowledged that many previous  reports have identified barriers.   They urged the
examination of barriers created by conflicting regulations and suggested working from the
bottom up to identify barriers and the top down to implement flexibility. They encouraged
the Team to examine regulations and statutes to identify ways to facilitate pollution
prevention and the use of innovative technology. Pitfalls or barriers include Congress and
                                      23

-------
                                                             Stakeholder Report
its the reluctance to rewrite statutes and EPA's own interpretations of laws and regulations
(EPA may be using its discretionary power to establish barriers that are unnecessary).

Measure the Success of Permitting Programs -  Focus groups indicated that this was a
medium to low priority and suggested that measures be qualitative and quantitative,
anecdotal and specific to states.  Focus groups offered that any agency establishing
measures of success would need to  ask  the  question -- Is permitting  built around
improvements or goals and does it (the permit) contribute to the environmental objectives?
Agencies also need to consider if the policy will outlive the current political structure
(Administration) and if not, examine whether the policy will, in the long-run,  be truly value
added. Outcomes  include performance standards, measuring the number of programs
which have been delegated below the federal  level, developing a list of permits that can
be standardized, developing a list of persistent conflicts among the states and EPA  (to
examine and resolve), ranking the difficulty of issuing different types of permits, developing
environmental indicators to measure progress against, developing milestones and setting
short and long term goals.  Finally, develop a customer satisfaction 3D test - Delighted,
Disgusted, Disinterested.

Consistency of Goals and Strategies and Relating Environmental Goals to Enforcement
and Permitting Strategies  The focus groups believed that linking environmental goals
to enforcement will give governmental agencies an opportunity to really protect the
environment.  They offered that certain questions need to be answered first before this can
be accomplished. This includes consensus on what the environment is. For example, is
the environment an entire watershed or a series of  geographic areas such as cities or
states or perhaps just part of these areas.  When consensus on what the environment
includes is reached, this would be implemented across the board. Pitfalls include the time
it takes to agree on what the environment is, deciding the fate of existing facilities, and the
possibility that this approach could result in overly site-specific control measures.  Outputs
include establishing goals or criteria for targets.

Implement a Cross  Media Perspective - Overall,  the focus group believed this should be
a low priority given the difficulty of implementing such a system. It was recognized that
laws are media specific.  Pitfalls include potential conflict  with varying state regulatory
structures and goals, the possibility for over permitting (i.e., systems getting to complex)
and the tremendous amount of resources that would need to  be devoted to such an effort.
Outcomes include  issuing  multi-media permits simultaneously, developing systems for
prioritizing actions based on communities or geographic areas and addressing geographic
facilities en masse.
                                        24

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
Environmental  Justice   The focus group  stressed  the  importance of developing
methodologies to measure and address environmental justice issues within a reformed
permitting structure.

Focus Group # 2  Recommendations Considered

Target Permit Priorities - When considering this recommendation, the three focus groups
overwhelming supported the idea of using alternatives to individual permits as a way to
target permit priorities.  That is, to move to a system that utilizes general or class permits.
Under such a system the number of permits for smaller dischargers would be reduced and
focus would be placed on bigger facilities  and larger amounts of emissions.  The focus
groups recommended establishing minimum risk based data for such a program.  The
focus groups also recommended involving the public in establishing a general permit
program. Pitfalls to avoid include believing this system would be the solution to all types
of permits, when in fact, under certain circumstances and/or conditions, it would not.  A
second possible pitfall or barrier would be the need to confine such a program to a facility
based program and resist expanding it to non-point source programs.

Focus groups cautioned that this type of system (general or class permits) could also be
more prescriptive, less flexible, and provide fewer opportunities for public involvement.
Outcomes of implementing this recommendation include integrating this program with the
Agency's  Common Sense Initiative, developing a  system  that takes into account the
compliance records of facilities wishing to participate,  incorporating a tired permitting
system, and launching this new system as an EPA pilot before giving  such a system to the
states to implement.  Finally, the focus groups offered that a true measure of success for
this initiative would be the self-implementing nature of the program.  Self-implementing
was described as government specifying requirements  in regulation that facilities could
comply with, without the need for individual permits.

Training for  Permit Writers -   Overall, the focus groups  believed that  training  is a
significant and important part of any permitting structure and considered it a top priority.
Focus groups  did, however,  expand the traditional  permit  training structures  and
suggested that training in environmental permitting should also be offered to and  include
the general public.   Focus groups also  suggested implementing training exchange
programs with industry where both industry and regulators spend  time working in both
environments (industry and regulatory agencies). Focus groups also recommended that
training  be cross-media rather than single media.  Pitfalls or barriers include too much
training that prohibits people from doing their jobs, and thinking that you can train people
to make wise decisions when what is needed is a good mix of management input with  staff
                                      25

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
work. Outcomes include using electronic delivery systems, standardizing manuals, and
materials and establishing clearinghouses for the public. It was also recommended that
those who currently write permits should perform the training.

Innovative Technology - Overall, the focus groups were supportive of and interested in
the idea of regulatory agencies promoting the use of innovative technology. There were,
however, many more questions and cautions offered than specific outcomes or outputs.
Focus groups suggested that a preliminary activity that needed to be undertaken was a
complete review of statutes and regulations to ensure that innovative technologies can be
accommodated by present structures.  They consistently cautioned that a system not be
established which favors innovative technology which is not truly innovative over standard
or conventional technologies. Focus groups also offered that if innovative technology is
going to be promoted, then regulatory agency staffs would need to be trained to identify
and facilitate its use,  and suggested that  EPA develop "national experts" on innovative
technology, that resources would need to be expended on writing guidance and other
materials to facilitate regulators and that grants may need to be offered to encourage the
risk of investing in unproven and innovative technologies.

The focus groups  also cautioned that the  public needs to be informed of innovative
technology and how the technology would meet the standards set. They also suggested
that often  the public  does  not understand what is meant by innovative technology.  If
implemented, some outcomes should include the use of dedicated agency teams to work
with affected parties  -- industries and the public -- to encourage the use of innovative
technology and to determine if specific geographic areas are better suited to the use of
some technologies over others. Potential pilot projects need to consider how enforcement
actions would work if technology fails and how flexibility could be maintained so that those
who do take risk are not penalized.

Culture Change - The focus groups reported that the underlying reason for a need to
facilitate a change in the culture is the need to stop attorneys from running environmental
permitting programs.  This has perpetuated adversarial roles and kept partnerships from
forming. Culture change also extends to giving states more latitude and minimizing micro-
 management.    The focus  group  felt that  the  EPA  role  should  be  one  of
providing/conducting training, developing standards, and conducting research.  Permit
expertise should reside in delegated states or local governments. Outcomes include the
federal government focusing on: training, standards, and research.

 Permits Clearinghouse  Very little discussion was devoted to this topic. Overall,  the
focus groups believed this could be a useful exercise and information source but that


                                       26

-------
                                                             Stakeholder Report
focusing on implementing many of the other recommendations would do more to improve
present permitting structures.  One comment consistently articulated was that if such a
system was to be implemented, responsibility for developing, operating and maintaining
it should rest with states.

Focus Group # 3 Recommendations Considered

Encourage Pollution Prevention - Overall, the focus groups felt pollution prevention should
be a significant component of any reformed permitting system and that pollution prevention
should be fostered so that it becomes a means for eventually eliminating permits. Focus
groups felt it was particularly important to ensure that there are no barriers to pollution
prevention and to provide "soft landings" for those who pursue pollution prevention and
it doesn't work out.  Soft  landings refers to flexible enforcement and other  actions.
Permits that incorporate pollution prevention  must include  criteria for  success,  the
assignment of responsibilities, and timelines for meeting specific actions. Focus groups
cautioned that fall back requirements are needed in permits should pollution prevention
requirements not be achieved, that pollution prevention actions  must relate to meaningful
environmental goals, and  that pollution prevention should  not be applied as a shield
against end of pipe requirements. Outputs would be a change in the  regulatory culture
from one of end-of-pipe to source control, as well as a different  way  of evaluating
performance and success (from individual staff who  facilitate the move to  pollution
prevention to organizations who implement it). Finally, the  most significant  outcome
should this recommendation be implemented, would be the writing  of new policies which
minimize emissions and substitute pollution prevention for permits.

Facilitate  Meaningful Public  Participation   Focus groups  felt that meaningful public
participation, not just public involvement, is essential  to a reformed permitting effort.
Public participation  needs to achieve a dialogue between  the  regulatory agencies,
applicants and the public.  Public notice is  not involvement - public participation goes
beyond this. Clear goals need to be established for public involvement.  The public gets
concerned with the details when they don't  know or are not given the opportunity to
debate the big issues. Meaningful dialogue depends upon access to clear information on
permitted activities. The public participation process needs to begin from the moment an
application is entered - from front end to issuance and renewals.  Public participation  is
partly the responsibility of the applicant.  Outcomes of implementing this recommendation
would be that environmental justice is incorporated in every permit, and  public participation
is standardized across all environmental programs. Participation would be handled on a
case by case basis.  Not every permit warrants  a full blown public participation process.
Focus on getting the  important information out.
                                       27

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
Streamline State Reporting Requirements- This recommendation received little discussion
other than to suggest that it should be part of administrative streamlining generally and
that information should be merged with other important information and made available on
an electronic database.

Integrated Permit Database - Focus groups saw this recommendation as a low priority and
devoted little discussion to this recommendations.  It was suggested that should this
recommendation be pursued, that outputs need to be consistent across  states and that
environmental indicators must first be developed.

Settle National Issues   This recommendation suggests that EPA and the states move
forward and settle some of the persistent issues that have continually caused  conflict
among the two agencies. These relate mainly to definition issues in regulations.
 Measures of Success

       The  final  roundtable discussion  of the stakeholder  meetings  was devoted to
 discussing  the  appropriate measures  of success  to  evaluate  the  performance of
 environmental permitting programs. Stakeholders were asked to consider the products
 that should be produced, how to measure performance, and the overall results that should
 be achieved when the recommendations were implemented. Stakeholders were also
 asked to identify the customer service initiatives that should be employed.  Following is a
 listing of the measures of success developed by meeting participants.

       Product
 *     Permits only issued to facilities where they are needed to protect human health and
       the environment.
 *     How many permit conditions have been eliminated?
 4     Reduce complexity
      Eliminate false compliance - "administrative" compliance
 4     Determine when an application is complete
 4     Use statistical process control techniques to analyze process
 *     Clarify steps to be taken - start to finish
 *     Quality of permits (e.g.,. clarity, enforceability)
 4     Measure whether permit is enforceable - enforceable determines "good" permit
 *     Public shares responsibility and recognizes their role in problem solution
 t     Shift resources from point to non-point sources
 *     Focus on  the right sector and source of pollution - in ozone area, permits are not


                                        28

-------
                                                     Stakeholder Report
the only thing that is going to solve the problem  source reduction, upgrades of
equipment
Pollution prevention - expand to include facility throughput
Strive for understandability - consensus, appeals, the number of questions
Customer Relations - special consideration for small business and communities
(cost and reporting requirements)
Implement a ranking system based on difficulty of issuing permits
Measurements need to be communicated up front
Identified "best practices"
Broad knowledge of what constitutes compliance
Make the permit process a model for identifying cross-jurisdictional issues
Permits issued by lowest possible level
Fairness - opportunity to raise concerns

Performance
Measures (e.g., time to process; number of steps eliminated, measuring time, need
to measure components)
Performance standards  (timeframes)
Permit turnaround time
Measure how  long  it takes to get permit   from  date  of submittal to date of
implementation
Correlation  between size, complexity,  and length of time it takes to issue a permit
Strive to make transaction costs (due to the environmental compliance) for entry
and exit from market less than they are today
Long/short term costs - costs due to environmental degradation
Number of expired permits
Number of permits issued
Number of backlogged permits
Number of changes in the permit that are requested by the regulated entity
Revoking permits if companies continually show "bad faith" effort
Five or more nuisance violations means non-effective permit
Develop milestones - identify different permit programs - then set short-term goals
Different measurements for different programs
Develop list of permits that could be standardized and see how many are done
Develop list of conflicts between states and EPA and then publish and try to resolve
them
Evaluate permit process -  identify what works well
Is there consistency to measure against?  Need to do benchmarking.  Who sets the
"standard"?
                                29

-------
                                                           Stakeholder Report
4     Need to measure both efficiency and effectiveness
4     Less appeals - administrative and judicial
4     Are permits in accord with environmental goals?

      Results
4     Use environmental indicators - is the environment improving?
4     Need to look at effect on environment (e.g., waste generated; emissions; need to
      develop indicators)
*     Have we eliminated the discharge of bio-accumulated toxics
*     Cleaner air and water
4     Continuous improvement in environmental quality
4     National resource investment in permitting is down with improved environmental
      quality
4     Reaching environmental goals
4     Measure health effects after a permit is issued -  look to local health registry
4     Continue work on environmental indicators
4     Effectiveness evaluated against human health, ecosystems, and quality of life
4     Develop environmental indicators
4     Behavior changed because of efforts
4     Downsizing forces change
4     There are fewer enforcement cases due to improved compliance
*     Level of compliance - number of facilities in compliance
4     Compliance with specific conditions of permit
4     Better compliance - measure the compliance rate
4     Reduction of severity and number of enforcement actions the Agency takes
4     Focus on compliance as opposed to environmental impacts
4     Cost - short term/long-term to the environment
4     Measure could be resources necessary to process permits
4     Measure economics - at what costs are we having a benefit
4     Decrease information and reporting costs to the regulated industry
4     Permits that are being written are reaching the largest groups, getting the most
      reduction for what we are spending
4     How many permits avoided because of pollution prevention?
4     Number of permits needed to be issued
4     Articulate outcomes  (simple & streamlined; objective & enforceable; flexible &
      innovative)
4     Delegations to states  measure the number of states who have programs
4     Siting of new facility or facilities based on objective criteria
4     Population and industry is environmentally active/conscientious


                                      30

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
4     Risks to health are voluntary
4     Do baseline study of health and health effects
4     Measure loadings - considering complexity of permit when evaluating effectiveness
4     Demonstrative effectiveness vs. harm

      Customer Service
4     Measure customer  satisfaction with:  surveys,  more  contact  with  regulated
      community, this could include public participants/random public
4     Quality of public participation  measure by the number of comments incorporated
      and the number of permits appealed by public
4     Public awareness needs to be considered
*     General consensus that permitting decisions are fair, consistent, efficient, and open
4     Communities believe that there input is taken into account in the permit process
4     Performance standards of Regional Administrator and Regional staff  should be
      based on feedback from customers. Survey customers
4     Predictability of decisions
4     Establish Citizen Advisory Groups
4     Citizen groups oversee the measurements the Agency puts out
4     Satisfaction of stakeholders, permit writers, permittees, etc.
4     Process is cooperative, not adversarial
4     Delighted and disinterested with the permitting system = 80%
4     Widely and easily available permit  and compliance data for facilities
4     Continuous monitoring data readily available to the public
4     Ease of access to information (permit status)
4     Ease of access to records
4     Inclusion of planning system as part of permit
4     Must communicate to general public what Agency is doing
4     Sustainable competitive economy

Stakeholder Survey Results

      After a day of discussing the possible permit reform recommendations, stakeholders
were  given a final opportunity, through a  survey, to indicate their preferences for
implementation.  A survey was distributed at each of the Stakeholder meetings to allow
for quantification of meeting results from the five national meetings. The survey (see
Appendix C) asked each meeting participant to rank the twelve National Performance
Review recommendations and any new recommendations developed at each meeting in
priority  order  for implementation.   Because of the breadth of some of the NPR
recommendations, sub-recommendations were developed to allow for more definition of
                                      31

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
what participants viewed as a priority. A five point scale was used as follows:
      1.  Recommendation should not be implemented
      2.  Recommendation should receive very low priority
      3.  Recommendation should receive medium priority
      4.  Recommendation should receive high priority
      5.  Recommendation should be implemented immediately.

Results

      Thirteen new recommendations were developed  that were separate and distinct
from any of the twelve NPR recommendations included on the survey.  Of the thirteen,
three were identified in  two or more  meetings.  The recommendation on  relating
environmental goals to enforcement and permitting strategies was developed in three
meetings, while the settle national issues and culture change  recommendations were
identified in two meetings.

Combined Results - The survey results as summarized in (Appendix D, Table A) represent
the combined average of the three sectors for each recommendation. There were unequal
numbers of participants in the three stakeholder categories, therefore,  providing the
average  of all responses would not be as representative of the overall  opinion of all
stakeholders. A more detailed summary is presented in Table B (following the text), where
the results are provided individually for each stakeholder category.

Only one overall NPR recommendation had a combined average over four (Encourage
Pollution Prevention - 4.2). Two parts of the State/EPA Joint Approach to Administrative
Streamlining recommendation also received a combined score over four.  These were,
working with  stakeholders to identify barriers and obstacles to improving the permitting
process (4.3)  and identifying successful permitting programs to learn and apply successes
(4.1).  It interesting to note that none of the three parts of the Encourage Pollution
Prevention recommendation scored over four.

Five of the thirteen new recommendations had a combined average of four or above;
Culture Change (4.0); Consistency of Goals and  Strategies (4.2); Relate Environmental
Goals to  Enforcement and Permitting Strategies (4.0); Linkage of Mission, Process,
Product and Results (5.0); and Stakeholder Involvement Throughout Regulatory Process
(4.2). However, the number of respondents in one or more of the stakeholder categories
was too low for these results to be considered representative.
                                      32

-------
                                                             Stakeholder Report
Environmental/Community Group Results - Reviewing the results by stakeholder category
provides additional information to help determine which recommendations should be
implemented  (see Appendix  D, Table  B).   The environmental/community group
stakeholders ranked four overall recommendations as a high priority.  In addition, parts of
six recommendations received high priority rankings, with four of these being associated
with two overall recommendations. The high priority recommendations were; Encourage
Pollution Prevention; Address Multi-Media Pollution, (including one part dealing with
creating permit teams to review permits); Enhance Public Participation, including all three
parts; one part of State/EPA Joint Approach to Administrative Streamlining dealing with
identifying barriers to improving the permitting process; and one part of Target Permit
Priorities dealing with prioritizing permit issuance based on human health and ecological
risk.  This sector also identified seven of the thirteen new recommendations as either high
or immediate priorities,  however, this is based on only one or two responses.

Regulated Community Results - The regulated community stakeholders identified three
overall recommendations and four parts of those as high priority (see Appendix D, Table
B). The high priority recommendations were; State/EPA Joint Approach to Administrative
Streamlining, with three parts dealing with State/EPA teams to review permit processes,
identifying  barriers to  improving the permitting  process,  and identifying successful
permitting programs; Target Permit Priorities, with one part dealing with using alternatives
to individual permits; and Regulatory and Statutory Barriers. This sector also identified two
of the thirteen new recommendations as either high or immediate priorities, however, this
is based on only one or five responses.

Regulator Results -  The regulator stakeholders identified three overall recommendations
and two parts on one of those as a high priority (see Appendix D, Table B).  The high
priority recommendations were: State/EPA Joint Approach to Administrative Streamlining,
with two parts dealing with identifying barriers to improving the permitting process, and
identifying successful permitting programs; Encourage Pollution Prevention and Train
Permit Writers. This sector also identified three of the thirteen new recommendations as
either high or immediate priorities, however, this is based on only one or two responses.

Program Specific Results - The survey provided an opportunity for each respondent to
specify whether a given recommendation should be implemented for a particular permitting
program.  The vast majority of respondents did not identify any individual permitting
programs.  However, those responses that did identify a specific program focused mostly
on the three Clean  Air Act permitting programs (see Appendix D, Table C).
                                      33

-------
                                                           Stakeholder Report
Additional Public Input

      In addition to receiving input from the formal stakeholder meetings, several
organizations considered the issue of a reformed permitting system and relayed their
thoughts  and  concerns to the  Team.   One such  organization,  the Community
Environmental Council of Santa Barbara brought together a number of parties including
the state of California's Environmental Protection Agency, the California Water Resources
Board, Rockwell, Chevron, and Alameda County Economic Development Agency, among
others,  to consider the recommendations and issues being addressed by the Permits
Improvements Team. A summary of the meeting is available from Wilfiam Pierce, at EPA's
Region  IX Water Management Division (415/744-1877).  Some of the key issues and
concerns that emerged from that meeting include:

      1) Establish and implement risk based permitting - develop a permitting system that
      allows a tired grant of authorization that is risked based
      2) Develop permitting systems that approve performance rather than technology
      3) Establish  an initial "failure" scenario without criminal/civil liability
      4) Identify ways through full delegation to enhance/expedite multi-media permitting
      and match with local environmental needs

Future  Direction of the Permits Improvement Team

      Based on stakeholder input and EPA management approval, the Team will move
forward  in  implementing  permit  reform  recommendations in the following  areas:
Alternatives to  Individual  Permits,    Administrative Streamlining, Enhancing  Public
Participation, Pollution Prevention Incentives, Training, and Performance Measures.  The
team has divided into tasks forces to  pursue these reforms.

      Over the next eight months, the Team will be moving forward with initiatives outlined
in each  individual action plan (see Appendix E). The initial focus of the Team's efforts will
be on those improvements that can  be implemented during Fiscal Year (FY) 1995.  These
initial efforts will also identify longer term actions that need to be taken (e.g., regulatory
revisions) as-well.   These actions will be scheduled for implementation in FY 1996 and
beyond. In this way, the EPA will begin the process of permit reform, recognizing that
continuous improvements will be needed to establish a permitting system that facilitates
the Agency's mission of protection of human health and the environment.
                                      34

-------
                                                           Stakeholder Report
      The Teams' schedule provides for a series of stakeholder meetings to obtain input
on the initial products being developed by each of the task forces. These meetings will be
held to provide early input on the reform efforts which will then  be modified to reflect
stakeholder  suggestions.  The  final  permit reforms will then be presented to EPA
management for approval. This is expected to occur by the end of September 1995.

      A Federal Register notice will be issued prior to the second round of stakeholder
meetings along with individual invitations to those persons receiving this report. The Team
will distribute materials in advance of the meetings.  The tentative dates and locations for
the stakeholder meeting follows:

                           May 17, 1995 - Atlanta, GA
                           May 18, 1995 - Chicago,  IL
                         May 23, 1995 - Kansas City, KS
                        May 24/25, 1995 Los Angles,  CA
                           May 31, 1995-Newark, NJ
                         June 2, 1995  Washington, DC
                                      35

-------
                        Stakehoider Report
Appendixes
    36

-------
                                                           Stakeholder Report
                                 Appendix A

Stakeholder Letter

Dear Stakeholder,

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has recently established
a Permits Improvement Team to implement specific actions for the purpose of 1)
improving the quality, certainty and timeliness of the permit decision process; 2)
providing for earlier and better public participation in the permitting process; and 3)
enhancing the use of innovative technologies and pollution prevention through the
permitting process. The Team is made up of regulators from USEPA state, tribal and
local governments.

Numerous recommendations have been made on how to improve the process for
obtaining environmental permits. Most recently, USEPA developed specific
recommendations as part of the Vice President's and the Agency's National
Performance Reviews. The Team is currently in the process of determining which
recommendations should be implemented first. We need your help in making this
decision.

USEPA is holding five national stakeholder meetings this fall to obtain advice from
individuals on this issue. These meetings will be held in Denver on October 20th,
Philadelphia on October 26th, Seattle on  November 7th, Dallas on November 14th, and
Boston on November 21st.  The Denver and Boston  meetings are being held in the
Region's Conference Centers.  In Denver: 999 15th Street, 8th floor; Boston:  1
Congress Street, 11th floor.  The Philadelphia meeting will be held at the Barclay Hotel
on 237 South 18th Street, Philadelphia. The Seattle meeting will be held at the
Claremont Hotel on 2004 4th Avenue at Virginia Street, Seattle. The location for the
Dallas meeting is still being determined.

Attached to this letter is the Agenda and format for the meetings. Our objective is to
obtain individual ideas and comments,  but we will not attempt to obtain a group opinion
from the meeting participants.  Also attached is a listing of 12 recommendations from
the National Performance Review that the Team would like your help in prioritizing. We
will discuss these  recommendations and your suggestions for enhancing and
measuring the Team's intended results at the meeting. The last part of the meeting will
focus on receiving your input on how to measure the performance of environmental
permits. Finally, two pamphlets are enclosed that describe USEPA's Customer Service
initiative.

                                     37

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
Your input is critical to helping us focus our efforts on those improvements that will have
the most benefit to all of you. Since there is limited seating at the stakeholder
meetings, we request that you notify us, in writing, of your intention to participate. This
notification should be received by the noted RSVP date for the meeting you wish to
attend.  Those who are unable to participate should know that there are likely to be
additional Team meetings next year which will focus on specific implementation
activities.

Unfortunately, travel funds are not available for USEPA to pay for costs you may incur
in attending these meetings.

Please send, in writing, notification of which meeting you will be attending to: USEPA
Permits Improvement Team, Mail Stop 100, 2890 Woodbridge Ave., Edison NJ 08837.
If you notify us that you wish to attend the Dallas meeting, you will receive written
notification of the location prior to the meeting.  Questions concerning these meetings
should be directed to the Team's Executive Director, Lance Miller, at (908) 321-6782.

We look forward to your participation and input.
Sincerely,
 Elliott P. Laws
 Assistant Administrator
 OSWER
 Co-Chair Permits Improvement
 Team
Jeanne M. Fox
Regional Administrator
Region 2
Co-Chair Permits Improvement
Team
                                       38

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
                                  Appendix B

Meeting Format

The format for the Stakeholder meetings will be roundtable and focus group sessions.
The day will be divided into four parts as follows:  1) a roundtable discussion of possible
activities for the Permits Improvement Team to pursue; 2) focus group discussions on a
subset of the possible recommendations to determine if a recommendation should be
implemented, amplified, what it should cover, and possible implementation pitfalls; 3) a
second roundtable discussion on the results of each of the focus groups; and 4) a final
roundtable discussion on how to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of
environmental permitting.

The roundtable will consist of approximately equal representation from
environmental/community groups, regulated entities, and regulators.  Each group is
being allocated no more than thirteen seats at the table. If more than thirteen
representatives from a group sign up for a meeting, seats at the table will be allocated
to achieve the broadest representation of that group.  If seats are available at other
locations,  participants will be offered an opportunity to attend those meetings.
Perimeter seating will be available to all on a first come first serve basis.

The first roundtable session will review the National Performance Review
recommendations that the Permits Improvement Team is considering for
implementation (see attached list).  Participants are encouraged to offer other
improvements that they feel should  be addressed. The meeting will be open to the
public. However, the majority of the time will be allocated to the interaction of the
roundtable participants. If time permits, the other attendees will also be given an
opportunity to provide their input.

The roundtable participants will be divided into three focus groups, with approximately
equal numbers from each of the participating sectors.  Each focus group will be given a
third of the recommendations to discuss. Focus group participants will discuss their
individual  views on whether each recommendation should  be implemented, amplify
each recommendation, specify what should be accomplished, and/or the type of
products that should be produced, and possible pitfalls for  each recommendation.
Focus group discussions will be recorded by USEPA.

Focus groups will reconvene in the  roundtable format  and  report to the entire group on
their discussions. A survey will be distributed listing each of the recommendations and
each attendee will be requested to rate the degree to which they feel each

                                      39

-------
                                                           Stakeholder Report
recommendation should be implemented. The survey will require certain information
(name and affiliation), but the individual responses will be kept confidential subject to
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S.C. 552.

The last part of the meeting will provide an opportunity for meeting participants and to
the extent time allows, other meeting attendees, the opportunity to provide input to
USEPA on what performance standards should be developed to measure the
effectiveness and efficiency of the environmental permitting process.  The Customer
Service Executive Summary and Environmental Permitting pamphlets are enclosed to
provide background information on this initiative.  A Task Force of the Permits
Improvement Team will be developing draft performance standards that will be the
subject of additional outreach meetings. After receipt and consideration of customer
comments final performance  standards will be adopted by USEPA.
                                      40

-------
                                                          Stakeholder Report
                                 Appendix C

Customer Implementation Survey

      Thank you for participating in the Permits Improvement Team (PIT) Stakeholder
meeting. So that we may obtain as much stakeholder input as possible on the Teams'
anticipated activities, we have developed the following survey. We ask that you carefully
read the activities outlined and rate your preference  for implementation by the scale
provided below.  If you believe that the recommendation should only be implemented for
one or two of the permitting programs, place the appropriate letters, (as assigned to each
permit  category below), next to  your  numerical  ranking.   If  you believe that the
recommendation should be implemented for three or  more permitting programs,  just
provide your numerical ranking.

      While the survey does ask for name and affiliation, individual responses will be kept
confidential subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 5 U.S. C. 552 requirements.

Score on a scale of 1 to 5 as follows:
      1. Recommendation should not be implemented
      2. Recommendation should receive very low priority
      3. Recommendation should receive medium priority
      4. Recommendation should receive high priority
      5. Recommendation should be implemented immediately

Permit Categories
      A. New Source Review (NSR)
      B. Title V of Clean Air Act
      C. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)  - Clean Air Act
      D. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
      E. Non-point Source (NPS) - Clean Water Act
      F. Treatment, Storage or Disposal (TSD) Operating Permit - Resource
        Conservation And Recovery Act (RCRA)
      G. Post Closure - (RCRA)
      H. Underground Storage Tank (UST) - RCRA
      I. PCB Disposal - Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
      J. Ocean Deposition - Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
        (MPSRA)
                                     41

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
                  Recommendations                          S

1.  State/EPA Joint Approach to Administrative Streamlining
      a. Establish teams with States and EPA
        representatives to review permit processes.
      b. Work with stakeholders to identify barriers and
        obstacles to improving the permitting process.
      c. Identify and survey successful permitting programs
        to learn and apply successes.
      d. Encourage and authorize states that have full statutory
        authority to take full delegation and responsibility
        for permit programs.
      e. Develop capability of states to assume more responsibility
        for their permitting programs.

2. Target Permit Priorities
      a.  Issue individual permits (rather than general
         permits) only where it is necessary to apply
        tailored or site specific requirements.
      b.  Use alternatives to individual permits where
         possible, such as, compliance with self-
         implementing regulations (e.g., permit-by-rule),
         and general or class permits.
      c.  Prioritize permit issuance based on human health
        and ecological risk concerns, or on geographic
        basis.

3. Regulatory and Statutory Barriers
      a. Identify  regulations and statutes that prevent
        flexibility in permitting and suggest possible
        follow-up actions, including revising applicable regulations
       and working with Congress to amend
        appropriate statutes.

4. Encourage Pollution Prevention
     a. Create incentives for pollution prevention in
        permits and permit compliance by considering the
        use of differential fee schedules, extra time to
        comply, and expedited processing.
                                       42

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
     b.  Prepare guidance on how to implement innovative
        strategies and procedures.
     c.  Explore the appropriateness of emission fee
        programs.

5.  Address Multi-Media Pollution
      a. To encourage cross media pollution reduction
        strategies, coordinate permit issuance or
        reissuance for environmentally significant
        sources.
      b. Create permitting teams in the regions to review
        permits and identify cross media transfer issues.
      c. Phase in cross media permitting with several
        pilots covering a wide range of alternatives
        (e.g., combining UIC/RCRA; air/water; water/RCRA;
        or sludge/ground water).

6.  Enhance Public Participation
      a. Revise permitting procedures to encourage
        meaningful early public participation and identify
        more effective methods to notify the public.
      b. Develop ways to be more responsive  to the public
        by drafting clear and understandable  guidance
        manuals for the general public, states and
        applicants.
      c. Prepare annual communication strategies and
        programs to educate interested citizens, including
        holding training workshops in conjunction with
        citizen groups, state associations and
        trade associations.

7.  Facilitate Permitting of Innovative Technology
      a. To facilitate permitting of innovative
        technologies create special teams of permit
        writers from EPA and the States to conduct reviews
        of what does and doesn't work in writing permits.
        This would determine whether permits could be
        changed or modified to allow the use of more
        innovative technology to accomplish the
                                      43

-------
                                                           Stakeholder Report
        environmental mandate dictated by permits.
     b. Identify regulatory and statutory obstacles to
        the use of innovative technologies that policy
        and procedural changes alone cannot fix.
     c. Develop alternative approaches to conventional
        permitting processes that encourage the use of
        innovative technologies.

8. Measure the Success of Permitting Programs        _
     Develop ways to measure the success of permitting
     programs. This would include measures on both the
     effectiveness and efficiency of the permitting
     programs. Effectiveness measures could include
     environmental quality improvements, degree of
     compliance, and level of satisfaction with the
     permitting process. Efficiency measures could include
     timeliness standards and degree of understanding of
     the permitting requirements.

9. Train Permit Writers
      a. Establish an EPA Permits Institute and require
         State/Federal permit professionals to complete a
         core curriculum.
      b. Review the permit organization staffing to ensure
         the appropriate skills mix.
      c. Provide financial or other incentives and awards
         to permit professionals.

10. Permits Clearinghouse
      Establish a permits clearinghouse to serve as a single
      point of contact for regulated industries and local
      governments to obtain information about national and
      regional regulations and permitting requirements.
      This could include general, simple-to-understand
      information, as well as names and numbers of state
      and/or EPA regional or headquarters contacts for
      technical assistance on permitting issues. The
      clearinghouse could also include a national EPA
      hotline and computer bulletin board.
                                      44

-------
                                                           Stakeholder Report
11.  Streamline State Reporting Requirements
      Evaluate state reporting requirements and eliminate
      excessive and artificial commitments.  Modify oversight
      guidance to help states implement their permitting
      programs. This could include revising the existing
      accountability/measurement system.

12.  Integrate Permit Databases
      Create an integrated database that provides
      information useful for measuring compliance by
      industry, sector, and facility.  This could also be
      used to devise long-term multi-media pollution
      prevention strategies. Pilot such a cross-program
      permit tracking system with one state and one region.

13.  	

14.  	

15.  	

16.  	

17.  	

18.  	

19.	

20.  	
NAME (Optional):.
AFFILIATION: Circle One

      Environmental/Community Group    Regulated Community

      Regulator   MEETING ATTENDED:	


                                     45

-------
                                                       Stakeholder Report
                               Appendix D

Survey Tables A. B. C

TABLE A
SURVEY RESULTS - COMBINED AVERAGE

           Recommendation        Average
                   1                  3.9
                   1a                 3.8
                   1b                 4.3
                   1c                 4.1
                   1d                 3.3
                   1e                 3.4
                   2                  3.4
                   2a                 3.4
                   2b                 3.4
                   2c                 3.8
                   3                  3.7
                   4                  4.2
                   4a                 3.7
                   4b                 3.6
                   4c                 3.1
                   5                  3.6
                   53                 3.4
                   5b                 3.4
                   5c                 3.2
                   6                  3.8
                   6a                 3.9
                   6b                 3.9
                   6c                 3.4
                   7                  3.6
                   7a                 3.4
                   7b                 3.6
                   7c                 3.5
                   8                  3.6
                   9                  3.8
                   9a                 3.3
                                    46

-------
                                                           Stakeholder Report
                    9b                   3.3
                    9c                   3.3
                    10                   3.5
                    11                   3.3
                    12                   3.4
                    13                   3.2
                    14                   3.2
                    15                   4.0
                    16                   4.2
                    17                   4.0
                    18                   2.4
                    19                   NA
                    20                   5.0
                    21                   NA
                    22                   3.5
                    23                   4.2
                    24                   3.3
                    25                   2.3

1 -12 - See Description in Survey (Appendix B)
13 = Ability of applicants to fund resources for permit reviews
14 = Settle national issues
15 = Culture change
16 = Consistency of goals and strategies
17 = Relate environmental goals to enforcement and permitting    strategies
18 = Linkage to economic agencies
19 = Environmental Justice
20 = Linkage of Mission, Process, Product and Results
21 = Develop  new permitting system
22 = Focus on bioaccumulative toxics
23 = Stakeholder Involvement Throughout Regulatory Process
24 = Consider Land Use Rights in Permitting
25 = Evaluate Impact of Unfunded Mandates

NA - One stakeholder group had  no responses therefore no average was calculated

Average was determined by treating each stakeholder group equally.
                                     47

-------
                                                Stakeholder Report
TABLE B
          SURVEY RESULTS - STAKEHOLDER SECTOR SUMMARY
            Reg Comm
              (44)
            Avg    Range
Env/Comm
   (16)
Avg    Range
 Regulator
  (40)
Avg   Range



N
P
R

R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n











1
1a
1b
1C
1d
1e
2
2a
2b
2c
3
4
4a
4b
4c
5
5a
5b
5c
6
6a
6b
6c
7
7a
7b
7c
8
9
9a
9b
9c
4.3 (33) 2-5
4.1 (40) 2-5
4.7 (40) 3-5
4.4 (38) 2-5
3.8 (40) 1-5
3.7 (40) 2-5
4.1 (33) 1-5
3.9 (41) 1-5
4.2 (41) 1-5
3.7 (41) 1-5
4.3 (40) 2-5
3.7 (35) 1-5
3.8 (42) 1-5
3.5 (42) 1-5
2.7 (41) 1-5
3.1 (37) 1-5
3.1 (41) 1-5
2.9 (41 1-5
2.9 (41) 1-5
3.0 (32) 1-5
3.1 (41) 1-5
3.4 (42) 1-5
2.9 (41) 1-5
3.5 (35) 2-5
3.5 (39) 1-5
3.8 (39) 1-5
3.7 (39) 3-5
3.3 (41) 1-5
3.6 (35) 1-5
3.2 (43) 1-5
3.5 (43) 1-5
3.5 (43) 1-5
3.2 (11) 2-5
3.4 (15) 1-5
4.2 (15) 1-5
3.7 (15) 1-5
2.7 (15) 1-5
2.8 (15) 1-5
2.1 (11) 1-5
2.4 (15) 1-4
2.0 1-4
4.1 (14) 1-5
2.9 (15) 1-5
4.8 (12) 4-5
3.7 (15) 1-5
3.9 (15) 2-5
3.8 (15) 1-5
4.0 (12) 3-5
3.9 (15) 2-5
4.0 (15) 2-5
3.7 (15) 1-5
4.9 (11) 4-5
4.9 (15) 4-5
4.7 (15) 3-5
4.2 (15) 1-5
3.7 (14) 2-5
3.4 (15) 2-5
3.4 (15) 1-4
3.4 (14) 1-5
3.8 (15) 2-5
3.7 (13) 2-5
3.2 (15) 1-5
3.3 (15) 2-5
2.9 (15) 1-5
4.1 (28) 2-5
3.9 (34) 1-5
4.0 (34) 1-5
4.3 (36) 1-5
3.5 (35) 1-5
3.7 (33) 1-5
3.9 (28) 3-5
3.9 (36) 1-5
3.9 (36) 1-5
3.6 (34) 1-5
3.9 (39) 1-5
4.0 (31) 1-5
3.6 (35) 1-5
3.5 (36) 1-5
2.9 (34) 1-5
3.8 (29) 2-5
3.3 (36) 1-5
3.3 (36) 1-5
3.0 (37) 1-5
3.5 (29) 2-5
3.7 (36) 1-5
3.6 (36) 1-5
3.2 (35) 1-5
3.5 (29) 2-5
3.2 (35) 1-4
3.6 (35) 2-5
3.5 (35) 1-5
3.8 (36) 2-5
4.0 (31) 1-5
3.5 (36) 1-5
3.2 (35) 1-5
3.5 (34) 1-5
                                48

-------
                                                           Stakeholder Report
Table B (Continued)
      10
      11
      12
      13
      14
      15
      16
      17
      18
      19
      20
      21
      22
      23
      24
      25
3.2      1-5
3.3 (43)  1-5
2.8 (43)  1-5
3.7 (13)  2-5
3.1 (14)  1-5
3.8 (17)  1-5
4.8 (5)   4-5
3.7 (16)  1-5
3.8 (5)   3-5
2.0 (1)
5.0 (1)
3.0 (2)
1 -5 (2)
3.8 (8)
3.0 (6)
3.8 (6)
NA
NA
2-4
1-2
2-5
2-5
2-5
3
2
4
3
3
4
4
4
1


5


5
5
4
1
.8
.8
.2
.0
.3
.5
.0
.5
.0
n
.u
.0


.0
.0
.0
.0



(1)
(3)
(2)
(1)
(2)
(1)
M \
I1)
(1)


(1)
(1)
(1)
(1)
2-5
1-5
2-5
NA
3-4
4-5
NA
4-5
NA
MA
INA
NA


NA
NA
NA
NA
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2


5


4
3
3
2
.5
.8
.1
.0
.3
.7
.8
.8
.5


.0


.0
.7
.0
.0
(38)
(38)

(8)
(9)
(11)
(4)
(8)
(4)


(1)
fO\
\ /
(1)
(3)
(4)
(4)
1-5
1-5
1-5
1-5
2-4
2-5
2-5
1-5
1-4


NA
3C
-o
NA
2-5
2-5
1-3
1 -12 - See Description in Survey (Appendix C)
13 = Ability of applicants to fund resources for permit reviews
14 = Settle national issues
15 = Culture change
16 = Consistency of goals and strategies
17 = Relate environmental goals to enforcement & permitting strategies
18 = Linkage to economic agencies
19 = Environmental Justice
20 = Linkage of Mission, Process, Product and Results
21 = Develop new permitting system
22 = Focus on toxics
23 = Stakeholder Involvement Throughout Regulatory Process
24 = Consider Land Use Rights in Permitting
25 = Evaluate Impact of Unfunded Mandates

(#) Indicates the number of respondents if different than the total

NA - Not Applicable
                                      49

-------
                                                          Stakeholder Report
TABLE C
 SURVEY RESULTS - RECOMMENDATIONS RELATIVE TO SPECIFIC PROGRAMS

Recommendation (a)          Permit Program (#)	
      1a                A(4)   B(3)   C(2)
      1b                A(3)   B(6)   C(2)
      1c                A(2)   B(3)   C(2)
      1d
      1e
      2                                   D(1)              K(1)
      2a                A(1)   B(2)         D(2)
      2b                A(1)   B(2)
      2c                A(1)   B(1)
      3                 A(2)   B(2)   C(2)              F(1)
      3b                            C(1)
      4                 A(1)   B(1)   C(1)              F(1)        1(1)
      4a               A(2)   B(2)   C(2)              F(1)        1(1)
      4b                A(2)   B(3)   C(3)   D(1)        F(1)        1(1)
      4c                A(1)   B(1)   C(2)              F(1)        1(1)
      5a               A(1)   B(1)   C(1)   D(2)
      5b               A(1)   B(1)   C(1)   D(1)
      5c                A(1)   B(1)   C(2)              F(1)        1(1)
      6a               A(1)   B(1)   C(1)              F(1)        1(1)
      6b               A(1)   B(1)   C(1)              F(1)        1(1)
      6c                A(1)   B(1)   C(2)              F(1)        1(1)
      7a               A(1)   B(1)
      7b               A(1)   B(2)
      7c               A(2)   B(1)
      8                 A(1)   B(1)   C(1)              F(1)        1(1)
      9                 A(1)   B(1)   C(1)              F(1)        1(1)
       14                     B(1)   C(1)
       17
       21                A(1)   B(1)   C(1)   D(1)

 a 1a - 9 - See Description in Survey (Appendix C)
 14, 17, 21 - See Description in text pages 20, 21, and 22

 (#) provides the number of responses for that permit category
                                      50

-------
                                                         Stakeholder Report
Table C (Continued)

Permit Categories

A.    New Source Review (NSR)
B.    Title V of Clean Air Act
C.    Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) - Clean Air Act
D.    National Pollutant Elimination System (NPDES)
E.    Non-point Source (NPS) - Clean Water Act
F.    Treatment, Storage or Disposal (TSD) Operating Permit - Resource
      Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
G.    Post Closure - RCRA)
H.    Underground Storage Tank (UST) - RCRA
I.     PCB Disposal  Toxics Substances Control Act (TSCA)
J.    Ocean Deposition - Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPSRA)
K.    Wetlands (Only included in Boston meeting)
                                    51

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
                                  Appendix E
PIT Action Plans

Alternatives to Individual Permits

Objective   Recommend specific alternatives to individual permits, including the pros
and cons of implementation.

Tasks
* Recommended/suggested areas for use of alternative approaches
* Recommended/suggested model approaches for implementation (e.g. permit by rule,
third party certification, etc.)
* Recommended/suggested situations which continue to require individualized
approach (e.g., major facilities)
* Recommended/suggested facility specific activities where individual permits may be
exempted such as facilities implementing aggressive pollution prevention techniques.
* Recommended/suggested mechanisms to assure public of proper notification,
participation, access to information, facility monitoring & reporting and Agency
oversight, to demonstrate adequate environmental protection for facilities that are not
issued individual permits.

Administrative Streamlining

Objective - Improve the permit process by analyzing successful permit programs as
well as major barriers that need to be overcome, and recommend changes to the permit
process (guidance, policy, regulations, procedures).

Tasks
* Send inventory of permit improvement initiatives to all EPA program offices, Regions,
states and state associations to compile a comprehensive inventory of successful
initiatives.  Ask for identification of barriers in the federal system that, if overcome,
would allow the initiative to move forward more aggressively.
* Identify statutory, regulatory and policy barriers by media and set priorities for
recommending appropriate changes.
* Identify unnecessary or disjunctive steps in the permitting process and indicate what
steps are required by law,  regulation or policy. Prioritize those steps that should be
eliminated  or better synchronized for more consistent/uniform administrative
procedures (e.g., common comment periods, public notice requirements, timelines,
  where appropriate).
                                       52

-------
                                                             Stakeholder Report
* Develop case studies (find out what worked) of successful state/EPA permitting
efforts, develop possible pilots from case studies, and other successes. Identify which
success can be applied broadly via regulation policy or procedure.


Enhance Public Participation

Objective   Enhance public participation by providing opportunities for earlier and more
meaningful participation.

Tasks
* Share public participation action plan with regional workshop participants. Modify
plan as necessary
* Prepare background paper that includes:  (1) an assessment of existing and proposed
media-specific public participation requirements; (2) an evaluation of key  environmental
permitting status information of interest to the public (e.g., permit application submittal,
permit renewal necessary, upcoming permit activities); and (3) a discussion of
mechanisms for sharing this information with the public (e.g. newsletters,  electronic
data bases).
* Develop "model public participation process for environmental permitting based on
results of the above assessment, and in consultation with states and the affected
public. The model process should promote consistency in public involvement
requirements during the permitting process, for all environmental media permits..

Pollution Prevention Incentives

Objective - Foster cross-media pollution prevention outcomes through permitting which
result in measurable reductions in emissions and the number of permits issued in each
media, in each Region. The focus is on less pollution, less need for regulatory
oversight, and cost savings to industry and regulatory agencies.

Tasks
* Evaluate incentives for pollution prevention in permits and permit compliance by
considering the use of differential fee schedules, extra time to comply, expedited permit
processing, and other opportunities.
* Identify cross-media pollution reduction strategies, including coordination of permit
issuance or reissuance for environmentally significant sources.
* Evaluate creation of teams in the Regions to review permits and identify cross-media
transfer issues.
* Prepare guidance on how to implement innovative strategies and procedures.

                                       53

-------
                                                            Stakeholder Report
*Evaluate the need for the Administrator to require each AA and RA to develop
substantive, measurable actions to provide technology transfer for States and industry
to incorporate cross-media pollution prevention into permits.

Training

Objective - Provide the necessary information to EPA, State, Tribal and local
government permit writers, the regulated community and citizens and environmental
groups, for effective and efficient permit processes.

Tasks
* Identify a series of informational tools to educate permittees and citizens about permit
processes.
* Identify a series of informational tools to educate regions, states, tribes, local
governments, permittees, and citizens about the requirements and reasons for new
rules.
* Identify the core skills and knowledge needed by permit writers to develop appropriate
training.

Performance Measures

Objective - Develop generic performance measures for environmental permitting.
Develop a strategy for rolling out the performance measures to regions, state, tribal and
local governments that are delegated permit issuance authority.

Tasks
* Obtain existing performance measures.
* Prepare draft generic performance measures and roll-out strategy.
* Obtain stakeholder input on performance measures and roll-out strategy.
* Finalize performance measures and assist media programs during roll-out.
                                       54

-------
                                                         Stakeholder Report
                                Appendix F
                           Meeting Participants List
Ms. Janice Adair
Alaska Department of Environmental
 Conservation
Waste Management Division
410 Willoughby, Suite 105
Juneau, AK 99801 -1795

Mr. Ken Amaditz
USEPA - HQ (5303W)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 308-7056

Mr. Steve Anderson
NJDEP
CN402
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0402

Mr. Javier M. Balli
EPA/Extension Service Liaison
USEPA, Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue, 6T-PP
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
(214)665-7261

Mr. Jerome Baiter
Public Interest Law
 Center of Philadelphia
125S. 9th Street, Suite 700
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
(215)627-7100

Mr. Rick Barrett
USEPA, Region VI
First Interstate Bank Tower
 at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
(214) 665-7227
Mr. Terry R. Baus
City & County of Denver
2000 West Third Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80223
(303) 446-3603

Mr. Dale A. Beal
Permitting Manager
Aptus Incorporated
Environmental Services
P.O. Box 1328
Coffeyville, Kansas 67337
(316)252-1349

Mr. Bill Benerman
City and County of Denver
216 16th Street, Suite 1500
Denver, Colorado 980202
(303) 640-3235

Mr. Jon Berg
CTDEP
Waste Management Bureau
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106
(203) 424-3301

Mr. Rich Bizzozero
MA EOEA
100 Cambridge Street, Suite 2109
Boston, MA 02202
(617) 727-3260-ext. 684
                                     55

-------
                                                         Stakeholder Report
Ms. Susan K. Blevins, P.E.
Chemical Section
New Source Review Program
Office of Air Quality
Texas Natural Resource
 Conservation Commission
12124 Park 35 Circle, Building C
Austin, Texas 78753
(512)239-1296

Ms. Kathleen Brazil
BCM Engineers
3 Terri Lane
Burlington, New Jersey 08016
(609) 386-8800

Ms. Sara Marquis Burgin
Attorneys at Law
Brown McCarroll & Oaks Hartline
 1400 Franklin Plaza
 111 Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas 78701-4043
 (512)479-9788

 Mr. Robert J. Burm, P.E.
 Chief Permits Section, 8WMC
 USEPA, Region VIII
 Denver Place, Suite 500
 999 18th Street
 Denver, Colorado 80202-2466
 (303) 293-1655

 Mr. Paul Burnet
 Program Coordinator
 Office of the Director
 Oregon Department of
   Environmental Quality
 Environmental Cleanup Division
 811 S.W. 6th Avenue
 Portland, Oregon 97204-1390
 (503) 229-5776
Mr. Bruce D. Campbell
Environmental Engineering Specialist
Environmental Resources Management
Lockheed - Fort Worth Company
P.O. Box 748
Fort Worth, Texas  76101
(817)763-7348

Mr. Stephen V. Capone
GE Plastics
One Plastics Avenue
Pittsfield, MA  01201
(413)448-7609

Mr. Neil J. Carman, Ph.D.
Clean Air Program Director
Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club
P.O. Box1931
Austin, Texas 78767
(512)472-1767

Mr. Gilberto Castellanos
Program Manager
Department of the Air Force
Air Force Center for
  Environmental Excellence
Central Regional Compliance Office
525 Griffin Street, Suite 505
 Dallas,  Texas 75202-5023
 (214) 767-4650

 Ms. Priscilla Chapman
 Sierra Club
 3 Joy Street
 Boston, MA 02108
 (617) 523-5757

 Mr. Daniel J. Clanton, P.E.
 Hazardous Waste Division
 Arkansas Department of Pollution
 Control and Ecology
 8101 1-30, Building D
 P.O. Box 8913
 Little Rock, Arizona 72219-8913
 (501)562-6533
                                      56

-------
                                                         Stakeholder Report
Mr. Todd Crawford, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
State of Missouri
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0176
(314)751-1387

Mr. Richard Daley
Small Business Ombudsman
Pennsylvania Dept. of Commerce
Fulton Bank Building
Third and Locust Street, Suite 901
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717)772-2889

Ms. Beth Davidson
New Jersey Conservation Foundation
300 Mendham Road
Morristown, New Jersey  07960
(201)539-7540

Mr. Allyn M. Davis
USEPA, Region VI
First Interstate Bank Tower
 at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-7233
(214)665-6701

Mr. Jerome Davis
Environmental Specialist
TU Services
400 North Olive
Dallas, Texas  75201
(214)812-4457

Mr. Robert E. DeHart, Jr.
Water Quality Administrator
New England Power Company
25 Research Drive
Westborough, MA 01582-0010
(508) 366-9011
Mr. Patrick J. Devillier
Environmental Quality Specialist
Technical Program Support
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 82263
Baton Rouge, Louisiana  70884-2263
(504) 765-0731

Mr. Carl Dierker
MADEP
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617)292-5549

Mr. Ken Dobias
Safety-Kleen
1722 Cooper Creek Road
Dentor, Texas 76208
(817)383-2611

Ms. Judith A. Duncan
Director, Customer Services Division
Oklahoma Department of Environmental
 Quality
1000 Northeast Tenth Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73117-1212
(405)271-1400

Mr. Charles W. Elliott
Leigh Valley Coalition
 for a Clean Environment
137 North Second Street
Easton, PA 18042
(610)252-4338

Mr. Barry Elman
USEPA-HQ(2127)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-2727
                                    57

-------
                                                         Stakeholder Report
Ms. Abigail Fair
Project Director
Association of New Jersey
  Environmental Commissions
P.O. Box 157
Mendham, New Jersey 07945
(201)539-7547

Mr. Jack Ferguson
USEPA, Region VI
First Interstate Bank Tower
  at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas  75202-7233
(214)665-7170

Ms. Kimberly Dalton Ferris
State University of New York
1 College Circle, Shrader Building #21
Geneseo, New York 14454
(716)245-5512

Mr. Michael E. Fessler
Senior Environmental Engineer
American Cyanamid Company
1 Cyanamid Drive - W3
Wayne, New Jersey 07470
(201)831-3664

Mr. Edward G. Fiesinger
Sr. Environmental Specialist
Monsanto Chemical Company
Chocolate Bayou Plant
FM 2917
P.O. Box 711
Alvin, Texas 77512-9888
(713)393-4486

Mr. Kevin Fitzpatrick
Washington Department of Ecology
PO Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
(206) 407-6405
Ms. Kathy Fletcher
People for Puget Sound
1326 Fifth Avenue, Suite 450
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 382-7007

Mr. Barry P. Fogel
Keohane & Keegan
Attorneys at Law
21 Custom House Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110
(617)951-1400

Ms. Susie Frizlen
Special Program Manager
Permits Section
Industrial and Hazardous Waste Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation
 Commission
P.O. Box13087
Austin, Texas 78711-3087
(512)239-6643

Ms. Deborah Gallagher
One Winter Street
MADEP
Boston,  MA 02108
(617)292-5572

Mr. J. H. Gatlin
Environmental Services Manager
Industrial Waste and
  Cross Connection Division
3907 S. Industrial Drive
Austin, Texas 78744
(512)912-6060

Ms. Loni M. Gaudet
Environmental Chemical Specialist
State of Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box82135
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70884-2135
(504)471-2800
                                     58

-------
                                                         Stakeholder Report
Ms. Phyllis Glazer
Mothers Organized to
 Stop Environmental Sins
15115 FM.RD16E
Winona, Texas 75792
(903) 877-4801

Ms. Beth Goldstein
Environmental Law Institute
1616 P. Street, S.W.
Washington, DC  20036
(617)492-2791

Mr. Jonathan Greenberg
Director of Environmental Policy
Browning-Ferris Industries
1350 Connecticut Avenue Northwest
Suite 1101
Washington, DC  20036
(202)223-8151

Mr. William Hamel
Senior Counsel
Elf Atochem North America, Incorporated
Environmental Law Department
2000 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-3222
(215)419-7000

Ms. Lynne Hamjian
USEPA, Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, APA
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02203
(617)565-4181

Mr. Dennis Hart
Director
Division of Water Quality
NJ Department of Environmental
 Protection
CN - 029
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0029
(609) 292-4543
Ms. Shannon Hartnett
Algonquin Gas Trans. Co.
1284 Solider Field Road
Boston, MA 02135
(617)560-1323

Ms. Maureen Healey
Society of the Plastics Industry
1275 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202)371-5219

Ms. Diane Hetherington-Ward
Safety-Kleen Corporation
777 Big Timber Road
Elgin, Illinois 60123
(708) 468-2550

Ms. Pat Hill
Georgia Pacific
1875 Eye Street, NW, Suite 775
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 659-3600

Mr. Ron Hix
Flordia Power and Light
P.O. Box 08801
11770 US Highway 1
North Palm Beach, FL 33408
(407) 625-7605

Mr. Alan Hohl
E.G..&G Rocky Flats
29640 Sue Road
Evergreen, Colorado  80439
(303) 966-3767

Mr. Paul Hogan
Surface Water Discharge Permit Program
MADEP
Office of Watershed Management
40 Institute Road
North Grafton, MA 01536-1839
(508) 839-3469
                                    59

-------
                                                         Stakeholder Report
Ms. Karen J. Huber
Water Quality Engineer
METRO
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle
821 Second Avenue, M.S. 81
Seattle, Washington 98104-1598
(206)684-1246

Mr. Steve A. Hudson
Region Manager Environmental Affairs
Boise Cascade Corporation
1615 M Street, N.W. Suite 570
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 293-9066

Ms. Joan B. Hughes
Environmental Technician
Southeastern Regional Office
Alaska Department of
  Environmental Conservation
410Willoughby, Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795
(907) 465-5345

Mr. Nick  loannides
City and  County of Denver
216 16th Street, Suite 1500
Denver, Colorado  80202
(303) 640-3322

Ms. Patricia A. Jackson
Executive Director
Lower James River Association
P.O. Box 110
Richmond, VA 23201
(804) 730-2898

Ms. Diane Johnson
Environmental Engineer
Total Petroleum, Incorporated
Denver Refinery
5800 Brighton Boulevard
Commerce City, Colorado 80022
(303) 291-2405
Ms. Helen Johnson
DOW Chemical
Environmental Department
2301 North Brazpsport Boulevard
Freeport, Texas  77541
(409) 238-5211

Mr. Glen W. Jones, P.E.
Chief Environmental Engineer
Permitting & Site Remediation Section
Waste Management Division
State of Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality
1000 Northeast Tenth Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73117-1212
(405)271-7056

Mr. Thomas L Jones
Sr. Staff Engineer
Union Carbide Corporation
P.O. Box 50
Hahnville, LA 70057
(504) 468-4738

Mr. Robert E. Kaliszewski
Ombudsman
CT DEP Permits Assistance Office
79 Elm Street
Hartford, CT 06106-5127

Ms. Carol Kelbride
USEPA, Region  I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, WQE
One Congress Street
Boston, MA  02203
(617)565-9175

Ms. Dorothy Allen Kellogg
Director
Policy Analysis Regulatory Affairs
Chemical Manufacturers Association
2501 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
(202)887-1178
                                     60

-------
                                                          Stakeholder Report
 Ms. Dorothy A. Kelly
 Manager, Regulatory Affairs
 Ciba-Geigy Corporation
 444 Saw Mill River Road
 Ardsley, New York 10502-2699
 (914)479-2380

Ms. Rebecca A. Kermode
Staff Engineer
Department of Public Works
City Engineer's Office - Bond Projects
303 W. Colfax Avenue, Suite 700
Denver, Colorado 80204
(303) 640-2476

Ms. Anne Ketchum
Policy Specialist
PA Department of Environmental
 Resources
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA  17105-2063

Ms. Karen Lane
Senior Vice President for Development
 and Community Relations
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
1124 Columbia Street, LY 120
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 667-6651

Mr. George R. Larsen
Acting Director
Environmental Management
Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
P.O. Box 179
Denver, Colorado 80201
(303) 977-4556

Mr. John P. LeFebvre, PE
GE Aircraft Engines
1000 Western Avenue - Mail Drop 164G7
Lynn,  MA  01910
(617)594-8380
Mr. Dennis Leong
Wisconsin Department of Development
123 West Washington Avenue
P.O. Box 7970
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
(608) 266-9869

Mr. Gerald Lenssen
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
(206) 407-6708

Mr. Leonard Levin, P.E.
Operations Coordinator
Gulf Coast Waste Disposal Authority
910 Bay Area Boulevard
Houston, Texas 77058
(713)488-4115

Ms. Edythe McKinney
Office of the Small Business Ombudsman
North Carolina Department of
Environment
Health and Natural Resources
3825 Barrett Drive
Raleigh, North Carolina 28609
(919)571-4840

Mr. Terrance J. McManus, PE, DEE
Manager, Corporate Environmental
 Affairs
Intel Corporation
145 South 79th Street
Chandler, Arizona 85226
(602)554-4812

Mr. Murry McMillan
Senior Group Leader
Environmental Regulatory Affairs
Ciba-Geigy Corporation
P.O. Box 11
St. Gabriel, LA 70776
(504)642-1453
                                     61

-------
                                                         Stakeholder Report
Mr. Berne C. Miller
Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Alaska Department of
  Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby, Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska  99801-1795
(907)465-5014

Mr. Douglas F. Moore
Manager
Environmental Affairs
GPU Nuclear Corporation
1 Upper Pond Road
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054
(201)316-7979

Mr. Larry Morandi
National Conference of State Legislatures
1560 Broadway
Suite 700
Denver, CO 80202
(303)30-2200

Mr. Ed Mongan
Manager
Pollution Prevention Program
DuPont
1007 N Market Street
Wilmington, DE  19898
(302)773-0910

Ms. Jennifer Morisato
USEPA, Region VI
First Interstate Bank Tower
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-7233
(214)665-2194

Mr. Phillip Murphy
ADPCLE
3512 Avondale Road
North Little Rock, Arkansas 72116
(501)758-4066
Ms. Kim Nelson
PA Department of Environmental
 Resources
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063

Ms. Patricia A. Nelson, P.E.
Colorado Department of Public Health
 and Environment
Permits and Enforcement Section, WQCD-
PE-B2
4300 Cherry Creek Drive South
Denver, Colorado 80222-1530
(303) 692-3608

Mr. George S. Neserke
Coors Brewing Company
BC400
Golden Colorado  80401-1295
(303) 277-2662

Mr. Hugh O'Neil
Toxics Reduction Supervisor
Washington Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 4-7600
Olympia, Washington  98504-7600
(206)407-6118

Mr. Timothy A. O'Shea, Ph.D.
Water Permitting Coordinator
TU Services
400 North Olive
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214)812-8413
Ms. Winifred G. Perkins
Principal Specialist
Environmental Affairs
Florida Power & Light Company
P.O. Box 088801
11770 US Highway 1
North Palm Beach, Florida  33408
(407) 625-7604
                                     62

-------
                                                         Stakeholder Report
Ms. Cynthia Peterson, M.E.P.M.
League of Women Voters
 of Colorado
1410 Grant Street, B-204
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303)972-1429

Ms. Fran Phillips
Garders &  Wynne for MOSES
1601 Elm Street, Suite 3000
Dallas, Texas 75201
(214) 999-4803

Mr. John Podgurski
USEPA, Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02203
(617)573-9680

Mr. Robert Poe
Division of Administrative Services
Alaska Department of
  Environmental Conservation
41 OWilloughby, Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795

Ms. Sue Pope
Downwinders At Risk
476 Hidden Valley Trail
Midlothian, Texas 76065
(214) 299-5298

Mr. Jerry Potamis
USEPA, Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building, WMN
One Congress Street
Boston, MA 02203
(617)565-3575

Mr. Arbind Prasad
Environmental Resource Management
855 Springdale Drive
Exton, Pennsylvania 19341
(610)524-3734
Mr. Delbert E. Prophet
Assistant State Conservationist (P)
United States Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
999 18th Street, 5th Floor
Denver, Colorado
(913)823-4568

Mr. Keith Raschke
Environmental Sciences
City/County of Denver
216 16th Street, Suite 1500
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303)640-3314

Mr. Mike Rast
Regional Environmental Manager
Weyerhaeuser Company
20 Tom Rose Road
Columbus, Mississippi 39701
(601)245-5264

Ms. Janet Rhodes
Permit Writer
Hazardous Waste Permits
State of Washington
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, Washington 98504-7600
(206) 407-6708

Ms. Tanell Roberts
Colorado Department of Public
 Health & Environment
HMWM  HWC-B2
4300 Cherry  Creek Drive, South
Denver, Colorado 80222
(303) 692-3355

Ms. Heidi Roddis
MA Audubon Society
298 South Great Road
Lincoln, MA  01773
(617)259-9500
                                     63

-------
                                                          Stakeholder Report
Mr. Robert Roddy
Pollution Control Division
701 North 7th Street
Kansas City, KS66101
(913)573-5400

Mr. David Roger
Process Analysts Incorporated
555 Zang
Lakewood, CO 80204
(303)987-6137

Mr. Robert C. Rose
Associate Small Business Ombudsman
USEPA HQ(1230C)
401 M Street, S.W., 1230C
Washington, DC  20460
(703) 305-5511

Mr. Robert W. Schenker
Manager - Air Pollution Control
Corporate Environmental Programs
General Electric Company
3135 Easton Turnpike
Fairfield, Connecticut 06431
(203) 373-2691

Mr. Scott Sederstrom
Leigh Valley Coalition For a Clean
 Environment
137 North Second Street
Easton, PA 18042
(610)252-4338

Mr. Al Shaines
Shaines Associates
Chemical & Engineering Consultants
40 Moffat Road
Waban, Massachusetts 02168
(617) 244-4467
Mr. Charles Sharpe
Mothers Organized to
 Stop Environmental Sins
15115 FM, RD16E
Winona, Texas 75792
(903) 877-3670

Mr. David C. Shelton
Executive Director
Colorado Center for
 Environmental Management
999 18th Street, Suite 2750
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 297-0180 Ext. 113

Mr. William Shutkin
Alternatives for Community and
 Environment
126 Warren Street
Roxbury, Massachusetts 02159
(617)442-3343

Mr. Fred Sigg
Von Roll Incorporated
3080 Northwoods Circle, Suite 200
Norcross, Georgia 30071
(404) 729-0500

Mr. Dave Skiles
Stapleton Sustanable
 Development Project
605 Bennotck Street, Room 333
Denver, CO 80223
(303) 436-7305

Mr. J. Charles Solt
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Catalytica
430 Ferguson Drive
Mountain View, California 94043-5272
(415)960-3000
                                      64

-------
                                                         Stakeholder Report
Mr. Randy Steich
CCOWA
P.O. Box 69
Winona, Texas 75792
(903) 877-3231

Mr. David C. Stever
City & County of Denver
Wastewater Management Division
2000 West Third Avenue
Denver, CO 80223
(303) 446-3598

Mr. Kenneth H. Sutherland
Environmental Manager
Hewlett-Packard Company
Corporate Environmental Management
1501 Page Mill Road, MS 5UE
Palo Alto, California 94304-1213
(415)857-2703

Mr. Lester A. Sutton
USEPA, Region I
John F. Kennedy Building, WAA
One Congress Street
Boston, MA  02203
(617)565-3617

Mr. John M. Sweeten
Texas Agricultural Extension Service
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843
(409)845-74510

Mr. Bob Taggert
Delaware Department of  Natural
Resources and Environmental Control
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
Mr. Mark Taitz
Director, Business Development
ABB Environmental Services
Corporate Place 128
107 Audubon Road
Wakefield, MA  01880
(617)245-6606

Mr. Steve Thompson
State of Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality
1000 Northeast Tenth Street
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73117-1212
(405)271-8056

Mr. Bob Tierney
VTC, Pratt & Whitney
400 Main Street, MS-122-16
East Hartford, CT 06108
(203) 557-0982

Ms. Victoria Van Roden
USEPA  HQ(5303W)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 308-8623

Mr. Gregory Vasil
MADEP
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617)292-5568

Mr. Douglas A. Wagner
Regulations Analyst
Koch Industries Incorporated
P.O. Box 2246
Wichita, Kansas 67201
(316)832-4336

Mr. Larry Wapewolf
USEPA, Region VIII
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, Colorado  80202-2405
(303)293-1509
                                    65

-------
                                                         Stakeholder Report
Mr. Craig Weeks
USEPA, Region VI
First Interstate Bank Tower
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
(214)665-7505

Ms. Lanelle Wiggins
USEPA-HQ (2127)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
(202)  260-2692

Mr. John A. Williams, P.E.
Environmental Services Section
Corporate Environment
Eastman Kodak Company
343 State Street
Rochester, New York  14650
(716)588-5118

Mr. Tim Williamson
USEPA,  Region I
John  F. Kennedy Federal Building, RCG
One Congress Street
 Boston, MA  02203
 (617)565-9016
Major Wayne Wisniewski
Compliance Attorney
United States Air Force
AFLSA/JACE
11501 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 629
Arlington, Virginia 22209-2413
(703)696-9174

Mr. Richard Wooster
USEPA, Region VI
First Interstate Bank Tower
 at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
(214) 665-6473

Ms. Sally Zielniski
MA Assn. of Conversation Commissions
10 Juniper Rd.
Belmont, MA 02178
(617)489-3930
                                     66

-------
                                                         Stakeholder Report
                        Appendix G
PIT Team Members List
Co-Chairs
      Mr. Elliott Laws, AA OSWER
      202-260-4610; Fax 202-260-3527
      HQ Mail Code 5101
      Ms. Jeanne Fox, RA, R2
      212-264-2525; Fax 212-264-0829
      USEPA Region 2
      26 Federal Plaza, Room 906
      New York, NY 10278

Executive Director: Mr. Lance Miller
      Edison, NJ - 908-321-6782; Fax 908-321-4381
      USEPA
      2890 Woodbridge Ave., Mail Stop 100
      Edison, NJ 08837
      Ms. Chris O'Donnell, Assistant to the Executive Director
      202-260-2750 HQ Mail Code 2125

Members:
Mr. Joe Anderson, OIRM
703-235-5581; Fax 703-557-3186
HQ Mail Code 3405R

Mr. Scott Anderson
Manager Hazardous Waste Branch
Utah DEQ
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste,
P.O.  Box144880
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4880
(801)538-6170

Mr. Allan Antley, R4
Assoc. Div. Dir. for Surface Water
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-4450
Mr. Andrew Bellina, R2
Chief, HW Facilities Branch,
Mail Code 2AWM-HWFB
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NY 10278
(212)264-0504

Mr. Prabhat Bhargava, Permits Section
Manager
Air Quality Division
Arziona  Department of Environmental
Quality
3003 North Central Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85012-2905-03
(602) 207-2329
                                     67

-------
                                                         Stakeholder Report
Mr. Paul Bisulca, Special Assistant to the
 Governor for Environmental Affairs
Penobscot Nation
Route 2 Box 87
Oxford, ME 04270
(207)539-8219

Mr. Karl Bremer, R5
Chief, RCRA Permitting Branch,
77 W. Jackson Boulevard
Mail Stop HRP-8J
Chicago, IL 60604-3509
(312)353-0398
                       and  Asbestos
Ms. Karen Brown
EPA  Small   Business
Ombudsman
MailCode1230C
(703) 305-5027
Mr. Kerrigan Clough, R8
ARA for Policy and Management
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303)293-1608

Mr. Lou Concra
Director, Division of Regulatory Affairs
New York Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, NY 12233-1750
(518)457-7424

Ms. Donna Fletcher, HQ
State and Local Relations, OROSLR
202-260-3210
HQ Mail Code 1501
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. John Gaston
Executive Director
Stony Brook Regional Sewage Authority
290 River Road
Princeton, NJ 08540
(609) 924-8881 (ext.203)

Mr. Pete Hamlin
Chief Air Quality Bureau
Iowa
Henry Wallace Building
900 East Grand
DesMoines, IA50319
(515)281-8852

Ms. JoAnn Heiman, R7
Chief, Permits Sec. Air & Toxics Div.,
726 Minnesota Ave.
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7323

Mr. Minor Hibbs
Manager of Permits
Texas Industrial and Solid Waste Division
P.O. Box13087
Austin, Tx 78711-3087
(512)239-6592

Mr. Michael Hingerty, R9
Office of Regional Counsel
Mail Code RC-3-2
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94707
(415)744-1359

Mr. Bill Honker, R6
Branch Chief
RCRA Permitting
Mail Code 6H-P
1445 Ross Ave.
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 665-6770
                                      68

-------
                                                         Stakeholder Report
Ms. Riita Jajola-Aydelott
Environmental Controls Office
Pueblo of Isleta
P.O. Box 1270
Isleta Pueblo, NM 87022
(505)869-2710

Mr. Dave Kling , HQ
Dir. Pollution Prevention Division
OPPTS/OPPT
HQ Mail Code 7409
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-3557

Mr. Greg Kellogg, R10
Chief, Wastewater Management
 and Enforcement Branch,
Mail Stop D-134
1200 Sixth Ave.
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)553-1728

Mr. Mike Llewelyn
Water Quality Program Manager
Washington
300 Desmond Dr.
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-7600
(206) 407-6405

Ms.. Nancy Marker
Division of Air and Waste Management
Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources
 and Environmental Control
Hazardous Waste Branch
P.O. Box1401
Dover, DE 19903
(302)-739-3689
Mr. Tim Method
Deputy Commissioner for Environmental
 and Regulatory Affairs, Indiana
IDEM - Office of Air Management
100 North Senate Ave.
P.O. Box6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
(317)232-8612

Mr. Vern Meyers, HQ
Chief
Permits Branch, OSW
HQ Mail  Code 5303W
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(703)308-8612

Mr. Connie Musgrove, HQ OECA
HQ Mail  Code 2241A
(202) 564-3003

Ms.  Arleen O'Donnell,  Acting  Deputy
Commissioner
 for Policy and Program Development
Massachusetts DEP
1  Winter St.
3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02108
(617)292-5505

Ms. Barbara Pace, HQ OGC
HQ Mail  Code 2366
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 40610
(202)260-7519
Mr. Jim Pendergast, HQ
Chief, Water Quality &
 Industrial Permits Branch,
HQ Mail Code 4203
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-9537
OW
                                     69

-------
                                                         Stakeholder Report
Mr. William Pierce, R9
Water Management Division,
Special Assistant to the Director
Water Management Division (W-1)
75 Hawthorne Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-1877

Mr. Mark Rollins, HQ
Chief  Waste Management  &   State
Programs Branch
RCRA Enforcement Division, OECA
HQ Mail Code 2246-A
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-4001

Mr. Joe Retzer, HQ
Dir. Cluster Staff, OPPE
HQ Mail Code 2131
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-2472

Mr. Charles Ris, HQ
Deputy Director Human Health
  Assessment Group, ORD
HQ Mail Code 8602
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5898
Mr.  David Solomon, Chief, New Source
Review
Air Quality Div., OAR
USEPA, OAQPS
Mail Drop 15
RTP, NC 27711
(919)541-5375
Ms. Colleen Sullins
Water Program
North Carolina Department of
   Natural  Resources  and Community
Development
PO Box 27687
Raleigh, NC 27611
(919)733-5083

Mr. Steve Sweeney , HQ
OGC Water Division
HQ Mail Code 2355
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(20) 260-8739

Mr. Jon Trout,
Air Pollution Control District of Jefferson
County
850 Barret Ave.
Louisville, KY 40204
(502) 574-6000

Mr. Tim Williamson, R1
Senior Assistant Regional Counsel,
Office of Regional Counsel - RCG
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617)565-9016

Ms. Elaine Wright, R3
Dir. Office of External Affairs
841 Chestnut Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215)597-6938
                                     70

-------
                                                         Stakeholder Report
Observers

Ms. Ellen Brown, OSWER
HQ Mail Code 5103
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-4483

Ms. Stacey Greendlinger, CSI staff
HQ Mail Code 3203
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 40610
(202) 260-7424

Mr. David Heckler, Environmental Appeals
Board
607 14th Street, NW
Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202)501-7060
Mr. Nick Roy, HQ
Pollution Prevention Policy Staff
HQ Mail Cose 1102
(202) 260-8636
                                     71

-------