United States	office of Water
Environmental Protection	Enforcement (EN 335)
Agency	Washington DC 20460
June 1979	C-3
vvEPA A Guide to the
Proposed
Consolidated Permit
Regulations

-------
ABOUT THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED REGULATIONS
This Guide discusses the proposed regulations
consolidating the procedures which govern issuance
of permits under four environmental statutes.
The proposed regulations were published in the
Federal Register on June 14, 1979.
TO OBTAIN COPIES OF THE REGULATIONS
OR GUIDES
£
Write to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Information Center (PM 215)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION	Page	1
II. THE RATIONALE FOR	CONSOLIDATION Page	6
III. RELATION TO OTHER REGULATIONS Page	10
IV. STRUCTURE OF THE REGULATIONS	Page	10
Part 122	Page	11
Part 123	Page	12
Part 124	Page	15
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS	Page	16
ENVmO> T '^TTONAGENGT

-------
A GUIDE TO PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED PERMIT REGULATIONS
"The Nations's Investment in environmental
cleanup must have the incentives and
flexibility to allow our most important
environmental goals to be achieved at the
lowest cost. Unnecessary requirements
which cause delays and increase costs will
be removed, EPA will simplify and consolidate
its permit programs to reduce paperwork,
red tape and delays."
— President Jimmy Carter, The
State of the Union Annual
Message to Congress, January
25, 1979
I. INTRODUCTION
EPA administers several major permit programs
to control the disposal of various waste materials
into the environment. Other permit programs are
not currently in operation but will be initiated
shortly. Each of these programs is established
by separate statutes and accomplish their
environmental goals in differing ways. If
administered independently, these programs could
overlap in their jurisdiction over the same
facility, leave gaps or duplicate their coverage
of regulated activities. After studying the
relationships of these programs, EPA concluded
that management economies and environmental
benefits can be realized through greater coordina-
tion of its various permitting activities.
The proposed consolidated permit regulations are
intended to realize some of these benefits. They
consolidate, to the extent possible, the regulations
governing issuance of permits under five separate
permit programs.*
*The substantive technical criteria and standards
for the programs are unaffected. See summary 1n
Table I.

-------
TABLE I



Consolidated]
1
1 1




in
1
(Technical
1 1
1 Name
!Abbrev.
1 Coverage
122
1123
1241 Act
1 Requirements 1 Comments I
{Hazardous Waste
I HWM
I generation, trans-
Yes
| Yes
Yes|Resource
| 40 CFR 250*
(States may take program,]
IManagement Program

fportation, treat-

I
(Conservation &
(
(or EPA issue permits, (


fluent, storage,

1
iRecovery Act
1
|six months after regs |


1 disposal of

1
1
1
|are final |


1 hazardous waste

|
1
1
1 1
(Underground
f UIC
|well injection/
Yes
I Yes
Yes]Safe Drinking
| 40 CFR 146**
I listed States have 270 |
|Injection Control

Iprotection of

1
|Water
1
Idays after regs to |
tProgram

I drinking water

1
1
1
(assume program (


I aquifers

|
1
1
1 1
INational Pollutant
I NPDES
{discharge of
Yes
J Yes
Yes j Clean Water
140 CFR 125 and
I 50,000 permits issued——!
|Discharge Elimina-

(wastewater into

1
I Act
| Subchapter N
|70,000 sources identi- j
Ition Svstem

Iwaters of the U.S.

|
(
1
(fied 1
[Dredge or Fill
I 404
I discharge of
Par-
I Yes
No |Clean Water
| 40 CFR 230***
IC0E or State operates I
I Program

Idredged or fill
tly
1
| Act
1
Iprogram, EPA approves |


(material, often

1
1
1
I transfer of authority (


|in wetlands

1
1
1
lover certain waters to |




I
1
1
1 States I
|Prevention of
I PSD
I emission of
No
|No
Yes|Clean Air
| 40 CFR 52
Iregs only apply to EPA I
1 Significant

I pollutants from

1
lAct
1
Iprograms, do not apply 1
Deterioration

| sources in

1
1
1
(to State programs (

I
I attainment areas

1
1
1
1
1
1
1 I
I 1
* Proposed at A3 FR 58946 (December 18,1978), 43 FR 18506 (April 28, 1978), and 43 FR 29908 (July 11, 1978)
** Proposed at 44 FR 23738 (April 20, 1979)
*** Proposed at 	 FR 	 (July 	, 1979)

-------
The five programs covered by the regulations
are listed below:
1)	The Hazardous Waste Management
Program (HWM), under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA), regulates the generation,
transportation, and treatment, storage or disposal
of hazardous waste;
2)	The Underground Injection Control
Program (UIC), under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), regulates underground injections into
wells which could affect drinking water supplies;
3)	The National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) under the Clean Water
Act (CWA), regulates the discharge of wastewater
into surface waters of the United States;
4)	The Dredge or Fill Program ("404
program"), under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA), regulates the discharge of dredqed or
fill material into waters of the United States; and
5)	The Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Program (PSD), under the Clean Air
Act (CAA), regulates discharges of air pollutants
and requires permits for new sources located in
"attainment" areas.
As a result of the efforts of the EPA Permits
Consolidation Task Force in the fall of 1978, the
Agency concluded that coordination and consolida-
tion of its permitting activities could produce
significant benefits to the Agency and the
public. The first major undertaking by the
Agency consistent with the Task Force's recommen-
dations was the development of the consolidated
permit regulations. The proposal of these
regulations, which appeared on June 14, 1979 in
the Federal Register, Part II, (44 FR 34244), was
the culmination of considerable Agency effort.
3

-------
This Guide is intended to introduce you to
the consolidated regulations, to discuss some of
their principal features, and to encourage public
comments.
In the same issue of the Federal Register
(Part III), EPA has proposed a unified application
form which will cover EPA permitting for all of
these programs except the 404 program, for which
the Corps of Engineers is the Federal permitting
authority. (The proposed form appears along
with proposed changes to the existing NPDES
regulations. These changes are separate and not
reflected in the NPDES regulations as they appear
in the proposed consolidated regulations.) The
consolidated application form is part of the same
effort as the consolidated permit regulations,
but only the consolidated regulations are discussed
here. For details on the consolidated application
form, a similar pamphlet entitled, "A Guide to
the Consolidated Permit Application Form" (C-7) can
be obtained from EPA as described inside the back
cover of this Guide.
Table II outlines the organization of Parts II
and III of the June 14 proposals in the Federal
Regi ster.
TABLE II
ORGANIZATION OF PARTS II AND III OF THE
FEDERAL REGISTER OF JUNE 14, 1979
Part II: Proposed Consolidated Permit Regulations
Page
Preamble	34244
Regulations	34267
4

-------
Part III:
A: Public Notice of Draft Consolidated Permit
Application Form
B: Proposed NPDES Regulation Controlling the
Discharge of Toxic Pollutants
The format for the consolidated regulations is
divided into three Parts of Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR):
Part 122: Program Descriptions
Part 123: State Program Requirements
Part 124: Procedures for Decision-Making
Each Part has a general Subpart A which
contains requirements that apply to all the
programs. Additional Subparts supplement these
general provisions with reauirements which apply
only to one of the programs. This use of Subparts
illustrates the fact that, although the regulations
have been consolidated to the extent possible,
complete unity cannot be achieved -- because of the
differing requirements of the statutes which these
regulations implement and the differing kinds of
pollution problems which they address. Other exam-
ples of incomplete unification appear in differences
between Parts. Thus, the PSD program appears only
in Part 124 because only EPA processing of PSD
permits has been consolidated; the PSD permit program
and the provisions for its administration by States
remain separate from the programs consolidated in
Parts 122 and 123; and, consequently, the general
Subpart A in each of those two Parts does not
apply to the PSD program either. Similarly, Part
124 has no 404 program Subpart because on the
Preamble
Forms
Instructions
Page
34346
34351
34366
Preamble
Regulati ons
Page
34393
34414
5

-------
Federal level the 404 program is administered by
the Corps of Engineers and is not subject to EPA
procedures applicable to other programs. However,
certain requirements of Part 124 have been made
applicable to State administration of 404 programs
by incorporating them into the 404 section (Subpart E
of Part 123.
II. THE RATIONALE FOR CONSOLIDATION
These proposed regulations are an important
element of an ongoing Agency effort to consolidate
and make uniform the procedures applicable to
EPA-administered permit programs and the require-
ments for State assumption of permit adminis-
tration. They follow the recommendations of
the Permits Consolidation Task Force which began
work in October, 1978. Other consolidation
possibilities are under consideration and may be
implemented in the future. Expected benefits
from this effort include:
0 Environmental benefits through more
comprehensive management and control of
wastes or residuals, and elimination of
gaps in managing these wastes.
° Reduced burden on the regulated community
through elimination of overlapping or
duplicative informational or regulatory
requirements.
° Institutional and resource benefits within
EPA — and, optimistically, State Permit
issuing authorities -- through more
efficient use of personnel and more
comprehensive environmental analyses.
On the other hand, consolidation will NOT do the
following:
° It will not require States to consolidate
or reorganize their permitting procedures —
6

-------
although it now may be easier for them
to do so if they wish.
° It will not make the permitting programs
identical in the ways they are administered --
but States coming to EPA for program
authority will now have available a more
uniform and accessible procedure for
requesting and assuming permitting responsi-
bilities.
° It will not make substantive environmental
requirements easier to meet — although it
will, we hoDe, make them clearer and more
consi stent.
° It will not make the procedure for EPA
permitting simple -- but it will make it
possible to learn one set of procedures
for most dealinqs with EPA.
° It will not necessarily enable one-stop
permitting in all cases, since in most
instances one or more of the programs will
still be administered Federally while
others will be administered by the State
— but provision for joint Federal/State
processing of permit applications should
enable joint processing in many cases.
Environmental Benefits
A frequent shortcoming of pollution control
programs has been that the solution to one
pollution problem resulted in the creation of
another one somewhere else — either by dumping
the pollution in someone else's backyard or by
disposing of it in one medium, such as an open
dump, rather than another, such as the air. The
various permit programs that have been established
to abate pollution have not all been implemented
at the same time. As a result there have been
gaps in coverage. With the publication of
the consolidated regulations, some of these gaps
will be filled. An integrated approach to
7

-------
permitting discharges into the environment is now
possible. For example, NPDES discharge limits
imposed independently may have encouraged
certain facilities to dispose of their wastes
into injection wells, which could merely shift
the problem from surface waters to underground
aquifers. Through consolidated permitting, the
UIC program can control its injection to prevent
underground leakage into drinking water sources,
while the NPDES program continues to regulate
discharges into surface waters.
In addition to closing loopholes, consolidation
of permitting programs provides an opportunity to
harmonize the programs and make them consistent,
rational, and integrated. Where review of permit
applications for discharges into each medium is
done independently, there is potential for
ineffective and contradictory control over the
same facility. When the review of all permit
applications for a given facility is coordinated,
the various control options and trade-offs
can be considered, and more beneficial control
requirements imposed. Although coordination is
constrained by statutory requirements limiting
the choice of certain trade-offs between programs,
the integrated approach to permitting can
often reap benefits. For example, the burden of
complying with RCRA requirements for safely
disposing of hazardous wastes might cause some
disposers to avoid those requirements by injecting
the wastes underground without regulation.
This would be possible because control of under-
ground injection is not required until EPA
"lists" a State under the Safe Drinking Water Act
as needing a UIC program. Some States might
therefore still allow unregulated well injection
at a time when RCRA requirements were applied.
One benefit of the consolidation effort is that
this inconsistency in timing has been detected
and EPA is moving to list the remaining States as
needing UIC programs by 1980 when State RCRA
programs are expected to begin operating.
8

-------
Reduction in Regulatory Burden
From the standpoint of the regulated community,
the costs of applying for EPA permits can vary
depending on whether the information for all
permit requirements is collected and reported
together, or on several different and possibly
duplicative application forms. The future use of
a single application form for EPA-issued permits
should reduce the paperwork and increase efficiency
in processing permits. Consolidation of procedural
requirements, such as during the issuance of
draft or final permits, or by providing for joint
processing when permitting is divided between a
State and EPA, can be followed when efficiencies
would result. Access to the regulations will be
easier since they will be published in one place,
and the consolidated format for the regulations
should make it easier to locate and understand
the basic procedural requirements of all programs.
One-stop permitting aria total waste stream review
should make it less likely for applicants to be
caught between conflicting pollution abatement
and control requirements.
Institutional and Resource Benefits
From the standpoint of the EPA, limited
resources and staff can be used more effectively
if programs are coordinated and duplication
eliminated. EPA has recently provided a single
point of contact within the Agency for new source
permit processing. By October, 1979, the Agency
will also be establishing centralized permit-writing
units in EPA Regions. Permitting of the approxi-
mately 70,000 dischargers under the NPDES program,
the estimated 30,000 permittees under the RCRA
program, the estimated 500 major and thousands
of minor and area permittees under the UIC
program, and EPA permitting under the PSD program
can thus proceed more efficiently under coordinated
procedures by the same processing unit. Another
institutional benefit is realized through
9

-------
greater communication between various programs which
up to this point have operated somewhat independently
of each other.
III.	RELATION TO OTHER REGULATIONS
The proposed consolidated regulations do not
include the technical criteria used by permit
writers in establishing permit terms and conditions.
While they describe the permit system in detail,
including a description of how terms and conditions
are derived, each of the programs has additional
regulations governing technical requirements.
For example, the consolidated regulations specify
that, under the NPDES program, dischargers must
achieve, at a minimum, certain technology-based
levels of waste treatment. However, these
regulations do not specify what this minimum
level of treatment is for any given discharger.
The effluent limitations guidelines contained
elsewhere in the Agency's regulations (40 CFR
Subchapter N) specify, for given industrial
categories or subcategories, what level of
treatment.is required. Likewise, other Parts of
the CFR specify such things as construction and
operation requirements for injection wells
(40 CFR 146), testing methods and criteria
defining what wastes are "hazardous" (40 CFR 250)
and criteria for judging whether certain discharges
of fill material are acceptable (40 CFR 230).
Basically, the consolidated regulations specify
the procedural requirements for obtaining permits,
but not the technical terms of those permits.
IV.	STRUCTURE OF THE REGULATIONS
The consolidated regulation will be incorporated
Into three Parts of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. Part 122 generally describes
the programs and the permit system. Part 123
governs the minimal requirements for State
programs as well as the process for approval,
modification and withdrawal of State programs by
EPA. Part 124 includes the procedural requirements
for permit processing and for appealing permit
decisions.
10

-------
Citizen's Guides for the programs covered by
the consolidated regulations have been prepared.
Persons interested in a detailed description of a
particular program should consult the appropriate
Guide (see back cover). The following will
concentrate on the requirements shared by all
programs covered in the Part under discussion.
Part 122: Program Descriptions
Subpart A of Part 122 provides both general
and program-specific definitions for the EPA
administration of RCRA hazardous waste, SDWA
underground injection control, and CWA NPDES
programs. In addition, all Subparts of Part 122
describe basic program requirements for these
three programs, including application requirements,
standard permit conditions, permittee monitoring
and reporting requirements and other requirements.
Both the general Subpart (A) and the appropriate
individual Subpart must be consulted for a full
description of any program.
Certain of these requirements are made
applicable, as indicated in Part 123, to State
programs which operate in lieu of EPA programs
after receiving EPA approval. In the case of
section 404, State programs take over dredge or
fill permitting authority from the Corps of
Engineers in waters that are not traditionally
navigable (so-called "Phase II and III waters").
Consolidation of the definitions makes it
possible, in some cases, to provide common
definitions for the four programs; where this is
not possible, differences in the definitions can
be highlighted. For example, the term "Underground
Drinking Water Source" appears in both the UIC
and RCRA programs, and a single definition is
given.
Part 122 specifies the basic requirements for
the writing of permits that are applicable to all
three EPA programs. The following are discussed:
11

-------
° the duration of permits;
0 the grounds upon which EPA may act to
modify, revoke and reissue, or terminate
permits;
° conditions applicable to all permits;
0 requirements for schedules of compliance
to be written into permits to ensure that
statutory deadlines for pollution control
are met; and
° requirements for monitoring and reporting.
Each of the individual Subparts may require
additional, program-specific elements in any of
the above areas. For example, the HWM Subpart
divides permit application information requirements
into two parts so that existing facilities may
qualify for "interim" compliance status under
RCRA, The other programs do not divide their
permit information submissions in this way. As
another example, the UIC Subpart divides injection
wells into five classes and sets forth differing
permit requirements for each. The overlap
between RCRA and UIC, occurring when "hazardous
wastes" are injected, is covered by regulating
the wells under UIC, but imposing additional
RCRA-derived requirements (e.g., closing the
manifest cycle) through the UIC Subpart. This is
the kind of harmonizing of different statutory
programs which is seen as a principal benefit of
consolidation of permit regulations.
Part 123: State Program Requirements
Each of the Federal statutes establishing the
permit programs covered by the consolidated
regulations contains a clear preference for
12

-------
allowing the States to administer the programs
in lieu of EPA (or, in the case of 404 programs,
in lieu of the Corps of Engineers). Part 123
describes what States must do in order to obtain
approval of their programs by EPA and the minimal
requirements for administering their programs
after getting approval. Likewise, the process for
revising and withdrawing State programs is
contained in Part 123.
An application for program approval must be
submitted by the Governor of the State and must
contain:
0 a complete description of the State
program;
° copies of program forms;
° copies of State statutes and regulations;
° an Attorney General's Statement (certifying
that the State program is valid under
State, law and meets Federal requirements);
and
° a Memorandum of Agreement with the Regional
Administrator outlining the relationships
between EPA and the State after program
approval.
State 404 programs must also include a
Memorandum of Agreement with the Corps of Engineers
defining their respective program responsibilities
(this agreement is necessary since Section 404(g)
of the Clean Water Act says that the Corps
retains 404 permitting authority over certain
waters even after State program approval). Each
of the Federal statutes provides for a different
process for EPA review and approval of State
programs, detailed in the individual Subparts.
13

-------
The requirements for the administration of
State permit programs after EPA approval are also
contained in Part 123. These requirements are,
for the most part, imposed on States by cross-
referencing applicable Sections of Parts 122 and
124. Generally speaking, States are free to
impose more stringent requirements than those
specified by EPA. (One exception to this is
certain aspects of the hazardous waste program,
i.e., States may not ban the importation of
hazardous waste nor may they adopt requirements
inconsistent with the Federal or other approved
State programs.) Only those sections of Parts
122 and 124 which are cross-referenced in
Part 123 are applicable to State programs.
Subpart E of Part 123 contains all the unique
requirements for State 404 programs. Since EPA
never processes 404 permits, but only approves
State assumption of 404 authority, it was decided
to include aTJ_ the unique requirements for
State 404 programs, including program descriptions
and procedures for decision-making, in one
Subpart. Thus, Subpart E contains provisions on
who must apply for permits, what terms and
conditions are to be included, permit review
by the public and other government agencies, and
the general permit program.
States are expected to maintain enforcement
programs to assure compliance with State program
requirements. This includes both a program of
compliance monitoring to detect violations of
permit terms and requirements and the ability
to act on violations that are detected. The
proposed regulations would require States to have
at least the same legal sanctions for permit
violations available under State law as are
available to EPA.
Each of the Federal statutes provides for
different sanctions, and consequently the require-
ments for the States vary between the programs.
14

-------
Generally, States should be able to impose civil
penalties and criminal fines, and seek injunctive
relief. The maximum penalties and fines recover-
able by the State must be at least the same as
the maximum amounts recoverable by EPA. In
addition, each of the Federal statutes involved
gives EPA enforcement rights even after approval
of a State program.
Part 124: Procedures for Decisionmaking
This Part establishes the procedures for EPA
issuance of NPDES, RCRA, UIC, and PSD permits.
Some of these procedures, particularly those
affording basic public participation, are
also made applicable to State programs (including
the 404 program) through inclusion in Part 123.
In general, after a person requiring a permit
files an application, a draft permit is prepared
accompanied by a "statement of basis" (or
a more detailed "fact sheet" for major facilities
or where the draft permit is the subject of
widespread public interest or raises major
issues) explaining the terms and conditions
in the permit and any major issues. This informa-
tion is designed to provide the public with what
it needs to decide whether to make comments
during the 30-day "comment period" or to request
a hearing. Issues not raised during the comment
period are not subject to administrative or
judicial appeal. If there is sufficient interest,
a public hearing is held under procedures set
forth in detail in this Part. After the close of
the comment period a final permit is issued
(including responses to all comments) with
notice to affected parties, who then have 30 days
to appeal the terms of the permit to the
Administrator of EPA. All permit decisions are
made on the basis of an "administrative record"
which insures that all information considered is
identified and publicly available for comment.
Only after this appeal has been exhausted may
relief be sought in the courts.
15

-------
Part 124 provides that permit processing can
be consolidated when the permits are submitted,
when draft permits are issued, when public
hearings are held, and when final permits are
issued. Likewise, when both a state and EPA
must act on permit applications, provisions are
made to facilitate joint processing and coopera-
tion. Similarly, when an applicant needs two or
more permits under NPDES, RCRA or UIC it may wait
up to 180 days (or 2 1/2 years upon permission)
to consolidate its filings. Administrative
appeals of RCRA, UIC or PSD permits can also be
consolidated; and issues raised concerning these
programs can be consolidated when either eviden-
tiary or panel hearings are requested under the
NPDES program as well. (Panel hearings are
non-adversarial hearings applicable only to
initial permitting of NPDES facilities; see "A
Guide to New Regulations for NPDES" (C-l).)
Consolidations by EPA are always optional upon a
determination that efficiencies would result.
Likewise, States are not required to consolidate
their procedures.
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS
EPA is now interested in assuring that the
proposed consolidated permit regulations are
subject to public scrutiny and comment. In many
ways the proposed regulations attempt to strike a
balance between the specific goals of the individual
programs with the goal of developing uniform
requirements. Many issues are left unresolved or
were resolved knowing that public reaction would
be crucial to formulation of a final position.
The Agency is interested in receiving comments on
all aspects of these regulations including their
overall form and structure, areas where further
consolidation could be beneficial, areas where
consolidation went too far, and areas where
consolidation results in confusion. People
interested in submitting comments should read
both the regulations themselves and the preamble
16

-------
discussion accompanying them (See Table II).
Copies of the proposed regulations may be obtained
from:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Information Center (PM-215)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Public comments on the proposed regulations
will be accepted for a 90-day period ending
September 12, 1979. Comments should be sent
to:
Edward Kramer (A-2)
Permits Division (EN-336)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
The public is also invited to participate in
hearings that have been scheduled on the proposed
consolidated regulations during July. The
hearings will also be on the proposed consolidated
application form and the technical standards for
the UIC program (40 CFR 146). They will be
held in Dallas, Chicago, Seattle, and Washington,
D.C. For further details, contact Ms. Judy
Shaffer at the above office, telephone 202-755-0750,
Comments and hearings will play a major role in
determining the shape of the final regulations.
17

-------
ABOUT THIS GUIDE
This Guide is one in a series of pamphlets
which describe various EPA permit programs.
The full series includes:
. A Guide to New Regulations for NPDES (C-l)
. A Guide to the Underground Injection
Control Program (C-2)
. A Guide to Proposed Consolidated Permit
Regulations (C-3)
. A Guide for States on Proposed Consolidated
Permit Regulations (C-4)
. A Guide to the Hazardous Waste Management
Program (C-5)
. A Guide to the Dredge or Fill Permit
Program (C-6)
. A Guide to the Consolidated Application
Form (C-7)
TO OBTAIN COPIES OF THE REGULATIONS OR GUIDES
Write to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Information Center (PM-215)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

-------