Streamlining the EPA permitting process
Recently, Dow Chemical Company abandoned, afi.er the expenditure of over $6 million, plans for the construction of a petrochemical plant outside of San Francisco, citing the complexities of the permitting process as a major factor. Meanwhile a proposed nuclear power plant in Seabrook, New Hampshire, has started construction only to have it halted a t several different stages of the permitting and appeals process. The substantive and procedural permitting controversy at Seabrook continues, keeping that project in limbo. These cases are illustrative of numerous other loss-visible projects, both large and small, which have been either abandoned or extensively delayed. The myriad of environmental permits now required for the construction and operation of industrial facilities has created a complex, time consuming and frustrating process. Federal, state and local permits, each requiring different applications, different review criteria and often different public hearings on related or overlapping subjects, govern virtually every facet of a proposed project. On the federal level alone, major new statutes and regulations require industries to obtain new source permits under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, permits for the disposal of hazardous wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, permits for underground waste injection under the Safe Drinking Water Act, permission to use oil and natural gas under the Fuel Use Act of 1978, a second round of permits under 0013-936X/79/0913-0399$01.00/0
the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977, and many others. These new programs guarantee that the permitting process will become still more cumbersome. In an effort to avoid this and to be responsive to increasing public criticism of burdensome government regulation, EPA has quietly initiated steps to simplify its own permitting process. Two separate Agency Task Forces have responsibility for this effort. The first is examining how the Agency’s “new source” permit programs might be streamlined. In the fall of 1978, Administrator Costle established the second group and charged it to explore how permitting under the Water Act (NPDES), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act (Underground Injection Control-“UIC”) and other related statutes might be consolidated. The Task Force Report, formally transmitted to the Administrator in January 1979, set forth a series of recommendations including: Regulations-EPA should consolidate permit program regulations for R C R A , UIC, N P D E S , $404 (dredging and filling) and should immediately expand this effort to include Ocean Dumping, and the various permits required by the Clean Air Act. Forms-EPA should consolidate permit program forms including applications, permits, fact sheets, and report forms. Regional Administration-For EPA-issued permits, the regional offices should by October 1, 1979, consolidate permit administration (including drafting, hearings, and appeals) into one “permit writing unit.” One Permit-The goal of this consolidation would be the issuance of one permit covering all EPA administered programs. External Consolidation- EPA should open a dialogue with the states and other federal agencies to examine how their permit programs might be consolidated or a t least coordinated.
@ 1979 American Chemical Society
“One permit” or “one-stop permitting” is not a new concept; it is currently in various stages of implementation in several states, including Georgia, Vermont and Washington. “One permit” recognizes the obvious: that environmental problems, whether air, water, or solid waste, are all ultimately intertwined and therefore must be examined in concert. While identifying “one permit” as an ultimate goal, EPA seems sensitive to the enormous practical problems of consolidating what have traditionally been autonomous disciplines and programs. The Agency is therefore planning a phased approach, the first step of which is the proposal of regulations which will consolidate the procedural aspects of the NPDES, R C R A and U I C permit programs. EPA will base these regulations on the format of the proposed N P D E S regulations (43 Fed. Regist. 37077, August 21, 1978). It expects to propose these “Consolidation Regulations” in April 1979, shortly after it promulgates the final N P D E S regulations. Once the “Consolidation Regulations” become final, EPA plans to proceed with the next step, which is to coordinate permits for all “new sources,” incorporating, for example, the complicated PSD procedures under the Clean Air Act. EPA’s approach is measured (the permit programs under R C R A and U IC are not due to become operational until mid-1 980) and therefore should al!ow for adequate implementation time. A single environmental permit for an individual source is an admirable long-term goal. While it may prove to be so procedurally and substantively complex as to be unattainable, EPA’s first step toward its achievement appears sensible. I t behooves all who have an interest in simplifying and streamlining the permit process to carefully examine EPA’s proposed regulations and to constructively comment on them prior to their finalization. Volume 13, Number 4, April 1979
399
