RIN Data

Statement of Need: The Agency convened a special task force in 1994 to look at permitting activities throughout its different programs and to make specific recommendations to improve these permitting programs. This task force, known as the Permits Improvement Team (PIT), spent two years working with stakeholders from the Agency, State permitting agencies, industry, and the environmental community. The PIT stakeholders mentioned, among other things, that permitting activities should be commensurate with the complexity of the activity. The stakeholders felt that current Agency permitting programs were not flexible enough to allow streamlined procedures for routine permitting activities. Currently, facilities that store, treat, or dispose of hazardous waste must obtain site-specific "individual" permits prescribing conditions for each "unit" (e.g., tank, container area, etc.) in which hazardous waste is managed. Experience gained by the Agency and States over the past 15 years has shown that not all the waste management activities are at the same level of complexity. Some activities, such as thermal treatment or land disposal of hazardous wastes, are more complex than storage of hazardous waste. The Agency believes that thermal treatment and land disposal activities continue to warrant "individual" permits, prescribing unit-specific conditions. However, the Agency believes that some accommodation can be made for hazardous waste management practices in standardized units such as tanks, container storage areas, and containment buildings. In April 1996, the PIT tentatively recommended, among other things, that regulations be developed to allow "standardized permits" for on-site storage and non-thermal treatment of hazardous waste in tanks, containers, and containment buildings. On October 12, 2001, the Agency proposed revising the RCRA regulations to allow for this type of permit, and is preparing to finalize the rule.

Summary of the Legal Basis: Facilities that manage hazardous waste are required under RCRA to obtain a permit and carry out corrective action as necessary (see: RCRA sections 3004, 3005, 3008, and 3010). EPA has discretion under these statutory provisions to apply different permitting procedures to different types of facilities. No aspect of this streamlining action is required by court order.

Alternatives: EPA considered several options regarding RCRA permits and corrective action alternatives. The Agency proposed to limit the scope of the rule to facilities that generate waste and manage it on-site, but asked for comment on whether to expand that scope to facilities that manage wastes generated off-site. The Agency also asked for comment on the option of allowing a facility's RCRA corrective action activities to be postponed if corrective action is being carried out under an approved State remedial program.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: The RCRA standardized permit is an optional rule designed to streamline the regulatory burden to EPA/States, as well as to private sector facilities covered by the rule, by reducing the amount of information collected, submitted, and reviewed for RCRA hazardous waste permit actions (i.e., new permit applications, permit modifications, and permit renewals). Because the rule proposed to streamline existing RCRA regulation, rather than add new RCRA regulation, implementation of the rule by the EPA and by States with EPA-authorized permitting programs is expected to result in economic benefits in the form of national cost savings from reducing both government and private sector resources required for the RCRA permit process. The national workload level of RCRA permit actions involving on-site hazardous waste storage and non-thermal treatment units has averaged 92 permit determinations per year over the 10-year period 1990-1999. Relative to this average annual workload, EPA estimates that the potential average annual cost savings to eligible facilities from implementation of this rule will range from approximately $100 to $5,800 (i.e., 2 to 140 burden hours) per permit action, depending on such things as the type of permit and the type of storage equipment. On a national basis, the rule is expected to generate a minimum of $0.36 to $0.53 million in average annual paperwork cost savings, based on the scope of the proposed rule, which was limited to on-site waste management facilities. However, the final rule may expand the initial scope of eligible facilities, which could easily double or triple the national cost savings benefits (i.e., $1.1 to $1.6 million per year in cost savings).

Risks: The purpose of this rule is to streamline existing RCRA permit application and issuance procedures to achieve national paperwork burden reduction. Because of the facts that facilities covered by this rule: (a) Are currently already required to obtain RCRA permits, and (b) are relatively simple to design, install/construct, operate, and clean-close, this rule is expected to have minimal incremental effects on existing levels of human health and environmental risk for these types of hazardous waste management facilities.