REGULATORY BASICS INITIATIVE

"ONE YEAR LATER"

"The Ridge Administration's Commitment to 'Retarget, Retool and Refocus' Pennsylvania's Environmental Regulations."

James M. Seif, Secretary
Department of Environmental Protection

October 1996

October 1, 1996

The Secretary

Dear Friend,

I am pleased to provide you with this report outlining results of the first year of our Regulatory Basics Initiative, the first comprehensive review of DEP's regulations and policies ever undertaken by the agency.

The objectives of the Regulatory Basics Initiative were simple -- review the 13,000 pages of DEP regulations and 16,000 pages of policies to identify areas that: are more stringent than federal rules without good reason; impose disproportionately high costs for insignificant environmental benefits; are too prescriptive and not performanced based; inhibit the use of new green technologies; or discourage companies from adopting measures that prevent pollution.

As a key part of this year-long review we asked the public -- individuals, local governments, citizen and environmental groups, and the regulated community -- to identify regulations or policies that should be changed. Over 113 groups and individuals took us up on our offer.

This open process has resulted in hundreds of recommendations to change the way we do business -- all without lowering environmental standards or eliminating citizen participation. If all the recommendations are adopted, we will:

• Save individuals, businesses and local governments an estimated $154 million annually.
• Save taxpayers an estimated $1 million in DEP administrative costs annually.
• Eliminate 1,716 sections of DEP regulations.
• Eliminate 2,174 pages of policies.

Between now and the end of 1997, DEP will propose 43 separate rulemaking packages to make the changes recommended through the Regulatory Basics Initiative. We will also be involving the public again in this process by working with our advisory committees and other groups to develop the specific rule and policy language needed to make the recommended changes.

Unlike similar initiatives in other states and the federal government, we have taken a careful, measured approach to reforming our environmental rules that involves the public at every step along the way.

We look forward to working with all Pennsylvanians as we build the new environmental partnership Governor Ridge called for in his inaugural address, a partnership that will allow the Commonwealth to succeed environmentally and economically.

Very truly yours,

James M. Seif
Secretary

TABLE OF CONTENTS

REGULATORY BASICS INITIATIVE

"ONE YEAR LATER"

BACKGROUND

One of the priorities of the Ridge Administration is to create a new environmental partnership which allows the Commonwealth to succeed both environmentally and economically. In August 1995, Secretary Seif directed the Department to conduct an overall review of DEP's regulations and technical guidance documents. (See Appendix D for the Secretary's directive.)

The purpose of this Initiative is to assure that agency requirements are no more stringent than standards imposed by Federal law without good reason; to minimize costs upon the regulated community; to eliminate requirements which are no longer necessary or redundant; to encourage performance or outcome based requirements; to facilitate the use of new green technologies; to eliminate barriers to recycling and pollution prevention; and to assure information is prepared in clear and concise language. In addition, existing regulations and technical guidance were evaluated to facilitate compliance and the adequacy of related educational, technical and financial assistance programs were also evaluated. Suggestions for changes were not to lower environmental standards or eliminate public participation, but to improve performance.

The review phase of this Initiative was completed within one year as Secretary Seif directed. All regulations and technical guidance have been evaluated and recommendations for revisions have been made. The Department's review process included these milestones -

Over the next 15 months, the Department will be working with its advisory committees and the public (individuals, local governments, citizen and environmental groups, and the regulated community) to develop changes to DEP's regulations and technical guidance. Our goal is to reach the following milestones to complete this Initiative:

Back to the Table of Contents

PUBLIC COMMENTS

The Department solicited public comments in August 1995 by giving individuals, local governments and the regulated community the opportunity to identify specific regulations and technical guidance which is either more stringent than federal standards, serves as barriers to innovation, is obsolete or unnecessary, or which imposes costs beyond reasonable environmental benefits, serves as barriers to adopting new environmental technologies, recycling, and pollution prevention.

The Department solicited comments on the Initiative through a notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on August 19, 1995, the Environmental Protection UPDATE and by direct mail to key groups. Comments were accepted until November 15, 1995.

Comments were received from 113 commentators (59 representing businesses and trade associations, 32 representing citizens, 12 representing consultants, 7 representing environmental organizations, and 3 representing municipalities and municipal authorities). The public comments were useful and necessary in helping us find new ways of achieving the environmental results we all agree are needed. Over 1,200 individual regulatory recommendations and comments were submitted during the public comment period. The majority of the comments focused on the waste and water programs.

A response to all of the public comments which were received by the November 15, 1995, public comment deadline was provided in the Department's Comment and Response Document which was released in June. The document was forwarded to those individuals who submitted comments and has been reviewed by the Department's various advisory committees. Copies of this document are available from the Department. (See Appendix D.)

Back to the Table of Contents

REVIEW OF REGULATIONS

I. Program Reports Evaluating the Regulations

In August 1995 the Department began its review of the Department's existing regulations. As a result of this review, an estimated 152 pages of the 4,987 pages of regulations in the Pennsylvania Code will be deleted. Approximately 1,716 of the existing 55,000 regulatory requirements will be eliminated. (See Appendix A for a detailed listing by program.) Although only 3 percent of the Department's regulatory requirements will be deleted, many regulatory requirements will be revised to encourage performance based requirements, minimize costs, clarify requirements and eliminate barriers to recycling and pollution prevention. The review consisted of a section-by-section analysis of the Department's regulations using the criteria detailed below, as well as a review of the public comments submitted during the public comment period. Programs developed reports evaluating the regulations and recommending regulatory changes. These reports were released in May and were mailed to the individuals who submitted comments during the public comment period. The reports evaluating the regulations were also provided to the Department's advisory committees for review and comment.

The Department is now working with its various advisory committees to develop the regulatory packages to implement the recommendations contained in these reports. Copies of these reports are available from the Department. (See Appendix D.) The purpose of this review was to identify and recommend changes for the following:

A) Regulations Which Contain Standards or Requirements More Stringent Than Federal Law, Without Good Reason

All regulations which contain standards or requirements more stringent than Federal law were identified and recommended for change to be no more stringent than Federal requirements unless required by state law. For any regulation where the Department made a preliminary determination that more stringent state requirements are appropriate and necessary, the Department prepared the following information for each regulation:

1) identification of the appropriate federal citation;

2) comparative analysis of the state requirements to the Federal requirements and benchmarks in other states;

3) explanation of statutory, policy, or technical reasons for imposing regulations more stringent than Federal requirements; and

4) associated cost/benefit analysis that supports the Department's recommendation to continue the imposition of stricter requirements with supporting documentation that stricter standards are achievable with current technology, does not impose an unreasonable burden, and achieves a desired environmental result.

B) Regulations Imposing Disproportionate Economic Costs Without Significant Benefit

Regulations imposing highly disproportionate costs in comparison to the intended environmental results were identified for each program area. Program managers identified these regulations in consultation with organizations and interests bearing the greatest financial burden. For each regulation identified, the Department prepared the following information:

1) a description of how the regulation achieves the intended environmental result and what costs are imposed on the regulated community to comply with the regulation;

2) a description of nonregulatory compliance which could achieve the intended environmental result;

3) where less costly approaches were not recommended, a justification of why less costly approaches were not selected; and

4) a description of existing or proposed programs available to the regulated community to help minimize the costs of compliance.

C) Regulations With Significant Noncompliance

Regulations having the greatest incidence of noncompliance were identified within each program area. For each regulation identified, the Department prepared the following information:

1) an analysis describing the reasons for noncompliance and the resultant impact on public health, safety, and the environment; and

2) an evaluation of options for achieving greater compliance. These options addressed both regulatory and nonregulatory approaches with specific recommendations for more effective compliance assistance programs.

D) Regulations Which are Prescriptive or Technology Specific

Regulations which did not provide for the maximum flexibility allowed under law in achieving a desired level of environmental performance were identified within each program area. For each regulation identified, the Department prepared the following information:

1) identification of the appropriate federal or state statutory authority;

2) an explanation of the statutory, policy, or technical reasons for not utilizing or providing the flexibility to utilize performance based regulatory requirements; and

3) a description of alternative regulatory approaches to provide for the use of results oriented or performance based standards.

E) Regulations Which Inhibit the Application of New Green Technologies

Regulations should encourage the utilization of new green technologies. Review procedures should be streamlined to provide incentives for the consideration and use of these new technologies.

The Department prepared a report identifying regulations which are roadblocks for applying new, less costly methods or technologies that will maintain or improve environmental quality.

F) Regulations Which do not Support a Pollution Prevention Approach

Regulations should encourage and provide incentives for the regulated community to take a preventive approach to environmental management issues. If pollution is prevented or reduced at the source, it does not have to be managed or regulated resulting in savings to both the regulated community and the Commonwealth.

The Department reviewed regulations within their area of responsibility and identified regulations where barriers and disincentives exist to source reduction and prevention.

G) Regulations Which are Obsolete or are Redundant

The Department identified regulations which are redundant, outdated, or are no longer necessary as a result of new statutory authority or changes to other regulations. This analysis was conducted to reduce paperwork, minimize administrative burdens, save time, and generally change or eliminate regulations which no longer meet the goals for which they were intended.

H) Regulations Which Lack Clarity

The Department identified regulations where the text has created potential for uncertainty and misinterpretation. This review was intended to identify regulations which were not drafted in plain, simple, clear and concise language.

Back to the Table of Contents

II. Highlights of Recommended Changes to Regulations

The program reports included numerous recommendations for regulatory amendments. A summary of these regulatory recommendations by program area follows:

Air Quality

• Adopt an equivalency review procedure for air quality permits to allow facilities to achieve greater reductions using pollution minimization.

• Delete alternate emission reduction limitations for certain facilities as they are redundant since they are incorporated into the operating permits.

• Amend the Stage II regulations to reflect the correct compliance dates and testing requirements of the Air Pollution Control Act. With the passage of the 1992 APCA amendments, portions of Section 129.82 became obsolete.

• Amend the emission reporting requirements to require one submission of emission data for emission inventory, emission statements, and Title V emission fees.

• Delete the requirements for mandatory "stand-by plans" since the Department does not annually require a stand-by plan based on monitored exceedances, as required by the current regulations.

• Amend the coke oven battery provisions to be consistent with the EPA NESHAP. Many of the provisions were found to be overlapping with the NESHAP requirements which were developed through a federal reg-neg process. The reg-neg committee recommended, and EPA agreed, to disapprove any SIP that represented backsliding.

• Amend the definitions of "major modification" and "secondary emissions" to be consistent with the federal regulations.

• Amend the new source review program requirements to comply with new federal requirements.

• Amend the requirements for testing of particulate matter emissions from stationary sources to be consistent with the federal requirements.

• Clarify the definitions of "appropriate control" and "minor significance."

• Develop BAT guidance documents for more types of sources.

• Clarify which type of emission is referred to under de minimis emission increases.

Land Recycling and Waste Management

• Change the equivalency review procedure for municipal waste permits so that once approval is given, it will be applicable statewide.

• Change the used oil requirements to be consistent with the federal requirement by inserting a rebuttable presumption for used oil containing >1,000 ppm halogens.

• Adopt the universal waste rule to eliminate the manifesting of certain materials destined for recycling.

• Eliminate the Mod 1 requirement when hazardous waste streams are adequately covered by a facility's Waste Analysis Plan.

• Expand the application of General Permit requirements for materials such as sewage sludge, resource recovery ash, and composted municipal waste.

• Allow recycling facilities to receive off-site hazardous waste and still qualify for permit-by-rule status.

• Revise the mandatory site inspection schedules to reduce inspections at municipal and residual waste facilities with successful environmental management programs.

• Streamline permit requirements for mobile treatment/processing facilities which recycle or reclaim wastes on-site.

• To encourage pollution prevention, revise the water quality permitting regulations to allow the Department to recommend specific measures to reach compliance. The existing regulations prohibit alternative compliance measures.

• Eliminate 16 municipal and residual waste reporting forms and rely on the facility to retain its own operational data. Reduce the overall volume of reporting forms by 50 percent.

• Delete all notary certification requirements for waste permits.

• Elimination of quarterly hazardous waste reports and adoption of the federal requirement of a biennial report.

• Exempt conditionally exempt small quantity generators from the requirement to use a manifest.

• Reduce the permit application fee and simplify the approval process for municipal waste demonstration facilities.

• Revise the facility design and operating standards for municipal and residual waste composting facilities to be more performance based.

• Authorize general permits for municipal and residual waste processing and beneficial use.

• Expand the current permit-by-rule provisions to create permit exemptions for "clean wastes."

• Adopt a variance provision for hazardous waste to allow for deviation of construction requirements, where it can be demonstrated by the facility that alternate construction will be protective of the environment.

• Revise the hazardous waste regulations to allow for alternate concentration levels for hazardous constituents, if that constituent will not cause environmental harm.

• Revise the liner and leachate treatment system requirements to include performance based standards.

• Modify the sewage sludge sampling and isolation distance requirements to allow for flexibility as provided in the federal regulations.

• Delete certain siting prohibitions for enclosed composting facilities.

• Revise the municipal waste composting siting requirements of greater than 4 feet from the seasonal high water table to indicate that the composting pad cannot be in contact with the seasonal high water table.

• Revise the requirements that composting pads be at least 1 x 10^-7 cm to allow for a performance based standard which indicates that the compost pad must prevent the migration of leachate.

• Revise the municipal and residual waste leachate storage system requirement of 30 days or 250,000 gallons to a performance based standard which requires sufficient storage to prevent illegal discharges.

• Modify the existing requirements for a minimum of 4 feet of alternating soil for residual waste landfills to allow for equivalency modeling based upon site specific conditions.

• Delete the siting requirement for municipal and residual waste facilities of within 50 feet of a property line to allow for waiver of adjacent landowner.

• Remove the municipal and residual waste landfill liner specifications from regulations and add to guidance to allow for flexibility based upon technological advancements.

• Reduce hazardous waste manifest copy retention from 20 years to 3 years.

• Revise the nuisance and litter requirements in the municipal waste regulations to require control, not prevention which is impossible.

• Delete the requirement to revegetate daily cover at municipal waste landfills because it is not necessary.

• Revise the leachate storage requirements to require adequate storage, as the existing regulations require storage which may never be used.

• Revise leachate sampling requirements to delete parameters from quarterly sampling if not detected by monitoring.

• Revise regulations to allow for leachate holding tanks and trucking, since many facilities cannot connect to sewer systems or build treatment plants.

• Revise residual waste regulations to allow a water resistant cover, since the existing regulations require a waterproof cover which is unnecessary if leakage can be prevented.

• Clarify when a pad is required for residual waste storage.

Mining

• Revise several definitions in the coal mining regulations to be consistent with the federal definition.

• Revise the coal mining regulations for a waiver to mine within 300 feet of an occupied dwelling which requires consent of the current landowner, to be consistent with the federal regulations which allow mining if the previous owner knew about it when he purchased the dwelling.

• Revise the coal mining regulations which allow permit blocks in situations in which a UFM petition is received at any time during the comment period on the permit application, to be consistent with the federal regulations which limit the time period for the first newspaper ad.

• Revise the coal mining regulations to allow for a waiver of permit for up to and including 250 tons of coal removed during exploration.

• Revise the coal mining regulations to allow for permit term extensions for commencing operations where circumstances exist beyond their control and without the fault or negligence of the permittee.

• Revise the performance standards for final grading at coal mining sites to allow more flexibility in the design of the terrace backfills as long as slope stability and erosion control are accomplished.

• Revise the coal mining permit application requirements to require a copy of the newspaper ad or proof of publication, as opposed to both methods of proof of publication as is currently required.

• Revise the coal mining regulations to provide permittees with the opportunity for an informal conference on bond adjustment requests.

• Revise the noncoal mining regulations to exempt oil and gas well borrow areas.

• Revise the noncoal mining regulations to provide a less complex and costly process for noncoal exploration activities.

Oil and Gas

• Revise Chapter 79 regarding oil and gas conservation to delete the prescriptive requirement that oil tanks be surrounded by an earthen dike with a capacity of 1 1/2 times the capacity of the tank and only require a dike which prevents the tank contents from entering waters of the Commonwealth.

• Simplify the transfer of ownership requirements for the transfer of oil and gas wells.

• Reduce the reporting requirements by only requiring submittal of the underground injection control monitoring report when requested by the Department.

• Deleting in its entirety Chapter 80 (regarding gas well classification) since the federal Natural Gas Policy Act program was discontinued in 1993.

Water Quality/Safe Drinking Water/Dams and Waterways

• Combine erosion control and preparedness, prevention and contingency (PPC) planning into a single planning document similar to the federal procedure where a stormwater pollution prevention plan addresses pollution prevention from both sediment and other construction pollutants.

• Waive the operations and maintenance permit requirement for existing dams that are in compliance with Chapter 105's technical standards. The dams are inspected annually by both the Department and the "owner's" engineer who certifies its integrity.

• Revise Chapter 111 to allow more flexibility to counties, municipalities, and the Department in implementation of the storm water management program.

• Allow for one PPC or "incident" plan to be submitted for one facility, as opposed to multiple plans for various permits as currently required.

• Delete the prescriptive reporting requirements for safe drinking water lab reports to comply with the federal requirements.

• Simplify the annual reporting requirements for sewage treatment plants.

• Delete the aesthetic (taste and odor) criteria from the Water Quality Toxics Policy, as it is not necessary to protect public health.

• Exclude combined sewer overflows from secondary treatment requirements.

Back to the Table of Contents

III. Schedule for Amending Existing Regulations

In June the Department also released a Schedule for Amending Existing Regulations. This document contains schedules for the development of new rulemakings as part of the Initiative. Each rulemaking contains a summary of the proposal and anticipated dates for first drafts, advisory committee review, and Environmental Quality Board (EQB) consideration of the proposed rulemaking.

By December 1997 the Department anticipates forwarding 43 separate rulemakings to the EQB as a result of this Initiative. Several rulemakings implementing the goals of this Initiative have already been submitted to the EQB - hazardous waste amendments (PK-5), the hazardous "universal waste" rule, and the regulations regarding the land application of sewage sludge. These rulemakings include the following:

Back to the Table of Contents

REVIEW OF TECHNICAL GUIDANCE

I. Program Reports Evaluating Technical Guidance

The Department reviewed over 16,000 pages of technical guidance to meet the goals of the Initiative. Generally, technical guidance was reviewed to insure that it was no more stringent than federal requirements; minimized costs to the regulated community; eliminated unnecessary requirements; encouraged performance or outcome based requirements; and that information is clear and concise. The program reports evaluating the Department's technical guidance documents were released in August and were mailed to the individuals who submitted comments during the public comment period. These reports were also provided to the Department's advisory committees for review and comment. Of the Department's existing 16,000 pages of technical guidance, 2,174 pages will be deleted. (See Appendix A for a listing by program.) In addition, many pages will be revised to comply with the goals of this Initiative.

Guidance was evaluated using the following criteria:

A) Conformity with State Statutes and Regulations

Technical guidance should explain but not enlarge or diminish the scope of statutory or regulatory provisions. Positions taken in guidance must be consistent with statutes and regulations.

B) No More Stringent than Federal Requirements

Technical guidance should be no more stringent than applicable federal requirements. Guidance which is more stringent than federal requirements that implements "more stringent than" agency regulations will remain in effect until the regulations are changed.

C) Economic Impacts

Technical guidance should not diminish Pennsylvania's competitive economic advantage. The costs to obtain agency approvals and meet compliance requirements on individuals, businesses, and local governments should be minimized and flexibility to employ cost effective alternatives should be provided. Guidance should help promote the use of economic incentives to encourage desired behavior. In addition, agency costs associated with staffing, technical reviews, and compliance assistance should also be minimized.

D) Compliance Assistance

Technical guidance should clearly identify what is needed to comply with agency regulations including the provision related to educational and informational materials. Technical guidance should place emphasis on cooperation, innovation and education as a way to achieve higher levels of compliance. Technical guidance should give special attention to the unique needs of small businesses and local governments as related to educational, technical and other forms of compliance assistance.

E) Performance or Outcome Oriented

To the extent allowed by regulation, technical guidance should focus on achieving the desired level of environmental performance. Maximum flexibility to achieve the desired outcome should be encouraged rather than prescribing specific technologies or equipment.

F) Green Technologies

Technical guidance should help promote the utilization of new, less costly methods and technologies that will maintain or improve environmental quality. Barriers to using green technologies should be eliminated and review processes should be streamlined to provide incentives for using these technologies.

G) Pollution Prevention

Technical guidance should help promote and not be a barrier to the use of pollution prevention technologies and procedures.

Pollution prevention is defined as measures taken to avoid or reduce generation of all types of waste - solid/hazardous waste, wastewater discharges and air emissions - at their points of origin. It does not include activities undertaken to treat, control or dispose of pollution once it is created, e.g. end-of-the-stack or pipe control equipment or procedures.

H) Necessity

Technical guidance should be up-to-date and needed to help implement current laws and regulations. Technical guidance should not be duplicative of other guidance and generally reduce paperwork, minimize administrative burdens, and save time for both the regulated community and agency staff.

I) Clarity

Documents should contain plain, simple, clear and concise language. Nontechnical language should be used to the greatest extent possible. Documents should provide clear interpretation of agency requirements while reducing the potential for uncertainty and confusion by agency staff or the regulated community.

Back to the Table of Contents

II. Highlights of Recommended Changes to Technical Guidance

The program reports included numerous recommendations for changes and recissions to technical guidance documents. A summary of these recommendations by program area follows:

Air Quality

• Delete unnecessary subsections from Air Quality Operating Permit Modification/ Reactivation (275-2101-004) to be consistent with current PA Air Pollution Control Act.

• Remove obsolete subsections from Delegation Conditions and Policy Performance Test Waivers (275-2101-005).

• Strike sections not in accordance with the Clean Air Act Amendments from Air Quality Operating Permit Requirements (275-2101-006).

• Remove obsolete subsections from Hazardous Waste Incineration (275-2101-008).

• Delete guideline draft never finalized or implemented from Waste Derived Liquid Fuel Policies (275-2101-009).

• Delete obsolete document New Source Review Requirements and Permit Emission Limitations (275-2101-012).

• Delete Subchapter C/Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (275-2101-013) rendered obsolete by revisions to state New Source Review regulations.

• Delete Penalty Policy (275-2101-017) as redundant with Technical Guidance Document 273-4130-002.

• Delete and reserve Chapter 127 Penalty Policy (273-4130-002) for consolidation.

Land Recycling and Waste Management

• Rescind unnecessary and unclear Recycling Program Grant Agreements and Applications (254-2213-517).

• Rescind Permit Exemption for Use of Food Processing Sludge (250-2100-746) as unnecessary as well as Joint Permit Application Review of Hazardous Waste Incinerators (251-0600-710) and Permitting of Passive Gas System for Municipal Waste Landfills (254-2153-724).

• Rescind unnecessary Disposition of Existing Permitted Construction/Demolition Landfills (254-2157-716).

• Rescind unnecessary and ineffective Use of Double Liners on Slopes of Existing Landfills (254-2153-722).

• Delete Issuance of Program Directives, Guidance, Policies and Procedures (250-0900-102) as unnecessary.

• Rescind Applicable, Relevant or Appropriate Regulations Procedure Manual (253-5800-614) as not focused on outcomes.

• Delete the Recycling Program Grant (254-2213-517) as unnecessary, unclear, and not helpful with compliance.

Radiation Protection

• Delete X-Ray Machine Registration Procedures (291-2308-001) which do not contain guidance, but forms.

• Delete Environmental Radiation Surveillance Manual (292-0400-001), which does not contain guidance.

• Delete Radon Division's Policy and Procedures (294-0400-001) and include revised contents into one document with Radon Certification Inspection.

Mining and Reclamation

• Rescind the following guidance as no longer needed and out of date: Tracking, Complaints (561-3900-704), General Noncoal, Petition Process (563-2000-103), Verification, Licenses (563-2500-801), Technical Review, Vibration Limitations (563-2112-606), and Application Review, Primacy repermitting (563-4000-201).

• Rescind the following documents as out of date and unnecessary: Blasting, Preblast Surveys (562-2112-502), Inspections, Bond Forfeiture (562-3000-104), Sample Identification Number (562-3200-201), Effluent Standards (562-3200-206), Aerial Surveillance (562-3600-103), Violations Patterns (562-4000-302), Progress (562-4000-305), and Compliance Orders (562-4100-303).

• Delete as outdated General Information, Municipal Mining (561-2000-711), Name Changes (561-2000-713), and Administration, Annual Reports (562-3300-804).

• Substantially revise SOAP Application Processing, Preassignment (561-2305-201) and SOAP Application Processing, Report Review (561-2305-203).

Dams, Waterways and Wetlands

• Rescind the Implementation Procedures for History Code (320-0700-001) (not consistent with recent law).

• Rescind Delegation of Chapter 105 functions to Mineral Resources (323-0200-001) and Delegation of Chapter105 functions to Mineral Resources (323-0200-002) as unnecessary.

Land and Water Conservation

• Delete several documents: Complaint Handling and Problem Assessment Guidelines for Conservation Districts (392-3000-012), Inspection of Earth Disturbance Sites (392-3000-013) and Enforcement Policy for Conservation Districts (392-4000-018). These issues were addressed in the Compliance Assistance and Enforcement Manual (320-4000-001) in August 1994.

• Rescind the Coastal Programs Federal Consistency Review Procedures (394-2000-017) as not meeting the definition of a Technical Guidance Document.

• Delete Coastal Zone Management Grant Information Booklet (394-5500-016) as redundant.

Water Quality Management

• Delete recommendation of specific technologies from Technical Guidance for Permitting Landfill Leachate Discharges (362-2183-001).

• Rescind obsolete and redundant Pollution Report (361-2000-001), Act 537 Plan Content Control (364-2206-005) and Consistency Determinations in New Land Development Planning (364-2207-001).

• Eliminate Water Quality Analysis Template Users Guide (361-2000-004) and Technical Reference Guide (361-2000-005) replaced by PENTOXSD.

• Strike Commercial Heating Oil Tanks (CHOTS) (363-2318-004) deregulated by Act 16.

• Rescind the obsolete Publicly Owned Treatment Works/Small Flows Discharge (364-2188-001).

• Delete Act 537 Planning: Enforcement Actions/Plan Update/Implementation Notices (364-2206-002), Act 537 Planning Coordination with Enforcement Strategy (364-2206-003), Act 537 Official Sewage Plans Revision-Private Request (364-2206-004), and Act 537 Plan Review - Acceptance of Complete Plan (364-2206-006) as obsolete due to Act 149.

• Remove redundant Residential Tract Waiver from Act 537 Planning (364-2207-002).

• Rescind Request for Non-Building Waiver (364-2207-003) and Verification of Prior Testing (364-2208-001) replaced by a form.

• Delete Act 537 Minor Module Review (364-2207-005) and Act 537 PRC Recommendations (364-2207-006) as obsolete.

• Strike Notice of Marginal Conditions (364-2208-003) and General Methods for Testing Permeability (364-2208-004) as redundant and obsolete respectively.

• Rescind Stream Surveys (361-3200-001) since replaced by Standardized Biological Field Collection.

• Delete the outdated Total Maximum Daily Load/Waste Load Allocation Toxics Survey (361-3200-012).

• Remove STP Operation During Modification (364-3110-001) and Mercury Seals for Trickling Filters and Communicators (364-3110-002) to include in the Domestic Wastewater Facilities Manual.

• Delete Cooperation With Other Agencies (360-0700-001) and Correspondence Covering County Health Departments (360-0700-002) as obsolete and without program impact.

• Delete Initiating , Reviewing and Adopting Policies and Procedures (360-0900-001) as obsolete and redundant.

• Delete Division of Storage Tanks Program Guidance (363-0900-001) and ASNT Level II Certification (363-0900-002) as redundant.

• Delete Posting Registration Fee Payments to the Old Fee System (363-0900-003) and Modification Activities for Categories AMMX and AMNX (363-0900-004) as obsolete and without program impact.

• Delete STDS Revision Procedures and Documentation Requirements (363-0900-005), Registration Roles of the Regional Offices (363-0900-007) and Change of Tank Ownership Registration Procedures (363-0900-008) as the information is being incorporated into administrative procedures.

• Delete Sump Tanks (363-0900-010) and Tank Tightness Testing-UST System (363-0900-013) as guidance was incorporated to Certification Regulations (Chapter 245).

• Delete Regulatory Review Process, Interaction with SAC (364-0700-001) as obsolete and redundant.

• Delete the following documentation that will be obsolete with the end of the federal construction grants program in September 1998:

Processing Change Orders (364-5510-001)
Construction Grants I/I Analysis and SSES (364-5510-002)
Changes in Project Scope for EPA Construction Grants Project (364-5510-003)
Preparation of Federal Grant Agreement/Amendment Documents (364-5510-004)
A/E Contracts/Subagreements (364-5510-005)
Operations/Maintenance/Management in the Construction Grants Program (364-5510-006)
Construction Grant Payment Review and Outlay Management Procedures (364-5510-007)
Force Account Review (364-5510-008)
Federal Grants Project Close-out (364-5510-009)
Management of Construction Grant Funds (364-5510-010)
Wage Rates (364-5510-011)
Approving Grant Increases (364-5510-012)

Water Supply and Community Health

• Rescind Water Allocations Program Emergency Permits (382-2130-010) as having no basis in law.

• Delete obsolete document: the Memorandum of Understanding (382-2130-011).

Back to the Table of Contents

III. Schedule for Amending Technical Guidance

Technical guidance which is not dependent on a regulatory change will be revised or eliminated by December 1996. Technical guidance which cannot be revised until the related regulatory change is submitted to the EQB as a proposed rulemaking will be revised or eliminated by December 1997. Notice of deletions and amendments will be made in the weekly Environmental Protection UPDATE newsletter and the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Public comments will be accepted on all amendments to technical guidance.

Back to the Table of Contents

ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS TO THE COMMONWEALTH

One basic element of the Regulatory Basics Initiative is improving the efficiency by which the Department approves permit applications, conducts its monitoring and reviews reporting documentation. Through the Initiative, the Department will spend less time on administrative activities and more time on more qualitative endeavors that more directly effect the quality of life of Pennsylvanians.

For this reason, unnecessary and redundant regulatory requirements will be eliminated. This will allow more effective use of staff time and will save the taxpayers of the Commonwealth over $1 million in staff time. This is truly what is meant by our commitment to "retarget, retool and refocus" Pennsylvania's environmental regulations.

The changes which are recommended in this report will result in a savings of $1,025,319 to the Commonwealth. This figure is an estimate based on the major program changes included in this report. The Department's estimated departmental savings are shown in Appendix B.

One of the many changes that will contribute to these savings is a move toward general permits where practicable. These permits require less time for the regulated community to complete and for the Department to review without sacrificing the quality of review or level of environmental protection. Another cost savings change is the efforts to combine numerous reporting forms seeking similar information into a single document. This, too, will ease administrative burdens.

A final example is savings that will result from the drafting of strict technical guidance documents for permit review. These will eliminate ambiguities and help to improve consistency of review. This clearly will not only save taxpayer dollars, but improve the quality of the work the Department performs.

The Department acknowledges that all these cost-savings would be valueless if it was at the expense of the quality of the work performed. For this reason, the Initiative was carefully crafted to generate savings without any loss in service.

Back to the Table of Contents

ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS TO INDIVIDUALS, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND THE REGULATED COMMUNITY

While the Regulatory Basics Initiative will save some taxpayer dollars, the Initiative is more about altering Pennsylvania's environmental regulations so that they make logical sense to local governments and the regulated community that abide by them. The same changes that will result in administrative savings for the Department also will mean savings for people who have to comply with DEP's rules.

If all the changes recommended through the Regulatory Basics Initiative are adopted, the Department will save local governments and the regulated community an estimated $154 million annually. All of this will be achieved by adopting rational, common sense and analytically based criteria when conducting environmental regulations here in Pennsylvania - not by sacrificing environmental protection.

Some of the changes that will mean big savings to the regulated community are streamlined application and reporting requirements. Clarifying the regulations and eliminating redundancies and unnecessary plans and paperwork will mean that companies will spend less money on transaction costs such as consulting and legal expenses. A major relief will come to local governments in the form of the sewage sludge regulatory changes now being finalized. In addition to easing the administrative burden of local governments, these changes will result in lower hauling and tipping fees that will accompany reduced disposal costs and utilization of a previously untapped resource.

The Initiative is accomplishing many goals, but the most important thing it does is make Pennsylvania more job-friendly and competitive with other states. It does this through some major regulatory revisions, but mostly through numerous small changes that, when aggregated, will mean real savings to local governments and businesses of this Commonwealth.

The Department's estimate of costs savings to individuals, local governments, and the regulated community is shown in Appendix C.

Back to the Table of Contents

APPENDIX A

SUMMARY OF REVIEW OF EXISTING REGULATIONS
AND TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS

Air Quality

Land Recycling and Waste Management

Radiation Protection

Mining and Reclamation

Oil and Gas Management

Dams, Waterways and Wetlands

Land and Water Conservation

Water Quality Management

Water Supply and Community Health

Department Totals

Back to the Table of Contents

APPENDIX B

ESTIMATED DEPARTMENTAL SAVINGS

Air Quality

• Fugitive Emissions: Reduce administrative review time
  Savings: +$13,770

• Malodors: Reduced administrative review time
  Savings: +$18,695

• Open Burning: Reduced administrative review time
  Savings: +$47,160

• Expanded List of Sources: Less application review time required
  Savings: +$56,000

• NSR Regulation: Reduced administrative time
  Savings: +$80,400

• APE Stand-by Plans: Eliminated review procedure
  Savings: +$128,000

• Coke Oven Changes: Reduced review time
  Savings: +$960

• Combined Emission Reporting: Unified reporting method
  Savings: +$4,800

• Particulate Matter Sampling: Less testing review necessary
  Savings: +$9,600

• BAT Guidance Documents: Streamlined review procedure
  Savings: +$200,000

• TOTAL: +$559,385

Land Recycling and Waste Management

• Equivalency Review Change: Reduced fee for minor modifications
  Cost: -($4,800)

• Revisions to Municipal Waste Regulations: Fewer inspections for successful programs
  Savings: +$49,000

• Revisions to Residual Waste Regulations: Creation of general permits
  Cost: -($23,000)

• Leachate Transfer Stations: Fewer required inspections
  Savings: +$44,000

• Waste Reporting Form Project: Streamlined administrative procedures
  Savings: +$133,600

• PK-5: Reduction in report review time
  Savings: +$13,200

• Variance Provisions: Additional examination time will be required
  Cost: -($60,000)

• Hazardous Waste Revisions #6: Additional time to confirm alternate hazardous concentration levels
  Cost: -($6,000)

• TOTAL: +$146,000

Radiation Protection

• None

Mining and Reclamation

• General Permits
  Savings: +$18,000

• Bond Release
  Savings: +$15,000

• Hydrological and Geological Data
  Savings: +$24,000

• Small Industrial Permit
  Savings: +$15,000

• TOTAL: +$72,000

Oil and Gas Management

• None

Dams, Waterways and Wetlands

• Revisions to Chapter 105 Regulations: Move to permit-by-rule (administrative savings; fee loss)
  Savings: +$209,300

Land and Water Conservation

• Relieve Administrative Burden: fewer erosion control plans required
  Savings: +$6,240

• Chapter 102, Erosion Control: Less administrative time required for NPDES permitting
  Savings: +$109,600

• TOTAL: +$115,840

Water Quality Management

• Storage Tank Revisions: Lost fees
  Cost: -($418,900)

• Section 94/12 Changes: Reduced administrative time
  Savings: +$360,000

• Section 95.2 Changes: Increased review time
  Cost: -($46,656)

• TOTAL: -($105,556)

Water Supply & Community Health

• Radiological Monitoring of Bottled Water: Less review time required
  Savings: +$8,100

• Lab Certification Reciprocity: Less certification time
  Savings: +$20,250

• TOTAL: +$28,350

Net Program Savings

$1,025,319

Back to the Table of Contents

APPENDIX C

EXAMPLES OF ESTIMATED COST SAVINGS FOR
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE REGULATED COMMUNITY

Air Quality

Land Recycling and Waste Management

Mining and Reclamation

Oil and Gas Management

Dams, Waterways and Wetlands

Land and Water Conservation

Water Quality Management

Total Savings for the Regulated Community and Local Governments from Examples

$154,524,400

Back to the Table of Contents

APPENDIX D

ORDER FORM: REGULATORY BASICS INITIATIVE DOCUMENTS

NAME: ___________________________________________________________

COMPANY: _______________________________________________________

ADDRESS: ________________________________________________________

CITY: _____________________________ STATE: _________ ZIP: ___________

PHONE: ___________________________ FAX: __________________________

_______ Secretarial Directive on Regulatory Basics Initiative

Program Reports on Regulations:
_______ Bureau of Air Quality
_______ Bureau of Land Recycling and Waste Management
_______ Bureau of Radiation Protection
_______ Bureau of Mining and Reclamation
_______ Bureau of Oil and Gas Management
_______ Bureau of Dams, Waterways and Wetlands
_______ Bureau of Land and Water Conservation
_______ Bureau of Water Quality Management
_______ Bureau of Water Supply and Community Health
_______ Schedule for Amending Existing Regulations

_______ Comment/Response Document

_______ Program Reports on Technical Guidance

DEP
Policy Office
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063
Fax: (717) 783-8470

Back to the Table of Contents

NEED MORE INFORMATION?

• Call us at (717) 783-1303.

• E-mail us at RegBasics@dep.state.pa.us

• Visit our World Wide Web Site at http://www.dep.state.pa.us

• All Regulatory Basics Initiative reports are available on the Web site. Check under "Public Participation Center," "Regulatory Basics Initiative."

Back to the Table of Contents