why such a provision is appropriate in this case.34 We therefore conclude that the Region has failed to provide the permittee or other parties with an opportunity to prepare an adequately informed challenge to the permit addition. Given the significance of the addition and the potential costs of compliance to the permittee, we conclude that reopening the record to provide for comment is appropriate. See GSX, supra, at 19. On remand, the Region must publicly notice the risk assessment provision and allow Amoco and other interested parties the opportunity to submit comments. We express no opinion on the appropriateness of the risk assessment provision in the present permit.35 R. CMS Plan Outline Amoco seeks review of the Region's failure to include a permit provision allowing for consideration of current and future land use when proposing facility-specific objectives for corrective action at the facility. Permit Appendix C (CMS Plan Outline), Section I.B. (Establishment of Corrective Measure Objectives).36 In its response (p. 27), the Region interprets the disputed provision as allowing Amoco to expand the CMS to address current and future land use, and we adopt this interpretation as an authoritative reading of the permit that is binding on the Agency. See In re General Electric Company, RCRA Appeal No. 91-7, at 29 (EAB, November 6, 1992). Amoco's objections in this regard are therefore moot. 34 See, e.g., In re General Motors Corporation, Delco Moraine Division, et al., RCRA Appeal Nos. 90-24 & 90-25, at 10 (EAB, Nov. 6, 1992) (corrective action requirements must be tailored to site-specific conditions at the facility); RCRA Corrective Action Plan (Interim Final) at 1 (June 1988) (OSWER Directive 9902.3) ("Each facility has unique characteristics and circumstances affecting it that need to be incorporated into any requirements for corrective action."). 35 We note that the Region's Response does not address Amoco's contention that the permit's Health and Safety Plan provision (Appendix B, Section I.D.) will provide the necessary protection during the corrective action process. Section I.D.2. requires that, as part of the Health and Safety Plan, the permittee must include "[t]he known hazards and an evaluation of the risks associated with those hazards." (Emphasis added). 36 Section I.B. of Permit Appendix C states, in pertinent part: The permittee shall propose facility-specific objectives for the cor- S. Clay Memorandum Finally, Amoco appeals the Region's refusal to delay issuance of the permit for a minimum of six months to allow sufficient time for reforms of the corrective action process recommended in a February 10, 1992 memorandum from Don R. Clay to take effect.37 Letter Accompanying Petition for Review at 2-3. Amoco has not characterized the Clay memorandum as a legal impediment to issuance of the present permit. Rather, Amoco contends that, as a matter of policy, the Agency should delay permit issuance. Id. We agree with the Region that, under the present circumstances, a delay is unwarranted. At any given time, the potential exists that the Agency may decide to change the regulations affecting a permittee. Nevertheless, due to uncertainties inherent in the process of finalizing any proposed change, it is appropriate for the Agency to continue the practice of issuing permits under the existing regulations unless a change is clearly imminent. The truth of this proposition is borne out by the case at hand, where more than a year has passed since the reforms in the Clay memorandum were first proposed and thus it is unclear whether they will ever be adopted by the Agency. If, however, the requirements applicable to a permittee should change, the regulations contain a procedure under which permits can be modified accordingly. See 40 C.F.R. §270.41. Under these circumstances, we think that the Region is entitled to substantial deference in its decision to proceed with the present permit notwithstanding the possibility of future changes to the regulations. Because we find no abuse of discretion, we decline to grant review on this basis. III. CONCLUSION The permit is remanded and the Region is directed to reopen the permit proceedings for the limited purposes mentioned above.38 Appeal of the remand decision will not be required to exhaust admin 37 See Memorandum from Don R. Clay, Assistant Administrator, to William K. Reilly, Administrator, re: Environmental Growth Initiative (February 10, 1992). While this memorandum makes some broadly-based suggestions for modifying the Agency's RCRA program, the only particular recommendation cited by Amoco is that "petroleum contaminated media need to be handled separately from other wastes subject to corrective action." Attachment A at 3. 38 Although 40 C.F.R. § 124.19 contemplates that additional briefing typically will be submitted upon a grant of a petition for review, a direct remand without additional submissions is appropriate where, as here, it does not appear as though further briefs on appeal would shed light on the issues addressed on remand. See, e.g., GSX, supra, at 20. istrative remedies under 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(f)(1)(iii). On the other issues raised by Amoco, review is denied for the reasons set forth above. So ordered. SUBJECT INDEX This subject index contains references to key words, phrases, and topics in decisions reported in A Abuse of discretion language, failure to change to reflect responses to permittee's comments state portion of RCRA permit, HWSA portion bearing similar requirements to dismissal of respondent ..... Accelerated decisions, permit appeals substantive evidentiary standard of proof affecting appropriateness... Accents public hearing speakers with Action levels RCRA permits setting.. Addresses 4:762-765 4:69; 4:70-71 4:781-782 4:736-747 4:81-83 disclosure for subpoena purposes, coverage and exceptions under Privacy evidence of objections raised by permittee during draft permit comment period, lack of 14:165-166 factual basis for effluent discharge's potential for violating state requirements, |