Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
03/07/2005 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB103 | |
| SB110 | |
| HB76 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| = | SB 103 | ||
| = | SB 110 | ||
| + | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 110-POLLUTION DISCHARGE & WASTE TRMT/DISPOSAL
CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER announced SB 110 to be up for
consideration. Additional information was requested at the last
meeting and it has been received. He personally had reservations
when it costs the state $1.2 million to take over a federal
program because it saves a little time.
3:43:12 PM
SENATOR ELTON agreed with him about the financial liability and
recalled that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
recently eliminated the Hazardous Waste Program for communities
in Southeast Alaska that cost only $20,000 and involved one
employee for 30 hours. That is just a small fraction of the
fiscal note for SB 110 with the addition of 13 full-time
employees. He has heartburn with a decision that leads to the
elimination of a $20,000 program that served communities well -r
that they protested against eliminating - and then incurring a
liability of $1.2 million on the NPDES.
The other part of the bill he didn't like was on page 5, lines
12 - 14. The implication is that after the public hearing
process, state staff can still discuss permit issues with the
applicant. This would assume the staff and permit applicant can
make changes and not have to go back to a public process. When
he asked DEC about it, he didn't get an answer. But when he
asked if the public hearing process envisioned in this bill
would contribute to saving time, the answer was no.
He wanted to know whether or not DEC envisioned that conditions
of a permit can be changed subsequent to a public hearing
without going back to another public hearing - so the public
knows what those changes were.
DAN EASTON, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), replied yes to his question
about not having to go back to public notice after certain
limited changes are made. After the public comment period has
closed, he would post the permit on the web and provide copies
of the proposed final to the applicant and to others that
commented on the draft permit as well as to the EPA. "So, it's
not exclusively to the applicant, but it's to a restricted
group."
3:47:13 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked if there is a precedent in his department.
MR. EASTON replied no.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked Senator Elton if he didn't think final
terms should be worked out at the end.
SENATOR ELTON responded:
No.... What this appears to me is it appears to give
the permit applicant special access to the process
after the public hearing process. It notes only that
the person who applies for a permit under the program
has the opportunity to review the final permit. It
doesn't say permit applicant, public or other parties
who may or may not have testified.
3:52:29 PM
SENATOR GUESS, in reference to lines 12 through 14, asked if
changes are made, would those be put back on the web so people
can see the changes to the final permit.
MR. EASTON replied that it would depend on the nature of the
changes. Substantial changes now have to go back to public
notice. This provision in the bill is intended to address errors
and omissions. He explained that that situation happened
recently and the only remedy for the mistake was a full-blown
modification to the permit.
SENATOR GUESS asked if the intent is to open public comment
again for substantial changes.
MR. EASTON replied yes, that standard doesn't change.
SENATOR ELTON said that other people beside the permit applicant
might have an interest, like a neighborhood. It seems strange
that the federal government, other states and even our state's
other departments don't do this and he asked how are other
permit errors are dealt with. "Do you go back and start the
process over again? It seems to me that this could be
superfluous."
3:54:54 PM
CHAIR WAGONER summarized that he heard Mr. Easton say that they
could meet to correct minor errors and omissions. For anything
major, the department has a public hearing process.
MR. EASTON agreed that was right.
SENATOR ELTON asked what provision of law requires the
department to go back to the public process.
CAM LEONARD, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law,
answered that case law has been developed in court, both state
and federal, although, "It's not as bright a line as some of us
might wish." Basically, if the changes made to a draft permit
are the logical outgrowth of what was originally proposed, the
department doesn't have to go out to a public notice. But, if
it's something unforeseen, the law requires a second round of
public notice. It's a test that is in case law, not in statute.
SENATOR SEEKINS moved to pass SB 110 from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.
SENATOR ELTON objected and suggested somewhere through the
committee process adding language on line 12 that says:
A person who applies for a permit under the program or
an interested party who participated in the public
hearing sessions has an opportunity to review the
final draft permit prior to it being issued.
That expands the number of interested parties who have the post-
public hearing opportunity. He didn't expect an answer now, but
asked for one before the bill gets to the floor and removed his
objection. There being no further objections, SB 110 moved from
committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|