Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/22/2004 03:30 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 355-WASTE MANAGEMENT/DISPOSAL
CHAIR SCOTT OGAN called the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Present were Senators Thomas
Wagoner, Ben Stevens, Fred Dyson, Ralph Seekins, Kim Elton,
Georgianna Lincoln and Chair Scott Ogan. The first order of
business to come before the committee was SB 355.
COMMISSIONER ERNESTA BALLARD, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), said this bill came from Administrative
Order 202, issued in December 2002. The order asks DEC to review
its programs to make sure they are compliant with its
constitutional and statutory responsibilities. She briefed the
committee:
We found that our water program had some holes in it
- that both its statutory authorities and its
regulatory implementation did not provide a
comprehensive, what we call raindrops to oceans,
protection of the waters in the state. The bill
doesn't provide any new statutory authorities for DEC.
It does, however, make fairly significant
opportunities for improvement in the way we protect
water. I'd like to review those very briefly....
The most important change that the bill makes is in
the method of permitting. We currently have a
statutory requirement to permit and the word 'permit'
is specifically used. This bill will change that
requirement to the ability to provide prior
authorization. That will allow us to use a risk-based
spectrum of tools. We can use for riskier situations
more precise permitting tools; for less risky
situations, we can use new tools, particularly one
called 'Permit By Rule....'
The handout raised the permitting tool that we will
intend to use starting with individual permits, which
we have now - in which we have an individual
relationship with a specific discharger and in that
relationship we categorize the characteristics of
their effluent and specifically identify those in the
permit - a general permit we use when we authorize a
number of smaller activities in a single geographic
area.
A permit by rule is one of the new tools that this
bill will allow us to use. A permit by rule tool we
would use to permit relatively low risk activities,
but to assure that the people engaged in them - such
as bilge pumping would be a good example - that there
are rules, which they must follow, which we have
promulgated through notice and comment rulemaking. We
also will have statutory authority through this bill
to issue plan approvals, which we do use now, and
finally, the new statutory language will allow us to
use an integrated waste management permit for large
projects that have multiple discharge streams that
could be handled now with the new bill with a single
permit instead of with multiple individual permits.
The bill also allows us to use a very important tool
called administrative extension of permits. If a
permit has expired, this bill will allow us to
administratively extend it to be sure that the person
holding the permit is still covered if we've been
unable to attend timely to renewing or changing the
permit.
It also allows us to expand the requirements for proof
of financial responsibility. This is important
particularly in the case of mining in Alaska where we
have a large discharger with potential long-term
implications for waste management - that we be able to
require evidence of financial ability to manage that
waste long into the future and, particularly, in the
event that the company defaults.
Finally, the bill modifies some fairly important
definitions. The present definition of solid waste
requires us to determine the intent of the discharger.
If the waste is not wanted, it's considered solid
waste. I don't think it should be up to the state to
have to determine what the intent is. The definition
of solid waste in this bill runs to the common English
concept of garbage and refuse and the bill allows us
to differentiate between municipal solid waste and
other solid waste - municipal solid waste being that
waste discharged by municipalities, common household
waste. With this new definition we'll be able to use
simple permit by rule permitting for rural communities
who now would be required to go through a complex
individual permit program. The combined benefits of
the new municipal solid waste definition and the plan
approvals will allow us to handle the rural Alaskan
situation with much better results and much more
effectively and efficiently for those communities.
That in a quick summary is what SB 355 provides.
There's no fiscal note because there would be no
additional staff required to fulfill these
responsibilities. It simply allows us to use the staff
we have more efficiently.
CHAIR OGAN noted that all the members of the committee were
present.
SENATOR ELTON asked if he intended to move the bill.
CHAIR OGAN said he didn't intend to move it today, but wanted to
get it on the record.
SENATOR BEN STEVENS asked if language on page 2, line 22, saying
"Department authorization shall be obtained for direct disposal
and for disposal, other than of domestic sewage, into publicly
owned or operated sewerage systems" was existing language.
MR. DAN EASTON, Director, Division of Water, DEC, replied that
that is existing language.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if language on page 3, lines 11 - 13,
saying, "The department may require the submission of plans..."
was existing language as well.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD replied yes.
SENATOR STEVENS requested a sectional analysis from the
department to see how section 3 was changed.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked what "active ranges" meant on page 4, line
21.
COMMISSIONER BALLARD replied that is existing language.
CHAIR OGAN asked if active ranges referred to Eagle River Flats
where artillery is used.
SENATOR ELTON said the department requested that language two or
three years ago. He noticed that section 5 on page 6 generally
reduces the amount of public notification from two notices in a
newspaper of general circulation to one notice and he was
contemplating an amendment that would avoid that kind of
situation that had already happened in the southern end of the
Kenai Peninsula, where coalbed methane (CBM) leases were noticed
in the Kenai paper, but not in the Homer paper.
CHAIR OGAN sought other comments, but there were none and he
held the bill for further work.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|