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.