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.