BILL ANALYSIS
AB 1942
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2004
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS
John Laird, Chair
AB 1942 (Lowenthal) - As Amended: April 1, 2004
SUBJECT : Hazardous waste facilities permits.
SUMMARY : Automatically extends a hazardous waste facility's
permit until an agency requires the renewal application to be
filed, and increases the types of facility modifications that
may be processed under a Class 1 modification procedure.
Specifically, this bill :
1)Provides that the owner or operator of a hazardous waste
facility is not required to submit an application for a permit
renewal until requested to do so by the Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC).
2)Extends, indefinitely, any hazardous waste facilities permit
for which DTSC does not initiate the review of the permit
before the end of the permit's fixed term.
3)Authorizes the owner or operator of a permitted facility to
change the facility structures or equipment as a Class 1*
permit modification, pursuant to the regulations adopted by
DTSC, (a) if DTSC determines that the change to the structure
or equipment is necessary to comply with requirements or the
request of a state or federal agency or an air quality
management or air pollution control district and (b) if the
change will decrease risks to human health and safety or the
environment.
4)Makes technical changes to delete obsolete language
referencing DTSC operations before final federal certification
of the state's hazardous waste management program.
EXISTING LAW requires hazardous waste facilities to operate
under permits issued by DTSC. DTSC issues a hazardous waste
facilities permit for a fixed term, which cannot exceed 10 years
for any land disposal facility, storage facility, incinerator,
or other treatment facility.
1)Requires DTSC to review each hazardous waste facility permit
for a land disposal facility five years after the date of
AB 1942
Page 2
issuance or re-issuance, and shall modify the permit, as
necessary, to assure that the facility continues to comply
with the currently applicable statutory and regulatory
requirements.
2)Allows the owner or operator of a permitted hazardous waste
facility to change facility structures or equipment without
modifying the facility's hazardous waste facilities permit, if
the change to the structure or equipment is not within a
permitted unit, or if the structure or equipment is not
actively related to the treatment, storage, or disposal of
hazardous waste, or the secondary containment of those
hazardous wastes.
3)Allows for permit modifications of the structure or the
equipment within the permitted unit pursuant to various
classes of permit modifications, which have different notice,
information and review criteria. Class 1 are generally
smaller modifications and fewer regulatory requirements than
Class 2 and Class 3. Class 1 modifications do not allow for
modifications to the facility structure or equipment that
would result in an increase in the permitted capacity of the
hazardous waste management unit. Class 1 approvals require
notice to DTSC before the change is made. Notice to the
public need only be made to a mailing list for the facility
maintained by DTSC within 90 days of when the change is made.
4)There is a subgroup of the Class 1 modifications. Class 1*
is different from the Class 1 in that it requires DTSC
approval before the modification is made. It also requires
that the facility notify the mailing list within 7 days of
filing the modification with DTSC and it must also be noticed
in a major local paper.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
COMMENTS : The sponsor of this measure, DeMenno/Kerdoon,
introduced this measure to alter the permit renewal process for
the hazardous waste facilities and to expedite certain facility
permit modifications.
Facility Permit Renewal
1)Generally DTSC calls for a permit renewal application about
AB 1942
Page 3
180 days before it expires. But, the sponsor asserts that
over the past few years, the staffing cuts at DTSC have
reduced the staff in the permitting office from about 150
people down to 80 people, and it can take 5 to 10 years to
process the permit renewal. The sponsor argues that it makes
no sense to submit a permit renewal request and to go through
the environmental review process, if when DTSC finally gets to
the renewal application, the facility will have to redo major
portions of the renewal application because the information is
now considered out of date. Under existing law, if the
facility has submitted a renewal application in a complete and
timely fashion, the permit continues in force until the review
is complete.
2)To resolve this issue, this bill would cancel the requirement
for the hazard waste facility to submit a renewal application
when a permit comes to its termination date until, and if,
DTSC requests the facility to submit the application.
3)The Sierra Club objects to this solution for the frustration
expressed by the sponsor. A better approach would be "to
exempt special-funded programs form the hiring freeze, since
freezing the those positions impairs the ability of the
agencies to fulfill their missions without saving tax
dollars." Further shifting the burden to the short staffed
agency, would be unfair to the local communities near a
hazardous waste facility and would make it more difficult to
alert the agency to changed circumstances that merit greater
review.
4)By authorizing an automatic and indefinite permit extension,
this bill would also essentially delete the restriction that a
hazardous waste facility permit shall not exceed 10 years and
would make it more difficult for local environmental justice
communities to participate in facility reviews because there
would be no notice, and no application filed which would
contain any information related to changed circumstances at
the facility or in the neighborhood.
5)The author and the Committee may wish to decide whether this
fundamental change in policy is really advisable. If not,
section one of the bill (Page 2, line 1 to Page 3 line 40
should be deleted from the bill.
AB 1942
Page 4
Facility Permit Modifications
6)The sponsor suggests that the facility modification permit
process could be made more efficient without increasing the
risk to surrounding community. Ordinarily, a direct change to
the facility structure or the processing equipment would
require the more involved Class 2 or Class 3 process.
7)The sponsor suggests that when a facility is required by
another agency to upgrade their equipment, it is to make the
facility more environmentally sound, so the neighborhood would
be benefited more quickly by an expedited process. In
addition, the sponsor notes that the expedited modification
process cannot lead to an expansion in the facility's
capacity, and it is predicated on DTSC making the
determination that the modification is necessary to respond to
another agency's requirements, and that the change will
decrease risks to human health and safety or the environment.
8)The opposition is still concerned that the process may not
allow for adequate participation by the public.
9)The author's recent amendments, specifying that a Class 1*
process must be used, rather than a Class 1 process, would
seem to assure that the facility must at least mail a notice
to the registered mailing list before the modifications are
put into place.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
DeMenno/Kerdoon (Sponsor)
Opposition
Sierra Club (Oppose unless amended)
Analysis Prepared by : Michael B. Endicott / E.S. & T.M. /
(916) 319-3965