BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE NATURAL RESOURCES AND WILDLIFE BILL NO.: SB 1299
Senator Tom Hayden, Chair AUTHOR: Peace
VERSION:
(Original): 2/24/95
(Amended): 5/8/95
FISCAL: yes
URGENCY: no
CONSULTANT: Lisa Hoyos
HEARING DATE: 5/9/95
SUBJECT:
Environmental protection: permits
ISSUE:
Should "permit consolidation zones" be created at the
election of cities and counties with the approval of the
Cal EPA secretary, which would enable facilities within
these jurisdictions to substitute local and state agency
environmental permits with a "facility compliance plan"?
SB 1299 (PEACE)
Page
2
SUMMARY:
Requires the Secretary of the California Environmental
Protection Agency to adopt regulations to establish the
permit consolidation zone pilot program. Enables cities and
counties, which are approved to participate in the program,
to establish permit consolidation zones in which local and
state agency environmental permits could be substituted with
facility compliance plans.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW:
This bill, sponsored by Cal EPA, continues a trend by the
agency to "streamline" its permit process. In 1993, SB 1185
(Bergeson) enacted the Environmental Protection Permit
Program. This Act requires the Secretary of Cal EPA to
designate a "consolidated permit agency" at the request of
the permit applicant to coordinate the permitting process
through one agency.
SB 1299 (PEACE)
Page
3
SB 1299 creates a "Permit Consolidation Zoneo pilot program
under the 1993 act which continues the trend of permit
streamlining by experimenting with allowing entire cities and
counties, or jurisdictions therein, to submit facility
compliance plans (documents describing how a given facility
intends to comply with environmental requirements) to the Cal
EPA. The Cal EPA then coordinates permit review with the
appropriate environmental agencies.
Under existing law, the permit process enables regulatory
agencies
to ensure compliance on the part of permit applicants with
regulatory requirements. Under the current permitting
system,
unless decisions are ministerial and thus subject to an
approve or
deny ruling, agencies maintain the discretion to apply
special site
specific requirements to facilities to ensure compliance. In
these
SB 1299 (PEACE)
Page
4
circumstances, the approval of a permit is contingent upon
implementation of these site specific measures.
PROPOSED LAW:
Requires the secretary to set regulations by January 1, 1997
which establishes the "permit consolidation zone pilot
program" which does the following:
a) Creates an application process whereby cities and counties
can apply for all or part of their jurisdictions to be
designated a "permit consolidation zone."
b) Allows new or expanded facilities to substitute a facility
compliance plan for all state agency and local
environmental permits required under current law. The
facility compliance plan shall do the following: 1)
contain all information (i.e. emission and discharge data)
relevant to individual permits otherwise required for the
facility, 2) detail measures to be taken by the project
applicant to ensure compliance with all environmental
SB 1299 (PEACE)
Page
5
permits which would otherwise be required, 3) meet the
requirements of all individual permits which would
otherwise be required, 4) ensure compliance with all
applicable environmental rules, regulations, laws, and
ordinances.
c) Requires environmental agencies with jurisdiction of a
compliance plan to make a determination of ocompleteness
and adequacyo based solely on whether the requirements of
the agencies written rules, regulations, ordinances or
statues have been fulfilled. Stipulates that the
determinations must be transmitted to the secretary within
45 days of receiving the facility compliance plan.
d) Coordinates inspection and enforcement activities among
the agencies that would otherwise be issuing individual
permits.
e) Requires the secretary to develop the above regulations in
coordination with the Secretary of Trade and Commerce; the
Secretary of Business, Transportation and Housing; the
SB 1299 (PEACE)
Page
6
Secretary of the Resources Agency; and in consultation
with representatives of cities, counties, local
environmental agencies, and certified unified program
agencies.
f) Stipulates that facilities within permit relief
communities which store, treat, or transport radioactive
materials; incinerate wastes; or engage in other
activities determined ineligible by the secretary shall
continue to be regulated through individual permits.
g) Restricts the pilot program to no more than 30 cities or
counties, and excludes from participation cities or
counties with a population of under 5,000. Establishes a
five-year sunset on the program. Establishes a process by
which cities and counties may withdraw from the program.
h) Stipulates that the equivalent opportunity for public be
participation which exists under the current permitting
system shall maintained.
SB 1299 (PEACE)
Page
7
COMMENTS:
1) Arguments of the sponsor. This bill is sponsored by the
Cal EPA. The sponsor and supporters state that this bill
would establish a process to relieve project applicants
from having to obtain individual environmental permits.
The sponsor states that there is too much overlap and
duplication in the regulation of certain activities.
Other supporters, such as the California Manufacturers
Association, state that SB 1299 would speed up the
permitting process. They state that businesses would not
have to undergo the arduous process of dealing with many
different environmental agencies with permits that differ
in their requirements, such as permit length, type of
monitoring, etc. Supporters state that this bill would
reduce the administrative burden of the current permitting
system.
2) Arguments of opponents.
SB 1299 (PEACE)
Page
8
Comments regarding weakening of agency discretionary
authority:
The California State Pipe Trades Council and others assert
that SB 1299 should specify that, as is authorized under
current permitting law, environmental agencies should be
allowed to maintain their discretionary authority to set
additional conditions necessary in order to bring
compliance plans into compliance with their rules,
regulations, ordinances, and statutes.
Comments regarding scope of proposed pilot program:
Opponents state that the scope of SB 1299 is much broader
than what is generally regarded a opiloto project. While
the scope of this bill has been narrowed to no more than
30 jurisdictions (cities, counties, or parts thereof),
opponents maintain that under the provisions of this bill
thousands of facilities, including those handling acutely
hazardous materials, could be permitted through untested
facility compliance plans. The Sierra Club suggests that
the bill should apply to 30 facilities rather than 30
cities or counties. The organization adds,
SB 1299 (PEACE)
Page
9
There are a number of issues that cannot be
anticipated up front that will have to be ironed
out as agencies evaluate multi-media compliance
program for specific facilities. Within the limit
of 30 facilities, there would be ample opportunity
to select facilities from simple to complex. In
addition, limiting the bill to a small number of
facilities will allow state and local agencies to
experiment with permit consolidation without
subjecting whole communities to differing permit
requirements that might invite increasing
concentrations of industrial facilities.
Comments regarding broad range of facilities which could be
permitted under a facility compliance plan: Opponents argue
that there are facilities which deal with acutely toxic
materials and/or large volumes of hazardous materials, as
well as facilities, such as refineries or aerospace which are
extremely complex, which need the oversight and technical
SB 1299 (PEACE)
Page
10
review offered by the current permitting system, and thus
should be excluded from the program.
Comments regarding reduced timeline for complex facilities:
Opponents state that there is insufficient time allotted (45
days) for agencies to review the facility compliance plans of
complex facilities (i.e., refineries), and no provisions for
additional review time if the facility compliance plan is
determined to be incomplete. They state that, consistent with
current law, agencies should have up to 180 days if necessary
to review permits for complex facilities. Furthermore,
opponents assert that SB 1299 should be made consistent with
existing law which provides that agencies must determine a
permit application to be complete before the clock begins
ticking on the review period.
CONCERNS:
1) Should the authority to establish facility-specific
conditions be clarified? Under existing law, environmental
SB 1299 (PEACE)
Page
11
permitting agencies require facility specific requirements
to address local problems or concerns. For example, a
quarry operation that otherwise meets all applicable laws,
reules and regulations may nonetheless cause a nuisance to
the local community. Similarly, chrome plating companies
in mixed-use zones poses higher cancer risks that those in
industrial areas. In these cases, focused mitigation
requirements are crafted to address local impacts. SB 1299
does not state whether facility-specific requirements may
be incorporated into the facility compliance plan.
2) What happens if any enfironmental agency finds the
facility compliance plan to incomplete or inadequate?
Under existing law, a deficiency finding triggers more
discussion between the permit applicant and the permitting
agency. SB 1299 has no provision for modifying facility
compliance plans during the review procesws. This could
cause local agencies to deny plans unnecessarily, since no
other option is available.
SB 1299 (PEACE)
Page
12
3) Should the terms of transition from a facility within a
permit relief community to a facility governed by
individual permits be defined more clearly? In the event
that a jurisdiction withdraws from the program and going
through the permit process, will the enforcement and
compliance mechanisms within the program continue to apply
to facilities until the permits are either approved or
denied? Should this be clarified in the bill?
SUPPORT:
Cal EPA
California Trade and Commerce Agency
Western States Petroleum Association
California Chamber of Commerce
Department of Conservation
Santa Clara Manufacturing Group
Industrial Environment Association
California State Council of Laborers
SB 1299 (PEACE)
Page
13
California Building Industry Association
California Independent Petroleum Association
City of San Diego
Orange County Chamber of Commerce
OPPOSITION:
South Coast Air Quality Management District
California State Pipe Trades Council
California State Association of Electrical Workers
Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
Sierra Club
Citizens for a Better Environment