|
This document was developed to provide answers to questions about the
permit
implementation regulations, which implement solid waste facility permitting
requirements mandated by
AB 1497 (Chapter 823, Statutes of 2003,
Montanez), apply
construction and demolition requirements to the regulation of other solid
waste facilities as directed by the CIWMB, and clarify permit process
requirements.
Title 27, Sections 21563(d)(4); 21660.2
Question 1: Is the "Informational Meeting" the same as the AB 1497
"public
hearing" (see PRC Section 44004(h)(1)(A)) in that it is conducted by the
enforcement agency (EA)
prior to the EA making its determination on the action to be taken by the EA
on an accepted application package?
Answer 1: Yes; the informational meeting is the AB 1497 public hearing and
is how the public hearing requirement is being implemented in the
regulations. The public hearing as described in AB 1497 is an informational
meeting where the public is provided an opportunity to hear about the
proposed solid waste activities to be permitted and to comment on the
preliminary determination being espoused by the EA. No decision is made at
the meeting. In contrast, at a typical "public hearing" by a government
agency, a decision is made at or after the hearing on the basis of the
information presented at the hearing. 27 CCR, Section 21563(d)(4) which is
the definition of informational meeting, specifically indicates that it is
the same as the public meeting referred to in PRC 44004.
Question 2: Is the informational meeting the same as a hearing set for a
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document?
Answer 2: CEQA does not require any public hearings, although the CEQA
Guidelines recommend public hearings on CEQA documents [14 CCR Section 15202].
Typically, however, a project that is subject to CEQA will be considered in
a public hearing.
For the purpose of this question, CIWMB staff assumes that the questioner
means to ask whether an informational meeting intends the same functional
purpose as a public hearing held by a public agency before approving a
project, such as a land use entitlement. No. It is CIWMB staff’s view that
under PRC Subsection 44004(d)(4) there is no relationship between an
informational meeting and a local public hearing or the local CEQA process
other than indicating that the purpose of the informational meeting required
by Section 44004(d)(4) is to make public the preliminary determination of
the action to be taken by the EA on the application package. Thus, the EA
should present its proposed determination to the public in the information
meeting, along with its rationale for its determination and should allow for
public comment on the determination and the project. It is important to note
that this preliminary determination does include determining whether CEQA
review is required prior to making the final determination. (Please note
that, as described below, a public hearing on a project can be substituted
for the informational meeting under certain circumstances.)
Question 3: Is the informational meeting required by PRC Section
44004(h)(1)(A) covered by the Brown Act [open meetings]?
Answer 3: Meetings conducted by a single person, such as an EA, are not
subject to the Brown Act (covering local "legislative bodies" and their
creations), as established by case law (Wilson v. SF Muni Ry, 29 Cal. App.
3d 870 (1973)), or the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (covering "state
bodies"), by statute (under section 11121 of the act, the term "state body"
refers only to multi-member bodies).
Question 4: Will the EA be required to respond to the questions or issues
raised by the people attending the informational meeting? If yes, will the
EA have to respond to all attendees or just those within the area
surrounding the subject property? In what format are the comments and
responses required to be in and do they need to be forwarded to CIWMB staff
for comment as well?
Answer 4: An informational meeting provides the public an opportunity to hear
about the proposed solid waste activities that may be permitted and to
comment on the preliminary determination being espoused by the EA. No
decision is made at the meeting. The EA is not required to respond to
questions; however, CIWMB staff believe that the EA should be responsive to
questions and note issues raised by anyone attending the meeting. The EA is
required pursuant to Section 21650(g)(5) to include with the proposed permit
submitted to the CIWMB any written public comments received on the pending
application and a summary of comments received at the informational meeting
and, where applicable, any steps taken by the EA relative to those comments.
Question 5: Is an informational meeting always required?
Answer 5: No; in some cases, the EA may be able to substitute another
recently-held public meeting for the informational meeting, if the operator
does not object to the use of a substitute meeting. See Section 21660.2(d).
The conditions under which a substitute meeting may be appropriate are set
forth in Section 21660.4.
Title 27, Section 21570(f)
Question 1: Does CEQA need to be complete at the time an informational
meeting is held?
Answer 1: No; the purpose of the informational meeting is to obtain
community input on a proposed change in the design or operation of a solid
waste facility before the EA decides, among other things, whether the change
requires a permit revision and whether CEQA review must be done before it
makes its decision. See PRC Section 44004(d) and (h)(1). Subsection 44004(d)(4)
provides that the EA may "require review under Division 13 (commencing with
Section 21000) [i.e., CEQA] before a decision is made." This indicates that
the need to complete CEQA prior to deciding on the final action relative to
the application could be the preliminary determination that is shared at the
informational meeting.
Additionally, 27 CCR, Section 21570(f)(3) requires a complete and
correct application package to include CEQA compliance information as
follows: 1) Evidence that there has been compliance with CEQA or 2)
Information on the status of the application's compliance with CEQA,
including the proposed project description. Once there has been compliance with CEQA, evidence of compliance is required to be submitted to
the EA.
27 CCR, Section 21650(g)(7) requires the EA to include in the submittal
to the CIWMB, a finding that the proposed solid waste facilities permit is
consistent with and is supported by existing CEQA analysis, or information
regarding the progress toward CEQA compliance. Section 21685(b)(8) provides
that the Board shall not concur on a proposed permit unless the EA has
provided a finding that the permit is consistent with CEQA or exempt from
the requirements of CEQA.
This means, CEQA does not need to be complete when the application is
accepted; however, it does need to be complete by the time the CIWMB
concurs. Because the proposed regulations require informational meetings to
be held no later than 30 days after the EA finds the application complete
and correct (Section 21650(b)), within 60 days of receipt of the application
(Section 21650(e)), and before the EA mails the permit package to the CIWMB,
CEQA may not be complete at the time of the informational meeting and is not
required to be complete for these meetings.
Title 27, Section 21650(g)
Question 1: Does the informational meeting requirement apply to all solid
waste facilities or just landfills?
Answer 1: It applies to all solid waste facilities that are issued a full
permit. The EA is required to notice and conduct an informational meeting
for all new and revised full permit applications.
Question 2: Is the 60-day timeline for holding an informational meeting
measured from the date of first receipt of an application or from the date
the EA determines the application is complete and correct?
Answer 2: The 60-day timeline is measured from the date the EA receives the
permit application. During those 60 days, the EA has 30 days to determine if
the application is complete and correct [27 CCR Section 21650(b); see also 27 CCR
Section 21570(f)]. If the application is complete and correct, the EA must conduct
its preliminary evaluation leading to its proposed determination as to
whether a permit revision is required, whether the proposed revision would
comply with state law and whether CEQA analysis must be conducted before
making such a decision [PRC Section 44004(d)]. The EA then has (at least) the
remaining 30 days of the 60-day period to hold a public informational
meeting on its tentative decision [PRC Section 44004(h)(1)(A)]. If the application
is not complete and correct, the EA must reject it within 30 days and so
notify the operator [27 CCR Sections 21650(b) & (d)] or accept the application as
incomplete [27 CCR Section 21650(f)].
Question 3: If an application is deemed incomplete and the EA accepts the
incomplete application, when must an informational meeting be scheduled?
Answer 3: By accepting an incomplete application the EA can allow up to 180
days for the applicant to provide a complete application. By regulation,
when the EA accepts an incomplete application, the operator must waive the
time limit set in PRC Section 44009 and has 180 days to submit a complete and
correct application [27 CCR Section 21650(f)]. Once the application is determined
to be complete, the permit processing timeframes are started at the point in
the normal process where the EA files the complete and correct application.
That triggers the requirement to hold the public informational meeting
within 30 days from the determination that the package is complete and
correct (Section 21580).
Question 4: Can the informational meeting be held by the EA after the
application package is submitted to the CIWMB for concurrence?
Answer 4: No; the EA is required to submit the application package to the
CIWMB no later than 60 days after accepting the application package as
complete and correct and after conducting an informational meeting as
required by Sections 21660.2 and 21660.3
Question 5: If an EA fails to conduct an informational meeting or meet the
requirement of a substitute meeting, can the EA still submit the application
package to the CIWMB for concurrence?
Answer 5: No; the EA is required to conduct the informational meeting or
meet the substitute meeting requirements prior to submitting the application
package to the CIWMB for concurrence and to include in the package a summary
of comments received at the informational meeting and, where applicable, any
steps taken by the EA relative to those comments. Per Section 21650(g) "No
later than 60 days after the application package has been accepted as
complete and correct and after conducting an informational meeting if
required by Sections 21660.2 and 21660.3, the EA shall mail to the CIWMB the
following:… "
Title 27, Section 21660.2
Question 1: Is the EA required to conduct informational meetings when
processing standardized or registration permit applications?
Answer 1: No; the EA is required to conduct informational meetings for all
new and revised full solid waste permit applications. The previous
requirement in the Construction and Demolition and Inert Debris Regulations
that the EA hold an informational public hearing on an application for a
registration or a full solid waste facilities permit has been deleted. The
requirement for informational meeting is contained in 27 CCR which
describes the full permit process only. Standardized and registration permit
processes are found in 14 CCR. All references to meeting requirements
previously found in 14 CCR have been removed.
Question 2: Why is an informational meeting required since many projects
are also subject to hearings during the CEQA process and the local land use
approval process?
Answer 2: PRC 44004 requires meetings conducted by the EA. The Board
understands that not every solid waste facilities project will have gone
through a CEQA process or the local land use approval process. Also, the
CEQA process includes a public notice requirement, but does not require
public hearings, however many lead agencies do conduct hearings as a part of
their approval process. The informational meeting is to focus on the solid
waste facility (SWF)
permit and the EA process, providing the public greater transparency and
increased opportunities for input in the EA’s decision-making.
Question 3: If the EA intends to combine the informational meeting with
another public meeting, does the combined meeting need to be held in a
location not more than 1 mile from the facility that is the subject of the
meeting?
Answer 3: Yes; the combined meeting must meet the criteria for the
informational meeting, which includes the meeting being held in a suitable
location not more than 1 mile from the facility that is the subject of the
meeting; if no suitable and available location exists within 1 mile, the EA
may designate an alternative suitable location that is as close to the
facility as reasonably practical. Section 21660.2(a) indicates "The
informational meeting may be combined with another public meeting in which
the EA participates that meets the criteria as specified in Sections 21660.2(b) and
21660.2(c)." It is in 21660.2(c)(1) that the one-mile criteria is described.
Question 4: If an operator submits an application for a revised permit and the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) still needs a hearing for the same issues,
could the EA accept the application as incomplete and combine the
informational meeting with the CUP hearing?
Answer 4: A complete and correct application package no longer includes a copy
of land use entitlements (e.g., conditional use permit) for the facility, so the EA can accept
an application as complete and correct regardless of the status of the
conditional use permit (CUP).
Depending on the timing of the CUP hearing, the EA could combine the
informational meeting with the CUP hearing if the meeting is held within 60
days of the EA finding the application package complete and correct, the EA
participates in the meeting, and the criteria specified in Sections 21660.2(b) and
21660.2(c) are met.
Question 5: I wasn't able to find anything in 27 CCR giving LEA authority to
pass the costs for public notice distribution associated with permitting
actions to the operator. However, PRC Section 44004(h)(1)(B), which is referenced
throughout AB 1497 regulations in 27 CCR, states "The enforcement agency
shall mail or deliver the notice required pursuant to ....... The
enforcement agency may charge a fee to the requester in an amount that is
reasonably related to the costs of providing this service.....".
Answer 5: Pursuant to 27 CCR, Section 21660.2(a), the EA may require the
operator of a facility that is the subject of an informational meeting to
pay all costs incurred by the EA in connection with the meeting.
Title 27, Section 21660.4
Question 1: May the EA substitute the required informational meeting with a
previously held public meeting on the same project that the EA attended but
where the EA chose not to answer questions on the project at the meeting?
Answer 1: No; if the previously held public meeting met all the other
requirements for a substitute meeting as specified in Section 21660.4, but
the EA refused to answer questions, then the meeting would not meet the
requirement that the EA be available to answer questions regarding solid
waste facilities permitting specifications. Section 21660.4 indicates in
part that the EA must have been involved in the previously held meeting to
the degree of being present, recognized by the presider of the meeting, and
available to answer questions regarding solid waste facilities permitting
specifications from the public, other entities, or officials in attendance
at the meeting. Refusing to answer questions on the permitting
specifications from the public, other entities or officials at the meeting
would be contrary to this requirement.
Question 2: Regarding the use of a substitute meeting in place of an
informational meeting, there do not appear to be any noticing requirements
for the substitute meeting itself regarding the involvement of the EA at the
substitute meeting. For example, if the Department of Regional Planning
(DRP) noticed a public hearing for approval of a CUP and the notice didn't
say anything about the EA being present at the hearing, but at the hearing
DRP recognized the EA and the EA was available to answer questions about SWF
permitting specifications from the attendees, would this meet the
requirements of a substitute meeting pursuant to 21660.4? Is there an
assumption/requirement that all government agencies notice public
hearings/meetings in accordance with Government Code Section 65091 or does
the EA have to double-check how the noticing is made for the substitute
meeting? Does the EA's availability to answer questions mean only during the
substitute meeting itself or can the availability include after the
substitute meeting has been adjourned?
Answer 2: The EA may substitute a previously held meeting in place of
conducting an informational meeting if specified criteria are met, including
the EA being involved in the previously held meeting to the degree of being
present, recognized by the presider of the meeting, and available to answer
questions at the meeting. The criteria do not include the notice for the
previously held meeting referencing the EA’s involvement at the meeting. So,
in the example of the EA not being referenced in the notice for the
previously held meeting by DPR, but being recognized by DPR at the meeting
and being available to answer questions at the meeting, the answer is "yes,"
the meeting would meet the requirements of Section 21660.4, provided it was
held on the same project, within one year prior to the date the EA accepted
the application as complete and correct, and the applicant did not object to
the EA using the substituted meeting. The EA is not required to double-check
how the noticing was made for the substitute public meeting since the
government agency conducting the previously held public meeting is already
required to publicly notice the meeting. However, there are additional
notice requirements that apply to the EA when a substitute meeting is used.
See Section 21660.4(a) and (b). The EA is only required to be available to
answer questions at the meeting, if they want to answer questions after the
meeting has adjourned that is up to them.
Question 3: I am the LEA. I have a transfer facility requesting a revision of
its permit. It is owned and operated by a local municipality under our
jurisdiction. The local municipality is the Lead Agency on CEQA. They have
submitted a Mitigated Negative Declaration to the various agencies as well
as us, and we have sent them our comments. The municipality has not held a
public hearing on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, but plans to
do so. We have not received an application for revision of the permit. Would
the public hearing that the municipality holds for CEQA satisfy our
obligation to hold an informational meeting?
Answer 3: No; the subject of the informational meeting is the EA's preliminary
determination relative to a permit revision application (see PRC 44004(d)).
If an application has not been received, the EA would not be able to make a
preliminary determination, and would not be able to discuss with the public
the basis for its preliminary determination, so holding an informational
meeting would not be of full benefit to the community. An informational
meeting prior to submittal of an application does not follow the steps
outlined in Section 21650(a) thru (e). The EA should consider fully
participating in the CEQA process, including commenting on the draft
document and attending hearings conducted by the Lead Agency. The EA could
consider making clear in their comments and testimony provided at the
hearings that the EA will hold a public informational meeting (pursuant to
PRC Section 44004(h)(1)(A)) upon receipt of a permit revision application.
That being said, once the application is received, the EA may be able to
substitute the CEQA hearing in place of conducting an informational meeting
if the criteria specified in Section 21660.4 are met: 1) the previously held
public meeting is on the same project as described in the solid waste
facilities permit application package and associated CEQA documents; 2) the
public meeting took place within one year prior to the date the EA accepted
the application as complete and correct; 3) the applicant does not object;
and 4) the EA was involved in the previously held meeting to the degree of
being present, recognized by the presider of the meeting, and available to
answer questions.
Question 4: Does the previously held meeting that is being substituted for an
informational meeting need to meet the same location requirements as an
informational meeting?
Answer 4: No; the purpose of the substitute meeting process is to avoid
duplicative public meetings. The CIWMB believes that the laws applicable to
the substitute meeting will adequately address location requirements.
Nonetheless, the CIWMB desires that the citizens and businesses close to the
solid waste facility in question have the ability to participate in these
meetings. The EA may undertake additional noticing measures to inform
affected residents and businesses. Section 21660.4(b)(4).
Title 27, Section 21665(b)
Question 1: If the application package is changed after the informational
meeting has been conducted, would the EA be required to conduct a second
informational meeting?
Answer 1: If the EA determines that the amendments to the application
package meet the criteria in Section 21655, then the package must be deemed
a new package and is subject to new noticing and meeting requirements. If
the EA finds that the amendments to the package do not meet those criteria,
then new noticing and an informational meeting are not required. The EA may
wish to consider if the amendments to the package require additional terms
and conditions to the permit to protect public health, safety when
determining the significance of the amendments.
Title 27, Section 21660
Question 1: What action can CIWMB staff take if an EA fails to provide
required public notice as required under Section 21660?
Answer 1: Through EA evaluation, pursuant to PRC Sections
43214, 43215, and 43216.5, the CIWMB is required to develop performance
standards for evaluating EAs and to review each EA and its implementation of
the permit, inspection, and enforcement program; to conduct inspection and
performance reviews; and to take action to correct EA performance issues
after finding the EA is not fulfilling one or more of its responsibilities.
Per 14 CCR, Section 18082(a) the LEA shall implement the permit process in
accordance with the requirements, including initiating all the required
notices as provided in Section 18082 (a)(1)(E).
Title 27, Section 21660.3
Question 1: 27 CCR Section 21660.3(b)(2)(B) refers to Government Code
Section 65091(a)-(c)
for posting the notice of a modified solid waste facility permit (SWFP). However, Government Code
§65091(a)-(c) frequently refers to distribution/posting of the notice "at
least 10 days prior to the hearing". For a modified SWFP, the LEA is not
required to hold an informational meeting. What is the deadline by which the
modified SWFP public notice has to be distributed/posted? 27 CCR Section
21660.3(b)(2)(B) states the LEA to post the notice "after finding the permit
application complete and correct and within 60 days of receipt of the
application...." but does not give a clear deadline.
Answer 1: For a modified permit, pursuant to 27 CCR, Section
21660.3(b)(2)(A), the EA should distribute/post the notice within 60 days of
receiving the application and after finding the permit application complete
and correct. The EA makes a determination on the application being complete
and correct within 30 days of its receipt. Soon after that, but before the
next 30 days are up, the EA should distribute/post the public notice.
Question 2: At what point in the 60 days should the EA’s preliminary
determination on a modified or revised permit application go to CIWMB staff
for comment?
Answer 2: Section 21660.3(b) requires the EA to notice the CIWMB of its
preliminary determination on a modified or revised permit application after
finding the permit application complete and correct and within 60 days of
receipt of the application by the EA. In addition, for revised permits, the
notice should be sent to CIWMB staff at least 10 days prior to the date of
the informational meeting to allow sufficient time for the CIWMB staff to
provide comments, if it decides to do so.
Question 3: Will CIWMB staff’s comment on the EA’s preliminary determination
for a revised permit be provided before or after the public informational
meeting is held?
Answer 3: CIWMB staff will attempt to provide the EA with comments prior to or
at the informational meeting, or prior to the need for the EA to make a
formal determination regarding the permit application.
Question 4: What influence do comments by CIWMB staff have on the EA’s
preliminary determination for a modified or revised permit application?
Answer 4: CIWMB staff’s comments will indicate staff's view of what an
appropriate determination would be, if its view is different than that
provided by the EA. The EA must weigh the degree of influence that this
warrants in light of presenting the proposed permit to the CIWMB for
concurrence.
Question 5: If CIWMB staff disagree with the EA’s preliminary determination
for a modified or revised permit application, who has final authority to
make the determination?
Answer 5: The EA has authority to make its own determination. However, the
determination, as with all actions or inactions by EAs, is subject to Board
review upon consideration of concurrence in the issuance of the permit. PRC
43214(d)(6) gives the CIWMB broad authority to monitor actions of the EA and
determine whether those actions are consistent with the PRC and regulations.
Therefore, an inappropriate or inconsistent determination by an EA may
result in the CIWMB requesting an evaluation of the EA based on the finding.
CIWMB staff will continue to work alongside EAs to make every attempt to
avoid these situations.
Question 6: If the disagreement on the EA’s preliminary determination for a
modified or revised permit application is with CIWMB staff, what recourse
does the EA have to appeal the decision of CIWMB staff, since this is long
before any documents go in front of the Board in a public hearing?
Answer 6: Disagreements will be subject to further review and discussion
between the EA and CIWMB staff. If a mutual resolution cannot be established
at this level, the Waste Compliance and Mitigation Program Director or CIWMB
Executive Director could become involved to help the parties resolve
disagreements and reach consensus. Such a process would be entirely informal
and at the discretion of the Program Director and Executive Director.
However, if the EA were ultimately found to not have completed the process
as required by statute or regulation, the CIWMB could request an evaluation
of the EA’s performance of those duties.
Question 7: Does the notice for a new permit of an EA-conducted informational
meeting need to include the EA’s preliminary determination?
Answer 7: No; the purpose of the provision in PRC Section 44004(d) that the EA
determine whether a revised solid waste facilities permit is required
applies to changes in the design or operation of a solid waste facility, not
to new facilities. A new facility requires a new permit. A change in the
design or operation of an existing solid waste facility may or may not
require a change in the facility’s permit. Section 21660.3(a)(6) indicates
that the EA must include in the informational meeting notice the preliminary
determination pursuant to Section 21665 as it applies to modified and
revised permits only. The notice for new permits need not include this
reference.
Title 27, Section 21620(a)(1)
Question 1: One of the criteria used in determining whether a change is
minor or not is whether the change conflicts with the design and operation
of the facility as provided in the current report of facility information (RFI). Why is the word
"current
RFI" used and not "approved RFI"?
Answer 1: The current RFI is the approved RFI, not to be confused with a
proposed RFI that has not yet been approved. Use of the word "current" makes
clear that it is the RFI that is currently in place and has been approved,
in contrast to an RFI document that may be in the process of review and
approval.
Question 2: What if an EA notices during an inspection that the operator’s
sign at the facility does not comply with what is in the RFI; is this
considered a minor change?
Answer 2: No; the change in signage would be a violation of the RFI and
would not be a minor change since it conflicts with the description as
provided in the current RFI. An RFI amendment would be needed, or the sign
would need to be modified to match the RFI description.
Question 3: Does the CIWMB have authority to address EA actions relative to
minor changes made at a facility?
Answer 3: No, not directly; if it is found that the EA did not follow the
regulations regarding a minor change, then CIWMB staff can address whatever
issues may result from not following the regulations through the EA
evaluation process. For example, if the EA failed to note that a requested
change was in conflict with the RFI, the conflict between the change in
operations and the RFI may be identified by CIWMB staff. If the EA does not
address the conflict through appropriate enforcement actions then the EA
could be subject to the process outlined in 14 CCR, Section 18350.
Question 4: Is it okay for an operator to implement a minor change without
EA review and approval, if the operator has a minor change that is included
on the list but does not meet the criteria?
Answer 4: No; for the operator to implement a minor change, the change must
meet all of the criteria set forth in Section 21620(a) (1) (A-D).
Question 5: What is the function of the minor change list?
Answer 5: It serves as a list of changes that qualify as minor changes if
they also meet all of the criteria set forth in Section 21620(a) (1) (A-D).
Question 6: Regulation Section 21620(a)(1)(E), the minor change list, includes
typographical errors under (i) Correction of typographical errors in any
document/documentation submitted by the owner or operator. Can owners and
operators fix any typographical errors as a minor change?
Answer 6: Yes; operators and/or owners can change typographical errors and
this can be considered a minor change if it meets all of the criteria set
forth in Section 21620(a) (1) (A-D), and the change does not require that the permit
be corrected, too. The EA should evaluate if the change is just a typographical error and not a change in the permit that would result in a
change in design or operation that has not been reviewed and approved.
Question 7: Can the operator appeal the EA’s determination that a change
does not qualify as a minor change?
Answer 7: Yes; the operator can appeal the EA’s action under PRC
Section 44307 and
request that the EA hold a hearing, which would be conducted by either a
hearing officer or hearing panel.
Question 8: The regulations only require the operator to notify the EA of
minor changes; how will CIWMB staff know about the changes when conducting a
State inspection?
Answer 8: During an inspection, CIWMB staff will be able to note any minor
changes that have been made. CIWMB staff will need to confer with the
operator and the EA to determine if the observed changes at the site had
been processed as minor changes.
Title 27, Sections 21570; 21620(a)
Question 1: When submitting an application package to the EA for a solid
waste facilities permit or an RFI amendment, does the operator also need to
send a copy of the application form to the director of the local planning
agency?
Answer 1: Yes, as specified in Section 21570(a) and (b) for permit
applications and in Section 21620(a)(2) (which references Section 21570) for RFI amendments.
Question 2: Does the application package submitted by the operator for a
solid waste facilities permit or an RFI amendment need to include a list of
all public hearings and other meetings open to the public that have been
held or copies of notices distributed?
Answer 2: Yes, pursuant to Section 21570(f)(11).
Question 3: If the EA rejects (i.e., disapproves) some or all of the
amendments to the RFI and requires the operator to submit an application for
a modified or revised permit, does CIWMB staff have authority to overrule
the EA’s action?
Answer 3: CIWMB staff have authority to correct an erroneous EA action only
through an EA evaluation. Pursuant to PRC Sections 43214,
43215, and 43216.5, the CIWMB is required to develop performance standards
for evaluating EAs and to review each EA and its implementation of the
permit, inspection, and enforcement program; to conduct inspection and
performance reviews; and to take action to correct EA performance issues
after finding the EA is not fulfilling one or more of its responsibilities.
Title 27, Section 21570
Question 1: When applying for a modified permit, the operator is required
to submit an application form (CIWMB E-1-77) (MS
Excel, 74 KB | Adobe PDF,
29 KB) . However, the application form
currently does not list "modified permit" as an option. What is the operator
to do until the application form is updated?
Answer 1: Updating the application form (CIWMB E-1-77), which is located in
the Appendices of 27 CCR, will require the regulations to be amended in a
separate new rulemaking. In the meantime, applicants may change the CIWMB
E-1-77 form before submitting it to the EA by crossing out "Revision" under
Part 1 C and writing in "Modification"
Title 27, Section 21675
Question 1: Does the "Permit Review Due Date" (Box 10 in the 1st page of SWFP) change to 5 years from the date of completing the SWFP modification
process, or stays the same as shown in the existing SWFP prior to
modification? For example, if a facility's existing SWFP (prior to
modification) shows "Permit Review Due Date" of April 2009, and the SWFP is
later modified by the LEA in July 2007. Does the "Permit Review Due Date" in
the modified SWFP have to be July 2012 (which would be 5 years from the date
the modified SWFP is issued), or does it have to stay as April 2009?
Answer 1: Pursuant to 27 CCR Section 21675, all full solid waste
facilities permits are required to be reviewed and if necessary modified or
revised from the date of last issuance at least once every five years. The
date of issuance for a permit modification or revision would be the
determining factor for the next five-year review, which would be July 2012
in your example. For a permit modification or revision, the EA undertakes a
thorough review of the design and/or operation of a facility, including all
of the governing documents, in determining whether a proposed change
requires a permit modification or revision. The review undertaken by the EA
is essentially a permit review and the EA would be correct in specifying a
permit review due date five years down the road from the issuance of the
modified or revised permit.
Title 27, Section 21685
Question 1: Are modified permits only submitted to the CIWMB’s Executive
Director (ED) for concurrence?
Answer 1: Yes; once an EA submits a modified permit package to CIWMB staff,
it will be processed and forwarded to the Executive Director for action. The
ED will concur or object to the modified permit after considering the issues
in PRC Section 44009, just as if he or she were the Board.
Question 2: If the ED is considering a modified permit proposed by an EA,
can the ED, prior to acting on the permit, bring the permit to the Board for
their information and guidance?
Answer 2: Yes.
Title 27, Section 21620(a)(4)
Question 1: If the operator is proposing to operate an additional day per
week or month more than what is permitted, would this be considered a
significant change under Section 21620(a)(4)(C), requiring a revised permit,
since adding a day would be an increase in the permitted hours of operation?
Answer 1: Yes. Pursuant to Section 21620(a)(4) an increase in permitted hours of
operation requires the permit to be revised. Increasing the number of days a
facility operates will increase the hours of operation, so a permit revision
is required.
Question 2: If the operator is proposing to decrease the facility’s
permitted acreage, would this be considered a significant change and require
a revised permit?
Answer 2: No, only increases in permitted acreage are always considered a
significant change.. See Section 21620(a)(4)(B). Notwithstanding, if the EA
determines that further restrictions, prohibitions, mitigations, terms,
conditions, or other measures are needed in the permit to adequately protect
public health, public safety, ensure compliance with State minimum
standards, and to protect the environment, then the proposed change would
require a permit revision and not a modification.
Title 27, Sections 21660.1(a), 21660.3(a), and 21660.4(a)
Question 1: Is there an appeal process for the public regarding the EA’s
approval of an RFI amendment, or the EA’s issuance or denial of a modified,
revised or new full permit?
Answer 1: Yes; there continues to be the ability for appeal under PRC
Section 44307 to challenge the EA’s approval of the RFI amendment and the
EA’s issuance or denial of a modified, revised, or new permit. Pursuant to
PRC Section 44307, a hearing can be requested not only by the applicant that
is subject to an enforcement action or to permit conditions it feels are
inappropriate, but also by any person who believes that the EA has not acted
in accordance with the law or Board regulations. Because the notice for an
RFI amendment would be distributed after the EA has already approved the
amendment, the notice must announce that the EA’s approval is subject to a
PRC Section 44307 appeal (Section 21660.1(a)(6)). The notices for new, revised, or modified
permits specify a PRC 44307 appeal is available when the EA issues or denies
the permit (Section 21660.3(a)(10)).
Title 27, Section 21570(f)
Question 1: Is it correct to say that since the regulations removed the
requirement to include a copy of land use entitlements for the facility in
the application package, EAs will no longer be looking at them?
Answer 1: No; pursuant to the note included in Section 21650, the time for
the EA to consider local land use entitlements is when it is drafting permit
terms and conditions. That is when the EA considers the content of other
entitlements, permits, and approvals when processing a SWFP. This approach
allows the EA to take into consideration other permits and approvals when
writing permit terms and conditions. Nothing in the regulations prevents or
hinders a local jurisdiction from carrying out its responsibility relative
to enforcing local land use requirements. Operators are still bound to
comply with local land use permit conditions, which are enforced by local
agencies that are charged with that responsibility.
Please address additional questions to your Permitting and LEA Support
Division staff contact.
FAQ Home |
AB 1497 FAQs
|
