Senator Saviello, Representative Welsh, and distinguished members of the Joint Standing Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. My name is Pete Didisheim and I am the Advocacy Director for the Natural Resources Council of Maine. I appreciate this opportunity to testify in opposition to LD 1128.
NRCM does not usually testify on DEP’s periodic bill proposing minor changes and corrections, because we generally have agreed that the proposals were minor. This year, however, we object to many of the proposals and have questions and concerns about others. Our position on the bill, section-by-section, is as follows:
Section 1 This section of the bill proposes to eliminate the reporting requirement for the Clean Government Initiative, which encourages state agencies and the state’s colleges and universities to achieve high levels of environmental performance as well as environmental regulatory compliance. The 2012 report States: “The Clean Government Initiative has produced many successes since it was established in 2002, which have been documented through the biennial reports to the Legislature.” The 2012 report includes a summary of recent actions taken by Maine State government, the University of Maine system, and the Maine Community College System to reduce environmental impacts. This biennial report presents useful information and is the primary way for the Legislature to learn about these initiatives. We believe the report has value and should continue to be provided.
Sections 2 through 4. These sections transfer various responsibilities related to licensing fees and license conditions for regulated entities away from the Board of Environmental Protection to the DEP Commissioner. We do not understand the basis for these changes, so do not have a position. We do, however, have a general concern that the Board of Environmental Protection is slowly being stripped of responsibilities that we believe appropriately belong with the BEP. This concern also applies to Sections 8 and 9, discussed below.
Section 5. This section proposes to eliminate the annual report from the Surface Water Ambient Toxics (SWAT) program, replacing it with an “executive summary.” The SWAT program was established in 1993 to determine the nature, scope and severity of toxic contamination in the surface waters and fisheries of the state. This is a useful report, with extensive detailed information, and we believe that the report should continue to be provided to the Legislature so long as Maine has a SWAT program. Making it a biennial report, presented at the first regular legislative session, would be fine. The proposal to provide simply an “executive summary” would seem to confirm that a full report would still be generated, from which an executive summary would be provided. If that’s the case, then we believe the full report should still be transmitted to the Legislature.
Section 6. This section proposes to eliminate the requirement that the DEP “shall report annually to each regular session of the Legislature on the status of licensed discharges.” This report provides valuable information about the full range of point source dischargers to Maine’s surface waters. The report is a particularly useful overview for new legislators, providing them a resource to learn about dischargers within their own legislative districts and to surface waters in, adjacent to, or passing through their districts. We believe this report should continue to be provided biennially. The statutory requirement is confusing, however, as to whether it should be an annual or a biennial report. We are comfortable with the language being clarified so that the report is only required during the first regular legislative session.
Section 7. This section repeals a requirement that the DEP report biennially about the spill prevention and control activities conducted as part of the aboveground oil storage program. This report describes the number of annual inspections, compliance rates, and types of spill control measures that have been adopted. The report describes the number of facilities inspected in relation to sensitive resources (e.g. public water supply, aquifers), and how many facilities were referred to enforcement staff for non-compliance. This is useful information and provides documentation for the Legislature and the public about actions being taken to prevent and control potential water pollution from aboveground oil storage facilities. We oppose elimination of this reporting requirement.
Section 8. This section appears to provide the DEP Commissioner with the authority to revoke or suspend licenses for solid waste facilities, for various failures to comply with operating rules and annual fee requirements. Currently, only the Board of Environmental Protection has this authority. LD 1128 continues to provide BEP with some authority in this area, although it is constrained to situations that come to the Board at the request of the Commissioner. We do not understand the basis for this proposed change, and encourage the Committee to explore it fully as it considers this bill.
Section 9. This section shifts rulemaking authority from the Board of Environmental Protection to the Commissioner for a broad range of rules involving hazardous waste, waste oil, and biomedical waste. We do not understand the basis for this change. We are concerned that this proposal adds to an ongoing reduction in BEP’s roles and responsibilities. We believe the roles and responsibilities of the BEP were extensively reviewed in 2011, as part of the regulatory reform legislation (LD 1). The resulting law took away from BEP a number of their roles, including reviewing and approving routine technical rules, and reviewing and approving consent agreements. We do not support further transfer of responsibilities from the BEP to the Commissioner, as proposed by this section and some earlier sections of LD 1128.
I appreciate your consideration of these comments and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Section 7. This section repeals a requirement that the DEP report biennially about the spill prevention and control activities conducted as part of the aboveground oil storage program. This report describes the number of annual inspections, compliance rates, and types of spill control measures that have been adopted. The report describes the number of facilities inspected in relation to sensitive resources (e.g. public water supply, aquifers), and how many facilities were referred to enforcement staff for non-compliance. This is useful information and provides documentation for the Legislature and the public about actions being taken to prevent and control potential water pollution from aboveground oil storage facilities. We oppose elimination of this reporting requirement.
Section 8. This section appears to provide the DEP Commissioner with the authority to revoke or suspend licenses for solid waste facilities, for various failures to comply with operating rules and annual fee requirements. Currently, only the Board of Environmental Protection has this authority. LD 1128 continues to provide BEP with some authority in this area, although it is constrained to situations that come to the Board at the request of the Commissioner. We do not understand the basis for this proposed change, and encourage the Committee to explore it fully as it considers this bill.
Section 9. This section shifts rulemaking authority from the Board of Environmental Protection to the Commissioner for a broad range of rules involving hazardous waste, waste oil and biomedical waste. We do not understand the basis for this change. We are concerned that this proposal adds to an ongoing reduction in BEP’s roles and responsibilities. We believe the roles and responsibilities of the BEP were extensively reviewed in 2011, as part of the regulatory reform legislation (LD 1). The resulting law took away from BEP a number of their roles, including reviewing and approving routine technical rules, and reviewing and approving consent agreements. We do not support further transfer of responsibilities from the BEP to the Commissioner, as proposed by this section and some earlier sections of LD 1128.
I appreciate your consideration of these comments and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
