Questions for the EQC presentation 2-21-08:
1. How is it that the State Revolving Fund’s environmental review process didn’t comply with EPA requirements?
In all honesty, it seems this has occurred due to misunderstanding at the time DEQ’s old environmental review was developed and approved by EPA in 1999. Misunderstandings about what procedures would be used, and in what circumstances those procedures were appropriate. Over the years, there have been several instances when our environmental review process was questioned, but it never became a big enough issue to be re-evaluated until EPA’s 2006 report.
--------------
2. Why is it necessary to reference the Procedures Manual in the administrative rules?
Most of the content of the Procedures Manual was at one time in rule.
About 1995 it was thought that by taking the environmental review procedures and other processes out of rule, it would be easier to update that information when needed without going through rulemaking.
It was thought that the rules could simply reference the “current Procedures Manual”, but that proved to be confusing. So it was agreed that the Procedures Manual should be dated so a particular version could be identified. But as soon as the rules reference a dated Procedures Manual, then the contents of that Procedures Manual in effect becomes part of the rule.
------------
3. If the cross cutters are a federal program and DEQ has always been obligated to comply with these requirements, why has DEQ not complied with these requirements consistently?
That responsibility is here at HQs. As the Coordinator of the program I assumed our Project Officer’s out in the regions (some of whom have many years of experience) understood the requirements and were ensuring our applicant’s environmental reports were fulfilling those requirements. As the program Coordinator it is my responsibility that the regional people are clear about requirements and that I am confident they are implemented.
There has been a misunderstanding about the need to complete the cross cutter requirements on certain types of projects. Without going into detail, DEQ misunderstood that proposed projects determined to have no significant impact on the environment (didn’t require an environmental assessment) were still required to address the cross cutters. Again, I thought I understood the regulations, but got it wrong.
4. If the new SERP is more comprehensive, how will DEQ implement these new procedures without additional resources?
Initially, either I or my co-Coordinator will become the point person to ensure the new SERP gets implemented consistently across the regions. After 6-9 months of implementation we will re-evaluate how it is working and what we have learned. The thinking now is that the role of environmental review should be done out in the regions, Whether it will be most effective to have each region conduct reviews on their own projects or centralize that effort and one of our 4 project officers becomes the guru who reviews proposed projects from all regions, we have to determine which scenario makes the most sense