§ 287.127. Environmental assessment.
(a) Impacts. Each environmental assessment in a permit application shall include a detailed analysis of the potential impact of the proposed facility on the environment, public health and public safety, including traffic, aesthetics, air quality, water quality, stream flow, fish and wildlife, plants, aquatic habitat, threatened or endangered species, water uses and land use. The applicant shall consider environmental features such as scenic rivers, recreational river corridors, local parks, State and Federal forests and parks, the Appalachian trail, historic and archaeological sites, National wildlife refuges, State natural areas, National landmarks, farmland, wetland, special protection watersheds designated under Chapter 93 (relating to water quality standards), airports, public water supplies and other features deemed appropriate by the Department or the applicant. The permit application shall also include all correspondence received by the applicant from any state or Federal agency contacted as part of the environmental assessment.
(b) Harms. The environmental assessment shall describe the known and potential environmental harms of the proposed project. The applicant shall provide the Department with a written mitigation plan which explains how the applicant plans to mitigate each known or potential environmental harm identified and which describes any known and potential environmental harms not mitigated. The Department will review the assessment and mitigation plans to determine whether there are additional harms and whether all known and potential environmental harms will be mitigated. In conducting its review, the Department will evaluate each mitigation measure and will collectively review mitigation measures to ensure that individually and collectively they adequately protect the environment and the public health, safety and welfare.
(c) Noncaptive landfills, disposal impoundments and incinerators. If the application is for the proposed operation of a noncaptive landfill, disposal impoundment or incinerator, the applicant shall demonstrate that the benefits of the project to the public clearly outweigh the known and potential environmental harms. In making this demonstration, the applicant shall consider harms and mitigation measures described in subsection (b). The applicant shall describe in detail the benefits relied upon. The benefits of the project shall consist of social and economic benefits that remain after taking into consideration the known and potential social and economic harms of the project and shall also consist of the environmental benefits of the project, if any.
(d) Other facilities. If the application is for the proposed operation of another type of facility and the applicant or the Department upon review determines that known or potential environmental harm remains despite the mitigation measures described in subsection (b), the applicant shall demonstrate that the benefits of the project to the public clearly outweigh the known and potential environmental harms. In making this demonstration, the applicant shall consider harms and mitigation measures described in subsection (b). The applicant shall describe in detail the benefits relied upon. The benefits of the project shall consist of social and economic benefits that remain after taking into consideration the known and potential social and economic harms of the project and shall also consist of the environmental benefits of the project, if any.
(e) Identification of harms and benefits. Known and potential harms and benefits of a proposed project may also be identified by the Department or any other person or municipality.
(f) Evaluation. After consultation with other appropriate agencies and potentially affected persons, the Department will evaluate the environmental assessment in Phase I of permit review or otherwise prior to technical review.
(g) Revision. The Department may require submission of a revised environmental assessment if additional harms or potential harms are discovered during any phase of permit application review.
Source The provisions of this § 287.127 amended January 12, 2001, effective January 13, 2001, 31 Pa.B. 235. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (226511) to (226512).
Notes of Decisions Constitutionality
The Environmental Quality Board’s regulations adopting a Harms/Benefits Test as part of the permitting process for waste disposal facilities does not exceed the Commonwealth’s police power; a determination of a project’s inherent harms and benefits is reasonably necessary in order to determine whether a potentially dangerous project should be granted a permit in a heavily regulated industry. Eagle Environmental II, L. P. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 884 A.2d 867, 883 (Pa. 2005).
The inclusion of implementation of PA. CONST. ART I, Sec. 27 as an express purpose of the Solid Waste Management Act (35 P. S. § § 6018.101—6018.1003) indicates that the General Assembly intended to authorize the balancing of environmental harms against social and economic benefits. Therefore, the harms/benefits test of the regulations comport with the constitution. Tri-County Industries, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 818 A.2d 574 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003); appeal granted 835 A.2d 706 (Pa. 2003); affirmed 884 A.2d 867 (Pa. 2005).
Delegation
The General Assembly made the ‘‘basic policy choice’’ and its will was merely carried out by the substantive rulemaking process. Therefore, the creation of the harms/benefits test of the regulations is a valid exercise of the rulemaking powers. Tri-County Industries, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 818 A.2d 574 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
Validity
The statutes reflect the General Assembly’s clear intent to regulate every aspect of waste disposal, and the language of the relevant acts clearly conferred broad supervisory power to the Environmental Quality Board. This power is broad enough to encompass the harms/benefits test contained in duly promulgated regulations. Tri-County Industries, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 818 A.2d 574 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
Cross References This section cited in 25 Pa. Code § 287.201 (relating to criteria for permit issuance or denial); 25 Pa. Code § 288.138 (relating to daily volume); 25 Pa. Code § 289.137 (relating to daily volume); 25 Pa. Code § 293.110 (relating to daily volume); 25 Pa. Code § 295.119 (relating to daily volume); and 25 Pa. Code § 297.112 (relating to daily volume).
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
