Waste Division web survey

As part of the Permit Efficiency, the Waste Division developed a survey on the processing of Part A applications. The results of the web survey are summarized below.

1. Have you visited this page before?

   • yes 40%
   • no 60%
     
     
   • total respondents 5

2. Has the information displayed been helpful?

   • strongly agree 20%
   • agree 60%
   • disagree 20%
   • strongly disagree 0%
   • no opinion 0%
     
     
   • total respondents 5

3. In your opinion, is the information displayed accurate?

   • yes 100%
   • no 0%
     
     
   • total respondents 3

4. Has the review of your Part A applications been completed more timely since September 2005?

   • yes 100%
   • no 0%
     
     
   • total respondents 3

5. Has the Part A review staff improved service to applicants since September 2005?

   • yes 100%
   • no 0%
     
     
   • total respondents 3

6. How could service to Part A applicants be improved?

   1. The full time Part A reviewer can only be successful as the support he receives. It appears as though the time for review has greatly improved prior to September 2005. The improvement must continue with the reviewer getting the assistance he needs to keep things moving. Prior Part A reviews took entirely too long.
   2. Show items which are "in progress" as such, and provide comments concerning that status.
   3. Too soon to tell
      

   total respondents 3

7. How often do you visit the DEQ's web page?

   • daily 20%
     
   • weekly 0%
   • monthly 40%
   • never 0%
   • other (please specify) 40%
     
     
   • total respondents 5

8. Has the information and content provided been of assistance to you, or your organization, in making environmental or permitting planning and decisions?

   1. It will be useful, but too early to determine if the new process will continue with short turnaround. Currently permitting planning and decision making is still going to be developed around review times from the past few years. It would not be appropriate to plan permitting timeframes around the last 4 months.
   2. I don't think that it would.
   3. To a very limited degree, to date.
      

   total respondents 3

9. Please feel free to provide us with any additional comments or opinions regarding the DEQ's web site or the solid waste permitting process in the space below. Have a nice day!

   1. A similar tracking chart would be very helpful for the Part B process as well. It seems as though the review process involves more reviewers for technical reasons, but those others involved then to extend the schedule b/c they may be in a different section with different priorities. Clarifying a schedule on Part B's would be helpful. Permits should also be clear regarding site specific conditions that the permit writer includes, but permit compliance is not familiar with. Occasionally during operations it is unclear whether to submit reports to compliance or the permit writer, b/c the compliance person does not know what to do with the report or does not know how to evaluate it.
   2. A look should be taken at all aspects of permitting associated with solid waste facilities -- storm water, ground water, water withdrawal, etc.--the lag time problem which existed with Part A/B review exists in those areas as well and requires resolution. Too often the applicant hears: "Staffing shortfalls preclude us from meeting the target review time." At the same time the Agency puts deadlines on operators which require overtime expenditures to achieve. It should work the same both ways. Also, the review process needs to be looked at. A "completeness review" should be just that, and not delve into the technical side. Too often the applicant finds himself answering technical question several times at various stages of the review process.
   3. It's really too early into the change period to make an informed comment.

   total respondents 3