Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/12/2022 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB121 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 121 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 121
"An Act relating to pollutants; relating to
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances;
relating to the duties of the Department of
Environmental Conservation; relating to firefighting
substances; relating to thermal remediation of
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substance
contamination; and providing for an effective date."
9:06:57 AM
Co-Chair Bishop relayed that it was the first hearing for
SB 121. It was the committee's intention to hear a bill
introduction and Sectional Analysis, take invited and
public testimony, and set the bill aside.
9:07:31 AM
SENATOR JESSE KIEHL, SPONSOR, explained that SB 121 would
get the state started in addressing the significant problem
of a group of chemicals known as polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS). He expanded that PFAS were very bad for health and
did not break down. The carbon fluorine bond was very
durable and made the substances effective in fighting
fires. When PFAS came into drinking water, there was a
myriad of bad effects. The substances were closely linked
to cancer, linked to low birth weight in babies, and caused
liver and thyroid problems amongst other things.
Senator Kiehl cited that Alaska had PFAS in drinking water
largely due to firefighting foams. He mentioned additional
chemical information that was available at the request of
members. He identified that the basic issue at hand was
that the science was strong, and the chemicals were bad for
people in extremely small amounts (parts per trillion).
Senator Kiehl described that the chemicals were present in
drinking water as a result of firefighting or testing of
the firefighting foams known as Aqueous Film-Forming Foams
(AFFF), which were required at airports that could land a
jet, oil and gas facilities, and a few other locations. He
recalled that in 2018, scientists at the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) began the process of
addressing PFAS in the state and had listed six chemicals
in a proposed regulation that included both drinking water
and cleanup standards. He reminded that under the states
existing hazardous materials laws, there was very strict
spiller pays laws. The department had been clear that
listing the chemicals would not come at an additional cost
to the state, but rather at the cost of the spiller. The
scientists had been told to defer to federal agencies and
take no action, which led to the first legislation on the
topic. He emphasized that the state needed to act to
protect Alaskans health.
9:11:01 AM
Senator Kiehl explained that the bill referenced seven
chemicals, and the standards were based on an extensive
review of the science that was done in a number of states
and led by the State of Michigan. The bill only dealt with
drinking water and did not address site cleanup for a
number of reasons. He emphasized that there was no way to
get rid of the substances. He reiterated that almost every
study suggested lower standards than proposed by DEC or in
the bill. He stated he was extremely confident of the
standards proposed in the bill and noted that the bill
provided the opportunity for the department to set a more
protective level as the science developed. He relayed that
the bill kept all of the states spiller pays laws, so
there were no changes to liability for providing drinking
water.
Senator Kiehl discussed a change made in the Senate
Resources Committee that stipulated if a federal government
agency required a state agency or private entity to spray
PFAS, the federal agency would be jointly liable. He
continued that the bill focused on ending additional
spraying of PFAS chemicals in Alaska's environment. He
asserted that the substance ran off runways and into the
groundwater, and had been used and tested at pump stations,
where it went into the groundwater. He noted that anywhere
groundwater was accessed down-grade of PFAS use, one would
find levels that exceeded safe drinking water.
Senator Kiehl emphasized that the goal of the bill was not
to be absolutist. He expanded that there was currently no
alternative substance that served the same purpose for the
tanker terminal at Valdez, and at some of the states
largest tank farms. There was an exception for the oil and
gas business that allowed that until an alternative
substance was found, there would be a regulation process
through which there would be a phase-in. The decision would
be left to the fire marshal. The also bill stopped spraying
of PFAS chemicals at airports as soon as it was federally
allowed. He recounted that Congress had told the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) that it needed to stop
requiring the spraying of PFAS at airports the previous
October, and the FAA had missed its deadline. He thought
the matter was concerning.
Senator Kiehl asserted that progress was happening and
noted that there would be a military specification for
alternate firefighting foams within a year, and he expected
that the FAA would do its job as mandated by Congress and
change its requirements. He recounted that in conversations
with fire safety personal (including with fire chiefs at
Anchorage International Airport and SEATAC Airport), there
was great confidence that alternate foams without PFAS
would be safe and effective at airports.
9:14:56 AM
Senator Kiehl highlighted provisions in the bill such as:
required air quality permits for those engaging in thermal
regulation, and a take-back provision requiring DEC to
accept up to 25 gallons per year of PFAS concentrates. He
qualified that the take-back provision would not help large
entities. He mentioned firefighting in remote communities
that had small amounts of AFFF. He noted a portion of the
fiscal note would cover the cost.
Senator Kiehl explained that there would be costs
associated with getting away from PFAS chemicals in
peoples water supply. He noted that the state was in
litigation with PFAS manufacturers because the product was
poisonous when used as directed. He highlighted that the
federal infrastructure bill had millions of dollars per
year for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. He
relayed that his staff was ready to give a detailed bill
analysis and there was invited and public testimony
available.
Co-Chair Stedman asked if the sponsor could summarize the
bill in one paragraph.
Senator Kiehl summarized that the bill required clean
drinking water when there was poison in the water.
Co-Chair Bishop asked about thermal remediation and air
quality standards. He asked the sponsor to elaborate on the
subject. He considered whether thermal remediation was a
new type of remediation process to take PFAS out of the
contaminated water and could be discharged into the
atmosphere.
Senator Kiehl agreed with Co-Chair Bishop's explanation. He
cited that there had been an experimental effort near Co-
Chair Bishop's district that had some extensive filters to
ensure that short-chain PFAS did not escape into the
atmosphere.
Co-Chair Bishop had done some research and identified that
there was emerging technologies, including one called the
PFAS annihilator that operated under high-pressure and
worked within a closed loop system to neutralize PFAS.
9:19:18 AM
Co-Chair Stedman referenced contamination issues in
Gustavus. He asked if the bill would help prevent the use
of PFAS in training scenarios. He wanted to identify which
airports were using PFAS. He discussed the geographical
features of Gustavus versus Sitka and proximity to bodies
of water versus groundwater. He thought there were issues
in the Interior. He asked for the bill sponsor to address
how the industry was dealing with the issue.
Senator Kiehl relayed that the industry (by in large) and
the airports had generally stopped spraying the substance
for training purposes. The bill required that PFAS could
only be used to put out a fire in an actual emergency, and
to use an alternative when available. He thought the DEC
Contaminated Sites website had relevant information. He
emphasized that the bill was silent on cleanup because
there was not currently a way to remediate the
contamination.
Senator Wilson thought that there were commercial grade
water filters near the airport in Fairbanks. He thought the
filters used new technology and reverse osmosis to clean up
the drinking water. He asked if the sponsor could comment.
Senator Kiehl cited that there were a number of remediation
technologies available that were universally very
expensive. He cited that a household-sized system of
filtration that could take out PFAS to a safe level would
cost $25,000 to install and $6,000 to $8,000 per year. He
believed that there were some larger systems that had been
put in place for commercial wells. He thought one area in
the Interior had found it worthwhile to run more than 20
miles of additional municipal water lines to low density
areas rather than buy that many filtration systems. He
emphasized the expense of municipal water lines.
Senator Wilson discussed property purchase and disclosure
of contaminants. He would support an amendment to the bill
that required disclosure of PFAS contamination. He
mentioned economic activity in communities near military
bases and lack of new properties.
Senator Kiehl was not familiar with real estate law but
agreed to look into the matter as to whether the topic was
covered or could be added to the bill.
9:24:41 AM
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, STAFF TO SENATOR JESSE KIEHL, spoke to
a Sectional Analysis document (copy on file):
Sec. 1 of the bill creates five new sections in AS
46.03:
Sec. 46.03.340: Standards for Clean Drinking Water
Sec. 46.03.340(a): Directs the Department of
Environmental Conservation to make sure drinking water
near PFAS spills is tested. Requires the department to
make sure anyone with contaminated drinking water gets
clean drinking water.
Sec. 46.03.340(b): Sets health-based maximum levels of
contamination in drinking water for seven PFAS
chemicals and maintains DEC's authority to set more
protective thresholds.
Sec. 46.03.345: Who is responsible for providing
drinking water?
Sec. 46.03.345(a): Clarifies the causer of a fire is
liable for providing drinking water if PFAS-containing
foam is used to fight the fire. Creates an exemption
for residential fires and non-commercial motor vehicle
fires.
Sec. 46.03.345(b): A government entity that required
the release of PFAS containing foam is liable for
drinking water testing and providing clean drinking
water in the areas of the release.
Sec. 46.03.345(c): A fire department is not liable for
providing drinking water or site clean-up if they used
PFAS-containing foam to fight a fire. This section
maintains existing liability for fire fighters if they
use PFAS-containing foam for training or testing.
Sec. 46.03.345(d): Clarifies this bill doesn't change
a responsible party's liability described elsewhere in
DEC statutes.
Sec. 46.03.345(e): Defines "motor vehicle" and
"residential building" for purposes of this section.
Sec. 46.03.350: Who can still use PFAS containing
foams?
Sec. 46.03.350(a): The oil & gas industry may continue
using PFAS containing foams until an alternative is
approved through regulation.
Sec. 46.03.350(b): The fire marshal can determine
there is a safe and effective PFAS-free foam for
fighting large oil or gas fires only if the alternate
foam is listed by an organization in OSHA's Nationally
Recognized Testing Laboratory Program. The fire
marshal must require the new foam by regulation, with
a stated effective date.
Sec. 46.03.350(c): DEC must take up to 25 gallons per
year of PFAS-containing firefighting foam from
Alaskans for disposal.
Sec. 46.03.350(d): When federal law no longer requires
firefighting foams with PFAS in them at airports,
everyone outside the oil & gas industry must stop
using PFAS-containing foams, unless federal law
preempts Alaska law.
Sec. 46.03.355: Requires a facility treating PFAS
through thermal remediation to get a Clean Air Act
Title V permit.
Sec. 46.03.359: Lists the PFAS compounds covered by
this bill and maintains DEC's authority to list more.
Sec. 2 of the bill adds an applicability provision:
Sec. 2: The requirements to test drinking water and
provide clean drinking water apply to past and future
PFAS contamination.
Secs. 3-6 of the bill add effective dates:
Sec. 3: DEC can adopt regulations before the effective
date of the bill, so long as they do not go into
effect before the bill.
Sec. 4: Immediate effective date for the applicability
and transition language in Sec. 2 & 3.
Sec. 5: The rest of the bill takes effect Jan. 1,
2023.
9:26:47 AM
AT EASE
9:27:14 AM
RECONVENED
Senator Wielechowski referenced page 1, line 9 of the bill,
and asked who the responsible party was.
Senator Kiehl relayed that the bill would weave in with
existing hazardous spill response laws and did not propose
to make changes. He continued that generally, the spiller
paid, and property owner liability applied.
Senator Wielechowski asked which party would be responsible
if a refiner, gas station, or oil and gas transporter
caused PFAS to leak into the environment.
Ms. Schlingheyde responded that the person in the oil and
gas industry would be liable. She cited that the bill
proposed that parties would not have to transition to
fluorine-free foams until the fire marshal said that there
was a safe alternative, but the industry would maintain all
liability for testing and providing drinking water.
9:28:59 AM
CHRIS HLADICK, FORMER REGION 10 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY ADMINISTRATOR, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. He cited that he was the
former commissioner of the Department of Commerce,
Community and Economic Development under the previous
governor, but was testifying as a private citizen. He
believed the bill was a strong first step in addressing the
"forever chemical" family of PFAS. He highlighted that the
materials were often used in firefighting foams and he had
direct experience with the substance through a surplus foam
truck from the airport that for use on boat fires. He cited
that the substance was also in a multitude of household
products. He thought the bill was an important first step
for DEC and the development of regulations to address the
health risks of PFAS. He noted that the bill spoke to
thermoregulation, for which the EPA was developing
effective testing protocols. He emphasized that burning
must result in complete destruction of the chemical, as the
biproducts were contaminants. He added that there were
accepted methods of remediation still being improved.
Mr. Hladick knew the bill addressed drinking water and
mentioned the cost of transporting contaminants out of the
state, and contaminated soil. The contaminated soil needed
to be put in 50-gallon drums and shipped to the closest
hazardous waste facility in Oregon, which was costly. He
noted that the EPA had developed an action plan which would
develop a mean contaminate level for drinking water. He
noted that protocols were in development for public
drinking water facilities at the EPA, which had issued a
health advisory on the substance. A team of scientists was
working on 22 of the known 4,700 PFAS chemicals and hoped
to be complete by 2024. He thought the bill was an
important first step for the state.
9:32:31 AM
JACKIE BOYER, CAMPAIGN AND POLICY DIRECTOR, NATIVE PEOPLES
ACTION, spoke in support of the bill. She explained that
Native Peoples Action (NPA) was a statewide organization
that strived to uplift its peoples and traditional way of
life, as well as to ensure that Alaska Natives were heard
in all levels of policy-making. She discussed physical and
spiritual wellness and disparities. She discussed health
risks due to PFAS exposure and cited that Alaska Natives
were at greater risk for certain cancers.
Ms. Boyer expressed concern over the number of contaminated
sites in Alaska, which impacted people and animals. She
considered the contamination through subsistent hunting and
fishing. She thought the proposed bill provisions were
reasonable.
9:35:36 AM
Co-Chair Bishop OPENED public testimony.
ANNA GODDUHN, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), spoke
in support of the bill. She emphasized that the PFAS
concern was related to parts-per-trillion amounts. She
cited that chemicals could accumulate in peoples bodies.
She noted that PFAS could interfere with hormone function.
She thought the bill was a great first step in trying to
eliminate the problem of PFAS contamination in drinking
water and the environment. She asserted that PFAS was also
an environmental problem in the food web.
9:38:28 AM
MORGAN LIM, PLANNED PARENTHOOD ALLIANCE ADVOCATES, JUNEAU,
testified in support of the bill. He asserted that the bill
would provide greater protections for communities by
preventing and assessing PFAS contamination. He considered
that PFAS contamination and the lack of access to clean
safe water was an issue of reproductive oppression. He
asserted that the contamination undermined an individual's
reproductive health, limited the ability to have or not
have children, and infringed on the right to have children
in a healthy and safe environment.
Mr. Lim cited that thousands of people in the state faced
the daily reality of exposure to contaminated water
sources, including PFAS contamination that presented
serious risk to peoples reproductive and overall health.
He noted that many water sources in the state contained
PFAS, which he described as a man-made toxin that
interfered with the bodies endocrine system, causing many
adverse effects in humans. He discussed the use of PFAS. He
asserted that the dispersive use of PFAS by military bases
and airports had contaminated the drinking water in the
North Slope to the Southeast with PFAS, already identified
in over 100 individual sites and nearly 30 locations across
the states. He discussed the related reproductive health
problems associated with PFAS contamination.
9:40:51 AM
JOHN ERICKSON, CITY AND BOROUGH MANAGER OF YAKUTAT, YAKUTAT
(via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He
explained that Yakutat had a problem with PFAS at the
airport. He mentioned two wells that were adjacent to the
airport and were contaminated with PFAS, and four
additional wells that were contaminated less significantly.
He mentioned new standards being implemented by the EPA. He
mentioned discussing funding with the Village Safe Water
Program and the United States Department of Agriculture,
which would not fund anything unless there was a
concentration of houses. He mentioned the businesses in the
area of the airport that were using contaminated water.
Mr. Erickson relayed that the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities had sent bottled water in order for
restaurants to operate. He noted that it was not advisable
to shower in PFAS-contaminated water. He mentioned looking
at a variety of cleaning systems. He described extending
water lines 3.5 miles to circumvent the contamination and
cited a $6 million quote by the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
9:44:10 AM
MELANIE LESH, SELF, GUSTAVUS (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. She cited that she submitted written
testimony the previous day (copy on file).
9:45:01 AM
JEANNE OLSON, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She shared that she was a
veterinarian and was familiar with the topic of the bill.
She had worked as an industrial hygienist at Fort
Wainwright and had worked on asbestos remediation. She
discussed the evolving standards for asbestos as a parallel
to PFAS standards. She thought the State of Maine had the
most progressive PFAS statutes and reminded that Senator
Lisa Murkowski and Representative Don young had been
sponsors of PFAS bills at the federal level. She had tested
her own water and found 69 parts per trillion in PFAS and
emphasized that she did not live near an airport. She
discussed the expense of running water over long distances.
She mentioned the documentary "The Devil We Know," which
she thought provided good information about PFAS. She cited
that Heathrow Airport in London, England no longer used
PFAS. She encouraged the committee to consider more
progressive amendments to the bill.
Co-Chair Bishop noted that there were testifiers available
to answer members questions.
9:48:39 AM
Co-Chair Bishop CLOSED public testimony.
SB 121 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Bishop discussed the agenda for the afternoon.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 121 Letter to Gov Dunleavy from ACAT 8-13-21.pdf |
SFIN 4/12/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 Cordner et al_2021_True Costs of PFAS_EST.pdf |
SFIN 4/12/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 Briefing Paper on PFAS SB 121 April 2022.pdf |
SFIN 4/12/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 Babayev et al_2022_PFAS in drinking water and serum of people in Gustavus_EnvPoll.pdf |
SFIN 4/12/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 Sectional Analysis ver. W.pdf |
SFIN 4/12/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 PFAS Contaminated Sites.pdf |
SFIN 4/12/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 Part 139 Airport List.pdf |
SFIN 4/12/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |
| SB 121 PFAS Remediation Technologies.pdf |
SFIN 4/12/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 121 |