Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
04/26/2021 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
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 | |
| HB135 | |
| HB171 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 135 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 171 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 171-PFAS USE & REMEDIATION; FIRE/WATER SAFETY
1:40:37 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 171, "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."
1:41:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN, as prime sponsor, introduced HB 171 and
paraphrased the sponsor statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group
of chemicals harmful to human health. They are linked
to serious health conditions including low birth
weight, thyroid disease, and cancer. Low levels of
exposure are common because PFAS can be found in
products from non-stick cookware to waterproof
jackets. But large-scale exposures happen where
certain firefighting foams or other compounds
containing PFAS seep into drinking water and linger
for years.
Alaska's Department of Environmental Conservation
declared PFAS hazardous substances several years ago.
House Bill 171:
? sets health-protective limits on the amount of PFAS
in drinking water
? guarantees Alaskans in areas with high levels of
PFAS contamination get clean drinking water and their
blood levels checked
? bans PFAS foams in October of 2021, which is when
the Federal Aviation Administration will stop
requiring airports to use them
? prohibits thermal remediation (i.e., burning) of
PFAS contamination unless a facility obtains a permit
from the Department of Environmental Conservation that
ensures the process will not result in the release of
more than a minimal amount of an airborne compound
with a carbon-fluorine bond.
The bill carves out an exemption for those producing,
transporting, or refining oil and gas until the State
Fire Marshal determines effective alternatives exist
for the intensity of the fire threats oil & gas
operations face.
1:48:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked Representative Hannan to clarify
whether HB 171 would prevent the use of PFAS at airports or just
stop the testing.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said that the Alaska Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has told airports in
the state to not test [using PFAS]. While the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) regulations on PFAS will change in October,
she said, PFAS has not been used in annual testing in Alaska's
airports "for about a year."
1:49:36 PM
TIM CLARK, Staff, Representative Sara Hannan, Alaska State
Legislature, clarified that HB 171 would ban the use of PFAS
foams at airports in Alaska, but only after FAA rescinds its
requirement, which is scheduled for October 1, 2021. He then
detailed the Sectional Summary, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Sec. 1 of the bill creates several new sections in AS
46.03:
Sec. 46.03.340(a): Directs the Department of
Environmental Conservation to test drinking water
near PFAS spills. Requires the department to make
sure anyone with contaminated drinking water gets
clean drinking water and at least one voluntary
test of their blood to determine PFAS levels.
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. 46.03.340(c): Requires DEC to make sure
a responder exposed to PFAS contamination
gets and at least one voluntary test of
their blood to determine PFAS levels.
Sec. 46.03.345(a) states that a person who causes
a fire that results in the release of PFAS-
containing foams is liable for the costs of
providing drinking water, drinking water testing,
and blood testing under AS 46.03.340 of the bill.
Sec. 46.03.345(b) states that persons who use
PFAS-containing substances to extinguish a fire
(i.e. fire departments) are not liable for
providing drinking water, drinking water testing,
blood testing, and cleanup costs. This exemption
from liability does not extend to the use of
PFAS-containing substances for training or
testing purposes.
Sec. 46.03.345(c) states that the liability for
these costs is in addition to other liability
existing in areas of state law relevant to the
release of PFAS substances.
Sec. 46.03.345 (d) provides definitions for
"motor vehicle" and "residential building" as
they are used in this section.
Sec. 46.03.350(a) exempts oil & gas production,
transmission, transportation, and refining
businesses from the prohibition from using PFAS-
containing firefighting foams unless the state
fire marshal publishes notice that an alternative
firefighting substance must be used.
Sec. 46.03.350(b) states that if the state fire
marshal determines that a safe and effective
alternative firefighting substance is available
for use by oil & gas businesses, the fire marshal
must immediately publish notice that the
alternative substance must be used by the
industry.
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): With the exception of oil &
gas businesses, this subsection prohibits the use
of PFAS-containing firefighting substances by
persons in the state unless the use is required
by federal law. (Sec. 5 of the bill provides an
effective date for this prohibition of October 4,
2021.)
Sec. 46.03.355 states that a facility cannot
thermally remediate (that is, burn away) PFAS
contamination unless it has a permit to do so
from the Department of Environmental Conservation
that is compliant with sections 501 through 507
of the Clean Air Act. To be permitted, the
thermal remediation process must not result in
the release of more than a minimal amount of an
airborne compound with a carbonfluorine bond.
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 addresses the retroactive
applicability of the liability sections of the act in
uncodified law.
Sec. 3 adds transition language regarding the adoption
of regulations for implementing the act and the
effective date of those regulations.
Sec. 4 provides an effective date of October 4th, 2021
to the prohibition on the use of PFAS in section 1 of
the bill.
Sec. 5 gives an immediate effective date to sections 2
and 3 of the act.
Sec. 6 provides for an effective date of January 1,
2022, except for those sections of the bill provided
an immediate or other effective date.
2:01:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked for more details on the cutoff
concentrations as enumerated on page 2, lines 12-20, of HB 171.
He also asked for more information on the science of studying
PFAS.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted that one of the invited speakers is
a constituent who first brought the issue to her attention.
MR. CLARK responded that he could only speak generally about the
science but that it has been unfolding over the past decade. He
compared the cutoff concentration of the seven PFAS named in the
proposed legislation with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) recommendations and stressed that the EPA lists every
substance at either a much higher recommended concentration than
proposed under HB 171, or with no concentration cutoff
recommendations at all.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether the [EPA] regulations are
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976.
MR. CLARK said that he doesn't know.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS opined that TSCA is widely regarded as a
failure, which emphasizes the importance of HB 171.
2:07:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether HB 171 is "homegrown" or
modeled after legislation in the Lower 48.
MR. CLARK replied that the proposed legislation is based on the
work of Michigan's PFAS Action Response Team Working Group,
which was assembled in 2018. He said that the findings of the
working group, released in 2019, were subsequently adopted by
the Michigan State Legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether representatives from the
military or oil industry collaborated on drafting the proposed
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN explained that state law doesn't allow the
legislature to regulate actions taken by federal agencies;
however, the military first notified the state of PFAS
pollution. She said that Michigan, New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, and Minnesota have been working on PFAS pollution
stemming from industry; in Alaska, however, PFAS is largely
limited to military installations, airports, and petrochemical
refining because Alaska doesn't have the industrial
manufacturing sector that would be using it. She said that in
the spring of 2018 DOT&PF notified the residents of Gustavus
that their water was toxic from PFAS runoff from the airport.
She clarified that several pieces of the proposed legislation
are "homegrown" because, unlike Alaska, other states have layers
of government overseeing municipal organizations like fire
departments which, in Alaskan communities, are largely composed
of volunteers.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER followed up to ask about the oil and gas
industry involvement.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that the oil and gas industry
engaged early in the development of the proposed legislation and
have been given a "carve out" because, unlike airports with
alternative firefighting substances, the oil and gas industry
has no feasible substitute for fighting high temperature fires.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether any penalties would be
address in the proposed legislation.
MR. CLARK explained that penalties would be focused on the cost
of remediation such as blood testing, environmental texting, and
providing clean water. He said that the administration's recent
announcement regarding litigation against PFAS manufacturers
indicates the intention for active remediation of the
contaminated sites.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked where the liability could lie, if
not with the fire departments, or whether every case would be
different.
MR. CLARK replied that it would be a challenge for the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to determine
liability.
2:17:32 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK said he would like more information on the EPA
recommendations.
2:18:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked whether a person who accidentally
starts a fire would be held liable. He then asked about the
"alternative firefighting substances" referred to on page 2 of
the Sectional Analysis.
MR. CLARK said that if an accidental fire led to a PFAS release,
a "person" could be defined as a commercial entity. He said
liability would be determined according to the degree of
negligence on the part of the entity.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN clarified that the intent is to hold an
arsonist liable, but not a person who has an accidental fire.
She said that they don't want to discourage anyone from calling
the fire department but that wildfires can be caused by
negligence, thereby requiring the use of PFAS and subsequently
affecting the water system over a large area.
2:22:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY said that it seems PFAS sites could be
candidates for the federal "Superfund" law [officially the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980(CERCLA)] program.
MR. CLARK, addressing Representative McKay's earlier question,
said that there is not 100 percent consensus on whether
alternative firefighting substances are as effective as PFAS,
but referred to the March 13, 2020, hearing on HB 240 during the
House Resources Standing Committee, in which the Fire Chief of
the [Port of Seattle Fire Department] testified that he was
highly confident that the new substances are safe and effective
alternatives to PFAS. He then addressed Representative McKay's
mention of the Superfund program and expressed the belief that
many people hope the pollution issues are addressed rigorously
at the federal level.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said that FAA and airports have found
satisfactory alternative foam compounds; however, the oil and
gas industry have not found something that works for their
fires. She then discussed the Superfund program and said that,
because EPA regulation on the different PFAS is so fragmented,
sites in Alaska wouldn't qualify until studies were done on each
level of pollution. She said there is speculation that the
industrial sites in other states will likely be deemed Superfund
sites, but they don't currently meet the criteria.
2:27:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS asked whether there are new technologies
that show promise for replacing PFAS in the oil and gas
industry.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that she doesn't know.
2:28:02 PM
KELLY MCLAUGHLIN, Chair, Gustavus PFAS Action Coalition (GPAC),
testified in support of HB 171. She discussed litigation
against 3M Company and said that HB 171 would be a temporary
solution until national assistance is available. She said that
there are some alternative substances used in the oil and gas
industry in other countries and that the International
Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN) has a comprehensive report
obtainable through either the Alaska Community Action on Toxics
(ACAT) or GPAC. She expressed the belief that the oil and gas
industry could move to using nontoxic substances in the near
future. She explained that while HB 171 uses the Michigan
report, because the class of chemicals is large, several other
states have used a different approach and regulated use of the
fluorine-carbon bond.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN described becoming aware of PFAS in 2018 upon
receipt of a letter from DOT&PF informing residents of Gustavus
that the school's water and several airport drinking water wells
were contaminated. She said that even a small amount of aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) can contaminate soil and water for
miles, it doesn't biodegrade or break down, and remediation is
difficult. She said that many states are identifying the
fluorine-carbon bond and regulating PFAS as a class of that
bond. She said that the GPAC has led and collaborated on
testing Gustavus residents' blood serum levels, locally-grown
plants, livestock, wild foods, and fish and game and is working
with the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). She said
that testing has found a direct correlation between PFAS levels
in water samples and the blood samples of the residents of
Gustavus. She expressed concern that she would be knowingly
contributing to the ill health of an animal raised on her
property in Gustavus.
2:35:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER referred to page 2, line 31, through
page 3, line 10, of HB 171, which read as follows:
Sec. 46.03.345. Liability for drinking water, drinking
water testing, and blood testing costs. (a) A person
who causes a fire that results in a release of a
firefighting substance containing a perfluoroalkyl
substance or polyfluoroalkyl substance is liable for
the costs of providing drinking water, drinking water
testing, and blood testing under AS 46.03.340. This
subsection does not apply to a release of a
firefighting substance to extinguish a fire in a
residential building or motor vehicle.
(b) A person who extinguishes a fire by releasing
a firefighting substance that contains a
perfluoroalkyl substance or polyfluoroalkyl substance
is not liable for the costs of providing drinking
water, drinking water testing, and blood testing under
AS 46.03.340 or site cleanup under this chapter, AS
46.08, AS 46.09, or another state law unless the
firefighting substance was released for training or
testing purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked what kind of fire would have to be
burning in order for PFAS to be deployed.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN explained that Gustavus has two "pollution
plumes" of PFAS. One is from mandatory FAA annual testing in
which the foam was sprayed off the runway and subsequently
contaminated the groundwater and wells. The second plume, she
said, is from a wildland fire on which the Gustavus volunteer
fire department sprayed PFAS foam from a fire truck the
department had gotten from the state. Under HB 171, the
landowner would not be liable for damages unless it was
determined that the he or she was an arsonist; for the plume
resulting from the airport testing, cleanup costs would be borne
by DOT&PF. Representative Hannan explained that HB 171 would
mandate that whoever causes a fire on which PFAS is used is
responsible for the costs of pollution cleanup and remediation.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked, "What fire did I start that PFAS
had to come and kill?"
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN reiterated her earlier explanation and
added that fire departments in communities across Alaska have
inherited equipment from the state which contains PFAS. She
said that Gustavus has no centralized water system, so there are
no fire hydrants for fire engines to hook up to.
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked whether it's fair to say that PFAS is
predominantly used in chemical or fuel fires.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that a volunteer fire department
probably won't know what's in the fire truck unless it's hooked
up to a hydrant.
2:40:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said it seems that PFAS chemicals are
being used incidentally rather than in response to any specific
type of fire.
2:41:28 PM
MR. CLARK clarified that under HB 171, the liabilities come down
to basic, immediate health and wellness concerns of providing
drinking water, blood testing, and water testing. He emphasized
that language referring to a "person" is focused on industrial
entities. It's noted that a residential fire or passenger
vehicle fire would be exempt from the liability sections,
because those types of fires wouldn't be arising from an
industrial incident.
2:43:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked, "Are we getting rid of the reason
for PFAS being in any fire truck other than on a military base,
or in the oil field, or at an airport?"
MR. CLARK responded that, in instances where a community's
firefighting equipment was found to have PFAS after using it on
a fire, the effort would be to remove the PFAS and prepare the
truck for conventional firefighting.
2:45:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the language in HB 171
referring to a "person" is using the definition in statute.
MR. CLARK replied, "Yes, that's correct."
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said that it's only until October that
the existence of PFAS in firefighting equipment would be a known
use, since it will then be banned at airports.
MR. CLARK responded, "Yes."
2:46:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked whether PFAS is only in industrial
fire retardant or if it could be in a fire retardant used in
homes.
MR. CLARK said that he is unaware of any residence that would
keep a PFAS fire extinguisher, and said that it is
"overwhelmingly" for industrial use.
2:47:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE stated his understanding that PFAS in
firefighting is used only for extremely hot fuel fires.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied, "That's my understanding."
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether the chemicals will be
banned in October, or if the FAA is stopping the requirement
that PFAS be used for testing or training purposes.
MR. CLARK said that HB 171 would ban the use of PFAS-containing
firefighting foams after October 1, 2021, in all applications
within the state except for those within the oil and gas
industry, because it's presumed that the decision of the FAA is
stipulating that other safe firefighting foam can be used.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE referred to page 2, lines 6-10, of HB
171, which read as follows:
(b) A person who extinguishes a fire by releasing a
firefighting substance that contains a perfluoroalkyl
substance or polyfluoroalkyl substance is not liable
for the costs of providing drinking water, drinking
water testing, and blood testing under AS 46.03.340 or
site cleanup under this chapter, AS 46.08, AS 46.09,
or another state law unless the firefighting substance
was released for training or testing purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether this section would create
liability retroactive to past training and testing, and asked
whether an explicit exemption for past activities should be
added.
MR. CLARK replied that he would need to look into that more
carefully. He said that the intention of that subsection is to
specifically not hold firefighters liable for doing their best
to save lives and property. The testing and drilling language
is because the chemicals should not be used unless absolutely
necessary, he explained, and it is possible to train using
nontoxic substances.
2:51:54 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on HB 171.
2:52:31 PM
PAMELA MILLER, Executive Director, Alaska Community Action on
Toxics (ACAT), shared that she was recently appointed to the
National Academy of Sciences as a community liaison to develop
guidance on PFAS testing and health outcomes. She paraphrased a
portion of her written testimony [included in the committee
packet] in support of HB 171, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
The health and safety of our water is critical for
Alaskans. HB 171 would require greater protections for
communities in preventing and addressing PFAS
contamination, including setting of enforceable
drinking water standards for a number of PFAS as well
as requirements for polluters to pay for safe drinking
water and blood tests for people affected by PFAS
contamination.
In Alaska, the dispersive use of PFAS-based industrial
firefighting foams on military bases and airports has
contaminated the drinking water of communities from
the North Slope to southeast Alaska. PFAS have been
found at over 100 individual sites in nearly 30
locations across Alaska. At least ten Alaska
communities have PFAS in their drinking water at
levels deemed unsafe by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and it is likely that the
number of communities with contaminated water will
grow as more sampling is conducted throughout the
state.
PFAS are contaminating groundwater and surface waters,
fish, wild game, garden produce and backyard chickens
in Alaska. Several Alaska lakes are now closed to
fishing as a result of PFAS contamination and yet
there is no cohesive plan for testing of waters,
produce, or fish and wildlife in areas affected by
PFAS. The public water supply in Fairbanks and
hundreds of private wells in the Fairbanks North Star
Borough are contaminated with PFAS. In 2019, Golden
Heart Utilities in Fairbanks suspended all sales of
its compost that has been sold annually for many years
to local farmers and gardeners due to PFAS
contaminants in the compost stockpiles. Recently,
residents near Sand Lake in Anchorage are calling for
testing of residential wells and 2 lakes in the
vicinity of the former Kulis Air National Guard Base
where high levels of PFAS have been found.
MS. MILLER said there are serious health effects of these
chemicals at low levels of exposure, and there are safe
alternatives. She said she had submitted to the committee some
information on alternatives to PFAS. She noted that many other
states are "taking action on these chemicals as a class at lower
levels than the Michigan standards." She concluded, "So, we
would like to see the bill strenghtened but very strongly
support it."
2:55:09 PM
JOHN KENNISH testified in support of HB 171. He expressed that
it's clear that PFAS will pose a major problem for the future,
and that the toxicity of the compounds have only been recently
recognized. He stressed the importance of protecting the
residents of Alaska, as well as the fish and game harvested by
those living a subsistence lifestyle.
2:57:34 PM
KRISTINE BENSON testified in support of HB 171. She said that
there are a dozen communities in Alaska with contaminated
drinking water and that it's imperative that the legislature
step in to set a drinking water standard based on health. She
said that the EPA is not protective of health and is moving too
slowly in updating water safety standards. She expressed
approval that HB 171 would provide for safe disposal for PFAS
still in storage.
2:59:05 PM
STEVE RISOTTO, Senior Director, American Chemistry Council,
testified in opposition to HB 171. He said HB 171 would create
standards for PFAS without going through the regulatory process
and asked for consideration of the actions taken at the federal
level. He paraphrased a section of his written testimony
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
In seeking to assign responsibility for releases of
PFAS near a water supply, the proposal will likely
result in significant unintended consequences.
Although Section 345 would exempt releases of aqueous
film forming foam (AFFF) to extinguish fires in a
residence or motor vehicle, it does not exempt the use
of AFFF for testing or training by local fire
departments. Nor does the proposal exempt publicly
owned landfills that may have released PFAS or
wastewater treatment plants that have provided
biosolids containing PFAS for agriculture. Farmers who
have applied those biosolids on their land also are
potentially liable under the bill. These activities
have been identified as contributing to PFAS levels in
groundwater elsewhere in the country. This is
particularly relevant given the extremely low levels
that have been proposed for some of the substances.
3:01:37 PM
SARA THOMAS testified in support of HB 171. She noted the
cancer and thyroid issues posed by ingesting PFAS and
characterized the use of PFAS as "the biggest cover-up since big
tobacco." She opined that 3M Company, the manufacturer of some
PFAS, chose to suppress the toxicity of the chemical, and she
urged the committee to "look at accountability."
3:04:13 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 171.
3:04:31 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that HB 171 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 135 Sponsor Statement 4.23.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/23/2021 10:30:00 AM HRES 4/23/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Sectional Analysis Version A 4.23.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/23/2021 10:30:00 AM HRES 4/23/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 DNR Presentation 4.23.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/23/2021 10:30:00 AM HRES 4/23/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 171 Sponsor Statement 4.12.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 171 |
| HB 171 Sectional Summary 4.12.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 171 |
| HB 171 PFAS-FAQs-Fact-Sheet-ATSDR and CDC.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 171 |
| HB 171 PFAS Reference Sheet 4.12.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 171 |
| HB 171 Letter Deborah Hemenway 4.23.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 171 |
| HB 171 Executive Summary - Michigan Report on PFAS Health Effect 4.12.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 171 |
| HB 171 EPA PFAS Information Sheet 4.12.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 171 |
| HB 171 Letter American Chemistry 4.26.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 171 |
| HB 171 Letter Melanie Lesh 4.26.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 171 |
| HB 171 Letter Janet Neilson 4.26.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 171 |
| HB 171 Draft Fiscal Note DEC EH 4.26.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 171 |
| HB 171 Draft Fiscal Note DOT COM 4.26.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 171 |
| HB 171 Draft Fiscal Note DEC SPAR 4.26.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 171 |
| HB 171 Draft Fiscal Note DEC AQ 4.26.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 171 |
| HB 171 Letter ACAT 4.26.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 171 |
| HB 171 Letter AKPIRG 4.26.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 171 |
| HB 135 Example Geothermal Facilities 4.27.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |
| HB 135 Support University of Michigan Center for Sustainable Systems 4.27.2021.pdf |
HRES 4/26/2021 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/21/2022 1:00:00 PM |
HB 135 |