Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/24/1994 08:00 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 436 - STRICTNESS OF AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS CHAIR VEZEY announced himself as the sponsor of HB 436 and passed the gavel to VICE-CHAIRMAN KOTT. Number 341 VICE-CHAIRMAN KOTT accepted the gavel and asked REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY for his sponsor statement. Number 342 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY began an overview of HB 436. He said HB 436 states the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) may not set up air quality standards that are more strict than the federal standards. He felt HB 436 was a very important political policy decision. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY introduced HB 436 because if the state is going to impose more strict standards, it should be done through the legislature, and not through the Administrative Procedures Act. He pointed out the governor's task force on regulatory reform has made a "blanket recommendation in this same general area." Number 360 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked if there was an imminent reason to believe standards will rise or if there has been an issue in REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY's district she was not aware of. Number 367 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he was not personally aware of the pending regulations, but he had heard talk of some considerations. Number 371 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG noted the DEC position paper (on file) references the Healy Clean Coal Project, Kenai Plant, and the Marine Terminal in Valdez. He understood the DEC paper to say that if it had not been for their ability to more strictly regulate air quality at the Healy Clean Coal Project, because the National Park Service thought they had veto power over the project, it may not have gone ahead. REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG stated the DEC wants to reserve a case by case ability to regulate air quality in a specific location, but he felt the legislature should have that ability and not the DEC. Number 384 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he did not mean to mislead REPRESENTATIVE ULMER because he was aware of the permitting process at the Healy Clean Coal Project. He had thought the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Park Service had the permit, not the DEC. Number 390 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG responded that the Park Service had no authority over the project, other than the Park is across the highway from the plant. The Park Service forced the air quality standards down so low that the plant is no longer allowed to emit visible smoke because it may destroy Denali National Park and a large portion of the Park Service's budget. Number 398 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER stated, after reading the DEC position paper, that one sentence leaped out at her stating, "Retaining authority to responsibly address pollution issues of local concern is at its center of states rights issue." She felt it was funny that HB 436 was saying, "if the feds make us do it, it's okay, but we can't do our own thing, or we don't trust DEC to have the flexibility to do their own thing even if it may result in economic development like the Healy Clean Coal Project moving forward more expeditiously." She felt the committee should have the DEC testify for the committee to show how the permitting process has worked. Number 411 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG felt the DEC ought to testify before the Resources Committee, noting today's meeting was not secret. Number 416 VICE-CHAIRMAN KOTT responded that REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG was correct and, in looking over the witness register, he did not see anyone signed up to testify from the DEC. He noted two men from the DEC were in the audience and invited them to testify. Number 422 MIKE MENGE, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY DIVISION, DEC, testified in opposition to HB 436 for two reasons. First, having the legislature create "regulatory hurdles" for the DEC was a concern; therefore, they have built a lot of checks and balances into legislation over the past two years. He said they have talked about the creation of a panel for review or public hearing. Administrative burdens have been placed in the pathway of the DEC, now and in the future, to act indiscriminately. Secondly, at times there is a great advantage to negotiate with a permit entity, being special interest groups, citizens groups, and state government, to create an acceptable package to meet all of their basic needs. With primacy, the EPA has the authority to overrule an action by the state. If the EPA is petitioned to set a standard for a particular area, the time it takes to complete the process is measured in years. He believed there is a great advantage to being able to negotiate with all the parties, whereby an acceptable decision for all parties may be made, rather than not involving or deferring the DEC from such action. Number 455 MR. MENGE stated that TOM CHAPPEL was present to testify for the committee. Number 457 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked, with regard to the Healy Clean Coal Project, how does the flexibility of current law enable the permitting process to go more quickly and how would HB 436, if adopted, slow it down? Number 463 MR. MENGE deferred REPRESENTATIVE ULMER's question to TOM CHAPPEL. Number 464 TOM CHAPPEL, PROJECT MANAGER, PERMITS PROGRAM, DEC, answered specifically that the Healy project wanted to expand by putting in a new high technology demonstration project. Current emission levels at the plant, however, were relatively close to meeting ambience standards. The addition of the new plant's pollution would, in summation, violate an ambient public health standard. The new plant would have been adjacent to the existing plant, not in the park area. MR. CHAPPEL noted a provision in HB 436 would have prevented the DEC from entering into an agreement where the existing emissions would have been cut back to counterbalance the new emissions; therefore, the total increase would still be within public health standards. The DEC is driven to maintain public health standards, and he recalled an application from Healy itself requested the cut back of the existing emissions to suit the standards. The Healy project had estimated the additional emissions when they developed the project. He stated this example was not driven by Park Service concerns. Number 489 REPRESENTATIVE ULMER asked MR. CHAPPEL to clarify how the flexibility of the interplay between the federal and state requirements made it easier for Healy to go forward. Number 499 MR. CHAPPEL replied ambient public health standards (APHS) set upper-level concentrations which people breath. The tool which guides whether a specific level is within or exceeding the standard is setting out-of-stack standards. The EPA will not allow the APHS to be exceeded. DEC can, however, set emission standards that are more stringent that federal emission standards. The emission standards of the new plant in Healy were set more stringent than federal emission standards. The DEC also changed the emission standard for the existing plant so the combination of both plants would stay below the federal and state APHS. REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG submitted public health was less of a driving force than aesthetics in the Healy project. He understood MR. CHAPPEL, but he thought the Park Service was a "big player" and questioned whether their concerns were not about public health, but aesthetics. MR. CHAPPEL responded that concerns generated from the Park Service were not about sulphur emissions, rather visible emissions. Federal law requires a high protection of existing good air quality, such as that in Denali National Park. Federal law sets stringent standards for pollution increases in those areas, of which there are few left in Alaska. The Park Service, or federal land manager, has a role, through the Clean Air Act, to review permits the state issues and has the ability to object, even though the state has primacy. (REPRESENTATIVE ULMER left the meeting at 9:20 a.m.) Number 540 MR. MENGE added that MR. CHAPPEL's example was a good illustration of how complex the interaction is for the state. He said Stack emission standards are an important tool for the state. Without them, mediation would have to take place in Seattle. He noted the process should not be so time-consuming so patience and money does not run out and the project does not go away. He felt the state could step in and react quickly. The Park Service may have been demanding, but the resolution was fast and it suited both parties. Number 556 REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS interpreted that the Healy project as it relates to the wording in HB 436 is that the DEC worked on stronger emission standards than federal law so the ambient air quality would be within federal standards. He asked if he was correct. Number 563 MR. CHAPPEL said REPRESENTATIVE G. DAVIS was correct. Number 565 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG clarified the Park Service's primary interest was in visible smoke. Number 567 MR. CHAPPEL responded yes, but also what pollution levels would pass within the park itself. The technical assessments were resolved in the beginning. Visible emissions are more difficult to estimate because the arguable factors are inexact and subjective. The DEC heavily debated what assessment tools would be the best with the Park Service. He felt the state had the advantage to decide and debate which tools would be used. Number 583 REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG stated HB 436 only removes the final decision making authority of the DEC relating to the negotiation of standards more strict than EPA standards. Number 589 MR. CHAPPEL believed REPRESENTATIVE OLBERG's statement was the intent of HB 436. Number 592 MR. MENGE pointed out the Healy project is a good example of having all the parties involved satisfied with the end result. If the DEC was required to go to the legislature, there may be a significant impact because the issue of time may not be addressed. Number 599 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if the Healy Clean Coal project had been in permitting process since 1988 or 1989. Number 603 MR. CHAPPEL responded that the project had been under the design phases since then; however, the DEC received a permit issue one and one-half to two years ago and the permit was issued in the March of 1993. The permit decision was appealed by the Parks Service, a settlement was found, and the process is in the final stages of a permit change now. The facility was lawful to build since March 1993. Usually a large process takes several years to complete the detailed engineering design and one to two years to complete the permitting design, depending upon the particular nature of the plant's emission and where it is located. Number 616 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY clarified it has been legal to build the Healy project since March 1993. He had the impression from sources at Usibelli Coal that they could start the project, but they knew they would get shut down. He also understood they did not believe they had a permit until very recently. Number 622 MR. CHAPPEL stated that once the permit is issued it is fully lawful to build the project. There is a 30 day time limit, after the permit is issued, so anyone can request an adjudicatory hearing on that permit. There was a request submitted by the Park Service and another public interest group inside Alaska. The project applicants were reluctant to build the plant until the appeal was resolved. He noted there was not an action preventing the partners in the project from beginning construction. In December 1993 the Park Service entered into an agreement, found fair by the DEC, with the project applicants and the DEC is now incorporating that into the permit. The permit should probably be out next month, although the public interest group has not yet released their appeal and the DEC is working on it. Number 644 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY felt he was technically correct, but asked him if he would put $200 million into a project under such litigation. Number 646 MR. MENGE responded, "Certainly not." The risk of having the permit challenged in court and having it reversed would be a strong deterrent. Once construction has begun, however, the departments and agencies signing onto the permits become "permit defenders" as opposed to "permit issuers." After the public interest group backs off the new permit, Healy and Golden Valley, he felt, will feel comfortable proceeding with the project. MR. MENGE stated more than half of the Environmental Quality Division's efforts throughout the state are in the defense of existing permits. (REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS returned to the meeting at 9:27 a.m. from another committee commitment.) Number 667 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he has heard the misconception that projects are legal to start many times, and they are, if one wants unduly to risk everything put into it. Number 672 MR. MENGE noted REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY's statement as a very crucial point and stated the DEC's records for water and air permits throughout the state is with the permittee and the outside groups to resolve the issues and allow the company to proceed forward. He felt more than half his job was in permit defense. Number 677 VICE-CHAIRMAN KOTT noted the times REPRESENTATIVE ULMER departed and REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS rejoined the committee. Number 684 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved that HB 436 be passed from committee with individual recommendations. Number 685 VICE-CHAIRMAN KOTT recognized the motion. Hearing no objection, HB 436 passed from the House State Affairs Committee with individual recommendations. Seeing no more business before the committee, VICE-CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the meeting at 9:32 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|