Legislature(2023 - 2024)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/12/2023 01:00 PM 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 | |
| SB87 | |
| SB67 | |
| SB104 | |
| SB114 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 67 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 104 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 114 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE BILL NO. 67
"An Act relating to firefighting substances; and
providing for an effective date."
1:54:07 PM
Senator Jesse Kiehl, Sponsor, provided an opening sponsor
statement:
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 cancereven at extremely
small concentrations.
They also make excellent ingredients in firefighting
foams, in part because they resist breaking down. When
firefighting foams or other compounds containing PFAS
seep into drinking water, the toxic "forever
chemicals" linger for years.
The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
declared PFAS hazardous substances several years ago.
Senate Bill 67 protects Alaskans' health and prevents
future pollution by banning PFAS foams unless federal
law preempts. The bill also requires the state to take
back small quantities of PFAS foam to ensure it's
disposed of safely.
Because there is not yet an effective alternative for
the intensity of fire threat oil & gas operations face
at refineries or the Trans Alaska Pipeline terminal,
the bill exempts those producing, transporting, or
refining oil and gas until the State Fire Marshal
determines an effective non-PFAS substance could do
the job.
Senator Kiehl shared that in the past the Department of
Transportation had been required by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) to use PFAS laden firefighting foams.
He said that the bill would put the requirement on the
state Fire Marshall to phase out PFAS foams for a safe
alternative. He stressed the importance that the PFAS
substances be removed and disposed of responsibly. He cited
an effective date of January 1, 2024.
1:59:56 PM
Co-Chair Olson thought there had been changes to the bill
in the Senate Resources Committee.
Senator Kiehl noted that the Senate Resource Committee had
made 2 changes to the legislation:
The Senate Resource Committee adopted the following
changes:
1. In Section 1 (AS 46.03.340), page 1, lines 9-
12:
a. Deleted "engaged in the business of oil
of gas production, transmission,
transportation, or refining"
b. Added "to respond to a fire that
originates in relation to oil or gas
production, transmission, transportation, or
refining"
This change allows for any respondent to a
fire relating to oil or gas production,
transmission, transportation, or refining to
use PFAS or PFAS containing substances to
fight the fire.
2. In Section 1 (AS 46.03.340), page 2, line 6:
a. Deleted "25"
b. Added "40"
This change allows the state to accept for
disposal a quantity not to exceed 40 gallons
per year, up from 25 gallons in the previous
version; 40 gallons covers the estimated 35
gallons of substance anticipated to be
accepted from impacted Project Code Red
communities.
2:01:11 PM
Senator Wilson asked which department was referenced on
page 2, line 4, regarding the state fire marshal.
Senator Kiehl clarified that the fire marshal had some
regulatory authority to delay the implementation when there
was an alternate for oil and gas industry fires. He said
that the department referenced in the bill was the
Department of Environmental Conservation. He said that the
most important thing was that the administration be
proactive in the cleanup; the administration could put the
responsibility within whichever department seemed a cost
effective fit.
Senator Wilson wondered whether the bill should narrow the
language to specify one department rather than using
language that indicated "the department."
Senator Kiehl relayed that the language had been
recommended by the executive branch to provide for
flexibility.
2:03:12 PM
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, STAFF, SENATOR JESSE KIEHL, addressed a
Sectional Analysis (copy on file):
Sec. 1 of the bill creates a new section:
Sec. 46.03.340(a): Everyone outside the oil & gas
industry must stop using PFAS-containing foams,
unless federal law preempts Alaska law.
Sec. 46.03.340(b): People fighting fires in the
oil & gas industry may continue using PFAS-
containing foams until an alternative is approved
by regulation.
Sec. 46.03.340(c): The state fire marshal can
determine there is a safe and effective PFAS-free
foam for fighting oil or gas fires 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(d): DEC must take up to 40 gallons
per year of PFAS-containing firefighting foam
from Alaskans for disposal.
Sec. 2 of the bill sets an effective date of January
1, 2024.
2:04:39 PM
ANDY MILLS, SPECIAL ASSISTANT AND LEGISLATIVE LIAISON,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES,
addressed FN 1 from Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, OMB Component 2355:
This legislation requires the state fire marshal to
make a determination and promulgate regulations
consistent with federally mandated firefighting
substances containing perfluoroalkyl or
polyfluoroalkyl substances (often referred to as PFAS
or PFOA/PFOS or colloquially as "forever chemicals").
The Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
(DOT&PF) state airports are mandated by the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) to utilize
PFAS-containing aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) for
firefighting purposes and not subject to state fire
marshal regulations given the federal requirement.
Under this language, the Department of Environmental
Conservation would ensure the state accepts "a
firefighting substance" containing PFAS. Clarification
provided by the sponsor identified that DOT&PF was the
state entity who would accept for disposal the AFFF
from persons in Alaska with a cap of 40 gallons per
year. There was further clarification that the
communities where this collection and disposal effort
would be targeted are those who participated in the
Project Code Red initiative (details below).
As context, Project Code Red was an initiative
spanning two decades (earliest mentions found are from
the early 2000s) that supplied a Conex container full
of firefighting equipment to rural Alaska villages
(see standard equipment manifest provided with this
fiscal note). Research indicates original funding for
Project Code Red was found to be a combination of
federal funds and state grants to the Alaska Villages
Initiative (AVI). In consultation with the AVI, the
entity who organized, assembled, and distributed
Project Code Red, a list of 138 rural communities were
cited as receiving Project Code Red equipment.
Research further indicates training on this equipment
was also provided by the Department of Public Safety
and their Office of Rural Fire Protection at each
village where equipment was provided. Review of a
community list (also attached) shows 132 communities
with some quantity of PFAS-containing AFFF for
disposal.
Given that context, DOT&PF anticipates, as directed by
this legislation and in cooperation with above listed
state and private entities, operating a contracted
program to ensure specialized environmental
contractors collect and dispose of any PFAS-containing
AFFF substance. One state funded position would be
required to coordinate the outreach, inventory
verification, contracting, and logistics of this
program with the following costs:
One FTE: PFAS Disposal Coordinator at Range 21, step
F; in the General Government Union (GGU)
Advance step placement up to F step allows department
to recruit an experienced contract coordinator.
Salary & Benefits: annually $87.0 salary, COLA
positioned in Fairbanks of $3.5, associated benefits
of $59.5 (total of $150.0)
Travel: $30.0 in FY 24 and FY 25 to establish program,
then taper down to $15.0 for FY 26 and FY 27 (travel
to rural villages for situations where community wants
it out but doesn't know status of AFFF inventory)
Commodities: $5.0 (computer, phone, etc.)
This PFAS disposal coordinator would be responsible
for reaching out to the 132 villages identified to
alert them to the existence of this disposal program.
Upon receipt of a request from an interested village,
the coordinator will draft and post a competitive bid
for contractor services to go out and collect
PFAS-containing substance(s). Referencing the Project
Code Red manifest, each village is anticipated to have
a baseline minimum of 5 gallons of AFFF and a 30-gallon
tank filled with a water/AFFF mixture in a "ready
state" for firefighting purposes. Given the 40 gallon
per year limit, the contractor would have to mobilize
once to dispose of the estimated 35 gallons for each
community. If the village has purchased, acquired, or
been gifted additional AFFF, additional years would be
necessary to capture the additional amounts, up to 40
gallons per year.
To get a cost estimate, the department reached out to
several environmental contractors for scenarios on
general cost estimates based on scope provided,
location and mode of transporting the disposal effort.
Contractor-A scenario used a methodology of provided a
range of costs from ~$6.0 for disposal via mostly
road, to ~$10.0 by mostly barge, and ~$15.0 by mostly
air to dispose of the 35 gallons (5-gallon AFFF
container in an overpack container and the 30 gallons
substance in the firefighting equipment to be drained
into a 55-gallon drum). This did not include site
survey cost estimates. The list of communities that
received Project Code Red equipment appears to require
more air travel than road or barge and, therefore, the
estimate provided reflects a higher average between
the barge and air options. Using this methodology, to
dispose of estimated 35 gallons in 132 villages would
cost $12.5 for each community for a total contractor
cost of $1,650.0.
Contractor-B scenario used a methodology based on bulk
activity for all work to be performed. This scope
included an initial site survey at an estimated cost
of $500.0, administrative duties and fees of $15.0,
mobilization and packing of disposal AFFF at $1,770.0,
transportation at $600.0, disposal at $500.0 and a
summary of disposal certification at $50.0 to address
all 132 remote site disposals. The total estimated for
this contractor to handle all disposal activities is
estimated at $3,435.0 (a competitive bid would be
required for each contract).
Averaging the two contractor cost estimates gives a
total minimum estimated capital appropriation of
$2,550.0 along with the personnel costs and all
assumptions detailed in this analysis. One significant
caveat to this analysis is with the language of the
legislation stating a "person in the state" leaves the
option for unknown quantities of AFFF yet to be
identified eligible for disposal. If individuals
outside of the villages listed on the Project Code Red
list come forward and qualify, capital funds
appropriated will be used on a first-come, first-serve
basis until such time as the capital appropriation is
exhausted. While unknown and therefore not captured in
the capital estimate of this fiscal note, the state
contemplates there could be a significant amount of
AFFF disposal from sources outside of Project Code Red
areas given the broad eligibility and the annual
nature of the disposal language proposed in this
legislation (no end date for acceptance of disposal
outside of department's personnel backout at the end
of FY 27).
The effective date of this bill, if enacted, would be
January 1, 2024. DOT&PF would look to hire the PFAS
disposal coordinator once the FY 24 budget was enacted
with capital funds available for contractor collection
and disposal starting the first quarter of calendar
year 2024.
Assumptions used in this analysis:
- In addition to disposal contract program costs, there
is the real potential for liability costs associated
with PFAS disposal
that cannot be quantified at this time but, under
reasonable consideration, could far exceed the costs
of this fiscal note should a spill or mishandling of
the PFAS-containing AFFF occur, even outside of the
states control.
- There are likely some villages where their AFFF is no
longer retrievable, either used for firefighting or
disposed of prior to
outreach, and would result in fewer gallons for
disposal in some contracts. An offset to this
assumption are communities that have procured
additional AFFF beyond the Project Code Red supply.
Given the unknowns in quantities of qualifying
parties, the department chose to use the presumed
numbers available in the absence of better inventory
data.
- The legislation only contemplates disposal of the "a
firefighting substance" and not the contaminated
equipment or container that is left behind.
- No alternative PFAS-free AFFF is currently authorized
at the time of this analysis and no provision of this
bill specifies replacement of firefighting substances.
- Toxic levels in drinking water have been established
at a federal level and classification as a hazardous
material is in progress at the federal level.
Mr. Mills stressed that the fiscal note was an estimate
based on the information currently available.
2:08:50 PM
Co-Chair Olson OPENED public testimony.
2:08:59 PM
PATTI SAUNDERS, ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of the
bill. She cited that there were currently PFAS poising
water supplies at 469 cites throughout Alaska. She
referenced the Alaska Community Water Quality Report
published by her organization (copy on file). She said that
all the waters tested were used for fishing and recreation.
She said that there were safe and economical alternatives
to PFAS currently being used all over the world. She said
that there were 33 alternatives that had been Green
Screen certified. She believed that the bill was a
critical first step in the prevention of future
environmental harm.
2:13:01 PM
MIKE CRAFT, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified
in support of the legislation. He offered a brief history
of the use of PFAS and the known environmental impacts of
the substance. He lamented that people could be watering
their gardens with contaminated water and not know the
water was poisoned.
2:15:01 PM
JUSTIN MACK, SECRETARY TREASURER, ALASKA PROFESSIONAL
FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
spoke in support of the bill. He worked as a captain in the
Anchorage Fire Department. He asserted that PFAS was a
known problem in the profession. He said that even with all
the best practices in place, firefighters were still
getting cancer due to PFAS exposure. He noted that there
were strict policies surrounding the chemical. He believed
that there were alternative chemicals available for
fighting fires.
2:17:09 PM
DYANI CHAPMAN, ALASKA ENVIRONMENT, ANCHORAGE (via
teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She
reiterated previous testimony about PFAS contamination in
Alaskas waters and wildlife. She listed states that had
chosen to use alternatives to PFAS to protect firefighters
and the environment. She thought alternatives to PFAS had
been well tested in states with wildfires. She urged the
passage of the legislation.
2:19:07 PM
LESA HOLLEN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in
support of the bill. She shared that she was a
neuroscientist. She asserted that PFAS affected every part
of a mammal's body, passing through the blood/brain
barrier. She listed the myriad of ill effects of PFAS on
humans, predominately cancer. She spoke to the cost of
Medicare to address illnesses in the state.
2:21:36 PM
MARGARET TARRANT, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. She spoke of members of
her community that had been exposed to PFAS and
subsequently diagnosed with cancer. She reiterated previous
testimony on the ills of PFAS.
2:23:13 PM
AT EASE
2:23:31 PM
RECONVENED
2:23:57 PM
Co-Chair Olson CLOSED public testimony.
Senator Kiehl thanked the committee for considering the
legislation.
Co-Chair Olson set SB 67 aside.
SB 67 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.