Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
03/02/2005 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB53 | |
| SB110 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 110-POLLUTION DISCHARGE & WASTE TRMT/DISPOSAL
CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER announced SB 110 to be up for
consideration.
KURT FREDRIKSSON, Acting Commissioner, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), supported SB 110 regarding the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Assumption. He wanted to focus on how it will strengthen the
ability of Alaskans to protect the state's water resources and
build a strong economy.
3:58:29 PM
Since creation of DEC in 1971, our duties have been
clearly spelled out by the Legislature to adopt and
enforce regulations, which set standards for the
control of water, land and air pollution (AS
44.46.020). DEC fulfills these state obligations
consistent with national pollution control programs
authorized under the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.
These state and federal laws are designed to
accomplish uniform environmental quality goals
nationwide using pollution controls tailored to each
state's unique circumstances.
DEC currently exercises all the authorities granted by
the Alaska Legislature as well as the United States
Congress to protect Alaska's air quality and drinking
water. The same is not true for protecting the quality
of Alaska's surface water. The federal Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is the water authority in
Alaska. Alaska, like four other states, has allowed
wastewater permitting authority to remain with the
federal government.
EPA makes the wastewater permitting rules in Alaska.
EPA decides what's important and what's not. EPA
decides the permit review timeframes. EPA decides what
goes into the permits and who gets inspected. EPA
decides how Alaska's water quality standards will be
applied to specific discharges. EPA sets Alaska's
water quality priorities.
As you know, Governor Murkowski is committed to permit
streamlining that eliminates duplicative, unnecessary
procedures, which invite litigation and add time and
cost without additional environmental protection.
Governor Murkowski is committed to permit streamlining
that aligns our regulator requirement with real Alaska
conditions and focuses on the real risks to Alaska's
water quality.
DEC has made significant progress in streamlining its
permit programs, but when it comes to wastewater
permitting, we cannot fix what we don't control.
Alaska has never pursued the opportunity provided by
the federal Clean Water Act to shape the NPDES water
pollution control permit program to fit Alaska's
unique circumstances. SB 110 would allow DEC to
develop a comprehensive water quality protection
program where all program components, from legislative
budgeting and oversight to fieldwork and enforcement,
are conducted here in the state where Alaskans can
shape solutions to fit Alaska's challenges. Alaskans
are capable of protecting our water resources.
A state permit program will be based on Alaska's
priorities, not national priorities that are one-size-
fits-all. DEC's permit priorities, level of effort and
performance measures would be subject to annual review
and approval by Alaskans through their elected
officials in the state Legislature.
A state run program will place permit decision makers
closer to the Alaskan public and regulated permit
holders. No longer will permits be written and
enforced by federal staff unfamiliar with Alaska's
unique environment.
The state-run permit program won't be free. When EPA
issues permits in Alaska, the costs are borne by the
U.S. taxpayer. A state permit program will shift
authority and responsibility to the state, but it will
also shift some of the costs to permit holders and the
state.
Federal programs do not adapt easily to Alaska.
National goals do not always address our greatest
needs. Alaska's elected representatives have made
clear our commitment to environmental protection and
our responsibility to develop our resources for the
wellbeing of all Alaskans. If we are to realize the
primacy for resource development, we must accept
responsibility for managing our water resources. That
means assuming primacy for the NPDES program. With
primacy there will be no rollback of environmental
protection; anyone who supports primacy on that basis
will be disappointed.
NPDES primacy means:
· A faster, more effective program for protecting
our water resources
· Alaskan industries and communities working with
Alaskan permitters on permits that reflect our
priorities and unique conditions
· Less emphasis on a cumbersome process and more
emphasis on results.
· Less emphasis on one-size-fits-all permits and
more emphasis on specific risks to Alaska's
environment.
· Permitting accountability to Alaska's elected
officials and public.
It is time for Alaskans to take responsibility for
protecting Alaska's environment. To do otherwise means
continuing the status quo. The status quo is
unacceptable.
4:02:30 PM
DAN EASTON, Director, Division of Water, SB 110 started with
Senate Bill 326 (enacted in 2002) and directed DEC to evaluate
the potential benefits and consequences of the state assuming
primacy of the NPDES program. The department released its report
in January 2004.
The report recommended that the state seek primacy and
determined that it would need a total of 43 positions
and a budget of $4.8 million to run the program based
on workload models and comparisons with other states.
Last year, the Legislature passed House Bill 546
directing the state to apply for partial NPDES primacy
just for the timber sector. The fiscal note with the
bill provided a full-time position and a combination
of state and one-time federal grant funds for the
effort.
In an unexpected twist, EPA notified DEC last October
that partial primacy for just the timber sector would
be "problematic." Reconciling ourselves to second-
best, we executed a "work share agreement" with EPA.
That agreement makes DEC the lead in the substantial
effort of developing the next general permit for log
transfer facilities, but it will remain an EPA issued
and enforced permit absent state primacy for the full
NPDES program.
4:04:49 PM
In November 2004, DEC formed an advisory workgroup to
examine the concerns, costs and benefits associated
with state primacy specifically from the permittee
perspective.
The work group met in six day-long meetings between
November 2004 and January 2005. Members from each
major NPDES permittee group participated - the Alaska
Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), the Alaska Forest
Association (AFA), the Alaska Miners Association
(AMA), the Alaska Water and Wastewater Management
Association and the Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium. Public notice of the meeting schedule was
provided and the meetings were open to the public.
workgroup proceedings, findings and recommendations
were captured in a report completed last month. The
report is available on the department's web site.
4:05:50 PM
MR. EASTON said in the end this report says that support for
state assumption of the NPDES program varied between the
permittee sectors.
The department's budget currently includes about $3.3
million and 30 staff devoted to activities that would
contribute to the state NPDES permitting program.
Those figures include the resources provided for the
timber primacy effort. These positions currently are
certifying the NPDES permits issued by EPA as required
by the Clean Water Act and issuing state permits for
small discharges that EPA has not made a priority.
Bridging the gap between current resources ($3.3
million and 30 positions) and what is required to
operate a state program ($4.8 million and 43
positions) will require an additional $1.5 million and
13 new positions.
Costs would be divided between state general funds,
federal grant funds and permitting fee receipts.
Permit fees will be based on charging for direct costs
according to the resource agency fee policy
established by House Bill 261 in they year 2000.
4:08:34 PM
SENATOR BERT STEDMAN asked if fish streams and mixing zones
would be protected and what would be the difference in fees to
the end user compared to the situation today.
MR. EASTON replied that mixing zones are a permitting tool
provided for in state regulation and are not really affected by
the issue of NPDES primacy. The current policy established in
2000 for fees states that the state charges for direct and
indirect costs. The actual change would not be that great and he
would continue to apply fees the way they are now.
SENATOR KIM ELTON asked how much EPA spends on the Alaska NPDES
program and how many employees it has.
MR. EASTON replied that the state has 30 employees and the total
is 51; so EPA has 21.
SENATOR ELTON assumed that EPA is spending more than $1.5
million on 21 employees. He asked if Mr. Easton's division could
do it cheaper and with less staff.
4:12:29 PM
MR. EASTON replied that the actual combined number of employees
working on NPDES permits would go down from 51 to 43. "That's
what happens when you have one agency doing something instead of
two."
SENATOR ELTON asked what happens if a future legislature gives
him a smaller budget and does he have the authority to increase
receipts from the industry or if he doesn't do that, does EPA
yank the program back from him.
MR. EASTON replied no he does not have authority through the
budget process to increase fees, because the fee policy is
established by statute. The department can only charge for
direct costs. "Yes, ultimately if general funds were reduced to
a point where we couldn't operate the program satisfactorily, we
would run a risk of having to yield it back to EPA."
4:14:18 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked if EPA has ever taken that authority back
from other jurisdictions.
MR. EASTON replied no.
SENATOR ELTON remarked that on page 5, there seems to be a
change in the hearing process for a permit that would allow the
permit applicant to meet with staff prior to the public hearing
process and asked if EPA has that format now.
MR. EASTON replied that EPA does not have that format, but the
state does. It is called the provision for pre-application
conference. He is proposing using a state process in lieu of the
current federal process.
SENATOR GRETCHEN GUESS supposed if there were budget cuts and
the EPA took primacy back, it seems that the processing time for
permitting would increase.
MR. EASTON replied that would be the case.
4:16:22 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked if there was a legal opinion on whether or
not the EPA would support this bill, particularly section 5
about how the program would run.
MR. EASTON replied that EPA has worked within the workgroup and
is thoroughly familiar with everything in the bill, but it would
not be completely accurate to say that it has no problems. Some
elements of the state program will need some discussion and
work.
CHAIR WAGONER summarized that the state would take $2.2 million
out of the general fund and then charge applicants an additional
$300,000 that they are not currently paying to increase the
speed of processing. "Now, how much faster is the permitting
going to be?"
4:18:22 PM
MR. FREDRIKSSON remarked that the federal permit program
operates everything from small discharges to the Red Dog Mine
discharges. DEC looked at what efficiencies could be brought
about, and at mining in particular, and has calculated 31 months
to get an NPDES for a large mining operation today. He thought
the state could do it in 18 months.
We feel we can have not only a more efficient
permitting process, but a permitting process that's
targeted really on Alaska realities as opposed to what
we tend to see with the EPA. This is not taking a shot
at them, but they are coming from a national level.
They treat things across the board as a one-size-fits
all and we think we can break through that. So, that
is what this offers.
CHAIR WAGONER asked if the state reduces permitting time from 36
months to 18, that would be saving them a lot of money, so why
are we only receiving $300,000 in fees. "Why aren't we
collecting more?"
4:20:57 PM
MR. EASTON replied that it would be possible to make a policy
that would collect more fees, but he didn't recommend it right
now.
SENATOR GUESS asked since part of this is wastewater, would
those rates increase in Anchorage.
MR. EASTON replied that they would go up. He elaborated that
many coastal communities have a 301(h) waiver. Juneau isn't one,
but Anchorage is, as well as Petersburg, Ketchikan and others.
Those permits are not delegatable by the EPA. There won't be an
increase in fees, but they don't get the state to be their
permitter.
4:22:50 PM
SENATOR ELTON asked if the state takes primacy on issuing
permits, does it incur obligations to enforce conditions.
MR. EASTON replied yes. Permitting includes a lot of things -
developing, modifying, renewing permits, as well as inspection
enforcement and review of discharge monitoring reports. It's all
reflected in the fiscal note.
SENATOR ELTON asked if that would include potential legal fees.
MR. EASTON replied yes.
4:24:03 PM
STEVE BORELL, Alaska Miners Association, testified that it was
not until last fall that the mining industry was convinced that
state primacy was best for Alaska. He commended an article in
the "Alaska Miner" on its benefits. Other factors not mentioned
earlier are EPA decisions on Alaska permits in light of court
cases decided elsewhere in the country and with concerns to
other developments in region 10. The EPA decisions might require
including conditions that do not fit Alaskan conditions, which
causes problems for the permittee. He supported state primacy
and SB 110.
4:27:06 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked what other states don't have primacy and if
he thought that the EPA only looks at states where it will still
do the permitting or look at all the states.
MR. BORREL replied that the only other state he knows of is
Idaho. If there is an issue going on somewhere in the country,
EPA's consideration of it sometimes causes Alaskans to suffer.
4:29:35 PM
BERYL HUBBARD, Vice President, Trident Seafood Corporation,
supported state primacy. All fisheries depend on high
environmental quality, particularly high water quality.
"Commercial sales rely on the image of that." Actual or
perceptions of environmental quality are vital to the seafood
industry. Primacy offers Alaskans greater control of programs
and accountability before the state. Alaska will enforce the
Clean Water Act and state regulations more efficiency. The
economy gained through the efficiency of public services is
beneficial to business. In terms of environmental stewardship
and regulatory management, the state would be better able to run
its program more efficiently. The state having primacy would
make it easier for the two agencies to work together.
4:35:05 PM
MR. HUBBARD emphatically stated that Mr. Easton and Mr.
Fredriksson are exceptional individuals in terms of their
managerial abilities.
4:37:00 PM
BOB ROBICHAUD, Associate Director, Office of Law, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) supported SB 110. He noted that only
five states do not have program authority. He has worked closely
with the state over the last couple of years and DEC has great
staff working here.
4:39:30 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked if it's EPA's opinion that unlike the past
bill, the provisions in SB 110 are not problematic.
MR. ROBICHAUD replied that for the most part, that is true, but
there will be discussion over some things.
SENATOR GUESS asked if Alaska is not at risk of having another
problematic bill next year.
MR. ROBICHAUD replied that is correct.
4:40:55 PM
DICK COOSE, Concerned Alaskans for Research and Envy (CARE) and
retired federal forester, supported SB 110. "In my mind, this in
only one of several programs in which the federal government
continues to treat the state of Alaska like a territory." It is
important to note that local knowledge of resource management is
more efficient than that used by the EPA. The DEC works better
with local people and uses sound science. He used the example
of EPA discharge policy for canneries in Ketchikan that required
the fish waste to be ground up like flour and to be kept in a
one-acre spot. Before it was just chopped up. This requirement
was just picked out of the air and has caused nothing but
problems.
The resources of Alaska are its wealth. Its financial health
depends on sound management policies; the funding of this
program is small, but its benefits are great.
4:45:24 PM
SENATOR GUESS mentioned that three industries are not
represented in the working group - construction, oil and gas and
wastewater. She asked why they are not there and if he speaks on
their behalf.
MR. EASTON replied that it is dangerous to speak for other
people and he would encourage the industry to express their
views.
CHAIR WAGONER said there is plenty of time to hold this bill.
4:47:52 PM
SENATOR ELTON noted his concerns with provision 4 that set up
the recipe for the public hearing process. He also asked if the
permit process dropping from 31 months to 18 is an important
component in the time savings. If it is, he wanted to know how
much of a component is it.
MR. EASTON replied that he assumed Senator Elton didn't want an
immediate response and that he would work on it for the next
hearing.
4:49:55 PM
CHAIR WAGONER thanked Mr. Easton for his very thorough
presentation and adjourned the meeting at 4:50:32 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|