Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 124
04/27/2005 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR10 | |
| SB144 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 27, 2005
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jay Ramras, Co-Chair
Representative Ralph Samuels, Co-Chair
Representative Jim Elkins
Representative Carl Gatto
Representative Kurt Olson
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Paul Seaton
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10
Supporting the development of the Kensington Gold Mine.
- MOVED HCR 10 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 144
"An Act relating to regulations, definitions, and permits under
the emission control permit program; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 144(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HCR 10
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORTING KENSINGTON GOLD MINE
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
04/19/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/19/05 (H) RES
04/27/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 144
SHORT TITLE: EMISSION CONTROL PROGRAM PERMITS/REGS
SPONSOR(s): RESOURCES
03/16/05 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/16/05 (S) RES, FIN
03/21/05 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/21/05 (S) Moved CSSB 144(RES) Out of Committee
03/21/05 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/22/05 (S) RES RPT CS 5DP 1NR
SAME TITLE
03/22/05 (S) DP: WAGONER, DYSON, STEVENS B, STEDMAN,
SEEKINS
03/22/05 (S) NR: GUESS
04/06/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/06/05 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/08/05 (S) FIN RPT CS(RES) 2DP 4NR
04/08/05 (S) DP: WILKEN, GREEN
04/08/05 (S) NR: BUNDE, HOFFMAN, OLSON, STEDMAN
04/08/05 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/08/05 (S) Moved CSSB 144(RES) Out of Committee
04/08/05 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/22/05 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/22/05 (S) VERSION: CSSB 144(RES)
04/25/05 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/25/05 (H) RES, FIN
04/27/05 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JIM POUND, Staff
to Representative Jay Ramras
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HCR 10 on behalf of the House
Resources Standing Committee.
RANDY MCGILVERY, Environmental Manager
Coeur Alaska
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed support for HCR 10.
AMY SEITZ, Staff
to Senator Thomas Wagoner
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented CSSB 144(RES) on behalf of the
Senate Resources Standing Committee.
JOHN KUTERBACH, Program Manager
Air Permits
Division of Air Quality
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding CSSB 144(RES).
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR JAY RAMRAS called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:10:08 PM. Representatives
Gatto, Crawford, Elkins, Olson, Samuels, and Ramras were present
at the call to order. Representatives Kapsner and LeDoux
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HCR 10-SUPPORTING KENSINGTON GOLD MINE
1:10:23 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10, Supporting the
development of the Kensington Gold Mine.
1:10:30 PM
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS moved to adopt the committee substitute for HCR
10, labeled 24-LS0925\F, Bullock, 4/21/05, as the working
document. There being no objection, Version F was before the
committee.
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Jay Ramras, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HCR 10 on behalf of the House Resources
Standing Committee, sponsor by request, which is co-chaired by
Representative Ramras. Mr. Pound explained:
[House Concurrent Resolution] 10 is a support
resolution for the Kensington Gold Mine, which is
located north of Juneau. They're in the final stages
right now in their permitting process, and this
resolution will help with that final permitting
process. Once the permitting process is complete,
Kensington will hire approximately 300 construction
workers in order to build the mine. After that,
approximately 225 people will be in long-term
employment within the Juneau area. The company Coeur
Alaska does have a reputation for local hire and
working within the local regions of where they do
build their mines. So far they have spent over $150
million just on development, permitting, and going
through the legal process of preparing Kensington Gold
Mine for what they hope to be a groundbreaking some
time in the month of July. Again, this passage of
this resolution will show that the legislature, along
with the other supporters that you have in your
packets supports the improvement and increased mining
operations throughout the state.
1:11:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the $150 million also included
equipment purchases.
MR. POUND deferred that question to a Coeur Alaska
representative.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if any gold has been removed yet.
MR. POUND replied no.
1:12:51 PM
RANDY MCGILVERY, Environmental Manager, Coeur Alaska, thanked
the committee for introducing the resolution. He said that the
company has been in support of this bill for over 15 years,
during which they have "done an extensive job of public
communication and consultation involving all of the special
interest groups and stakeholders in the region." He commented
that the company is looking forward to starting the project this
summer.
1:14:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if there are 1 million ounces of gold
in the mine.
MR. MCGILVERY answered, "Yes.... Our annual production will be
100,000 ounces per year. So we're projecting 10 years of
operation at this time."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the mine would close in 10 years.
MR. MCGILVERY answered that the mine would close unless the
company could develop future reserves.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the company would mine anything
other than gold, such as silver or platinum.
MR. MCGILVERY responded that it is a pretty unique deposit of
only gold.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked, "How much it would cost to produce a
single ounce: a couple hundred dollars?"
1:15:10 PM
MR. MCGILVERY replied that this was correct, and the current
price for gold is over $400 per ounce.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO calculated that Coeur would expect a profit
of about $1 million. He asked if the ore would be moved by a
barge.
MR. MCGILVERY answered, "We'll be producing a concentrate. ...
So 100 percent of the ore goes to the mill: 95 percent of that
material goes to the tailings impoundment, 5 percent of that
material is produced as a concentrate, and that goes off site to
a smelter."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if the tailings will be considered
environmental waste.
MR. MCGILVERY responded:
One of the things that's extremely important to know
about the project is that in the flotation process,
all of the metals, including the gold, are extracted
from the ore. So all that's left, essentially, is
beach sand. It has a lower concentration of metals
than the natural surrounding environment. It's so
important for us to nail the flotation process and
extract all the metals out.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if a chemical is used in the
flotation process.
MR. MCGILVERY answered that the chemical used is made of organic
polymers that degrade naturally in the impoundment.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked [how long it takes for the organic
polymers to degrade].
1:16:33 PM
MR. MCGILVERY answered that the process water is liberated from
the tailings through consolidation. As the tailings consolidate
over time, more and more of the process water comes out of the
tailings. He said that 90 percent of the consolidation occurs
in five years, and total consolidation is complete within 20
years.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked if there are any other mining
activities within 10 miles of the proposed mine.
MR. MCGILVERY replied that the closest mine is the Kennicott
Greens Creek mine on Admiralty Island.
1:17:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAMRAS asked, "Can you speak, briefly please, to
the philosophy that Coeur Alaska has toward paying its fair
share in taxes to the State of Alaska?"
MR. MCGILVERY replied that he is the environmental manager and
cannot answer that question.
1:18:03 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS closed public testimony.
1:18:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS moved to report the committee substitute
for HCR 10, labeled 24-LS0925\F, Bullock, 4/21/05, with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHCR 10(RES) was reported from the
House Resources Standing Committee.
SB 144-EMISSION CONTROL PROGRAM PERMITS/REGS
1:18:34 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 144, "An Act relating to regulations,
definitions, and permits under the emission control permit
program; and providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS moved to adopt CSSB 144(RES), labeled 24-
LS0677\F, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version F was before the committee.
1:19:22 PM
AMY SEITZ, Staff to Senator Thomas Wagoner, Alaska State
Legislature, presented CSSB 144(RES), labeled 24-LS0677\F, on
behalf of the Senate Resources Standing Committee, sponsor by
request, which is chaired by Senator Wagoner. She explained:
Senate Bill 144 is a cleanup bill. Back in 2003 the
legislature passed a bill, I believe it was House Bill
160, that's purpose was to streamline the Alaska air
permitting program by aligning it to the federal
requirements for air permitting. And when [Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC)] was
adopting regulations to carry the changes out they
realized that there were some problems that were
missed that needed to be addressed - not very serious
ones, but ones that needed to be addressed so that
they could be in alignment with federal regulations
for requirements, and so the state could keep the
primacy over the air permitting process.
One of the changes is that it just works with the
definitions, makes sure the definitions match federal
definitions. And another change is dealing with the
fees. Right now the air permitting program is funding
entirely by its user fees. So SB 144 puts in a way
for {ADEC] to revoke permits if the fees are not paid.
This will ensure that the air permitting program can
continue being funded by fees.
1:22:23 PM
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS asked if "major source" is a federal term.
MS. SEITZ replied that the definition of "major source" referred
to on page 2, line 7 of the bill.
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS asked if "stationary source" is also a federal
term.
MS. SEITZ deferred the question to an ADEC representative.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what the actual federal definition
for "major source" was.
MS. SEITZ deferred the question to a ADEC representative.
1:23:32 PM
JOHN KUTERBACH, Program Manager, Air Permits, Division of Air
Quality, Department of Environmental Conservation, stated that
he was available to answer questions from the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX reiterated her question regarding the
federal definition of "major source."
1:24:10 PM
MR. KUTERBACH replied that the federal definition comes from the
Clean Air Act, and he said, "It parrots the language that is
being removed, but not exactly." He pointed out that under the
Clean Air Act the term "major source" means: "Any stationary
source or group of stationary sources located within a
contiguous area and under common control that is either of the
following: a major source as defined in Section 112, or a major
stationary source as defined in Section 302 or Part D of Title
I." He noted that the difference between that federal
definition and the current state definition is that the federal
definition refers to a stationary source or a group of
stationary sources under common control, while the state law
only refers to a single stationary source. Therefore, he
explained, the state regulations are not as stringent as the
federal regulations, and cannot be approved under Title V of the
Clean Air Act.
1:25:46 PM
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS turned to page 4, line 22 of the bill and noted
that the bill would give the ADEC the ability to revoke a minor
permit. He asked for an explanation of the difference between a
minor permit and a major permit.
MR. KUTERBACH clarified that the difference between a minor
permit and a major permit was spelled out two years ago in House
Bill 160. He said that the minor permit program are those
permits that are required for management of Alaska's air quality
that aren't specifically required under the federal Clean Air
Act, and it is based on the potential of [a facility] to emit
air pollutants. He pointed out that the reason why this part of
the bill only refers to minor permits and not major permits is
that major permits must be renewed every five years and the
state has the ability to refuse renewal if fees aren't paid.
Whereas minor permits may last forever and therefore, he
concluded, the state needs to have the authority to revoke those
permits if the fees aren't paid.
1:27:15 PM
CO-CHAIR SAMUELS noted that on page 6, line 3, the bill would
repeal AS 46.14.990(18). He asked what this statute says.
MR. KUTERBACH replied that this would repeal the definition of
modification, which was originally needed two years ago in House
Bill 160 to tell what types of modifications need new permits.
However, he said, there is nothing currently in statute that
refers to modifications and therefore this definition isn't
needed. He noted, "The definition that we did have prevented us
from using that term in our regulations consistent with the
federal regulations."
1:28:23 PM
CO-CHAIR RAMRAS closed public testimony.
1:28:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE OLSON moved to report CSSB 144(RES) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO clarified that the committee was moving
Version F of the bill. There being no objection, CSSB 144(RES)
was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 1:29:04PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|