Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
04/05/2019 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 | |
| Presentation(s): U.s. Army Corps of Engineers | |
| HB27 | |
| HB3 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 5, 2019
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Dave Talerico
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Sara Rasmussen
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Lincoln, Co-Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
PRESENTATION(S): U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
- HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 27
"An Act relating to the manufacture, sale, distribution, and
labeling of child-related products containing certain flame
retardant chemicals; relating to an interstate chemicals
clearinghouse; adding unlawful acts to the Alaska Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Act; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 3
"An Act relating to the purchase and sale of state land;
relating to discounts for veterans on state land purchases; and
relating to the assignment of permanent fund dividends to
purchase state land."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 27
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION OF FLAME RETARDANT CHEMICALS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
02/20/19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/19
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) RES, L&C
04/03/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/03/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/03/19 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/05/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 3
SHORT TITLE: STATE LAND SALE; PFD VOUCHER AND ASSIGN.
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAUSCHER
02/20/19 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/7/19
02/20/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/19 (H) MLV, RES, FIN
03/13/19 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
03/13/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/13/19 (H) MLV, RES, FIN
03/14/19 (H) MLV AT 2:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/14/19 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/19 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/26/19 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/26/19 (H) Moved SSHB 3 Out of Committee
03/26/19 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/27/19 (H) MLV RPT 4DP 2NR
03/27/19 (H) DP: THOMR. PARSONSSON, JACKSON, TARR,
RAUSCHER
03/27/19 (H) NR: TUCK, LEDOUX
04/03/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/03/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/03/19 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/05/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
DAVID HOBBIE, Chief
Regional Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Alaska District
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "POA-2017-271 Project Brief," dated 4/5/19.
SHEILA NEWMAN, Deputy Chief
Regional Regulatory Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Alaska District
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Co-provided a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "POA-2017-271 Project Brief," dated 4/5/19.
JEFF TUCKER, Past President
Alaska Fire Chiefs Association
Kenai, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 27.
PAMELA MILLER, Executive Director
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 27.
VI WAGHIYI
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 27.
KATHERINE DUPLESSES
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 27.
KELLY MCLAUGHLIN
Gustavus, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Ms. Katherine Duplesses read the written
testimony of Ms. McLaughlin in support of HB 27.
PAUL MIRANDA, Southcentral Vice President
Alaska Professional Fire Fighters Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 27.
JENNIFER GIBBONS, Vice President
State Government Affairs
External Affairs
The Toy Association, Inc.
Sacramento, California
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 27.
ANDREW HACKMAN, Principal Lobbyist
Serlin Haley LLP
No city provided, Maine
POSITION STATEMENT: Representing the Juvenile Products
Manufacturers Association, testified in opposition to HB 27.
DARRELL BREESE, Staff
Representative George Rauscher
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Rauscher,
sponsor, answered questions regarding SSHB 3.
MARTY PARSONS, Director
Central Office
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SSHB 3.
ANNE WESKE, Director
Permanent Fund Dividend Division
Department of Revenue (DOR)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered a question regarding SSHB 3.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:31 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives Hannan,
Talerico, Spohnholz, Hopkins, and Tarr were present at the call
to order. Representatives Rasmussen, Rauscher, and Tuck arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
1:05:13 PM
^PRESENTATION(S): U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
PRESENTATION(S): U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
CO-CHAIR TARR announced the first order of business would be a
presentation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
1:06:38 PM
DAVID HOBBIE, Chief, Regional Regulatory Division, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Alaska District, co-provided with
Ms. Sheila Newman a PowerPoint presentation entitled, "POA-2017-
271 Project Brief," dated 4/5/19. Addressing slide 3, he
reviewed the USACE's two authorities in regard to oversight and
permitting activities or denial of the [proposed] Pebble Mine
Project. First, he explained, Section 10 of the 1899 Rivers and
Harbors Act gives the USACE authority and jurisdiction over work
that is done in, under, above, or through navigable waters. Due
to some of the facilities for Pebble, USACE's Section 10
authority is invoked for the project. Second, he said, Section
404 of the Clean Water Act [authorizes the USACE to issue
permits for] the discharge of fill material into waters of the
U.S., which includes wetlands. As the lead agency [on the
Pebble Mine Project], he continued, USACE must comply with other
federal laws: the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
the National Historic Preservation Act, the Magnuson Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Marine Mammals
Protection Act. All of these acts, he noted, will be evaluated
under this action.
1:09:00 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR referenced a USACE presentation in 2013 that was
provided to the Administrative Regulation Review Committee, in
which an authority under Section 103 of the [1972] Marine
Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act [also known as the
Ocean Dumping Act] was discussed. She asked whether this act
has any bearing on the environmental impact statement (EIS) for
the Pebble Project.
MR. HOBBIE replied that the Pebble Project is not proposing
anything that would invoke Section 103 of the aforementioned act
and therefore it isn't listed.
MR. HOBBIE returned to slide 3 and said the USACE is the lead
agency for this activity in large part because it has the
largest scope of authority for any of the other federal
agencies. Displaying slide 4, he said other federal decision
makers for the Pebble Project are the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
and the Department of Interior's Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement (BSEE). He pointed out that the
USCG's authority is strictly for the bridge over the Newhalen
River and that the BSEE is involved because [a permit is
required] for the right-of-way encompassing the proposed natural
gas pipeline that would lie on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
of Cook Inlet.
1:10:49 PM
MR. HOBBIE moved to slide 5, a diorama of USACE's decision-
making process. The USACE, he noted, is currently in the Public
Review process, highlighted in green. He said USACE received
the [permit] application in December 2017, the Notice of Intent
was published in 2018, and scoping was done from April through
June 2018 during which nine public meetings were held. The
draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) has been published,
he continued, which is what is currently out for Public Review,
which expires on May 30, 2019, and for which nine public
hearings will be held in the same locations as the scoping
meetings. So far, he added, five Public Review hearings having
been conducted, mainly in the [southwest], and the four
remaining hearings will be held in Anchorage, Homer, Dillingham,
and Nondalton.
1:12:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted that 20 legislators signed a letter
requesting a time extension for the Public Review process. She
asked why the USACE is sticking to its short 90-day review
period.
MR. HOBBIE responded that the USACE has yet to decide whether it
will or will not grant an extension. The USACE currently has
more requests to stay with the current timeline, but, he
qualified, it is not a voting process although it is something
that is taken into consideration. He pointed out that under
regulation the USACE is only required to conduct Public Review
for 45 days. Part of the rationale, he continued, is that the
USACE has a public facing web site that is updated daily with
live information. So, he said, the public has seen everything
that the USACE has seen up to the publishing of the DEIS [except
for] the comments that the USACE received after the DEIS. While
the current comment period is 90 days, Mr. Hobbie added, the
majority of the information has been available for much longer
than that.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN interpreted Mr. Hobbie's answer as saying
it is irrelevant how many people have asked [for an extension].
She said [those asking for an extension include]: Bristol Bay
Native Corporation, Bristol Bay Economic Development
[Corporation], Bristol Bay Native Association, United Tribes of
Bristol Bay, Bristol Bay Regional Seafood [Development
Association], Commercial Fishermen for Bristol Bay, and 20
members of the Alaska House of Representatives. She asked why
the Donlin [Gold Mine] permit review was extended to six months
while the Pebble Project's review is being held to 90 days,
which she agreed is double the minimal requirement.
MR. HOBBIE answered he hoped he didn't come across as meaning
that the people requesting an extension were irrelevant.
Rather, he said, he was trying to relate that there are requests
to not extend and that is taken into consideration, but it is
not the driver in totality. Regarding Donlin, he stated that
the applicant requested USACE to extend the comment period.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether an extension is
automatically granted if the corporation that is the developer
asks to extend it, but not automatic if citizens of the region
ask for it.
MR. HOBBIE replied it is not automatically granted, it is
something the USACE takes into consideration. He explained the
applicant was requesting an extension because it needed to do
additional fieldwork and data gathering. Because it knew that
that information would be needed, he continued, the USACE
determined that granting an extension was appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stated she is seeking an answer as to how
the people who live in the region can get more opportunity to
participate in the review. She remarked that from an office,
March through May might seem like a very long time, but for
people living in Alaska it is a changing time of seasons with
breakup, fishing being thought of, winter activities closing
out, and spring hunting, and therefore it is a very short window
of time. The local people have asked for an extension of time,
she said, and it seems like they are being disregarded.
1:16:33 PM
SHEILA NEWMAN, Deputy Director, Regional Regulatory Division,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) - Alaska District,
responded to Representative Hannan by providing some background.
She related that in spring 2017 the USACE asked all 31 Bristol
Bay tribal communities what would work for them as far as when
they would and would not be available to comment, and the
communities told the USACE they would not be available as late
as October and as early as May. In developing the strategy for
community involvement specifically in those rural and tribal
communities, she said, the USACE has in writing - from all the
tribes that responded - where and when they would like to meet,
and even what language they would like the communication to be
in. So, she continued, the USACE developed the timeframes for
these based specifically on community input.
1:17:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked when in the timeline depicted on
slide 5 did the cooperating agencies start providing their input
and cooperation.
MR. HOBBIE answered, "From the beginning."
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS therefore surmised that input from the
cooperating agencies began with the Department of the Army (DA)
Permit Application submitted in December 2017.
MR. HOBBIE replied it took the USACE a few weeks to invite them,
but that within a month all of the cooperating agencies were
onboard with all of the same information that the USACE had.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired about the ways in which the
questions and comments of the cooperating agencies have been
absorbed into the DEIS and looked into. He further inquired
whether there are any examples of when their concerns and
questions were addressed in the DEIS.
MS. NEWMAN responded that the cooperating agency comments on the
preliminary DEIS, before it was released publically, were all
assessed and there is a comment analysis report specifically for
those cooperating agencies comments publically available on the
project web site.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said he didn't have the web site at his
fingertips due to being in the committee meeting. He therefore
requested an example of some of those comments that were
addressed in the DEIS and not dismissed as not appropriate.
MS. NEWMAN answered she couldn't pull specific comments from her
head, but said she would provide the exact location of the
complete report once the presentation was done.
1:19:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to a June 29, 2018, letter from
the United Fishermen of Alaska (UFA). He said the letter raised
several dozen concerns, such as the effects of noise, dust,
vibration and traffic of the shoreline plant, risks on local air
quality from leaks from the natural gas pipeline system, and
runoff through culverts and nonpoint sources from disturbed
right of ways. He asked whether any of those concerns had been
addressed and whether Ms. Newman was familiar with the letter.
MS. NEWMAN replied that many letters were received and since UFA
is not a cooperating agency, she assumes the letter was a
scoping comment. After scoping, she said, the USACE did
incorporate specifically for some of those things and the
comments it received. For example, she continued, stream flow
reduction, impacts to groundwater, effects of climate
variability, turbidity, dust, water temperature, sedimentation,
and fish displacement were expressed during scoping and the
scoping report is available on the web site. These technical
questions by UFA and others were addressed in the EIS with some
unique analytical elements. So, she added, the short answer is
yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS offered his understanding, then, that the
concerns were brought in and addressed in the DEIS.
MS. NEWMAN responded correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS requested the committee be provided with
those scoping comments as well as the cooperating agency link.
MS. NEWMAN answered that those are all publically available on
the Pebble Project EIS web site.
1:21:22 PM
MR. HOBBIE moved to slide 6 and resumed the presentation. He
reviewed the State of Alaska approvals and permits and what
actions the state would need to take for Pebble to move forward
if the USACE were to grant a permit for the project. He pointed
out that the USACE permit would be only for placement of fill
material for the dam itself. The state, he said, would be the
one responsible for how tall and thick the dam would need to be
as well as other things such as what earthquake effects would
need to be considered. The state has a tremendous amount of
authority, more than does the USACE, he noted; there are things
USACE doesn't have the authority to look at, but the state does.
1:22:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN requested clarification on whether the
USACE does an assessment of the dam construction.
MS. NEWMAN replied that in the EIS the USACE assessed the
placement of fill and what those impacts would be. She said the
USACE also addressed the variables in the alternative with each
of the three primary methods of tailings dam construction:
centerline construction, upstream construction, and downstream
construction. She noted the applicant is proposing centerline
construction and in one of the variables the applicant is
proposing centerline and downstream construction. The USACE
assesses the effect of a dam being present, she pointed out. It
should not be confused with the stability of that dam as far as
the state dam safety program would go to determine whether the
structure is sound.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN offered her understanding that the USACE
does not assess the impacts of a dam failure or downstream
effects of a dam failure; the USACE assesses only the
construction of the dam.
MS. NEWMAN responded, "Two separate issues." She said the USACE
did a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), which is an
analysis of the effects of a failure with the dam. This was
something that was done for the first time with the Donlin. The
USACE, she explained, brought in dam experts, including the
State of Alaska's dam experts, and looked at a scenario of 55
percent tailings release from a breach in the structure. The
USACE assessed the effects of that in the EIS. It is two
different issues, she reiterated. One is about the stability of
the structure itself, which the USACE will not assess, but the
state dam safety program will. The second is an analysis that
falls under the context of NEPA, but the USACE took the extra
step of doing the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis.
1:24:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN requested an explanation of what a 55
percent dam failure is.
MS. NEWMAN answered that when looking at scenarios for tailings
releases, any percentage can be picked from 0 to 100 percent.
Given what the applicant is proposing as the method of
construction and what is known about the terrain, she said, the
dam experts determined that a 55 percent release of tailings was
a reasonable amount to assess for the purposes of the EIS.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether Ms. Newman is aware of the
Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR) communication in
August 2018 to its dam assessment coordinator asking that the
USACE do an assessment of a complete dam failure.
MS. NEWMAN replied she is not aware of internal communications
from the state's Department of Natural Resources.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN posed a scenario in which the Department
of Natural Resources has requested the USACE to increase the
percentage rate of failure assessment to 100 percent. She asked
whether USACE would do that or whether it would be a judgment of
USACE's engineers that 55 percent was the likely failure rate.
MS. NEWMAN responded that that failure rate was not taken into
consideration. She said the reasonableness of the effects of a
failure is what is analyzed in the EIS; it is not a dam safety
program. An extrapolation could be done of the further effects
of a greater release than 55 percent, she stated. The USACE is
not required to do a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis; rather
it was done because of the level of interest in this project.
The State of Alaska, she pointed out, can choose to do whatever
Failure Modes and Effects Analysis it likes.
1:26:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ inquired whether 55 percent represents
the amount that would be held back by the dam or the dam itself.
MS. NEWMAN answered that a 55 percent tailings release scenario
doesn't necessarily mean total dam failure. It means that there
is a breach in the core of the dam structure and tailings, which
are nothing more than mine waste, will be flushed downstream.
The USACE, she continued, looked at what would be the downstream
effect of a tailings failure, a scenario the agency would
characterize as being a low probability high consequence event.
Scenarios were developed for the bulk tailings storage dam,
pyritic tailings storage, and the water management prong. It is
just the effects of the release to the downstream resources, she
added, which is what the USACE is required to look at in the
EIS.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked what USACE's findings were for
the effects of dam failure.
MS. NEWMAN replied that the USACE hasn't drawn any conclusions
because the EIS is still in the draft stage, but the agency did
identify there would be dilution of tailings, which could be
just mine waste such as rock and soil flushed down the stream
system. There was identification, she stated, of a certain
distance downstream that there would be an effect. She said she
couldn't provide specifics without the EIS in front of her, but
suggested that a review of the Failure Modes and Effects
Analysis would show the scenarios and what, at this time, USACE
believes the downstream effects would be. She added that the
USACE may learn more when it goes through the public comment
period on the DEIS and then at that point it can draw
conclusions from the analysis.
1:28:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ offered her understanding that the
USACE is not required to assess the risk of dam failure, but
that USACE chose to do that given the interest in this project.
She asked why the USACE chose to do a Failure Modes and Effects
Analysis versus a risk assessment, and offered her understanding
that a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis is a little more
conceptual in nature.
MS. NEWMAN responded that the USACE uses exactly what the state
uses DNR's permitting risk assessment tool. Given it is used
by dam experts in the State of Alaska to determine probability
of potential dam failures and the severity of consequences, she
said, the USACE believed it was a good method to use in the EIS.
1:29:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ stated that the EIS process is a very
technical and detailed process to understand. She said she is
concerned about the public's ability to grasp all of the
information and be able to provide feedback in the time that is
being described. Given information on the web site is updated
daily, she surmised it would be very difficult for anyone who
wasn't a paid professional to be able to provide meaningful
feedback. She inquired whether this process is designed to
facilitate professionals who are engaged in this project or is
intended to have a broader discussion that involves people in
the communities that are impacted.
MS. NEWMAN replied that she has been answering the committee's
questions in a very technical manner. The purpose of the EIS,
she said, is to identify and disclose to the public what the
potential impacts of the project are. She explained that when
she says project she is meaning what Pebble has proposed in
its permit application. The information in the EIS is literally
what is being proposed and what the USACE anticipates those
effects to be. She said she is giving to the committee the
thought process behind how the USACE developed those models and
scenarios and that is not what the public is reviewing, unless
they choose to. There are definitely members of the public who
will want to dive into the baseline information, she noted. In
regard to the web site being updated daily, she explained it is
the information from the public that is updated daily. That is
something that the USACE is doing for the first time, she
pointed out, and if legislators wanted to put comments on the
web site the public would be able to see what legislators are
saying, thereby allowing the public to think about what
legislators are saying in relation to what they want to say
themselves. She said that is different than the project
information mentioned by Mr. Hobbie, which is the baseline data
that has now been out there for over a year.
1:32:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN referred to the decision-making process
[outlined on slide 5] and asked how many environmental impact
statements the USACE has completed in the past 12 months. She
clarified to Mr. Hobbie that she is referring to the [Alaska]
District and nationally, as a means for giving perspective to
the USACE's level of professionalism.
MR. HOBBIE estimated that in the district, as both the lead and
a cooperating agency, the USACE has completed approximately six.
He offered his guess that nationally the USACE probably
completes 20 environmental impact statements a year. He noted
that these numbers are just for the regulatory program.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN surmised the USACE must have a standard
procedure developed for doing this work.
MR. HOBBIE responded that the process is spelled out via
regulation, so the USACE cannot alter from the process itself.
He said the regulations have been around for decades and thus
the process is very well laid out. However, he noted, the
technical aspect of evaluating the information that comes in is
a bit of a different question and in answering that question he
would say that between the {Alaska] District, the USACE's third
party contractor, and the cooperating agencies, there is
probably 500 years of experience combined. Therefore, he
continued, he is comfortable saying yes to Representative
Rasmussen's question.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked whether, for the Pebble Project,
the USACE has followed the standard process it typically
follows, or has deviated from the process, or there is anything
special about the project that wouldn't allow the USACE to
follow the normal course that it has followed 20 times in the
last year.
MR. HOBBIE answered that the process is identical but there may
be some variables. For example, he said, because of the known
controversy around this project there has been much more public
engagement and involvement, including the public facing web
site, real time updates of the public web page with comments,
concerns, and information. So, the process is the same, he
added, but the extent to which things are done may change.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN offered her understanding that the
Pebble Project has had more public engagement than a typical
project.
MR. HOBBIE replied, "Yes."
1:36:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked what the other six district projects
are that the USACE has done.
MR. HOBBIE responded that they are Donlin [Gold Mine], Alaska
Stand Alone Pipeline (ASAP), Greater Mooses Tooth 1, Greater
Mooses Tooth 2, the Nanushuk Project, and the Liberty Project.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised the district Mr. Hobbie is
referring to is only Alaska.
MR. HOBBIE answered, "That is correct."
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether Mr. Hobbie would say the
Alaska District projects are substantially different than, or
really similar to, the rest of the U.S.
MR. HOBBIE replied that there are probably more permits for
large oil and gas extraction projects in Alaska than in other
areas. In regard to mining, he said West Virginia has
mountaintop mining. He related that he used to work in Florida
where phosphate mining was a big deal. There is surface mining
and there is gravel mining, he continued, and the techniques
utilized for surface mining are very similar. He noted that
Alaska has an abundance of aquatic resources, so projects in
Alaska often impact more aquatic resources than in other areas.
While states like Arizona and Wyoming are more arid than Alaska,
he added, they are very similar type projects.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised that compared to mines in West
Virginia, Nevada, and Arizona, mines in the Bristol Bay area
would be different in their analysis and needs.
MR. HOBBIE responded, "No, very similar; you might be looking at
different resource impacts." For example, he related, he worked
on a big project in Florida called Lake Bell, where the issue
wasn't fisheries but drinking water for three million people in
Miami. The resource was different, he said, but the overall
process and extraction of the material were very similar.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted the USACE has done projects in
Alaska and around the country. He surmised the USACE has the
ability to decide to dive deeper and look into additional points
of interest or points that might be more controversial.
MR. HOBBIE replied he would need to have an example in order to
provide an answer. The USACE cannot just say it wants a bunch
of extra stuff because it wants it, he said, there has to be
rationale justification for it.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS clarified he isn't looking for a specific
example, but is asking whether the USACE has the authority to be
able to say that this is something more interesting or needs
more information based on the EIS process.
MR. HOBBIE responded, "Not if it falls outside the scope of our
authority."
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS said he isn't looking at the USACE going
outside of what it is able to do. He offered his understanding
that for other projects the USACE held off waiting for more
information from others, like the state permitting process. For
example, he continued, the Chuitna Project was held off until
state permits could give further information.
MS. NEWMAN answered that the USACE is still constrained by its
authority. She explained Chuitna was a surface coal mine, and
coal mining is the only type of mining that has its own federal
law - the Surface Control Mining and Reclamation Act. So, she
continued, the only reason that that occurred was because the
Army, nationally, has a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with
the Office of Surface Mining saying that [the USACE] will
operate that way for surface coal mining. No such thing exists
for gold, phosphate, or copper, she said.
1:40:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS posed an example of the USACE wanting to
look more into impacts on the salmon streams. He asked whether
the USACE would have the authority to ask for more information
from the project's developers.
MR. HOBBIE replied that if the USACE believes it lacks
information to perform a reasonable analysis or an analysis,
then, yes, it could ask for additional information. He said
that in many areas the USACE looks to the state to help
understand whether the USACE has everything it needs to do a
complete analysis. With this regard, he continued, the USACE
would want to look heavily upon the state since the state has
the preponderance of expertise regarding fisheries in the state.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS offered his understanding that the Pebble
Partnership has not yet put forth its state permit applications.
MR. HOBBIE responded he doesn't know because he doesn't track
state permitting.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS offered his understanding that [the
Pebble Partnership] is going through the DEIS and will be doing
the state permitting process afterwards. He inquired whether
the USACE believes it currently has all the information it needs
and doesn't have any additional questions for what might come
out in the state permitting process.
MR. HOBBIE answered that the state is cooperating with the USACE
on this project, so if the state tells the USACE it is lacking
some analysis the USACE would look heavily into that. But, he
added, if the state needs the information for the state's
permitting, that has no impact on the USACE's evaluation.
1:42:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN offered her understanding that the
USACE is an independent audit that is based on the regulations
the Corps has to follow, and the state has its own permitting
process that it has to follow. She offered her further
understanding that everything the USACE does is science based.
MS. NEWMAN replied the USACE has factual determinations in rules
and must evaluate an application based upon those criteria.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN inquired whether the criteria the USACE
must follow have any social aspect from the public testimony.
She offered her opinion that she would like a project to be
based on the financial feasibility, which she knows the USACE
doesn't do, or the science behind it, or factors that don't
include emotion.
MS. NEWMAN responded that the USACE's decision on a permit
application falls into two broad categories. One category, she
said, is the factual determinations that are made under the
404(b)(1) analysis [of the Clean Water Act] and if an
applicant's proposed discharge complies with those 404(b)(1)
guidelines then that portion of the requirement is met. The
other category, she continued, is the public interest review,
and 21 public interest factors go into that, including things
like socioeconomics. The cultural resources, the land use and
management and subsistence type determinations, are in that
portion of the USACE's Record of Decision. But, she pointed
out, when the USACE talks about whether something is in the
public interest, it is talking about the national interest
because the federal government is not just looking at whether
this proposal is good for one state, it is whether the proposal
is within the public interest of the nation.
1:45:25 PM
MS. NEWMAN resumed the USACE's PowerPoint presentation. Turning
to the process requirements outlined on slide 7, she stated that
under the USACE's regulations this is a standard permit and for
any applicant a general standard permit usually occurs within
less that 120 days. The USACE, she continued, determined that
this particular permit application requires an EIS level of
analysis and that is 105 days. She explained she is making this
distinction because, as far as an authorization, it is still a
standard permit. She pointed out that the USACE made the permit
application publically available back in 2018. There is no
requirement for the USACE to do that, she said, and the agency
doesn't do that for other applications, but did it because of
the level of interest for this particular application. She
noted the USACE originally had a 30-day opportunity for the
scoping period but expanded it to 90 days, and that it will be
90 days for the DEIS.
MS. NEWMAN moved to slide 8 regarding public engagement. She
said that due to the level of public interest the USACE has done
a number of "extra-curricular" things. The application and the
baseline material were put on a public facing web site, thereby
providing the public with a year-plus to look at it. She
pointed out that there are no requirements for the USACE to do
that and the agency hasn't ever done that for any other
applications. Scoping was conducted and meetings were held in
nine locations, she noted, again not a requirement of the
process but something the USACE chose to do given the level of
interest. She further pointed out that the DEIS was made
available 10 days prior to the start of the 90-day public
comment period. The USACE has held routine media roundtables,
she noted, and newsletters have been sent to folks. The USACE
has made sure that there are multiple avenues for people to
comment, she added. These measures are above and beyond what
the USACE is required to do, which is to put a notice out there.
MS. NEWMAN displayed slide 9 regarding the public facing web
site and stated the USACE has done a lot of firsts for this
project. For example, she said, a geo-reference tool was put on
the web site so members of the public can pin their comments to
a specific location. The USACE has made comments available to
everyone regardless of where they have come from, whether they
are cooperating agency comments or an individual's neighbor, she
added. These comments can be seen in real time since the USACE
keeps the site updated every day.
1:48:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK referred to slide 7 regarding the process
requirement of a standard permit being [less than] 120 days. He
requested some examples of non-standard permits.
MS. NEWMAN answered that there are no non-standard permits. The
USACE makes issuances that are either general permits or just
standard permits.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired about the difference between a
standard and a general permit.
MS. NEWMAN replied that general permits generally take less than
60 days and are for any suite of type of activities - anything
from maintenance to exploration and surveying to minor discharge
of fill material. There is a whole suite of them, she said, and
she believes the USACE is up to 52 general permits now.
MS. NEWMAN returned to the presentation and addressed slide 10
regarding Alaska Native tribes. She said that specifically
because of where this project is located, the USACE reached out
to all 31 Bristol Bay region tribes about 10 months before the
USACE had the application to ask the tribes how best the USACE
could communicate with them for going through this process. She
offered her belief that 14 tribes responded and said they were
very specific about what their availability and lack of
availability was, where they wanted to meet, and how they wanted
to communicate. The USACE developed its strategy for tribes and
engagement based on their direct input to the agency, she
pointed out. The USACE has kept up its commitment to give the
tribes real time transparent information in a way that they
could receive it because of the lack of connectivity in some of
the rural communities. For example, she continued, a lot of the
information has gone to them via thumb drives, disks, and hard
copies, and there have been lots of meetings in communities.
She further noted that since many of these tribes are sovereign
nations there have also been many government-to-government
consultations.
1:50:51 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR noted this is the third hearing on the Pebble
Project, the first being with the project proponents and the
second being with project opponents or people with concerns. It
was heard in the second hearing, she related, that travel over
tribal lands would be required in some areas, but that there
isn't willingness at this time to provide such access. She
asked how the USACE evaluates this or whether it falls outside
the USACE's operations.
MR. HOBBIE responded that the USACE has heard this on the news
but has nothing in writing from anyone saying that access would
be required over these lands and would be restricted. He said
that if in the end the USACE determined to grant a permit
authorization the agency would look at the least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) [slide 5]. Practicable
would be the key piece, he continued, because if the land was
not available then there is no longer a practicable alternative
and it may limit the ability for Pebble to look at certain
alternatives if it is unable to cross the land. However, he
added, the USACE's permit is not authorized for real estate
interest at all and that is something Pebble would have to
acquire. He said that if the USACE had in writing from the
appropriate people who owned the appropriate land that they
wouldn't authorize this, then yes, those alternatives might
become moot at that point.
CO-CHAIR TARR offered her understanding that all four
alternatives have the land crossings. She inquired whether the
USACE's receipt of such a communication would have any impact on
this part of the process or whether it would be part of what the
USACE would incorporates into its final Record of Decision.
MS. NEWMAN answered that each of the three action alternatives
has a portion that crosses corporation land, or Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) corporation land, or village
corporation land. So, she said, it would come into play in the
USACE's determination of which alternative is practicable at
that point in time.
1:53:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK offered his understanding that the USACE
hasn't received [notice] of any restrictions to access the
lands. Given the EIS process is a long and expensive process,
he asked why the USACE wouldn't first ensure that there is
access before taking on this endeavor.
MR. HOBBIE replied that the USACE doesn't have the authority.
In further response to Representative Tuck, he stated that the
USACs permits do not give any real estate rights or interests
and the USACE has no authority to compel an applicant to prove
it has access to land.
MS. NEWMAN resumed the USACE's presentation. Turning to slides
11-13, she provided an overview of the applicant's proposal.
She said the transportation corridor for the proposed project
includes a road from the mine site to the north side of Lake
Iliamna with an ice-breaking ferry, then down another
transportation corridor to Amakdedori Port and a gas pipeline
over to Anchor Point on the Kenai Peninsula. The mine site
itself, she noted, is a typical surface mine complete with
tailings facilities, open pits, and water management ponds.
1:55:50 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR pointed out that the committee didn't get to talk
about the transportation corridor in the prior two meetings.
She asked whether the USACE, under its evaluation and authority,
is looking at the least damaging alternative. She said the
committee has heard that travel across the lake can be very
dangerous, more like ocean travel than lake travel, and asked
how this is factored in for the practicality. She further
offered her understanding that this transportation corridor is a
new part of the proposal.
MS. NEWMAN responded that the USACE must analyze what the
applicant proposes, and this is what the applicant is proposing
to do in its application. She said the development alternatives
include a difference in the transportation corridor - another
alternative transportation route would be along the north side
of Lake Iliamna and over into a port site in Iniskin Bay.
Safety is one consideration of the 21 public interest factors
that the USACE reviews, she explained. When evaluating all of
the alternatives to make a LEDPA determination, she continued,
the USACE must be cognizant that the alternatives meet the
applicant's purpose and need. To have a functioning mine site
and bring minerals to market requires the transportation
corridor and the mine site.
MS. NEWMAN returned to the presentation and discussed the extent
of the USACE's jurisdiction outlined on slide 14. She said
many, many things will go on with the mine, but the things that
the USACE can actually authorize or not authorize are listed on
the slide. These are the only things within the whole endeavor
that fall within the USACE's authorities, she added. These
authorities are the work within the navigable waters and the
discharged fill material, basically earthen materials, into
wetlands. She explained that at the end of this process, if the
USACE does decide to issue a permit, the only things it will
issue a permit for are the things listed on slide 14.
MS. NEWMAN moved to slide 15. She noted the interdisciplinary
team is required under NEPA and includes the USACE and a team of
independent scientific experts from AECOM covering every
resource area that USACE analyzes, plus the cooperating agencies
that joined the USACE in writing the DEIS.
MS. NEWMAN displayed slide 16 and summarized the presentation.
She said the USACE's analysis is constrained by its authorities.
The USACE, she continued, has taken unprecedented steps for
public engagement and made a special effort with its engagement
of rural communities and tribes. She said the regulatory
division of the USACE does not have a vested interest whether
this project does or does not happen. At the end of this
process, she noted, the USACE will provide a minimum of 30 days
after release of the Final EIS (FEIS) before making a decision.
CO-CHAIR TARR inquired whether the USACE would be available for
additional follow-up or if the committee submitted questions.
MR. HOBBIE answered that Ms. Newman will be going to Washington,
DC, in a week, and the USACE will be conducting four more
hearings over the next two weeks. So, he continued, timing is
currently difficult with regard to having this type of
interaction. Right now, is the comment period, he added, so if
the committee has comments it should submit them. Any questions
should be submitted in writing, he said, and the USACE would do
its best, although he couldn't guarantee answers in one or two
days. He encouraged the committee members to attend the
remaining public hearings.
2:00:52 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR requested committee members to state any further
questions they might have.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recalled an earlier statement that the USACE
looks heavily to the state for data information. He asked
whether the state's process occurs consecutively, concurrently,
or before the USACE's process.
MR. HOBBIE replied concurrently.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether the state is keeping up with
the USACE.
MR. HOBBIE responded there hasn't been a challenge with the
state thus far. At one time the state was short for some
technical expertise from fisheries, he said, but the USACE gave
an extension and the state met it.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN pointed out that there have been no prior
questions or information, even from the mine, about the 1,900-
foot-long causeway wharf or the 122 miles of natural gas
pipeline that would cross two bodies of water.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the USACE has taken any
steps to verify that there is an economic viability for a 20-
year mine. He further asked that given the size of the ore body
with the potential for a 70- or 80-year mine plan, why the USACE
is not looking at reasonable, foreseeable expansions of the
project and evaluating it on a larger scale which is highly
likely in the future.
CO-CHAIR TARR stated the committee might follow-up with the
USACE on some of the aforementioned issues.
HB 27-REGULATION OF FLAME RETARDANT CHEMICALS
2:03:18 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 27, "An Act relating to the manufacture, sale,
distribution, and labeling of child-related products containing
certain flame retardant chemicals; relating to an interstate
chemicals clearinghouse; adding unlawful acts to the Alaska
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act; and
providing for an effective date."
2:03:38 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR continued with the public testimony on HB 27 [that
was opened on 4/3/19].
2:03:40 PM
JEFF TUCKER, Past President, Alaska Fire Chiefs Association,
testified in support of HB 27. He stated the association fully
supports the bill in its current form and has supported other
forms in the past. He related that on a national basis
firefighters are experiencing a great increase in cancers caused
by the materials currently being fought in fires. Banning these
types of materials, he continued, would be a great step towards
helping to protect firefighters and the folks that firefighters
serve. He urged that the bill be passed.
2:05:55 PM
PAMELA MILLER, Executive Director, Alaska Community Action on
Toxics, testified in support of HB 27. She related that on
March 19 [2019] the Anchorage Assembly unanimously passed a
substantially similar law called the Protecting the Health of
Children and Firefighters Ordinance. Passing HB 27 would
protect the health of people throughout the state, she added.
MS. MILLER said flame retardants are hazardous and can cause
lifelong harm. Babies and toddlers have higher exposures than
adults, she noted, and these chemicals have disproportionately
negative health effects on children. The scientific evidence is
very clear, she continued. Flame retardant chemicals are
associated with serious adverse health effects, including
cancers, neurodevelopmental, and reproductive harm.
MS. MILLER stated that flame retardants do not provide proven
fire safety benefits and fire safety standards can be met
without them. Flame retardant chemicals make products more
toxic while in use, she said, and more toxic if they catch fire.
Flame retardants increase the risk of cancer and other diseases
in firefighters because they make fires more toxic. She noted
that firefighters are exposed to flame retardants at levels two
to three times higher than the general population and they
experience increased risk of a number of cancers. For example,
she continued, the breast cancer rate among women firefighters
is six times the national average, as demonstrated in the study
of San Francisco firefighters. The Consumer Product Safety
Commission, she reported, determined that organohalogen flame
retardants are associated with adverse health effects, such as
reproductive impairment, neurodevelopmental harm, endocrine
disruption, cancer, and immune disorders.
MS. MILLER said states are taking the lead on these issues
because necessary change isn't happening at the federal level.
She related that there are 40 adopted policies on flame
retardants in 13 states and 28 policies are being considered now
in 17 states.
MS. MILLER pointed out that health care for firefighters with
cancer can cost more than $1 million per person, not to mention
the pain and suffering of their families and community. Death
for firefighters and first responders has a huge social cost,
she added, plus there are the death benefits that can and should
be provided to survivors. Inaction will cost the taxpayers in
the long run, she continued. Alaska has the opportunity to lead
and build on the foundation of law now passed in Anchorage as
well as other states, she said in conclusion.
2:10:02 PM
VI WAGHIYI testified in support of HB 27. She stated she is a
tribal citizen of the Native village of Savoonga and is speaking
today as a mother and grandmother on behalf of her children,
grandchildren, and future generations. She related that there
is strong support for the bill in her community and other
communities in the region, and letters of support have been
submitted. She said Kawerak, Inc. submitted a letter of support
and is the regional Native nonprofit representing and serving 20
communities in her region.
MS. WAGHIYI continued as follows:
Community-based research has shown high levels of
these flame retardant chemicals in our homes,
traditional foods, and in the blood of our people. We
are disproportionately exposed and have some of the
highest levels of these and other persistent chemicals
of any population on the planet because of our place
in the Arctic. We are suffering health disparities
such as cancers, thyroid disease, and developmental
health harms. Our children are vulnerable to exposure
and toxic health effects of these chemicals. This
requires urgent action to enact protective measures
such as HB 27. The federal government is not taking
responsibility, so it is up to you to ensure
legislation is enacted to phase out harmful and
unnecessary flame retardant chemicals from our
children's products and furniture. I want to protect
the ability of our children to learn our songs,
traditions, and stories. Please pass HB 27.
2:12:32 PM
KATHERINE DUPLESSES testified in support of HB 27. She said she
grew up in a proposed Superfund site in Green Bay, WI, and she
has lived all over the world from California to South Africa and
now Anchorage is her home. By training, she continued, she is
an ecologist and conservation biologist and most importantly in
the topic she is the mother of a two-year-old daughter. She
stated she has an acute understanding of children and toxins and
she would like to see HB 27 pass. Given the evidence is
overwhelming, she said she was shocked that this issue is still
being talked about. These are known carcinogens, she stressed,
and HB 27 should be passed.
2:14:24 PM
KELLY MCLAUGHLIN provided written testimony in support of HB 27,
which was read to the committee by Ms. Duplesses:
Children and firefighters may seem an odd pairing, but
firefighters and children share one frustrating
quality: they're often overlooked. Children cannot
advocate well for themselves, they rely on adults in
their lives to do it for them. Firefighters are the
most under-acknowledged public servants, evidenced by
the fact that we rely heavily on volunteers to serve
us in the life-threatening situation we hope never to
face. I'm calling today to advocate for both.
Children are just one of the victims of the damaging
effects of flame retardants. Their tiny bodies uptake
and therefore accumulate the damaging chemicals faster
than adults. But damage is often not seen directly or
until later in life and can be devastatingly life
altering. I am extremely sensitive to this topic due
to a recent discovery that my drinking water well is
contaminated by a similar group of chemicals that are
used in firefighting foam and are very toxic. My
children have been exposed despite my diligence in
choosing a car, car seats, clothing, cookware, and
toys without flame retardants.
Many, even most, people are not aware of the toxic
nature of many common products and the burden of
safety should never have to fall on consumers. All
products on the market should be of toxic-free
chemicals. These chemicals are pervasive and action
must be taken to regulate them. It is unconscionable
that in the false name of public safety my family
suffers.
Further cementing my allegiance to this cause came
st
Monday night, April 1, ironically. There was a house
fire two streets down from me. Our local volunteer
firefighters left their houses at about 10:30 p.m. and
fought a battle that few of us thankfully ever see.
They worked on adrenalin through the night, taking
breaks in shifts to stave off exhaustion. Most of
them got home at about 4:30 a.m. Some of them got an
hour or two of sleep. Then they got up and got their
kids to school, they went to work, then when they were
done with a full day's work they didn't go home, they
went back to the fire hall and to the scene to
debrief. These people do more work with less
gratitude than even mothers, I think. We owe them the
removal of toxic chemicals from the long list of
dangers they face while they volunteer their time to
keep us safe.
Fire retardants don't increase safety for firefighters
or for those potentially caught inside. They off-gas
toxic chemicals in our homes, cars, daycare centers,
and work places. They release toxic gases as they
burn. There is no upside. I am in strong support of
this bill, HB 27, the Toxic-Free Firefighters and
Children Act.
CO-CHAIR TARR noted the groundwater of Gustavus is contaminated
with [perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)].
2:18:36 PM
PAUL MIRANDA, Southcentral Vice President, Alaska Professional
Fire Fighters Association, testified in support of HB 27. He
noted the association represents 500 professional firefighters
across the state and that he is an 8-year firefighter paramedic
with the Anchorage Fire Department. He thanked Co-Chair Tarr
for introducing the bill and the committee for hearing the bill,
which his association fully supports.
MR. MIRANDA pointed out that cancer is a big concern for
firefighters, with data showing that firefighters experience
cancer at much higher rates than the public. Study after study,
he related, has concluded that organohalogen flame retardant
chemicals are a leading cause of cancer in firefighters. Used
throughout today's households in furniture and other materials,
organohalogen flame retardants release toxic cancer-causing
chemicals when they burn, such as dioxins and furans.
Firefighters, he said, are then exposed to large amounts of
these carcinogens through absorption and inhalation during fire
fighting operations. Recent studies, he added, have shown that
firefighters have three times the level of these harmful
chemicals in their systems after a fire.
MR. MIRANDA stated that eliminating organohalogen flame
retardants would be a step in the right direction and would go a
long way in providing a less toxic atmosphere for firefighters
and reducing their exposure to these toxins. He expressed the
association's support for passage of HB 27.
2:20:44 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR asked whether Mr. Miranda was involved in, or
advocated for, the Anchorage ordinance.
MR. MIRANDA replied he wasn't involved in its development, but
he advocated for it on behalf of the Alaska Professional Fire
Fighters Association.
CO-CHAIR TARR inquired whether people breathed a sigh of relief
when the Anchorage ordinance was passed. She further inquired
whether the association has ideas about what the impact would be
if HB 27 were passed.
MR. MIRANDA responded that firefighters have a much higher rate
of cancer than the general public. So, he said, anything that
can be done to help reduce that is the step in the right
direction and firefighters would be appreciative of that.
2:22:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether Mr. Miranda has looked at
HB 27 and thought about it in parallel with the Anchorage
ordinance. She further inquired whether there are any major
differences between them in the ban and how it is applied.
MR. MIRANDA answered he would have to look closer as far as any
specific differences in the Anchorage ordinance, but his
understanding is that it is quite similar.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted that HB 27 focuses on children's
products or products affiliated with households that have
children in them. She asked whether the Anchorage ordinance is
also that narrow or covers a broader swath of consumer products.
MR. MIRANDA offered his belief that the Anchorage ordinance may
be a broader swath of consumer products, including furniture and
other things. He said he would look at that and get back to the
committee with an answer.
2:23:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN stated her understanding that HB 27
does cover furniture.
CO-CHAIR TARR confirmed HB 27 includes upholstered furniture.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired about electronics.
CO-CHAIR TARR replied that the difference is HB 27 includes
electronics while the Anchorage ordinance does not. She said
she would follow up further with committee members in this
regard.
2:24:21 PM
JENNIFER GIBBONS, Vice President, State Government Affairs,
External Affairs, The Toy Association, Inc., testified in
opposition to HB 27. She explained that The Toy Association is
the trade association for manufacturers, importers, and
retailers of toys and youth entertainment products sold in North
America and represents more than 950 companies. She said The
Toy Association shares the committee's interest in assuring that
children's products are safe; safety is the number one priority
for the industry.
MS. GIBBONS stated she opposes HB 27 because it would apply to
any component of a product, even to its electronic component.
Toy manufacturers typically do not add flame retardant to toys,
she said, but some of these substances may be present in certain
components of toys, such as electronic circuit boards and
assemblies, which are inaccessible to children but critical to
the electrical safety of the products in which they are used.
Electronic devices, she explained, are in constant contact with
an electrical current and this risk is currently being addressed
in electronic devices by using flame retardant chemicals. A
consistent and reliable alternative for flame retardants in this
application has yet to be found, she said, and without a viable
alternative parts could present an increased flammability risk
in the event of certain electrical faults. She pointed out that
to date no other state or local jurisdiction, including
Anchorage, has passed flame retardant laws that would be under
use in inaccessible or electronic components in children's
products.
MS. GIBBONS said another major concern with HB 27 is that it
requires the labeling of products to state that the product does
or does not contain flame retardant chemicals. So, she noted,
even those products that have never had, or never will have,
flame retardants present would still be required to have a
label. The bill would require manufacturers to create, and
retailers to carry, a product that is designed to only be sold
in Alaska. She advised that a massive and costly undertaking in
creating new labeling for the state of Alaska may not be
possible for some businesses and could result in products no
longer being offered for sale in the state. Ms. Gibbons urged
that the committee not move forward with HB 27.
2:26:55 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR, regarding inaccessible electronics, noted that
while something isn't supposed to be accessible to a child, kids
often take things apart. She said she has gone back and forth
about how to address this piece of the bill due to the concern
that kids are likely to tinker with [a toy], along with their
hand-to-mouth behavior. She requested Ms. Gibbons to define
inaccessible. She inquired, for example, whether the electronic
unit inside a teddy bear that plays a song would be considered
inaccessible to a child.
MS. GIBBONS replied the association would consider something to
be inaccessible during reasonable and foreseeable use and abuse
of a product and there are several standards that [the industry]
has to test for in order to not have a part be inaccessible and
create a small-part hazard for a child. If it meets those
tests, she continued, [the association] would consider it
inaccessible.
CO-CHAIR TARR requested Ms. Gibbons to provide a copy of the
aforementioned standard.
MS. GIBBONS agreed to do so and noted it is ASTM F963, a safety
standard for toys that is mandatory under the Consumer Product
Safety Improvement Act of 2008.
2:29:40 PM
ANDREW HACKMAN, Principal Lobbyist, Serlin Haley LLP,
representing the Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association,
testified in opposition to HB 27. He said the association
represents everything from strollers to bassinettes to car seats
and is the industry that helps bring children into the home and
care for those children after they have been born. He stated
the association is opposed to HB 27 as currently drafted.
MR. HACKMAN related that the association's manufacturers have
proactively worked to eliminate flame retardants where they have
been mandated in the past. In California under Technical
Bulletin 117, he said, the association worked with the Bureau of
Appliance Repair and Home Furnishings to eliminate the
requirement that juvenile products be subject to flame retardant
requirements. He further noted that the association was
actively involved in person in several work sessions in
Anchorage in helping inform discussions and come up with an
element that struck a reasonable balance. He stressed the
importance of some of the provisions incorporated into the
Anchorage ordinance that specifically impact the association's
industry. Car seats, he explained, are mandated to meet very
stringent flame resistance performance standards that are
administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. Flame retardants, he said, must be incorporated
into those products to meet those federal standards. Conditions
in a vehicle fire are very different, he continued, and there
are sources of ignition that are particularly flammable, and the
federal government has taken a very strong position that this
standard is required.
MR. HACKMAN said his association shares The Toy Association's
concern about including inaccessible electronic components. He
pointed out that particularly in infant products the child
cannot reasonably and foreseeably come into contact with those
components. He related that the association has researched what
materials are typically used and the materials listed in HB 27
are not typically used in the association's products. However,
he noted, the Underwriters Laboratories (UL) has standards that
require certain performance applications that at times
necessitate the use of flame retardants.
MR. HACKMAN noted the Anchorage ordinance had no requirements in
any jurisdiction requiring labeling for juvenile products, a
provision the association supported. He said the association's
members estimated it would cost $50,000-$80,000 per product to
create a specific label for Alaska, which outweighs the entire
sales of that product category in the state of Alaska.
MR. HACKMAN encouraged the committee, if it moves HB 27 forward,
to look hard at the compromise that was drafted and passed in
the Anchorage ordinance. He said the association was actively
involved in those discussions and appreciates that the city took
those actions.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked whether the Juvenile Products Manufacturers
Association supported the ordinance that was passed in
Anchorage.
MR. HACKMAN replied that the association removed its opposition
and indicated to those city council members who had questions
for the association that it supported the inclusion of those
provisions.
CO-CHAIR TARR said she looks forward to working with Mr. Hackman
to address the association's concerns.
2:34:39 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR closed public testimony and held over HB 27.
HB 3-STATE LAND SALE; PFD VOUCHER AND ASSIGN.
2:34:56 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced the final order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 3, "An Act relating to the
purchase and sale of state land; relating to discounts for
veterans on state land purchases; and relating to the assignment
of permanent fund dividends to purchase state land."
[Before the committee was the SSHB 3, introduced and referred to
the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs,
committee of first referral, on 3/13/19.]
2:35:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, sponsor, explained SSHB 3 would allow
utilization of [a person's] permanent fund dividend (PFD) year
after year to help cover the payments on the purchase of state
land. The state disposes of land in various ways each year and
one of them is through a bidding process, he noted. Payment for
the land can be outright or through payments. He said the bill
would also give a 33 percent advantage to veterans for utilizing
in the purchase of state land. Three veterans are co-sponsors
of the bill, he added.
2:37:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN referred to Section 2 and requested a
definition of veteran for use of the benefit proposed in the
bill. She further asked whether the definition is for as little
as 90 days served in the U.S. military.
DARRELL BREESE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska
State Legislature, answered questions regarding SSHB 3 on behalf
of Representative Rauscher, sponsor. He confirmed the
definition is 90 days and said the definition can be found on
page 2, lines 4-8, which states: "on active duty in the United
States armed forces for [U.S. ARMED FORCES] at least 90 days,
unless tenure was shortened due to a service connected
disability or due to receiving an early separation upon return
from a tour of duty overseas, and has received an honorable
discharge or a general discharge under honorable conditions."
That definition, he explained, is what is currently in statute
for eligibility for the 25 percent discount that veterans are
currently eligible for.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how that compares to other veterans'
benefits that the state offers; for example, whether 90 days is
a standard threshold.
MR. BREESE responded that he didn't know and would get back to
the committee with the answer.
2:38:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN inquired whether there is a cap on the
discount; for example, no matter how much the property costs a
veteran would get a discount exponentially.
MR. BREESE replied that existing statute currently offers a 25
percent discount to veterans. Section 4 of the bill would, in
addition to that, provide a one-third discount. Section 3 of
the bill, page 2, starting on line 9, would limit the veteran to
using one discount at a time - the 25 percent and 33 percent
discount discounts could not be combined - [and each discount]
could only be used once in a lifetime. The limit is set at 33
percent, so if the price of the property were $10 the veteran
would pay $6.66.
CO-CHAIR TARR offered her understanding that if a veteran wished
to purchase two pieces of property, he/she could purchase one of
the properties at a 25 percent discount and the other at a 33
percent discount so long as the veteran signed up with the
mechanism that it be paid through the PFD. So, she continued,
there would be an opportunity for a veteran to potentially
purchase two pieces of property that a discount is applied to,
although one would have to be paid for with a cash payment plan
and to receive the other the veteran would have to assign
his/her PFD toward payment.
MR. BREESE thanked Co-Chair Tarr for clarifying his comments and
agreed she is correct.
2:40:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated he doesn't interpret Section 4 as
saying that. He said he interprets Section 4 as meaning that if
a veteran has already purchased land prior to 8/1/19 using the
25 percent [discount], then the veteran can purchase an
additional piece of property at 33 percent [discount], and that
from 8/1/19 onward it would only be the 33 percent [discount].
He asked whether his interpretation is incorrect.
MR. BREESE responded his understanding is that the 25 percent
discount offered under Section 1, which is currently in existing
statute, remains unchanged and that a veteran is still eligible
to purchase that property at 25 percent off. If willing to
assign one's PFD, the limitation is only on land purchased after
8/1/19. So, he continued, if one purchased land prior to 2019
as a veteran, he/she can't then apply the one-third discount to
that purchase. The intention is that the one-third discount is
not until after 8/1/19.
CO-CHAIR TARR requested Mr. Marty Parsons of the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) to provide clarification regarding the
8/1/19 date and how it applies to the two discount options.
2:42:33 PM
MARTY PARSONS, Director, Central Office, Division of Mining Land
Water and Mining, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), replied
his understanding is that after 8/1/19 would be the first
opportunity to use the one-third discount of pledging the PFD.
CO-CHAIR TARR offered her understanding that the existing
program of a 25 percent discount would remain unchanged.
MR. PARSONS stated that that is his understanding. He said he
doesn't see anywhere in the bill there that is sunset.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK restated his understanding as being that
Section 1 allows a veteran to take advantage of the 25 percent
[discount] and Section 4 would allow the purchase of new land
after 8/1/19, regardless of whether [a purchase prior to 8/1/19]
had been taken advantage of. [A veteran] could take advantage
of the one-third discount, he continued, as long as he/she
[assigned] his/her permanent fund dividend, but it would not be
an option if the PFD weren't used.
MR. BREESE responded that Representative Tuck's understanding is
correct. The one-third discount, he said, is only applicable if
all or a portion of [the veteran's] PFD is assigned to help pay
off the purchase of the land. He added that Section 4,
subsection (g) on page 2, lines 20-21, implies that both
discounts are in existence, because it is stated that the [25
percent and the 33 percent] discounts cannot be combined in one
purchase.
2:44:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK posed a hypothetical scenario of himself as
a veteran making his first purchase of land after 8/1/19 in
which he gets the 33 percent discount because he used his PFD as
collateral or payment. He offered his understanding that at a
later time he could use Section 1 to purchase another piece of
land at a 25 percent [discount].
MR. BREESE answered, "That is the intention of the legislation,
correct."
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, regarding the aforementioned hypothetical
scenario, asked whether he could use his PFD for that purchase
as well or would be restricted from doing so. He further asked
why it would be wanted to restrict people from using their PFDs
to pay for lands.
MR. BREESE replied that the one-third discount for veterans
purchasing land is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and the 25
percent discount is also a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. He
explained that Section 5 of the bill would allow anyone, veteran
or non-veteran, to use their PFD to pay off the purchase of the
land. So, yes, if Representative Tuck in the aforementioned
scenario purchased the land with a 25 percent discount, he could
still assign his PFD for payment under Section 5, assuming the
entire dividend hasn't been assigned to pay off the one-third
purchase. The dividend would have to be divided up, he said, in
order to use it for the purchase of both properties.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked why the provision for purchasing land
at the one-third discount requires that the veteran's PFD be
assigned for payment.
MR. BREESE responded that the primary focus of the permanent
fund is that [a PFD] be given to everyone in Alaska who wants
one. It's a way of securing the [land] purchase because for
most of the state land sales the purchase is financed by the
state, he said. Using the PFD for payments is made easy because
it only requires the checking of a box. It is convenience, he
added, and it is also for encouraging veterans to buy land in
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK surmised that if he were to miss the PFD
application deadline, he would not have the 33 percent
[discount] available to him.
MR. BREESE confirmed that the 33 percent discount could not be
used if [a veteran] did not apply for, or was not eligible for,
a PFD.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked what would happen if his full PFD was
garnished.
MR. BREESE deferred to the Department of Revenue (DOR) to answer
the question.
2:48:46 PM
ANNE WESKE, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division,
Department of Revenue (DOR), responded to Representative Tuck's
question. She explained that, if a garnishment occurs, usually
the first priority is a garnishment, not a voluntary
contribution, or, in this case, an assignment. So, the funds
would go to the garnishing agency, she said, and then DNR would
be notified that no funds would be processed on [DNR's] behalf.
That means it would fall on DNR to collect if DNR had already
pre-credited this individual or it would fall on DNR to contact
the individual that the funds didn't come DNR's way due to a
garnishment.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated he doesn't know why it would be
wanted to put a condition on the one-third discount for veterans
based on whether they file for a PFD. He said he understands
why it would be wanted to provide the ability to pay for lands
using permanent fund dividends.
2:50:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how many veterans have currently
taken advantage of the current discount of 25 percent. She
further asked for the ratio of the number of parcels for sale
each year and the number of veterans who took advantage of them.
MR. PARSONS answered that roughly an average of 17 veterans per
year take advantage of the current 25 percent discount. Last
year, he said, 80 parcels were sold under the state land sales
program and 14 or 15 veterans took advantage of it.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether payments to the state for
most land sales are monthly payments or annual payments in which
a person's PFD would achieve the payment.
MR. PARSONS replied there are multiple payment options under
which a purchaser can contract with the state annual, monthly,
and quarterly - for which the purchaser signs a contract.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN posed a scenario of $3,000 for the PFD in
2019 and asked whether that amount would cover the annual
payment for the average parcel purchased by a veteran.
MR. PARSONS responded it depends, because land across the state
varies widely in its value. The land is sold at fair market
value, he explained, which is determined through an appraisal.
Land in Interior Alaska might sell for $13,000 or $14,000 for a
five-acre parcel, while a smaller parcel in Southeast Alaska
might sell for $30,000 or $40,000. There are cases where $3,000
could cover the entire payment for the year, he said, but in
most cases, it would cover a portion of it.
MR. BREESE drew attention to page 2 of the DNR fiscal note,
which states: "Over 19 years of tracking the 25 percent
veterans discount, veterans have purchased an average of 14
parcels of state land a year." He also noted that according to
the fiscal note the average price per parcel is $18,300.
2:54:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ inquired whether an "eligible veteran"
as described under Section 1 of the bill must be an Alaska
resident.
MR. BREESE deferred to Mr. Parsons for an answer, but noted that
Section 1 doesn't say an eligible veteran must be an Alaskan.
MR. PARSONS replied that the initial auction under which these
lands would be sold are for Alaska residents.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ offered her understanding that the one-
third discount and being eligible for a PFD isn't a matter of
determining that only Alaskan residents are using this benefit.
MR. BREESE replied that page 1, lines 13-14, state, "has been a
state resident for a period of not less than one year
immediately preceding the date of sale". Therefore, he said,
[the veteran] would have to be an Alaska resident.
2:56:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked whether the closing costs for
these sales are typically negotiated or whether there is a
standard breakdown of who pays what for the closing costs.
MR. BREESE deferred to Mr. Parsons for the answer.
MR. PARSONS responded that [the land sales program] doesn't have
a closing cost. He said the purchaser puts down a bid deposit
when the land is purchased and if the purchaser goes into a
state contract those payments get rolled into the contract.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN inquired whether a title is involved
with these land sales.
MR. PARSONS answered that the unique thing about Alaska land
sales is that the title remains with the state and does not pass
to the purchaser until the purchaser has completely paid off the
purchase obligation.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked how the purchaser has anything to
show for the money he/she has put into the purchase if there is
nothing in title on record.
MR. PARSONS replied that unique to Alaska's land sales program
is that there is not equity that the purchaser gains until such
time as the purchaser has paid off the entire contractual
obligation. The title remains with the state, he said, and is
not patented to the purchaser until the purchaser has completely
paid off the contract.
2:58:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked who pays the recording costs and
other fees for the change in title once the purchaser has paid
off the contract.
MR. PARSONS responded that, in receiving the title, there is a
cost of $250 to the purchaser for the processing of documents
and issuing the patent.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN noted there isn't a set amount for the
PFD and asked whether there is something in place that the
purchaser must pay a certain [minimum] amount each year.
MR. BREESE answered that under the bill the purchaser can assign
his/her PFD to pay all or a portion of the payment due to DNR,
so the PFD could cover the full payment or only a small portion
of the payment that is remaining.
3:00:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN said her concern with the verbiage is
that it doesn't set a minimum payment. She suggested this could
be covered via an amendment so as to ensure that the state is
protected. She inquired about the point at which the state
would foreclose for nonpayment, for example if a purchaser's PFD
was garnished.
MR. BREESE replied that this is not a garnishment, but an
assignment of the PFD. He deferred to Mr. Parsons to answer
about penalties for late or nonpayment.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN clarified she was speaking to a
purchaser not receiving his/her PFD because it was garnished,
and the purchaser was therefore unable to pay.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked Mr. Parsons about the timeline for when a
contract would become null and void for nonpayment.
MR. PARSONS responded it varies. He said the division normally
works hard with its customers to get them back on track, so they
don't lose their interest in the land. Normally after 90 days,
he continued, the division begins a letter writing campaign to
get the purchaser back into compliance. Then there is a series
of several months during which the division walks through
different types of notices until getting to the point where the
division writes the purchaser a letter stating that the division
directors have decided that the purchaser's contract is void and
the purchaser has 30 days to pay the remaining balance or the
contract will be cancelled. The division tries very hard not to
cancel contracts and take back properties, he added.
3:03:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN surmised there is nothing in statute
that says at a certain point in time the state must take back
the land. She said she appreciates the division working with
people, but she is concerned because this is a business.
MR. PARSONS answered the division works very hard with its
customers because it is a very generous program as far as the
ability to enter into contractual obligations. He noted the
state has taken steps over the past several years where it had
an egregious contract holder that it couldn't bring back into
compliance and the contract was cancelled and the state took
back the land. The division tries to make that the exception as
opposed to the rule. He said the division understands that the
real estate is a business and the division can cancel the
contract any time after an individual has been determined to be
in default.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO inquired whether the sponsor's intent is
for people to be able to use the PFD, and the PFD only, to pay
off the land purchase regardless of its cost.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER answered that that wasn't quite in his
intent.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO recalled that he introduced a similar
bill, but it was incredibly complicated, and those complications
were probably why it didn't advance very far. He said he likes
the simplicity of SSHB 3 and surmises the general idea of the
bill is that there would be less cash flow out of state coffers
as well as the ability to provide someone with equal or greater
value for his/her permanent fund [dividend].
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER replied he had many reasons for the
bill. "It is just moving in computer numbers more than
handwritten checks and contracts and payments and non-payments
and default payments and all this other stuff," he said, so it
did have an ease of that; I appreciate that." He said he
realizes after listening to Representative Tuck and the answers
he was given that it probably wasn't his intent to have both of
them sitting side-by-side utilized. He said he will be offering
a friendly amendment to page 2, line 10, to replace "and" with
"or and that way [a veteran] can use the program he/she sees
fit, if such an amendment is possible.
3:06:53 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on SSHB 3. After
ascertaining no one wished to testify, public testimony was
closed.
3:07:27 PM
[HB 3 was held over.]
3:07:55 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:07 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 27 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Bill Version U 1.11.19.PDF |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Bill Version U 1.11.19Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/31/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Fiscal Note - Dept of Law 3.29.19.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - CDC - Skin Exposures and Effects.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Expert Testimony Vytenis Babrauskas.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Flame Retardants - NIH Fact Sheet July 2016.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Knoblauch article 1.24.18.pdf |
HL&C 3/6/2020 3:15:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Leg Research on FF health costs.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB 27 Flame Retardants Slide Presentation 4.2.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - Athey 2.4.19.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - School Nurses 3.12.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support from ACS CAN AK 2.21.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letters of Support from Firefighters 4.2.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/27/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/29/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/3/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Past Support re Flame Retardants in AK.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - GCDSE 4.1.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Aronno Letter of Support 4.4.19_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letters of Support Combined.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - American Chemistry Council Letter of Opposition 4.3.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association Letter of Opposition 4.2.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Consumer Technology Association Letter of Opposition 4.3.19.pdf |
HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 27 Flame Retardants Slide Presentation 4.2.19.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 1/24/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 27 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - Testimony Learning Disabilities Assoc 4.3.19.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - Propes 4.1.19.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - AK Children's Trust 4.2.19.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - AK Fire Chiefs Assoc 4.2.19.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - AK Nurses Association 3.29.19.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - AKPIRG 4.3.19.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - Kawerak Inc 4.3.19.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Letter of Support - McLaughlin 4.3.19.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 3 Sponsor Statement 3.12.2019.pdf |
HMLV 3/14/2019 2:00:00 PM HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Ver A 3.12.2019.pdf |
HMLV 3/14/2019 2:00:00 PM HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Ver M 3.12.2019.pdf |
HMLV 3/14/2019 2:00:00 PM HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Explanation of Changes 3.12.2019.pdf |
HMLV 3/14/2019 2:00:00 PM HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 DOR Fiscal Note.pdf |
HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB3 DNR Fiscal Note.pdf |
HMLV 3/26/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/12/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB27 Supporting Document - AKPFFA Letter 4.4.19.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Whitson Letter of Support 4.4.19_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Fuller Letter of Support 4.4.19_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB27 Supporting Document - Hauser Letter of Support 4.4.19_Redacted.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HRES US Army Corps of Engineers Presentation Pebble 4.5.19.pdf |
HRES 4/5/2019 1:00:00 PM |
Pebble |