Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
03/09/2020 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 | |
| HB240 | |
| HB138 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 240 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 9, 2020
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Lincoln, Co-Chair
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Dave Talerico
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Sara Rasmussen
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 240
"An Act relating to pollutants; relating to perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances; relating to the duties of the
Department of Environmental Conservation; and relating to
firefighting substances."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 138
"An Act requiring the designation of state water as outstanding
national resource water to occur in statute; relating to
management of outstanding national resource water by the
Department of Environmental Conservation; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 240
SHORT TITLE: REGULATE PFAS USE; FIRE/WATER SAFETY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HANNAN
02/07/20 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/07/20 (H) RES, FIN
03/09/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 138
SHORT TITLE: NATIONAL RESOURCE WATER DESIGNATION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KOPP
04/17/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/17/19 (H) RES, FIN
04/29/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/29/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/29/19 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/03/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/03/19 (H) Heard & Held
05/03/19 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/10/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/10/20 (H) Heard & Held
02/10/20 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/14/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/14/20 (H) Heard & Held
02/14/20 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/17/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/17/20 (H) Heard & Held
02/17/20 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/24/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/24/20 (H) Heard & Held
02/24/20 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/06/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
03/06/20 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/09/20 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
TIMOTHY CLARK, Staff
Representative Sara Hannan
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Hannan, sponsor
of HB 240, answered questions and presented the sectional
analysis for the committee substitute for HB 240, Version M.
ROBERT BILOTT, Attorney
Taft Stettinius and Hollister
Cincinnati, Ohio
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony during the hearing of HB
240.
KELLY MCLAUGHLIN, Spokesperson
Gustavus PFAS Action Coalition
Gustavus, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support during the hearing of
HB 240.
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as the sponsor, provided comments
and answered questions during the hearing of HB 138.
TREVER FULTON, Staff
Representative Chuck Kopp
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Kopp, sponsor,
answered a question during the hearing of HB 138.
RANDY BATES, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing of HB
138.
MARIE MARX, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing of HB
138.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:10 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives Tuck,
Hannan, Talerico, Rauscher, Rasmussen, Hopkins, Lincoln, and
Tarr were present at the call to order. Representative
Spohnholz arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 240-REGULATE PFAS USE; FIRE/WATER SAFETY
1:05:31 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 240, "An Act relating to pollutants; relating to
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances; relating to the
duties of the Department of Environmental Conservation; and
relating to firefighting substances."
1:06:13 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN moved to adopt the committee substitute for HB
240, labeled 31-LS1509\M, Marx, 3/6/20, [Version M], as the
working document.
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN explained the committee substitute (CS)
for HB 240 is a bill to address drinking water standards for
water that has been exposed to seven perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals. In Alaska, PFAS exposure is
mostly linked to firefighting foam that has been used at
airports and in the the oil and gas industry. She said PFAS
chemicals can suppress fire in high intensity fires, such as an
oil field fire, and also do not decompose, thus are known as
forever chemicals; these characteristics allow PFAS to starve
out the oxygen in fire but linger in water in perpetuity. Over
the past 40 years, PFAS have been linked to low birth weights,
thyroid disease and cancer; testing has shown PFAS contamination
is in the water table of many Alaska communities. The
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has declared PFAS
are hazardous substances and HB 240 establishes the standards by
which PFAS would be regulated; currently, DEC is deferring to
levels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
however, EPA levels do not keep Alaska's water safe. The bill
incorporates standards developed by the Michigan PFAS Action
Response Team (MPART) which has researched PFAS contamination
from industry and firefighting foam. The bill would ensure that
once a community is contaminated, the polluter would pay for an
alternative source of drinking water, such as alternative water
systems, extending existing water systems, or new filtration
systems; in addition, the polluter would have to pay for three
years of voluntary blood testing for those exposed.
Representative Hannan said HB 240 would stop the use of PFAS in
Alaska, with certain exceptions for federal agencies and for use
by the oil and gas industry as a firefighting foam. Further, HB
240 holds the party responsible for igniting a fire also liable
for the use of PFAS firefighting foam, not the fire department.
Finally, the bill requires DEC to develop a plan to dispose of
PFAS firefighting foam and equipment at no cost to Alaska
communities.
1:13:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER questioned why the levels established by
EPA are insufficient.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said EPA uses standards that do not meet
safe standards for drinking water, which will be fully explained
by forthcoming expert testimony. In further response to
Representative Rauscher, she said a fire department that uses
PFAS foam to respond to an oil- and gas-fueled fire would not be
liable for its use; however, a fire department testing PFAS foam
would be liable for its use.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked why the sponsor incorporated
levels established by MPART instead of EPA.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said the seven compounds addressed by the
bill and identified by MPART have the most scientific research
and conclusive data linking said compounds to disease causation.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ restated her interest in the
qualifications of MPART.
1:16:10 PM
TIMOTHY CLARK, Staff, Representative Sara Hannan, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Hannan, sponsor of HB
240, informed the committee MPART assembled a working group of
experts to analyze PFAS studies on the risks to health; after
analysis, MPART determined prudent levels [for safe drinking
water], which are the levels incorporated in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ noted there is new science and
information emerging on this issue and asked when MPART produced
its recommendations.
MR. CLARK said MPART's working group recommendations for maximum
allowable levels were reported in summer of 2019.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN suggested putting the PFAS levels in
statute may set a dangerous precedent because DEC has the
authority to determine the levels, as evidenced by the
"sulfolane" case in Fairbanks [State v. Williams Alaska
Petroleum, Inc., Fairbanks Superior Court, 2020].
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said her constituents are dissatisfied by
the actions taken by DEC to treat and provide remedies for
communities and thus seek to set in statute levels that are safe
for drinking water.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked whether there is concern about
the amount of time required to make changes in statute, when it
is easier to make changes in regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN was told in the fall of 2018, Gustavus was
getting some resolution to its PFAS contamination; in January
2019, other communities discovering levels equal to Gustavus
were no longer qualified for action. She explained DEC changed
from using a cumulative total of six different compounds to two,
before remediation. Without statutory guidance, DEC defaulted
to EPA levels even though other communities suffered the same
level of toxicity as Gustavus. The Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities (DOTPF) has been delivering bottled water
to much of Gustavus for almost two years; however, other
communities in the state have no remedy because DEC has shifted
it regulations to align with EPA.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked whether individual communities
are prohibited from establishing their own [safe water] levels
by ordinance or policy.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN was unsure. However, she noted Gustavus
does not have a community water system and residents depend upon
well water.
1:23:20 PM
MR. CLARK pointed out the bill would not prohibit DEC from
setting minimum allowable levels in the future should it be
necessary to do so. He then paraphrased from a written
sectional analysis which read [original punctuation provided]:
Sectional Summary
CSHB 240 (RES) PFAS in Drinking Water
Version M
Sec. 1 of the bill creates several new sections in AS
46.03: Sec. 46.03.340(a):
Directs the Department of Environmental Conservation
to test drinking water near PFAS spills. Requires the
department to make sure anyone with contaminated
drinking water gets clean drinking water and up to
three years of voluntary blood testing for PFAS
levels.
Sec. 46.03.340(b): Sets health-based maximum levels of
contamination in drinking water for seven PFAS
chemicals and maintains DEC's authority to set more
protective thresholds.
Sec. 46.03.340(c): Requires DEC to make sure a
responder exposed to PFAS contamination gets up to
three years of voluntary blood testing for PFAS
levels.
Sec. 46.03.345(a) states that a person who causes a
fire that results in the release of PFAS-containing
foams is liable for the costs of providing drinking
water testing and blood testing under AS 46.03.340 of
the bill.
Sec. 46.03.345(b) states that persons who use PFAS-
containing substances to extinguish a fire (i.e. fire
departments) are not liable for drinking water testing
and blood testing costs.
Sec. 46.03.345(c) states that the liability for this
costs is in addition to other liability existing in
areas of state law relevant to the release of PFAS
substances.
Sec. 46.03.350(a) exempts oil & gas businesses from
the prohibition from using PFAS-containing
firefighting foams unless the state fire marshal
publishes notice that an alternative firefighting
substance must be used.
Sec. 46.03.350(b) states that if the state fire
marshal determines that a safe and effective
alternative firefighting substance is available for
use by the oil & gas businesses, the fire marshal must
immediately publish notice that the alternative
substance must be used by the industry.
Sec. 46.03.350(c): DEC must take up to 25 gallons per
year of PFAS-containing firefighting foam from
Alaskans for disposal.
Sec. 46.03.350(d): With the exception of oil & gas
businesses, this subsection prohibits the use of PFAS-
containing firefighting substances by persons in the
state unless the uses is required by federal law.
(Sec. 5 of the bill provides an effective date for
this prohibition of October 4, 2021.)
Sec. 46.03.359: Lists the PFAS compounds covered by
this bill and maintains DEC's authority to list more.
Sec. 2 of the bill addresses the retroactive
applicability of the liability sections of the act.
Sec. 3 adds transition language regarding the adoption
of regulations for implementing the act and the
effective date of those regulations.
Sec. 4 gives an immediate effective date to sections 2
and 3 of the act.
Sec. 5 provides an effective date of October 4th, 2021
to the prohibition on the use of PFAS in section 1 of
the bill.
Sec. 6 provides for an effective date of January 1,
2021, except for those sections of the bill provided
an immediate or other effective date.
1:29:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether there is data on firemen
exposed to PFAS who have contracted diseases, or if the bill is
directed to communities that have contaminated water leaching
into wells.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN deferred to forthcoming expert testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked why the voluntary blood testing
would be administered through DEC instead of the Department of
Health and Social Services (DHSS).
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN advised DEC would facilitate, but not
necessarily administer, all of the components of response, such
as blood testing, water sampling, or water delivery.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN inquired as to the criteria for
comparing blood tests to baseline samples.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN acknowledged the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) have not set blood sample risk for
diseases, such as testicular cancer, because there are no
baseline blood samples; however, in Alaska, most exposure to
PFAS has not been through industrial waste, but through
household goods or a water system, so [blood samples from]
Alaskans can provide statistics on waterborne exposure.
CO-CHAIR TARR removed her objection to adopting the committee
substitute for HB 240. There being no further objection,
Version M was before the committee.
1:35:10 PM
ROBERT BILOTT, attorney, Taft Stettinius and Hollister, gave
brief background information. Through a legal case involving
dead cattle in West Virginia that were exposed to chemicals, he
said he learned about the existence of PFAS chemicals, in
particular, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), that was used in the
manufacture of Teflon. The class of PFAS chemicals are
synthetic and when found in water, soil, and blood, they can be
traced to their source of manufacture. After litigation in West
Virginia and Ohio, it is now known that decades of toxicology
studies and research show what the chemicals were and how they
behaved in the environment and in humans. Mr. Bilott said PFAS
are chemicals that are persistent in the environment, in the
blood of humans and animals, in water, and in air, throughout
the world. Also made clear in the research was that PFAS
chemicals are toxic, persistent, bio-accumulative, and present
serious threats to public health.
1:40:07 PM
MR. BILOTT said in 2001, he provided the research information to
EPA and requested EPA set appropriate drinking water standards
and safety guidelines. When the case was settled, an
independent panel of scientists was selected to study what the
chemical would do to people drinking it in their water over
time. The study looked at a group of people drinking 50 parts
per trillion, for one year or more, and was a comprehensive
human health study involving 69,000 participants. After seven
years, the panel linked PFOA with six different diseases:
kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid
disease, pre?clampsia, and high cholesterol. In 2012, with
additional information and nationwide use of PFOA in consumer
products, EPA was again asked to provide a safe drinking water
standard, and EPA began to require PFAS/PFOA testing in public
water supplies. In 2013/2014, data began to show - and the
outcome of three lawsuits against DuPont De Nemours Inc.
(DuPont), proved - that DuPont caused plaintiffs' cancer, and
DuPont had acted with conscious disregard of the risk from the
chemicals. Mr. Bilott said the data also showed the chemicals
were present in water across the country; in fact, in 2016,
communities began to ask for the safe level of PFAS/PFOA in
water and EPA issued a guideline of 70 parts per trillion.
1:45:18 PM
MR. BILOTT stressed the EPA guideline is not an enforceable
standard, so communities and water providers that find PFAS/PFOA
levels in their water supplies are incurring the cost of
remediation because it is not an official government regulation.
In 2009, EPA issued its first action plan and in 2019 another
action plan, to move forward, was issued, but there is not an
enforceable federal standard, thus states are forced to set
enforceable standards to protect their residents. He noted as
more research is released, the concern is focused on long-term
exposure; in fact, in 1988, DuPont set an internal drinking
water standard for PFAS at the detection level and he cautioned
safe levels will continue to be lowered. In Michigan, and at
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, standard levels are
much lower than issued by EPA. Mr. Bilott concluded PFAS/PFOA
are chemicals that impact everyone, and more contaminated water
will be found, therefore, communities need a way to recoup the
cost of remediation.
1:50:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether PFAS/PFOA chemicals can be
removed from blood.
MR. BILOTT said the chemicals have a long half-life and stay in
the body circulating in the blood; even though the use of the
chemicals has been phased out years ago, exposure is ongoing.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK questioned whether DuPont reduced its
liability by participating in the scientific study of the
chemicals.
MR. BILOTT said DuPont was conducting studies on animals,
monitoring the blood levels of employees, and conducting health
studies of workers. As early as 1984, DuPont was aware the
chemicals were in the water; the drinking water guideline set by
DuPont was for the community. DuPont provided the funding for
the aforementioned independent panel, but was not represented on
the panel of scientists.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked how the chemicals affect people differently
and for the cost of research.
1:55:18 PM
MR. BILOTT said in addition to the six diseases linked by the
panel, other health effects have been found, such as inhibited
vaccine response and inhibited immune systems in children. The
cost of epidemiology research is incredibly expensive and other
states are using litigation to recoup expenses from chemical
manufacturers for the cost of testing, sampling, and providing
clean water. In further response to Co-Chair Tarr, Mr. Bilott
reported in West Virginia $70 million from a class action
settlement was used to collect raw data from 70,000 people, and
$33 million to $35 million was spent to analyze the data. He
cautioned research on each individual chemical would be futile;
the research should be applied to the class of chemicals and
action taken.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether research on PFAS/PFOA is known
by the medical community and by medical laboratories in general.
MR. BILOTT acknowledged the information has not been made
readily available to the medical community; as part of the legal
settlement, a panel of independent medical doctors made
recommendations for appropriate responses to exposure, and he
gave a website that provides information to any medical doctor:
C-8MedicalMonitoringProgram.com.
1:58:43 PM
KELLY MCLAUGHLIN, Spokesperson, Gustavus PFAS Action Coalition
(GPAC), informed the committee the Gustavus PFAS Action
Coalition was formed about 18 months ago after Gustavus
residents learned their property was contaminated and residents
wanted their blood and breast milk tested. At that time, DEC
was hearing public comment on a regulation package that set the
action level at 65 parts per trillion, and GPAC provided
comments that the level was too high and recommended 20 parts
per trillion; however, after the change from the Walker
Administration to the Dunleavy Administration, "that regulation
package disappeared." In addition, the standards changed; in
fact, her neighbors bought property that they understood was
"clean" because of the higher standard of 70 parts per trillion.
She said the scope of the issue is broad, with many questions
unanswered, and urged the committee to look at the problem. Her
organization is asking the state to test residents' blood to
provide needed data; to make changes in statute to establish
regulations; to require DOTPF to provide information to all
residents living near airports who may be drinking contaminated
water; to support HB 240; to immediately stop the use of PFAS in
Alaska, under the existing Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), U.S. Department of Transportation, exception for Index A
airports. She said Gustavus and other Alaska communities could
have been using sodium bicarbonate firefighting equipment - and
thus avoid contamination - as these products are used
effectively throughout the world. Ms. McLaughlin displayed eggs
from chickens raised on her property that were contaminated by
PFAS at a level of 13,000-25,000 parts per trillion.
2:04:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS surmised none of the eggs from Ms.
McLaughlin's property are edible and asked about contamination
in other products grown on properties in Gustavus.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said GPAC conducted testing through a grant from
Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT) and contamination has
been found in other eggs, kale, and mint, was undetectable in
potatoes, rhubarb, and mushrooms, and was found in the Salmon
River.
CO-CHAIR TARR offered to provide the committee a report from
ACAT [document not provided].
2:07:02 PM
[HB 240 was held over.]
2:07:12 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:07 p.m. to 2:11 p.m.
HB 138-NATIONAL RESOURCE WATER DESIGNATION
2:11:17 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 138, "An Act requiring the designation of state
water as outstanding national resource water to occur in
statute; relating to management of outstanding national resource
water by the Department of Environmental Conservation; and
providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was the committee substitute for HB 138,
Version K, adopted as a working document during the bill hearing
on 2/10/20.]
CO-CHAIR TARR reviewed the committee's previous action on
Version K, and forthcoming amendments.
2:13:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN moved to adopt [Amendment 6, K.13, labeled
31-LS0811\K.13, Marx, 2/20/20, identified on the audio recording
as Amendment 5] which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, line 4, following "based;":
Insert "and"
Page 3, lines 7 - 10:
Delete all material.
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN explained [Amendment 6, K.13] removes
language in Version K on page 3, lines 7-10, which read:
(F) an analysis of the economic cost and benefit
of designating the water as outstanding national
resources water, including the economic cost and
benefit to communities and current or foreseeable
projects; and
(G) other information required by the commission;
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said the amendment would remove the
language that requires a person nominating an outstanding
national resource water (ONRW) to include a cost benefit
analysis of the designation, and other information required by
the commission. She advised a cost benefit analysis is likely
to be costly and burdensome for nominators and it is best left
to the commission, or an affiliated state agency, to obtain a
thorough cost benefit analysis. In addition, the request for
other information is too broad.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN cautioned the responsibility to provide
a cost benefit analysis would be an additional burden for the
state; she expressed opposition to the amendment.
2:15:02 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:15 p.m. to 2:16 p.m.
CO-CHAIR TARR pointed out similar issues are addressed in a
forthcoming amendment labeled, 31-LS0811\K.18, Marx, 2/20/20.
2:16:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK KOPP, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as
the sponsor of HB 138, said the amendment would restrain the
commission from asking for more information beyond the minimum
criteria in the bill. He noted the drafters kept the bill
simple and straight forward; however, the commission is balanced
and should not be restrained from requesting additional
information or criteria, if necessary, to reach a decision. In
addition, a cost benefit analysis affects future development in
the affected community, such as new roads and subdivisions, and
the discussion of these factors in a cost benefit analysis shows
the nominator is aware of economic and growth activities in the
affected area around the nominated waterbody. Representative
Kopp surmised these are questions the commission would raise and
providing a cost benefit analysis is not a high hurdle, but a
reasonable hurdle.
CO-CHAIR TARR noted certain forthcoming amendments were drafted
after discussion with the bill sponsor that changed the language
from explanation, description, discussion, and analysis, to
"general description," which a member of the public could
provide without professional assistance.
2:21:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said placing a cost analysis in the
criteria of ability to nominate places a burden on small, rural
communities and entities that may not have the technical
expertise to provide a cost analysis. She acknowledged a cost
benefit analysis would be an element of the commission's
decision process; however, it should not be included in the
criteria that is required to forward a nomination.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK read from a document identified as 18 AAC
70.017 [document not provided], which he characterized as
parallel to the language in the bill, with the exception of
subparagraph (F)[text previously provided]. He said the goal is
to facilitate ONRW water designations - not to hinder them - and
expressed his support for [Amendment 6, K.13].
2:25:04 PM
TREVER FULTON, Staff, on behalf of Representative Kopp, sponsor
of HB 138, suggested the document referred to by Representative
Tuck contains either regulations that have been adopted to
address discharges into a body of water that has already been
designated a Tier 3 water, or is a draft implementation document
that has been rescinded by the 2018 publication of the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) guidance
memorandum deferring the designation process to the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK questioned whether a cost benefit analysis
should be a relevant factor in the designation of Tier 3 water.
2:27:37 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
2:28:46 PM
RANDY BATES, director, Division of Water, DEC, said he did not
find the aforementioned document in existing regulations thus it
either could be a draft or has been replaced.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN read from the Alaska State Constitution
as follows:
The legislature shall provide for the utilization,
development, and conservation of all natural resources
belonging to the State, including land and waters, for
the maximum benefit of its people.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN said a cost benefit analysis would be
required to determine the cost to a community of designating a
Tier 3 body of water, which may lead to a loss of the benefit
from a mine, or to the cost of not designating a body of water,
which may lead to a loss of access to salmon or other renewable
resources. She restated her opposition to the amendment.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN agreed that the burden of acquiring a cost
analysis is too great for a nominator, but said he prefers to
support a forthcoming amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO expressed opposition to the amendment
and his interest in forthcoming amendments. He said a nominator
who provided a general description would include local knowledge
of the area.
2:32:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ, speaking as co-maker of a forthcoming
amendment, said she supported the intent of [Amendment 6, K.13],
but preferred the balance provided by a forthcoming amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS noted his concern about the objective
nature of the recommendations made by the commission. He
directed attention to Version K, on page 2, line 25, subsection
(e), which listed seven factors that are required to submit a
nomination, and agreed there should be a general description of
cost benefits and effects on communities. He said he would
support a forthcoming amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN withdrew [Amendment 6, K.13]. She
restated a cost benefit analysis that is required to be provided
by the nominator would place a cost benefit analysis at the
wrong point in the nomination process.
2:36:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt [Amendment 7, K.18,
labeled 31-LS0811\K.18, identified on the audio recording as
Amendment 10], which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 3, line 6, following "quality;":
Insert "and"
Page 3, lines 7 - 17:
Delete all material and insert:
"(F) a general description of the
foreseeable impacts of designating the water as
outstanding national resource water, including any
impacts on cultural and subsistence uses and any
anticipated costs and benefits to the community;
(2) by an affirmative vote of a majority of
the members of the commission,
(A) make a finding of whether the
nomination complies with the requirements under (1) of
this subsection; and
(B) within one year after finding a
nomination in compliance, decide whether to recommend
the designation of the nominated water as outstanding
national resource water;"
Page 4, lines 3 - 7:
Delete all material and insert:
"(f) Before deciding whether to recommend a
designation of a nominated water as outstanding
national resource water, the commission shall obtain
any additional information considered necessary by the
commission to make the recommendation and provide an
opportunity for public notice and comment on the
nomination. A member who votes against a
recommendation approved by the commission may provide
a written summary of the member's dissenting opinion."
Page 4, line 8:
Delete "(e) or (f)"
Insert "(e)"
CO-CHAIR TARR objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ explained [Amendment 7, K.18] provides
a compromise position in the issue of the description of the
costs and benefits of a Tier 3 water designation. The amendment
proposes a general description of the foreseeable impacts -
including costs and benefits - and the impacts on cultural and
subsistence uses, which are important in Alaska; also, that
within one year of finding the nomination compliant, the
commission would issue a decision on the nomination.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS directed attention to the amendment on
page 2, lines 4-6, which read:
Page 4, line 8:
Delete "(e) or (f)"
Insert "(e)"
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether the deletion of subsection
(f) would make the recommendation a final decision by the
commission.
2:38:11 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:38 p.m. to 2:40 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ explained on page 2, lines 4-6, the
amendment contains conforming changes recommended by Legislative
Legal Services.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP expressed support for [Amendment 7, K.18].
He directed attention to the amendment on page 1, lines 7-9,
which read [in part]:
including any impacts on cultural and subsistence uses
and any anticipated costs and benefits to the
community;
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP suggested following "community;" adding "and
current or foreseeable projects;" in order to be fully inclusive
of possible ongoing projects in the area.
2:43:06 PM
MARIE MARX, attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, stated the deletion
of subsection (f) is a conforming change due to the
restructuring of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS directed attention to Version K on page
4, lines 8-11, and asked whether [Amendment 7, K.18] would make
any change to whether the recommendation by the commission is,
or is not, subject to appeal.
MS. MARX said the amendment would not make any substantive
change because the recommendation or action of the commission
does not constitute a final agency decision or action. In
further response to Representative Hopkins, she clarified
subsection (f) was changed, and is no longer applicable.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether water that has been designated
Tier 3 could have changes, within a certain range, when
subjected to the construction of a bridge or a port.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP advised for Tier 3 water the baseline data
must be intact; however, if there is an ongoing project in
place, those activities can continue. For example, if the
construction of an access road or infrastructure is foreseeable,
or ongoing, the cost of the project should be included in the
discussion of the Tier 3 water designation.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recalled Tier 1 water does not have all
water quality standards met; Tier 2 water has water quality
standards met; Tier 3 water requires that the water maintain its
current status. He expressed his understanding Tier 3 [water
standards] have no requirement to improve the water quality.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP indicated correct.
2:49:28 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN gave a description of Mono Lake in California
that is designated Tier 3, not because it is of high water
quality, but because it is rare and unique.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK noted at Red Dog mine, due to proper mining
techniques, the zinc concentrations were reduced and now there
are trout in "that stream." He questioned whether improving the
water quality in water designated Tier 3 would be a violation.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP said improving water quality is not a
violation of a Tier 3 water designation.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for more information on the example in
California.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN said he assumed the intent is for the water
quality at Mono Lake to remain unchanged.
MR. BATES stated DEC would only disallow an activity in a Tier 3
waterbody that degrades the current water quality standard; he
said he would provide an answer related to projects that clean
up water and release water in a better form.
2:54:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER gave an example of water that had many
sources of pollution, but the overall water quality was
improved, and asked whether a new [or increased] source of
pollution would be allowed.
MR. BATES said the existing water quality would be tested at the
time a Tier 3 waterbody was established; any new project that
would degrade the water, below the level at the time of
designation, would be disallowed.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, in further response to Representative
Rauscher, explained a baseline is established for each pollutant
individually, so a higher level of degradation from an existing
pollutant would be disallowed.
There followed discussion related to the effects of activities
by polluters new to - or upriver of - Tier 3 waters that create
mixing zones. Mr. Bates was asked to provide clarity on this
issue after further review by DEC staff.
2:58:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN directed attention to Version K, on page
4, lines 8-11, which read:
(g) A recommendation or action of the commission
under (e) or (f) of the section does not constitute a
final agency decision or action, and the
recommendation or action is not subject to appeal,
including appeal or review under AS 44.62
(Administrative Procedure Act).
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned whether said [recommendation
or] action is not subject to appeal because the action of the
commission is finalized by legislative process.
MS. MARX explained recommendations by advisory bodies are not
generally subject to judicial appeal or review, because the
recommendations of advisory boards or commissions are not
enforceable, until the recommendations are implemented by a
further agency, or legislative action, and therefore do not
govern the conduct or the rights of the public.
3:03:08 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR withdrew her objection to [Amendment 7, K.18] and
there being no further objection, Amendment 7, K.18 was adopted.
HB 138 was held over.
3:04:17 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB240 Version A Sponsor Statement 2.28.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Version A 2.07.2020.PDF |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Version A Sectional Summary 2.14.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB240 ATSDR PFAS Information Sheet 02.13.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB240 EPA PFAS Information Sheet 02.13.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB240 Executive Summary - Michigan Report on PFAS Health Effect 02.13.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Testimony as of 3.6.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 138 Sponsor Statement 2.4.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Draft CS v. K.pdf |
HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Sectional Analysis v. K 2.4.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment One - Spohnholz 2.13.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Two - Tarr 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Three - Lincoln 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Four - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Five - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Six - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Seven - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Eight - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Nine - Tuck 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Ten - Spohnholz and Lincoln 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Eleven - Lincoln 2.21.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Twelve - Lincoln 3.3.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Thirteen - Tarr 3.5.30.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Fourteen - Tarr 3.5.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Material DEC Final Tier 3 Guidance 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Material DEC Tier 3 Water Designation FAQ 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 4/29/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - DEC attachment sent to EPA 3.6.2018.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - Legal Opinion re HB 138 and Ballot Initiatives 5.1.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - Legal Opinion re DEC Statutory Authority to Designate Tier 3 Waters 5.2.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - DEC Summary of Tier 3 Designations 3.2019.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Supporting Document - Tier 3 Nominations.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - DEC Letter re Review of Tier 3 in Other States 5.3.19.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB138 Supporting Document - DNR Fact Sheet Legislatively Designated Areas 4.22.2019.pdf |
HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Testimony - As of 2.13.20.pdf |
HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Testimony - As of 2.17.20.pdf |
HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Testimony - As of 2.21.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Testimony - 2.21.20-2.22.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Testimony - 2.23.20 - 3.6.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Fiscal Note CSHB138-DNR-MLW-2-17-20.pdf |
HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Fiscal Note CS(RES)-DFG-CO-2-14-20.pdf |
HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Fiscal Note HB138CS(RES)-DEC-WIF-02-16-20.pdf |
HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Supporting Document - Legal Opinion re Person and Resident definitions 2.13.20.pdf |
HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 240 Draft CS Version M 3.6.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 CSHB24(RES) Version M--Sectional Summary 3.6.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 24 HB 240 |
| HB 240 Explanation of Changes, Ver. A to Ver. M 3.6.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Fiscal Note - DPS-FLS 3.5.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Fiscal Note - DEC-SPAR 3.6.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Fiscal Note - DEC-EH 3.6.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Testimony Received as of 3.8.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 138 HRES Conceptual Amendment Fifteen - Tarr 3.9.30.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Conceptual Amendment Sixteen - Tarr 3.9.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |