Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
04/27/2022 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 | |
| HB349 | |
| HB171 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 349 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 171 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 27, 2022
12:34 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Josiah Patkotak, Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Zack Fields
Representative Calvin Schrage
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative George Rauscher
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Ronald Gillham
Representative Tom McKay
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 349
"An Act relating to the establishment of oil and gas drilling
units and patterns."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 171
"An Act relating to pollutants; relating to perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances; relating to the duties of the
Department of Environmental Conservation; relating to
firefighting substances; relating to thermal remediation of
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substance contamination; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 349
SHORT TITLE: HEARING ESTABLISH DRILLING UNITS/SPACING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RAUSCHER
02/22/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/22 (H) CRA, RES
03/29/22 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
03/29/22 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/05/22 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/05/22 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/07/22 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/07/22 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/12/22 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/12/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/12/22 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/14/22 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/14/22 (H) Heard & Held
04/14/22 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/19/22 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
04/19/22 (H) Moved CSHB 349(CRA) Out of Committee
04/19/22 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
04/20/22 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) 5DP
04/20/22 (H) DP: MCCARTY, MCCABE, PRAX, HANNAN,
SCHRAGE
04/27/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 171
SHORT TITLE: PFAS USE & REMEDIATION; FIRE/WATER SAFETY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HANNAN
04/12/21 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/12/21 (H) RES, FIN
04/26/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/26/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/26/21 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/28/21 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
04/28/21 (H) Heard & Held
04/28/21 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/27/22 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
RYAN MCKEE, Staff
Representative George Rauscher
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for HB 349
on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime sponsor.
JEREMY PRICE, Commissioner, Public Member Seat
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 349.
JESSIE CHMIELOWSKI, Commissioner, Engineering Seat
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 349, provided
information about the bill and a PowerPoint presentation with
examples of AOGCC well spacing exceptions.
GRAHAM SMITH, Petroleum Land Manager
Division of Oil and Gas
Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 349, answered
questions.
TIMOTHY CLARK, Staff
Representative Sara Hannan
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Hannan, prime
sponsor of HB 171, explained the changes in Version I, the
proposed committee substitute for the bill.
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 171, answered
questions on behalf of Senator Kiehl, prime sponsor of the
companion bill, SB 121.
CHRIS HLADICK
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony in support of HB
171.
TIFFANY LARSON, Director
Division of Spill Prevention and Response
Department of Environmental Conservation
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony expressing the
department's concerns with HB 171.
JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General
Statewide Section Supervisor
Environmental Section
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony expressing the
department's concerns with HB 171.
RANDY BATES, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 171, answered
questions.
JASON OLDS, Acting Director
Division of Air Quality
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 171, answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:06:27 PM
CHAIR JOSIAH PATKOTAK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. Representatives Fields,
Hopkins, Rauscher, Hannan, and Patkotak were present at the call
to order. Representatives Schrage, Gillham, Cronk, and McKay
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 349-HEARING ESTABLISH DRILLING UNITS/SPACING
1:07:14 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 349, "An Act relating to the establishment of
oil and gas drilling units and patterns." [Before the committee
was CSHB 349(CRA).]
1:07:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, as prime sponsor, explained that the
proposed legislation was written because the way oil is searched
for and produced in the Twenty-First Century has changed since
the 1950s and 1960s when policymakers were worried that drilling
vertical wells too tightly together would leave oil in the
ground that could no longer be recovered. Today no one is
spending millions of dollars to drill unnecessary wells in
Alaska, he said, and advancements in drilling technology now
allow wells to be directionally drilled underground, sometimes
with multiple lateral wells from a single mother bore or parent
well. Holes can be a few thousand feet deep, yet tens of
thousands of feet long to recover greater amounts of oil and
gas, he advised.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said Alaska's statutes are outdated
because they have not kept up with these advancements in the oil
and gas industry. The statutes being amended in [CSHB
349(CRA)], he related, were originally designed to provide
oversight by involving another step to provide assurance that
perforations in the ground would not be too close, jeopardizing
the structural integrity of the field or zone. This extra
oversight is no longer necessary, he stated, and it slows down
development and costs the state time and money. He said [CSHB
349(CRA)] would eliminate needless regulatory red tape given
that drilling and production processes have fundamentally
changed since the statute was written.
1:11:02 PM
RYAN MCKEE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime
sponsor, presented the sectional analysis for HB 349 [the
original bill version included in the committee packet, rather
than for CSHB 349(CRA), which was the official version before
the committee]. The sectional analysis read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
Section 1: AS 31.05.100(a)
This section amends section 1-part a, starting on page
1 line 6 and 7. This would remove the hearing
requirement before the commission can establish the
drilling unit or units for each pool.
Section 2: AS 31.05.100(b)
This section amends section 2-part b, starting with
page 1 lines 14 and 15. This removes the notice and
hearing requirement exceptions to the rules and
spacing pattern. Meaning that the need for proof of
public notice of a hearing would no longer be needed.
The remaining changes on page 2 lines 3,4,5, and 8 is
legal language that was needed to update the bill to
reflect the changes made above.
1:12:22 PM
JEREMY PRICE, Commissioner, Public Member Seat, Alaska Oil and
Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC), Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), testified in
support of [CSHB 349(CRA)]. He stated that the purpose of the
proposed legislation is to reduce administrative barriers. He
specified that the AOGCC is tasked under AS 31.05.100(a-b) with
holding hearings for any changes to oil and gas pool unit
designations, rules, or spacing patterns, even if all relevant
properties within a given pool belong to a single owner. He
said this requirement for hearings in every instance causes
unnecessary delay to pool owners and generates unnecessary cost
for the state, as the AOGCC must engage in the protracted
process of issuing notice and holding hearings before taking
action. He advised that the bill would update the process,
reduce unnecessary delays to pool owners, and save the state
time and money that would otherwise be spent on superfluous
notice and hearing requirements.
MR. PRICE explained that when an explorer discovers oil or gas
the existing statute requires the AOGCC to hold a hearing on the
spacing of wells that will be drilled within the same pool and
establish a drilling unit or units for that pool; the default
drilling unit size is a governmental quarter section for oil.
He stated Section 1 of the bill would amend AS 31.05.100(a) to
remove the requirement to hold the hearing and the requirement
to establish a drilling unit. This change is necessary, he
said, because the current concept of establishing drilling units
as boxes on a map within which only one vertical well can be
drilled is completely outdated with horizontal drilling. He
stated Section 2 of the bill would amend AS 31.05.100(b) to make
it discretionary rather than mandatory for AOGCC to issue notice
and hold a hearing in each instance when exception is granted to
the rules or spacing patterns prescribed to a particular pool.
With this change, he said, AOGCC could allow the operator to
drill additional wells within the same pool without having to go
through 30 days of notice and comment followed by the issuance
of a conservation order. From 2016-2020, Mr. Price continued,
AOGCC public noticed 47 hearings on non-controversial well
spacing exceptions that no member of the public requested nor
submitted testimony.
MR. PRICE described how the proposed statutory change might
impact the AOGCC regulations. He drew attention to materials in
the committee packet and stated that the portion of language in
20 AAC 25.055(a)(1-2) regarding the creation of drilling units
would no longer be required, and that in 20 AAC 25.055(a)(3-4)
the default drilling unit size of governmental section and
quarter section would be repealed and the spacing restriction
between wells producing from the same pool would also be
repealed. However, he continued, the regulation on spacing
restriction of wells drilled close to property lines would
remain to protect the rights of owners of the resource.
1:16:05 PM
JESSIE CHMIELOWSKI, Commissioner, Engineering Seat, Alaska Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC), Department of Commerce,
Community, and Economic Development (DCCED), provided
information about [CSHB 349(CRA)] and a PowerPoint presentation
with examples of AOGCC well spacing exceptions. She explained
that the bill would modify a statute that has not been changed
since it was first adopted in 1955. She said the bill, if
approved, would not impact the AOGCC's ability to fulfill its
mission and would allow the AOGCC to be more efficient. She
pointed out that while the title of the bill refers to drilling
units, the proposed language modification has to do with inter-
well spacing exceptions - how far one well must be from another
in the subsurface within the targeted productive reservoir.
MS. CHMIELOWSKI related that in when the statute was written in
the 1950s, oil and gas fields were commonly developed with
vertical wells and at times operators would drill wells too
close together, resulting in waste or reduction of recoverable
hydrocarbons. She drew attention to a photo in the committee
packet of Spindletop, a first-come-first-served approach. There
were no controls on the developments then, she recounted, and
too many wells were drilled too close together, causing the
reservoir pressure to drop rapidly, resulting in stranded
reserves or waste. After the conservation act of the 1930s, Ms.
Chmielowski continued, agencies like the AOGCC were formed in
states across the U.S. to prevent the waste hydrocarbon
resources. One way to prevent waste was to set default drilling
units, she said, and in Alaska the default drilling units are
one governmental section for gas wells and one governmental
quarter section for oil wells. Only one well is allowed per
default drilling unit, she specified, unless the AOGCC grants a
spacing exception, which requires a hearing. The purpose of
establishing default drilling units and requiring the AOGCC to
hold hearings for spacing exceptions, she stated, was to prevent
waste of the resource or, alternatively, to encourage greater
ultimate recovery of the resource.
MS. CHMIELOWSKI discussed why allowing wells to be drilled
closer than the default spacing encourages greater ultimate
recovery. She explained that today's modern technology wells
are drilled based on geology and reservoir characteristics, so
default drilling units based on governmental sections are out of
date. It is common for wells to be planned and drilled closer
than the default spacing, she continued. For example, she said,
when Prudhoe Bay was started 44 years ago the estimated
recoverable reserves were nine billion barrels of oil, but today
with advancements in drilling and reservoir management the
estimated recoverable reserves are about 14 billion barrels of
oil. The updating to current best practices is to the benefit
of Alaska, she stated.
1:19:27 PM
MS. CHMIELOWSKI turned to four PowerPoint slides [hard copy
included in the committee packet] and reviewed two recent
examples of inter-well spacing exceptions, one in Cook Inlet and
one on the North Slope. She displayed slide 2, "AOGCC Well
Spacing Exception Example: BlueCrest," and said BlueCrest Energy
operates the Cosmopolitan Unit on the Kenai Peninsula. She
explained that the grid pattern across the map delineates the
governmental sections and the green lines extending from the
onshore pad depict where the wells extend within the subsurface
to the oil and gas reservoir under Cook Inlet. She further
explained that each green line is a well bore and each dot on
each green line depicts where a fishbone lateral comes off the
parent mother bore. She moved to slide 1, "AOGCC Well Spacing
Exception Example: BlueCrest," and said the diagram depicts the
side view of one of the fishbone wells drilled in the
Cosmopolitan Unit. The well begins at the right and drills left
across into the reservoir, with the total depth of the well
depicted at the left, she explained. The drilling rig is then
retracted to come back up hole, and then a bunch of laterals are
drilled upward, thereby cross sectioning the reservoir from
bottom to top. The spacing in between the individual fishbone
laterals in a single well is about 800 feet, which results in a
need for seven or more spacing exceptions per well because each
of the fishbone laterals required an inter-well spacing
exception, Ms. Chmielowski advised. BlueCrest tried several
ways to develop this field, she added, and found this to be the
best way to recover the most reserves. So, she added, modern
well designs like this are used to optimize and improve the
ultimate recovery.
MS. CHMIELOWSKI moved to the second example. She displayed
slide 3, "AOGCC Well Spacing Exception Example: ConocoPhillips,"
and noted the map depicts ConocoPhillips' planned developments
in the Rendezvous Oil Pool, which is part of the Greater Mooses
Tooth Unit in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) on
the North Slope. She drew attention to the governmental
sections overlain on the map and the purple line delineating the
reservoir boundary and said the orange lines within the boundary
are the proposed well developments. She stated that the plan is
to drill a bunch of wells in a diagonal pattern from the drill
pad, marked MT 7, in the pattern depicted on the map. In this
case the wells are being angled diagonally, Ms. Chmielowski
explained, because as the company develops these fields it is
accounting for the reservoir characteristics like permeability
and porosity and positioning the wells to get the best
production out of the field. She noted that rock can have
different properties in different directions depending on how it
was deposited.
1:23:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS inquired about the difference between
permeability and porosity.
MS. CHMIELOWSKI replied that porosity is how many air gaps are
in the rock and permeability is how easily something can flow
through it. She specified that something could have a lot of
porosity in that it has a lot of air spaces, but the air spaces
are not connected to each other, which would be permeability.
1:24:20 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked whether the orange well plan lines are the
extent of the reach of the lateral drilling from the well pad.
He further asked how far that reach is.
MS. CHMIELOWSKI replied that several thousand feet is deceptive.
She displayed slide 4, "AOGCC Well Spacing Exception Example:
ConocoPhillips," and said it is where they can reach reasonably
well with the rate from that location. The closeup of the wells
on slide 4, she stated, shows how all the wells originate at
that drill site and come out in different directions, but they
all are parallel. She said ConocoPhillips has this parallel
well design in several of its fields there are alternating
injectors and producers such that the injectors along the length
of the lateral push the oil towards the producers, which gets
good sweep and recovery. While the rigs could probably drill
farther, Ms. Chmielowski added, this is what the company thought
was optimal design. She displayed slide 3 and noted that the
entire pool is not being developed, only the section considered
the sweet spot of the reservoir oil pool is being developed.
1:25:36 PM
MS. CHMIELOWSKI resumed her presentation. She pointed out that
in these two examples each of the wells crosses multiple
governmental sections and there are multiple wells per
governmental section. She advised that every well would require
spacing exception, which is unnecessary to protect correlative
rights or prevent waste. This development, she further advised,
will yield a greater recovery than the conventional vertical or
slant well development with the default minimum spacing rules.
She stated that the technical review of drilling permits by
AOGCC engineers and geologists is robust and would not change
under [CSHB 349(CRA)]. With the passage of this bill, she
added, the AOGCC will continue to fulfill its mission to prevent
the waste of Alaska's valuable hydrocarbon resources.
1:26:30 PM
MS. CHMIELOWSKI next addressed two topics brought up in [the
House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee]. The
first topic, she related, is that the AOGCC also oversees
spacing exceptions dealing with how close a well can be drilled
to a lease boundary where the ownership is not the same on both
sides. For this, she specified, the AOGCC requires a minimum
distance of 1,500 feet for an oil well and 3,000 feet for a gas
well; the purpose being to protect correlative rights, which are
the rights of an owner of a resource to recover his or her share
of that resource. The spacing exception requirement to protect
correlative rights is not affected by [CSHB 349(CRA)], she
advised, the AOGCC would still be required to notice hearings
for any spacing exception of this type.
MS. CHMIELOWSKI then addressed the second topic, the question of
whether a spacing exception would have prevented the [3/4/22]
gas leak from the Alpine CD1 drill site. She said the answer to
that question is no, it would not have prevented the gas leak.
She stated that inter-well spacing exceptions like the ones
discussed in [CSHB 349(CRA)] address how far one well must be
from another in the subsurface, and not just anywhere below the
surface, but in the targeted productive reservoir. Regarding
the CD1 leak, she said the well being drilled targeted a deep
reservoir zone, and on its way, it drilled through a sand known
as Halo. Many wells have drilled through the Halo sand with no
issues, she stated, and because it was not considered a
productive hydrocarbon zone, cement was not placed across it
during that stage of the well completion. In this case the Halo
sand was unexpectedly productive and did start producing gas,
she explained. The gas migrated up the well and into the thaw
bulb, the area directly below the drill site where heat from
production in injection wells thaws out an area of the
permafrost. Once the gas migrated into this thaw area, Ms.
Chmielowski continued, it came to surface in various locations
via the path of least resistance. She advised that the source
of the gas has been identified and is in the process of being
cemented and isolated. She specified that the CD1 well would
not have required a spacing exception for the Halo sand because
it was not the targeted productive reservoir.
1:29:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS, relative to keeping 1,500 away from the
boundary between different lease owners, asked whether the
boundary would be the curvy purple line depicted on the map on
slide 3 [or the squared line].
MS. CHMIELOWSKI replied that it would be to the lease boundary,
which is the squared-off boundary depicted on the map. She
stated that ConocoPhillips acquired leases to match the pool
boundary [curvy purple line] but the correlative rights issue
applies to the lease boundary, not the pool boundary. She noted
that all these wells are offset from both the lease boundary and
the pool boundary because the company doesn't want to drill
right up to the edge of the pool.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked whether there would be 1,500 feet
between the right-angled lines and the pool boundary plus
another 1,500 feet between the pool boundary and the lease
boundary.
MS. CHMIELOWSKI responded that AOGCC statutes for minimum stand-
off relate only to the lease boundary line, which is the
squared-off boundary [on slide 3]. In this case, she continued,
the operator decided to stay within the pool boundary, which is
an additional offset that AOGCC doesn't require.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS observed the gridlines on the map and
inquired about the mileage dimension of those gridlines.
MS. CHMIELOWSKI answered that a governmental section is 640
acres. She stated that these governmental sections are going to
be even smaller than what is being seen as outlines on the map.
1:32:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired about the frequency of inter-well
spacing exemptions on North Slope leases versus Cook Inlet
leases.
MS. CHMIELOWSKI replied that between BlueCrest Energy and
ConocoPhillips, AOGCC most often gets requests for inter-well
spacing exceptions in the Cook Inlet. A main reason, she
explained, is the North Slope's remote location and high-cost
environment, so operators tend to fully plan their developments
before starting to drill their wells. For example, she said,
all the wells for the ConocoPhillips Rendezvous oil pool were
pre-planned and brought to the AOGCC before any drilling was
started. The operator comes to the AOGCC for pool rules - the
set of guidelines for how best to manage the field - and in a
pool rules application the AOGCC always writes a rule that the
inter-well spacing requirement is no longer needed within the
reservoir. Whereas on the Cook Inlet, Ms. Chmielowski
continued, the AOGCC gets a lot more exploration wells, smaller
pools, and smaller developments, and operators tend to drill
their wells one at a time rather than having a full plan of
development from day one.
1:34:54 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated he is on board with ensuring there isn't
too much bureaucracy in the process, but that he also believes
checks and balances must be kept intact to ensure the public is
involved. He asked whether those checks and balances would be
skirted if [CSHB 349(CRA)] becomes law.
MR. PRICE responded that hearings on spacing exceptions are very
narrow, very targeted, very technical, and specifically focused
on this information. During the years he has been involved, he
related, the AOGCC has received very few questions, although on
occasion a homeowner has raised concern about noise. However,
he continued, noise is completely outside the scope of AOGCC's
authority and outside the scope of the hearing, so there is
nothing the AOGCC can do about that concern. Those issues, he
said, are raised during the extensive public process undergone
by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) long before a
permit to drill is submitted to the AOGCC. He assured the
committee that the public process would not be skirted by
passing the proposed legislation.
1:36:58 PM
GRAHAM SMITH, Petroleum Land Manager, Division of Oil and Gas
(DOG), Department of Natural Resources (DNR), verified Mr.
Price's response. He stated that the public processes within
DNR are many and robust, and passage of [CSHB 349(CRA)] would
not affect those. He cited Article VIII, Section 10, [Alaska
State Constitution], which states, "No disposals or leases of
state lands, or interests therein, shall be made without prior
public notice and other safeguards of the public interest as may
be prescribed by law." He said this goes from the best interest
finding prior to a lease sale all the way until termination of
the lease of a unit with multiple public processes in the
middle. In addition to the constitutional obligation, Mr. Smith
continued, DNR does a lot of public notices because there is
text for an obligation to conduct public notices at various
stages and there is case law which dictates that each phase of
development has its own public process. He said DNR does not
have an official position on the proposed legislation, but that
the bill would not affect any of those processes.
1:38:21 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK asked whether [CSHB 349(CRA)] would affect the
permitting authority of any municipality where these well
spacing exceptions may be permitted on the North Slope or in
Cook Inlet.
MR. PRICE answered that there would be no impact from the
proposed legislation on that issue.
1:39:09 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK opened public testimony on CSHB 349(CRA), then
closed it after ascertaining that no one wished to testify.
1:39:40 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that CSHB 349(CRA) was held over.
HB 171-PFAS USE & REMEDIATION; FIRE/WATER SAFETY
1:39:55 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 171, "An Act relating to pollutants; relating
to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances; relating to
the duties of the Department of Environmental Conservation;
relating to firefighting substances; relating to thermal
remediation of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substance
contamination; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated that today's goal is to bring the bill up
to date based on the changes made in the Senate Resources
Standing Committee, and to take testimony from the sponsor and
affected agencies. He said the sponsor has asked that the
committee adopt a committee substitute (CS) to HB 171 that
matches the version currently in the works in the other body.
1:40:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt the proposed CS for HB
171, Version 32-LS0788\I, Radford, 4/23/22 as the working
document. There being no objection, Version I was before the
committee.
1:40:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN, as prime sponsor of HB 171, explained
that the bill would set in statute health protective levels for
drinking water that limit perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) compounds.
The major change in the CS, she related, is removal of the blood
test collection and monitoring. She said the bill continues to
affirm that the polluter pays and that the liability for the
pollution remains with the polluter; exempt the oil and gas
industry; and exempt the use until there is an alternative that
is acceptable by the state fire marshal. She stated that
PFAS/PFOA aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) is the best
[firefighting response] for oil and gas fires because they burn
hot and long. Representative Hannan pointed out that most of
the PFAS/PFOA pollution in Alaska is not from actual fire
response but from required testing at airports. She said it is
a compound that does not dissipate and does not dilute, but it
does migrate in the water column, and it has migrated into
drinking water systems from the sites that were required to
deploy it. This chemical compound is very toxic to humans, she
continued, and contributes to low birth weight, thyroid disease,
and a list of cancers.
1:43:37 PM
TIMOTHY CLARK, Staff, Representative Sara Hannan, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Hannan, prime sponsor
of HB 171, explained the changes in Version I, the proposed
committee substitute for the bill. He stated that other than
the removal of the blood testing requirements, the only other
change is an updating of the effective date of the bill from
1/1/2022 to 1/1/2023.
1:44:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to the [North Pole Refinery]
where sulfolane pollution occurred under the refinery's builder
and original owner, but the pollution wasn't discovered until
after purchase of the refinery by another company and now there
have been many court cases over who is liable. He asked whether
the original polluter or the current landowner would be
responsible for the cleanup and remediation.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that in that specific case the
lawyers will have to fight it out because she doesn't know.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS posed a scenario in which a government
entity, such as the U.S. Department of Defense, is the polluter.
He asked whether the government entity would be the responsible
polluter.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN responded yes.
1:45:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether provisions in HB 171 would
dictate the answer to Representative Hopkins' question.
MR. CLARK answered that the foundational premise for liabilities
in HB 171 is the concept that the polluter pays. So, he said,
the liability would rest with the entity that caused the
discharge of the pollutant into the environment.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked who the polluter would be if the
federal government gave the okay for use at, say, an airport.
MR. CLARK replied that until the present, the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) required airports to train with PFAS-
bearing foams on a regular basis. He said it seems conceivable
to him that the FAA would be the liable entity.
1:47:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked how the origin of PFAS pollution
can be determined. For example, he said, Juneau's dump is only
a mile or two from the airport. He further noted that sludge
washes into [Gastineau] Channel and asked where the liability
would be there.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN responded that the bill addresses PFAS in
foam. She said the bill does not address PFAS in things like
Gore-Tex jackets or containers for fast food, although
legislation in some states does address that. She related that
Juneau residents have been assured the landfill has a liner [to
prevent] leaching into the water table. She said Alaska's water
column issues are related to the dispersing of the foam and are
primarily associated with use at airports from mandated testing.
Regarding liability, she stated, what is being talked about is
the cleanup and providing clean drinking water. Representative
Hannan pointed out that the Juneau airport is in a saltwater
area, and it is not where Juneau gets its drinking water. The
community of Gustavus, she continued, has no community water
system and PFAS from the airport have leached into the water
table, polluting wells, including the school's well. For five
years now, she specified, the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has provided an alternative source of
drinking water to the citizens whose wells were polluted by the
PFAS plume from the Gustavus airport. Cleanup and mitigation
are ongoing, and DOT&PF and the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) and DOT&PF have taken the responsibility for
it, she added.
1:51:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER referred to page 2, lines 18-27 of
Version I, which read:
Sec. 46.03.345. Liability for drinking water and
drinking water testing. (a) A person who causes a fire
that results in a release of a firefighting substance
containing a perfluoroalkyl substance or
polyfluoroalkyl substance is liable for the costs of
providing drinking water and drinking water testing
under AS 46.03.340. This subsection does not apply to
a release of a firefighting substance to extinguish a
fire in a residential building or motor vehicle.
(b) A person who extinguishes a fire by releasing
a firefighting substance that contains a
perfluoroalkyl substance of polyfluoroalkyl substance
is not liable for the costs of providing drinking
water and drinking water testing under AS 46.03.340 or
site cleanup under this chapter, AS 46.08, AS 46.09,
or another state law unless the firefighting substance
was released for training or testing purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that under subsection (a) the
person causing the fire is not the one who released the
substances, but that person is liable for what happens
afterward. He further noted that under subsection (b) the
person who extinguishes the fire by using such substances is not
liable for the cost of providing drinking water. He maintained
that those two provisions contradict each other somewhat.
MR. CLARK answered that when reference is made to a person in
that paragraph, most likely that would be a company because in
U.S. law companies are persons. He said the entity that caused
a fire where PFAS was used to put out that fire would be liable.
The next paragraph, he continued, is differentiating that fire
departments that are forced to use these substances to put out a
fire will not be held liable because of the circumstances in
which they found themselves.
1:54:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY posed an example of airplane engine failure
forcing [the pilot] to crash land on a Gustavus airport runway,
causing the plane to erupt in fire and firefighting trucks
responding by hitting the fire with PFAS because that is what
they have. That [the pilot] would be held liable seems a
stretch, he stated, because it wasn't intentional, it was an
accident. Liability per line 18, he argued, cannot be connected
to unintentional accidental acts.
1:56:24 PM
CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff, Senator Jesse Kiehl, Alaska State
Legislature, responded on behalf of Senator Kiehl, prime sponsor
of the companion bill, SB 121. She explained that the liability
provisions in these bills are designed to match the existing DEC
rules about liability, which means that with all these hazardous
substances the polluter pays, or the spiller pays, and that
includes accidental releases. So, she said, someone who spills
a carcinogen into the environment, even if it's an accident,
would still be liable for the cleanup. The responsible party
wouldn't have criminal liability because there is not that
intent, she continued, but the party would have civil
liabilities. Ms. Schlingheyde noted that the bill adds some
protections not existing in current law. For example, she
specified, under current law a volunteer fire department is
responsible when it uses foam that contains PFAS or sprays
anything else while fighting a fire. This will give them a
liability shield that they wouldn't otherwise have because there
is concern about the ability for volunteer fire departments and
others to be able to pay for this, she advised, but it doesn't
create a new type of liability.
1:57:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY offered his understanding that there are
PFAS at airports in Alaska right now.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY offered his understanding that the airport
fire department people are shielded from liability to use on a
fire the PFAS currently at the airports.
MS. SCHLINGHEYDE replied that this would give them a liability
shield if this were a fire but not for a training or for an
accidental release.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY stated it is unfair in a situation like his
aircraft example. The saving of human life is more important
than the groundwater, he maintained, and he doesn't have any
choice in this accidental situation that the firefighters are
using PFAS. He pointed out that as the pilot he can't say that
if he were to crash, the firefighters should let him burn to
death rather than using PFAS. It isn't right and doesn't make
sense, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN responded by noting that Gustavus is a
second-class city that provides two examples. One example is
DOT&PF being held liable for the practice discharge of PFAS at
the airport. Now DOT&PF is having to provide drinking water.
The other example is the Gustavus Volunteer Fire Department
being held liable by DEC for using PFAS [to extinguish] a real
fire because currently volunteer fire departments are liable for
discharging PFAS. For four years DEC has pursued collecting
from the Gustavus volunteer fire department because it used a
fire truck donated by the state that was full of PFAS foam.
2:00:33 PM
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the committee would hear invited
testimony.
2:01:07 PM
CHRIS HLADICK provided invited testimony in support of HB 171.
He qualified that he is speaking on behalf of himself but that
he formerly was the Region 10 administrator for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the former commissioner
of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development, and a city manager in the state for 27 years. He
said he is testifying in support of HB 171 because he thinks it
is a good first step.
MR. HLADICK advised that today's discussion has been a good
discussion about some of the complicating issues with PFAS,
called "forever chemicals" by the EPA. He related that the EPA
is in the process of developing a [maximum] contaminant level
(MCL) for drinking water that is supposed to be done by summer
2023. However, he pointed out, there is nothing to say that the
state can't set levels of its own and then adjust in the future
or keep at levels less than what the EPA develops. He offered
his belief that the EPA is working on 22 chemicals and noted
that the PFAS/PFOA family includes over 4,500 chemicals.
Liability is an issue, he affirmed, and working out the legal
interpretation on the liability issue is an important first step
in the process going forward.
2:03:54 PM
TIFFANY LARSON, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and
Response (SPAR), Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC),
provided invited testimony expressing DEC's concerns with HB
171. She noted that her written testimony provided in the
committee packet, titled "HB 171 Prepared Statements for House
Resources Committee April 27, 2022," contemplates the original
version of the bill, so she will skip the points that are no
longer valid. She explained that PFAS is a family of chemicals
with 5,000-10,000 man-made compounds of carbon bonded to
fluorine, one of the strongest bonds to exist. She said PFAS
chemicals are water, heat, and oil resistant, as well as water
soluble and persistent in the environment, and they
bioaccumulate. She stated that while DEC has concerns about the
content of HB 171, the department appreciates Representative
Hannan bringing attention to this important subject.
MS. LARSON addressed the question, "What has DEC done in the
absence of legislation to protect Alaskans and the environment?"
She said Alaska pro-actively listed perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) as hazardous
substances. In 2016, she related, Alaska was one of the first
states to promulgate soil and groundwater cleanup levels for two
PFAS compounds. In 2019, she stated, [DEC] incorporated through
its technical memorandum ("memo") the lifetime health advisory
(LHA) of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS,
individual or combined. This number, she explained, is the
threshold for when a responsible party (RP) is required to
provide alternative drinking water. Since 2018, she continued,
DEC and DOT&PF have been voluntarily testing drinking water
wells at the airports that have been required to use AFFF. As
part of that effort, DEC implemented expedited procedures to
sample wells that it suspected of contamination, Ms. Larson
specified, and where drinking water impacts were found,
alternative drinking water has been provided. She noted that
DEC also issued two state permits for thermal remediation that
are protective of human health and the environment consistent
with developed testing requirements for limits and emissions.
2:06:46 PM
MS. LARSON related that the EPA is actively working on the issue
of 5,000-10,000 compounds of PFAS by developing a strategic
roadmap, which EPA published in October 2021. Existing research
was reviewed through EPA's Science Advisory Board for PFOS and
PFOA, she said. The result of that review will be released in
May [2022], she continued, and DEC anticipates the review board
will set a lower LHA and DEC expects it to be reduced by an
order of magnitude - from 70 ppt down to 7 ppt or lower. It is
further expected, she advised, that in fall 2022 EPA will issue
a proposed rulemaking for National Primary Drinking Water Act
regulations, with a final rule promulgated in fall 2023. In
winter 2022, Ms. Larson added, the EPA is expected to publish
ambient water quality criteria. Plus, she specified, the EPA is
looking at identifying categories of PFAS to regulate on an
individual compound basis. She said DEC expects that by summer
2023 the EPA will have published a final rule for Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA)("Superfund") designation for PFOA and PFOS. She
deferred to Ms. Jennifer Currie to provide testimony on behalf
of the Department of Law.
2:08:46 PM
JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Statewide
Section Supervisor, Environmental Section, Department of Law
(DOL), provided invited testimony expressing DOL's concerns with
HB 171. She said there are two distinct ways that DEC can
identify a substance as hazardous: first, DEC can make a
determination based on the definition of hazardous substance
contained in statute; second, DEC can list the hazardous
substance in its promulgated regulations. She stated that when
DEC has decided that a substance especially an emerging
contaminant - is hazardous according to the definition only and
not by regulation, responsible properties have tried to evade
liability by improperly arguing that the determination is not
valid because it is not regulation.
MS. CURRIE advised that if HB 171 is enacted, there is concern
that liable parties will try to evade liability by arguing that
other emerging contaminants are non-hazardous substance if they
are not named in statute. She said the language of HB 171 is
unclear as to whether the bill is defining hazardous substances
under state law to include PFAS because it's referred to only as
a substance, and DEC liability statutes impose joint and several
liability only on releases of hazardous substances. She drew
attention to Sec. 46.03.350(c) of Version I that requires DEC to
accept certain amounts of PFAS each year, all of which must be
disposed of by DEC. She counseled that if at any point in the
future the PFAS disposal site has a release or receives a
determination that it is not appropriate for PFAS disposal, the
site will be deemed a contaminated site directly under state or
federal law. She specified that because DEC is the entity which
disposed of PFAS at the site, the state will be held jointly and
severally liable for addressing the contamination at that site.
MS. CURRIE pointed out that another issue is that Sec.
46.03.345(b) names the federal government as liable if it
requires the use of PFAS substance. She advised that any
provision that makes the federal government liable under a state
statute would be subject to challenge unless there is a valid
waiver of sovereign immunity. The United States, she said, has
sovereign immunity for lawsuits just as the state does. For a
waiver of sovereign immunity to be valid, she continued,
Congress must specify what it intends to waive, or courts will
hold the waiver as not occurred. To enforce .345(b), she
counseled, the state will likely have to enter cost of
litigation without a likelihood of success to attempt to hold
the federal government liable. She deferred to Ms. Larson to
continue with DEC's testimony.
2:12:15 PM
MS. LARSON resumed her testimony. She addressed the question,
"What challenges exist for DEC with implementing the bill as
written?" She said there is not currently an existing database
of where aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) has been used in
Alaska, so DEC would have to do the research to find it. She
noted that there is significant liability to the state and for
ultimate disposal. She related that there is not a current
mechanism by which DEC can accept, handle, or dispose of any
amount of PFAS containing firefighting substances. She pointed
out that the federal permitting for thermal remediation doesn't
change the monitoring requirements and only adds time and
expense for those permit applicants. She advised that the
minimal release language for thermal remediation requires
contract development of a numerical pollutant limit and special
procedures more stringent than federal requirements on a
timeline ahead of EPA and the science.
MS. LARSON concluded her testimony by stating that DEC has the
necessary authority, and has used it, to require responsible
parties to respond to PFAS contamination and to regulate
hazardous substances. To statutorily declare a substance as
hazardous could jump ahead of the science, she submitted, and
takes that decision making out of the hands of DEC's technical
staff. She said DEC understands the public's concern regarding
PFAS, and the desire for clear lines of what is safe and not
safe. However, she stated, the scientific community is still
working to determine the critical levels of PFAS in drinking
water and in human blood and bodies, and this bill doesn't make
that process happen any faster.
2:15:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY referred to the list of substances and
their cutoff concentrations on page 2, lines 8-16 of Version I.
He submitted that the measurement in parts per trillion (ppt) is
so small and exact that it is like passing a speed limit law of
64.3876 miles per hour, no more, no less. He argued that these
limits could change as the EPA and other agencies do more
testing and therefore suggested that DEC could set these numbers
independently of the legislature. He reiterated his belief that
assigning liability in the plane crash example he posed earlier
seems like a stretch. He posed another example where a forklift
driver accidentally puts a fork through a drum of aviation gas
causing it to ignite and said holding the forklift driver liable
for the groundwater contamination seems like a stretch.
2:18:28 PM
RANDY BATES, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), responded that these are very
specific drinking water provisions, which are different from
clean water provisions.
2:19:05 PM
MS. LARSON, regarding the numbers being very specific and akin
to writing a speed limit sign of [64.3876] miles per hour,
explained that the State of Alaska didn't originate the limits
in the bill and that the sponsor probably has a better awareness
of the origin of the limits. Regarding whether it is somehow
different from the way drinking water standards are established
in the orders of magnitude in the numbers, she advised that
those standards usually are prescriptive. She deferred to Ms.
Currie to address accidental liability.
2:20:12 PM
MS. CURRIE specified that environmental statutes for liability
don't take into account accidents; they are "no fault." She
said there is some confusion with the bill because Alaska's
liability statute for contamination is AS 46.03.822, which
establishes four different categories of people liable jointly
and separately, so each one is responsible for the fault all
themselves. For example, she continued, if two people were
liable and one went bankrupt, the one that was left would be
responsible for all of it that is joint and several liability.
She said the legislation establishes sort of two new categories
of liability but doesn't note whether they are jointly and
severally liable in conjunction with .822. Also, she noted, the
bill doesn't establish that PFAS are hazardous substances, which
is required for .822. She further noted that in an accident
like those posed by Representative McKay, the traditional
liability for contamination does not take into account the
person's mental state.
2:22:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked what data was used for the limits
in HB 171 given the [EPA] report won't be out until May [2022].
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that the limits came from the
"Michigan PFAS Science Advisory Working Group." Michigan is one
of the leading states [in addressing] PFAS pollution, she said,
and this research was shared when the bill was introduced. She
offered to provide the studies again.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how long the study was and why it
was chosen.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN responded that Michigan is a leading state
establishing standards. She said the report is based in 2019
and she first introduced the bill in 2020.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, regarding the [limit] of 25 gallons
annually from every entity, noted that the substances could be
coming from an oil company or a firefighting outfit. He asked
whether there is any idea about the volume that the state could
expect to be warehousing every year.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN answered, "We don't, ... it is limited to
25 per year." She related that DOT&PF has identified 34
airports at which there is PFAS aqueous foam. She offered her
belief that it would be better to move it from diverse locations
where a forklift driver might puncture a container to a more
centralized collection location for disposal or monitoring.
2:24:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, regarding the 10,000 compounds, offered
his belief that these compounds are contained in many plastics.
He asked how contamination is going to be differentiated when
looking at the chemical makeup of thousands of compounds.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that this legislation is focusing
on the PFAS and PFOA compounds used in AFFF, the firefighting
foam. The bill is not looking at plastics or Gore-Tex, she
explained, because there are no manufacturing sites in Alaska
for those.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether the sponsor thinks that
the data in the forthcoming [EPA] report will be different or
the same.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN responded that she does not think the EPA
will have research that correlates to what Alaska's clean
drinking water standards are. She stated that the EPA must work
on a national level to address the hundreds of PFAS compounds.
The impetus for the bill, she continued, is because of waiting
on the EPA to address clean drinking water standards and the EPA
is not doing it in a fast enough way to address the safety,
security, and health protection of Alaskans. In response to
Chair Patkotak, she said drinking water standards are a viable
element to ensuring Alaskans are protected.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered his belief that the bill has
some retroactive provisions. This worries him, he said, because
the federal government has maintained levels at the airports, so
other entities have looked at that and have thought it okay to
utilize them.
2:27:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether he is correct in thinking
that the dumping into water of raw materials comprised of PFAS
chemicals, such as petroleum products, will cause instant
pollution whereas the dumping of plastics made of these same
PFAS chemicals will not instantly pollute the water.
MS. LARSON responded that the answer isn't simple as to whether
a small amount of petroleum being dumped into a well will result
in contamination. She explained that pollution is talked about
in terms of the product release relative to the environment to
which it is released. So, she said, when talking about these
limits and the concentrations in the type of environment, such
as soil, groundwater, and drinking water, it is specific to what
is being addressed. In this bill, she continued, the limit is
420 ppt for PFOS in drinking water, so anything below that is
okay.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE clarified that he is asking about the
pollution potential for products that have PFAS chemicals bound
into them as part of the production process versus firefighting
foams. He asked whether he is right that when bound into a
product one can be pretty sure that that is not the source of
PFAS contamination.
MS. LARSON confirmed that that is correct and said the principal
source of PFAS in groundwater in Alaska is from AFFF release.
2:30:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE posed a scenario in which he accidentally
knocks a barrel of a known contaminant out of his truck into a
lake. He asked whether he would be held liable under current
statute.
MS. CURRIE confirmed that he would be liable under AS 46.03.822.
CHAIR PATKOTAK remarked that he understands the idea of ensuring
that volunteer fire departments aren't liable but that the
liability now would be "kicked over" to somebody.
REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM commented that the numbers are "mind-
boggling" because by his calculation someone would have to drink
42,000 gallons of water per day [to be in the PFAS danger zone].
2:33:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that the bill's language states
"PFAS substances" and argued that if it was talking about AFFF
it would be listed that way. He said he is trying to get an
understanding of the generics versus absolutes and how that is
being looked at legally.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that there are hundreds of PFAS
compounds and components, and the legislation is focusing on the
seven that are the primary components in AFFF, which is
firefighting foam.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER responded, "It doesn't say that."
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN drew attention to page 2 of Version I and
stated that the seven substances listed [on lines 10-16 are the
seven primary components in AFFF]. She then explained that
Alaska laws are not written in colloquial speech, and with
hazardous substances "they've" asked to be very specific.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he will visit with Legislative
Legal Services to figure out why it is written the way it.
CHAIR PATKOTAK interjected that he understands the concerns
about opening the can of worms not specific to AFFF. He
observed that Section 1, Sec. 46.03.340, doesn't say anything
about firefighting substances until page 2, line 18. He said
there is a general understanding amongst committee members that
PFAS/PFOA is an issue, but it is a matter of differences in how
to find a way to address the issue, which will require work with
the bill sponsors in both bodies.
2:37:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE related that he has been thinking about
the scenario of someone causing a fire that requires the use of
PFAS firefighting foams. He said the scenario presented by
Representative McKay seems like a genuine concern, because as a
private pilot himself it would be a hard decision as to whether
to let the fire burn or put it out at the risk of permanently
polluting the drinking water of thousands of people. He
inquired about the intent and who was in mind when this
liability was envisioned. For example, he continued, he is
thinking about chemical production facilities that deal with
hazardous materials all the time and whether there are other
laws on the books requiring special liability insurance for
cleanups that would be massive.
MS. CURRIE responded that AS 46.03.822 establishes liability for
the release of hazardous substances. She said it does not have
this as a category of people that are liable; this is a new
category of people that are liable under state law. She stated
she doesn't know if other states have established the person who
causes the fire as a person liable either regular liability or
joint and several liability.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said this will have to be worked on
offline.
CHAIR PATKOTAK stated there is plenty of work for committee
members to do offline together with either the bill sponsor or
the department to answer the committee's specific questions.
2:40:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked whether "these types of things" must
be shipped to the Lower 48 for proper disposal.
JASON OLDS, Acting Director, Division of Air Quality, Department
of Environmental Conservation (DEC), answered that [DEC] has
permitted two facilities that are currently capable of thermally
remediating PFAS. In further response regarding their location,
he said one facility is in Moose Creek near North Pole and the
other in Valdez.
CHAIR PATKOTAK inquired whether the PFAS/PFOA is eliminated when
incinerated or whether it becomes caught up in the filters,
thereby contaminating the filters.
MR. OLDS replied that it is 99.9999 percent destruction. He
said there are several treatment technologies in the process
where it would be captured or where other product pollutants are
captured. It's an industrial process, he continued, but a lot
of controls go on with that.
2:42:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK asked whether water that is contaminated
with PFAS is contaminated forever.
MR. BATES responded that once PFAS are in the water they are in
the water column and persist. In what concentration they
persist is a different question, he added.
2:43:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how PFAS arrive in Alaska and in
what form.
MS. LARSON answered that it comes up in the form of aqueous film
forming foam (AFFF), which is a firefighting substance. Apart
from that, she said, the family of PFAS compounds is ubiquitous
and comes in all kinds of forms, such as nonstick pans and
microwavable popcorn bags. The AFFF comes to Alaska by tug or
barge and all the rest comes via the common shipping pathways.
It is everywhere, she noted, and it is in every person in some
form or another.
2:44:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN provided closing comments. She said DEC
currently lists two of the PFAS/PFOA compounds as hazardous, but
[she] believes all seven in the bill are significantly toxic to
humans and exist in the water columns because of AFFF. She
related that DEC says it doesn't have a database of where it is
and where it has been used. But, she maintained, it is long
past due given at least two state agencies have been collecting
data since 2018. So, as the data is collected on where these
forever chemicals have been used, stored, or spilled, the
database needs to be built because whether it is addressed this
legislature or 10 years down the road, it is being found by the
EPA and state agencies that the exposure limits that create
toxic response go down. Representative Hannan agreed that the
small [concentrations] for significant health concern are mind
blowing but added that while not letting it into Alaska's water
system is best, [it is good] to know where it is and try to
remove it. One of the earliest PFAS contamination sites in
Alaska is in Representative Cronk's district, she stated, and it
was caused by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). The fish
from the lakes cannot be eaten due to PFAS in the water, she
continued, and while that is rare in Alaska, it isn't rare
across the U.S. She stressed that Alaska doesn't want to be
like the rest of the U.S., so Alaska cannot wait for federal EPA
decisions to be had because it will be years, not months given
that the EPA is dealing with hundreds of compounds and not just
AFFF. She urged that the state start with [these seven
substances] for the health and safety of Alaskans.
CHAIR PATKOTAK recounted that in preparing for today's meeting
there was discussion about a list that prioritized the safe
drinking water limits throughout Alaska into which AFFF was
leaked. He said he looks forward to that follow-up from the
department and making it available to all committee members in
preparation for the bill's next hearing.
CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that HB 171 was held over.
2:49:01 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:49 p.m.