Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/14/2022 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
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 | |
| SB80 | |
| SB168 | |
| Presentation: Department of Environmental Conservation | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 80 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 14, 2022
9:03 a.m.
9:03:43 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Bishop called the Senate Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
Senator Bill Wielechowski
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Senator Elvi Gray-Jackson, Sponsor; Senator Robert Myers,
Sponsor; Christina Carpenter, Director, Division of
Environmental Health, Department of Environmental
Conservation; Randy Bates, Director, Division of Water,
Department of Environmental Conservation.
SUMMARY
SB 80 PUBLIC SCHOOLS: MENTAL HEALTH EDUCATION
SB 80 was REPORTED out of committee with five "do
pass" recommendations and with one new fiscal
impact note from the Department of Environmental
Conservation.
SB 168 DONATIONS/GIFTS FOR DOTandPF SIGNAGE
SB 168 was REPORTED out of committee with three
"do pass" recommendations, and two "no
recommendation" recommendations and with one
previously published fiscal impact note: FN 1:
DOT.
PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
SENATE BILL NO. 80
"An Act relating to mental health education."
9:04:50 AM
SENATOR ELVI GRAY-JACKSON, SPONSOR, spoke to a brief
reintroduction of the legislation. The bill would amend
existing health curriculum to include mental health
curriculum in all K-12 heath classrooms to adequately
educate students on vital information pertaining to mental
health, symptoms resources, and treatment. She noted that
the Senate Health and Social Services committee had amended
the bill to include parental consent to teach the
curriculum to students.
9:05:42 AM
Senator von Imhof wondered how the curriculum would be
developed and incorporated into the school districts.
9:06:15 AM
Senator Gray-Jackson cited page 2 of the legislation:
Guidelines for developmentally appropriate instruction
in mental health shall be developed in consultation
with the Department of Health and Social Services,
regional tribal health organizations, and
representatives of national and state mental health
organizations.
9:06:44 AM
Senator von Imhof remarked that the fiscal note was $71,000
for development of the curriculum.
9:06:53 AM
Senator Gray-Jackson replied in the affirmative.
9:07:03 AM
Senator Wielechowski addressed the fiscal note from the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED), OMB
component 2796. He read from the analysis:
This fiscal note contains three one-time, multi-year
expenses: 1) $30.0 for $1.5 stipends for 20 parents
and qualified stake holders for their year long
participation in the research and authoring of the
standards, 2) $35.0 contract for a national Mental
Health Education expert to facilitate the standards
process and professional development materials, and 3)
$6.0 for legal fees to implement the necessary
regulation changes.
9:08:08 AM
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to REPORT CS SB 80 (HSS) from
committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 80 was REPORTED out of committee with five "do pass"
recommendations and with one new fiscal impact note from
the Department of Education and Early Development.
9:08:40 AM
AT EASE
9:10:21 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 168
"An Act relating to program receipts; and relating to
the acceptance of gifts, donations, and grants for the
purpose of providing signage for assets under the
control of the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities."
9:10:26 AM
SENATOR ROBERT MYERS, SPONSOR, gave a brief reintroduction
of the legislation. He remarked that the bill was in
response to a bill in the previous legislative session. He
explained the limitations that the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) face when
excepting donations for signage. He explained that the bill
was about process and timing. He spoke to previous concerns
raised about the naming of trails and said trails were not
included due to differences in statutory authority between
DOT&PF and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
9:13:36 AM
Co-Chair Bishop addressed the zero fiscal note 1, OMB
Component number 530. He read from the analysis:
This proposal would codify a process in statute for
third-parties to provide donations, grants, and gifts
to provide signage for assets under the Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities (DOTPF) control,
notably infrastructure signage passed by other
legislature under AS 35.40 such as roads and bridges.
9:14:00 AM
Senator von Imhof felt that the comments clarified the
intent of the bill and appreciated the flexibility from
DOT&PF.
9:14:31 AM
Senator von Imhof MOVED to REPORT SB 168 from committee
with individual recommendations and attached zero fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
SB 168 was REPORTED out of committee with three "do pass"
recommendations, and two "no recommendation"
recommendations and with one previously published fiscal
impact note: FN 1: DOT.
9:15:04 AM
AT EASE
9:16:41 AM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Bishop handed the gavel to Co-Chair Stedman.
^PRESENTATION: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
9:17:05 AM
Co-Chair Stedman discussed housekeeping for the reminder of
the meeting.
9:17:38 AM
CHRISTINA CARPENTER, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION,
introduced herself.
9:17:57 AM
Co-Chair Stedman requested that the presenter avoid the use
of acronyms.
9:18:12 AM
Ms. Carpenter discussed the presentation, "Department of
Environmental Conservation Senate Finance Committee" (copy
on file). She looked at slide 2, "DEC Primacy Programs":
Primacy refers to the state assuming authority to
implement a federal program
Federal laws for which DEC assumed primacy:
Clean Air Act: Alaska assumed in 1972
Safe Drinking Water Act: Alaska assumed in 1978
Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System: Alaska assumed in 2012
Federal laws for which DEC has statutory authority,
granted by the legislature, to assume primacy but has
not yet done so:
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA):
Legislature authorized in 1981-AS46.03.299 (c)
Clean Water Act Section 404: Legislature
authorized in 2013 -AS 46.03.020 (14)
9:20:45 AM
Senator von Imhof surmised that Ms. Carpenter would
describe the process for the state beyond the statute.
Ms. Carpenter replied in the affirmative.
Senator Wielechowski wondered why the state had not yet
assumed primacy under the Clean Water Act.
RANDY BATES, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WATER, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, replied that the statute was
passed in 2013 and the department had full authority to
develop and implement a 404 program, which would be the
Dredge and Fill program. He added that in 2014 the
legislature removed funding for the program and the
department now hoped to pick the program back up and
continue with the progress that had been previously made.
9:21:56 AM
Senator Hoffman queried the fiscal impact of the program in
2013.
Mr. Bates replied that he did not have the exact number but
thought it was similar to the current request. He added
that there was a proposal of 32 staff as a baseline funding
allocation, with a $5.3 million ask going forward.
9:22:40 AM
Senator Hoffman thought that the past request had been the
reason that the legislature had not funded the program in
the past.
9:23:08 AM
Co-Chair Stedman announced that the previous fiscal note
would be located for committee reference.
9:23:26 AM
Ms. Carpenter explained that DEC had retained primacy of
the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act since
1971.
9:23:56 AM
Ms. Carpenter addressed slide 3, "Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)":
Management of Solid Waste
DEC has approval for oversight of non-hazardous waste
under Subtitle D
Subtitle C covers management of hazardous waste
DEC is one of two states that does not have primacy
over Subtitle C
9:26:57 AM
Co-Chair Bishop understood that the state did not have a
designated hazardous waste depository, and therefore
shipped the waste out of state. He asked whether this would
continue to be the practice under Subtitle C.
Ms. Carpenter replied in the affirmative.
9:27:17 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether the department planned to
develop a storage facility in-state.
Ms. Carpenter replied that the question would be addressed
in future slides. She added that there were 4 storage
facilitates in the state but not treatment or disposal
facilitates. She said that if there was interest in
establishing a hazardous waste landfill, that was something
that DEC could permit under the primacy program. Currently
a project of that nature would need to be permitted by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
9:27:54 AM
Senator von Imhof relayed that she had recently net with
the owner and operator of a dirty dirt machine in
Fairbanks. She asked whether DEC would fully control the
program, or would they outsource to private companies that
handled PFAS dirt, spilled diesel, and the like.
9:28:56 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied that PFAS was not considered a
hazardous waste and would not fall under RCRA Subtitle C.
9:29:16 AM
Senator von Imhof wondered whether it would be economically
sensible for the state to outsource to private companies
rather than fund 30 new positions within the department.
9:29:47 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied that the position increment under
RCRA would be 6 positions and not 30.
9:30:12 AM
Senator von Imhof wondered whether the DEC would entertain
outsourcing some of the work to the private sector.
9:30:20 AM
Ms. Carpenter queried the definition of outsourcing.
9:30:43 AM
Senator Hoffman noted that Subtitle C covered the
management of hazardous waste. He asked for a description
of the management in rural areas of the state. He wondered
who currently paid for the shipping of hazardous waste out
of state and who would assume that liability under RCRA.
9:31:37 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied that current DEC activity in rural
Alaska landfills was for non-hazardous wastes. She said
that the EPA and the Solid Waste Alaska Taskforce had been
working on a program called Backhaul Alaska, which would
get household hazardous waste out of communities. She said
that DEC had several staff participating in the effort.
9:32:15 AM
Senator Hoffman understood that DEC was assisting the pilot
program to manage hazardous waste and wondered how DEC was
assisting communities presently, how that would change
under the proposed program, and how the hazardous waste
removal would be paid for.
9:32:55 AM
Co-Chair Stedman interjected that a clearer definition of
potential costs to local governments would be helpful to
the conversation. He specified that the committee was
curious to know the difference in costs to rural local
governments versus urban.
9:33:20 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied that under a state primacy program
technical support and assistance would be provided to
communities for properly managing hazardous waste. She
stated that the fiscal note did not include money to help
communities with the removal of hazardous waste. She said
that DEC could assist with the management of hazardous
waste and potentially help coordinate across communities.
9:34:34 AM
Senator Hoffman pointed out that DEC could currently aid
with hazardous waste management in rural communities. He
failed to understand how the state assuming primacy of the
program would help with the removal of hazardous waste in
rural Alaska. He felt that he could not support the expense
to the state reflected on the fiscal note if the program
would only benefit the removal of hazardous waste in urban
parts of the state.
9:35:22 AM
Co-Chair Stedman inquired about how the department handled
the removal of fuel contaminated soil and creosote
impregnated timber and pilings from communities.
9:36:27 AM
Ms. Carpenter agreed to provide that information.
9:36:35 AM
Co-Chair Stedman thought that some of the hazardous gravel
could be treated and not removed entirely. He expressed
concern that shipping would be expensive.
9:36:52 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked for the current price of shipping a
full 55-gallon drum from Alaska to Washington State.
9:37:19 AM
Co-Chair Stedman interjected that the prices should reflect
shipping from Bethel, Nome, Kodiak, and other communities
in Southeast Alaska.
Ms. Carpenter agreed to provide that information.
9:37:55 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether PFAS was considered a
hazardous waste on other states or countries.
9:38:00 AM
Ms. Carpenter did not know about the consideration in other
states. She noted that PFAS was not considered a hazardous
waste on the federal level.
9:38:20 AM
Co-Chair Stedman interjected that he would not drink PFAS
contaminated water. He believed that the substance was
pretty hazardous.
9:38:31 AM
Senator Wielechowski wondered whether the state considered
PFAS in drinking water a problem for the population.
9:38:41 AM
Ms. Carpenter responded that DEC and DOT&PF had been
working to assess various communities water sources and had
taken action to provide alternative waster sources when
community water sources exceeded Lifetime Health Advisory
amounts established by the EPA.
9:39:19 AM
Senator Wielechowski was curious how PFAS was not a
hazardous substance but could exceed Lifetime Health
Advisory amounts. He understood that the EPA had not
technically declared PFAS a hazardous substance but did set
limits on allowable amounts in drinking water. He wondered
whether Alaskans should be concerned if PFAS was present in
their drinking water.
9:39:49 AM
Ms. Carpenter reiterated that PFAS was not federally
defined as a hazardous substance under RCRA. She asserted
that the state was taking action to test drinking water
systems and provide alternative water sources when PFAS was
found in water systems.
9:40:19 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked for a brief background of the
presenters professional qualifications.
9:40:45 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied that she had worked with DEC since
2012 and currently oversaw the Environmental Health
Division. She felt that some of the committees questions
could be better answered by the directors of Spill
Prevention and Response or Air Quality Division. She said
that she was not the primary lead on the PFAS response.
9:41:48 AM
Co-Chair Stedman suggested that if a question was asked
that was out of Ms. Carpenters per view, she should defer
to the appropriate channel. He requested further detail of
her professional background.
9:42:31 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied that she had a bachelors and a
masters degree in Business Administration and had been the
Environmental Health Division Director since 2016.
9:42:51 AM
Senator Hoffman asked about Subtitle C and wondered whether
the state would address existing hazardous waste sites, or
would those sites fall under the per view of the federal
government. He cited specifically the numerous sites on the
North Slope.
9:43:25 AM
Ms. Carpenter said no decision had been made concerning
those sites. She said she would provide further information
to the committee.
9:43:55 AM
Ms. Carpenter pointed to slide 4, "RCRA Primacy Costs (in
thousands)":
Increment Request
• $830.0 UGF
• 6 FT Positions
• Training, equipment, and travel
• Develop regulations and documentation
Two-year application process
Federal funds are available after primacy assumed
which would replace $400.0 of G
9:44:49 AM
Senator von Imhof asked about the equipment needed for the
program.
9:45:00 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied that it would be for new employee
start up and would include computers, furniture, and the
like.
9:45:10 AM
Senator von Imhof asked for a scenario detailing what the
RCRA program DEC employees would do in the event of a
hazardous waste spill.
9:45:57 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied deferred to Spill Prevention and
Response group. She said that the Solid Waste Program under
Environmental Health would be regulating the generation,
transports, and disposal of hazardous waste that might be
generated. She said those things included old computers or
batteries, which had to be documented through the
transportation and disposal process before ground storage.
9:46:50 AM
Senator von Imhof assumed old computer tracking and
disposal was currently paid for by the federal government
and under the program the 6 full-time positions would
assume those responsibilities for the state.
9:47:07 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied in the affirmative.
9:47:14 AM
Senator von Imhof noted that the process whether it be
cleaning dirty dirt or spills these 6 state positions
would track and chart where the hazardous waste would
ultimately end up.
9:47:38 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied that DEC would be providing technical
support and compliance assistance through the issuance of
permits and performing inspections.
9:47:48 AM
Senator von Imhof surmised that the process remained the
same as to how contaminated dirt would be cleaned or
computers disposed of.
9:47:56 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied in the affirmative.
9:48:05 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wondered the difference between who was
shouldering the cost now and who would be liable if the
state assumed primacy under RCRA.
9:48:12 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied that she would address that further
in the presentation.
9:48:25 AM
Co-Chair Bishop shared that he had taught Hazardous Waste
and Emergency Response for 20 years and thought that if the
state was going to assume the duties under RCRA the cost
was going to be more than the current UGF request for
training.
9:49:11 AM
Co-Chair Stedman noted that Senator Olson had joined the
meeting. He asked what that benefit was to the state in
assuming primacy.
9:49:21 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied that she would address the issue
further in the presentation.
9:49:24 AM
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that the 6 requested positions
would add $830,000 in UGF. He thought that the current
administration request was for 220 employees, some of which
were not currently funded in the budget. He asked whether
the 6 positions were included in the 220 employees and
whether those 6 positions were funded in the current budget
request.
9:50:09 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied that she could not speak to the
overall budget. She believed that the 6 positions had been
identified as being funded by UGF.
9:50:20 AM
Co-Chair Stedman posed to the question to Mr. Bates.
9:50:34 AM
Mr. Bates replied that he positions were included in the
budget.
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether they were funded in the
governors proposed FY 23 budget.
Mr. Bates said that the positions for both programs were in
the proposed budget to be funded strictly be general funds.
9:51:16 AM
Senator von Imhof understood the positions were in the
current budget under UGF and had not been included in
amendments released since the budget was release on
December 15, 2021.
Mr. Bates said that there had been an FY 22 supplemental
submitted in addition for three positions for the 404
program. He said that the issue would be addressed in the
presentation.
9:52:29 AM
Co-Chair Stedman requested moving on to slide 5.
9:52:39 AM
Ms. Carpenter addressed slide 5, "Regulated Activities
Under RCRA Subtitle C":
Generators
Military
AK DOT
Seafood Facilities
Mining
Oil and Gas Facilities
Transporters
Trucking
Barge Lines
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDF)
Ms. Carpenter said that the slide was meant to show
facilities that transported hazardous waste in the state.
She said that when generators created solid waste a record
was created that traveled with the waste through to
disposal.
9:54:38 AM
Co-Chair Stedman noted that Senator Wilson had joined the
meeting.
9:54:42 AM
Ms. Carpenter pointed to slide 6, "Benefits of RCRA
Primacy". The slide showed a chart that listed the focus,
location, and regulatory flexibility that would result from
state primacy. The EPA would focus on enforcement, would be
in Seattle, and would have little to no regulatory
flexibility. The DEC would focus on technical and
compliance assistance, would be in Alaska, and would have
much greater regulatory flexibility under the state managed
program.
9:56:12 AM
Senator von Imhof asked whether an hourly rate would be
charged by DEC for an inspection.
Ms. Carpenter said that there was no charge for
inspections. She added that the compliance and technical
support assistance would be covered under the budget
request.
9:56:50 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked how many staff the EPA had
devoted to Alaska.
Ms. Carpenter did not know. She knew there was one
dedicated person located in Anchorage. She said that the
department had 10 inspectors overseeing non-hazardous waste
facilities in the state.
Senator Wielechowski asked whether DEC would still be doing
enforcement under the legislation.
Ms. Carpenter replied in the affirmative.
Senator Wielechowski asked whether the EPA provided
technical and compliance support.
Ms. Carpenter replied in the negative. She added that the
EPA did not have the technical staff to support DEC and
that their focus was on detection and enforcement.
9:58:52 AM
Senator von Imhof had questions about the technical staff.
She wondered where they would be located and how they would
communicate with companies.
Ms. Carpenter replied that the technical staff would
consist of local people who could be reached with a phone
call. She said that DEC already had relationships with
waste generators in the state. She said that part of the
two-year timeline was to hire and train support staff for
those generators.
10:00:01 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked for an example of much greater
regulatory flexibility noted on slide 6. He understood that
the EPA was looking to lower the threshold for particulate
matter from PM2.5 and wondered how the assumption of
primacy would affect air quality for residents of
Fairbanks.
10:00:48 AM
Co-Chair Bishop explained particulate matter was an issue
for all areas of the state. He shared that on cold days in
Fairbanks the particulate matter hung in the air.
Co-Chair Stedman understood that the threshold was going to
be lowered on the federal level.
Ms. Carpenter replied that she was not prepared to speak on
the matter.
Co-Chair Bishop requested that the department get back to
the committee on the matter.
10:02:06 AM
Senator Hoffman asked about assistance for technical
compliance and the disposal of car batteries in rural
Alaska.
Ms. Carpenter said that the issue would be addressed in a
future slide.
Senator Hoffman wanted the cost related to shipping and
disposal in rural versus urban areas of the state.
10:03:09 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked for examples where the
department thought it needed grater regulatory flexibility.
Ms. Carpenter said that the issue would be addressed on a
future slide.
10:03:45 AM
Ms. Carpenter addressed slide 7, "Recent RCRA Activity in
Alaska by EPA":
Education and compliance support from DEC will prevent
violations, proactively protecting Alaska's
environment instead of just levying punitive fines
The slide listed the inspections, number of fines, and
monies collected from the fines from 2018 through 2021.
10:04:46 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked for examples of fines.
Ms. Carpenter said that some of the fines were implemented
to certain state agencies for various violations.
Co-Chair Stedman required further information.
Ms. Carpenter said she would follow up with the committee.
10:05:22 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked about education outreach and whether
DEC planned to set up program where Alaskans could
volunteer their property to be assessed for compliance.
Ms. Carpenter responded in the affirmative.
10:06:35 AM
Senator Wielechowski spoke to the conclusory statement on
the slide. He noted $45,000 in total fines for 2021. He did
not feel that the number was punitive.
Ms. Carpenter said that the department would like to engage
with hazardous waste generator before the point of levying
a fine.
Senator Wielechowski continued his line of questioning. He
wondered what would have been done differently in the
instances in 2021 that would have resulted in a lower fine
figure.
10:07:57 AM
Senator von Imhof asked for the background requirements for
technical employees.
Co-Chair Stedman wanted to know whether current employees
could be trained to provide the technical support, which
could negate the need for new positions.
Ms. Carpenter offered to provide the committee with
specific employment requirements. She said that the staff
was already at capacity with non-hazardous waste landfills,
which necessitated the 6 additional positions.
Senator von Imhof queried the solid waste disposal
caseload.
Ms. Carpenter replied that existing staff oversaw 27
complex facilitates that required annual inspections and
routine monitoring. She said that 14 facilities would be
considered complex under the Subtitle C program.
10:11:04 AM
Ms. Carpenter said that current employees were engaging
with communities and were constantly dealing with helping
facilities in a way that was beyond annual inspections.
10:11:40 AM
Senator Wielechowski wondered which fines on slide 7 would
be considered punitive.
10:11:54 AM
Ms. Carpenter agreed to provide that information.
10:12:06 AM
Senator Hoffman asked which sections of the bill would be
implemented to proactively protect Alaskans.
10:12:47 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked that the department add Senator
Hoffmans question to the list of forthcoming responses.
10:12:53 AM
Senator Wielechowski looked at slide 6 and remarked that a
former employee of the EPA had called his office and had
revealed that the EPA did, in fact, provide technical and
compliance support.
10:13:10 AM
Ms. Carpenter believed that DEC could provide better
support with local staff and local knowledge.
10:13:28 AM
Senator Wielechowski surmised that the EPA did not have
employees working within the state.
10:13:35 AM
Ms. Carpenter reiterated that the EPA had one employee in
in the state dedicated to RCRA.
10:13:55 AM
Co-Chair Stedman recalled that in previous primacy
discussions, state primacy did not alleviate the state from
following federal rules. He said that the thought at that
time was that Dec would be able to respond more quickly and
on a personal level.
10:14:39 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked for specific examples of when
the EPA failed to provide adequate technical and compliance
assistance.
10:14:59 AM
Senator Olson wondered what had happened in 2019 that
resulted in the $219,019 in fines. The number of fines had
been the same as the two previous years yet the fine was
more than double.
10:15:30 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied that it was referring to the fines
implemented by the EPA. She said she would get back to the
committee with the information.
10:15:48 AM
Senator Olson wondered whether the fine was levied on a
state entity.
10:15:59 AM
Co-Chair Stedman said that the committee would determine
whether the fine was levied on a state entity and whether
the fine was paid through Settlements and Judgments or
absorbed into the entities budget.
10:16:16 AM
Senator Hoffman wondered whether any of the fines were for
exploration specifically related to Pebble Mine.
10:16:39 AM
Ms. Carpenter discussed slide 8, "DEC's Regulatory
Approach":
EPA's rules were drafted to meet the needs of all
states. DEC will be able to draft regulations that
meet the needs of Alaska.
Opportunity to develop a "universal waste"
classification.
Small and Very Small Generators overlooked by EPA.
41 large, 1028 small/very small generators in
Alaska
Pre pandemic example of 2018 and 2019 a combined
total of only 6 inspections were conducted
DEC focus on outreach, education, and technical
assistance
Ms. Carpenter relayed that one of the ways DEC would be
able to draft regulations specific to the state was to
develop a universal waste classification. She explained
that universal waste was waste commonly generated by
households or commercial entities and included non-
hazardous waste such as spend batteries or old electronics.
The state would have the ability to develop regulation to
deal with the specific waste streams. She said she would
follow up with transportation costs for all communities in
the state. She said that DEC efforts would focus more
closely on small and very small generators overlooked by
the EPA.
10:20:12 AM
Senator Hoffman queried the changes in battery disposal
under the EPA versus DEC assuming primacy. Additionally, he
asked about waste oil disposal from small generators in
rural Alaska.
10:20:40 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied that the question would be explored
under a state program. She said that those issues could be
pursued.
10:21:07 AM
Senator Hoffman stressed that the need must be evaluated
soon. He wondered why the state would go forward with the
program without details of the benefits to the state. He
expressed disappointment that the presentation did not
offer concrete solutions or benefits to the support the
expense of assuming primacy.
10:22:29 AM
Senator Wielechowski spoke of the EPA only inspecting 6
small generators between 2018 and 2019. He wondered how
many inspections the department believed should have been
conducted during that timeframe.
10:22:51 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied that she did not have the numbers
offhand. She asserted that assuming primacy would allow for
more local assistance to communities and for the
performance of more regular inspections.
10:23:21 AM
Senator Wielechowski asked for a rough estimate of what
would be an appropriate number of inspections per year.
Ms. Carpenter thought that the number of inspections should
be commensurate with faciality counts. She thought smaller
generators should be inspected as frequently as larger
generators.
10:23:52 AM
Co-Chair Stedman queried the definition of a small
generator and a very small generator.
10:24:16 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied that a large quantity generator would
produce more than 2,200lbs of hazardous waste per month. A
very small generator would produce less than 220lbs per
months. A small quantity generator produced between 220lbs
and 2,200lbs per month. She clarified that this was
dependent on they type of waste being generated.
10:25:23 AM
Co-Chair Bishop wondered whether the regulations drafted by
DEC would have to be approved by the EPA.
10:25:32 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied in the affirmative.
10:25:40 AM
Senator Hoffman requested information about which
communities fell under the definitions of large, small, and
very small generators.
10:26:05 AM
Senator von Imhof spoke of infrastructure legislation on
the federal level. She thought the bill would fund
alternative energy sources that would require the storage
of batteries. She wondered whether DEC was preparing for
the increase in generator activity due to alternative
energy methods.
10:27:06 AM
Ms. Carpenter agreed to follow up with the committee.
10:27:17 AM
Senator Wielechowski returned to the issue of the number of
inspections per year. He thought that if the inspections
were to be commensurate with the number of small and very
small generators there would be several hundred inspections
per year. He wondered whether the department was planning
for the increased inspections.
10:28:02 AM
Ms. Carpenter replied in the affirmative.
10:28:20 AM
Mr. Bates pointed to slide 9, "Overseeing and protecting
Alaska's wetlands":
Alaska's wetlands cover approximately 174 million
acres, or about 43 percent of Alaska's surface area
May include tundra, permafrost, marshes, and bogs
Contiguous U.S. used to have 200 million acres of
wetlands, less than half remain
Co-Chair Stedman assumed that Southeast Alaska was not
excluded in the wetland acreage reflected on the slide.
Mr. Bates replied that Southeast Alaska was included in the
figure.
10:31:39 AM
Co-Chair Bishop lamented that the Army Corps of Engineers
redefined wetlands in 1994 to include tundra and
permafrost.
10:32:26 AM
Mr. Bates discussed slide 10, "Clean Water Act Section
404":
Regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters and wetlands
Activities that require 404 permits include fill for
resource and community development projects,
construction in waters, and placement of riprap and
fill material for roads, airports, or buildings
Three states currently have State 404 Programs
Michigan (1984), New Jersey (1994), and Florida
(2020).
Mr. Bates said that most construction and development
projects in the state required a Section 404 permit. He
listed the various projects that required Section 404
permits from small to large scale projects.
10:34:23 AM
Senator Hoffman requested a map that showed the 44 percent
of the surface of the state that was covered by wetlands.
10:35:03 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the smaller parcels and
private citizen development. He wondered what sort of
mitigation might be encountered.
10:35:25 AM
Mr. Bates agreed to provide the map for Senator Hoffman. In
response to Co-Chair Stedmans question, he said that the
department would have expedited permitting arrangements via
a letter of permission or permit applicable to a routine or
smaller type of project. He said a house project would fall
under that arena; if the impact would be small to the
wetland, then the permitting process could be expedited. He
said that permitting for larger projects would depend on
location and potential impacts. He said that the Corps of
Engineers had been implementing compensatory mitigation for
many years. He noted the expansion of the definition of
wetlands in the 1990s. He recognized that the Corps of
Engineers and others on the federal level had expanded the
definition to control the permitting. He wanted the state
to take control over that aspect of permitting and have
flexibility for applicants that protected wetlands and
provided reasonable site-specific mitigation opportunities
that would allow for responsible development.
10:37:51 AM
Co-Chair Stedman added that, under the EPA, when
constituents had wanted to develop their lands, the
mitigation was generally forfeiture of a percentage of
their real-estate to gain permitting. He likened it to a
development tax. He shared that the lands went into a
mitigation bank, which had prompted concerns about what
happened to lands that ended up in the mitigation bank. He
understood that under the proposed primacy, the public
would contact lawmakers with mitigation problems.
10:38:45 AM
Mr. Bates relayed that the issue would be addressed later
in the presentation. He hoped that if members of the public
had issues with the program they would reach out to DEC.
10:39:19 AM
Co-Chair Stedman interjected that the entirety of Southeast
Alaska fell under the current definition of wetlands, which
was frustrating to landowners who would experience land
charges and did not have full control over their property.
10:40:09 AM
Senator Hoffman shared that he recently went through the
federal permitting process. He remarked that under state
management of Section 404, the definition of wetlands was
fixed and wondered whether the mitigation measures would be
the same under DEC as under EPA.
10:41:00 AM
Mr. Bates said that the state had to meet federal 404B (1)
guidelines and had to adhere to Clean Water Act
regulations. He believed that the implementation of yet to
be developed compensatory mitigation rules would allow for
local knowledge and flexibility based on the needs of
Alaskan communities. He contended that compensatory
regulation in Alaska under the Corps of Engineers had been
rigid. He felt that having a state-run program would make
DEC accountable to both the legislature and the people of
Alaska and would give DEC the opportunity to implement the
plan on a local level with local knowledge.
10:43:09 AM
Co-Chair Bishop asked about the Alaska Gasline Development
Corporation (AGDC)and the $800 million in wetlands
mitigation. He wondered whether, under a state-run program,
a land swap form one state agency to another could
substitute for a cash payment for mitigation.
10:43:41 AM
Mr. Bates said that a 1994 agreement with EPA and the Corps
of Engineers had reflected that Alaska had wetlands that
differed from those of other areas of the state. He said
that at that time all parties involved had agreed on the
matter with an MOU. In 2018 those old rules were abandoned.
He shared that in 2008 the mitigation banking was
established which meant the developers could write a check
to offset mitigated lands. He discussed the importance of
compensatory mitigation.
10:45:50 AM
AT EASE
10:47:10 AM
RECONVENED
10:47:14 AM
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that Section 404 was of interest
to many Alaskans. He announced that Mr. Bates would return
to the committee the following day to finish his
presentation.
10:48:06 AM
Senator Wilson spoke of Floridas 404 program and wondered
whether they had faced litigation due to implementation of
the program.
10:48:22 AM
Mr. Bates replied that Florida was not involved in
litigation, but the EPA had been sued by the Center for
Biological Diversity, EarthJustice and other organizations,
which contend that the Florida provisions are not as
stringent as the Clean Water Act.
10:49:03 AM
Senator Hoffman requested a map of ownership of private
lands in Alaska. He thought that native corporations held
over 90 percent of all the private lands in the state. He
was curious about how much of the 44 million acres were
wetlands and were owned by private entities other than
native corporations.
10:49:50 AM
Co-Chair Stedman surmised that Senator Hoffman wanted to
private ownership of lands outside of Native Corporations
and what percentage of that was wetlands.
10:49:59 AM
Senator Hoffman clarified that he would like to see a map
of lands that were eligible for development by private
entities, also and down by which were wetlands owned by
Native corporations versus non-Native ownership.
10:50:28 AM
Mr. Bates indicated that he would provide that information.
10:50:40 AM
Mr. Bates noted that SB 27, passed in 2013, established the
authority for the state to evaluate and seek primacy for
administering the Section 404 program. The legislation
provided both authority and funding for the effort. He
furthered that the funding was cut in 2014 and the effort
was put on hold. He concluded that all the authority was in
place and all that was needed was the financing. He offered
to distribute the fiscal note from January 18, 2013, which
requested 8 staff for the development of the program with a
to be determined aspect. He said that the current request
was for a more robust implementation of the 404 program
which necessitated a total increase of 32 positions.
10:52:24 AM
Co-Chair Stedman instructed Mr. Bates to study the record
and history of the issue, particularly the previous cost of
implementation.
10:53:07 AM
Mr. Bates replied that there was a document from 2014-2015
that offered a robust view of what the staffing should look
like, and the current ask was based on that document.
10:53:55 AM
Mr. Bates looked at slide 11, "404 Primacy Costs (in
thousands)":
Increment Request
$4,904.0 UGF
28 FT Positions
Training, equipment, and travel
Contractual support including legal consultation
Coordination with DFG and DNR
Anticipate four additional positions in FY2024
Two-year application process
Mr. Bates related that the plan was to develop the program
and establish agreements with EPA, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and other agencies. This would include a
workplan timelines responsibilities requirements for the
process, both to obtain and implement the program. Within
that time a wetlands management program would be developed,
including a detailed map of wetlands. He furthered that
existing Corps of Engineer permits would be reviewed, and
the DEC would explore the development of new general
permits. He said that the definition of assumable waters
would be examined and would be a negotiated item between
DEC, EPA, and the Army Corps of Engineers. He said a
complete assumption package to be submitted to EPA would be
developed by 2024. He reiterated that the total ask was
$4.9 million for FY 22-FY 23. The expectation thereafter
was for the full 32 funded positions. Mr. Bates continued
his remarks pertaining to the proposed plan and requested
funding.
10:57:02 AM
Co-Chair Stedman stated that the presentation would
continue the following day.
10:57:15 AM
Senator Wielechowski spoke of the interagency receipts in
2013 of $361,000, up to $560,000. He assumed that the
request was for Department of Natural Resources and was
included in the current fiscal note.
10:57:33 AM
Senator Wilson wondered whether there was a way to stretch
the process out over 4 years to assure that all positions
could be filled at a lower cost.
10:58:01 AM
Senator von Imhof looked ahead to slides 15 and 16. She
asked for details on how the DEC would be accountable to
the legislature and the public. She requested an example of
the significant cost saving for large projects in state
assumed waters.
10:58:27 AM
Co-Chair Stedman remarked that Mr. Bates should return with
answers to the question the following day and be prepared
for further questioning.
ADJOURNMENT
10:59:56 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB 80 Providence Supports SB 80 SFIN 02.22.pdf |
SFIN 2/8/2022 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 Testimony SB 80 2-8-22 CCHR Vers 2.pdf |
SFIN 2/8/2022 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 Coalition Letter of Support.pdf |
SFIN 2/8/2022 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 Supporting docs and written testimony 1.26.22.pdf |
SFIN 2/8/2022 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 Suppoting Documents.pdf |
SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80(HSS) Sectional Analysis Version I 1.26.22 (002).pdf |
SFIN 2/8/2022 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 80 |
| SB 80 HSS explanation of changes B to I.pdf |
SFIN 2/8/2022 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 80 |
| SB80 Sponsor Statment.pdf |
SEDC 3/10/2021 9:00:00 AM SFIN 2/8/2022 1:00:00 PM SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 80 |
| SB 168 Senate Finance Feb 14 - Responses DOTPF (2-24-2022).pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2022 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 168 |
| SB 168 v. A Sectional Analysis.pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2022 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM STRA 2/1/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 168 |
| SB 168 Support Document 2.1.22.pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2022 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM STRA 2/1/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 168 |
| SB 168 v. A Sponsor Statement .pdf |
SFIN 2/14/2022 9:00:00 AM SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM STRA 2/1/2022 1:30:00 PM |
SB 168 |
| 031422 SFIN DEC RCRA 404 Primacy.pdf |
SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |
|
| SB 111 Explanation of Changes ver N to E 03.14.2022.pdf |
SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| SB 111 work draft ver. E 03.14.2022.pdf |
SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |
SB 111 |
| 031422 - DEC Response to SFC RCRA Primacy Questions.pdf |
SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 031422 - DEC Response to 404 SFC Primacy Questions.pdf |
SFIN 3/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |