Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
04/21/2023 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 | |
| HB143 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 143-ADVANCED RECYCLING AND FACILITIES
1:03:18 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 143, "An Act relating to the Department of
Environmental Conservation; relating to advanced recycling and
advanced recycling facilities; relating to waste; and providing
for an effective date."
1:03:47 PM
CHAIR MCKAY opened public testimony on HB 143. After
ascertaining there was no one who wished to testify, he closed
public testimony on HB 143. He welcomed invited testimony.
1:05:00 PM
EMMA POKON, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), provided invited testimony in support for
recycling programs; however, she noted that recycling in the
state is limited. She addressed the current definition of
"solid waste" in the state's statute and advised if there is to
be a change to the definition of solid waste for recycling, it
would need to be done in statute. She expressed the opinion
that modifications would be needed for existing facilities to be
able to do advanced recycling. She offered to answer questions.
1:08:25 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:08 p.m. to 1:13 p.m.
1:13:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS, on behalf of the sponsor, the House
Resources Standing Committee, presented a PowerPoint on HB 143,
subtitled "Advanced Recycling" [hard copy included in the
committee packet]. She introduced the presentation with a list
of the benefits of recycling, which includes extending the life
of landfills, reducing greenhouse gas generation and emission,
maximizing utilization of resources, creating jobs, and
promoting a circular economy. She directed attention to slide
3, titled "Background Waste and Recycling in Alaska," and said
Alaska has 9 active Class I landfills. She explained that these
collect more than 20 tons per day (tpd) of material, with
Anchorage having the largest. She noted that municipal solid
waste (MSW) and Construction and demolition debris (CDD) make up
the materials in landfills. As shown on the slide, she pointed
out that the tons per year (tpy) [in Anchorage, the Matanuska-
Susitna Valley, Fairbanks, Soldotna, and the Denali Borough] add
up to almost 550,000 tpy. She covered the remaining materials
on slide 3, which consisted of statistics on the collected waste
materials from these communities.
1:18:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS directed attention to slide 4 and reviewed
the statutes which govern DEC. She moved to slide 5, subtitled
"Section 2 - modifying definition of 'industrial waste,'" which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
(11) "industrial waste" means a liquid, gaseous,
solid, or other waste substance or a combination of
them resulting from process of industry, manufacturing
trade or business, or from the development of natural
resources; "industrial waste" does not include post-
use polymers and recovered feedstocks at an advanced
recycling facility or [HOWEVER,] gravel, sand, mud, or
earth taken from its original situs and put through
sluice boxes, dredges, or other devices for the
washing and recovery of the precious metal contained
in them and redeposited in the same watershed from
which it came [IS NOT INDUSTRIAL WASTE];
ADEC says this is unnecessarypost-use polymers and
recovered feedstocks do not currently fall under the
definition of "industrial waste"
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS addressed slide 6, subtitled "Section 3
modifying definition of 'other wastes,'" which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
(17) "other wastes" means garbage, refuse, decayed
wood, sawdust, shavings, bark, trimmings from logging
operations, sand, lime cinders, ashes, offal, oil,
tar, dyestuffs, acids, chemicals, heat from cooling or
other operations, and other substances not sewage or
industrial waste that [WHICH] may cause or tend to
cause pollution of the waters of the state; "other
wastes" does not include post-use polymers and
recovered feedstocks at an advanced recycling facility
ADEC says this is unnecessarypost-use polymers and
recovered feedstocks do not fall under the definition
of "other waste"
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS continued to slide 7, subtitled "Section 4
- modifying definition of 'solid waste,'" which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
(26) "solid waste" means garbage, refuse, or abandoned
[,] or other discarded solid or semi-solid material,
regardless of whether subject to decomposition,
originating from any source; "solid waste" does not
include post-use polymers and recovered feedstocks at
an advanced recycling facility
This section excludes advanced recycling inputs from
the definition of "solid waste". This section, if
approved, would give preferential treatment to
advanced recycling activities and exempt them from the
current law.
1:21:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS, in response to a request from
Representative Saddler to speak to the importance of excluding
post-use polymers and recovered feedstocks from the definition
of solid waste, advised that if there were health hazards or
animals in the area the centers may be exempted from regulation.
1:22:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS continued the presentation on slide 8,
subtitled "Section 5 - modifying definition of 'solid waste
disposal facility,'" which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
(27) "solid waste disposal facility" means a facility
for the discharge, deposit, injection, consolidation,
or placement of solid waste into or onto the land and
includes transfer stations and sanitary landfills, but
does not include an advanced recycling facility
This section is unnecessary as per ADEC, this term is
referring to disposal of waste to land at a facility
(most likely a landfill). The advanced recycling
facility is not disposing of waste to the land.
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS moved to slide 9, subtitled "Section 6 -
modifying definition of 'solid waste processing,'" which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
(28) "solid waste processing" means extraction of
materials from solid waste, volume reduction,
conversion to energy, or other separation and
preparation of solid waste for reuse or disposal and
includes processing by incinerators, shredders,
balers, and transfer stations; "solid waste
processing" does not include the extraction of
materials from solid waste through advanced recycling;
This section excludes advanced recycling as it may
otherwise be included for regulation under solid waste
processing. This section, if approved, would give
preferential treatment to advanced recycling
activities and exempt them from the current law.
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS, in response to a request for further
clarification, spoke about a list of certain regulations around
solid waste processing facilities, which include restricting
access and covering materials. She stated that these would be
exempt in the case of advanced recycling.
CHAIR MCKAY suggested amendments could be made to alleviate
these concerns.
1:25:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS continued the presentation on slide 10,
subtitled "New Definitions" which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
If Sections 2-7 are not adopted, new definitions are
not needed.
If any of Sections 2-7 are adopted, the definition of
"advanced recycling", and following definitions would
be needed.
Some of the definitions are too narrowly defined to
specifically refer to the advanced recycling process.
The following definitions would need to be
reconsidered for including other recycling operations
currently employed in the state:
? gasification
? other recycled product
? pyrolysis
? recovered feedstock
? recycled plastics
? third-party certification system
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS brought attention to slide 11, "HB 143 -
Conclusions," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
? Many sections of the bill are already covered with
existing regulations within the Alaska Department of
Conservation
? Two sections (4 and 6) would preferentially exempt
any future advanced recycling operation from
definitions which the rest of the recycling and waste
industries must comply
? If any of the sections 2-6 are adopted, the new
definitions need to be modified to include existing
industry practices
1:28:49 PM
MS. POKON, in response to Chair McKay, said DEC has no issues
with the current version of HB 143.
1:29:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned whether the definitions in
Section 2 and Section 3 of HB 143 were unnecessary.
1:29:42 PM
MS. POKON clarified that Section 2 and Section 3 provide the
definitions of "industrial waste" and "other waste",
respectively. She stated that DEC has no objection to these
changes. She said, "Covering that issue in all the definitions
probably provides some clarity." She added that the degree of
clarity desired in statute would be up to the committee. In
response to a follow-up question, she agreed "that language
could be redundant."
1:31:48 PM
CHAIR MCKAY reopened public testimony on HB 143.
1:32:04 PM
DYANI CHAPMAN, State Director, Alaska Environment, testified in
opposition to HB 143. She stated that chemical recycling is not
an adequate solution to plastic waste issues and is harmful to
the environment. She referenced an analysis conducted by the
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which claims that
pyrolysis and gasification to produce plastic is significantly
worse economically and environmentally than creating virgin
plastic. She stated that these methods are known to release
toxic chemicals into the air, and she suggested that this could
cause cancer, birth defects, and other health problems. She
argued that the process of chemical recycling is energy
intensive, and this would waste valuable energy if powered by
renewables and create greenhouse gases if powered by fossil
fuels. She criticized chemical recycling for its lack of
potential economic viability. She suggested some policy
recommendations to HB 143, including that incineration should
not count as advanced recycling. She said that regulations and
definitions should clearly distinguish between plastics that
fuel processes and processes that turn plastics into new
plastics.
MS. CHAPMAN urged the committee to create a system that would
not compete with less damaging forms of waste management, like
mechanical recycling. She expressed the hope that the
legislation would compel companies to become transparent about
pollution created by their facilities. She maintained that
proponents of advanced recycling present this as a part of a
circular economy, which is misleading as a solution to the
plastics crisis. She suggested that this is "greenwashing" and
"nothing as environmentally nasty as this should be considered
sustainable." She suggested the state should instead invest in
"real solutions" for managing plastic waste.
1:34:48 PM
CHAIR MCKAY, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 143.
1:35:20 PM
LINDSAY STOVALL, Director, State and Regulatory Affairs,
American Chemistry Council, provided invited testimony on HB
143. She pointed out the challenges with recycling, which
include the complexity in engineered packaging, economics,
market demand, and the recent restrictions in China. She gave
examples of incorporating new technologies of advanced recycling
in large companies like Herbal Essences and Wendy's, as these
companies have adopted using packaging from advanced recycling.
She opined that if Alaska converted just 50 percent of the
current plastic in landfills utilizing advanced recycling, it
could generate $70 million in economic output each year. She
mentioned that under HB 143, new technologies would be subject
to local, state, and federal regulations, such as the Clean
Water Act and the Clean Air Act. She added that advanced
recycling would be regulated the same way manufacturing is. She
further urged support for HB 143, expressing the belief that it
would bring added investment and jobs to the state, increase
recycling, conserve resources, and reduce plastic waste.
1:39:16 PM
CRAIG COOKSON, Senior Director, Plastics Sustainability,
American Chemistry Council, provided invited testified on HB
143. He provided clarifications to the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory report referred to in public testimony. He
mentioned his experience regarding advanced recycling programs
across the country and argued that the report lacked data from
"real operations." He added that the study was "old." He then
referred to a different and more recent study conducted by the
Argonne National Laboratory, which details converting plastics
into pyrolysis oil, which is used as an alternative feedstock.
He said this method has a 27 percent smaller greenhouse gas
footprint compared to virgin oil. He expressed the
understanding that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
report is commonly miscited and mischaracterized.
1:41:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS asked about the advanced facility feedstock
threshold in tonnage and necessary minimums for viable
facilities.
MR. COOKSON said there are many different options for new
advanced recycling facilities in Alaska. He gave an example of
a viable facility that received 35-50 tpd. He mentioned that
many large companies are pushing to utilize advanced recycling
in order to achieve an International Sustainability and Carbon
Certification.
1:43:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS asked whether Alaska is better off shipping
its plastics to facilities in the Lower 48.
MR. COOKSON answered that shipping plastics in a liquid state is
less expensive than shipping plastics in a solid state.
REPRESENTATIVE MEARS commented that Alaska ships in
significantly more materials than it ships out, and often it
ships empty containers back to the Lower 48. She noted that the
state's ability to backhaul unprocessed feedstock in these
containers would be high.
MR. COOKSON pointed out the program that shipped recyclable
plastics to China had stalled. He advised that the domestic
supply chain is more important.
CHAIR MCKAY pointed out that HB 143 would only provide the legal
framework for advanced recycling.
1:47:14 PM
TREVOR JEPSEN, Staff, Representative Tom McKay, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, the House Resources
Standing Committee, of which Representative McKay serves as
chair, cleared up several points made by testifiers. He stated
that according to industry experts, for the state to see
investments in future projects, advanced recycling is necessary.
He clarified the definition of "solid waste" in the proposed
legislation. He expressed doubt concerning the testimony that
had asserted advanced recycling creates more pollution than
landfills. He expressed the understanding that making virgin
plastics from crude oil creates higher emissions than advanced
recycling.
1:49:33 PM
CHAIR MCKAY announced that HB 143 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 143 Sponsor Statement Version U.pdf |
HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/21/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143 Sectional Analysis Version U.pdf |
HRES 4/12/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/19/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/21/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| HB 143 HRES presentation 4-19-23.pdf |
HRES 4/19/2023 1:00:00 PM HRES 4/21/2023 1:00:00 PM |
HB 143 |
| AIDEA Presentation to House Resources 04.19.2023.pdf |
HRES 4/21/2023 1:00:00 PM |