Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
03/13/2020 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB240 | |
| HB138 | |
| HB218 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 240 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 138 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 240-REGULATE PFAS USE; FIRE/WATER SAFETY
1:05:18 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN announced the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 240, "An Act relating to pollutants; relating to
perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances; relating to the
duties of the Department of Environmental Conservation; and
relating to firefighting substances."
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN reminded the committee that HB 240 would
set in statute standards for clean drinking water and assure
that Alaskans who have been exposed to perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances have options for blood
monitoring.
1:07:12 PM
RANDY KRAUSE, Fire Chief, Port of Seattle Fire Department,
paraphrased from the following written testimony [original
punctuation provided]:
Thank you to the members of the House Resources
Committee for allowing me to testify today.
My name is Randy Krause, and I serve as the Fire Chief
for the Port of Seattle providing service to Sea-Tac
International Airport. I am here to share my support
for the bill before you, and to thank Committee Chair
Tarr and sponsoring Representative Hannan for their
leadership.
At the Port of Seattle, we have been actively involved
with the industry to find a solution and are working
with our partners at the Federal Aviation
Administration to encourage the implementation of new
fluorine-free firefighting foam.
While federal law currently requires the use of
firefighting foam that includes PFAS chemicals, our
airport director Lance Lyttle sent the FAA a letter in
2018 urging the FAA to aggressively pursue a fluorine-
free option.
The 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act passed by Congress
requires the evaluation and implementation of
fluorine-free foam by the end of 2021.
Many of my peers at airports across the globe have
already made the change to fluorine free foam and I
personally have witnessed fluorine free foam used with
great success and am confident the FAA will find a
suitable alternative within the deadline.
We recognize that there is concern in the firefighting
industry with the FAA meeting its 2021 deadline.
I, however, am confident the FAA will reach a solution
and I am looking forward to being one if not the first
airport in the United States to go fluorine free.
We do understand these types of bills have differing
effects on various industries. It appears you have
addressed some of the concerns we had in Washington
state with this bill and we are happy to work with and
help the sponsors as this moves forward.
Thank you, and with that I am happy to answer any
questions.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked Mr. Krause how he could assist the bill
sponsor.
MR. KRAUSE answered that through various organizations he has
been searching for a suitable alternative for the firefighting
industry at airports and soon will be involved in Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation, testing fluorine-free products. The U.S.
approach to finding a fluorine-free product has been tentative;
however, Heathrow Airport Limited, Copenhagen Airport, and
airports in Australia and all of the United Kingdom, have
switched to fluorine-free foam, are comfortable with the
product, and are excited because it is a biodegradable product
with zero cleanup costs or impacts. Speaking from his
experience, he said he offered his help to the fire chief at the
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport and seeks to keep
all those working in the firefighting industry apprised in this
regard.
CO-CHAIR TARR noted the transition to alternatives by large
international airports could serve as a model for Alaska.
MR. KRAUSE advised that FAA has a list of products that are
approved for use at airports, none of which are fluorine-free
foam; however, there is a new testing facility to test fluorine-
free foam, and he and others are urging FAA to find suitable
products soon. Internationally, the firefighting industry has
completed a lot of testing and research; in fact, due to his
experience with testing, he said he would switch to fluorine-
free foam, certificated International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO), United Nations, "level C foam" tomorrow, if
approved by FAA. He acknowledged at this time fluorine-free
foam is not as effective as aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)
concentrates; however, AFFF cannot be used in training in
Washington, and training can make up for what he characterized
as a three-second delay in extinguishment.
1:14:25 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN opened public testimony on HB 240.
1:14:50 PM
RENEE LANI, Spokesperson, American Chemistry Council (ACC), said
Section 1 of HB 240 seeks to ban AFFF, with one exemption. The
American Chemistry Council is opposed to HB 240 for the
following reasons: AFFF is the most effective foam to fight
high hazard level flammable liquid fires in certain applications
and has proven effectiveness in large-scale tank fires and other
high hazard Class B fires due to its unique properties that have
been reported nationally and are proven to protect firefighters.
Fluorine-free foams provide an alternative in some applications,
such as spill fires and smaller tank fires, but do not provide
the same level of suppression and other capabilities. Certain
international airports have chosen to switch to fluorine-free
foams, but fluorinated foams are used in petrochemical
facilities to manage high hazard fire risk. Ms. Lani pointed
out that although HB 240 would allow continued use of PFAS foam
by the oil and gas industry, there may be other circumstances in
which the use of PFAS foam is necessary. She said any safe
alternative identified by the state fire marshal must provide
equivalent performance to AFFF formulations to ensure safety;
AFFF protects life and property in Class B fires and should be
used responsibly and discharges contained. She said ACC
supports the ban on the use of AFFF in training and also
supports the use of best management practices that reduce the
discharge of foam in all uses. In fact, legislation in other
states has required the use of best practices and banned the
release of PFAS foam into the environment, except in
emergencies, and ACC supports this approach, rather than that of
HB 240.
1:18:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked Ms. Lani to clarify ACC's specific
opposition to the bill.
MS. LANI explained ACC is generally opposed to [proposed new
section] 46.03.350, use of firefighting substances, and instead
recommends legislation related to the use of best practices, as
has been passed in Virginia and Wisconsin, which prohibits the
use of AFFF in training and limits some use in testing, but not
the use of AFFF when needed. She acknowledged not all fire
departments need AFFF because they respond to Class A fires.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK pointed out 46.03.350 would allow for PFAS
use in the oil and gas industry; he questioned whether ACC seeks
stronger or more restrictive language in the bill.
MS. LANI said subsection (a) is not broad enough. For example,
Class C fires may also involve ethanol; therefore, industries
other than the oil and gas industry need to have the option to
use AFFF. Further, subsection (b) does not make clear what safe
and effective means in all circumstances. She restated support
for legislation passed in Virginia [document not provided].
1:23:38 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR inquired as to ACC's position on adverse health
impacts related to the use of AFFF.
MS. LANI stated the chemical industry has always supported the
use of best practices to manage any exposure to chemicals; the
best practices she cited were developed by the Fire Fighting
Foam Coalition, which is an association that represents the
manufacturers of fluorine-free and fluorinated foam.
CO-CHAIR TARR restated her question specific to ACC's position
on adverse health effects from exposure to PFAS chemicals.
MS. LANI said PFAS chemicals describe a very broad term of
chemistry that poses varied hazards and profiles; the chemistry
indicative of fluorinated foam currently manufactured is
represented by perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) that is not
carcinogenic or mutant genic and does not have developmental or
reproductive toxicity. She urged for the use of best practices
with all chemistries.
1:26:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned whether PFHxA has any health
impacts.
MS. LANI said she would provide citations demonstrating
scientific support for PFHxA; she said she could not address the
class of chemicals identified as PFAS. For example,
fluoropolymer is not used in firefighting foam and cannot be
absorbed by the body. She further explained the different
chemistries known as PFAS are chemistries with specific
characteristics, and she provided data specific to PFHxA, which
is the chemistry of AFFF manufactured today.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN surmised PFHxA is not a chemical the bill
seeks to regulate and is not currently used in the manufacture
of AFFF.
MS. LANI restated PFHxA is currently used in AFFF.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN further asked whether PFHxA has no adverse
health impacts or lasting environmental impacts.
MS. LANI remarked:
I think that the weight of the evidence has
demonstrated that it has low risk. There are
certainly -- I cannot say that there is not a study
that does not suggest, you know, as with every
chemistry. I have seen, you know, for instance, the
CDC used to do NHANES biomonitoring tests for it in
human blood, but they actually stopped testing for it
because they weren't finding it in blood sampling that
they do repeatedly. We've also seen low detection
limits of it across all of the different water testing
that's being done in the country right now, throughout
the country. So, it presents low risk, that chemistry
that's being used.
1:29:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN recalled Ms. Lani's earlier statement that
the bill fails to provide exceptions for industries with high
risk for fire, in addition to the oil and gas industry, and
asked what industries store a high concentration of ethanol.
MS. LANI offered to provide further information.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN stressed information that is pertinent to
Alaska is needed to ensure fire safety in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK returned attention to [proposed new section]
46.03.050 [(b)], noting the state fire marshal would determine
what is a safe and effective, alternative firefighting
substance; he questioned ACC's opposition to subsection (b), and
opined that the fire marshal should be trusted to protect
firefighter and public safety.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked Ms. Lani to identify the alternative
chemical with no health effects.
MS. LANI clarified the current chemistry used in AFFF is
perfluorohexanoic acid, known as PFHxA. In further response to
Co-Chair Tarr, she said she would provide additional information
on PFHxA, which is a long chain chemistry.
1:34:23 PM
MELANIE LESH informed the committee she lives in Gustavus, which
is located near the pristine waters of Glacier Bay National Park
and Preserve. She said Alaskans are lucky to live in an
isolated and beautiful state and there is irony in that for the
past eighteen months it has not been safe for her to drink her
well water; one of the benefits of HB 240 would be to provide
blood testing for those who have had groundwater contaminated
with PFAS chemicals. Her oncologist is concerned about the
chemicals to which she has been exposed over 35 years living in
Gustavus, but cannot provide testing. The bill would regulate
the use of PFAS chemicals and also would provide plasma data for
those who have been exposed. Ms. Lesh recalled testimony on
3/9/20 that revealed how important blood testing had been in the
resolution of issues that were raised by contamination
elsewhere.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked how the residents of Gustavus learned
of the contamination.
MS. LESH said the Department of Transportation & Public
Facilities (DOT&PF) leases a parcel of land at the airport to
businesses, and it was known for years that no one could drink
the water at the airport; that awareness prompted testing of the
[toxic plume, which is a underground pattern of contaminant] and
the realization that AFFF had entered the groundwater system.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK surmised DOT&PF had recommended its lessees
not use the water.
MS. LESH said the residents of Gustavus were not warned by
DOT&PF but were aware, anecdotally, not to drink from the water
fountain at the airport, so people began to think about their
wells.
1:39:30 PM
PAMELA MILLER, Executive Director, Alaska Community Action on
Toxics (ACAT), informed the committee ACAT is a statewide
environmental health, research, and advocacy organization. She
paraphrased from written testimony dated 3/5/20 and included in
the committee packet [original punctuation provided]:
We appreciate your leadership in sponsoring SB 176 and
HB 240, respectively. Alaska Community Action on
Toxics (ACAT) strongly supports these bills. We urge
passage by the Senate and House Resources Committees
and full legislature during the current session. PFAS
contamination represents a significant threat to
drinking water sources and public health throughout
Alaska. This requires urgent action from the
legislature to prevent further harm, ensure safe
drinking water supplies for contaminated communities
and responsible clean up, and measures to monitor and
protect the health of affected community members and
first responders.
In September 2019, ACAT released a report: Threats to
Drinking Water and Public Health in Alaska: The Scope
of the PFAS Problem, Consequences of Regulatory
Inaction, and Recommendations (www.akaction.org). For
this report, we reviewed hundreds of pages of
documents obtained through public record requests and
conducted a thorough review of the peer-reviewed
scientific literature. In Alaska, the dispersive use
of AFFF (aqueous film forming foam) on military bases
and airports has contaminated the drinking water of
communities from the North Slope to southeast Alaska.
To date, PFAS have been discovered at over 100
individual sites (mostly "AFFF source areas") in
nearly 30 locations. The State of Alaska has
identified 33 airports where AFFF is known or
suspected to have been released into the environment.
Of these, only 13 have been investigated to date. Ten
Alaska communities have PFAS in their drinking water
at levels deemed unsafe by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and it is likely that the
number of communities with contaminated water will
grow as more sampling is conducted throughout the
state.
PFAS are highly toxic at exceedingly low levels of
exposure. This is a significant public health concern
given the latest science that shows health effects
including: kidney and testicular cancer, high
cholesterol, thyroid disruption, ulcerative colitis,
pregnancy-induced hypertension, immune system effects,
and effects on mammary gland development and
breastfeeding duration. Firefighters suffer higher
rates of cancer than the general U.S. population and
are at risk from occupational exposures to PFAS. A new
study of women firefighters showed that they face high
exposures to toxic PFAS chemicals.
We look forward to working with members of the
legislature to ensure that the bills are as protective
as possible for the health of all Alaskans. Based on
current scientific evidence, we recommend a class-
based approach to setting water standards for PFAS
because many PFAS chemicals share similar
toxicological properties and adverse health endpoints,
often at extremely low exposure levels. The goal
should be to set a maximum contaminant level of zero
for the class to provide a proper margin of safety for
vulnerable infants and children and to protect public
health from the class of PFAS chemicals that are
extremely persistent, highly mobile, and linked with
adverse health effects at exceptionally low levels of
exposure. A combined limit of 2 ppt (for PFOA, PFOS,
PFNA, PFHxS, PFHxA and PFBS, with a separate level of
5 ppt for GenX) is reasonable given that with current
technology, removal of PFAS is feasible at that level.
Other states are taking a more class-based and health
protective approach.
In order to prevent further contamination of drinking
water sources and other water bodies, we also urge you
to explicitly prevent the discharge or use for
training purposes of class B firefighting foam that
contains PFAS chemicals, and that the legislation
include a ban on the use of PFAS in firefighting foam
such as those that have been supported by firefighters
and enacted in such states as Washington, Colorado,
and New Hampshire. On March 5, 2020, the Washington
State Legislature overwhelmingly approved the
strongest state ban in the country to phase out toxic
PFAS chemicals in firefighting foam and eliminate
important exemptions. We believe that this is a
precedent that the Alaska State Legislature should
follow.
Thank you for your consideration.
1:44:04 PM
STEVE RISOTTO, Spokesperson, American Chemistry Council, said
although ACC agrees with the testing of drinking water sources
in Alaska, and in minimizing potential PFAS contamination by the
use of AFFF, ACC does not support HB 240. He directed attention
to [HB 240, proposed new Section 1] and said it is inappropriate
for a legislative body to establish drinking water standards for
PFAS, because establishing water quality standards requires a
comprehensive review of available scientific and technical
information, by regulatory authorities, through a formal
rulemaking process. He pointed out the levels proposed in the
bill are based on levels that have been proposed in Michigan,
and Alaska should instead review EPA's PFAS Action Plan issued
in 2019, and EPA's recent announcement to move ahead to
establish drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS, which are
two substances for which EPA issued lifetime health advisories.
In 2016, EPA established health-based guidelines for PFOA and
PFOA at 70 parts per trillion in drinking water, based on water
consumption, exposure among sensitive populations, and exposure
to other sources. Turning to the blood testing provision in the
bill, Mr. Risotto said widescale blood testing should only be
conducted if based on analytical methods and followed by an
objective interpretation of results. Further, the PFAS testing
specified in the bill cannot provide information on historic
exposure in individuals or assist in predicting health effects
and, thus, would accomplish no purpose. Turning to the
liability provision in the bill, he said ACC also has concerns
about how the bill assigns liability.
1:47:33 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR agreed with the need for an objective review of
blood testing data; however, she questioned how blood testing
would fail to differentiate between historic exposure and
current exposure. She expressed her understanding blood testing
would provide information about adverse health impacts but is
too expensive for an individual to afford. Speaking from her
own perspective, Co-Chair Tarr advised residents are rightly
concerned about their health and the health of their families,
and she elaborated.
MR. RISOTTO restated there is no way to tie a specific level to
a specific health affect; an individual sample of blood would
not provide an historic profile and is very limited in its
ability to answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired as to whether a series of blood
tests, over a span of time, would indicate the source of one's
exposure and differentiate between background exposure and
direct consumption.
MR. RISOTTO said the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) have been testing for PFOA, PFOS, and other substances,
and testing has shown a steady decline in blood levels for PFOA
and PFOS; he explained that exposure from dental floss and
cooking pans is from a polymer that is unlikely to transfer into
the blood of an individual because of the size of the molecule
and its insolubility.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned whether blood samples taken
over a period of three years, from children exposed to AFFF,
would fail to reveal health risks and changing levels of
exposure.
MR. RISOTTO acknowledged blood testing would reveal the level of
exposure but would not give an indication of likely health
effects due to a lack of data.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK inquired as to whether ACC supports blood
testing of responders to a fire but not of residents who are
exposed through drinking water in a community.
MR. RISOTTO agreed it would be useful to obtain a baseline on
the level of exposure accumulated by first responders.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked Mr. Risotto to recommend a useful testing
regime.
MR. RISOTTO said testing the water drinking water would reveal
community exposure; the CDC has fairly extensive data on many of
the products.
1:55:51 PM
GREG STREVELER said he has lived in Gustavus for 50 years and is
a retired Department of Natural Resources consultant and
biologist. He said his work and his joy in life are his
interest in the beauty, connectivity, and health of the Gustavus
ecosystem. Mr. Streveler said he serves as a chemist for the
Gustavus PFAS Action Coalition group, due to his background in
organic chemistry, and he warned levels of PFAS contamination in
Gustavus will come to reflect those of other places, which is a
real issue. He pointed out in the bill the list of chemicals,
and their cutoff concentrations, includes chemicals about which
much is known; as more becomes known, the allowable parts per
trillion concentrations are lowered. He directed attention to
the bill on page 2, lines 7-10, which read:
(b) For purposes of (a) of this section, the limit of
perfluoroalkyl substance or polyfluoroalkyl substance
contamination in water is the lesser of
(1) the limit established by the department in
regulation; or
(2) the following limits:
MR. STREVELER said the abovementioned provision is important
because he is convinced - as testing continues - allowable
concentrations will decline, and the bill correctly sets limits
now, and also gives the department flexibility to reduce the
limits if there are scientific reasons to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked how the community of Gustavus became
aware of the problem with its drinking water.
MR. STREVELER explained he became aware after the National Park
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, tested the well that
provides water to Gustavus School, and the test was positive.
2:00:15 PM
DAVID BERREY, spokesperson for Wake Up Alaskans to the Toxic
Environmental Reality (WATER) said Fairbanks is ground zero for
this issue and residents have had toxic levels in their wells
for many years. Mr. Berrey said the chemical companies refuse
to take responsibility for contamination, and EPA has been
talking about studies and action for 20-30 years, so states must
force responsibility onto the chemical companies. Alaska has no
chemical industry, but North Pole is contaminated with
sulfolane. Fairbanks has plumes from Eielson Air Force Base,
the training center at the airport, and Fort Wainwright, and its
high water table is contaminated with extremely high counts of
PFOS and PFOA. Mr. Berrey said small changes made to chemicals
have led to false claims of safety by the chemical companies,
but they know there are just as many problems. He remarked:
It's unconscionable what they're doing to us. It's up
to you to do something to protect us. We need to have
our blood tested in our area to show that we're
astronomically high in these chemicals. There's no
endemiological studies being done; there's no way to
find the data to begin with. We need help. We're
looking to you to help us.
2:03:34 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN, after ascertaining no one further wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 240.
CO-CHAIR TARR recalled in last year's capital budget there was
funding for testing and cleanup of PFAS contamination, and
intent language directing DOT&PF to test for all PFAS chemicals,
not only PFOS and PFOA; a subsequent report from DOT&PF
indicated $165,000 has been spent and she asked for an
additional update on ongoing work.
2:05:14 PM
JOHN BINDER, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, informed the
committee it took DOT&PF and DEC several months "freeing up that
money" in the capital appropriation, but the delay did not
inhibit the actions of the departments. Testing is continuing,
and DOT&PF has responded appropriately where tests are positive.
The reimbursable services agreements (RSAs) are in place to
access the capital funds and activities are well underway.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked for written details on where testing has
occurred, and the results, to inform the committee on the status
of remediation and whether additional funds are necessary.
MR. BINDER agreed to provide a summary.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked what action is taken when
contamination is found, in excess of DEC regulations, at a site
or in a community.
MR. BINDER explained that before a site is tested, DOT&PF
coordinates a workplan with DEC; when results are positive at a
certain level, DOT&PF determines a source of clean water and,
with DEC and the Division of Risk Management [within the
Department of Administration], determines a long-term solution.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked what is happening in Gustavus.
MR. BINDER said additional testing in Gustavus has identified
affected sites; there are several options for a long-term water
source, including water treatment and capturing rainwater in a
cistern. Each community is evaluated individually to determine
the best long-term solution.
2:09:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired as to other sites in the process
of mitigation, in addition to Gustavus and Fairbanks.
MR. BINDER said seven locations out of thirty-three suspect
sites have been tested. Working with DEC and the Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) to garner information such as well
depths, groundwater flows, locations of private wells, and other
factors, DOT&PF categorized airports into levels of risk; nine
airports are at highest risk, and all but Iliamna and Aniak have
been tested. Because most of the suspect plumes surround
airports in rural areas, private wells are contaminated and
require individual solutions. If a [clean] public water source
is available, a connection to public water is generally the
preferred long-term solution, in fact, Fairbanks International
Airport provided water from the city water supply.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked how many more sites would be
tested this year.
MR. BINDER was unsure of how many in addition to Iliamna and
Aniak.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ asked for an estimate on the cost of
testing the remaining sites. She surmised long-term solutions
are to identify a new source of water and asked whether removal
of the contaminated plume would be an option.
MR. BINDER agreed to provide a written estimate of costs. The
department estimates $10 million would be needed to test all of
the remaining sites, and there would be additional costs to
respond to positive results. He said "forever chemicals" in
water are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to remove from
the ground, and treating the soil saturated with water is a
difficult challenge.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ questioned whether soil could be
removed and replaced.
2:15:04 PM
MR. BINDER further explained once the chemicals are in the
groundwater, even if the soil is removed and treated, after
rain, the groundwater will re-contaminate the clean soil;
however, he said removing and treating the soil may be possible
in some circumstances. He related that at Fairbanks
International Airport, a contractor is experimenting with carbon
injection into the plume to treat or prevent further
contamination, although results will be unknown for some time.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked why DOT&PF began testing in
Gustavus.
MR. BINDER stated awareness followed projects at Eielson Air
Force Base and in Fairbanks. The Department of Environmental
Conservation requested testing at Gustavus, and he expressed his
understanding the near location of an airport to residential
wells raises the risk and concerns about this issue.
2:18:08 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN announced that HB 240 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB240 Version A Sponsor Statement 2.28.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Version A 2.07.2020.PDF |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Version A Sectional Summary 2.14.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB240 ATSDR PFAS Information Sheet 02.13.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB240 EPA PFAS Information Sheet 02.13.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB240 Executive Summary - Michigan Report on PFAS Health Effect 02.13.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Testimony as of 3.6.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Draft CS Version M 3.6.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 CSHB24(RES) Version M--Sectional Summary 3.6.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 24 HB 240 |
| HB 240 Explanation of Changes, Ver. A to Ver. M 3.6.2020.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Fiscal Note - DPS-FLS 3.5.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Fiscal Note - DEC-SPAR 3.6.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Fiscal Note - DEC-EH 3.6.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/16/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 240 Testimony Received as of 3.8.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 240 |
| HB 138 Draft CS v. K.pdf |
HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Sectional Analysis v. K 2.4.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Sponsor Statement 2.4.2020.pdf |
HRES 2/10/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/14/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Fiscal Note CS(RES)-DFG-CO-2-14-20.pdf |
HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Fiscal Note CSHB138-DNR-MLW-2-17-20.pdf |
HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 Fiscal Note HB138CS(RES)-DEC-WIF-02-16-20.pdf |
HRES 2/17/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment One - Spohnholz 2.13.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Two - Tarr 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Three - Lincoln 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Four - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Five - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Six - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Seven - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 2/24/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Eight - Hannan 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Nine - Tuck 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Ten - Spohnholz and Lincoln 2.20.20.pdf |
HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Eleven - Lincoln 2.21.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Twelve - Lincoln 3.3.20.pdf |
HRES 3/9/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/11/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Thirteen - Tarr 3.5.30.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Amendment Fourteen - Tarr 3.5.20.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Conceptual Amendment Fifteen - Tarr 3.9.30.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 HRES Conceptual Amendment Sixteen - Tarr 3.9.20.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 218 Transmittal Letter 1.28.20.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 V. A 1.27.20.PDF |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/20/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Sectional Analysis 1.28.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Fiscal Note 1.27.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/20/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Logbook Use Summary 1.28.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/6/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 ADFG Letter of Support 1.28.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/20/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 Letter of Support SEAGO 2.12.20.pdf |
HFSH 2/13/2020 11:00:00 AM HFSH 2/20/2020 11:00:00 AM HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 218 CS(FSH) Version M 2.21.20.PDF |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM HRES 3/18/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 218 |
| HB 138 DEC Response Letter 2.24.20.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |
| HB 138 DEC Response Letter 3.13.20.pdf |
HRES 3/13/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 138 |