Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
05/01/2024 01:30 PM House 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 | |
| HB307 | |
| SB67 | |
| HB196 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 307 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 67 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 196 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 223 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 67(RES)
"An Act relating to firefighting substances; and
providing for an effective date."
6:02:02 PM
Co-Chair Foster invited the sponsor and staff to the table.
SENATOR JESSE KIEHL, SPONSOR, explained that SB 67 was a
"no new spills" bill for Per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS). He reported that PFAS combined carbon
and fluorine in ways that were difficult to break down and
are known as forever chemicals. The chemicals were toxic to
people in very small amounts. The chemicals had gotten in
the water mainly due to firefighting foams in Alaska. The
legislation prohibited the use of firefighting foams
containing PFAS with a very limited exception. He
delineated that there was a delayed effect for the oil and
gas industry where suitable alternate chemicals were non-
existent. The bill also required the state to help small
villages safely dispose of small quantities of PFAS foam.
Co-Chair Foster noted that he would set an amendment
deadline.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony. He noted that Ms.
Lesh was a member of his office staff.
MELANIE LESH, SELF, GUSTAVUS (via teleconference), thanked
Senator Kiehl and his staff for their work on addressing
the issue in Alaska. She thanked Representative Stapp for
offering the companion bill. She relayed that in the last
six years, it was not safe for her to drink the water from
her well in Gustavus. She believed that the bill was a good
starting point in removing the toxic substance from Alaskan
rural communities and villages. She shared that four years
earlier her oncologist had been worried about the chemicals
Ms. Lesh had been exposed to while living in Gustavus.
Testing did not exist at the time; however she had since
been plasma tested along with her neighbors and family;
they all had PFAS levels much higher than the lifetime
limit. The test determined that everyone living downstream
from the Gustavus Airport all had the extremely high PFAS
levels. She asked the committee to please support the bill.
Co-Chair Foster did not realize that the specific testing
was available. He thought that was educational.
Representative Josephson thanked Ms. Lesh for her
testimony. He observed from a prior visit to Gustavus that
it was spread out. He asked if the situation was a plume
issue and not isolated to the area around the fire
department. He asked what she knew about how PFAS spreads.
6:08:17 PM
Ms. Lesh responded that the fire department was not located
in the groundwater plume area. She expounded that her home
was down "a groundwater plume from the airpor on a
riverbank. During World War II (WWII), the river was the
nearest water delivery for the construction work to build
the airport. Therefore, the river had been the natural
channel for the PFAS chemicals to flow right past her and
her neighbors property. The fire department was on the
other side of the river and was not affected.
Representative Josephson asked for verification that she
was reporting a many decades old problem. Ms. Lesh answered
in the affirmative. She detailed that the exposure was due
to the PFAS foam that had been released by the fire
department at the airport.
Representative Galvin presumed the chemicals had traveled
in an underground river that fed Ms. Lesh's well. She asked
if it was a problem for gardens in Gustavus. She was aware
that it was an issue in Anchorage in Sand Lake soil. Ms.
Lesh replied in the affirmative. She elucidated that the
saturation was in her well and she had received a cistern
as part of a settlement of release of liability with the
state. She could not drink the well water nor water her
garden.
Representative Hannan shared that in past years she had
represented Gustavus and had no prior knowledge of PFAS and
its dangers. Gustavus was a community of scientists, due to
its location near Glacier Bay National Park. She noted that
there was no community water system, and everyone had a
cistern or well. The community activists had been on the
front line of alerting Alaskans about PFAS dangers and
called for plasma testing before there were accepted
methods and levels of testing. She voiced that there was a
lot of work to do to protect Alaskans and that the
longitudinal health of many Alaskans was harmed
significantly by PFAS exposure. The state needed to prevent
more harm going forward and clean up PFAS sites. She
offered that most people in Gustavus had not been able to
harvest from their gardens or eat eggs from their chickens
pecking in the soil. Currently, game meat was being tested
to determine the PFAS level in moose harvested in the
community. She declared that the harm had been extensive in
Gustavus and many other communities across Alaska. She
thanked Ms. Lesh for sharing a painful history in Gustavus
with the committee.
6:14:00 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED Public Testimony.
Co-Chair Foster noted there were two fiscal notes. He asked
the department to review them.
ANDY MILLS, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (via teleconference),
reviewed the new Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities (DOT) fiscal note dated May 9, 2023. He noted
that part of the information was from the prior year, but
the information was still relevant. He explained that DOT
had discovered fairly extensive research that revealed the
number of Project Code Red sites throughout the state,
which allowed the department to obtain environmental
contractors to gather rough estimates of disposal costs.
The fiscal note identified one new position to coordinate
the disposal program and an estimated capital cost of $2.5
million calculated by averaging the cost estimates from two
contractors.
6:16:16 PM
Co-Chair Foster moved to the zero fiscal note from the
Department of Public Safety.
LISA PURINTON, ACTING LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY, explained that the published zero fiscal
note (FN1 DPS) dated February 24. 2023. The department was
not anticipating a significant fiscal impact from the bill.
6:17:18 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked the committee if any member planned
to submit an amendment.
6:17:44 PM
AT EASE
6:22:31 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee would consider one
amendment.
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 1, following line 2:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. AS 46.03 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Article 3A. Firefighting Substances Disposal
Reimbursements.
Sec. 46.03.135. Firefighting substances disposal
reimbursements. (a) A firefighting substances disposal
reimbursement program is established in the
department.
(b) The department shall accept an application for
disposal reimbursement on a form provided by the
department from a person domiciled in
(1) a community in the state with a population of
less than 2,000 that is off the road system who
received a firefighting substance that contains a
perfluoroalkyl substance or polyfluoroalkyl substance;
or
(2) the state who received a firefighting substance
that contains a perfluoroalkyl substance or
polyfluoroalkyl substance from a partially state-
funded fire safety project.
(c) The department may accept a reimbursement
application only if the application provides proper
disposal documentation showing compliance with
regulations adopted by the department and any other
applicable law.
(d) The department shall prioritize reimbursements as
follows:
(1) activities related to the proper disposal of a
firefighting substance that contains a perfluoroalkyl
substance or polyfluoroalkyl substance, including
disposal of the equipment containing the substance;
(2) activities related to the proper disposal of
firefighting equipment residually contaminated by a
perfluoroalkyl substance or polyfluoroalkyl substance;
(3) replacement of equipment containing or residually
contaminated by a perfluoroalkyl substance or
polyfluoroalkyl substance."
Page 1, line 3:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 1, line 4:
Delete "substances"
Insert "foam"
Page 1, line 5:
Delete "substance"
Insert "foam"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "substance"
Insert "foam"
Page 1, line 10:
Delete the first occurrence of "substance"
Insert "foam"
Page 1, line 13:
Delete "substance"
Insert "foam"
Page 2, line 2:
Delete "substance"
Insert "foam"
Page 2, lines 4 - 6:
Delete all material.
Page 2, following line 6:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 3. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
TRANSITION: REGULATIONS. The commissioner of
environmental conservation may adopt or amend
regulations as necessary to implement the changes made
by this Act. The regulations take effect under AS
44.62 (Administrative Procedure Act) but not before
the effective date of law implemented by the
regulation.
* Sec. 4. Section 3 of this Act takes effect
immediately under AS 01.10.070(c)."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "This"
Insert "Except as provided in sec. 4 of this Act,
this"
Delete "2024"
Insert "2025"
Co-Chair Foster objected for discussion.
Representative Stapp explained the amendment. He informed
the committee that the amendment made some structural
changes to the disposal reimbursement requirements and the
amendment was done in conjunction with the sponsor. They
both worked had worked to find language that best remedied
the concerns DEC had. He asked the senator to discuss the
amendment.
Senator Kiehl explained that the amendment reflected
substantial work done by the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) and Department of Law (DOL) and built on
the work DOT used to build its fiscal note. The approach
shifted the removal of PFAS foam from small rural villages
from the state to a reimbursement program. He delineated
that the bill was still limited to the same group of rural
villages who received the PFAS from a partially state
funded program. He noted that he was referring to the
Project Code Red from about a decade ago. The villages
would be able to dispose of the foams and receive
reimbursement through the mechanism in the amendment. In
addition, it mitigated the potential concerns DOL had about
liability. He claimed that the amendment got the job done
and appreciated the amendment.
CATHY SHLINGHEYDE, STAFF, SENATOR JESSE KIEHL, explained
that there were two other small changes in the amendment.
One change was brought to the sponsor by industries like
telecom companies that had a lot of server rooms using
clean agent firefighting gases worked by removing oxygen
from the room. Some of the halon replacements were being
classified as PFAS in other states. She informed the
committee that the bill did not address clean firefighting
agents, which had no replacements. The amendment clarified
that the bill addressed foam exclusively. The other change
also updated the effective date by one year.
6:26:03 PM
CRYSTAL KOENEMAN, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, indicated that both sponsors
had worked very closely with the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) on the language and the
department was comfortable with the amendment. The
department had no concerns.
Representative Ortiz deduced that the amendment called for
the removal of the PFAS by the village rather than the
state. He asked if he was correct. Senator Kiehl answered
that the PFAS removal would be done by a contractor trained
in the removal of the hazardous substances.
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION to Amendment 1.
There being no further objection it was so ordered.
Co-Chair Foster asked for a review of the new zero fiscal
note from the Department of Environmental Conservation
allocated to Spill Prevention and Response (SPAR).
Ms. Koeneman replied that no costs were anticipated by DEC.
She noted that the fiscal note was currently in draft form.
She explained that the communities would be contracting
with a third party and submit reimbursements to the
department which was part of standard operating procedures.
The department believed it could absorb the processing
costs. The $2.5 million of Unrestricted General Funds (UGF)
capital expenditure was maintained in the fiscal note for
reimbursement to the communities and would be sufficient to
cover all the mitigation costs. The department did not have
the funds to take on the capital costs.
6:30:37 PM
AT EASE
6:30:52 PM
RECONVENED
Ms. Koeneman noted that the DEC fiscal note replaced the
DOT fiscal note.
Co-Chair Edgmon MOVED to REPORT HCS CSSB 67(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes and giving Legislative Legal the
ability to make technical and conforming changes.
There being no objection it was so ordered.
HCS CSSB 67(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with nine
"do pass" recommendations and with one new fiscal impact
note by the Department of Environmental Conservation and
one previously published zero note: FN2 (DPS).
Senator Kiehl thanked the committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 196 Presentation HFIN 03.06.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB 196 Combined Bill File 03.06.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB 196 Letters of Support 03.06.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB 196 Public Testimony Rec'd by 040424.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB 196 Sectional Analysis Version A 03.06.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB 196 Sponsor Statement Version A 03.06.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB 196 Supporting Document - CBPP Report BBCE Supports Working Families 03.06.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB 196 Supporting Document - Fact Sheets 03.06.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 196 |
| HB307 HFIN Presentation 5.1.24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 307 |
| HB 223 Amendment 1 to Amendment 13 ( D.12) 050124.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
HB 223 |
| SB 67 Amendment 1 Stapp 050124.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 67 |
| SB 67-NEW FN DEC-SPAR-05-01-24.pdf |
HFIN 5/1/2024 1:30:00 PM |
SB 67 |