Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/14/2022 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 | |
| Presentation: 301(h) Waivers - Water Quality Standards | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 162 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 163 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 14, 2022
9:02 a.m.
9:02:48 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stedman called the Senate Finance Committee
meeting to order at 9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Click Bishop, Co-Chair
Senator Bert Stedman, Co-Chair
Senator Bill Wielechowski (via teleconference)
Senator David Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Senator Natasha von Imhof
ALSO PRESENT
Randall Bates, Director, Division of Habitat, Department of
Fish and Game; Gene McCabe, Program Manager, Wastewater
Treatment, Division of Water; Carrie Bohan, Program
Manager, Division of Water, Department of Environmental
Conservation.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Mark Corsentino, General Manager, Anchorage Water and
Wastewater Utility, Anchorage; Lacey Simpson, Acting City
Manager, Ketchikan.
SUMMARY
^PRESENTATION: 301(h) WAIVERS - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
9:04:58 AM
RANDALL BATES, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF HABITAT, DEPARTMENT OF
FISH AND GAME, discussed the presentation, "Senate Finance;
Clean Water Act; Section 301(h) Waivers; For Wastewater
Treatment Plants; April 14, 2022" (copy on file). He looked
at slide 2, "301(h) Background):
? Section 301(h) added to Clean Water Act in 1977
? Allowed case-by-case review for municipal wastewater
treatment facilities discharging to marine waters
? Waiver provided relief from requirement to provide
secondary treatment (waivers issued in the late 70's
and early 80's)
? Nationally 208 communities applied, 87 no longer
eligible, 76 denied
? 45 facilities in MA, ME, NH, CA, HI, AK, and
territories
9:09:24 AM
Mr. Bates displayed slide 3, "301(h) Criteria":
? Section 301(h)(1-9) establishes criteria for a
301(h) waiver
? Facility must achieve primary treatment 30 percent
removal for Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) and Total
Suspended Solids (TSS)
? Facility must control toxics and pretreat industrial
inputs
? Facility must monitor discharge and may not create
pollution control requirements on other discharges
? Waiver addresses BOD, TSS, and pH
? All pollutants must meet Alaska Water Quality
Standard (WQS)
9:10:42 AM
Mr. Bates pointed to slide 4, "301(h) AK Communities":
9 waivered facilities in AK
From north to south, with authorized discharge
capacity:
Anchorage 58 million gallons per day (mgd)
? Whittier 0.3 mgd
? Skagway 0.63 mgd
? Haines 2.9 mgd
? Pelican 0.09 mgd
? Sitka 1.8 mgd
? Petersburg 1.2 mgd
? Wrangell 0.54 mgd
? Ketchikan 7.2 mgd
Mr. Bates stated that the department met with these
communities regularly. He expressed frustration with the
likely outcome of the process, which would be that the cost
of improvements would be passed on to the rate payers in
communities.
9:13:38 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wondered whether there were changes since
the issuance of the waivers.
9:13:52 AM
Mr. Bates replied that most of the facilitates had been on
administrative extension for a long time and the EPA had
not looked at the buildings for a number of years. He said
that the issue was not dire, but it had been a very long
time since the buildings had been assessed.
9:14:33 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wondered what success would look like in
the situation.
9:14:47 AM
Mr. Bates replied that the success would be the issuance of
the 301(h) waiver, because the absence of the waiver had
significant consequences. Facilitates that did not receive
a waiver would not be able to discharge their wastewater
treatment until and unless they got a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit (NPDES) permit. He said
that 301(h) waivers allowed for primary treatment only and
at the end of the process facilities were likely going to
have to improve their treatment at the plant to include
something additional, which will likely be disinfection. He
said that this would be an improvement; however, the
additional secondary treatment would be of significant cost
to the community.
9:16:50 AM
Co-Chair Stedman queried mixing zones. He noted areas in
Skagway and Sitka with pristine waters and wondered about
the mixing zones in the two radically different bodies of
water.
9:17:33 AM
Mr. Bates deferred to Mr. McCabe.
9:17:57 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wondered whether there was any reporting
of sickness, disease, or death from contaminated waters in
any of the listed communities.
9:18:14 AM
Mr. Bates replied that the department had not received
specific indications of sickness or death. He said that
there was anecdotal information from communities that
people and animals have been made sick by the water. He
said that based on mixing zone data and sampling,
particularly in Ketchikan, there are significant
exceedances of water quality standards of E. coli and fecal
coliform levels. He said that the fecal chloroform was
coming from wastewater treatment facilities.
9:19:04 AM
Co-Chair Stedman thought that the issue became muddy with
residents that were not hooked up to city sewer. He was
unsure that anyone would fish near a wastewater plant.
9:19:29 AM
Mr. Bates replied that the discharge that occurred in
Juneau out Thane Road was near a popular fishing site.
9:20:22 AM
Mr. Bates relayed that discharge in Juneau contained less
fecal units than in Sitka and Ketchikan.
9:20:36 AM
GENE MCCABE, PROGRAM MANAGER, WASTEWATER TREATMENT,
DIVISION OF WATER, addressed slide 5, "301(h) Re-Issuance
Process":
EPA Focus: meeting 301(h) criteria
? Develop Draft Permit and 301(h) decision
? Develop supporting documents
? Public notice draft permit
? Request Section 401 Certification
? Conduct public hearings, respond to comments and
revise permit
? Reissue permit, Waiver from Secondary
DEC- Focus: meeting AK WQS
? Review draft permit and associated EPA driven permit
limits
? Conduct review to determine if proposed permit will
meet Alaska WQS
? Conduct anti degradation analysis
? Evaluate alternatives to exceeding WQS for
practicability
? Draft Section 401 Certification and authorize mixing
zones
? Public notice proposed 401 Certification
? 30 Days can be concurrent with permit public
notice
? Issue 401 Certification, Requirement for
disinfection to meet WQS
9:22:56 AM
Mr. McCabe addressed slide 6, "Why Disinfection?"
? Fecal coliform bacteria discharge from a 301(h)
facility does not meet (and has never met) Alaska
Water Quality Standards
? Exceedances, like these from 301(h) facilities,
require a mixing zone for dilution
? Mixing zones may be authorized under state authority
and must be as small as practicable
? Facilities must evaluate all options to treat
pollutants prior to requesting a mixing zone to dilute
their discharge
? For the 301(h) facilities, disinfection will reduce
the size of the mixing zone substantially
9:25:31 AM
Co-Chair Bishop queried an example of disinfection in a
real-time scenario.
9:25:53 AM
Mr. McCabe replied that he could not give actual quantities
of injected chlorine but knew that the chlorine was removed
from the water before discharge. He added that the was
ultraviolet (UV) technology that was also used. He agreed
to provide additional information.
9:26:40 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the size of the mixing zone in
Ketchikan.
9:26:54 AM
Mr. McCabe replied that the zones were currently authorized
for 1600 meters, a value that could not be replicated using
current methods.
9:27:11 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked for the size in miles.
9:27:14 AM
Mr. McCabe said it was approximately a 1-mile radius from
the center.
9:27:21 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether all the zones in the state
were of the same size.
9:27:31 AM
Mr. McCabe replied that he did not know about Anchorage but
that the other zones in the state were approximately the
same size.
9:27:48 AM
Mr. McCabe looked at slide 7, "Why Disinfection?"
? 18 AAC 70.015 Antidegradation policy
? 18 AAC 72.050 Minimum treatment
? 18 AAC 72.990(21) Definition of "disinfect"
? 18 AAC 70.016 Tier 2 department determination
? 18 AAC 70.240 Mixing Zones
9:29:04 AM
Co-Chair Stedman said that questions would be asked after
each slide.
9:29:10 AM
Co-Chair Stedman admitted that he was not a biologist. He
wondered whether it was possible to tell the difference
between a contaminate from the plant and animal discharge.
Mr. McCabe said that fecal coliform bacteria could be
determined using specialized sampling. He said that the
determination was not usually necessary and most fecal
bacteria was assumed to be human.
9:30:17 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wondered whether animal waste could skew
the contaminant numbers.
9:30:53 AM
CARRIE BOHAN, PROGRAM MANAGER, DIVISION OF WATER,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, discussed slide
8, "Disinfection Capital Costs":
? Cost estimates for disinfection range from $2-15M
per facility
? Funding options include:
? State Revolving Fund Low interest loans with
possible subsidy
? $90M available now
? FY23 base grant ~$10M
? Infrastructure supplemental funding
? $10.7M in FY23 with required 49 percent
subsidy to disadvantaged communities
? FY24 FY26 $55.4M total in addition to
annual base grants
? Commercial Passenger Vessel fees grant program
? SB 180, HB 303 proposed grant program ~$4M
annually
? Congressional Earmarks
9:37:04 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether there would be any
withholding of the waiver that would force communities into
a secondary treatment. He was concerned about the expense
to smaller communities such as Pelican, Alaska.
Ms. Bohan replied that Pelican was exceptional because it
was eligible for Village Safe Water funding. An application
had just been received for Pelican that would be funded by
Village Safe Water funding through grants.
9:38:12 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether Pelican was the only
community on the Village Safe Water funding recipient list
or if Anchorage could also be an exception.
9:38:14 AM
Ms. Bohan replied that Village Safe Water was aimed at
rural communities and statute limited it to communities
with populations up to 1000, except for Second Class
communities. Anchorage did not meet the criteria.
9:38:37 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether Skagway qualified.
9:38:40 AM
Ms. Bohan replied in the negative.
9:38:45 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked about the politics behind the issue.
He wondered whether the EPA would seek punitive measures
against community leaders that did not fall in line.
9:39:09 AM
Mr. Bates replied that the issue was about science and not
politics. He asserted that if the EPA arrived at a
conclusion, partially based on a 401 certification, that a
301(h) waiver could be issues, that would be the conclusion
that would stand for many years. He said that there was no
immediate push form the EPA or the department to force
communities into a secondary treatment. He stated that he
would appreciate it if communities would work to discharge
the highest quality effluent as they possibly could. He
related that secondary treatment, in order of magnitude
cost greater than even disinfection, which is an order of
magnitude cost greater than primary treatment, was not
feasible for communities without some other funding
mechanism in place. He shared that the department would
like to see those communities move off EPA 301(h) waivers
to an APDES permit managed by the state.
Co-Chair Stedman thought that the EPA had threatened city
administrators in the past.
Mr. Bates expressed concern that that had happened.
Co-Chair Stedman maintained his concern. He lamented that
the smaller communities simply could not afford to pay for
the secondary treatments when some were struggling to
operate wastewater treatment plants at all.
9:41:24 AM
Senator Wilson asked about the capital costs associated
with each community and which was the better option:
disinfection or expanding mixing zones.
Mr. Bates replied that a way to reduce the level of
contamination in the water, to shrink the mixing zone, was
by disinfectant. He said that disinfectants cost money, and
were expensive to maintain, but were worth it.
9:44:05 AM
Senator Wilson wondered what the ongoing operating costs
for disinfection treatment would be.
Mr. Bates deferred to the upcoming speakers from Anchorage
and Ketchikan. He believed that the cost would be discussed
in future slides.
Co-Chair Stedman asked whether the statutes could be
repealed to get rid of the regulations.
Mr. Bates responded that repealing the statures was an
option. He said that the department's goal was to be sure
there was equity in industry.
9:47:11 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked where the line was drawn between the
federal government and the state pertaining to the Clean
Water Act.
Mr. Bates referred to his opening remarks. He understood
that the Clean Water Act required that municipal wastewater
treatment facilities treat at both the primary and
secondary level. He said that communities that wanted to
create a new discharge plant must produce at the secondary
treatment level.
9:48:31 AM
Co-Chair Stedman understood that was a federal dictate.
Mr. Bates replied in the affirmative.
9:48:44 AM
Co-Chair Bishop thought the current exemptions existed
because the plants were put in place before 1977.
Mr. Bates said that was correct.
Co-Chair Stedman noted that Senator Wielechowski was
online.
9:50:10 AM
MARK CORSENTINO, GENERAL MANAGER, ANCHORAGE WATER AND
WASTEWATER UTILITY, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
discussed the presentation, "The Asplund Permit Story"
(copy on file). He highlighted slide 2, "John M. Asplund
Wastewater Pollution Control Facility (WPCF)":
? Largest in Alaska
? Began Operations in 1972
? Capacity of 58 MGD
? Provides Primary Treatment per EPA 301(h) permit
? Screening
? Grit Removal
? Settling/Clarification
? Disinfection
? Discharge is quickly dispersed by Cook Inlet's
extreme high tides
? Major upgrades in 1982 (process improvements), 1989
(solids handling)
? Continually upgraded since, e.g.
? Screen replacements
? Clarifier upgrades
? New Disinfection system
? New Electrical system and Plant-wide Controls
He stressed that primary treatment was more than releasing
raw sewage into the water.
9:52:20 AM
Mr. Corsentino looked at slide 3, "Asplund Primary
Treatment Process Removes Over 75 percent of the Incoming
Solids from Wastewater." The slide provided a process
overview for wastewater being released into Cook Inlet.
Mr. Corsentino pointed to slide 4, "AWWU is proud of our
role in protecting public health and the environment."
Mr. Corsentino looked at slide 5, "What is 301(h) of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)?"
? Federal Statute provides for a variance from the
standard secondary treatment requirement for discharge
to a marine environment
? Statute calls out criteria for eligibility for the
permit variance, including:
? AWWU must operate plant to meet primary
treatment standards
? Discharge to environment does not degrade
waters
? Monitoring is done to ensure no degradation
? Potentially toxic pollutant are controlled
through an Industrial Pretreatment Program.
? Utility's performance and results are monitored by
Federal and State authorities and subject to their
renewal specified in law
9:54:26 AM
Mr. Corsentino addressed slide 6, "301(h) of the CWA
recognizes that marine discharges are different":
? 28 MGD discharged to Cook Inlet at Point Woronzof
? All flow gets screening, primary treatment and
disinfection
? Permitted by USEPA since 1985; re-authorized in
2000.
9:54:40 AM
Mr. Corsentino looked at slide 7, "301(h) Historic Timeline
for Asplund WPCF."
1972: Congress passes Clean Water Act
Requires 'secondary' treatment of wastewaters
1975: EPA authorizes Asplund discharge
1977: CWA amended; 301(h) added.
Allows modification of 'secondary' treatment
standard for discharge to marine waters
1980: AWWU applies for Asplund permit reauthorization
1985: EPA authorizes Asplund under 301(h)
State of Alaska concurs in issuance of 301(h)
permit
9:55:46 AM
Mr. Corsentino pointed to slide 8, "301(h) Historic
Timeline for Asplund WPCF."
1990: AWWU applies for Asplund reauthorization
EPA and State allow AWWU to operate under
administrative extension
2000: EPA re-authorizes Asplund 301(h)
2005: AWWU applies for re-authorization
2008: Cook Inlet Beluga Whale listed, CIBW listed
under ESA
2009: AWWU receives administrative extension,
Extension remains in effect today (2022)
2011: Final Draft be produced, AWWU provides EPA with
Biological Evaluation for use in ESA consultation
2020: AWWU notified EPA intends to act, EPA intends to
act on 301(h) renewal by October 2022. EPA says time
frame flexible.
9:56:42 AM
Mr. Corsentino highlighted slide 9, "ADEC and EPA have
linked authority for permitting":
? Clean Water Act 401 calls for State to certify that
a discharge permit would not abrogate State Water
Quality Criteria
? State has authority to establish a "Mixing Zone"
where a variance in State Water Quality Criteria may
apply.
? State has option to not engage in the 401
certification process, as was done in the 2000 permit
? AWWU believes that having ADEC engage in the 401
certification process is critical to a successful
reapplication process, we urge the State to engage in
the 401 certification process
9:58:05 AM
Mr. Corsentino pointed to slide 10, "36 years of monitoring
shows no adverse effects:
? Plant meets all permit conditions.
? Effluent yields very low levels of trace
contaminants.
? Background trace metals from glacial silt.
? No measurable Water Quality effects.
? No toxicity in effluent bioassays.
? No bioaccumulation of toxic materials.
? No sediment effects at outfall.
? No sediment contamination from outfall.
? Comprehensive biological evaluation showed no
adverse effect on Beluga Whales.
? Please visit results posted on AWWU
Website at: https://www.awwu.biz/water-quality/cook-
inletwater-quality
9:58:36 AM
Mr. Corsentino highlighted slide 11, "AWWU maintains
Asplund WPCF to National award-winning standards":
Project Year
.notdef New Influent Screening system 2001
.notdef Upgrade Solids Incinerator 2006
.notdef New Plant-wide control system 2008
.notdef New Electrical System 2009
.notdef Upgrade Clarifiers 2010-2017
.notdef New Disinfection system 2014-2016
9:59:24 AM
Mr. Corsentino looked at slide 12, "In Summary":
? AWWU recognizes unique environment we live in.
? AWWU is dedicated to protecting our environment.
? AWWU meets the intent of the CWA.
? AWWU plant works! 36 years of monitoring has shown
no impacts.
? AWWU invests for continuous improvement.
? AWWU works in the public interest.
9:59:47 AM
Mr. Corsentino pointed to slide 13, "What happens if
Anchorage is denied renewal of its 301(h) variance
request?"
? Asplund WPCF would have to be upgraded to secondary
treatment, at a minimum.
? Most likely State and federal agencies would
establish a compliance schedule to make improvements
under a State permit, with EPA oversight.
? It could take 10 years +/- to plan, design and
construct an upgrade to the plant.
10:00:35 AM
Co-Chair Bishop wondered whether Joint base Elmendorf-
Richardson (JBER) used the Anchorage system.
10:00:42 AM
Mr. Corsentino replied that JBER was on the Anchorage
system.
10:00:49 AM
Mr. Corsentino looked at slide 14, "What are financial
consequences of losing the 301(h) variance?":
? Cost of going secondary treatment estimated to be
$1.0 1.4 Billion (2022 dollars)
? OandM costs would in increase about $4,400,000 per
year
? There are no known federal programs for direct grant
participation
? The State does not have a financial program other
than the SRF (as amended by the IIJA) and is not
presently in position to address a need this large
10:01:58 AM
Mr. Corsentino discussed slide 15, "AWWU ratepayers would
bear the cost of required plant upgrades":
? AWWU customers would see rate increases to provide ?
? $1.2 Billion + for capital upgrades
? Annual increase in OandM expenses of $4,400,000
? Meaning ?.
? A rate increase of 235 percent
? An increase in Single Family Home rates
? From: $53.91 per month
? To: $180.00 per month
10:03:02 AM
Senator Wilson what percentage of increase rate payers
would see if capital costs were covered, but the annual
increase was $4 to $5 million per year.
10:03:16 AM
Mr. Corsentino said that a 30 percent increase in rates
would be expected. He said having capital costs covered
would be an obvious benefit but that operating costs would
still generate a significant increase.
10:04:08 AM
Mr. Corsentino looked at slide 16, "In closing: If EPA does
NOT reauthorize the Asplund 301(h) permit":
? Higher treatment thresholds are not likely to result
in a discernible increase in protection of Public
Health and the environment.
? Anchorage utility customers would be saddled with
$1.0 to $1.4 B in unnecessary capital improvements.
? Anchorage and the State of Alaska would suffer
negative impact to families, businesses, and statewide
economy
10:05:37 AM
Senator Wilson asked whether the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska (RCA) would allow for a gradual rate increase,
rather than hitting rate payers with an increase all at
once.
10:05:51 AM
Mr. Corsentino chuckled. He replied in the negative.
10:06:37 AM
Senator Wilson wondered whether more mixing zones could be
added for better dilution.
10:06:55 AM
Mr. Corsentino replied that there was a significant
process, including studies that had to be done to create,
or increase the size of, a mixing zone.
10:07:43 AM
Co-Chair Stedman wondered when Anchorage stopped using
outhouses and septic tanks.
10:07:53 AM
Mr. Corsentino replied that the plant was built in 1972,
prior to that the discharge went directly into the ocean.
10:08:37 AM
Co-Chair Stedman introduced the next presenter.
10:08:44 AM
LACEY SIMPSON, ACTING CITY MANAGER, KETCHIKAN (via
teleconference), gave a prepared statement:
The City of Ketchikan owns and operates the Charcoal
Point Wastewater Treatment Plant and has successfully
operated the system under a 301(h) waiver since 1989.
The treatment plant serves about 3,224 residential and
business customers, solely within the city limits. As
the city prepares to work with ADEC (Alaska Department
of Environmental Conservation) on its NPDES permit,
weve been informed by ADEC that disinfection will be
required in order to once again secure a 301(h) waiver
and operate our facility with primary treatment. ADEC
has communicated to waivered communities like
Ketchikan that disinfection will be required by the
EPA in order to renew the 301(h) waiver because the
wastewater treatment discharges and the resulting
large and vast dilution mixing zones do not meet
Alaska water quality standards. ADEC has also stated
that the EPA will not allow the reissuance of permits
under these conditions and that installing
disinfection at wastewater plants is the only solution
to lowering fecal coliform bacteria levels in the
greater Ketchikan area. Ketchikans wastewater
treatment methods have not changed since permits were
last issued and the city has consistently improved
area water quality by expanding collection and
conveyance infrastructure within the city limits to
eliminate unregulated discharges and outfalls. What
has changed, in our minds, is the ADEC interpretation
application of the antidegradation policy and the
determination that Ketchikan and other communities'
discharges are no longer acceptable, and disinfection
is the only recourse. Ketchikan and other communities
are left to ask, Why ADEC is attributing fecal
coliform levels solely to municipal treatment? and
Why now after 40 years of compliance and permitting
has it become suddenly immediately necessary to
install disinfection? ADEC has also stated that
disinfection will cost communities about $5 to $15
million per facility. As one of the larger plants
Ketchikan estimates this capital project to cost
closer to $10 million, perhaps more with annual
operation and maintenance costs of an additional
$400,000 each year. To date the only definitive
financing solution for disinfection, which you heard
earlier by ADEC staff, are state revolving fund loans.
The city currently has SRF loans totaling $17 million
for water and wastewater projects and nearly $9
million of that remains outstanding in loan balances.
This program has been very beneficial in financing
upgrades to aging infrastructure in need of
replacement or rehabilitation, while minimizing the
impact to repairs. SRF loans are no an accessible
financing pathway for an unfunded mandate such as
required disinfection. Communities like Ketchikan will
need grants, not loans, to support such major capital
projects and to avoid penalizing repairs. If the State
of Alaska is to adopt this approach for 310(h)
waivered communities, it has an obligation to provide
funding in the way of grants or other appropriations
for disinfection improvements. This is not a failure
on the part of communities to address permit
requirements. Disinfection is an initiative of ADEC
and must be financially supported by the state. Of
most concern if the ADCE requires disinfection is that
this mandate may merely be a steppingstone requiring
all 301(h) waivered communities to install secondary
treatment and eliminate all 301(h) waivers within
Alaska. ADEC believed that disinfection will decrease
the dilution mixing zones of Alaskan communities to an
acceptable size, but what if it doesnt? What if this
is still not acceptable? Should disinfection be
installed at the citys Charcoal Point facility, and
it does not yield the anticipated result, what is to
prevent ADEC and EPA from the requiring secondary
treatment? The city estimates that secondary treatment
will cost us $150 to $200 million, with an annual
operating and maintenance expense at nearly $2
million. Wastewater bills would increase tenfold, to
over $500 a month to cover the debt service on such a
project. Such rates would trigger business closures,
population decrease, and outmigration beyond the
citys wastewater collection system. ADEC examines
Alaskas water quality standards for municipal
wastewater treatment systems in the context of
practicability. Is moving towards secondary treatment
via disinfection mandate, the most practical or
prudent solution? There is no reality to secondary
treatment for Ketchikan, or many of the other
communities weve been discussing, and required
disinfection cannot be the first step toward that aim.
The residents and businesses of Ketchikan cannot
shoulder what ADEC will require in the way of
disinfection installation given the citys small and
stagnant customer base, of which over 85 percent are
residential. Wastewater rates would need to be
doubled, at a minimum, to finance loans or bonding as
proposed by ADEC. Ketchikans been severely impacted
by the pandemic and resulting loss of cruise passenger
direct revenues over the last two years. Our community
is foraging a path to recovery, which includes
accessing the influx of state and federal funding to
focus on more urgent capital upgrades that hold
immediate value in the way of economic opportunity,
quality of life benefits, and addressing failing
infrastructure, without further straining our
residents and ratepayers. Disinfection for municipal
wastewater treatment is an unplanned and unfunded
initiative. This should not be laid at the feet of
small coastal communities when this is being driven by
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,
culling more than 40 years of acceptable treatment and
discharges as permitted. The 9 waivered Alaskan need
the states intervention to either reexamine the
necessity of this mandate, or to provide funding
opportunities that do not shift the responsibility and
burden to Alaskas residents.
10:14:59 AM
Co-Chair Stedman queried the separation of requirements
between the EPA and the department.
10:15:17 AM
Ms. Simpson replied that which organization had which
requirements was not entirely clear.
10:15:38 AM
AT EASE
10:16:40 AM
RECONVENED
10:17:05 AM
Co-Chair Stedman restated his question.
10:17:53 AM
Mr. Bates looked at slide 5 of the presentation titled,
"Senate Finance; Clean Water Act; Section 301(h) Waivers;
For Wastewater Treatment Plants; April 14, 2022." The slide
listed the focus of the EPA and the department:
EPA Focus: meeting 301(h) criteria
? Develop Draft Permit & 301(h) decision
? Develop supporting documents
? Public notice draft permit ? Request Section 401
Certification
? Conduct public hearings, respond to comments and revise
permit
? Reissue permit
Waiver from Secondary
DEC- Focus: meeting AK WQS
? Review draft permit and associated EPAdriven permit
limits
? Conduct review to determine if proposed permit will meet
Alaska WQS
? Conduct antidegradation analysis
? Evaluate alternatives to exceeding WQS for practicability
? Draft Section 401 Certification and authorize mixing
zones
? Public notice proposed 401 Certification? 30 Days can
be concurrent with permit public notice
? Issue 401 Certification
Requirement for disinfection to meet WQS
10:18:39 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked for a simpler breakdown of the
demarcation of requirements and responsibilities on the
federal versus the state level.
10:18:58 AM
Mr. McCabe replied that the EPA was the only agency that
had authority to issue a 301(h) waiver. He added that
anytime a federal agency issued a permit in Alaskas
waters, the state was required to act upon the
certification by either issuing the certification, issuing
the certification with stipulations, or waiving the right
to certify.
10:20:36 AM
Co-Chair Stedman understood that the process was dictated
by the federal government.
Mr. McCabe replied in the affirmative.
10:20:58 AM
Co-Chair Stedman asked what was stopping the department
from certifying the permits on the facilities under
question.
10:21:06 AM
Mr. McCabe responded that the mixing zones reflected high
amounts of fecal coliform for outflowing pipes.
10:22:36 AM
Senator Wilson asked whether additional mixing zones could
be added to the treatment plants.
10:22:43 AM
Mr. McCabe replied that mixing zones were required by the
EPA to be the option of last resort. He said adding
additional mixing without evaluating whether additional
treatment was a practical option would not meet the EPA
criteria.
10:23:30 AM
Senator Wilson noted the cost of disinfection for the
treatment plants. He wondered whether it would be less
expensive to dump the wastewater in international waters.
10:24:04 AM
Mr. McCabe responded that less treatment cost less. He
questioned the legality of dumping wastewater in
international waters. He did not know if the practice would
be of less const to the state.
Co-Chair Stedman interjected that polluting the ocean was
not an option.
10:24:50 AM
Mr. Bates expressed appreciation for the conversation. He
stressed that the department was trying to find solutions
for communities that caused the least amount of financial
impact.
10:25:50 AM
Co-Chair Stedman stressed that there would be a substantial
cost to the communities. He relayed that the solution would
take some time to craft. He hoped that talks could resume
in the next legislative session to put a mechanism put in
place that could provide some assistance to the
communities.
ADJOURNMENT
10:28:52 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:28 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 041422DEC Presentation on 301(h).pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |
|
| 041422 AWWU_Testimony_Presentation_Apr14_2022_SenateFinCommittee.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2022 9:00:00 AM |