Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/15/2002 01:09 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 503-WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PROGRAM [Contains discussion of HB 361 and SB 326] Number 2920 CO-CHAIR MASEK announced the next order of business, HOUSE BILL NO. 503, "An Act relating to evaluating state assumption of the wastewater discharge program under the federal Clean Water Act; and providing for an effective date." [The bill was sponsored by the House Resources Standing Committee.] TAPE 02-16, SIDE B Number 2969 TOM CHAPPLE, Director, Division of Air and Water Quality, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), testified before the committee. He mentioned the sponsor statement for a Senate companion bill [SB 326] [sponsored in part by] Senator Gene Therriault. He said [HB 503] is an "outgrowth" of a workgroup that DEC created a couple years ago in looking at redesigning and rebuilding its wastewater discharge permitting. MR. CHAPPLE said the workgroup [members] thought that eventually the possibility of achieving delegation from the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] for primary authority on discharge permits in Alaska may be something desirable for the state. However, the workgroup was guarded about that because it's a complex question and there are many "pros and cons" as to whether that would be good for Alaska. He said this bill would essentially ask DEC, through an effort with the stakeholders in the workgroup and other Alaskans, to craft out what an NPDES [National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] discharge program would look like, and bring that before the legislature for a future decision. He said [the workgroup] would look at statutory changes, regulatory changes, necessary permitting procedures, and funding sources, and "put it all on the table" so that an informed decision could be made. MR. CHAPPLE mentioned that Idaho is in a similar situation but approximately one year ahead of [Alaska in development]. He said the constituents in Idaho are grappling with the same dilemma, not really knowing whether it would be better. Mr. Chapple said the equivalent of DEC in Idaho had gone through the same effort with the stakeholder group to look at all of the changes that were necessary so that a decision could be made. Number 2863 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN mentioned that [HB 503 and SB 326] appeared to be identical on the first page; however, the second page of the Senate version deviates from the House version. He asked Mr. Chapple [which version would be more suitable]. He expressed concern that [if the House version were sent over to the Senate], it would probably be returned with changes. MR. CHAPPLE expressed his belief that changes were being made in the Senate. He said that through speaking with Senator Therriault's aide, he thought a committee substitute (CS) would be introduced. Mr. Chapple said he couldn't speak specifically to what the changes would be, however. Number 2807 ZACH WARWICK, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State Legislature, began discussion of what would become conceptual Amendment 1. He told the committee that a "blank" CS was going to be introduced to the Senate Resources Standing Committee [for SB 326]. He explained that there was an error made in the blank CS [for SB 326], which [HB 503] was based on. He said there are some other problems with the bill that are being addressed. MR. WARWICK indicated [the intention, with both HB 503 and SB 326, is that page 2, subsection (b), should read]: "Second Regular Session of the Twenty-Third Alaska State Legislature." CO-CHAIR MASEK referred to [HB 503] page 2, lines 11-12. She asked Mr. Warwick if he was suggesting the aforementioned changes as a conceptual amendment. MR. WARWICK responded in the affirmative. CO-CHAIR MASEK asked the committee members if they understood the proposed changes. [Although there was no formal motion, conceptual Amendment 1 was treated as adopted.] Number 2720 REPRESENTATIVE FATE referred to a support document and said the action plan was in operation to secure federal funding. He asked how the program would be funded. MR. CHAPPLE said the project would look at what sources of federal funds might be acquired in Alaska to implement the program. He said it is not a foregone conclusion that federal funds could be acquired, but "we" certainly would look at what federal funds might be brought to bear and how else the program would be funded. MR. CHAPPLE mentioned HB 361, which he said was a policy direction in how wastewater discharge permits and solid-waste discharge permits would be funded through a combination of program receipts, user fees, and state general funds. He said HB 361 and its policy direction would be "brought into this work" and that other federal funding sources would be looked at to bring forward a funding mix to make the program workable. Number 2658 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the state has primacy on disposal "down-well annuli" from the EPA. He asked: If primacy were [given] and federal funding were not [received], would "we" be gaining enough to offset the general funding used to pay for [the project]? He offered his belief that the process is [designed] to get a quicker turnaround, so that "we" don't have to go through the EPA NPDES permitting and "can do it" by the state. He mentioned concerns about still having "strings attached" by the federal government. He asked if [HB 503] would be a similar program and whether there would still be requirements or "strings" from EPA on NPDES; also, would there be a quicker turnaround that would allow programs to move more smoothly? MR. CHAPPLE said, "Correct." He said EPA would still have an oversight role similar to other programs that DEC implements wherein the federal law - in this case, the Clean Water Act (CWA) - has a strong impetus for states to implement those laws, yet the EPA has an oversight role. Mr. Chapple described another program he had implemented, the air quality program with air permits, the authority for which he said is fully delegated to the state. He said [Alaska] makes the decisions, and those decisions made in Alaska give [the state] more opportunities to understand the businesses and the environmental situation. He offered his belief that it is usually a better opportunity to understand what will work best. He said the EPA has an oversight rule, and if it believes the state isn't implementing [the rule] according to the Clean Water Act, then it can take independent enforcement actions or withdraw the delegation. He added that this situation would be similar. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that in regard to air quality, the applicants pay a significant amount of money for the permits. He said he assumes that the [money from the permits] would essentially pay for the costs [of the program]. However, if the [wastewater discharge program] didn't get federal funding, it would be a general-fund expenditure, as opposed to [having applicant fees pay for the costs of the program]. He pointed out that Mr. Chapple had said he was looking for ways to find federal funding. Representative Green asked Mr. Chapple, if [federal funding is not available], whether the state is going to be subject to "a quarter of a million dollars a year" to allow applicants to come to the state for their NPDES. Number 2508 MR. CHAPPLE said the funding in the fiscal note is only to do the implementation plan: that money is to "lay out" the program, to decide whether the state should seek primacy. Mr. Chapple said the Clean Air Act requires that for operating permits in Alaska, the permittees pay 100 percent of the cost, which is in the Clean Air Act. However, a similar requirement is not in the Clean Water Act. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN expressed concern that in the [Clean Air Act] it is "spelled out" and that [permittees] pay for [the program], but in the [Clean Water Act] it is undetermined whether [federal funding would be available] or if the state would have to pay for [the program]. He asked Mr. Chapple: If the program went forward and federal funding wasn't available, what would it cost the state in "years three, four, five, and six?" MR. CHAPPLE answered that he didn't have an understanding of what the program would ultimately cost; additionally, that would be a major piece of what "this" work would provide, including what other funding sources exist such as federal funds to help run the program. He said he didn't have those answers and that it would take a fair amount of work to figure out. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that [the legislature] is in a "reduction-of-expenditure mode, and here we're spending money to see whether we want to spend more money." MR. CHAPPLE said the policy request [in HB 503] is to really examine the option, and there is no commitment to doing the program. Furthermore, the cost of the program would be a very significant contributor to what decision is ultimately made if the implementation is moved forward. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if the [cost] would be recouped if the program went forward. He suggested that applicants who are going to benefit from "more expeditious handling" should be involved, rather than just the state. MR. CHAPPLE indicated there may be people on teleconference who could answer those questions better. Number 2367 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted a conflict because her husband works for [DEC] and does some NPDES permitting in Mr. Chapple's section. She then asked Mr. Chapple if the "companies" were going to donate toward the [fiscal cost] or donate separately toward the study effort. MR. CHAPPLE said the proposal would envision the companies' being part of the discussion and the evaluation; however, it doesn't anticipate a direct financial commitment at this point. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if that was just for sending people to the meetings and cooperating. In regard to current cruise [ship] efforts, she offered her belief that companies pay for part of the research. She asked if there had been any thought about the companies' helping with the study money. MR. CHAPPLE said he had not discussed that directly with the companies. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked about the cost of Idaho's NPDES program or that of a similar state. MR. CHAPPLE said he didn't know the figures regarding Idaho's program, but said he could acquire that information. MR. WARWICK offered that Maine's [program] received federal grants through "Section 106" of the Clean Water Act, which covers approximately 30 percent of the "source" and totals under $1.5 million. Number 2235 CHARLOTTE MACCAY, Vice President, Council of Alaska Producers ("Council"), testified via teleconference. Ms. MacCay noted that the Council represents the hard-rock mining industry in the state. She read from the following letter given to Senator Therriault when the Council asked him to sponsor [SB 326]: The Council of Alaska Producers has a strong interest in the State of Alaska assuming the NPDES permit program. We believe there is significant potential to benefit from having the program administered by people familiar with the unique conditions of Alaska, as well as the potential for expediting the permitting process through more accessible permitting staff. Resource development in Alaska may become more economic and attractive to mining and other industries, and the protection of the state waters may be improved as locally knowledgeable persons make water use determinations. However, we also have some reservations. We are concerned whether or not the State will have permitting flexibility equal to that provided through the State permit certification process. We are also concerned whether the state can best resolve water-permitting conflicts with the EPA, if and when they should arise, as program administrator or if they have greater power as a separate entity. It is our hope that with further evaluation of the NPDES assumption, and with an implementation plan that would provide us with a preview of the state NPDES program, that it will be evident that state assumption of the program will benefit Alaska citizens and Alaskan waters. State assumption of the NPDES program will be costly. It would be unwise to request the appropriation of funds for this program without first providing an implementation plan and an evaluation of the consequences. The legislation proposed in the attached document requests the funds and authority to take this first step. MS. MACCAY stated that the [Council] shares many of the concerns raised by Representative Green, which is why [the Council] had asked that the bill be introduced. This issue is a recurring issue; it's continually brought up whether the state should be taking over the program. However, she said, it is such a costly program that it is really unwise not to research it first. Ms. MacCay requested that the bill be passed so that it can be researched and addressed with an intelligent answer. Number 2088 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA indicated there isn't going to be money in the budget for the study. She asked whether the Council or [others in the industry] might benefit by having Alaska have primacy might be willing to be part of the effort to pay for it. MS. MACCAY indicated that paying for primacy had not been discussed by the Council or other industries. The [industry] is losing considerable amounts of money this year; consequently, "Red Dog" is expecting to lose about $40 million dollars this year. She remarked, "So, we're not exactly a deep pocket at this point in time, but it's something that I could take back and ask." REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA suggested discussing the possibility of a joint effort with the state and the companies. Number 2000 REPRESENTATIVE FATE moved to report CSHB 503 [HB 503, as amended] out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Number 1970 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected for purposes of discussion. He referred to previous discussion about the possibility of a review and asked Ms. MacCay if it could be made available in the near future so the House Finance Committee would have more answers about finances than currently available. MS. MACCAY indicated she could get back with an answer in time for the House Finance Committee's meeting and that the Council was expecting, by the aforementioned meeting, that some "creative solutions would need to be sought." Number 1922 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN removed his objection. Number 1912 CO-CHAIR MASEK indicated CSHB 503(RES) was moved out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|