Legislature(2017 - 2018)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/14/2017 01:30 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| SB4 | |
| SB16 | |
| SB32 | |
| SB64 | |
| SB79 | |
| SB37 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 64 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 32 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 64-UNIFORM ENVIRONMENTAL COVENANTS ACT
1:49:09 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of SB 64. She noted it is the first hearing of the
bill. The intent is to hear from the sponsor, take members'
questions, take public testimony, and hold the bill for further
consideration. She noted those available for questions.
1:49:48 PM
RACHEL HANKE, Staff, Senator Peter Micciche, Alaska State
Legislature, presented an overview of SB 64. She said the
primary goal of the bill is to return [contaminated] fields back
to commerce, resolve liability, and protect future owners. She
explained that an environmental covenant is a recordable
interest in real property with no financial interest. SB 64
allows manageable contamination to remain with certain use and
activity restrictions. It formalizes an existing practice -
Institutional Controls - and allows for covenants to be placed
on federal land. The database that is required already exists.
1:50:52 PM
MS. HANKE reviewed the following sectional analysis for SB 64:
Section 1 adds a new article to AS 46.04 that
establishes all necessary guidelines and procedures
for environmental covenants for holders who are bound
by the covenant, subordination, required documents,
common law protections, notice procedures, recording
rules, termination procedures, and creates a process
for placing use restrictions on federal property, and
a database. It also provides definitions used in the
Act.
Section 2 [provides] that DCCED and DNR [may] adopt
necessary regulations [necessary to implement this
Act.]
Section 3 provides for an immediate effective date for
Section 2.
1:51:59 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO asked what the Uniform Environmental Covenants
Act addresses.
MS. HANKE explained that it is uniform law that has been used
all over the U.S. to return contaminated properties back to the
market.
CHAIR COSTELLO asked if other states have passed similar
legislation.
MS. HANKE said yes. She deferred to Ms. Ryan to provide more
information.
CHAIR COSTELLO welcomed Ms. Ryan and asked her to respond to
both questions.
1:52:56 PM
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and
Response, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC),
explained that her job involves cleanup of contaminated sites in
Alaska.
MS. RYAN related that SB 64 is a transparency law to communicate
when DEC puts restrictions on properties. The problem is that
sometimes restrictions are not communicated to future buyers. It
allows DEC to place a covenant that would run with the property
so that future owners are aware of restricted uses placed on
their land. It is a legal mechanism to safely transfer
contaminated property, and it removes a lot of the stigma
associated with contaminated property. She provided examples of
restrictions.
1:54:46 PM
SENATOR MEYER asked if it includes federal lands.
MS. RYAN said yes, and the majority of contaminated sites in the
state are federal properties. DEC can't put a covenant on
federal property, but can impose a use restriction. She used
Colorado as an example.
1:55:40 PM
SENATOR HUGHES asked how many contaminated sites this impacts.
MS. RYAN said DEC is currently monitoring about 2,000
contaminated sites; over 1,000 are allowed to remain above
cleanup levels under institutional control. DEC intends to apply
covenants to about 1,000 sites going forward.
1:56:20 PM
SENATOR HUGHES observed that the bill is not retroactive. She
asked how the mechanism works going forward.
MS. RYAN explained the process of working with the responsible
party that has contaminated property. The department and
property owner would make a joint decision to leave the
contamination in place for a variety of reasons. Next, they
would establish a covenant on the title that includes a future
mechanism for removing the covenant and an appeal process.
SENATOR HUGHES asked how long it would take before all
contaminated sites would have covenants.
MS. RYAN said DEC does not project a timeframe. A large
percentage of the 1,000 contaminated sites will be cleaned up
and not need covenants. A covenant is a transparency tool for
future buyers.
1:58:53 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO asked if Alaska should take an approach that is
similar to the Colorado law.
MS. RYAN explained that SB 64 is a uniform law from the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) which
proposed model legislation ten years ago. Colorado has adapted
the law to fit its situation of having a large amount of
contaminated federal land. They created a mechanism for noting
restrictions on federal property.
She said DEC has worked closely with NCCUSL and their testimony
is included in members' packets. NCCUSL agreed that Alaska's
changes to their model law are improvements and they have
accepted Alaska's better version. Currently, Alaska is only one
of seven states that has not adopted a procedure for an
environmental covenant.
2:00:08 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO asked if the public access page is the
transparency aspect of the bill.
MS. RYAN said she envisions DEC working with the records office
to put the restrictions on the title, as well as having a
database of contaminated sites. The database is currently in
place.
CHAIR COSTELLO asked if other states have experienced opposition
to this type of legislation.
MS. RYAN said DEC has talked to many stakeholders and all are
supportive of the concept. She pointed out that there is one
letter from the Department of Defense (DOD) requesting an
amendment. DEC disagrees with that request related to concerns
about the state setting any standards on federal property, a
long-standing debate. No other states have encountered problems
doing what SB 64 proposes.
2:02:46 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO asked if the bill would apply to "Travesty Wells"
[in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A)] on federal
lands.
MS. RYAN said yes, and it would also apply to the legacy wells
on [Bureau of Land Management (BLM)] land [within and adjacent
to NPR-A], if BLM decides, with DEC's involvement, to lease
contaminated sites above cleanup levels so future owners are
aware of the contamination.
2:03:14 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO asked how DEC can have a zero fiscal note if they
plan to investigate properties and handle communication.
MS. RYAN responded they are already putting restrictions on
properties. The bill allows DEC to put restrictions on land
titles and this will not increase workloads. The database is in
place and they will absorb costs to write regulations.
2:04:13 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked if Alaska is using the same mechanism as
other states. She voiced concern about DOD's opposition.
MS. RYAN said the federal property aspect of SB 64 is identical
to Colorado's legislation. It was implemented several years ago,
and DOD and the Air Force have been in compliance.
2:04:56 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asks if SB 64 exonerates a bad actor that
abandons the contaminated property.
MS. RYAN said no. That person is still liable and would be
pursued for cleanup. The covenant is a mechanism to communicate
to future owners if the owner leaves contamination above cleanup
levels.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if the financial cost to the owner is
taken into consideration.
MS. RYAN said that is a factor DEC considers and one of the
reasons why contamination remains. DEC tries to minimize the
risks and can allow the contamination to remain in place by
imposing restrictions. Their goal is to limit exposure pathways.
2:06:30 PM
SENATOR MEYER asked how DEC determines whether land is
contaminated. He provided an example of buried batteries that no
one knew about.
2:06:54 PM
MS. RYAN said DEC needs to be notified to become involved in the
process. They often find out about those kinds of
contaminations. She gave an example of lead acid batteries
discovered in Wrangell after several iterations of ownership.
They use the Department of Law to help find the responsible
party.
SENATOR MEYER asked if realtors have a position on SB 64.
MS. RYAN said they agree with the concept, but don't want it to
be overly cumbersome. DEC has agreed to work with them during
the drafting of regulations.
2:08:09 PM
CHAIR HUGHES asked what types of things might be in a covenant.
MS. RYAN referred to a flyer in members' packets that describes
a covenant. She provided examples of restrictions: no digging,
no wells, and no day care, depending on the contamination.
SENATOR HUGHES added - no residential land use, no disturbance
of soil, construction worker notice, engineer-controlled for
soil, no drilling, and no use of groundwater.
MS. RYAN said those are some examples. She provided another
example of no allowed vapor intrusion.
2:10:13 PM
CHAIR COSTELLO closed public testimony on SB 64 and held the
bill in committee.