Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/11/1996 03:37 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Number 192
SJR 39 EPA'S NPDES PERMIT FOR PLACER MINING
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association,
supported SJR 39. He suggested two potential changes. He said the
resolution references dredge and recreational mining; however, the
issue goes far beyond just dredge and recreational mining and it
affects any commercial mining operation. The resolution should
address how it affects commercial operators and should give full
due deference to the folks that have caused the problem by
litigants being included in addition to their attorneys.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that they had two proposed amendments from the
Alaska Miners and he thought they were friendly amendments and
would improve the resolution.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt amendment number one. There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt amendment number two. There were no
objections and it was so ordered.
Number 219
SENATOR TAYLOR moved to pass SJR 39 from committee as amended.
SENATOR LEMAN asked him to hold the motion as there were people who
wanted to testify.
DAVID CHAMBERS, Mining Analyst, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund,
said he is a geophysicist by training, not an attorney. He was one
of the people involved in the settlement agreement that is at issue
with this resolution. He wanted to clear up some of the misleading
statements in SJR 39.
The first "Whereas" requires all dredges to have a NPDES permit
despite the fact that EPA does not have the personnel to process
all of the newly required permits. While the settlement agreement
requires small suction dredgers to send their names and addresses
to EPA and in turn they receive a one page sheet listing specific
practices to follow. He did not think that was an onerous
requirement.
The second concern was the arsenic level of .18 parts per billion.
While that is factually correct and is a requirement of state and
federal law, during the course of the year and a half of
negotiations they never once discussed the arsenic level at its
numeric limits. This is just a number EPA is putting in the
permit; it's required to do so by law. Should EPA change its
standard as is referred to in the next line, to 50 parts per
billion, he assumed that would become a part of this permit as it
would all other permits. He said there were numerous compromises
in the agreement and at the end of the discussions, the miners were
invited to comment and they chose not to do so.
MR. CHAMBERS said he thought EPA entered into this settlement
agreement because its position under their legal challenge was
weak. He said the settlement agreement was in the best interests
of the State. If the terms of the settlement agreement aren't
complied with and we end up in court, they would go back to their
original negotiating position and he did not think it best to have
a court imposed solution.
He said if there are perceived weaknesses in the settlement
agreement the door is open to miners or anyone else.
SENATOR LEMAN noted that there are some things the legislature
doesn't agree with and asked why the arsenic level was set a .18
parts per billion which is considerably lower than the requirement
for drinking water.
MR. CHAMBERS explained .18 is just a reflection of what the State
and federal standard is. It is not an element of the settlement.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund had
filed a suit against EPA. MR. CHAMBERS answered that they
challenged the EPA permit on behalf of their clients, American
Rivers and the Northern Alaskan Environmental Center.
Number 318
MARK WHEELER, Alaska Environmental Lobby, said the recent draft
NPDA permit for placer mining in Alaska is a result of one and a
half years of settlement negotiations between the EPA, the State of
Alaska, and the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. It is a good
compromise agreement which seeks to protect water quality in
Alaska. He encouraged the legislature to support this compromise
agreement by rejecting the proposed resolution.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if .18 parts per billion is a lower standard
than the current standard for drinking water. MR. CHAMBERS replied
the current standard is 50 parts per billion, so .18 is quite
lower. It is based on a human carcinogenic health risk.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the 50 parts per billion which municipal
water systems use was based on a health standard. MR. CHAMBERS
replied that it was not based on risk of arsenic as a carcinogen;
that is what the .18 per billion is based on. He elaborated that
the .18 applies to all discharges in the State of Alaska, not just
to placer miners.
SENATOR TAYLOR remarked that normal water running off a hillside
would be higher than what the number would be. He asked if someone
wanted to extract gravel would they have to set up a filtration
system that would take out the normal background levels of arsenic.
SENATOR LEMAN answered that he doubted that a filtration system
would do that.
Number 388
SENATOR PEARCE asked if the administration had a position on this
resolution.
SENATOR HALFORD asked if the administration agreed to this
settlement? MR. CHAMBERS replied that yes, they did.
MR. BORELL disagreed and said the administration, in a letter for
Deputy Commissioner Michelle Brown, said if a series of things were
met they would look kindly on it, but the details of the letter
were not met and they haven't heard if they have withdrawn their
support.
SENATOR PEARCE asked how the State became involved. MR. BORELL
replied that the State was questioned during various points during
the negotiations and involved by the EPA.
SENATOR PEARCE asked if the Miners Association was asked what they
thought of the new regulations. MR. BORELL replied that they were
asked. COMMISSIONER BURDEN specifically called on a couple of
different occasions asking for comments. There may have been one
occasion when the EPA attorney called, but they did not see a copy
of the draft permit until it was put out for public notice. They
were not aware of the multitude of details in that general permit
that had never been discussed with EPA, DEC, or with them.
SENATOR PEARCE asked why the Miners did not actually try to inject
themselves into the suit? MR. BORELL said there were two reasons:
there was a group of miners at the time who felt they had an
agreement between themselves and EPA that the existing general
permit was going to be satisfactory. With that promise they were
not interested in pursuing it. The other reason is that the
industry was just burned out on being in court.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the settlement decision had been given back
to the judge, yet, for approval. MR. BORELL replied that it hadn't
been approved by the court. It depends on this draft of the
general permit going forward and EPA meeting several other
criteria.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if they would be involved at that point. MR.
BORELL replied that they would like to, but they don't have access
at this point because they were not involved at any earlier stage.
Number 480
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that this seems to be a pattern that the
environmental community files a suit against a federal monitoring
agency and by filing that suit they are able to go into a back room
with the attorneys on behalf of the federal government who talk
with their friends about what kind of a settlement should be
achieved on their litigation. The settlements that come down,
then, establish through court order new standards and new
requirements without any of the effected people being in the room
or being allowed to participate.
SENATOR PEARCE moved to pass SJR 39 am with a $0 fiscal note and
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|