Legislature(2001 - 2002)
03/15/2002 03:32 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 326-WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PROGRAM
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON announced SB 326 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR THERRIAULT, sponsor or SB 326, said he introduced this
bill to spur the state into looking at the possibility of
assuming the authority for issuing National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System) NPDES permits. The evaluation of whether it
makes sense for the state to do so fiscally and from the
standpoint of its ability to promote development in the state of
Alaska is complicated. There are a lot of expenses to be
considered and it's not something the state should undertake
lightly. He noted that the proposed committee substitute would
need one modification with regard to when the report should be
completed. The bill now says, "The first regular session of the
24th legislature." It should say, "The second regular session of
the 23rd legislature."
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked why a fiscal note was needed.
SENATOR THERRIAULT explained that it reflects the cost of doing
an evaluation on which to base the decision.
SENATOR ELTON said this bill only authorizes a study and it seems
that there should be other ways of doing it. He asked what the
thought process was in using this approach.
SENATOR THERRIAULT replied that state agency personnel need to be
involved, plus individuals from industry, whatever it takes to
enable the next legislature to decide if this is a good move for
the state to make. Currently, 44 other states and the U.S. Virgin
Islands administer this program themselves. The State of Idaho is
in the process of evaluating it and he thought it is moving
toward the adoption. He said he was open to discussing other ways
of getting to that decision-making point.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said he has mixed emotions about whether or
not the state should run it. He cautioned, "I think it becomes
too political... I'm not sure this wouldn't be detrimental to
getting permits, because it becomes way too political."
MR. TOM CHAPPLE, Director, Division of Air and Water Quality,
DEC, said he didn't have much more to add and would answer
questions. He told members this effort is the outgrowth of a
workgroup that was started a couple of years ago. DEC is looking
at redesigning its wastewater discharge permitting process. He
explained, "Right now we certify federal permits and issue some
state permits to smaller entities…"
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON asked if he supports the study.
MR. CHAPPLE replied that it's an issue that has been raised a
number of times in the past and if this work went forward, it
would be done around January of 2004.
4:07 p.m.
SENATOR ELTON asked what impact state primacy would have on
municipalities in the context of what municipalities pay to EPA
for wastewater discharge permits now and what the cost would be
in the future if the state has primacy.
MR. CHAPPLE replied:
Right now when EPA reviews and issues a permit, the
municipalities are almost all renewals of the federal
permit. They don't charge a fee. EPA does not charge a
fee. They have about 10 staff people that are dedicated
to Alaska permits. Under a bill that was passed by the
legislature a couple of years ago, HB 361, the state's
role in discharge permitting is partially offset
through user fees right now. So, municipalities pay for
the state's role in issuing that permit now, which is
defining mixing zones, establishing where the discharge
is, how big the mixing zone should be, what other site
specific issues come up, setting limits for where they
meet the water quality standards, etc. That cost is in
the range of $500 up to maybe $3 - $4,000 for some of
the larger municipalities. What the cost would be in
the future is really unknown. It depends on whether we
can bring federal dollars to make this program
work…This project would lay out those costs, look hard
at what funding sources, talk about what mix of user
fees and state or federal funds would be a way to make
the program work.
SENATOR ELTON asked Mr. Chapple if he thinks the state could do
the work faster or slower than the EPA.
MR. CHAPPLE replied that he hoped the state would be faster.
SENATOR ELTON asked, "To get to be faster, would you need a
budget increase?"
MR. CHAPPLE answered:
I think to be faster you would certainly have to have
more resources doing this work in Alaska than we
currently do now. Whether it's more than what the state
is now, plus a federal...
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said that isn't a fair question because DEC
doesn't have a budget for this program now.
SENATOR ELTON asked to rephrase his concern because he believes
it is important:
If, in fact, speed is contingent upon having the
resources available to do the work, I could see there
would be a disadvantage in moving it from EPA to DEC,
given the budget history the department has had.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said members do not have DEC's budget before
them.
SENATOR ELTON responded that members know DEC has fewer resources
now than it did 10 years ago. If it needs additional resources
the question is, "Are we going to accompany the transfer of
primacy with additional budget resources?"
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON retorted, "That will be something they will
have to include in their study..."
SENATOR ELTON asked if there had been an instance in which EPA
denied state primacy.
MR. CHAPPLE replied, to his knowledge, no, but he hadn't looked
at that thoroughly.
MS. PAMELA MILLER, Director, Alaska Community Action on Toxics,
said the stakeholders group for wastewater permitting that she
served on discussed policies, resources and staffing needs for an
effective permitting program for the ADEC. The group included oil
and gas, mining, local government, seafood processing and
conservation representatives. She commented:
Throughout the more than one year of meetings the group
did not consider the possibility that the state would
assume primacy. This bill I believe is premature and
unnecessary...
She said the stakeholders group did not reach consensus that ADEC
should assume primacy of the wastewater discharge program for
several reasons. The assumption was that it would take years
before consideration of primacy would even be on the table. There
is no reasonable assurance of the agency's competency,
established track record, adequate enforcement of monitoring, and
certainly there is a perpetual problem of a lack of adequate
funding for staff and a lack of expertise among the department's
staff.
MR. CHARLIE BRODDY, Vice President, Usibelli Coal Mine, supported
SB 326. He told the committee:
Currently, the major permit we have to get especially
in the water arena has to be done through EPA Region 10
in Seattle, Washington. If you read the [indisc]
reports for Region 10, they consistently have probably
one of the most massive backlogs of any region in the
United States, which means that to put a new mine or
section of a mine on line, you were probably looking at
a 3 to 5 year time period to secure an NPDES permit.
The bill allows the state to take the look that we've
all talked about for probably well over a decade and a
half - that is four federal programs that allow partial
or in their entirety the state to take primary
responsibility for should a state exercise that right.
Currently, the state does on a majority of the air
programs that are federally mandated and on a certain
coal mining reclamation program [indisc.].
I think that in deference to the prior speaker, I would
say the state DEC, and I'm speaking from a regional
basis in Fairbanks, has very confident well-heeled
individuals within their organization who can do an
adequate job, a more than adequate job of issuing
permits... We have somewhat of an unknown. It's hard to
give the committee hard facts and numbers because we're
all just guessing without this report.
He said they like to work with state people whenever possible
within their organization and outside.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON thanked everyone for their testimony and said
they would hold the bill for further work and adjourned the
meeting at 4:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|