Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
01/31/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Division of Spill Prevention & Response | |
| Overview: Division of Water Quality | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
January 31, 2011
1:03 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Alan Dick
Representative Neal Foster
Representative Bob Herron
Representative Cathy Engstrom Munoz
Representative Berta Gardner
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: DIVISION OF SPILL PREVENTION & RESPONSE
- HEARD
OVERVIEW: DIVISION OF WATER
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
LARRY DEITRICH, Director
Division of Spill Prevention & Response
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation on the
Division of Spill Prevention and Response.
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided an overview of the Division of
Water.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:03:32 PM
CO-CHAIR PAUL SEATON called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:03 p.m. Representatives Seaton,
P. Wilson, Herron, Dick, Kawasaki, Foster, Munoz, and Feige were
present at the call to order. Representative Gardner arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
^Overview: Division of Spill Prevention & Response
Overview: Division of Spill Prevention & Response
1:03:59 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business would
be an overview by the Department of Environmental Conservation,
Division of Spill Prevention & Response.
1:05:17 PM
LARRY DEITRICH, Director, Division of Spill Prevention &
Response, Department of Environmental Conservation, introduced
the PowerPoint presentation, titled "Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation," which focused on the Division of
Spill Prevention and Response (SPAR) [Included in members'
packets], and read the division's mission (slide 2): "Protect
public health and the environment through prevention,
preparedness and response to oil and hazardous substance
releases."
1:06:56 PM
MR. DEITRICH, showing slide 3, stated the SPAR goals to be
prevention of spills, preparedness for the occurrence of spills,
and responsiveness to spills, whether it be oil or hazardous
substances. He pointed out that the division's primary source
of funding was the Response Fund.
1:07:23 PM
MR. DEITRICH noted that slide 4 depicted the division's
organizational structure, and he listed its four programs:
Prevention and Emergency Response, Contaminated Sites, Industry
Preparedness, and Response Fund Administration.
1:08:04 PM
MR. DEITRICH moved on to slide 5, "Qualifications," and shared
that the division's senior leadership had a total of 156 years
of experience. He noted the educational backgrounds of these
leaders and the job classes which they managed.
1:08:59 PM
MR. DEITRICH directed attention to slide 7, "Prevention and
Emergency Response Mission," and read the mission: "Protect
public health and the environment by preventing and mitigating
the effects of oil and hazardous substance releases and ensuring
their cleanup through government planning and rapid response."
1:09:24 PM
MR. DEITRICH observed that slide 8, "Total Spills by Fiscal
Year," plotted a bar graph which depicts the annual spills in
Alaska since 1996.
1:10:06 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked what constituted a minimum spill.
MR. DEITRICH replied that the Clean Water Act defined that any
spill of oil or hazardous substance must be reported.
1:10:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI offered his belief that, with an aging
infrastructure, the trend would have increased, instead of
decreased, and he asked why the downward trend.
MR. DEITRICH, in response to Representative Kawasaki, offered
his belief that the spill prevention programs were "coming into
play."
1:11:49 PM
MR. DEITRICH presented slide 9, "Responsibilities," and reported
that there were three response teams, which allowed for a 24/7
capability for emergency oil spill and hazardous material
(hazmat) response anywhere in Alaska. He mentioned that SPAR
had agreements with local communities, but that it handled the
environmental functions in any disaster response.
1:12:34 PM
MR. DEITRICH explained that slide 10, "Emergency Response Team
Areas," showed the zone coverage for each of the three response
teams.
1:12:47 PM
MR. DEITRICH addressed slide 11, "Statewide Hazmat Response
Teams," and explained that the state had opted not to have Level
A hazmat protective clothing, which was a fully encapsulated
suit with a self contained breathing apparatus. Instead, there
was an agreement with the Anchorage and Fairbanks fire service
districts to allow these groups to respond outside of their
jurisdiction, while working for the state on-scene coordinator.
He assessed that this was the beginning of a statewide hazmat
capability, which now consisted of 25 organizations.
1:14:35 PM
MR. DEITRICH introduced slide 12, "Oil Spill Response Plans,"
which summarized that the Alaska spill plan was an amalgamation
of federal and state spill plans. He added that the regulated
industries had its' requirements for oil spill planning.
1:15:21 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked if these plans had been specifically
developed for Alaska.
1:15:40 PM
MR. DEITRICH replied that environmentally sensitive areas and
species had to be identified in the Alaska plan, and beyond
that, the plan met the standard requirements. In response to
Co-Chair Seaton, he clarified that the plan was specific to
Alaska.
1:16:22 PM
MR. DEITRICH stated that slide 13, "Local Spill Response
Agreements and Equipment," depicted the 43 communities around
the state with spill response agreements and the locations for
response equipment.
1:17:06 PM
MR. DEITRICH, continuing on to slide 14, "Prevention and
Emergency Response Activities," spoke about the 684 responses to
1740 reported spills, the 24 significant oil and hazardous
substance spills, the 25 oil spill drills and exercises, the
statewide hazardous materials commodity flow study, and the
updates of the unified and subarea response plans.
1:18:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked why some responses from 2007 were
still listed as active.
MR. DEITRICH suggested that any remediation might have extended
the time, and he offered to provide an update.
MR. DEITRICH, in response to Representative Herron, said that a
red star was an indication of an information update.
1:19:40 PM
MR. DEITRICH relayed that the development and expansion of the
Alaska SPAR program had been event driven, and he showed slides
15, 16, 17, 18, and 19, all depicting spill events.
1:22:07 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, pointing to slide 19, asked if this was a heat
or a materials signature.
MR. DEITRICH replied that it showed a temperature differential.
1:22:39 PM
MR. DEITRICH shared that slide 20 showed SPAR's involvement with
the response coordination to the Yukon flooding.
1:22:54 PM
MR. DEITRICH moved on to slide 22, "Industry Preparedness
Mission" and said that the mission was to "Protect public,
health, and the environment by ensuring that producers,
transporters and distributors of crude oil and refined oil
products prevent oil spills and are prepared materially and
financially to respond and clean up spills."
1:23:20 PM
MR. DEITRICH explained that slide 23, "Oil Production, Storage,
and Transportation Infrastructure," showed the crude oil
infrastructure, which consisted of oil wells, production
facilities, crude oil transmission pipelines, and storage tanks,
then the refineries, and finally, the noncrude oil terminals,
pipelines, and storage terminals. He emphasized that the
components shown in the circle, which included aboveground
storage tanks, aircraft, and tank trucks, were not regulated.
1:24:29 PM
MR. DEITRICH, indicating slide 24, "Regulated Components,"
stated that the regulated industry had very specific standards.
1:25:27 PM
MR. DEITRICH, in response to Co-Chair Seaton, explained that
three phase referred to the oil, gas, and water which came out
of the ground from the well before separation.
1:25:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked about oil spill preparedness and
the aging infrastructure.
MR. DEITRICH replied that he would address that later. He moved
on to slide 25, which showed that 73 percent of the spills were
from unregulated facilities.
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked for a description of the unregulated
facilities.
MR. DEITRICH referred back to slide 23, and pointed to the
facilities in the circle, which included aboveground storage
tanks, tank trucks, and aircraft.
1:27:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how SPAR was made aware of spills
from non-regulated facilities.
MR. DEITRICH replied that the owner was required to do the
cleanup.
1:28:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, referring to slide 25, asked how the pie
chart would reflect the volume of the spills.
MR. DEITRICH replied that he would supply that information,
which included a number of components.
1:29:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked if the division had statutory
responsibilities for response to the unregulated spills.
MR. DEITRICH replied that the basic statutory requirement was
that a spill must be cleaned up. He clarified that there was
not any statutory requirement for the equipment, the operation,
or the spill prevention for unregulated facilities.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, referring to slide 26, asked for a
differentiation between "Best available technology" and the goal
to make preparedness and response "better."
MR. DEITRICH replied that there was a requirement for regulated
facility operators to use the best available technology.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked what "better" would mean.
MR. DEITRICH replied that a goal of SPAR was for fewer spills,
and that would be "better" operation, regardless of regulated or
unregulated. Referring to slide 26, he listed its
responsibilities to include spill drills, inspections,
contingency plans, and financial responsibility.
1:32:15 PM
MR. DEITRICH spoke briefly about slide 27, "Drills" and slide
28, "Spill Cooperatives."
1:33:05 PM
MR. DEITRICH stated the importance for prevention, and pointing
to slide 29, "Overseas Ohio," he discussed the crude oil tanker
and its collision with ice.
MR. DEITRICH stated that slide 30 depicted a "Tanker Escort
System." He moved on to slide 31, "Industry Preparedness
Activities," which listed the contingency plan actions,
inspections, exercises, and spills analysis.
1:34:26 PM
MR. DEITRICH spoke about slide 32, "Pump Station 1 Bypass," and
shared that the restart had to be through the corroded pipe.
MR. DEITRICH pointed out that a crew was testing the pipe wall
thickness on slide 33, "Pipeline Inspections."
MR. DEITRICH explained that slide 34, "Drift River Oil
Terminal," showed a threat which had required mobilization by
the response teams.
MR. DEITRICH examined the pipeline break on slide 35, "Lisburne
Pipeline Break."
1:35:50 PM
MR. DEITRICH viewed slide 36 and slide 37, "Contaminated Sites
Mission," and read the mission for the Contaminated Sites
program: "protect public and the environment by identifying,
overseeing, and conducting the cleanup, redevelopment and
management of contaminated sites in Alaska." He declared that
most of the contamination sites were legacy sites, slide 38, as
the current cleanups were "robust" and taken to completion.
MR. DEITRICH described slide 39, "Open vs Closed Sites
(cumulative)," which depicted the number of sites for which SPAR
had responsibility.
MR. DEITRICH reported that 83 percent of the sites were
contaminated by petroleum, slide 40, "Pollutant Type."
MR. DEITRICH explained that inhalation, ingestion, or dermal
exposure were the exposure routes that SPAR worked to block,
slide 41, "Exposure Pathways."
1:37:29 PM
MR. DEITRICH analyzed slide 42, "Risk Continuum," which assessed
the relative risks posed by contaminated sites, and slide 43,
"Hazard Ranking," which showed the percentage proportion of risk
priorities.
MR. DEITRICH presented slide 44, "Contaminated Sites
Responsibilities," listing the program responsibilities, which
included contaminated site management, cleanup of state, federal
and private sites, and reuse and redevelopment.
MR. DEITRICH indicated that slide 45, "Site Ownership," showed
that 50 percent of the contaminated sites were federal.
MR. DEITRICH explained that slide 46, "Contaminated Site
Remediation," showed a refinery site with an interception trench
to capture the contaminants, and that slide 47, "Activities,"
listed the annual assessment, monitoring or cleanup of sites.
He flashed through slides 48, 49, 50, and 51 which pictured
contamination sites including abandoned drums, a contaminated
plume, an historical bunker tank, and contaminated soil on the
North Slope.
1:40:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if there were many abandoned drum
sites.
MR. DEITRICH cautioned that a new cache of abandoned drums
seemed to appear just when it seemed that all had been cleaned
up. He opined that the North Slope had been cleared but that
there were still problem areas in the Aleutians and the Bristol
Bay area.
1:42:05 PM
MR. DEITRICH reviewed the last SPAR program, slide 53, the
"Response Fund Administration," and read its mission:
Manage and administer the Oil and Hazardous Substance
Release Prevention and Response Fund as a sustainable
funding source for the state's core spill prevention
and response programs.
He listed its responsibilities, slide 54, to include: Response
Fund management, cost recovery, contract management, biennial
report preparation for the legislature, and information
technology team management.
1:42:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked about cost recovery.
MR. DEITRICH replied that although the spiller paid for any
costs related to the cleanup, the cost recovery needed to be
averaged over a three year period, as the recovery may not
happen for a few years. He opined that 90 percent of the costs
were recovered.
MR. DEITRICH, in response to Representative Kawasaki, said that
the cost estimate for cleanup of federal sites was done prior to
clean up so that the agency involved could request the money in
its next budget cycle.
MR. DEITRICH directed attention to slide 55, "Response Fund,"
which depicted the funding flow for both response and
prevention.
1:44:58 PM
MR. DEITRICH displayed slide 56, "Activities," which listed the
money recovered from responsible parties, from federal grants,
from significant spill responses, and from state contracts for
assessment and cleanup.
1:45:26 PM
MR. DEITRICH pointed out that slide 57, "Response Fund
Sustainable Business Model," graphed the decline in crude oil
production. He declared that the funding for the response fund
was based on production, not price per barrel, so as the oil
flow diminishes so does the fund revenue.
MR. DEITRICH, speaking about slide 58, "Initiatives," and slide
59, discussed the risk assessments, analysis, and emergency
towing system.
1:47:38 PM
MR. DEITRICH, in response to Representative Seaton, said that
the tow line kits were pre-positioned in Unalaska, and that one
was air deployable. He reflected that other tow line kits would
be pre-deployed in Kodiak and Sitka.
1:48:10 PM
MR. DEITRICH pointed to slide 60, "Circumpolar Shipping Routes,"
which depicted the volume of shipping.
1:48:35 PM
MR. DEITRICH moved on to slide 61, "Arctic Shipping Routes," and
explained the various northern routes.
1:48:57 PM
MR. DEITRICH closed with slide 62, "Deepwater Horizon Lessons
Learned," noting that Alaska had participated in a nationwide
review, and that many lessons were learned.
1:49:53 PM
MR. DEITRICH, in response to an earlier question by
Representative Kawasaki, explained that a section of pipe,
encased in concrete, had been pre-identified for repair because
of corrosion. There was seepage, and the pipeline was shut
down, but as the seeping oil went into the containment
structure, no significant amount of it had escaped. He noted
that there were two pipeline inspection gauges (pigs) in the
line at the time of shut down. It was necessary to remove them
so they would not freeze in the pipe, and this required that
warm oil be sent through the pipe. The dilemma was whether to
wait for the by-pass pipe to be completed, or re-start the oil
flow through the damaged pipe, which could have lead to "unknown
potentially irreversible consequences to the system." The
decision was made to re-start through the damaged pipe, the two
pigs were removed from the system, and the system was closed
again until a temporary bypass was completed. He noted that a
permanent repair would be done during the upcoming summer
months.
1:52:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked if there were other portions of
the pipeline with potentially similar problems.
MR. DEITRICH explained that "changing conditions are going on
with the composition of the oil." He opined that the programs
would need to become more sophisticated and aggressive in order
to deal with the increase in sediment and the decrease in
temperatures from low flows.
1:53:49 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked to clarify that the other sections that
could not be pigged were on an accelerated maintenance schedule.
MR. DEITRICH agreed. He reminded the committee that the
corrosion had been identified, and that the pipe replacements
would allow for complete testing.
1:54:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER, referring to slide 51, asked for more
information on the North Slope Contaminated Soil Land Farm.
MR. DEITRICH explained that the land was tilled to allow aerobic
oxidation to feed the bugs in the soil, which would metabolize
and break down the hydrocarbons. He pointed out that these
windrows of soil were a treatment method.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if this was experimental or a means
to address an accidental spill.
MR. DEITRICH replied that this was a conventional clean up and
it was economically efficient for cleaning up small spills.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked how this was monitored.
MR. DEITRICH replied that it was completely monitored until the
soil clean up level indicated it was completely treated.
1:56:21 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, directing attention to slide 13, asked why the
numerous non state-owned response equipment containers on the
North Slope were not depicted.
MR. DEITRICH explained that this map did not include the
substantial industry or spill cooperatives' equipment.
1:57:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked about the upcoming Clean Pacific
Conference.
MR. DEITRICH clarified that the next Clean Pacific Conference
would be the following year, and that the annual meeting of the
task force would be in Alaska during August.
1:58:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if the arctic shipping and trans
boundary agreements with British Columbia would be discussed.
MR. DEITRICH replied that currently there were trans-boundary
agreements with Canada in the south. He noted that an agreement
for the north was being worked out, and, although there was not
a boundary agreement, the US Coast Guard was working with Russia
on shipping and oil response coordination.
1:59:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked about unreported spills which are
eventually reported by a third party.
MR. DEITRICH stated that the regulated entities did a very good
job of reporting. He opined that fishing vessels, home heating
fuel tanks, and small tank farms were the source of small
spills.
2:01:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER asked what tools were used to encourage
spill reports.
MR. DEITRICH replied that there was an attempt to target the
source of spills, and, if it was not a regulated source, to
provide educational and technical assistance. He directed
attention to the home fuel heating tank design on the SPAR web
page. He spoke about the clean harbor initiative to encourage
spill reports.
2:03:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for a list of the top five
unregulated problems.
MR. DEITRICH said that he would supply that information which
could include the number, volume, and sources of spills.
2:05:03 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:05 p.m. to 2:07 p.m.
^Overview: Division of Water Quality
Overview: Division of Water Quality
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the final order of business would
be an overview of the Division of Water Quality.
2:08:05 PM
LYNN TOMICH KENT, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation, remarked that the Division of Water
also has a lot of experienced staff. She related that the
mission of the division is to protect water quality and assist
communities in improving sanitation conditions. The division
addresses "all things water except" the following: the
regulation of public drinking water systems, water quantity, or
aquatic habitat issues. She then reviewed the structure within
the Division of Water, which has two main components of
Facilities and Water Quality. The division also has a small
administrative group that works on budget issues and manages the
division's data systems. The Facilities side of the division
has 44 positions. In response to Co-Chair Seaton, Ms. Kent
agreed to provide a slide illustrating the division structure
with the names of the individuals in the positions.
MS. KENT returned to the Facilities side of the Division of
Water, and highlighted that it has the following programs:
Municipal Grants and Loans, the Village Safe Water, and
Operations Assistance Programs. The core services on the
Facilities side is to provide funding and engineering assistance
to communities of all sizes throughout the state for drinking
water, sewerage, and solid waste facilities. Other core
services of the Facilities side are to provide training programs
for and certification of water and sewer system operators as
well as routine and emergency assistance to rural communities
for the operation of their systems.
MS. KENT then turned to the grants portion of the Municipal
Grants and Loans Program. She informed the committee that the
division's Municipal Grants Program serves first and second
class cities, home rule cities, organized boroughs, and eligible
private utilities. A percentage of the grant funded portion of
a sewer and water systems project is based on the size of the
community. Therefore, a community with a population of 10,000
or more is eligible for a project to receive 60 percent of its
funds from the grant and the community must provide a 40 percent
match to the project. Smaller communities can receive a higher
percentage for the grant portion of a project, 85 percent, and
the community must match with the remaining 15 percent of the
project.
2:11:40 PM
MS. KENT, in response to Representative P. Wilson, confirmed
that the division does an annual solicitation of projects from
the communities, which are then ranked and scored. Ultimately,
projects and communities are found in the division's annual
budget request.
2:12:19 PM
MS. KENT, returning to her overview, told the committee that
eligible projects for grants are drinking water supply,
treatment, distribution, and storage systems; wastewater
collection, treatment, and discharge systems; solid waste
facilities; and water quality enhancement.
2:12:45 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked if the division's available funding varies
from year to year or is it a formula driven amount.
MS. KENT answered that although the division's funding varies
from year-to-year, it's fairly stable. In further response to
Co-Chair Seaton, Ms. Kent estimated that the division's budget
is approximately $20 million.
2:13:32 PM
MS. KENT, returning to her overview, informed the committee that
the division manages two loan funds, and thus acts similar to a
bank. The division manages a Clean Water Loan Fund and a
Drinking Water Loan Fund. Under the Clean Water Loan Fund,
eligible projects would be wastewater facilities. The division
can pay for the design for collection, treatment, and discharge
systems on solid waste facilities, such as landfill closures and
landfill collection and treatment systems, and water quality
enhancement projects. The Drinking Water Loan Fund will cover
the design and construction of drinking water facilities. She
noted that there are some private water systems that are
eligible to receive loan funds from the department, such systems
are economically regulated by the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska (RCA). Ms. Kent explained that up to 100 percent of the
eligible project costs can be covered by a loan, unlike the
grant. Often communities will obtain a grant for a portion of
the project and use the loan fund to meet the local match
requirement, which is allowed under the loan funds.
2:14:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to what type of private water
systems would be economically regulated by the RCA.
MS. KENT related her understanding that systems are those in
which their rate structure is overseen by the RCA. In further
response to Representative Gardner, Ms. Kent confirmed that
there are private water systems that aren't regulated by the RCA
and they're referred to as public water systems. She clarified
that such systems may be smaller systems that serve an apartment
building.
2:15:18 PM
MS. KENT continued her overview regarding the Division of
Water's loan programs. She informed the committee that there
are no upfront fees for the division's loan program. The
communities can use the funds from the loan as their project
proceeds. Therefore, the community doesn't have to receive the
entire amount of the loan upfront, and thus the interest is paid
[on the amount that is used] as it's used. The benefit to the
communities is that the interest rates are very low.
2:15:54 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked if 100 percent of the loan fund is used
every year.
MS. KENT stated that the Drinking Water Loan Fund is fully
utilized and the Clean Water Loan is not quite fully utilized.
The loan fund has been used much like a checking account, she
explained. Therefore, no loans beyond the amount of funds
available are made. The division is currently reviewing ideas
and methods to achieve better cash-flow management and loan more
money. In further response to Co-Chair Seaton, Ms. Kent said
that the original funding for both the loan funds was from
federal grants. In fact, the division receives an annual
federal grant to help capitalize the loan funds. The loan funds
also include loan payments from previous loans that have been
issued as well as interest on the fund itself.
2:17:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to how many municipalities
applied for the grants but did not receive funding.
MS. KENT said she will provide that information.
2:18:18 PM
MS. KENT moved on to the Village Safe Water (VSW) Program, which
works with rural communities to develop sustainable sanitation
facilities. This program provides 100 percent grants to the
community for planning, design, and construction of the
projects. The funding source for the VSW program is primarily
from federal grants from the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural
Development Program with a 25 percent cost share from the state.
In response to Co-Chair Seaton, Ms Kent agreed to provide the
committee with the number of applicants and those who are and
are not serviced. She then informed the committee that those
communities who are eligible under the Village Safe Water
Program are unincorporated communities with a population of 25-
600 within a two-mile radius, second class cities, and first
class cities with fewer than 600 residents. She noted that the
VSW program provides more assistance than it would for larger
communities. The division provides financial, technical, and
engineering assistance to plan, design, and construct
facilities. These are sanitation facilities, drinking water
systems, and sewage collection, treatment, and disposal as well
as washeterias and solid waste management facilities. She
turned to the key issues of the Village Safe Water Program,
which include a widening gap between critical needs and
available funding. Critical needs are those communities that
don't have first-time drinking water or sewer systems and those
communities that don't have infrastructure that meets current
regulatory requirements and may have a potential impact on human
health.
2:20:18 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON surmised then that [critical needs] aren't
renewals or maintenance but rather the provision of facilities
for the first time in a community.
MS. KENT replied yes.
2:20:33 PM
MS. KENT, continuing with her overview, remarked that the
widening gap is partly due to decreasing federal funding for the
program. Moreover, some of the communities that haven't been
served yet are the communities that are hard to serve. For
instance, they may be communities that are spread out and for
which it's difficult to have a pipe system or they may not have
a suitable water source or land for construction. Therefore,
not only are such communities challenging, those hurdles make it
more expensive to serve.
2:21:03 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked if the state offers alternative systems to
pipe systems, such as composting toilets.
MS. KENT replied yes.
2:21:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK asked if the division looks into the future
of a community, that is the population trend of the community,
when it decides to construct a water system. He noted that in
his district there is a village in which a $1.7 million
washeteria was constructed and the next year the school closed.
That village barely has the funds to purchase the fuel for the
washeteria. He noted that the school closure was fairly
predictable.
MS. KENT said that is one of the key issues for the Village Safe
Water Program. The division works directly with the community
to evaluate systems the community has the capability to operate
and maintain over time. She highlighted that a community
doesn't receive funds until the division has evaluated the
community's administrative structure, a capacity assessment, in
order to ensure whether it has the infrastructure to manage a
particular utility. The division reviews the "use-ability" of a
type of facility in a community. Therefore, every community
that wants pipes will get them. Still, the division works
closely with the villages to select a system. As much as
possible, the division tries to serve the community and homes
that are there while performing some forecasting.
2:23:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER directed attention to the chart entitled
"Critical Needs -vs- Available Funding" and underscored the
difference in needs, which totals $648 million, versus funding,
which totals $60 million. He highlighted that the funding
amounts to one-tenth of the present need, which is increasing.
He inquired as to the reasoning behind the increase in the
critical needs.
MS. KENT pointed out that inflation is in play. Therefore, when
the price of fuel spiked, construction costs in rural Alaska
increased as well. She explained that when the division defines
those critical needs of a community, the division isn't trying
to decide what system the community needs. Many of the
facilities are old and as drinking water systems are designed
and constructed, they have to comply with all the new rules and
thus the cost of systems increase because of that as well.
Therefore, there are many factors at play and causing the gap to
widen, which would occur even with steady state funding.
2:25:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON recalled that the Village Safe Water
agency used to be a one-stop shop, whereas now it's the USDA and
the consortium as well as the Village Safe Water agency. He
asked if that's exacerbated the situation or made it easy.
MS. KENT explained that two different funding sources available
and two organizations, DEC and the Alaska Native Tribal Health
Consortium, work on the project. Ms. Kent opined that it works
well and isn't exacerbating the problem. In further response to
Representative Herron, Ms. Kent clarified that the source of the
funding coming from two different agencies isn't that difficult.
2:27:03 PM
MS. KENT, in response to Representative Wilson, agreed to
provide information regarding the status/progress of the needs.
2:27:57 PM
MS. KENT moved on to the Operations Assistance Program. She
informed the committee that different classes of drinking water
and wastewater systems have developed based on the complexity of
operating them. Further, education and experience requirements
have been designed in order to ensure that the operators have
the skill set necessary to operate the systems in a safe manner
while providing safe drinking water and sewage disposal. Part
of the aforementioned program includes training courses for
operators. The division developed and administers tests and the
operators are certified. When those facilities obtain permits
from the division, those permits require that the facility use
an operator certified at the correct level for the particular
facility. Ms. Kent further informed the committee that the
division operates a Remote Maintenance Worker (RMW) Program,
which helps develop the capacity of rural Alaskans to operate
their own facilities. These workers, she highlighted, help
safeguard the investment in rural Alaska by ensuring the proper
maintenance and operation of the facilities. There are 15 RMWs
throughout the state, of which 13 are employees of 7 regional
health corporations that received DEC grants to pay for those
RMWs, and 2 are DEC employees. She characterized these [RMWs]
as the circuit riders who travel to villages to provide "over-
the-shoulder" assistance to facility operators as well as
emergency assistance for breakdowns and such. Ms. Kent referred
to these individuals as "the heroes of rural Alaska." Further,
the list of communities these individuals served in the last few
months as related on the slide entitled "Remote Maintenance
Workers" is fairly impressive.
2:30:17 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON relayed that the Village Safe Water website
specifies the remaining needs. However, the website also says:
"This assessment does not include the needs of 65 rural Alaska
villages that are non Native." He then requested information on
those villages that aren't included and what their needs entail.
MS. KENT agreed to do so.
2:31:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FOSTER related his assumption that some of the
RMWs went to Savoonga during last month's power outage.
MS. KENT said that she was unsure whether the RMWs actually went
to Savoonga or provided remote assistance as they do both. She
offered to check on that.
2:31:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if the division provides grants
to the non Native villages.
MS. KENT explained that eligibility is not based on whether a
community is Native or non Native, but rather is based on the
earlier mentioned criteria. Eligible communities must be an
unincorporated community with a population of 25-600 people
residing within a two-mile radius, a second class city, or a
first class city with a population no more than 600 people.
2:32:21 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON recalled that a few years ago there was an audit
with regard to the management of grants. He asked if that's
been resolved.
MS. KENT responded that recent audits of the Village Safe Water
Program have found no exceptions. She opined that fairly good
improvements have been made in the program's procedures.
2:33:06 PM
MS. KENT, returning to the overview, directed attention to the
slide entitled "Division of Water - Water Quality," which lists
the following five Water Quality Programs: Water Quality
Standards, Assessment and Restoration; Wastewater Discharge
Permitting; Compliance and Enforcement; Cruise Ship Regulatory
Program; and Water Quality Monitoring. The core services of
water quality include the establishment of protective standards
for water quality; identify and restore polluted waters; issue
wastewater discharge permits to facilities that discharge
contaminants; ensure facility compliance with permits; provide
community assistance for water quality protection; and monitor
water quality and provide public access to that data.
2:33:54 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON requested that Ms. Kent bring the committee up
to date with regard to the copper standard for aquatic life.
2:34:18 PM
MS. KENT explained that when the division sets water quality
standards, it's done by regulation. The standards consist of
two standards. One standard is designated uses, which is the
types of uses of water the division protects water for.
Designated uses include protection for drinking water, seafood
processing and other industrial uses, swimming, non contact
recreation, as well as fish and other wildlife. The standards
apply to the water body and are measures of how clean water has
to be to protect the aforementioned uses.
2:35:25 PM
MS. KENT explained that the second part of the standards is the
criteria. For each use and contaminant, the division sets a
level that is safe for use. Therefore, the criteria will
include numeric standards for [contaminants] such as copper for
the protection of aquatic life and human health. She noted that
the numeric standards for a contaminant may be different for
different uses of the water. She also noted that the division
has narrative criteria for attributes that aren't readily
measured, such as "may not cause a visible sheen on the surface
of the water." Alaska's water quality standards are adopted by
DEC in regulation and have to be approved by the EPA prior to
the state using them for Clean Water Act purposes. The
standards are used to help set permit limits, identify when a
water body might be polluted, and help measure when a water body
has been cleaned and no longer considered polluted. Ms. Kent
informed the committee that the division has a couple of water
quality standards revisions in progress: some changes have been
made to the residue criteria and working toward final adoption
of those regulations, and there are pending mixing zone
regulations revisions for which the division is awaiting EPA
approval. She noted that it's not unusual for the EPA to take a
few years to approve standards revisions. In response to Co-
Chair Seaton, Ms. Kent related that the water quality standards
review and approval process for EPA is becoming more complex.
In fact, the EPA has consultation requirements with the U.S.
Fish & Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric
Association (NOAA). Therefore, the EPA is dependent upon third
party agencies to review their work in approving the division's
work. At this point, the division has been told that EPA staff
is assigned to the mixing zone revisions and are working on it.
2:37:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked if any water quality standards
adopted by DEC are higher than the minimum set by the EPA.
MS. KENT answered that almost all of DEC's standards are
identical to those set by the EPA because the [division] isn't
funded to do the host of laboratory studies. However, she
mentioned that DEC has a few standards, including petroleum,
which are more stringent than the EPA standards.
2:38:31 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that the state is
required to have water quality standards that are at least as
strict as the federal requirements.
MS. KENT replied yes, adding that the state is required to do so
apart from the primacy for the permitting program.
2:38:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked if the division is able to discuss
the regulations with EPA.
MS. KENT answered that DEC has been fairly adamant in working
with EPA and moving them along. This long period of time for
review and approval of water quality standards isn't limited to
region 10 of EPA. She related her understanding that states
across the country have challenges with EPA moving through that
review and approval process in a timely fashion. She
acknowledged that it's very frustrating.
2:39:44 PM
MS. KENT, in response to Representative Munoz, explained that
currently the state adopts a change in regulation and then it's
submitted to the EPA for review and approval. She said she
wasn't aware of other states in which the legislature has set
water quality standards. If there is a statute established for
a water quality standard, she presumed that the standard would
also have to go through some sort of review and approval process
through the EPA.
2:40:39 PM
MS. KENT returned to the slide entitled "Water Quality Standards
- Issues." She informed the committee that the Clean Water Act
requires the state to review all of its water quality standards
every three years, which is referred to as the triennial review.
This review invites the public to let the division know if there
is new science or information that might cause review of a
particular standard and determine whether it should be changed.
The start of that triennial review is coming up. The division,
she related, is always reviewing its standards and working on
what might need to be changed. The division believes that there
are a few things it should do over the next three years,
including anti-degradation, which is a code term for a Clean
Water Act requirement that states may not allow degradation of
water quality except under some very narrow circumstances.
Therefore, DEC has adopted regulation policy that mirrors the
federal policy. Furthermore, DEC has adopted interim procedures
regarding how the anti-degradation policy will be implemented.
She noted that during the next triennial review, the plan is to
develop more robust implementation procedures for how that anti-
degradation policy will be implemented in permitting and other
DEC actions.
2:42:09 PM
MS. KENT moved on to the copper criteria, which is based on
EPA's copper standards. There was much interest in copper
criteria in a previous triennial review. Therefore, DEC
performed a full scientific literature review on copper to
determine what kinds of scientific information would cause DEC
to change its copper criteria. That review found that there are
no lethality effects and growth effects on salmon due to copper
that is at or below existing standards, and thus no changes were
made to the copper criteria.
2:43:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON highlighted that there are collateral
elements around copper, and thus he asked if [the review]
included those elements as well.
MS. KENT responded that DEC was just reviewing copper. However,
the department has learned that there are some things, such as
dissolved organic carbon, that may affect the toxicity of
copper.
2:43:46 PM
MS. KENT informed the committee that DEC sponsored a copper
session at last year's Alaska Forum on the Environment in order
to share what it knows about copper and obtain other information
on copper. Due of the level of interest in copper as well as
recent studies that show some behavioral effects on salmon at
very low concentrations of copper, it's very likely that
there'll be another session on copper at the upcoming triennial
review.
2:44:12 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if there are other naturally occurring
compounds that present problems specifically in Alaska in terms
of meeting certain EPA standards.
MS. KENT replied yes, explaining that in some of Alaska's water
bodies there are natural conditions of a substance that are
above the state's water quality standard. There is a regulation
that allows the aforementioned to be the prevailing standard if
it's truly the natural condition. "We don't try to regulate
Mother Nature," she stated.
2:45:08 PM
MS. KENT, in response to Co-Chair Seaton, related that there was
a presentation on studies performed in the Pacific Northwest
regarding behavioral response to copper and whether salmon will
avoid a predator in the presence of copper. The finding was
that there was a reduced response from the salmon [when in the
presence of copper] and thus the salmon is more susceptible to
predation. In further response to Co-Chair Seaton, Ms. Kent
related that DEC will likely review any new literature that is
available as DEC is unlikely to fund its own independent
studies.
2:46:18 PM
MS. KENT, returning to the overview, directed the committee's
attention to the slide entitled "Wastewater Discharge
Permitting." Any discharge of liquid or solid waste to the
land, water, or subsurface requires a permit from DEC.
Permitees for wastewater discharge permits include: the timber
industry, mining, oil and gas, seafood processing, construction,
and domestic sewage treatment.
2:46:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked if there are any permits for coal,
particularly when ash is used as backfill, specifically with
regard to the water tables.
MS. KENT responded that she believes [coal] is regulated by the
solid waste program, for which the regulations are designed to
protect water as well.
2:47:25 PM
MS. KENT moved on to the topic of discharges to the waters of
the United States, which refers to surface waters. Surface
waters require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. Alaska as well as 46 other states has assumed
the authority to implement a permitting program that mirrors the
NPDES program, which is the Alaska Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (APDES). The [DEC] has taken over the
permitting program in phases, based on the type of industrial or
domestic discharge. At this point, phases 1, 2, and 3 have been
transferred to the state, which includes domestic wastewater,
timber and seafood industries; federal facilities, stormwater,
pretreatment program, miscellaneous industrial, and the mining
industry. The final phase is primarily oil and gas. The EPA
does and always will retain responsibility for a few small
groups of permits in the state because the Clean Water Act
requires such.
2:48:41 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to the amount of staff working on
the permits and the turnaround time for the permits.
MS. KENT told the committee that the staffing for DEC's program
is more robust than what the EPA had when it ran the permitting
program. Although DEC is issuing permits as quickly as the EPA
did, the desire is to issue them a lot faster.
2:49:41 PM
MS. KENT, continuing with the overview, referred to the slide
entitled "Wastewater Discharge Permitting- public/tribal
involvement" and remarked that the permitting process is very
transparent and more inclusive than the program EPA was running.
She then informed the committee that the division has issued 637
general permit authorizations, 3 APDES individual permits, and
25 permits in various stages of development or near completion.
As is the case with all major environmental laws, the Clean
Water Act is, in part, dependent upon permitees self-monitoring
and -reporting to the division. The department reviews the
monitoring data, inspects facilities, at times takes its own
samples, and when necessary takes enforcement actions. In
response to Co-Char Seaton, the discharge monitoring reports
that are self-reported by the facilities are available on a
public website.
2:51:43 PM
MS. KENT, referring to the slide entitled "Compliance
Inspections," explained that DEC's inspection goals follow the
EPA's inspection goals for the country. The department reviews
major facilities once every two years, whereas it reviews the
non major facilities once during the permit cycle that is every
five years. The department also tries to review 5-10 percent of
the stormwater facilities based on the size of the construction
sites. Furthermore, DEC performs complaint-driven inspections.
Returning to her presentation, Ms. Kent informed the committee
that DEC's goal last year was to conduct 120 inspections, but it
actually conducted 140 inspections. Twenty-two notices of
violation were issued and one compliance order by consent was
performed.
2:52:40 PM
MS. KENT moved on to Alaska's cruise ship regulatory program,
which is the first in the nation and may still be the only such
program in the nation. In 2010, 28 cruise ships registered to
visit Alaska. The Ocean Ranger Program is the only such program
in the nation. Under the Ocean Ranger Program, vessels that
enter Alaska's waters are required to have an ocean ranger on
board. The ocean ranger's job is to observe compliance with
both state and federal health, safety, and environmental rules.
The Ocean Ranger Program was established by law in 2006 and the
program is funded with a $4.00 per head passenger fee. The fee
brings in between $3.6-$4 million per year depending upon the
number of passengers. In 2010, 90 percent of the vessels had
ocean rangers on board for their entire voyage in Alaska. The
remaining 10 percent of vessels were either visited by ocean
rangers or DEC when in port. Almost 2,000 daily reports are
provided by the ocean rangers. Ms. Kent told the committee that
5 of the 21 ocean rangers deployed last year were Alaskans. The
department is working with the Department of Labor & Workforce
Development regarding more training opportunities in order to
increase the number of ocean rangers who are Alaskans.
2:54:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to the training requirements
for the ocean rangers.
MS. KENT answered that an ocean ranger has to be a U.S. Coast
Guard licensed marine engineer or have a degree from a maritime
academy. She noted that the marine engineer requirements
include sea time. She also noted that it's a challenge to find
Alaskans who want to do this part-time work.
2:54:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to why the Ocean Ranger
Program uses the nationwide marine [union] rather than the
Alaska oriented marine [union].
MS. KENT explained that DEC contracts out management of the
Ocean Ranger Program. Therefore, the contractor has the
opportunity to work with either marine union. She said she
didn't know that there would be any better Alaska hire rates by
using the Alaska union rather than the national union,
particular since it's a seasonal position.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON emphasized that she didn't like the
fact that the ocean rangers really didn't have a presence in the
state. She acknowledged that there's a presence in Anchorage,
but it's a different division. Therefore, she suggested that
the legislature may need to review the matter further.
2:57:09 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked if the problem in which the contractor
wasn't accepting Alaska engineering licenses. He recalled that
the contractor was only accepting licenses that were unlimited,
which is problematic since those in Alaska are mainly tug
engineers.
MS. KENT agreed to provide information on that matter to the
committee.
2:57:47 PM
MS. KENT highlighted that the Division of Water does perform the
cruise ship air emissions, opacity readings. Those readings are
done with the department's certified readers as well as
contractors.
2:58:09 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to when the next Science Advisory
Panel will meet.
MS. KENT explained that the Science Advisory Panel was
established by the legislature to help the division review the
technologies for wastewater discharge from cruise ships. The
panel met three times in 2010. The panel consists of experts
from around the world. She recalled that the next meeting of
the panel will be a teleconference in the next couple of weeks.
2:59:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON remarked that the meeting would likely be of
interest to legislators, and thus he encouraged her to forward
the details to the committee.
2:59:13 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related a concern that he's heard that the
requirement for best available technology isn't being applied
across all cruise ships.
MS. KENT explained that by statute the cruise ships have a
higher threshold for their wastewater discharge permits. Most
wastewater discharges in Alaska are allowed an opportunity, via
permitting, to have a permitted mixing zone. Therefore, what
the cruise ship discharges after treatment that doesn't get them
down to the water quality standards allows the cruise ship to
discharge [wastewater] that has contaminants a bit above the
water quality standards, knowing that in the mixing zone it will
dilute with the surface water and all the standards will be met
and the designated uses will be protected at the edge of the
mixing zone. The law is headed toward requiring all cruise
ships to meet the water quality standards at the point of
discharge. The vessels that discharge in Alaska are meeting all
of the water quality standards at the point of discharge, save
the following substances: ammonia, copper, nickel, and zinc.
The Science Advisory Panel, she commented, was established to
review emerging new technologies that will allow the elimination
of the aforementioned contaminants from the wastewater prior to
discharging in Alaska waters. Since the technology isn't quite
at that point, the permit allows those contaminants to be
discharged at a bit higher level than the set water quality
standards. In further response to Co-Chair Seaton, Ms. Kent
explained that all vessels operating and discharging in Alaska
have systems for which some do better than others for the
aforementioned four substances while other systems address other
substances. There is no one system that consistently meets the
water quality standards for all four of the substances. She
noted that [the systems] take into their wastewater systems
different waste streams and discharge different waste streams,
and therefore the data has to be reviewed carefully. For
instance, "a vessel with a certain kind of treatment system that
looks like it might be meeting all the standards may be only
treating gray water and not both gray water and black water."
Therefore, the panel is reviewing the data.
3:02:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked if the federal standards are
related to the point of discharge or the mixing zone.
MS. KENT answered that the federal standards relate to the water
body itself. The federal standards are used to set the limits
in the permit, but a permit will often allow a discharge above
the standards because there will be dilution and no negative
impact on the water body as a whole.
3:03:19 PM
MS. KENT, continuing her overview, informed the committee that
DEC has a small non-point source program. She explained that a
non-point source is something that doesn't come from a pipe, but
can enter a water body such as animal waste, park runoff, or
fertilizers from yards. The division works with communities to
try to avoid such problems "because non-point source problems
are what are causing polluted waters today; it's really not
permitted facilities anymore." She said that part of the non-
point source program is small grants to help us meet state
priorities for water quality and perform outreach. Ms. Kent
related that the division monitors water quality and reports
those findings on the web site. She pointed out that although
Alaska has half the nation's waters, it doesn't have half the
nation's funding for water quality monitoring. The division has
to slowly work around the state collecting baseline data. The
map entitled "AKMAP" illustrates that the division is collecting
baseline data as funding is available. She highlighted that the
data has specific objectives, is collected under a quality
assurance plan, and reported on the division's website. The
division also produces a biannual report of the health of
Alaska's waters in which the public is informed of the polluted
waters, recovering waters, and recovered waters. The 2010
Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment report is on
the division's website.
3:05:02 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON thanked the division for its presentation.
3:05:24 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SPAR Division Overview (H) RES.pdf |
HRES 1/31/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| WQ Division Overview (H) RES.pdf |
HRES 1/31/2011 1:00:00 PM |