Legislature(2013 - 2014)BARNES 124
01/23/2013 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Overview: Department of Environmental Conservation | |
| 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 23, 2013
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Eric Feige, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Saddler, Co-Chair
Representative Peggy Wilson, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Hawker
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Geran Tarr
Representative Chris Tuck
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Kurt Olson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
- HEARD
OVERVIEW: DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record
WITNESS REGISTER
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented an overview of the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC).
ALICE EDWARDS, Director
Division of Air Quality
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint titled Division of
Air Quality Overview during the presentation by Department of
Environmental Conservation.
ELAINE BUSSE FLOYD, Acting Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint during the
Department of Environmental Conservation overview.
LARRY DIETRICK, Director
Division of Spill Prevention & Response
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint during the Department
of Environmental Conservation overview.
MICHELLE BONNET HALE, Director
Division of Water
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a PowerPoint during the overview
by Department of Environmental Conservation.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:37 PM
CO-CHAIR DAN SADDLER called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives
Saddler, Feige, Johnson, Hawker, Tuck, P. Wilson, and Seaton
were present at the call to order. Representative Tarr arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
^OVERVIEW: Department of Environmental Conservation
OVERVIEW: Department of Environmental Conservation
1:05:10 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER announced that the only order of business would
be an overview by the Department of Environmental Conservation.
1:05:42 PM
LARRY HARTIG, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), introduced other management team members of
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). He stated
that the DEC mission, "to protect human health in the
environment," was driven by good science, good engineering, and
a good public process. He explained that his measurement of
departmental success was for healthy air, clean drinking water,
good sanitation, and good management for timely, proper clean
ups. He commented that these were all systems in the living
environment that people expected to be protected. He declared
that DEC worked closely with local communities. He clarified
that a lot of the DEC programs originated from federal
government programs, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water
Act (CWA), and the Safe Drinking Water Act, and that the
authority to run the programs had been delegated to the state.
He reported that Alaska was now authorized to manage the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the
wastewater discharge permitting program, although the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintained oversight for
the program.
1:09:31 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG reported that the Division of Air Quality
also issued permits, through the Clean Air Act and the EPA, and
had done so for several decades. He then directed attention to
proposed HB 78, which would seek to obtain primacy for Alaska
from the EPA for the Section 404 program of the Clean Water Act;
the program which regulated the discharge of dredged and fill
material currently administered by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. He reviewed other programs in which Alaska shared
authority with the federal government: spill prevention and
response, discharge to land, and oil and gas infrastructure.
1:11:19 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG affirmed that, as there were budget
challenges due to the decline of oil revenue and federal
dollars, it was necessary for DEC to be more efficient when
reviewing priorities. He referenced an early initiative by the
governor for permit reform, which necessitated efficiency and a
focus on the priorities for basic needs: clean air, clean
water, and good sanitation. He offered as an example of permit
reform: less regulation on foods that don't pose any risk to
the public. He reported that, as the federal budget for the
village safe water program was down 60 percent over the last
eight years, it was necessary to review other systems and
structures to deliver good water and sanitation to rural
communities. He pointed out that the current capital budget
listed a pilot program for a new water and sewer system.
1:14:08 PM
COMMISSIONER HARTIG acknowledged that the opening of the Arctic
was both a challenge and an opportunity. He defined the Arctic
area to include the Chukchi Sea, the Beaufort Sea, and the
Aleutians. He pointed to the interest for exploration from
Shell and Conoco Phillips Alaska, Inc. on the Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS). He reported that there was more marine traffic, as
ships were moving along the Great Circle route, bringing goods
to the western ports before they were shipped to Asia. He
pointed out that it was not unusual for ships to lose power or
steerage and ground out on the rocks. He confirmed that Alaska
was discussing partnerships with other jurisdictions and
industries for mutual aid agreements.
1:16:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked which foods were determined to be
safe without any regulation.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG established that many discussions with the
public, consumers, and legislators interested in food safety had
resulted in a list of food items considered less risky. This
informed, science-based decision was determined by the amount of
opportunities for food contamination. He gave an example of
bake sales, which allowed for easy tracking, should any problem
arise, to prevent any wide spread crisis.
1:18:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify that primacy on issues
ensured that state standards would not be lower than federal
standards, and if so, what was the benefit of primacy.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG explained that primacy would only occur if
the federal agency determined that the state program, including
the public process, equal access to challenge, and the public
right to appeal, was comparable. He said that, under the Clean
Water Act, all states were responsible for setting standards
which had to be approved by the EPA. He pointed out that this
was a very rigorous process, and subject to court review before
EPA approval. He shared that this complex process could take
four years or more, and that it was the same for all states.
1:20:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the state standards had to be as
restrictive as the federal standards.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied that the standards had been set by
the Clean Water Act, but that the EPA did protect the settings
of standards with requirements for designated uses. He shared
that the proposal of any standard which did not comply with the
provisions of the Clean Water Act would not be approved for use
in any of the permits. He said that, although EPA would set
guidance standards, it would not dictate a standard to each
state.
1:22:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if Alaska, with primacy, could
move more quickly than the federal government.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG explained that the governor wanted
Department of Natural Resources and Department of Environmental
Conservation to explore and possibly pursue primacy for Section
404, the dredge and fill program, of the Clean Water Act. He
shared that, with primacy, Alaska would attempt to provide a
more efficient and better service to the public. He stated that
local permit writers were more accountable and more accessible
to the local public, which encouraged more attention to
productivity and customer service.
1:23:58 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE offered his belief that permittees would agree
that state primacy was an operational benefit to the state and
its industries which used the permitting system. He asked if
this would result in a cost savings to the federal government
for program administration.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG replied that this was hard to quantify, as
the federal programs would have to maintain oversight. He
reported that the state and federal programs would work together
on training and permits during the transition to primacy. He
opined that, in the long term, it would save money for the
federal programs.
1:25:44 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked for an approximate time line for Alaska
to assume this primacy.
COMMISSIONER HARTIG explained that this was a longer term
proposition, and would require initial consultations with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding resources for the
program. He pointed out that the regulations, the guidance
documents, and the hiring and training for the people in the
program, all needed to be in order before the program would be
transferred to Alaska. He offered his belief that it was
necessary to develop a schedule, with milestones that identified
the specific issues, and that it would be at least five years
for "a total handoff of the program."
1:27:52 PM
ALICE EDWARDS, Director, Division of Air Quality, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), introduced a PowerPoint
presentation, and directed attention to slide 2, "Mission,"
which read: "To conserve, improve, and protect Alaska's natural
resources and environment and control air pollution, in order to
enhance the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the
state and their overall economic and social well being." She
said that her division worked with outdoor air pollution, but
not indoor air pollution.
MS. EDWARDS offered slide 3, "Core Services," and stated that
her division issued air quality permits, and provided compliance
assistance and enforcement with regard to those permits;
provided assistance to communities to protect air quality; and
conducted air monitoring and reviews of federal air quality
rulemaking with Alaska's perspectives. She added that her
division also developed air quality plans and helped implement
them for areas that were out of compliance with federal
standards.
1:30:00 PM
MS. EDWARDS explained the organizational chart on slide 4, "Air
Quality Division Structure," noting that more than half the
staff was involved with air permits.
MS. EDWARDS moved on to slide 5, "Air Permits Program," and
pointed out that this program ensured that emissions from
industrial operations did not create unhealthy air. She
reported that Construction Permits authorized construction for
new and modified facilities, while Title V Operating Permits
gathered all the permits into one operating permit. She said
that this group also conducted the compliance assurance
inspections and follow ups. She stated that there was an on-
going process for improvement to consistency and timeliness for
permitting.
1:32:36 PM
MS. EDWARDS directed attention to slide 6, "Air Non-Point &
Mobile Source Program," explaining that this program worked with
non-industrial facilities and communities to maintain and
achieve the ambient air quality standards. She described that
the work included education and outreach on air quality issues
to raise awareness and encourage behaviors to improve air
quality. This division also developed the air quality control
plans for communities and ensured that these plans were
incorporated into the state air quality control plan.
1:33:46 PM
MS. EDWARDS introduced slide 7, "Air Monitoring and Quality
Assurance Program," and explained that this program operated the
air monitoring network, which assessed compliance with the EPA
national ambient air quality standards for pollutants, typically
particulate matter and carbon monoxide in Alaska. She listed
the required air monitoring sites, which included Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Juneau, and the Mat-Su Valley, for compliance with
the standards. She said that special studies in Seward, Galena,
and Soldotna required monitoring, as well. This program issued
air quality advisories for hazardous air conditions to the
public.
1:36:01 PM
MS. EDWARDS discussed slide 8, "Division of Air Quality
Initiatives and Challenges," and pointed to the link between air
quality and energy, as the efficiency of burning fuel determined
the air pollution emissions. She moved on to slide 9, "Energy
Choices and Air Quality," and shared that the high price of fuel
oil had pushed residents toward wood heat, which produced smoke,
and often unacceptable levels of particulate matter. She
offered Fairbanks as a key example for not meeting ambient air
quality standards, primarily as a result of burning wood. She
summarized by saying that cleaner burning, more efficient
devices were "very helpful in improving air quality." She
stated that cleaner burning and affordable fuel options were
important for maintaining healthy air quality, noting that
supplying economical natural gas for interior Alaska would be
very beneficial.
1:38:01 PM
MS. EDWARDS moved to slide 10 "Fairbanks Fine Particulate
Matter," and said that the division was working extensively with
the community to develop an air quality plan. She shared that,
although it was challenging to find acceptable solutions and
control options, the proposed plan had been submitted to EPA.
Although there were multiple sources of poor air quality, home
heating from wood and coal were major contributors. She pointed
out that, as the more stringent annual standards replaced daily
standards, this could create more issues for Fairbanks.
MS. EDWARDS referred to slide 11, "On-going Permit Streamlining
and Process Improvement." She announced a goal for improving
consistency and timeliness of permitting through a quality
management system, with greater standardization, predictability
and flexibility. She reported that the division worked with the
stakeholders in identifying issues and solutions. She noted
that pre-application assistance for construction permits had
allowed for quicker, more efficient processing. She shared that
the division was already assessing air quality data on the North
Slope in preparation for more efficient permitting.
1:41:22 PM
MS. EDWARDS noted that there were also air quality concerns in
rural Alaska, slide 12, "Rural Alaska Air Quality Concerns."
She said that dust, wood smoke, and open burning in landfills
could all be problematic for air quality, and that the division
was working to respond to the needs of the communities.
MS. EDWARDS directed attention to slide 13, "New and Revised
Federal Standards and Rules." She reported that the Clean Air
Act determined the ambient air quality standards, and the rules
for implementing these standards. She said that it could be
difficult to keep up with the reviews of the EPA proposals. She
shared that the division focused on the technical concerns for
Alaska specific issues, and would adjust its programs as
necessary. She listed engine standards, lead in aviation
gasoline, and nitrogen dioxide ambient air quality standards as
Alaska specific issues on which DEC was working with EPA.
1:44:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how dangerous it was to live in
Fairbanks with the current air quality.
MS. EDWARDS, in response, said that the air quality in Fairbanks
failed to meet the 24 hour fine particulate matter standard, and
that some groups of people, those with existing respiratory and
cardiac conditions, were more sensitive to its effects. She
reported that health studies had shown there were health risks
to exposure to fine particulate matter, including respiratory
issues and pre-mature death.
1:46:27 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked for clarification whether Bush Alaska had
been granted an extension for conversion to "ultra-low sulfur
diesel."
MS. EDWARDS, in response to Co-Chair Feige, said that the
federal rules had been phased in over time; in Alaska, this was
first implemented in the motor vehicle sector, then non-road
heavy equipment, and then locomotive and marine. She offered
her belief that Rural Alaska had transitioned all engines to
this fuel in 2010, which was several years later than the rest
of the country, as it was recognized that Rural Alaska had
unique distribution and storage systems. She opined that the
industrial facilities were transitioning into the use of new
engines.
1:48:38 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE echoed a concern of his constituents that there
was not enough lubricity in the fuel for older engines. He
asked if there had been equipment failures due to the transition
of fuel.
MS. EDWARDS replied that she was not aware of significant issues
with older equipment, especially as fuel distributors often
added a lubricant to the fuel. She stated that DEC did not
track this, however. In response to Co-Chair Feige, she
explained that nitrogen dioxide standards had been updated, as
the Clean Air Act required this every five years. The prior
standard had been an annual standard, but was now based on a one
hour standard. She stated that nitro dioxide was an air
pollutant and had health effects, most likely for respiratory
issues.
1:51:38 PM
MS. EDWARDS, in response to Representative Tuck, said that DEC
had issued the air quality permit for the Healy Power Plant.
She clarified that the plant had been permitted to operate for
many years; however, there was a concern that its startup would
trigger an EPA re-start policy. She said that EPA and the
company had reached an agreement to allow the plant to be re-
opened.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if the closure of the power plant was
because it had not met the previous air permitting process.
MS. EDWARDS replied that there were other issues preventing the
restart, which was not due to air permitting issues.
1:53:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR asked how many staff in the Division of Air
Quality was working on compliance, and if this was adequate
staffing given the number of permit requests. She asked if DEC
coordinated with Department of Health and Social Services on the
lead in aviation fuel programs.
MS. EDWARDS said that about half of the staff in her division
worked on compliance, with regular inspection schedules, and
that this staffing allowed for compliance evaluations and
reviews of the permits. She said that the Division of Air
Quality often coordinated with Department of Health and Social
Services on the health related aspects of rulings and with the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities on this issue
of aviation.
1:55:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if Alaska had primacy, or whether
the state enforced federal standards, as it did not have Alaska
specific standards.
MS. EDWARDS, in response, stated that Alaska did have primacy
for air quality, and that many of the Alaska standards and
programs were aligned with the federal program. She clarified
that, although Alaska could have its own more restrictive
standard, the state had adopted the federal standards.
1:56:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked to clarify that Alaska standards
needed to be at least as restrictive as the federal standards.
He asked if the time frame to issue permits had changed with
primacy.
MS. EDWARDS expressed her agreement with Representative Seaton
that the Alaska standards needed to be as restrictive as the
federal standards. She offered her belief that it would be
difficult to assess the time frame for permitting, as the state
had primacy for more than 20 years, and the permit program
structure had changed significantly since the Clean Air Act in
1990.
1:58:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER asked which specific industries or
businesses in Alaska would be compromised by the recently
adopted one hour standard for nitrogen dioxide versus the former
annual standard.
MS. EDWARDS replied that the majority of permitting activity was
for the industrial facilities in the oil and gas sector and the
electrical utilities. She stated that there would be challenges
to demonstrate that the industry operations would comply with
the standards.
1:59:33 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked if there was an air permit backlog
analogous to that backlog in the Division of Mining, Land and
Water in the Department of Natural Resources.
MS. EDWARDS determined that there was a slight backlog in the
EPA Title V operating permits, which were reviewed on a five
year cycle. She clarified that this renewal did not stop
operations, and that there was not a backlog for other permits.
2:00:46 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked how much of the work in Division of Air
Quality was enforcement in compliance and how much was in
assistance for the standards.
MS. EDWARDS replied that there was a greater effort toward
inspections and compliance assistance than for formal
enforcement.
2:01:50 PM
ELAINE BUSSE FLOYD, Acting Director, Division of Environmental
Health, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC),
presented a PowerPoint entitled, "Environmental Health." She
directed attention to slide 1, "Division Mission," and read:
"Our goal is to provide businesses with clear standards so they
can protect our environment and provide safe food and drinking
water to Alaskans."
MS. FLOYD moved on to slide 2, "Organization Chart," and
clarified that the State Veterinarian, although a standalone
program, was housed for budgetary reasons with the other four
Environmental Health components. She pointed out that the
division also managed the Recreational Shellfish Beach
Monitoring Pilot program, and coordinated the tsunami debris
cleanup efforts for the state.
2:03:15 PM
MS. FLOYD reviewed slide 4, "Drinking Water and DEC," and
explained that it maintained state primacy for regulating public
drinking water systems, as well as reviewing the construction,
installation, and operation plans for public water systems to
protect public health and meet Safe Water Drinking Act
requirements.
MS. FLOYD identified slide 5, "Federally- Designated," and
reported that, although Alaska had primacy for Safe Drinking
Water since 1978, it was an increasing challenge "to stay on top
of the rule requirements," as there were 19 federal rules, with
2 pending adoption, and 5 other proposed rules. She reported
there were 1,515 federally designated water systems, which
served 25 or more people.
2:04:37 PM
MS. FLOYD explained slide 6, "State-Regulated," and stated that
there were 5,000 systems serving 25 people or less, although
larger than a private well. These systems required
registration, quarterly and annual testing, and construction
approval.
MS. FLOYD shared slide 7, "Successes and Challenges." She
stated that the division had 61 employees in 5 offices
throughout the state. She declared that the increasing
complexity for federal rules was a challenge, so the division
used a technical assistance providers group, which included
people from the drinking water, village safe water, and operator
certification and assistance programs.
2:06:28 PM
MS. FLOYD explained that the pesticide program was a standalone
program with five employees in one office, slide 10, "Pesticide
Control and DEC." She shared that this program had primacy,
that the program conducted inspections to ensure that pesticide
applications complied with regulations and worker protection
standards, and that it registered and monitored the distribution
and sale of more than 5,000 registered pesticides and products
in Alaska.
MS. FLOYD explained slide 11, "Successes and Challenges," and
said that implementing the integrated pest management of
invasive species, standardizing the permitting process for state
agencies, and improving the on-line product registration were
some of the successes.
2:09:38 PM
MS. FLOYD summarized slides 13 and 14, "Solid Waste Management
and DEC," stating that the division reviewed all solid waste
permit applications, issued permits for disposal, inspected
landfills to verify compliance, and monitored closed landfill
sites. She reported that there were 15 employees in 3 offices
around the state. She announced that all 23 of the landfills
that accepted 5 tons or more per day, all 35 of the industrial
landfills, all 11 of the industrial treatment facilities, and
33.5 percent of the 188 rural landfills that accepted less than
5 tons per day, were permitted.
MS. FLOYD declared that the division was implementing
regulations to simplify the permitting application process for
village landfills, slide 15, "Rural Landfill Challenges and
Successes." She said that an expansion to the outreach and
technical assistance had resulted in an increased permit
percentage.
2:11:49 PM
MS. FLOYD identified slides 17 -20, "Food Safety and
Sanitation," and confirmed that the division established
standards, permitted, inspected and enforced standards for food
processing and food service facilities. They also provided
education and training on the safe handling of food. She shared
that there were 40 employees in 10 offices around Alaska, and
they were responsible for more than 4,600 restaurants, markets,
and food processors, nearly 800 seafood processors and shellfish
harvesters, and almost 3,800 public facilities.
MS. FLOYD analyzed slide 21, "By the numbers," and detailed the
inspections in FY 2012, which included 47 percent of the high
risk retail food establishments and 85 percent of the high risk
seafood establishments. She said that 73 percent of the
facilities had trained staff, and the manager training program
was the result of a collaborative program with the University of
Alaska Fairbanks Co-op Extension. She relayed that the low risk
foods which did not support the growth of dangerous bacteria
included bake goods, political fundraisers, and pickled
vegetables, and were exempt from permits and inspections.
2:16:12 PM
MS. FLOYD referenced the picture labeled "Germ City" on slide 22
and described this interactive science based program which
illustrated the importance of hand washing and food borne
illness.
MS. FLOYD moved on to slides 24-25, "State Veterinarian," and
said they had 5 employees in 2 offices, which were responsible
for permitting, inspection, and technical assistance to dairy
and livestock producers. They also permitted and monitored the
movement of animals and animal biological products, including
vaccines. They responded to animal health emergencies, and
collected fish samples to evaluate for contaminants.
2:19:24 PM
MS. FLOYD commented on slides 26-27, "Successes and Challenges,"
and said that the State Veterinarian had maintained disease-free
status for Alaska, allowed easy international and interstate
animal transport, and helped commercial and private animal
owners keep animals healthy. She pointed out that the new dairy
processing facility in the Matanuska Valley had been permitted.
MS. FLOYD furnished slide 29, "Environmental Health Laboratory,"
and reported that the laboratory had 23 employees at its one
location. She detailed that it certified 88 private
laboratories to perform compliance and regulatory testing for
drinking water, contaminated sites, and dairy. The laboratory
also provided more than 60,000 testing processes on a variety of
things, including air filter contaminant monitoring and animal
health. She reported that, although there were only three
federal agencies to be directly responsible to, there were seven
separate federal programs for certification.
MS. FLOYD indicated slide 30, "Successes and Challenges," and
confirmed that in-state testing avoided time delays and the cost
of shipping, and offered services that were not provided by the
private sector. She explained the five year grant that would
bring the laboratory to the international standards for food
testing.
2:21:43 PM
MS. FLOYD concluded her PowerPoint with slides 31-33, "Tsunami
Marine Debris," and reported that the governor had designated
DEC as the lead agency for coordinating "the multi-agency effort
related to tsunami generated marine debris. We are seeing large
quantities of debris that we haven't seen before in this state."
She expressed concern for the potential toxicity of the
components, the smothering of sensitive habitats, and the
effects of styrofoam on marine and terrestrial life. She
announced that a recent aerial survey had produced more than
8,000 pictures on 2,000 miles of Alaska coastline, and that each
picture had been graded for debris density and type of debris.
She declared that this confirmed there was more debris than
originally forecast, and it demonstrated a significant need for
funding. She reported that the $5 million allocation from the
government of Japan would be distributed, after a small initial
allotment to five states and two territories, by the National
Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) on a needs basis,
which would be better for Alaska.
2:24:17 PM
CO-CHAIR SADDLER asked about if there were any air quality
issues with burning styrofoam on the beach.
MS. FLOYD replied that burning styrofoam was not allowed, as it
was bad for the air.
2:24:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked where was the most prevalent
tsunami debris, and if any radioactivity had been detected.
MS. FLOYD replied that no radioactivity had been detected in any
of the debris. She reported the greatest prevalence to be in
the Gulf of Alaska and Southeast Alaska.
2:25:41 PM
MS. FLOYD, in response to Representative P. Wilson, confirmed
that the remaining inspections would be completed first, and, as
the division worked with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), all the inspections would be covered.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked about the waiting period for
tuberculosis and blood tests for reindeer.
MS. FLOYD said that she would report back with the answer.
2:27:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked if fish had been tested for
radioactivity from the tsunami debris.
MS. FLOYD replied that there was not any evidence of
radioactivity in fish in Alaska.
2:28:05 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked if pesticides and herbicides were regulated
together.
MS. FLOYD confirmed this.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE asked about a list of herbicides approved for use
in Alaska, and inquired about the process to add herbicides to
the approved list.
MS. FLOYD replied that she would find this information.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE suggested, as the same testing was used in other
states, to adopt the approved list from these other states.
2:29:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR shared that the chemical manufacturers had
to apply to be added to the approved list, and, as Alaska had a
low sales volume, the manufacturers had chosen not to apply.
She asked if any of the landfills were being monitored for off
gassing. She then asked how many additional staff would be
required to do an annual food inspection on each of the
facilities.
MS. FLOYD replied that she would report back about the off gas
in the land fill. She shared that the division would need a
significant number of inspectors; however, they were working to
better streamline, and make do with the current inspectors.
2:31:18 PM
LARRY DIETRICK, Director, Division of Spill Prevention &
Response, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), shared
that the "Mission," slide 2, of the Spill Prevention and
Response (SPAR) program was to "protect public health and the
environment through prevention, preparedness, and response to
oil and hazardous substance releases.
MR. DIETRICK moved on to slide 3, which he described as a
continuum of the overall responsibilities, including prevention,
preparedness, response, and contaminated sites cleanup.
2:32:45 PM
MR. DIETRICK explained slide 4, "Organization," and stated that
there were four programs in the division, structured to meet
each of the aforementioned responsibilities.
MR. DIETRICK observed that the program senior leadership, the
director and the four program managers, had 159 collective years
of experience, slide 5, Qualifications."
MR. DIETRICK indicated slide 6, "Prevention and Emergency
Response Program Mission," and said that this program actually
responded to releases of oil and hazardous substances, as well
as dealing with the cleanup, the mitigation of impact, and the
restoration of damaged resources.
2:33:54 PM
MR. DIETRICK shared slide 7, "Total Number of Spills by Fiscal
Year," observing that there had been a downward trend over the
last three years.
MR. DIETRICK disclosed that diesel was the biggest spill
product, followed by aviation fuel, gasoline, and hydraulic oil,
slide 8, "Volume Released by Product." He clarified that crude
oil was in the "Other" category, and its spill volume was low.
MR. DIETRICK explained that the program did emergency response,
managed the statewide Hazmat response, conducted drills and
exercises, prepared the government oil spill response plans,
maintained local spill response agreements for first response
capability, and coordinated the disaster response by DEC, slide
9, "Responsibilities."
2:35:07 PM
MR. DIETRICK indicated slide 10, "Emergency Response Team
Areas," and noted that there were three response teams:
Northern Alaska, Central Alaska, and Southeast Alaska.
MR. DIETRICK reported on slide 11, "Statewide Hazmat Response
Teams," that this team had been started in 1997 and was capable
of dealing with worst case releases. It was now comprised of
more than 26 organizations in Alaska, including military,
civilian, and fire service, and the team had standardized
protocols.
MR. DIETRICK pointed to slide 12, "Oil Spill Response Plans,"
which reflected the structure to unify the federal and state
response plans with the industry contingency plans.
MR. DIETRICK commented on slide 13, "Local Spill Response
Agreements and Equipment," which mapped the remote locations for
pre-positioned equipment and response agreements, in order to
facilitate local knowledge and resource for an immediate
response.
2:37:13 PM
MR. DIETRICK commented on slide 14, "Activities," and shared
that the program had 821 responses out of 1,888 reported spills,
with 23 significant oil and hazardous substance spills. He
noted that were also vessel risk assessments for Cook Inlet and
the Aleutians, as well as preparedness for Arctic offshore
drilling and Arctic shipping. Slide 15, "Alaska's Ocean Area,"
depicted a map identifying the ocean response program area
compared to the ocean area for the continental United States.
MR. DIETRICK analyzed slide 16, "Shipping Regions," and pointed
out that maritime incidents were a big risk in Alaska, as much
of the maritime traffic did not comply with U.S. requirements
and therefore, did not have the capability to respond.
2:40:06 PM
MR. DIETRICK said that the operational conditions, logistics,
risks, and expectations were detailed on slide 17, "Response
Challenges."
MR. DIETRICK declared that the SPAR program was working on a
conceptual vessel rescue system because of the maritime risks,
as the components were shown on slide 19, "Alaska Vessel Rescue
System." He explained that the loss of power often lead to
drift groundings and spills, so the state now had emergency
towing systems, and was designating places of refuge with
mooring buoys.
2:42:16 PM
MR. DIETRICK moved on to the "Industry Preparedness Program,"
slide 22, and explained that this program ensured that
producers, transporters, and distributors of oil prevented
spills, and were prepared materially and financially to clean
them up. He explained that slide 23, "Oil Production, Storage
and Transportation Infrastructure," was a schematic of the
regulated oil community.
MR. DIETRICK remarked that, as pipelines were about 80 percent
of the oil and gas infrastructure, the state now reviewed and
regulated the flow lines as they were the highest risk of the
pipeline, slide 24, "Pipelines of Interest."
MR. DIETRICK commented on slide 26, "Spills at Regulated versus
Unregulated Facilities," stating that unregulated facilities
caused 73 percent of the spills, which he declared to be an
indicator of the industry performance in Alaska. He declared
that the responsibilities of the "Industry Preparedness," slide
27, included oil spill contingency plans, inspections, spill
drills, review of the best technology, and approval for
financial responsibility.
2:44:28 PM
MR. DIETRICK explained that there were six oil spill
cooperatives, slide 29.
MR. DIETRICK, directing attention to slide 30 "Offshore
Drilling," opined that there would be new federal regulations to
apply for offshore drilling.
MR. DIETRICK shared that the Industry Preparedness program had
633 contingency plan actions in the last year, and he mentioned
the Pipeline Leak Detection Technology conference, slide 31,
"Activities."
MR. DIETRICK said that frozen pipelines and old technology were
some of the problems with an "Aging Infrastructure," slide 32.
MR. DIETRICK moved on to slide 33, "Contaminated Sites Program,"
and declared that its mission included "assessment, clean up,
monitoring and redevelopment of contaminated sites." He
analyzed the graph on slide 34, "Open versus Closed Sites,"
noting that many were legacy sites.
2:46:13 PM
MR. DIETRICK explained slide 35, "Spills to Land and Water,"
which graphed the relative numbers of each, and he said that
many spills which become subsurface then became project
management in the later clean ups. He cited that 97 percent of
contamination, including mining, logging, fuel storage, and
leaky underground storage tanks was from activity at legacy
sites, slide 37, "Legacy of Contamination."
MR. DIETRICK said that 50 percent of the contaminated sites were
owned by the federal government, either civilian or military, 33
percent were private, and the remainder was owned by state and
local governments, slide 38, "Contaminate Type and Ownership."
He clarified that the federal civilian agencies, as well as the
Department of Defense, managed cleanup programs in Alaska, as
shown on slide 39, "Federal Facilities."
MR. DIETRICK moved on to slide 40, "Responsibilities," and
declared that the programs had established standards, used risk
based cleanups, and were responsible for site management, with
clean up to the site and, if necessary, the area. He mentioned
the focus on reuse and redevelopment of the sites, noting that
some of the "big box" stores in Fairbanks were built over
previously contaminated sites.
2:48:20 PM
MR. DIETRICK explained slide 41, "Risk Continuum," and said that
the subsurface contaminated sites often did not pose as acute a
public health problem, instead posing a chronic ecological risk,
or a risk to natural resources. He described that it was
necessary to first find the contamination, then find its pathway
to the environment or the public health, before you could sever
that pathway and provide protection, if it was technically or
economically not possible to clean up the site, slide 42,
"Exposure Pathways."
MR. DIETRICK offered slide 44, "Contaminated Sites Activities,"
and noted that the program had taken action at more than 1200
sites, and risk reduction measures had been implemented at 154
sites.
MR. DIETRICK described that the response fund was managed on a
sustainable basis as intended by statute, which included cost
recovery and contract management, slides 47-48, "Response Fund
Administration."
2:50:56 PM
MR. DIETRICK spoke about slide 50, "Activities," and shared that
there were $4.2 million in state contracts to private companies
for cleanup. He expanded that there were 11 term contracts in
place and 100 notices to proceed during the past year with
private contractors.
MR. DIETRICK concluded his PowerPoint presentation with slide
51, "SPAR Initiatives," and reported on some of the highlights
of the previous year for the division, which included
participation in the Arctic Council that resulted in a mutual
response agreement for the Arctic among eight Arctic nations.
He added that the division had participated in the incident
review for the Gulf of Mexico spill, and was conducting risk
assessments in four Arctic areas.
2:53:05 PM
MICHELLE BONNET HALE, Director, Division of Water, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), directed attention to slide 1,
"Mission," and stated that the mission of the division was to:
"protect water quality and assist communities in improving
sanitation conditions." She pointed out that her division did
everything with water, except regulate drinking water or deal
with water quantity and water rights. She moved on to slide 3,
"Division Structure," and explained that the division had two
main parts, the Facilities and the Water Quality.
2:55:33 PM
MS. BONNET HALE pointed to slide 9, "Village Safe Water (VSW),"
and stated that the VSW program also built facilities and
provided grants to communities for planning, design, and
construction.
MS. BONNET HALE reported that funding sources included EPA and
the state, with federal funding shares of 75 percent and the
state funding of 25 percent, slide 10, "VSW-Funding Sources."
She noted that currently there were grants totaling $40 million
each year. She pointed to a growing gap in the availability of
funding and the actual cost of the projects.
2:56:34 PM
MS. BONNET HALE, in response to Co-Chair Saddler, said that she
was unsure if the grant total was for total federal dollars or
the total dollars, and she offered to research this.
MS. BONNET HALE spoke about slide 11, "VSW Projects," saying
that an important aspect to the grants were for the job training
and hiring on the projects. She pointed out the graph on slide
12, "VSW- Key Issues," which illustrated the widening gap
between funding and need, currently about $667 million.
2:57:32 PM
MS. BONNET HALE indicated slide 13, "Operations Assistance,"
explaining that this program ensured that the operators of the
drinking water and sewer waste treatment systems were trained
and certified. She mentioned slides 14-16, "Remote Maintenance
Worker Program," explaining that this program brought workers to
the communities to support and train local workers. She briefly
mentioned the remote monitoring pilot, which allowed internet
connection to monitor treatment plants in remote communities.
She presented a list of communities throughout Alaska where the
division had supplied emergency response during 2012.
2:59:13 PM
MS. BONNET HALE explained that there were four major water
quality programs, including cruise ship, wastewater discharge,
water quality standards, and compliance, "Division of Water
Programs," slide 17.
MS. BONNET HALE presented slide 18, "Core Services," and listed
the core services to include: establish water quality
standards, and then use those standards to assess the quality of
water and to issue permits and set limits. She explained that
there was also a compliance assistance program.
2:59:55 PM
MS. BONNET HALE listed the four major components of the cruise
ship program to be: ocean rangers, air emissions, wastewater
permits, and the science advisory panel, slide 19, "Cruise
Ships." She furnished slide 20, "Ocean Rangers," and observed
that ocean rangers were on 88 percent of the voyages in 2012,
submitting more than 1,500 total reports. She announced that
there was an emphasis on hiring Alaskan ocean rangers, and in
2012, 7 of the 21 ocean rangers were Alaskans.
MS. BONNET HALE moved on to slide 21, "Science Advisory Panel,"
and shared that the eleven member panel was established in 2009,
and that it reviewed the effectiveness of current and new
treatment technologies.
3:01:03 PM
MS. BONNET HALE explained slides 22-25, "Wastewater Discharge
Permitting," and stated that any discharge of wastewater in the
state required a permit. She noted that the primary permittees
were industry and domestic wastewater treatment plants. She
expressed pride in the Alaska Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System program for which full primacy had been assumed from the
EPA, although the EPA retained its oversight for the program.
She said that almost 1,300 general permit authorizations were
issued in 2012. She reported that an online application system
had been in place for six years, which added to the permitting
efficiency. She noted that the construction general permit
could also be applied for online.
3:03:14 PM
MS. BONNET HALE commented on slide 26, "Water Quality
Standards," and shared that the standards were developed by DEC
and approved by EPA. She stated that the water quality
standards were used to assess and evaluate the health of the
water and to establish discharge limits in permits. She pointed
out that these were routinely reviewed and updated.
MS. BONNET HALE declared that baseline water quality monitoring
for marine and freshwater, and targeted assessment were part of
the "Water Quality Assessment," slide 27.
MS. BONNET HALE presented slide 28, "Water Quality Restoration,"
and praised the Alaska Clean Water Actions grant program for
monitoring, for local ordinances, and for restoration and
education projects.
MS. BONNET HALE assessed slide 29, "Compliance," noting that the
facilities self-reported, and then the division reviewed the
data. The division would inspect the facilities for permit
compliance, as well as site construction and storm water sites.
She explained that the enforcement policy would escalate,
becoming more stringent as warranted. She pointed out that
there were 154 DEC inspections, with 24 notices of violation in
2012, slide 30, "DEC Inspections."
3:06:01 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:06 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| AQ Division Overview FINAL.pdf |
HRES 1/23/2013 1:00:00 PM |
|
| EH Overview (H) RES FINAL.pdf |
HRES 1/23/2013 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Water Overview (H) RES FINAL.pdf |
HRES 1/23/2013 1:00:00 PM |
|
| SPAR Division Overview FINAL.pdf |
HRES 1/23/2013 1:00:00 PM |