Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
05/10/2019 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB91 | |
| HB116 | |
| Presentation(s): Understanding the Effects of Pfas (per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances) Contamination in Alaskan Municipalities | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 116 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
May 10, 2019
1:02 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Lincoln, Co-Chair
Representative Geran Tarr, Co-Chair
Representative Grier Hopkins, Vice Chair
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Dave Talerico
Representative George Rauscher
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Sara Rasmussen
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 91(FIN)
"An Act relating to the development and operation of a
hydroelectric site at the Nuyakuk River Falls; providing for the
amendment of the management plan for the Wood-Tikchik State
Park; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSSB 91(FIN) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 116
"An Act relating to the renewal or extension of site leases for
aquatic farming and aquatic plant and shellfish hatchery
operations."
- MOVED SSHB 116 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PRESENTATION(S): UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTS OF PFAS (PER- AND
POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES) CONTAMINATION IN ALASKAN
MUNICIPALITIES
- HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 91
SHORT TITLE: NUYAKUK RIVER: HYDROELECTRIC SITE
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) HOFFMAN
03/15/19 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/15/19 (S) RES, FIN
04/05/19 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/05/19 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/15/19 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/15/19 (S) Heard & Held
04/15/19 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/22/19 (S) RES RPT 3DP 2NR
04/22/19 (S) DP: BIRCH, KIEHL, COGHILL
04/22/19 (S) NR: REINBOLD, KAWASAKI
04/22/19 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
04/22/19 (S) Moved SB 91 Out of Committee
04/22/19 (S) MINUTE(RES)
04/30/19 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
04/30/19 (S) Heard & Held
04/30/19 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
05/06/19 (S) FIN RPT CS 3DP 4NR SAME TITLE
05/06/19 (S) DP: STEDMAN, HOFFMAN, BISHOP
05/06/19 (S) NR: VON IMHOF, MICCICHE, SHOWER, WILSON
05/06/19 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
05/06/19 (S) Moved CSSB 91(FIN) Out of Committee
05/06/19 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
05/07/19 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
05/07/19 (S) VERSION: CSSB 91(FIN)
05/08/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/08/19 (H) RES
05/08/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/08/19 (H) Heard & Held
05/08/19 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/10/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 116
SHORT TITLE: AQUATIC FARM/HATCHERY SITE LEASES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) STORY
03/27/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/27/19 (H) FSH, RES
04/12/19 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
04/12/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/12/19 (H) FSH, RES
04/16/19 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/16/19 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/23/19 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/23/19 (H) Heard & Held
04/23/19 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/25/19 (H) FSH AT 10:00 AM GRUENBERG 120
04/25/19 (H) Moved SSHB 116 Out of Committee
04/25/19 (H) MINUTE(FSH)
04/26/19 (H) FSH RPT 7DP
04/26/19 (H) DP: TARR, VANCE, KOPP, EDGMON, NEUMAN,
KREISS-TOMKINS, STUTES
05/03/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/03/19 (H) Heard & Held
05/03/19 (H) MINUTE(RES)
05/06/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
05/06/19 (H) Scheduled but Not Heard
05/10/19 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ROBERT HIMSCHOOT, CEO/General Manager
Nushagak Cooperative
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation titled
"Nuyakuk Hydroelectric, Hydropower for Bristol Bay," and
testified in support of CSSB 91(FIN).
CORY WARNOCK, Senior Licensing and Regulatory Consultant
McMillen Jacobs Associates
Ferndale, Washington
POSITION STATEMENT: Representing Nushagak Cooperative, provided
information regarding the federal regulatory process during the
hearing on CSSB 91(FIN).
CHRISTINE O'CONNOR, Executive Director
Alaska Telecom Association (ATA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of CSSB 91(FIN).
RICKY GEASE, Director
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to CSSB 91(FIN).
REPRESENTATIVE ANDI STORY
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Speaking as the sponsor of SSHB 116,
reviewed aspects of the bill.
GREG SMITH, Staff
Representative Andi Story
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Story, sponsor
of SSHB 116, answered questions regarding the bill.
CHRISTY COLLES, Operations Manager
Central Office
Division of Mining, Land and Water
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SSHB 116.
META MESDAG, Owner
Salty Lady Seafood Company
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 116.
MARGO REVEIL, President
Alaska Shellfish Growers Association
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 116.
NANCY HILLSTRAND
Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries Inc.
Homer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed her concerns with SSHB 116 and
suggested the inclusion of certain definitions.
VICKI JO KENNEDY
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in regard to SSHB 116.
HERMAN MORGAN
Aniak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing of SSHB 116, testified
on salmon hatcheries, a topic not included in the bill.
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney
Legislative Legal Counsel
Legislative Legal Services
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions related to SSHB 116.
JASON BRUNE, Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation titled
"State Response to PFAS," dated 5/10/19, and answered questions.
DENISE KOCH, Director
Division of Spill Prevention and Response (SPAR)
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the PowerPoint
presentation titled "State Response to PFAS," dated 5/10/19.
BRYCE WARD, Mayor
Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation titled
"PFCs in the FNSB," dated 5/10/19, and answered questions.
CALVIN CASIPIT, Mayor
City of Gustavus
Gustavus, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentation on per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination.
TOM WILLIAMS, City Administrator
City of Gustavus
Gustavus, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentation on per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination and answered
a question.
KELLY MCLAUGHLIN, Chair
Gustavus PFAS Action Coalition (GPAC)
Gustavus, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the presentation on per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination and answered
questions.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:02:38 PM
CO-CHAIR GERAN TARR called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. Representatives Tuck,
Hannan, Talerico, Spohnholz, Rauscher, Hopkins, Lincoln, and
Tarr were present at the call to order.
SB 91-NUYAKUK RIVER: HYDROELECTRIC SITE
1:03:27 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 91(FIN), "An Act relating to the
development and operation of a hydroelectric site at the Nuyakuk
River Falls; providing for the amendment of the management plan
for the Wood-Tikchik State Park; and providing for an effective
date."
CO-CHAIR TARR opened invited testimony on CSSB 91(FIN).
1:04:03 PM
ROBERT HIMSCHOOT, CEO/General Manager, Nushagak Cooperative,
provided a PowerPoint presentation titled "Nuyakuk
Hydroelectric, Hydropower for Bristol Bay." Turning to slide 2,
he said the [proposed] location offers some natural advantages
for hydroelectric production. He noted that the glacial moraine
that creates the lake systems of the Tikchik drains all five
lakes across that glacial moraine. He explained that the lake
is a natural sediment sink, that there is about 40 feet of head
across 2500 feet of river for a diversion project, and that the
2500 feet of river is in an oxbow configuration, which allows
for running a 1500-foot penstock.
MR. HIMSCHOOT moved to slide 3 and stated that since 1953 the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has had a flow-monitoring gauge on
the river just above the proposed hydro site. He reported that
evaluation of these 60 years of flow data shows that 4.5
megawatts of power could still be made during the low three
months of the low three years, using less than 25 percent of the
flow; and during the summer considerably greater than 10
megawatts could be made. He further reported that the power
curve from this projected production matches the load dynamics
in Bristol Bay very well. Loads considerably peak in the summer
with salmon production, he explained, so being able to use a
consistent amount of the flow using the same dynamics would
produce power when it is needed the most as well as produce
enough power in the winter. He said the projection from this
curve is that the diesels can be turned off 24/7/365 in the
communities of Dillingham, Aleknagik, Koliganek, Stuyahok,
Ekwok, and Levelock. Other than during maintenance periods or
outages, he added, diesel power production would be completely
replaced by hydropower. He further pointed out that if the
actual study confirms the current projections, there is the
potential to also include Naknek, South Naknek, and King Salmon.
He specified that the diesel displacement projection for the
first subset of communities is 1.5 million gallons a year and if
the second subset is able to be included it will be 2.9 million
gallons a year.
MR. HIMSCHOOT displayed slide 4 and described how the power
plant facility would look on the river. He said 1,500 feet of
penstock would divert a portion of the flow across 2,500 feet of
river, so only 2,500 feet would be affected. He offered the
cooperative's belief that this project can be done with very
minimal impact to the viewshed and stated the studies will show
how much impact there would be to the natural environment. He
stated that while there is a considerable amount of data, modern
geographical information system (GIS) data would help quite a
bit in evaluation. The process requires that a considerable
amount of studying be done to be able to get an operating
license, he explained, and that is the point at which the
cooperative is right now. He said the cooperative has gone as
far as it can without getting in there and doing the physical
studies that will actually define whether the project is
feasible.
1:09:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK observed the statement on slide 4, "Affected
water flow 3000 feet from the top of the falls to the bottom".
He inquired whether this is referring to a vertical or diagonal
drop of 3,000 feet.
MR. HIMSCHOOT replied that until there is the actual design [the
estimate is] 3,000 feet or 2,500 feet of longitudinal, not
vertical. That is the actual river flow, he clarified, and the
penstock, the pipeline that is put in there, is expected to be
closer to 1,500 feet.
1:10:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked how many miles of transmission line
would need to be built to get power to the different villages.
MR. HIMSCHOOT responded it would be 130-150 [miles], depending
on whether Naknek, South Naknek, and King Salmon are able to
benefit from the project as well.
1:10:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked how many people would be covered by
the project.
MR. HIMSCHOOT answered it would be between 3,500 and 4,500
people, depending on the scope of the project.
1:11:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted the bill just gives the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game (ADF&G) the authority to amend the management plan for
Wood-Tikchik State Park so that the appropriate permitting can
go forward. She asked how much the project is going to cost and
how long it will take to construct.
MR. HIMSCHOOT replied that the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) is the permitting authority for anything over
five megawatts on an operating license. He stated this would
just allow the cooperative to get in there and follow the FERC
procedures and do the studies that will be necessary to that
process. The estimate right now, he continued, is $120-$150
million to construct the project. He said much of that would be
defined by the studies and if the studies show it is a viable
project, then the design that follows the studies if the
cooperative can acquire an operating permit.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired how long the FERC process is
anticipated to take to get to a project that can be permitted.
MR. HIMSCHOOT responded that the studies themselves are expected
to take three years. He said the FERC process allows a three-
year window, which the cooperative is one year into right now.
As long as progress is being made, he continued, the FERC
process also allows a two-year extension. He related that the
cooperative expects it will need that extension and that
sometime between now and four years from now the study will be
completed. Once the studies are completed, he stated, there is
roughly one year for engineering and design and then hopefully a
two-year build process to bring this into production. So, he
added, if everything goes according to plan it is about a six-
year process from here.
1:13:38 PM
MR. HIMSCHOOT related that the Nushagak Cooperative started this
process in late 2017 and since then the cooperative has done
more than 70 meetings and presentations to build the social
license and support for the project that the cooperative knows
it will need in the region. Even though Nushagak Cooperative is
the entity that will be doing the studies here, he said, the
cooperative understands fully that this is a regional impact and
regional benefit and is doing everything it can to involve the
region. He pointed out that the substitute language seen in the
bill was part of that process. He explained that as the bill
entered the legislative process, the cooperative found some
local opposition to language in the bill. But, he continued,
the cooperative was able to bring everybody together through a
series of meetings and to come up with some additional language
that continues to build that needed local support and does not
materially affect the cooperative's ability to do the studies
that are needed.
MR. HIMSCHOOT addressed the [$20,000] fiscal note accompanying
the bill. He stated the cooperative has agreed to reimburse DNR
for its actual costs, estimated to be $20,000, to update the
management plan should the bill pass. That has several benefits
for the project as well as the bill, he added, which is why the
cooperative engaged in that process.
1:15:21 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR pointed out that before the committee is the
Senate-passed version, CSSB 91(FIN). She noted that the House
companion bill, HB 99, has the same original language as the
original Senate bill. She explained the original bill version
only added the Nuyakuk River Falls into existing statute as an
area where this activity could take place. She said more
specific restrictions would be added into statute by the amended
version, [CSSB 91 (FIN), page 1, lines 6-12], which read:
(e) The development and operation of a
hydroelectric site at the Nuyakuk River Falls is a
compatible use if the development and operation
(1) does not include a dam that full spans a
river;
(2) maintains at least 70 percent of the
daily upstream water flow of an affected river along
the natural course of the river; and
(3) after July 1, 2024, is licensed by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
1:17:00 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on CSSB 91(FIN).
1:17:13 PM
CORY WARNOCK, Senior Licensing and Regulatory Consultant,
McMillen Jacobs Associates, testified he is representing the
Nushagak Cooperative regarding the regulatory side of things.
He related that in the past concern has been raised about this
bill somehow expediting the overall licensing process associated
with this project. Responding to Co-Chair Tarr, he provided
more details related to the FERC regulatory process. He said it
isn't a unique issue for park plans to be inconsistent with, or
incompatible with, the use of a hydroelectric project. What is
unique, he continued, is some of the concern that has been
raised. But, he stated, the reality is that the FERC regulatory
process is going to drive this overall licensing. All this bill
will allow, he advised, is for the Nushagak Cooperative to
actually conduct the requisite natural resource and engineering
studies required to determine whether this project is actually
feasible to construct and operate. The federal process will
trump anything else, he added, and if in four or five years the
natural resource and engineering studies show that this project
can't be built because of fish impacts, or flow impacts, or
other issues, Nushagak Cooperative has no intention of pushing
it through, nor could it. Things are at the infancy of this
overall federal process, he explained, and this is just the
light switch to allow that process to continue.
1:19:26 PM
CHRISTINE O'CONNOR, Executive Director, Alaska Telecom
Association (ATA), stated her personal support for CSSB 91(FIN)
and noted she is a former board member and a current customer of
Nushagak Cooperative. Speaking as a long-time former resident
of the region, she said the high cost of energy is a significant
economic drag on quality of life and therefore this project is
very exciting.
MS. O'CONNOR testified that ATA supports the bill because it has
a broadband component. She explained that, should the studies
prove it feasible to go forward, the infrastructure that would
eventually accompany the project would allow broadband fiber to
be deployed, which would also be a benefit to the region.
1:20:48 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR closed public testimony on CSSB 91(FIN) after
ascertaining that no one else wished to testify.
CO-CHAIR TARR requested Mr. Gease of the Division of Parks &
Outdoor Recreation to confirm that DNR anticipates entering into
a funding agreement with the project proponent under which DNR
would collect approximately $20,000 in receipts from the
proponent to cover costs incurred to revise the park management
plan and department regulations using the division's existing
receipt authority.
1:21:29 PM
RICKY GEASE, Director, Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation,
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), confirmed Co-Chair Tarr's
statement is correct and accurate. He said the division would
follow that process moving forward.
1:21:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted that the original version of the
bill listed two lakes, but now [the bill as amended] only
considers a project that would be on the Nuyakuk River Falls.
She inquired whether Lake Elva and Grant Lake are both in Wood-
Tikchik State Park.
MR. GEASE offered his belief that hydro studies were done on
those lakes in the past, but that they proved to be not feasible
"and so this would be including this area to be a not
incompatible use with park purposes."
CO-CHAIR TARR stated, "They had previously tried and so the
original bill was just going to add the new location so that
they were all in that same section, but then I guess from the
community input, have further revised that."
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN explained she is looking to see whether
those lakes were removed because of engineering infeasibility or
because of community response that a project was not wanted in
those lakes.
1:22:55 PM
MR. HIMSCHOOT responded that Nushagak Cooperative was granted
funding in 2009 to study Lake Elva and Grant Lake and the
studies were completed in 2012. There was potential for hydro
production, he said, but the amount that could be produced for
the cost of the project didn't allow the project to move forward
as it wasn't responsible financially to move it forward. At
that point, he continued, Nushagak Cooperative declared the two
projects not feasible, returned the remainder of the grant
funding to Alaska Energy Authority (AEA), and even though the
lakes remain in the statutory language the study results are in
the park management plan as far as feasibility is concerned.
1:24:16 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN moved to report CSSB 91(FIN) out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, CSSB 91(FIN) was reported out
of the House Resources Standing Committee.
1:24:45 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:24 p.m. to 1:28 p.m.
HB 116-AQUATIC FARM/HATCHERY SITE LEASES
1:28:24 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the next order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 116, "An Act relating to
the renewal or extension of site leases for aquatic farming and
aquatic plant and shellfish hatchery operations."
1:28:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDI STORY, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
SSHB 116, stated that the bill seeks to simplify the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) lease renewal process for aquatic
farms. Enactment of the bill, she said, would help Alaska-based
aquaculture businesses succeed by expediting the renewal process
and reducing risk for businesses that make significant capital
investments. She further stated that the bill would reduce the
workload on an overstretched state agency, while still allowing
appropriate regulatory oversight, public engagement, and appeals
of DNR's decision.
1:29:51 PM
GREG SMITH, Staff, Representative Andi Story, Alaska State
Legislature, directed attention to a DNR document included in
the committee packet that answers the committee's questions from
the bill's previous hearing. Regarding the question about how
many aquatic farm lease renewals are approved by DNR each year,
he said the document states zero in 2014, seven in 2015, ten in
2016, one in 2017, and zero in 2018 with twelve applications
submitted. He offered his understanding that a number of lease
renewal applications were submitted in 2017 that have not yet
been approved due to the amount of work in the division.
Regarding the question about the range in sizes of aquatic farm
leases, Mr. Smith said the document states the range is from
less than one acre on up to 127 acres of state-owned tide and
submerged lands. Regarding the question of whether the director
would have the authority to deny a lease renewal given that that
authority appears to be removed in Section 3 of the bill, he
said the document states that a director "may" renew or "may
not renew a lease under AS 38.05.070(e). Regarding the
questions on salmon hatcheries that have DNR general leases, he
said the document states yes, there are some. Regarding the
length of salmon hatchery leases, he said the document states
that there is a 25-year lease and a 30-year lease.
MR. SMITH continued speaking from the DNR document and noted
there was a question about the length of aquatic farm leases and
said that under regulation those are 10-year leases. Regarding
questions about what DNR is able to do during the lease term, at
renewal, and if there are violations of the lease terms, he said
it appears from the document that DNR is able to deny, revoke,
or rescind a lease during the lease term; change terms of the
lease at renewal, both under the current renewal process and
under the optional expedited renewal process under AS
38.05.070(e); and DNR is able to take action on a lease if there
is a violation of the lease's terms. Regarding the question on
the types of changes that would trigger a new lease application,
Mr. Smith said the document states that changes to the lease's
footprint or size, or changes to the lease's use, would trigger
a new lease application.
1:33:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN drew attention to the number of aquatic
farm lease renewals each year. She surmised that the sponsor's
interest in the issue stems from there being 12 applications
submitted in 2018 with none of them renewed. She asked whether
the sponsor has heard from the applicants and if that is what
motivated the bill. She further asked whether an aquatic farm
must abandon work on the site if DNR does not renew the lease in
a timely manner.
1:34:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY deferred to DNR to answer the question.
1:34:59 PM
CHRISTY COLLES, Operations Manager, Central Office, Division of
Mining, Land and Water, Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
responded that the division is working through them, so they do
not have an authorization, but the division also knows that it
is due to the workload and is no fault of the applicants. She
said it is a situation that neither the division nor the
applicant likes, but the division must go through the process
before it can say whether the applicant can continue to operate.
The applications are being worked on, she continued, but are not
completed yet.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked what staffing levels are needed for
this work to be completed in a timely fashion. She further
asked whether DNR's operating budget for 2020 meets that
operational need.
MS. COLLES answered she doesn't feel comfortable giving those
numbers. She said she doesn't know exactly what type of
staffing would be needed and she hasn't seen the numbers that
have been given for the operational budget in 2020.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked what the staffing capacity was in
2016 as compared to 2018.
MS. COLLES replied [the division] supports the governor's budget
at this point. She said the 2018 staffing level is the same as
it was in 2016.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN interpreted Ms. Colles' answer as being
that in 2016 the staffing level that could complete 12 renewal
applications is the same staffing level that in 2018 was unable
to complete any applications.
MS. COLLES responded yes, but explained that the reason it has
changed is because the division has more new applications coming
in. In 2016, she continued, the division did not have the level
of interest in the industry as there is now, and that is why it
is more difficult for staff to adjudicate these renewal
applications.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked how many applications for new
mariculture and shellfish permits were received in 2018.
MS. COLLES offered her belief that there was 14-16 [new
applications] in 2018.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether most of the applications
were completed that year.
MS. COLLES answered that the division was unable to complete all
of the applications and get them to issuance. She said she
could not recall the exact number of how many were issued.
1:38:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked what the fate of the applications
is now.
MS. COLLES replied the division is continuing to work through
them; they are not put aside. She said the division has one
dedicated staff member and approximately five other staff
members, who also work on general leases, that are assisting
with the applications that are coming in for aquatic farming.
She stated that there are competing interests and projects for
time and while she won't say that they are not a priority, the
division is balancing those priorities.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether processing of the
applications will continue until they are finished, and that
time will not kill them.
MS. COLLES responded correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER related his understanding from speaking
with a former commissioner that sometimes the problem isn't lack
of funding, but rather the problem of filling [the position].
He allowed, however, that this has nothing to do with today's
discussions.
1:40:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LINCOLN asked whether the businesses that are
waiting for their leases to be renewed are able to continue
operating until the department addresses their renewal request.
MS. COLLES answered yes, [the applicants] are able to continue
their business.
1:41:02 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR opened invited testimony on SSHB 116.
1:41:13 PM
META MESDAG, Owner, Salty Lady Seafood Company, testified in
support of SSHB 116. She stated she is a board member of the
Alaska Shellfish Growers Association and that both she and the
association support the bill. She related that a year ago she
submitted documents for a lease transfer for a farm site in
Juneau, and it was just recently completed. She stated she
currently has oysters at her farm and is getting ready to seed
geoduck. Oysters take three years to become ready for market
and geoducks take up to seven, she specified. She pointed out
that her lease has five years left on it and she is not even
through all of the process for getting her site fully permitted.
During the next four years, she continued, [her renewal] will be
up for public comment three times and no revenue will be seen
from the geoduck before she has to start the leasing process all
over again.
MS. MESDAG said SSHB 116 would allow DNR to sign off one time on
the renewal of leases that are in good standing. She stated
this would improve efficiencies in the agencies regulating this
industry and would provide assurances for farmers wanting to
enter the industry. This easy solution, she continued, would
grant the director the authority to renew leases that are in the
state's best interest.
MS. MESDAG pointed out that making changes to her lease takes
years. She explained she has a parcel that is supposed to be
for a hardening beach, but that it needs to be moved because
it's not the right substrate. However, she continued, that move
is going to take years, which means she is paying for property
that she cannot actually utilize and the only reason is because
the state is so backlogged that it cannot process new leases or
transfers in a timely manner and in a way that makes it an
industry thas easy for people to invest in.
1:43:40 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on SSHB 116.
1:43:51 PM
MARGO REVEIL, President, Alaska Shellfish Growers Association,
testified in support of SSHB 116. She said she owns a farm and
that both her farm and the association support the bill. She
stated the association successfully worked to develop the
industry, with sales doubling in the last five years. But the
industry is still in its nascent stages, she continued, with
only $1.53 million in aquatic farm sales with 41 farms
reporting. Mariculture has tremendous potential to diversify
Alaska's economy and build resiliency in the state's coastal
communities, she opined. She said SSHB 116 could alleviate the
permitting bottlenecks that are hampering growth and causing
lost revenue to the state. She stated that DNR currently
processes lease renewals every 10 years using the same
requirements as a new lease. She pointed out that this full
process is required even if the farm has been a responsible
steward of state water resources, has successfully met DNR's
commercial use requirements, and is not proposing major changes
to the lease.
MS. REVEIL stated that shellfish farming is a heavily regulated
industry with ample opportunity for agency and public input.
She said regulation of her own 24-acre farm in Kachemak Bay
includes the following: a DNR lease renewal every 10 years with
periodic inspections; an ADF&G 10-year operation permit with
periodic inspections and a development plan report that must be
filed annually; an ADF&G special area habitat permit that is
renewed annually; a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit that is
renewed every five years and includes a review by the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) quarterly inspections at the
farm's processing plant; annual inspection by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) for Vibrio vulnificus compliance [a
bacteria that can contaminate raw oysters]; and compliance with
all U.S. Coast Guard requirements. Ms. Reveil pointed out that
each of these agencies has its own mechanism for responding to
and processing public input. She further noted that a
significant part of her time is spent managing agency relations
for her small business.
MS. REVEIL stated that SSHB 116 is a modest bill that would
accomplish several positive changes: reduce workload for DNR
staff, make on-water leases more similar to land leases in terms
of process, prioritize DNR staff time in new farm lease
applications and managing DNR's program, and give more certainty
for existing farmers who have invested in site infrastructure
during the first 10-year lease; and slightly reduce [lease
renewal] application times. She acknowledged opposition has
been brought up regarding farm size and lack of public input,
but said new farm applications and second renewals retain the
extensive public input component where farm size and resource
sharing issues are addressed. She added that the bill would
just give DNR the ability to process a single lease renewal
faster if the lease is in good standing.
1:47:28 PM
NANCY HILLSTRAND, Pioneer Alaskan Fisheries Inc., noted her
company has been in business since 1964. She said her main
concern is the sponsor statement's [first line], which states:
"helping small, Alaska-based businesses." She asked whether
there is any way to define the meanings of "small" and "good
standing." She said her business helped the oyster growers
begin in Kachemak Bay in the early 1990s, but now problems are
being seen as some of the oyster growers want to expand and as
new oyster farmers come into the area because of the area's
residents and navigable waters. She recalled statements that
these leases should be aligned and standardized, but maintained
that there is a difference because these are navigable waters
belonging to the people of Alaska who are boating and fishing
the near-shore waters.
MS. HILLSTRAND stated that not all the scientific information is
on the table. For example, she said, there isn't a magnitude
included for salmon hatcheries, nor an on-off switch. She
maintained that the suspension and revocation statute hasn't
been utilized properly so some of the hatcheries continue even
though they aren't in compliance with their permits, which is
what makes her concerned about what "good standing" means. She
cautioned about the possibility of over capitalization and then
having to buy out the businesses. She said she is by no means
opposed to small farms being allowed to continue business, but
is concerned that as big industry starts to enter the people of
Alaska be allowed a good voice after 10 years for getting down
to any problems and finding solutions.
1:50:42 PM
VICKI JO KENNEDY told the story of her friends in Sterling who
invested $250,000 in a fisheries business that included smoked
salmon, processed fish, and shellfish. She said they were
controlled by four separate state entities and one federal
entity. She related that one agency would say it was okay to do
something and then the next one would say it wasn't, and after
almost three years her friends threw in the towel because it was
such a nightmare. She urged the committee to grow the state by
working with the people trying to have a business, to let them
get through their permitting in a timely manner, and to not let
so many entities be in charge such that people cannot figure out
what to do next.
1:52:38 PM
HERMAN MORGAN expressed his concern with salmon hatcheries. He
said the commercial fishermen in his area used to have a market
for their chum and red salmon, but the market was taken away
when the hatcheries came online and started overproducing. He
maintained the hatcheries are putting out too many fish and are
stressing the carrying capacity of the ocean. The hatcheries
are making it hard for people in his area to make a living, he
continued. He urged that salmon hatcheries be regulated.
CO-CHAIR TARR pointed out that SSHB 116 affects shellfish
hatcheries, not salmon hatcheries. She thanked Mr. Morgan for
his comments.
1:54:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN requested the legal definition of "good
standing" in the context of SSHB 116.
1:55:15 PM
ALPHEUS BULLARD, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel,
Legislative Legal Services, responded that when it applies to a
lease it means that there are no issues with the department, and
it would be up to the department to define what those could be
in this case.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether, because this is about lease
renewals, it could be presumed to mean that the applicant must
be in compliance with all the terms of the original lease to be
considered in good standing for this expedited lease renewal.
MR. BULLARD replied, "That seems a reasonable interpretation."
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN noted the term "small" doesn't actually
appear in SSHB 116. She inquired about the current sizes of
shellfish farms and whether the agencies define all those sizes
as being "small" leases.
1:56:55 PM
MS. COLLES answered that for authorized leases the range is from
less than one acre on up to 127 acres. She said most of the
farms are less than 30 acres and only one is above 30 acres - a
new farm that is 127 acres. She stated that the division is
seeing some larger farms come online in applications.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN inquired whether the 127-acre farm is a
corporate type structure, rather than a mom-and-pop structure,
for shellfish operation.
MS. COLLES replied it is hard to tell. She said a lot of these
companies come in with business licenses and sometimes they are
getting funding from an outside source, but the division doesn't
always know all the different factors of where their sourcing is
coming from. Therefore, she continued, she cannot say for sure
whether they are a mom-and-pop.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked whether there is a difference in the
division's application oversight based on the size of the
acreage that is being sought for a lease; in other words,
whether a 30-acre application is treated differently than an
application for 127 acres.
MS. COLLES responded that some regulations give different
consideration for larger farms taking up more than one-third of
a bay or cove. It isn't always the size being so much larger,
she explained, it is the size taking up a large area that makes
the division look closer at the application to consider a few
criteria that are listed in regulation. But, she added, she
wouldn't say the division treats them differently. A lot more
comments are received when the farms are larger, she noted. For
example, she related, recently a farm wanted to expand a couple
acres in Kachemak Bay, and since that requires public notice the
division got a lot of comments because it is in a well-populated
area and [the public] was concerned about navigation issues.
So, she continued, it really depends on the location.
2:00:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TALERICO addressed Section 3 of the bill, page 2,
lines 7-9, which state: "The commissioner, for good cause, may
deny an application an application for issuance [OR RENEWAL] of
a lease under this section but shall provide the applicant with
written findings that explain the reasons for the denial." He
said this language seems to mean that the only person who has
access to the written denial is the applicant. He asked whether
this would create an issue.
MR. BULLARD answered that this language would impose a duty on
the commissioner to provide an applicant with the written
findings that explain the reasons for the denial. He said there
isn't anything [in the language] that would limit who else might
see such a denial or that would make it confidential in any way.
CO-CHAIR TARR noted this particular reference is under the
responsibilities of the commissioner. She interpreted Mr.
Bullard to be saying it doesn't otherwise limit the commissioner
to providing this information to people in a nearby community.
MR. BULLARD replied that that "is a reasonable interpretation of
that phrase." He pointed out that the word "only" doesn't
appear on line 8 or line 9 or page 2, "it's just requiring the
commissioner to provide the applicant with those reasons."
2:02:45 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN moved to report SSHB 116, Version 31-LS0696\U,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, SSHB 116
was reported out of the House Resources Standing Committee.
^PRESENTATION(S): UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTS OF PFAS (PER- AND
POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES) CONTAMINATION IN ALASKAN
MUNICIPALITIES
PRESENTATION(S): UNDERSTANDING THE EFFECTS OF PFAS (PER- AND
POLYFLUOROALKYL SUBSTANCES) CONTAMINATION IN ALASKAN
MUNICIPALITIES
2:03:02 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the final order of business would
be presentations on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
contamination.
2:03:12 PM
JASON BRUNE, Commissioner, Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC), provided a PowerPoint presentation titled
"State Response to PFAS," dated 5/10/19. He thanked the
committee for its interest in the important issue of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and the impact, and potential
impact, of these substances on Alaskans. He turned to slide 2
and explained that these manmade compounds were developed by 3M
in 1949 and that their molecular structures make them extremely
effective in the products they are used in, as well as very
problematic for the environment and human health. He stated
that PFAS, [a class of 5,000 manmade chemicals], are water
soluble, toxic, and extremely persistent in the environment
because they do not break down and therefore bioaccumulate. The
two most studied, he noted, are perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS)
and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
COMMISSIONER BRUNE moved to slide 3 and stated PFAS are found in
a wide range of consumer, industrial, and commercial products,
including: Scotchguard, a product applied to furniture and
[carpets]; non-stick coatings, such as Teflon; containers,
clothing, and boots. He said PFAS provide stain, oil, and water
resistance.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE displayed slide 4 and pointed out that PFAS
are globally distributed. He explained PFAS are contained in
products that people use on a day-to-day basis and that they are
atmospherically transported on airborne particulates. Higher
PFAS levels are found in urban areas, he noted, and nearly all
U.S. residents have detectable PFAS in their blood. He said
PFAS has been found in polar bear blood samples, which means the
bears were exposed by eating seals that ate fish that had been
exposed to PFAS.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE turned to slide 5 and addressed the sources
of PFAS. He said the most significant impact in Alaska is from
aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a product required at every
state certified airport. He stated PFAS have been found in
water treatment plants, biosolids, and landfill leachate. He
added that PFAS have been found in all 50 states and that much
effort is going toward this emerging issue.
2:07:42 PM
COMMISSIONER BRUNE related that meetings have been held within
DEC, as well as between DEC and the governor's office, the
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF), the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), the Department of
Administration (DOA), and the Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS). He said there has been significant discussion
of this issue because of its potential impacts on the state.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE moved to slide 6 and said the most common
exposure to PFAS is through consumption of contaminated food and
water, although household products can also contribute to a
person's PFAS exposure. He explained that exposure to PFAS
through food can occur in a variety of ways: eating foods that
were wrapped in PFAS packaging, preparing foods in non-stick
pans, eating fish that were in PFAS contaminated waters,
consuming crops grown in industrially contaminated soil or soil
mixed with biosolids or soils irrigated with contaminated water.
A recent example, he continued, is a dairy in New Mexico whose
cows were producing milk that had PFAS; those 4,000 cows had to
be destroyed. Regarding water contamination in Alaska coming
from the use of AFFF, he explained that once discharged into the
environment, the PFAS compounds contained in the AFFF quickly
enter nearby surface and groundwater supplies. For communities
near airports required to use AFFF, he said, the exposure to
groundwater has a significant potential impact.
2:10:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS requested Commissioner Brune to detail
the decision making process that he and the commissioners of
DOT&PF and DHSS went through to arrive at the new and less
stringent standards that are now being applied.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE replied that DEC had extensive conversations
with all the departments that were impacted. He said DEC has a
process in place from the previous administration, which had put
out draft regulations but then decided not to finalize those
regulations. A significant amount of comments came from both
sides of the different parties for and against passage of those
regulations, he related. He stated DEC wants to ensure that the
resources and science necessary for making such important
decisions are being used on this emerging issue, so it was
decided to follow the lead of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). He said DEC, with the regulations that were
passed in 2016, is doing more than are 34 other states. He
related that DEC has a level of 400 parts per trillion (ppt) for
groundwater cleanup and has spent significant effort in ensuring
that Alaska's airports are being tested. He maintained that
focusing on PFOS and PFOA, the two contaminants that the most is
known about and the ones that EPA is choosing to lead their
efforts on, is the best way to ensure that DEC is making the
right approach going forward. He said DEC holds a significant
number of meetings on a daily basis and is monitoring this, and
in the future, if deemed appropriate, DEC will come forth with
more stringent requirements based on the emerging science.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS asked what new studies have come out that
show there is less concern and less risk in these chemicals.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE responded, "I think where we are at is the
studies that have been done, the predominant studies, are on
PFOS and PFOA. There are not what we felt is a significant
number of studies that have been completed yet that show that
the others are as big of a risk as PFOS and PFOA.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired whether those are still
considered a risk.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE answered, "Definitely we're monitoring them,
we definitely think that there is concern about them, but the
ones that we're putting our emphasis on and that the EPA is
putting its emphasis on are PFOS and PFOA."
2:13:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ offered her understanding that DHSS
released a report recommending much lower levels. She asked
whether the distinction is that Commissioner Brune is talking
about just PFAS and not PFOS. She noted that many folks are
using those interchangeably.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE agreed there is much confusion between PFAS
and PFOS. He explained PFAS is the general category of 5,000 or
so polyfluoroalkyl substances. He said the State of Alaska and
the EPA have chosen to put their emphasis on PFOS and PFOA [and
have established a level of] 70 parts per trillion (ppt).
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ offered her understanding that all the
chemicals across the board are associated with increased health
risks that are significant and long lasting. She therefore
asked why a more cautious approach isn't being taken while
waiting for the science to emerge, rather than an approach that
just risks it and hopes it is going to be okay for babies,
children, and seniors and then brings it back after the EPA gets
its very slow regulatory act together.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE replied DEC has had extensive conversations
and there are different opinions on the issue. He said there
are two principles: The precautionary principle, which says
don't use anything until it is proven to be okay; and the
keyhole principle which says to keep on using it until it is
known to be bad. He opined that somewhere in between those two
is when policy comes into play. He said 34 other states are
currently doing nothing, while DEC is being proactive and is
staying on top of the issue. He reiterated that EPA's action
plan is focused on PFOS and PFOA and the other [chemicals] have
not risen to that level in the EPA's plan. He added that he
understands the concern and said he has staff with a similar
concern as well as staff that are of the opinion that DEC should
be going with what the EPA is doing. As the science emerges, he
continued, DEC will definitely make additional recommendations
if it is appropriate.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ commented that the DHSS public health
team still seems to think that this is an issue. She said she
feels there is an incongruity between what the two branches of
government are doing and saying with regard to public health.
2:16:44 PM
DENISE KOCH, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and Response
(SPAR), Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), pointed
out that the Lifetime Health Advisory, and the value that DEC is
using, were developed by EPA with sensitive populations in mind.
She said these more sensitive members of the population include
expectant mothers, breastfeeding, and the elderly.
2:17:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS, in regard to lowering these standards
and assuming it's going to be okay, asked what guarantees can be
provided by DEC that these previous levels are no longer a
health concern for the Alaskans in the affected areas.
MS. KOCH responded that part of the challenge is that all states
are wandering in an era of regulatory uncertainty and are trying
to find the best science. She said the frank answer is that no
one has a perfect guarantee on PFAS, it is being learned about
every single day. Because it is so complex and the body of
science so large, she continued, most states have either used
the EPA Lifetime Health Advisory or don't have their own
standards and some states haven't even tested for PFAS in the
groundwater.
2:19:01 PM
COMMISSIONER BRUNE assured the committee that DEC is on top of
this issue and said he understands the committee's concern about
DEC lowering the standards. He said DEC has proven it's ahead
of the game when it comes to 34 other states, given DEC is
testing and monitoring for this and he is regularly speaking to
different organizations. He further assured committee members
that DEC absolutely will change its approach if a sufficient
amount of additional studies are seen with respect to other PFAS
related chemicals. Given the existing data for PFOS and PFOA,
he continued, DEC felt the best approach was to follow the lead
of the EPA, the agency that has the resources. He reiterated
that the previous administration received comments across the
spectrum on the [proposed] regulations and ultimately decided
not to finalize those regulations. This shows it isn't a
political issue, he opined, it is an issue that is emerging, and
new science is evolving every day and he is committed to staying
on top of it.
2:20:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN acknowledged the commissioner's reference
to 34 other states that aren't engaged in this process, but
pointed out that a number of states have joined together in a
class action lawsuit against 3M. She asked whether DEC has been
engaged in dialogues with the administration about participating
in that class action lawsuit against 3M, given concerns about
the cost to states for the impact of this toxin on communities.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE answered that there have been discussions,
but no decision has yet been made. He said he has talked to the
governor and the attorney general about this issue. He said the
community of Fairbanks has joined a class action lawsuit against
3M and the State of Minnesota settled with 3M for what he
believes was $800 million.
2:21:17 PM
COMMISSIONER BRUNE resumed his PowerPoint presentation and
credited DHSS for providing the next several slides. He
displayed slide 8 and reported that according to the EPA and the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, studies show
probable links between exposure to long-chain PFAS and the list
of health concerns outlined on the slide [ulcerative colitis,
liver damage, abnormal fat metabolism, high cholesterol, kidney
cancer, chronic kidney disease, pregnancy-induced hypertension,
decreased response to vaccines, testicular cancer, decreased
fertility, thyroid disease, reduced birth weight]. He explained
that these are population level epidemiological studies, not
individual studies, and therefore it cannot be said at this
point that an individual has gotten sick or died from PFAS.
However, he continued, there are definitely associations and
correlations with exposure. He advised that a number of these
studies are exposures in communities that have had significant
manufacturing using PFAS chemicals. He said DEC is monitoring
these studies because they may have been done in certain areas
and may not be population-wide studies.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE moved to slide 9 and pointed out that while
many studies have been done on lab rats and other small mammals,
most of the studies on human health have been on PFOS and PFOA.
He read the quote on slide 9, which states: "The science around
these compounds is emerging rapidly; and so, almost as we
establish a benchmark ... in a matter of months, it may be out
of date based on the new science". So, DEC is constantly
evaluating the new science, he said.
2:23:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS inquired whether any of the evolving
monthly studies have shown that previous studies were wrong and
the previous information too aggressive in regard to the levels.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE replied he is unable to answer the question
because the slide was put together by DHSS. He offered to get
back to the committee with an answer. He assured the committee
that the PFOA and PFOS studies have shown more exposure, but
said he is unable to speak to the other 5,000 PFAS-related
chemicals.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS remarked that if more and more evidence
is seen by the month that these are substantially more impactful
at lower levels than had been previously thought, he must
question the logic for deciding to change the standards to be
less stringent now.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE responded that he answered this question
before when he said he understood the committee's concerns and
that DEC is staying on top of it and is following the lead of
the EPA, the national organization that has the resources to be
able to study this. He stated DEC doesn't have the resources
that are had by the EPA and large states like California and
Washington that are leaders on this issue. As new data emerges,
he continued, DEC will make a change if it is needed.
2:25:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ, regarding the state not having the
resources, asked whether DEC has considered partnering with the
University of Alaska where there is a lot of expertise. She
pointed out that the University of Alaska Anchorage (UAA) has a
lab that does chemistry and testing and particularly looks at
toxics. The lab is expert in this, she noted, and would be a
useful guide to the state as it considers decisions.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE answered that in a meeting this week, DEC and
DHSS had that exact question while talking about potential
impacts from biosolid application and whether a study could be
done that would show the potential impact of PFAS contaminated
biosolids on growing vegetables or fruits. He said he thinks it
is a great idea to try to get local science as well as to
collaborate with other states and the science they are doing.
He said DEC is not there yet, but the idea was a brainchild of
DHSS a few days ago.
REPRESENTATIVE SPOHNHOLZ pushed back on Commissioner Brune's
comments around science. She said science, research, and the
scientific process is actually an incredibly slow, rigorous,
deliberative process that does not move at breakneck speed. She
pointed out that the research coming out over the last couple of
years on PFAS in general, and on various [specific] PFAS, is the
result of years and years of work. She further pointed out that
those years of work were precipitated by people identifying
unnatural levels of certain kinds of health consequences in
communities. She urged caution in suggesting that something is
happening very quickly with science. The body of knowledge is
growing, she stated, and waiting for definitive evidence will
result in waiting far too long and a lot of lives may be very
significantly impacted. She said she thinks some of DEC's own
scientists have serious concerns about reducing the number of
chemicals that are allowed to count against that 70 ppt level.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE replied he doesn't disagree. These chemicals
are ubiquitous in the environment, he stated, and the exposure
pathways are through the air, through AFFF, and microwave
popcorn bags, and rushing to judgment goes back to his statement
about the precautionary principle and the keyhole principle. He
said he understands leaning towards the precautionary principle,
which is what many of DEC's scientists have recommended. But,
he continued, there are others who feel otherwise, which is why
it is important that DEC pays attention to the issue and makes
those decisions as new science on the other PFAS-related
chemicals comes forward.
2:29:17 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR expressed her extreme disappointment with DEC
taking this position. She noted that the 1996 Food Quality
Protection Act said to go back and re-test all the chemicals and
use children as the benchmark for safety. Tens of thousands of
chemicals currently in use in the U.S. have never been tested
for human safety or impacts to the environment, she pointed out.
Now, in 2019, she said, just a small fraction of that work has
been done from a bill that passed in 1996. She continued:
So we have every reason to know that the EPA will be
slow to take action. We know that it's been highly
politicized under this current administration. We
know that there are intense lobbying efforts on the
part of the chemical industry that spend hundreds of
millions of dollars on lobbyists. It's just
completely unacceptable in my mind that you would know
all of that, and you must in your position, and as
many years as you've worked around these industries
and then just say it's acceptable for us to defer to
the EPA when we know we have communities on bottled
water right now because of the groundwater
contamination. ... It's not okay. We could be waiting
years and years and years before the EPA takes action,
particularly under this federal administration that
won't even acknowledge that climate change is real.
So, nobody at the federal government right now in that
president's office is listening to science, and to
suggest that the EPA is going to come out with the
kind of standards we need to protect.... Why wouldn't
Alaska want to be the leader on this issue? ... That's
the part I can't understand. We could move forward.
We could say ... "In Alaska we're not going to wait
around, the health of our people is so important we're
going to be leaders on this issue, we're going to find
the resources that it takes, we're going to do the
studies that we need, and we're going to move
forward." And instead we're just taking a total
backseat and pretending like the federal government is
going to do the work and we know that's not true.
2:31:19 PM
COMMISSIONER BRUNE maintained that Alaska is a leader. He said
Alaska was the first state that set soil level cleanup levels at
400 ppt. Through working with DOT&PF, he stated, potentially
affected communities were identified throughout the state that
may have been impacted by the application of AFFF at DOT&PF
airports. He continued:
We have been leaders in making sure that if we did see
this impact to the groundwaters that we are providing
alternative sources of drinking water, that we are
holding companies and DOT to a high standard to ensure
that that water isn't being consumed right now. We
have been leading the nation in this effort. We don't
have our head in the sand and are saying, "Just go
ahead and drink it." We are the ones that are out
there actively testing, we are actively engaged in
this process to ensure that our people are remaining
safe and that the drinking water that they have is
protected. ... The EPA levels that we are following at
70 ppt right now, ... we're one I believe of only [16]
states that have that. ... You're absolutely right,
there are other states that are absolutely more
restrictive than we are, but there are 34 states that
are way behind us. And as we're seeing this issue
emerge, as we're watching this, we're not ignoring it,
we're not ignoring the science, and we're not doing
nothing about this. We're ... one of the leaders in
the nation in doing this. And yes, we have made the
decision to step back and only test for those two,
PFOS and PFOA. As we learn more information ... if we
need to, we will do more.
2:33:20 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR asked whether current testing tests for all six.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE responded that right now DEC is testing for
two, PFOS and PFOA.
CO-CHAIR TARR offered her understanding that the commissioner is
saying that when DOT&PF is doing soil testing it is not testing
for six.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE answered that when DEC met with DHSS, DOT&PF,
DOA, ADF&G, and the governor's deputy chief of staff, the
decision was made by the State of Alaska that it would test for
PFOS and PFOA.
CO-CHAIR TARR offered her belief that there is contradictory
information that suggests [DEC] is testing for all six but only
keeping the information for two. She offered her understanding
that the commissioner is saying [DEC] is not collecting
information for all six and only keeping two.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE replied the EPA testing panel actually tests
for 14. He stated that when [DEC] was testing for the six [DEC]
was getting the data for six, not for 14. The panel gives the
opportunity to have all 14, he explained, but [DEC] chose at
that time to get six. Now at this time, he continued, [DEC] is
choosing to get two and that decision to test PFOS and PFOA,
consistent with what the EPA is doing, was made with everyone in
the room having that discussion.
CO-CHAIR TARR asked where the data is from the testing that
includes the other four. She surmised that [DEC] was never
doing the full panel.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE responded that the full panel has always been
done, that is the EPA methodology that is done. Before he was
commissioner, he stated, the decision was made to only get the
data for six, and then as of the technical memorandum published
on April 9, [2019], the decision has been to test only for PFOS
and PFOA going forward.
2:35:36 PM
MS. KOCH confirmed the aforementioned is correct. She said more
information was collected in the past, but [testing for only
PFOS and PFOA] is from the date of April 9, 2019, forward.
2:36:05 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN inquired about the marginal cost of including
some of the other chemicals while going through the effort of
collecting samples and applying the testing methods. He
surmised that the cost of adding a couple more chemicals would
be much less than going out and testing for them specifically.
He suggested that even if the data isn't being used for anything
actionable, it would be helpful in the future, when better
information comes out, to have some longitudinal understanding
of how long those chemicals have been there and whether there
has been any change over time. He requested the commissioner to
explain the logic of not including other chemicals if the cost
of adding them is marginal.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE answered he thinks the cost difference
between testing for two or for all 14 is small, but that the
staff time of interpreting all 14 definitely would add
significant cost. So, he continued, the decision was made to
focus on the two chemicals that the EPA has put the most
emphasis on. He deferred to Ms. Koch to answer further.
MS. KOCH confirmed there is some difference in cost and that it
is relatively nominal.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE added that significant staff time is involved
to interpret where each chemical potentially originated from and
the responsible party. He reiterated that DEC made the decision
through significant consultation with DHSS, DOT&PF, ADF&G, and
the governor's office to focus on the two that the EPA is
focusing on.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN clarified he is not asking to go through the
expense and the time to analyze the data; the data could just be
sitting there in a database without someone taking the time to
evaluate it. He concluded he is hearing that DEC is currently
not even collecting, recording, or keeping the data on those
other chemicals even though it could be potentially useful in
the future.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE replied the co-chair is correct. He said DEC
is choosing to not collect the data for the other 12, just like
the previous administration chose to not collect the data for
the other eight, even though they are on the panel. He stated
he doesn't know if a different test is done for getting the
additional 12, but generally the panel is all 14. He said he
thinks that just the two being asked for are reported to [DEC]
and those are the two that the EPA has set as its health
advisory levels.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked if anyone else in the room knows whether
it is the same test [that is done for getting the additional 12]
and it is just access that is needed for the information.
MS. KOCH explained that it is one EPA method - the sample is
collected and brought to the lab, the same method is essentially
run, and it is chosen whether to do the analysis on that method
to report out a particular compound or not. It is the same sort
of core test, she continued, and then an analysis can be done
for a particular compound based on the core test.
2:40:11 PM
COMMISSIONER BRUNE concluded his presentation by noting that DEC
and DOT&PF have collaborated their work and are continuing risk
assessments of airports around the state and the potentially
impacted communities, with Aniak and Iliamna up next for
testing. All of the airports that may have had contamination
from AFFF are being evaluated, he added. He said he is
continuing to make regular public presentations about this issue
and staff is continuing to meet on the issue.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE turned to slides 25 and related that this is
a nationwide concern. Some states have adopted the EPA Lifetime
Health Advisory and several states have much more stringent
requirements, he said, but most states have yet to take any
action. He continued:
We are monitoring the legislation as well. The state
environmental health directors just came forward with
a list a few days ago ... of bills that have been
proposed. There have been 58 bills introduced this
session by other states related to PFAS, five of those
have been enacted, approximately 20 states have
proposed legislation.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE displayed slide 26 and continued:
We are actually farther along on this important issue
than most states are. We will continue to monitor
this very closely; my team is absolutely engaged on
this issue. We're working collaboratively with the
other departments across the state, and I will be
happy to provide updates on a regular basis to this or
other committees in the future.
2:42:28 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR invited Mayor Ward to provide his presentation on
behalf of the Fairbanks North Star Borough.
2:42:36 PM
BRYCE WARD, Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Borough, provided a
PowerPoint presentation titled "PFCs in the FNSB," dated
5/10/19. He displayed slide 1 and noted his presentation
includes the impacts to the borough as well as to the City of
North Pole and the City of Fairbanks. He further noted that
much of the information included in his presentation comes from
the State of Alaska's contaminated sites web page and
publication [https://dec.alaska.gov/spar/csp/pfas].
MAYOR WARD moved to slide 2 and explained that perfluorinated
chemicals (PFCs) are manmade compounds used in the manufacture
of stain-, oil-, and water-resistant consumer products. He said
they are also found in products such as firefighting foam,
cleaners, cosmetics, paints, adhesives, and insecticides. They
are persistent in the environment, he stated, because the
natural processes do not rapidly degrade them. He pointed out
that in Alaska, spills or releases of PFCs into the environment
are primarily associated with aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF)
used during firefighting and fire training activities. He
specified that PFC compounds of concern include PFOA and PFOS,
the two most studied, but that a growing body of research
indicates additional PFAS compounds may have similar health and
environmental effects and may be co-contaminants.
MAYOR WARD turned to slide 3 and stated that in 2016 the Alaska
DEC published cleanup levels for PFOS and PFOA and the EPA
issued Lifetime Health Advisory (LHA) levels for PFCs in
drinking water. In 2018, he said, DEC set action levels for six
PFAS compounds, including PFOS and PFOA, which were higher than
the EPA standard. On April 9, 2019, he continued, DEC published
a revised technical memorandum on action levels for PFCs that
superseded the 2018 action levels memorandum and raised the
action levels to EPA's Lifetime Health Advisory levels. Action
levels, he explained, serve as a threshold for determining when
responsible parties need to provide water treatment or
alternative water sources for impacted water supplies.
2:44:56 PM
MAYOR WARD addressed slides 4-5. He stated that in spring 2015,
sampling of drinking water supply wells at Eielson Air Force
Base revealed the presence of PFOA and PFOS at levels exceeding
the EPA's then-termed Provisional Health Advisory Levels, now
known as the EPA's Lifetime Health Advisory levels, for PFOS and
PFOA. He said contamination from PFCs originated from historic
AFFF use at Eielson Air Force Base from 1970-2000. Mitigation
efforts to date, he continued, include installing granular
activated carbon (GAC) filtration for Eielson Air Force Base
drinking water wells and on many homes in the Moose Creek
community. He noted that homes in Moose Creek not on a GAC
system receive an alternative water supply of either bottled
water or water delivery through a holding tank.
MAYOR WARD displayed slide 6 regarding the U.S. Air Force
Interim Feasibility Study for the Community of Moose Creek,
Alaska, Long-Term Drinking Water Supply, dated November 2017.
He said the Record of Decision was issued for an extension of
the North Pole water system, which will provide a piped water
system to the community of Moose Creek. Moving to slide 7, he
explained that extending the North Pole water system requires
that a water pipeline be installed along the Richardson Highway
to serve the Moose Creek water distribution system.
MAYOR WARD turned to slides 8-9 and related that in September
2015, Shannon & Wilson, Inc. completed a soil and groundwater
investigation on the City of Fairbanks Regional Fire Training
Center property and found PFAS and petroleum compounds in the
groundwater on site. He said firefighting foam containing PFAS
is suspected to have leaked through the lined training pit or
from over-spraying on the edges of the pit during training
activities. He noted that the burn pit was constructed in 1984
and was used for approximately 20 years. Due to concern about
PFAS in drinking water, he continued, the City of Fairbanks
began searching for water supply wells, including drinking water
wells, immediately after the discovery.
2:47:13 PM
MAYOR WARD moved to slide 10 and related that the search was
expanded between February 2016 and February 2017 and now extends
th
to areas around Peger Lake, south of 30 Avenue, the Davis Road
sports fields, and other properties between the Mitchell
Expressway and Egan Avenue or Airport Way, and properties on
both sides of the Chena River between Loftus and University
Avenue.
MAYOR WARD displayed slide 11 and reported that in summer 2017
Fairbanks International Airport sampled a variety of groundwater
wells and surface water on the airport property for PFCs. This
investigation, he said, was prompted by the investigations at
other facilities where fire training and response using AFFF had
occurred and resulted in PFC impacts to groundwater having
affected private drinking water wells. For many years, he
noted, Fairbanks International Airport used AFFF in training and
emergency responses on airport property and a burn pit at the
airport was constructed in 1993 and used for training with AFFF.
Prior to 1993, he continued, training with AFFF was conducted
outside of a lined pit south of the east runway and at other
locations adjacent to the airport response center.
MAYOR WARD turned to slide 12 and stated that initial samples
were taken during investigations for other contaminants at the
Don Bennett Shooting Range site. He said sample results
indicated the concentrations of PFCs exceeded established
cleanup levels, so the Fairbanks International Airport began
plans to sample existing monitoring wells and surface water
bodies throughout the facility. He reported that detections of
PFOS and PFOA above cleanup levels prompted immediate searches
and sampling of drinking water wells in the area down gradient
from the airport.
2:49:01 PM
MAYOR WARD moved to slide 13 and stated that in 2018 DEC
investigated and discovered PFCs in groundwater off the former
refinery property in North Pole. During an expanded
investigation, he said, PFCs were also identified at 122 ppt in
Kimberly Lake, located to the northwest of the former North Pole
refinery.
MAYOR WARD showed slide 14 and related that this discovery led
to the sampling of Kimberly Lake fish. He said both PFOS and
perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) were measured at levels of concern
in all the fish sampled from Kimberly Lake, with PFOS
concentrations at 47-68 parts per billion (ppb) and PFNA
concentrations at 16-22 ppb. He pointed out that the state
advises not consuming surface water or fish from Kimberly Lake
at this time.
MAYOR WARD displayed slide 15 and said sulfolane contamination
of groundwater led to subsequent legal actions and settlement
with Flint Hills Resources, the operator of the refinery during
the sulfolane discovery. He specified that the State of Alaska
and the City of North Pole are expanding the North Pole utility
water system to cover the areas contaminated with sulfolane,
which will reduce the chance of PFC ingestion through well
drinking water.
MAYOR WARD turned to slide 16 and discussed groundwater
contamination concerns. He pointed out that while it is known
that spreading of pollution is not allowed under Alaska law,
many may not be aware that using untreated contaminated well
water may cause the spread of pollution. He explained that
bringing impacted well water to the surface might expose people
to the pollution and/or allow pollution to spread onto other
properties, sloughs, or ponds. He further explained that these
concerns are most notable when using groundwater to irrigate
recreational fields or gardens where food is being grown for
consumption. Irrigating recreational fields [slide 17] with
contaminated groundwater creates concerns for the users, he
continued, such as children who would be exposed by running or
walking on grass watered with contaminated water. He informed
the committee that PFC compounds remain in the human body for
years after exposure and in the environment for even longer.
MAYOR WARD moved to slide 18 and explained that once an aquifer
is contaminated it becomes very expansive. The Fairbanks North
Star Borough, he continued, currently has four major PFC
contaminated sites over the urbanized area, which stretches
about 30 miles.
MAYOR WARD concluded his presentation with slide 19. He said
local governments and communities need and rely on DEC to set
standards and give guidance for cleanup measures, which include
establishing human health advisory or cleanup levels for
groundwater contamination. Alaska's communities, he added, rely
on DEC to protect the state's resources and population. He
pointed out that financial resources will be needed for remedies
such as extending water systems into the contaminated areas and
assisting in development, implementation, and management of
institutional controls for PFC contaminated areas.
2:51:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS thanked Mayor Ward for his work and
leadership on this issue. He noted that the concentrations in
[Kimberly Lake] fish are parts per billion, while DEC's measures
are parts per trillion, which indicates a pretty substantial
concern in that lake. He further noted that nearly 4,000
children play on the potentially contaminated [soccer fields].
He asked whether testing by Shannon & Wilson has shown that the
contamination has continued to expand and spread.
MAYOR WARD replied:
We are currently working with the City of Fairbanks,
which this pollutant is coming from the Regional Fire
Training Center, to work on remedies to make sure that
we're not using water that is contaminated with
perfluorinated compounds. That discussion is ongoing,
but we have had measures put in place in prior years
to mitigate or to eliminate that risk, whether it be
through onsite storage and distribution of the water
or having a very wet summer. So, we are still working
on remedies to that and other alternatives have been
considered.
CO-CHAIR TARR inquired whether Mayor Ward feels the state is
taking the appropriate action at this time or should take a more
cautionary approach.
MAYOR WARD responded that he couldn't speak on behalf of the
assembly, but his personal opinion is that the conservative
approach is probably the wisest approach. While he understands
there is guidance from EPA that the state has aligned the
regulations with, he said his fear is that this needs to be
continually monitored to ensure that a competitive edge is
maintained, and standards are provided that meet the needs of
communities. Ultimately zero would be an appropriate standard,
he continued, although that is probably not reasonable. He
added that it does concern him.
2:55:00 PM
CALVIN CASIPIT, Mayor, City of Gustavus, stated that the City of
Gustavus is very concerned about its own financial health
because of AFFF use in the city. He said the city is also very
concerned about the effects [of contamination] on its tourism
industry, the bread and butter of the community as the gateway
to Glacier Bay National Park & Preserve. He related that when
people say the community's water is poison, it causes issues.
He said the city wants to have water that is clean and healthy
for its visitors. He pointed out that it is causing many issues
and concerns for the city's own residents since many rely on
subsistence and on their own subsistence gardens where they grow
their own food and water with groundwater. He deferred to the
city's administrator to talk further.
2:56:19 PM
TOM WILLIAMS, City Administrator, City of Gustavus, thanked the
committee for the opportunity to testify on a subject with
potentially devastating implications for Gustavus. He said
Gustavus is a community recognized as the gateway to Glacier Bay
National Park & Preserve, a pristine area that exemplifies the
natural environment of Alaska. He explained that Gustavus uses
shallow wells and a few cisterns for its drinking and potable
water sources. So, he continued, the PFAS contamination has
(indisc. - technical difficulties) because Gustavus does not
have a municipal filtration plant available.
MR. WILLIAMS stated PFAS is of concern because of the unknown
impacts to the community's tourism-based economy and the quality
of life of residents. He related that PFAS contamination hit
Gustavus in two ways: 1) by the use of AFFF at the DOT&PF
airport, and 2) by the one-time use of AFFF by the city's
volunteer fire department in 2015 from a fire truck given to the
city by DOT&PF long before PFAS was known to the city to be a
dangerous substance.
MR. WILLIAMS pointed out that added to the concerns about the
health of the community and the surrounding environment, DEC has
targeted the city and threatened the viability of the
community's survival with cleanup costs that could be in the
millions of dollars and untold costs to the tourism-based
economy that provides sustenance to many of the residents and
businesses that call Gustavus home. He explained that this is
because the Gustavus Fire Department used a fire truck given to
it by DOT&PF to fight a fire at a local residence that resulted
in the discharge of what he understands to have been AFFF to
save lives and property. He said it can be seen in documents
provided to the committee that an unreasonable timeline was
given to the city to commence a very expensive process of
remediation. Thanks to the governor, he continued, the very
expensive cleanup process threatened by DEC has been put on hold
until PFAS issues have been better understood.
MR. WILLIAMS related that DEC continues to take the position
that the city is liable for the remediation associated with
costs of a home site that was the location of a volunteer fire
department use of AFFF. He said the methods used by DEC have
brought uncertainty and concerns to the decisions for budgeting
and tourism. Meanwhile, he reported, DOT&PF continues to refuse
to use a non-PFAS substance at the airport, such as sodium
bicarbonate that the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration said
in a 2/28/19 letter could be used in place of AFFF substances
like Purple K, the material currently used at the Gustavus
airport. He recalled a comment by Commissioner Brune that the
AFFF was necessary at the different airports. However, he
pointed out, the federal government has said that sodium
bicarbonate could be used to replace that chemical. He said he
has a letter that states 500 pounds of sodium-based dry
chemical, halon 1211, or a clean agent would be an acceptable
substitute for an airport rated as the Gustavus airport is.
3:00:57 PM
KELLY MCLAUGHLIN, Chair, Gustavus PFAS Action Coalition (GPAC),
testified as follows:
When I was asked to speak today, I was asked to focus
on the costs and naming the cost of anything,
especially when looking forward into unknown decades,
is likely an impossible task. But I feel like I've
taken on a lot of impossible tasks recently. And
there have been achievements made. The State of
Alaska decided not to deploy AFFF for testing at small
airports in Alaska. That was a win. PFOA was just
banned globally at the Stockholm Convention just last
week. Unfortunately, the United States is one country
that does not abide by the decisions made at this
Global Summit. For the rest of the world it is good
news.
So it is important to me to acknowledge the positives,
however small, in this sea of toxic chemicals,
impossible tasks, and unresponsive government. So
positives acknowledged, now I'll move on to the costs.
The greatest immediate cost to me, and others, in the
Gustavus PFAS Action Coalition is our time. Working
for a solution to this problem has cost me countless
hours upon more countless more hours. We're doing the
work that our state should be doing: raising public
awareness, making public the results of PFAS fish
testing that the state attempted to suppress,
advocating for the toxic AFFF to be removed from our
airport and all Index A Airports, organizing for
medical monitoring and blood testing to take place.
Wre living in homes poisoned by toxic chemicals, and
the Alaskan public largely hasn't even heard of PFAS.
I own a small business in Gustavus, and I have two
kids, 11 and 2, and so I don't have a lot of extra
time. So I'm giving time that I don't have because
somebody has to. I'm taking time away from my family,
my employees, time that should be spent gardening,
walking the beach with my kids, tending my business.
It's all going to PFAS now, to do what the state is
not.
The State of Alaska has done little, arguably nothing,
to raise public awareness. I have been persistent in
talking about PFAS with friends and neighbors, non-
profits, and state agencies. I have been diligent in
tracking results of fish testing at DEC, in creating a
platform for sharing information, but without that
effort, I doubt very much that many would have heard
about the contamination in Gustavus, at Kimberly Lake,
Polaris Lake, or the Ruth Burnett Sport Fish Hatchery.
Public awareness is key in protecting public safety,
though through the lack of active public notices,
bulletins, etc., the state is costing Alaskans their
health and safety.
The contamination of our salmon and other fish could
cost fishermen their livelihoods and is a potential
health cost to everyone who eats the fish.
Contaminated fish, or even the fear of contaminated
fish, is an economic cost to tourism-based fishing and
commercial fishing. There are costs to Alaska's image
and reputation if the state continues to try to
suppress and downplay the major risk of contamination
in our salmon, especially. At the very least Alaska
needs to test its hatcheries, all of them, but
especially William Jack Hernandez Sport Fish Hatchery,
which resides within a known PFAS plume. The state
needs to use the systems already in place for fish
sampling, adding an element to process PFAS testing,
and establish a database to determine the scope of
contamination. We need to acknowledge that we may
have a major public health crisis on our hands if
people continue to eat contaminated fish. Further
than that, our state may have a major financial crisis
on our hands should Alaska salmon prove to be
contaminated to any degree, but especially if the
numbers are as high as what we've seen at Kimberly
Lake.
Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) is the standard
firefighting product used at airports across Alaska.
However, it is required at only ... a little over half
of them. The other 11 have unnecessarily carried AFFF
since at least 2004, and possibly earlier, according
to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Adak,
Kodiak, King Salmon, Bethel, Dillingham, Unalaska,
Kenai, Homer, Gustavus, Sand Point, and Valdez are all
Index A airports, which means that by FAA regulations,
a sodium bicarbonate dry chem fire suppressant is
sufficient. Yep, that's baking soda. We could have
avoided over 15 years of contamination by simply
following the rules the FAA had set out for Index A
airports. When addressed with this question about
baking soda alternative, DOT responded that they
didn't have that information. However, once provided
with the information from the FAA, DOT has still
refused to act in the public interest, within existing
law, to protect public safety. AFFF remains at our
airport despite a sodium bicarbonate replacement
option, costing us our future health and safety, as
well as our faith in the great State of Alaska to do
the right thing, even when the right thing is easy.
3:05:54 PM
PFAS levels at the Gustavus School registered at 44
parts per trillion (ppt) when first tested. Given the
lack of confidence interval set in testing procedures,
and given that a 30 percent fluctuation in blind
duplicate samples is considered a "good result," and
given the proximity of the Gustavus School to results
as high as 6,000 ppt, it is scientifically
unconscionable to declare the water at the Gustavus
School "safe to drink." The PFAS in the water at
Gustavus School has cost generations of children their
health, and the lack of DOT response to the
contamination at the Gustavus School cost many of us
our faith in the State of Alaska. The National Park
Service owns the well that serves the school, and our
amazing local park service employees took it upon
themselves to create a filtration system that will
hopefully protect future generations of children
attending the school, and living in park housing
nearby. DOT did nothing.
We have pursued DOT, who referred us to DHSS for
medical monitoring, or at very least, a blood test,
and breast milk tests to better understand the PFAS
pollution in our bodies. We were denied. We were
told it does not mitigate risk. I will tell you, with
certainty, that my decision whether to wean or to
continue to breast feed my baby was influenced by the
results of the PFAS breast milk test that I paid for
out of pocket. We cannot mitigate risk without
information. GPAC is again stepping in here, doing
what the state is not. We are working with Alaska
Community Action on Toxics to hopefully offer medical
monitoring to all residents of Gustavus who have been
poisoned by the release of PFAS into our pristine
environment.
The 50 acres my mother's family purchased from
homesteaders when they moved here in the [1960s] is
the heart of the plume. The plume saturates my
history, it stains my childhood memories, it floods my
mind with doubt about the future.
We feel like we've lost our homes. We've lost our
gardens, our medicinal trees, our plentiful spring
harvests that grew naturally in abundance at our
doorsteps. No more fiddlehead breakfasts, no more
fireweed shoots in butter, no more mushrooms picked in
the woods as I've done for years.
More than that, though, I feel like I've lost the
thing that's most precious to me in all the world -
the health of my children. My ability to give my
children a clean slate, the promise of a healthy
future, the right start, has been taken from me. To
me, that's the ultimate cost. Every parent has this
immense and weighty opportunity to give their children
health and happiness. As a mother, I hold the seed of
promise for a lifetime of everything good that can
come to pass in my children's lives. And that has
been taken from me. It's been taken from my children.
An unseen force has crept into our water, our blood,
our lives, and taken the promise of my children's
future.
So here's what we're asking:
The state to address the chemicals that are showing up
in the fish and drinking water in Alaska that's
PFNA, PFHxS [perfluorohexane sulfonate], not just PFOA
and PFOS. ... There is current science pointing to the
toxicity of all PFAS chemicals, and the state is
actively putting its citizens in harm's way by not
recognizing all PFAS contaminants.
Please collect PFAS samples from sport and commercial
catches in addition to the currently collected
information on sex, age, length, etc.
Replace AFFF with a safe alternative in all airports
immediately.
Provide blood and breast milk testing to any Alaskan
who believes they may have been exposed to PFAS.
We in Gustavus would like to post some wild harvest
information around town to warn people of the dangers
in consuming the natural bounty that is our tradition
to enjoy this time of year. Please ask DEC to address
contaminated natural foods, garden grown foods, fish,
game, and fowl.
DEC should be aligned with CDC [Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention] and ATSDR [Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry] on setting limits for
consumption. Please use the data that already exists
to move forward, not backward, with setting safe
standards for our water and natural resources.
3:09:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER recalled the figure of 6,000 parts per
trillion. He requested Mr. Williams to provide a definition of
"shallow wells," and offered his belief that 60 feet is the
required depth for wells in the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that [Gustavus] is a unique area and its
wells are anywhere from 6 to 30 feet as an average depth. He
noted Gustavus has a few cisterns that capture rainwater, but
that the majority of the area's potable and drinking water
sources are the very shallow ground wells and they are all
private wells.
3:11:24 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN noted that these chemicals are continuing to be
put into the environment right now. He asked whether any other
chemicals besides AFFF are still being used.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN responded that the source is AFFF, which is still
housed at the Gustavus airport and is still being used in the
case of emergency. She said Shannon & Wilson has not determined
the source, as there are several likely sources. It's hidden in
the ground under the Gustavus airport, she continued, and
Shannon & Wilson will hopefully be in Gustavus this summer to do
site characterization to further understand the source and where
it may be spreading from. At this point, she added, Gustavus
may be seeing higher numbers before it sees lower numbers.
3:12:26 PM
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN said the committee would stay in touch for more
information. He requested Commissioner Brune to speak to the
state overall.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE answered that PFAS chemicals are ubiquitous,
so it's not just AFFF. He said it's coming from landfills that
have had biosolids put into them, Teflon pans, dental floss,
microwave popcorn bags, and it can be found everywhere,
including the air. In many Alaska communities, he continued,
the location of where these are is predominantly AFFF, but in
the environment it is coming from many different sources.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN agreed it is ubiquitous with low-level exposure
across the board; however, he pointed out, in some cases such as
the application of AFFF there are acute shots of these
chemicals. He inquired whether, other than that, there is an
industry that is putting out an especially large amount of
chemicals, or whether AFFF has been singled out as the major
outlier in the pattern of this widespread exposure.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE replied that in Alaska it is predominantly
AFFF. In other states, he said, there is a lot of manufacturing
of these chemicals and in close proximity to those manufacturing
bases there is a lot of it out there.
CO-CHAIR LINCOLN asked whether there is any plan currently to
discontinue AFFF or whether Alaska is waiting for someone else
to say the state should discontinue AFFF.
COMMISSIONER BRUNE responded that that is the biggest question
out there and the reason AFFF is still required by the FAA is
because it works so well in protecting human life and property.
He said the FAA requires that AFFF be kept on site and tested on
an annual basis. He related, however, that Commissioner
MacKinnon of DOT&PF has made the executive decision that AFFF is
no longer going be tested, but will be available for use in case
of an emergency. He stated research is being done to try to
find alternatives and there are some alternatives that have
shorter chained PFOS, but even so that still has PFAS in it.
Regarding the previous speaker's statement that there are other
alternatives, he maintained that they don't work as well as
AFFF. He stated AFFF is so ubiquitous because it works so well,
but said it does also lead to contamination.
3:15:21 PM
CO-CHAIR TARR stated the committee hopes to continue working on
this issue that is having such significant impact.
3:16:40 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:17 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB116 Sponsor Statement 4.15.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 ver U 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 DNR Fiscal Note 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 ver U Sectional Analysis 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 Explanation of Changes ver A to ver U 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 Aquatic Farm Application Review Flow Chart 04.30.19.pdf |
HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 - AFDF Letter of Support 2019-04-15.pdf |
HFSH 4/23/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 ASGA Letter of Support 04.15.19.pdf |
HFSH 4/23/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB116 Supporting Document- Mariculture Plan.pdf |
HFSH 4/16/2019 10:00:00 AM HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/6/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| HB 116 Letter of Opposition-Hillstrand.pdf |
HFSH 4/25/2019 10:00:00 AM HRES 5/3/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| SB91 Sponsor Statement 3.21.19.pdf |
HRES 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM SRES 4/15/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91 Version A.pdf |
HRES 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM SRES 4/15/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91(FIN) Version S 5.6.19.PDF |
HRES 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91 Fiscal Note DNR-PKS 3.29.19.pdf |
HRES 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM SRES 4/15/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB 91 CS SB 91 (FIN) v. S Explanation.pdf |
HRES 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM SFIN 5/6/2019 9:00:00 AM |
SB 91 |
| SB91 BBNA Resolution 3.21.19.pdf |
HRES 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM SRES 4/15/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91 BBNC Letter 3.19.19.pdf |
HRES 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM SRES 4/15/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91 City of Dillingham Resolution 3.7.19.pdf |
HRES 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM SRES 4/15/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91 City of Aleknagik Resolution 3.19.19.pdf |
HRES 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM SRES 4/15/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91 CTC Resolution 3.12.19.pdf |
HRES 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM SRES 4/15/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91 NETC Resolution 11.15.17.pdf |
HRES 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM SRES 4/15/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91 Sectional Analysis 3.21.19.pdf |
HRES 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM SRES 4/15/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91 Nuyakuk Studies Cost Estimate.pdf |
HRES 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM SRES 4/15/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| SB91 Nuyakuk Hydroelectric Update 2019.pdf |
HRES 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM SRES 4/15/2019 3:30:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| HB99_SB91_Nushagak Cooperative Presentation_Resources.pdf |
HRES 5/8/2019 1:00:00 PM HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 99 SB 91 |
| City of Gustavus Supporting Documents.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
PFAS |
| HRES PFCs in the FNSB 5.10.19.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 5 |
| SB91(FIN) Fiscal Note DNR-PKS 5.09.19.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
SB 91 |
| HRES DEC Presentation PFAS 5.10.19.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
PFAS |
| HB116 Supporting Document - DNR responses from 5.3.19 H RES meeting 5.10.19.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
HB 116 |
| City of Gustavus Supporting Documents - Rose Testimony 5.10.19.pdf |
HRES 5/10/2019 1:00:00 PM |
PFAS |