Legislature(2019 - 2020)BUTROVICH 205
03/06/2020 03:30 PM Senate 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 | |
| SB176 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 176 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 232 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 6, 2020
3:29 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Peter Micciche, Chair
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Cathy Giessel
Senator Scott Kawasaki
Senator Jesse Kiehl
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Joshua Revak
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 176
"An Act relating to pollutants; relating to perfluoroalkyl and
polyfluoroalkyl substances; relating to the duties of the
Department of Environmental Conservation; and relating to
firefighting substances."
- HEARD & HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 232
"An Act relating to personal use fishing permits."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 176
SHORT TITLE: REGULATE PFAS USE; FIRE/WATER SAFETY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) KIEHL
02/05/20 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/05/20 (S) RES, FIN
03/06/20 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
CALVIN ZUELOW, Intern
Senator Jesse Kiehl
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a sectional analysis for SB 176.
JOHN BINDER, Deputy Commissioner
Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 176.
DENISE KOCH, Director
Division of Spill Prevention and Response
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SB 176.
KELLY MCLAUGHLIN, representing self
Gustavus, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 176.
MELANIE LESH, representing self
Gustavus, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 176.
JON ERICKSON, Manager
City and Borough of Yakutat
Yakutat, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 176.
PAMELA MILLER, Executive Director
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 176.
DAVID BERREY, member
Wake Up Alaskans to the Toxic Reality
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 176.
SALLY SCHLICHTING, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 176.
BROOKE IVY, External Affairs Manager
Alaska Oil and Gas Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of SB 176.
PATRICE LEE, member
Citizens for Clean Air
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 176.
PAUL LIEDBERG, representing self
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 176.
JIM WILLIAMS, Chief of Staff
Administration Center
Fairbanks North Star Borough
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 176.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:29:36 PM
CHAIR PETER MICCICHE called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:29 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Kiehl, Coghill, Bishop, Giessel, Kawasaki,
and Chair Micciche.
SB 176-REGULATE PFAS USE; FIRE/WATER SAFETY
3:30:26 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 176, "An Act relating to pollutants; relating
to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances; relating to
the duties of the Department of Environmental Conservation; and
relating to firefighting substances."
3:30:45 PM
SENATOR JESSE KIEHL, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
speaking as sponsor, explained that SB 176 addresses a group of
chemicals collectively known as PFAS, a catchall for multiple
chemicals used in Alaska for firefighting. The greatest source
of PFAS chemicals sprayed into the environment from firefighting
is aqueous film forming foams (AFFF).
He said AFFF is extremely good at fighting fires, especially
when hydrocarbons like oil are burning. However, it is also
really bad for human beings. The science on AFFF continues to
evolve, but a great deal is known on its toxicity. AFFF is
persistent in the body and extremely persistent in the
environment. It crosses the placental barrier when ingested by
pregnant women and causes low birth weight, among other fetal
deformities. The AFFF list of impacts on human beings goes on,
but the list does include cancer and thyroid issues.
He detailed that the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) listed PFAS chemicals as hazardous materials
some time ago. In 2018, there was an effort to set cleanup
levels for when these chemicals were in the water. In the end,
Alaska's scientific experts deferred to the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on what the water
standards should be. Deferring to the federal government is not
a long and proud part of Alaska's tradition and SB 176 is an
effort for the legislature to step up and protect Alaskans'
health, especially when it comes to the state's drinking water.
3:33:31 PM
SENATOR KIEHL explained that SB 176 lists seven PFAS chemicals
with the best and clearest science. The bill sets good and
protective standards based on a working group from the State of
Michigan that looked extensively at peer reviewed and published
information. The bill sets standards specifically for drinking
water and not for site cleanup. It focuses on Alaskans' health
and the water they drink.
He noted that his office worked extensively with Legislative
Legal Services to keep the current polluter-pays paradigm in
statute for oil and hazardous materials. PFAS chemicals are in
drinking water and dealt with under the State's oil and
hazardous materials law and that provision is maintained in the
bill.
SENATOR KIEHL explained that SB 176 also stipulates that DEC
will ensure that the polluter pays for alternative sources of
drinking water when water contamination exceeds levels specified
in the bill. Alternative water sources include providing bottled
water, filtration, and extending a municipal water system -
whatever makes the most sense.
SENATOR KIEHL said the bill would provide blood testing to
determine pollutant levels for both someone who drank the water
and for a first responder who had to spray the PFAS materials
while performing their duties. PFAS exposure affects many
Alaskan firefighters.
SENATOR KIEHL pointed out that SB 176 would also put a stop to
spraying more PFAS into Alaska's environment. After a great deal
of conversation with the state fire marshal, an exception was
inserted for the oil and gas industry. The state fire marshal
believes very strongly that for large oil fires, such as the
terminal at Valdez or the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, there
currently are not alternative chemicals that would do the job
adequately. SB 176 is about protecting public health, but
maintaining public safety is important as well. The prohibition
on spraying PFAS for non-exempted firefighting takes effect in
October 2021 when the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) no
longer requires airports to use PFAS.
3:36:28 PM
SENATOR KIEHL noted that SB 176 requires the DEC to accept up to
25 gallons of PFAS concentrate for disposal. The relatively
small quantities allow DEC to properly dispose of PFAS
concentrate without pushing the cost down on communities that
don't have the resources to deal with it.
He said there are two proposed amendments for the committee to
consider. The first expands the exemption list for PFAS use to
those required by federal law. The exemption includes the U.S.
Coast Guard as well as oil and gas transporters. Fire chiefs
pointed out that the scale and scope of tank truck fires would
require PFAS use.
SENATOR KIEHL detailed that the second amendment addresses the
responsibility for providing the clean drinking water and the
blood testing when a fire department does its duty. Whoever is
responsible for the underlying fire would be responsible for the
drinking water provisions in the bill. For example, the fire
department's duty does not include dealing with the unburned
hydrocarbon that has been extinguished, it's the fuel truck
owner's responsibility. That fuel truck owner would also be
responsible if the PFAS sprayed on the fire got into someone's
drinking water.
3:39:04 PM
SENATOR KIEHL summarized that the bill is about clean drinking
water for Alaskans, protecting health and safety, and using
existing oil and hazardous substance cleanup provisions.
SENATOR GIESSEL noted that the bill cites standards based on a
working group from Michigan. She asked if the information was
from the contaminant that affected the drinking water in Flint,
Michigan.
SENATOR KIEHL answered that he did not believe so. He surmised
that the primary issue in Flint, Michigan was lead in piping
systems.
CHAIR MICCICHE asked for a sectional analysis on SB 176.
3:40:07 PM
CALVIN ZUELOW, Intern, Senator Kiehl, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, detailed that section 1 of SB 176 creates three
new sections in AS 46.03 as follows:
1. AS 46.03.340:
• AS 46.03.340(a): Directs the Department of
Environmental Conservation to test drinking
water near PFAS spills. Requires the
department to make sure anyone with
contaminated drinking water gets clean
drinking water and up to three years of
voluntary blood testing for PFAS levels.
• AS 46.03.340(b): Sets health-based maximum
levels of contamination in drinking water
for seven PFAS chemicals and maintains DEC's
authority to set more protective thresholds.
• AS 46.03.340(c): Requires DEC to make sure a
responder exposed to PFAS contamination gets
up to three years of voluntary blood testing
for PFAS levels.
2. AS 43.03.345:
• AS 46.03.345(a): When federal law no longer
requires firefighting foams with PFAS in
them, everyone must stop using PFAS-
containing foams. (There is an exception in
subsection (b).)
• AS 46.03.345(b) & (c): When the state fire
marshal determines there is a safe and
effective alternative to PFAS-containing
firefighting foams that will work for the
oil and gas industry the fire marshal must
publish notice. At that point no one may
legally use PFAS to fight fires unless
federal law preempts Alaska law.
• AS 46.03.345(d): DEC must take up to 25
gallons per year of PFAS-containing
firefighting foam from Alaskans for
disposal.
3. AS 46.03.359: Lists the PFAS compounds covered by
this bill and maintains DEC's authority to list
more.
3:41:37 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE opened invited testimony on SB 176.
SENATOR COGHILL noted that PFAS is no small issue in his area.
He asked what the breadth of federal requirements are because
PFAS use is not just for putting out fires. PFAS use includes
testing and a variety of other things. He inquired what the
federal timeline is for PFAS use.
3:43:37 PM
JOHN BINDER, Deputy Commissioner, Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage, Alaska, said he
oversees state owned and operated airports for the Alaska
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT). He
noted that the FAA requires fluorinated foam as part of airport
safety under Part 139 of the FAA regulations for airport
certification. Alaska's certified aviation hubs are basically
anywhere Alaska Airlines flies. FAA certification applies to
airports with air carriers that have aircraft that can carry
more than 30 passengers.
He detailed that FAA certified airports have stringent
requirements to ensure safety and crash response that includes
the ability to spray AFFF to put out aircraft fires. Currently,
the FAA does mandate the use of fluorinated foams that contain
PFAS.
MR. BINDER said the sponsor alluded to the 2018 FAA
Reauthorization Act that directs the FAA to develop and approve
a new, non-fluorinated foam not later than October 1, 2021.
DOTPF anticipates that by October 2021 the airports would
hopefully be using a new foam named by the FAA.
MR. BINDER explained that all of Alaska's certified airports
store and use fluorinated foam. Fluorinated foam usage goes back
40 years. Approximately 30 airports in the state have had
fluorinated foam located at them at some point, either through
DOTPF or the U.S. Department of Department Defense (DOD) use.
SENATOR COGHILL noted that the FAA is coming up with a foam
replacement and asked how the logistics will work.
3:45:43 PM
MR. BINDER explained that the FAA just finished its new testing
facility and has begun testing different systems. He noted that
most of the rest of the world already uses non-fluorinated
foams. However, the non-fluorinated foams are widely known to be
less effective for putting out fires and that is why the United
States has not transitioned to the new foams.
He conceded that transitioning to the new foams will take quite
some time after they are identified. Transition factors include
cleaning equipment and PFAS disposal. He admitted that the
capability of getting PFAS out of equipment is unknown.
SENATOR COGHILL expressed interest in moving on the PFAS
transition. He inquired if the State can practically live in the
proposed timelines. He asked what the PFAS disposal method will
be, the cost, and how long it will take.
3:47:27 PM
DENISE KOCH, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and
Response, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation,
Juneau, Alaska, acknowledged that the disposal question is
important and difficult. She said the Organic Incineration
Technology (OIT) in Fairbanks thermally remediates PFAS
contaminated soil but does not currently incinerate PFAS
liquids. She admitted that the State will likely have to send
PFAS concentrates out of the state.
MS. KOCH said other things to keep in mind that could impact the
cost of disposal is potential federal legislation to make PFAS a
hazardous substance under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and to
make it a hazardous substance under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). There are considerations about
prohibiting PFAS incineration, so there is the potential that
there will be limited options for disposing of PFAS contaminated
soil or foam. What could happen is PFAS items would be shipped
out of state to a type of RCRA approved landfill, an expensive
process.
3:49:15 PM
SENATOR BISHOP asked if the federal government listed PFAS as a
hazardous substance under CERCLA and RCRA, could PFAS sites be
Superfund sites.
MS. KOCH answered yes if PFAS are listed as a hazardous
substance under CERCLA. However, the federal government
currently has not identified PFAS as a hazardous substance.
SENATOR BISHOP asked what the typical cost is to ship an
overpacked 55-gallon drum out of state.
MS. KOCH answered that DEC struggled to identify disposal costs
in its fiscal note. SB 176 requires DEC to take up to 25 gallons
of PFAS concentrate per person, so the assumption is that major
firefighting organizations throughout the state might have PFAS
foam and DEC would then be receiving foam for many years. DEC
might also be getting PFAS foam from industry as well as
government entities.
She summarized that DEC estimates that the department might
receive as many as 3,000 gallons of PFAS a year. However,
obtaining out-of-state disposal costs is difficult.
3:51:33 PM
SENATOR BISHOP asked Mr. Binder to confirm that PFAS based foam
has been used in Alaska for more than 40 years.
MR. BINDER answered correct.
SENATOR BISHOP asked what firefighters used prior to PFAS foam.
He said firefighters once used pyrene to displace oxygen in
fires, but pyrene use for fires is bad as well.
MR. BINDER answered that he did not know.
SENATOR BISHOP asked if the State could decontaminate its
aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) trucks for further use.
MR. BINDER answered that the department believes it can, but the
task would be quite a challenge.
He noted that Senator Coghill asked about testing and disclosed
that through 2018, the FAA required every airport to spray foam
to demonstrate accident capabilities for certification. Starting
in 2019 there are systems available that allow testing without
discharging foam. The current policy is the airports will not
spray foam unless it is in response to an actual accident.
3:53:14 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI agreed that PFAS is an issue in the Fairbanks
area. He noted that a firefighting training center in his area
is the PFAS culprit.
He noted that if other countries are using the non-fluorinated
foams, which countries outside of the United States are using
fluorinated foams.
MR. BINDER replied that he is not sure what other countries, if
any, are still using fluorinated foams. Europe and most of Asia
are using non-fluorinated foams.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked what the cost difference is between the
fluorinated and non-fluorinated foams.
MR. BINDER replied that he is not familiar with the cost
information, but the department could provide the data.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked if other countries have tested the non-
fluorinated foams for toxicity and environmental impact.
MR. BINDER answered that he is sure other countries have tested
non-fluorinated foams for toxicity and environmental impact. He
remarked that firefighting foams in general are probably not
good for a person. He said he is not sure what the non-
fluorinated foams comparison is with AFFF.
CHAIR MICCICHE remarked that PFAS is a statewide problem. He
said he is from a very industrial area and has personally
trained as an industrial firefighter for many years and his
level of concern has increased over time.
He said he is curious if the State has moved forward on actively
issuing advice to industrial firefighters and fire schools to
minimize or simulate training whenever possible.
3:55:52 PM
MR. BINDER answered that is the case from DOTPF's perspective
and the firefighters within the department. He reiterated that
foam spraying only occurs in response to actual fires. People
are aware now of the health hazards involved with PFAS. All
firefighting schools within the state are aware and taking
precautions.
MS. KOCH noted that DEC has had communications with firefighters
and firefighting organizations throughout the state and they are
very concerned about the PFAS issue, both from a safety and
liability perspective. However, DEC has not issued any formal
regulation or guidance. DEC has generally advised to use best
practices when possible and to use non-fluorinated foams during
training.
SENATOR COGHILL asked where the State is in testing in
accordance with national requirements.
3:58:47 PM
MS. KOCH answered that the State has joint and several liability
for apportioning responsibility when dealing with a response. In
terms of the standards themselves, she said everyone in the
country is struggling with the PFAS issue. PFAS is a health
concern priority for a lot of states. The Interstate Technology
& Regulatory Council (ITRC) is a national group that tracks what
all the different state levels are. There currently are 34
states that do not have PFAS specific guidelines or regulations.
A number of states, Michigan being one that the bill uses for
its levels, that are ahead of the EPA. Then there are states
like Alaska that rely on the EPA levels.
MS. KOCH detailed that the State is using the EPA's Lifetime
Health Advisory (HA) that sets the value for PFAS and PFOA at 70
parts per trillion for drinking water. The EPA established the
HA values to protect vulnerable populations including pregnant
women and children.
She noted that the EPA has expended a tremendous amount of
resources on PFAS. They created a PFAS action plan and added
more staff and resources in their recent budget to continue
their work on PFAS.
She said DEC feels that the HA levels established by EPA are
protective of public health and the environment, and those are
the values that DEC is using right now.
MS. KOCH summarized that PFAS is an evolving issue; the science
is changing and the department's position can change as the
science changes. The department currently has adequate statutory
and regulatory authority to deal with the PFAS issue. They
believe the right way to establish standards is at the agency
level because agencies can be nimble in making changes as the
science evolves.
4:02:15 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE observed that industrial fire schools in the
Lower 48 have used a lot of PFAS for 40 years and the response
to their use will likely be at the federal level. He asked if
there is the potential for federal funding to help Alaska deal
with the PFAS issue.
MS. KOCH replied she is not aware of any such federal funding
but a lot of major federal agencies such as the EPA, the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are working on
PFAS. Congress is considering bills on PFAS incineration and
whether to officially make them a hazardous substance under RCRA
and Superfund. The FAA is trying to find non-PFAS foams that
would be as effective at fighting fires and be better for the
environment.
SENATOR BISHOP asked if she is an industrial hygienist.
MS. KOCH answered no; she has a Master of Science in Public
Health.
SENATOR BISHOP said he will save his question should an
industrial hygienist testify.
4:04:36 PM
SENATOR KAWASAKI suggested that DEC should consider contacting
firefighting agencies to find out how much foam was coming into
the state and to let them know about possible PFAS replacement
to prevent having to export the materials.
MS. KOCH replied DEC has no way to track how much of PFAS foam
is coming into the state. They could make a request to
firefighting organizations to get some sense of their inventory,
but that is probably the best the department can do.
SENATOR KAWASAKI remarked that starting to voluntarily
transition firefighting agencies away from PFAS foams makes the
most sense.
CHAIR MICCICHE suggested that DEC issue some voluntary PFAS
guidance because there are probably a lot of industries that
require a healthy reminder on potential happenings and
substantial future cost savings for foam disposal and cleanup
costs.
4:07:32 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked what the mitigation strategy is once PFAS
gets into the water.
MS. KOCH answered that handling PFAS in drinking water is
challenging. Once DEC finds PFAS to be higher than the EPA
allowed HA levels, the department requires the responsible party
to provide individuals with clean alternative drinking water
sources. The department is not at the stage to clean up the
polluted water source. She said the department is in a triage
stage to make sure alternative drinking water occurs first and
PFAS remediation in the ground water happens in the future.
4:10:07 PM
SENATOR COGHILL asked who pays for water testing.
MS. KOCH replied DEC requires the responsible party to develop a
plan to pay for testing and provide a long-term clean drinking
water solution for individuals impacted by PFAS.
SENATOR COGHILL commented that the people who mandated PFAS for
the past 40 years may have culpability too.
He asked what individuals do if they find PFAS in their blood.
4:12:35 PM
MS. KOCH explained that there is no mechanism to remove PFAS
from a body. She added that there are no federal or state blood
standards that identifies PFAS levels for expected negative
health outcomes.
SENATOR COGHILL commented that PFAS chemicals are more
ubiquitous than just its use in a foam.
MS. KOCH agreed. She said PFAS is commercially ubiquitous in
everything from nonstick pans to clothing, carpets, and food
packaging. However, the largest exposure in Alaska comes from
spraying PFAS as AFFF that gets into drinking water.
SENATOR COGHILL asked if PFAS, a long chain polymer, was
developed just for firefighting.
4:15:26 PM
MS. KOCH answered that PFAS use dates back to the 1940s. It has
a fluorine bond that makes it extremely difficult to break. That
is an attribute that lends itself to commercial use but it means
that the chemical remains in the environment for a long time.
SENATOR COGHILL summarized that PFAS is new as a health risk,
but PFAS is not new as a fluorinate polymer.
SENATOR BISHOP noted that magnesium cylinders in engines use
PFAS as AFFF to displace oxygen because magnesium will burn
under water.
SENATOR COGHILL noted that the bill lists seven different
substances, but the committee has been talking about PFAS as a
singular substance.
4:17:59 PM
MS. KOCH responded that the most noted are PFAS and PFOA, but
they are 2 out of the approximately 6,000 PFAS compounds.
Standards are generally based on PFAS and PFOA because the two
compounds have the most toxicological and human health
information.
SENATOR KAWASAKI asked how the list of seven established PFAS
and PFOA limits in the bill differs from the existing regulatory
limits.
4:20:01 PM
MS. KOCH answered that the limits in the bill are lower than the
current regulatory limits that DEC relies on from the EPA. The
bill lowers PFOA to 8 parts per trillion and PFAS to 16 parts
per trillion.
SENATOR KAWASAKI pointed out that the concentration limits are
significantly lower in the bill. He observed that the limits
used in the legislation from the Michigan PFAS Action Response
Team are in line with other states that are also regulating PFAS
and PFOA in drinking water.
MS. KOCH explained that Michigan is one of the states that has
moved ahead of the EPA on PFAS and PFOA levels. However, the
approximate eight states, including Michigan, have not finalized
or promulgated their proposed drinking water regulations.
4:22:22 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE asked if there is a schedule for potential action
or changes to the standard from the EPA.
MS. KOCH replied the EPA came out with a PFAS action plan in
February 2019 that started an evaluation under the Safe Drinking
Water Act process to determine the necessity of standards for
PFAS compounds. The EPA announced in February 2020 that they
were going to make their preliminary determination proposal on
regulating PFAS and PFOA. She noted that the EPA will at times
announce what they are planning to do prior to posting in the
federal register. She surmised that the agency would agree that
setting maximum containment levels for PFAS and PFOA in drinking
water is necessary and eventually announce a new regulation
package.
4:24:49 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE agreed that the first priority is safe drinking
water for the people of Alaska. He said he appreciated that
Senator Kiehl is moving forward on a safe drinking water
program.
CHAIR MICCICHE noted that the bill has a fiscal note which
defines and establishes concentration limits, periodic drinking
water testing in PFAS release areas, providing alternative
drinking water, and voluntary blood testing at no cost that also
includes exposed responders. However, the responsibilities under
the proposed legislation amounts to approximately $100 million
and the result does not include a cleanup.
SENATOR KIEHL said he does not see a $100 million a year fiscal
note for SB 176.
CHAIR MICCICHE clarified that the fiscal note is for six years,
through FY2026.
4:26:28 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE opened public testimony.
4:26:57 PM
KELLY MCLAUGHLIN, representing self, Gustavus, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 176. She said Gustavus has lots of wells and
PFAS contamination in the community's water. She exhibited eggs
from chickens she raises at her home, noting that the eggs are
PFAS contaminated with levels ranging from 13 to 25,000 parts
per trillion.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN said SB 176 is in response to the contaminated
property owners, the mothers and fathers of children exposed to
PFAS in utero and early childhood who can no longer safely raise
pets and livestock on their lands or safely harvest nearby wild
foods.
She noted that the Alaska Department of Health and Social
Services (DHSS) refused requests to test blood and breast milk.
She added that DEC disregarded requests for a health protected
maximum contamination level during a public comment period.
She said the EPA must lower its current levels of 70 parts per
trillion. She suggested that an agency create a data set from
PFAS blood test results to help establish body burden levels.
MS. MCLAUGHLIN summarized that the use of PFAS must stop
immediately across the entire state because the futures of every
Alaskan depends on it. She pointed out that if London Heathrow
Airport can use non-fluorinated alternatives, there is no reason
why the Gustavus Airport cannot use them as well.
4:30:58 PM
MELANIE LESH, representing self, Gustavus, Alaska, testified in
support of SB 176. She said the Gustavus Airport has probably
used AFFF via testing for the whole 40 years. She noted that she
lives between the airport runway and the river, the route that
ground water flows that carries the PFAS chemicals with it. She
said she does not see the federal government being a lead on
PFAS and states must step up.
4:33:06 PM
JON ERICKSON, Manager, City and Borough of Yakutat, Yakutat,
Alaska, testified in support of SB 176. He said he has
experience with mitigating pollution problems in Yakutat. Three
wells at the Yakutat Airport tested positive for PFAS 18 months
ago. DOT is shipping drinking water to the restaurant near the
airport. He noted that he has asked DEC to share water testing
results. He said extending Yakutat municipal water system to the
airport will solve the problem.
4:37:37 PM
PAMELA MILLER, Executive Director, Alaska Community Action on
Toxics, Anchorage, Alaska, testified in support of SB 176. She
said PFAS contamination represents a significant threat to
drinking water sources and public health throughout Alaska. The
PFAS issue requires urgent action from the legislature to
prevent further harm, ensure safe drinking water supplies for
contaminated communities, provide responsible cleanup, and
establish measures to monitor and protect the health of affected
community members and first responders.
She noted that yesterday, Washington state overwhelmingly
approved in a bipartisan way the strongest state ban in the
country to phase out toxic PFAS chemicals in firefighting foam
and eliminate important exemptions. She said Washington state
sets an important precedent that the Alaska State Legislature
should follow.
4:43:17 PM
DAVID BERREY, member, Wake Up Alaskans to the Toxic Reality,
Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in support of SB 176. He said
Fairbanks has a plume at the regional training center at the
airport, Moose Creek, and an unreported plume coming from Fort
Wainwright. He remarked that there has been no testing or water
provided. He added that there is no PFAS testing on people who
died of cancer. He asked the legislature to provide PFAS
oversite.
4:46:15 PM
SALLY SCHLICHTING, representing self, Juneau, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 176. She noted that she is a former DEC
employee with the contaminated site program where she was
responsible for developing regulations and policy for hazardous
substances such as PFAS.
She said SB 176 is necessary because it would establish clear
statutory direction for DEC to carry out testing of drinking
water in Alaska that is at risk due to a release of PFAS. If DEC
continues to maintain that they cannot set levels until the EPA
does, Alaskans will likely wait many years for protection.
MS. SCHLICHTING suggested that the bill require testing fish and
subsistence foods near PFAS release sites, include the full
suite of PFAS compounds testing in drinking water, and place the
authority for blood testing with DHSS.
4:49:05 PM
BROOKE IVY, External Affairs Manager, Alaska Oil and Gas
Association (AOGA), Anchorage, Alaska, testified in opposition
of SB 176. She said while AOGA expresses concerns with specific
provisions in SB 176 as currently written, overall, AOGA is very
much appreciative of the legislation's goal.
She said AFFF is a highly effective foam used to fight high
hazard flammable liquid fires by the oil and gas industry. AFFF
remains the only product available to effectively extinguish
hydrocarbon fires at refineries and fuel terminals. AOGA
appreciates that SB 176 does provide an exemption for the oil
and gas industry to use AFFF even if no longer required by law,
should no effective alternative be available.
MS. IVY specified that the association's concern lies with the
subsection that provides authority to the state fire marshal to
determine a safe and effective alternative foam. Should an
effective alternative become available, transitioning industry
systems will likely require a multi-year phase-out process and
the bill is unclear on time allotment. The association also has
questions about the studies that contributed to the proposed
cutoff concentrations in the bill.
MS. IVY summarized that AOGA feels the language in the bill
should fully account for PFAS exposure coming from many sources,
not just AFFF. The language must be clear on targeted PFAS
release, especially given the liability statutes.
4:52:51 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE announced that the committee will not hear SB
232.
4:53:31 PM
PATRICE LEE, member, Citizens for Clean Air, Fairbanks, Alaska,
testified in support of SB 176. She said Fairbanks has a bad
problem with PFAS and wintertime air pollution, a combination
that could impact student performance. There is no time to wait
for cleaning up and stopping PFAS usage. The State must set the
strictest levels for protection. The valid science that has been
around for decades showing that PFAS is horribly detrimental to
human health.
4:56:15 PM
PAUL LIEDBERG, representing self, Dillingham, Alaska, testified
in support of SB 176. He said Dillingham as well as a number of
other communities in Alaska are experiencing the contamination
of ground water from PFAS. He suggested that the bill should
include testing for individuals who have used PFAS contaminated
water sources in the past.
MR. LIEDBERG said there has been little or no regulation on the
federal or state level of a chemical that has proven to have
negative health effects. At a minimum, the State should provide
testing to residents and first responders when PFAS exposure has
occurred. He summarized that the legislation is one small step
in dealing with a forever chemical.
4:59:10 PM
JIM WILLIAMS, Chief of Staff, Administration Center, Fairbanks
North Star Borough, Fairbanks, Alaska, testified in support of
SB 176. He said the borough assembly has not taken a position on
PFAS or PFOA, but there are some operational things that the
borough is working through. The borough pulled wells from
irrigation at soccer and softball fields due to either
contamination for discharge standards or drinking water
standards.
He noted that the borough is seeing more contaminated wells. He
said the borough must address a plan to get clean drinking and
irrigation water to communities. The borough does not have water
utility powers, but it is monitoring the extension of the North
Pole water utility out of Moose Creek. The $30 million project
provided service for approximately 100 households. The question
is what the cost will be if the Badger Road area requires
service for approximately 4,000 households.
MR. WILLIAMS summarized that the borough must consider economic
development for the next 10 or 15 years. It must acknowledge
whether the final solution is delivering water in trucks or
putting a ground water utility in.
5:02:16 PM
CHAIR MICCICHE held SB 176 in committee.
5:02:54 PM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Micciche adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 5:02 p.m.