HB 171-PFAS USE & REMEDIATION; FIRE/WATER SAFETY  1:39:55 PM CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 171, "An Act relating to pollutants; relating to perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances; relating to the duties of the Department of Environmental Conservation; relating to firefighting substances; relating to thermal remediation of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substance contamination; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR PATKOTAK stated that today's goal is to bring the bill up to date based on the changes made in the Senate Resources Standing Committee, and to take testimony from the sponsor and affected agencies. He said the sponsor has asked that the committee adopt a committee substitute (CS) to HB 171 that matches the version currently in the works in the other body. 1:40:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS moved to adopt the proposed CS for HB 171, Version 32-LS0788\I, Radford, 4/23/22 as the working document. There being no objection, Version I was before the committee. 1:40:59 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN, as prime sponsor of HB 171, explained that the bill would set in statute health protective levels for drinking water that limit perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) compounds. The major change in the CS, she related, is removal of the blood test collection and monitoring. She said the bill continues to affirm that the polluter pays and that the liability for the pollution remains with the polluter; exempt the oil and gas industry; and exempt the use until there is an alternative that is acceptable by the state fire marshal. She stated that PFAS/PFOA aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) is the best [firefighting response] for oil and gas fires because they burn hot and long. Representative Hannan pointed out that most of the PFAS/PFOA pollution in Alaska is not from actual fire response but from required testing at airports. She said it is a compound that does not dissipate and does not dilute, but it does migrate in the water column, and it has migrated into drinking water systems from the sites that were required to deploy it. This chemical compound is very toxic to humans, she continued, and contributes to low birth weight, thyroid disease, and a list of cancers. 1:43:37 PM TIMOTHY CLARK, Staff, Representative Sara Hannan, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Hannan, prime sponsor of HB 171, explained the changes in Version I, the proposed committee substitute for the bill. He stated that other than the removal of the blood testing requirements, the only other change is an updating of the effective date of the bill from 1/1/2022 to 1/1/2023. 1:44:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS referred to the [North Pole Refinery] where sulfolane pollution occurred under the refinery's builder and original owner, but the pollution wasn't discovered until after purchase of the refinery by another company and now there have been many court cases over who is liable. He asked whether the original polluter or the current landowner would be responsible for the cleanup and remediation. REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that in that specific case the lawyers will have to fight it out because she doesn't know. REPRESENTATIVE HOPKINS posed a scenario in which a government entity, such as the U.S. Department of Defense, is the polluter. He asked whether the government entity would be the responsible polluter. REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN responded yes. 1:45:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether provisions in HB 171 would dictate the answer to Representative Hopkins' question. MR. CLARK answered that the foundational premise for liabilities in HB 171 is the concept that the polluter pays. So, he said, the liability would rest with the entity that caused the discharge of the pollutant into the environment. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked who the polluter would be if the federal government gave the okay for use at, say, an airport. MR. CLARK replied that until the present, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) required airports to train with PFAS- bearing foams on a regular basis. He said it seems conceivable to him that the FAA would be the liable entity. 1:47:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM asked how the origin of PFAS pollution can be determined. For example, he said, Juneau's dump is only a mile or two from the airport. He further noted that sludge washes into [Gastineau] Channel and asked where the liability would be there. REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN responded that the bill addresses PFAS in foam. She said the bill does not address PFAS in things like Gore-Tex jackets or containers for fast food, although legislation in some states does address that. She related that Juneau residents have been assured the landfill has a liner [to prevent] leaching into the water table. She said Alaska's water column issues are related to the dispersing of the foam and are primarily associated with use at airports from mandated testing. Regarding liability, she stated, what is being talked about is the cleanup and providing clean drinking water. Representative Hannan pointed out that the Juneau airport is in a saltwater area, and it is not where Juneau gets its drinking water. The community of Gustavus, she continued, has no community water system and PFAS from the airport have leached into the water table, polluting wells, including the school's well. For five years now, she specified, the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) has provided an alternative source of drinking water to the citizens whose wells were polluted by the PFAS plume from the Gustavus airport. Cleanup and mitigation are ongoing, and DOT&PF and the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and DOT&PF have taken the responsibility for it, she added. 1:51:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER referred to page 2, lines 18-27 of Version I, which read:  Sec. 46.03.345. Liability for drinking water and  drinking water testing. (a) A person who causes a fire that results in a release of a firefighting substance containing a perfluoroalkyl substance or polyfluoroalkyl substance is liable for the costs of providing drinking water and drinking water testing under AS 46.03.340. This subsection does not apply to a release of a firefighting substance to extinguish a fire in a residential building or motor vehicle. (b) A person who extinguishes a fire by releasing a firefighting substance that contains a perfluoroalkyl substance of polyfluoroalkyl substance is not liable for the costs of providing drinking water and drinking water testing under AS 46.03.340 or site cleanup under this chapter, AS 46.08, AS 46.09, or another state law unless the firefighting substance was released for training or testing purposes. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that under subsection (a) the person causing the fire is not the one who released the substances, but that person is liable for what happens afterward. He further noted that under subsection (b) the person who extinguishes the fire by using such substances is not liable for the cost of providing drinking water. He maintained that those two provisions contradict each other somewhat. MR. CLARK answered that when reference is made to a person in that paragraph, most likely that would be a company because in U.S. law companies are persons. He said the entity that caused a fire where PFAS was used to put out that fire would be liable. The next paragraph, he continued, is differentiating that fire departments that are forced to use these substances to put out a fire will not be held liable because of the circumstances in which they found themselves. 1:54:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY posed an example of airplane engine failure forcing [the pilot] to crash land on a Gustavus airport runway, causing the plane to erupt in fire and firefighting trucks responding by hitting the fire with PFAS because that is what they have. That [the pilot] would be held liable seems a stretch, he stated, because it wasn't intentional, it was an accident. Liability per line 18, he argued, cannot be connected to unintentional accidental acts. 1:56:24 PM CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, Staff, Senator Jesse Kiehl, Alaska State Legislature, responded on behalf of Senator Kiehl, prime sponsor of the companion bill, SB 121. She explained that the liability provisions in these bills are designed to match the existing DEC rules about liability, which means that with all these hazardous substances the polluter pays, or the spiller pays, and that includes accidental releases. So, she said, someone who spills a carcinogen into the environment, even if it's an accident, would still be liable for the cleanup. The responsible party wouldn't have criminal liability because there is not that intent, she continued, but the party would have civil liabilities. Ms. Schlingheyde noted that the bill adds some protections not existing in current law. For example, she specified, under current law a volunteer fire department is responsible when it uses foam that contains PFAS or sprays anything else while fighting a fire. This will give them a liability shield that they wouldn't otherwise have because there is concern about the ability for volunteer fire departments and others to be able to pay for this, she advised, but it doesn't create a new type of liability. 1:57:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY offered his understanding that there are PFAS at airports in Alaska right now. MS. SCHLINGHEYDE answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY offered his understanding that the airport fire department people are shielded from liability to use on a fire the PFAS currently at the airports. MS. SCHLINGHEYDE replied that this would give them a liability shield if this were a fire but not for a training or for an accidental release. REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY stated it is unfair in a situation like his aircraft example. The saving of human life is more important than the groundwater, he maintained, and he doesn't have any choice in this accidental situation that the firefighters are using PFAS. He pointed out that as the pilot he can't say that if he were to crash, the firefighters should let him burn to death rather than using PFAS. It isn't right and doesn't make sense, he added. REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN responded by noting that Gustavus is a second-class city that provides two examples. One example is DOT&PF being held liable for the practice discharge of PFAS at the airport. Now DOT&PF is having to provide drinking water. The other example is the Gustavus Volunteer Fire Department being held liable by DEC for using PFAS [to extinguish] a real fire because currently volunteer fire departments are liable for discharging PFAS. For four years DEC has pursued collecting from the Gustavus volunteer fire department because it used a fire truck donated by the state that was full of PFAS foam. 2:00:33 PM CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that the committee would hear invited testimony. 2:01:07 PM CHRIS HLADICK provided invited testimony in support of HB 171. He qualified that he is speaking on behalf of himself but that he formerly was the Region 10 administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the former commissioner of the Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development, and a city manager in the state for 27 years. He said he is testifying in support of HB 171 because he thinks it is a good first step. MR. HLADICK advised that today's discussion has been a good discussion about some of the complicating issues with PFAS, called "forever chemicals" by the EPA. He related that the EPA is in the process of developing a [maximum] contaminant level (MCL) for drinking water that is supposed to be done by summer 2023. However, he pointed out, there is nothing to say that the state can't set levels of its own and then adjust in the future or keep at levels less than what the EPA develops. He offered his belief that the EPA is working on 22 chemicals and noted that the PFAS/PFOA family includes over 4,500 chemicals. Liability is an issue, he affirmed, and working out the legal interpretation on the liability issue is an important first step in the process going forward. 2:03:54 PM TIFFANY LARSON, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and Response (SPAR), Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), provided invited testimony expressing DEC's concerns with HB 171. She noted that her written testimony provided in the committee packet, titled "HB 171 Prepared Statements for House Resources Committee April 27, 2022," contemplates the original version of the bill, so she will skip the points that are no longer valid. She explained that PFAS is a family of chemicals with 5,000-10,000 man-made compounds of carbon bonded to fluorine, one of the strongest bonds to exist. She said PFAS chemicals are water, heat, and oil resistant, as well as water soluble and persistent in the environment, and they bioaccumulate. She stated that while DEC has concerns about the content of HB 171, the department appreciates Representative Hannan bringing attention to this important subject. MS. LARSON addressed the question, "What has DEC done in the absence of legislation to protect Alaskans and the environment?" She said Alaska pro-actively listed perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) as hazardous substances. In 2016, she related, Alaska was one of the first states to promulgate soil and groundwater cleanup levels for two PFAS compounds. In 2019, she stated, [DEC] incorporated through its technical memorandum ("memo") the lifetime health advisory (LHA) of 70 parts per trillion (ppt) for PFOA and PFOS, individual or combined. This number, she explained, is the threshold for when a responsible party (RP) is required to provide alternative drinking water. Since 2018, she continued, DEC and DOT&PF have been voluntarily testing drinking water wells at the airports that have been required to use AFFF. As part of that effort, DEC implemented expedited procedures to sample wells that it suspected of contamination, Ms. Larson specified, and where drinking water impacts were found, alternative drinking water has been provided. She noted that DEC also issued two state permits for thermal remediation that are protective of human health and the environment consistent with developed testing requirements for limits and emissions. 2:06:46 PM MS. LARSON related that the EPA is actively working on the issue of 5,000-10,000 compounds of PFAS by developing a strategic roadmap, which EPA published in October 2021. Existing research was reviewed through EPA's Science Advisory Board for PFOS and PFOA, she said. The result of that review will be released in May [2022], she continued, and DEC anticipates the review board will set a lower LHA and DEC expects it to be reduced by an order of magnitude - from 70 ppt down to 7 ppt or lower. It is further expected, she advised, that in fall 2022 EPA will issue a proposed rulemaking for National Primary Drinking Water Act regulations, with a final rule promulgated in fall 2023. In winter 2022, Ms. Larson added, the EPA is expected to publish ambient water quality criteria. Plus, she specified, the EPA is looking at identifying categories of PFAS to regulate on an individual compound basis. She said DEC expects that by summer 2023 the EPA will have published a final rule for Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)("Superfund") designation for PFOA and PFOS. She deferred to Ms. Jennifer Currie to provide testimony on behalf of the Department of Law. 2:08:46 PM JENNIFER CURRIE, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Statewide Section Supervisor, Environmental Section, Department of Law (DOL), provided invited testimony expressing DOL's concerns with HB 171. She said there are two distinct ways that DEC can identify a substance as hazardous: first, DEC can make a determination based on the definition of hazardous substance contained in statute; second, DEC can list the hazardous substance in its promulgated regulations. She stated that when DEC has decided that a substance especially an emerging contaminant - is hazardous according to the definition only and not by regulation, responsible properties have tried to evade liability by improperly arguing that the determination is not valid because it is not regulation. MS. CURRIE advised that if HB 171 is enacted, there is concern that liable parties will try to evade liability by arguing that other emerging contaminants are non-hazardous substance if they are not named in statute. She said the language of HB 171 is unclear as to whether the bill is defining hazardous substances under state law to include PFAS because it's referred to only as a substance, and DEC liability statutes impose joint and several liability only on releases of hazardous substances. She drew attention to Sec. 46.03.350(c) of Version I that requires DEC to accept certain amounts of PFAS each year, all of which must be disposed of by DEC. She counseled that if at any point in the future the PFAS disposal site has a release or receives a determination that it is not appropriate for PFAS disposal, the site will be deemed a contaminated site directly under state or federal law. She specified that because DEC is the entity which disposed of PFAS at the site, the state will be held jointly and severally liable for addressing the contamination at that site. MS. CURRIE pointed out that another issue is that Sec. 46.03.345(b) names the federal government as liable if it requires the use of PFAS substance. She advised that any provision that makes the federal government liable under a state statute would be subject to challenge unless there is a valid waiver of sovereign immunity. The United States, she said, has sovereign immunity for lawsuits just as the state does. For a waiver of sovereign immunity to be valid, she continued, Congress must specify what it intends to waive, or courts will hold the waiver as not occurred. To enforce .345(b), she counseled, the state will likely have to enter cost of litigation without a likelihood of success to attempt to hold the federal government liable. She deferred to Ms. Larson to continue with DEC's testimony. 2:12:15 PM MS. LARSON resumed her testimony. She addressed the question, "What challenges exist for DEC with implementing the bill as written?" She said there is not currently an existing database of where aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) has been used in Alaska, so DEC would have to do the research to find it. She noted that there is significant liability to the state and for ultimate disposal. She related that there is not a current mechanism by which DEC can accept, handle, or dispose of any amount of PFAS containing firefighting substances. She pointed out that the federal permitting for thermal remediation doesn't change the monitoring requirements and only adds time and expense for those permit applicants. She advised that the minimal release language for thermal remediation requires contract development of a numerical pollutant limit and special procedures more stringent than federal requirements on a timeline ahead of EPA and the science. MS. LARSON concluded her testimony by stating that DEC has the necessary authority, and has used it, to require responsible parties to respond to PFAS contamination and to regulate hazardous substances. To statutorily declare a substance as hazardous could jump ahead of the science, she submitted, and takes that decision making out of the hands of DEC's technical staff. She said DEC understands the public's concern regarding PFAS, and the desire for clear lines of what is safe and not safe. However, she stated, the scientific community is still working to determine the critical levels of PFAS in drinking water and in human blood and bodies, and this bill doesn't make that process happen any faster. 2:15:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY referred to the list of substances and their cutoff concentrations on page 2, lines 8-16 of Version I. He submitted that the measurement in parts per trillion (ppt) is so small and exact that it is like passing a speed limit law of 64.3876 miles per hour, no more, no less. He argued that these limits could change as the EPA and other agencies do more testing and therefore suggested that DEC could set these numbers independently of the legislature. He reiterated his belief that assigning liability in the plane crash example he posed earlier seems like a stretch. He posed another example where a forklift driver accidentally puts a fork through a drum of aviation gas causing it to ignite and said holding the forklift driver liable for the groundwater contamination seems like a stretch. 2:18:28 PM RANDY BATES, Director, Division of Water, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), responded that these are very specific drinking water provisions, which are different from clean water provisions. 2:19:05 PM MS. LARSON, regarding the numbers being very specific and akin to writing a speed limit sign of [64.3876] miles per hour, explained that the State of Alaska didn't originate the limits in the bill and that the sponsor probably has a better awareness of the origin of the limits. Regarding whether it is somehow different from the way drinking water standards are established in the orders of magnitude in the numbers, she advised that those standards usually are prescriptive. She deferred to Ms. Currie to address accidental liability. 2:20:12 PM MS. CURRIE specified that environmental statutes for liability don't take into account accidents; they are "no fault." She said there is some confusion with the bill because Alaska's liability statute for contamination is AS 46.03.822, which establishes four different categories of people liable jointly and separately, so each one is responsible for the fault all themselves. For example, she continued, if two people were liable and one went bankrupt, the one that was left would be responsible for all of it that is joint and several liability. She said the legislation establishes sort of two new categories of liability but doesn't note whether they are jointly and severally liable in conjunction with .822. Also, she noted, the bill doesn't establish that PFAS are hazardous substances, which is required for .822. She further noted that in an accident like those posed by Representative McKay, the traditional liability for contamination does not take into account the person's mental state. 2:22:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked what data was used for the limits in HB 171 given the [EPA] report won't be out until May [2022]. REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that the limits came from the "Michigan PFAS Science Advisory Working Group." Michigan is one of the leading states [in addressing] PFAS pollution, she said, and this research was shared when the bill was introduced. She offered to provide the studies again. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how long the study was and why it was chosen. REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN responded that Michigan is a leading state establishing standards. She said the report is based in 2019 and she first introduced the bill in 2020. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, regarding the [limit] of 25 gallons annually from every entity, noted that the substances could be coming from an oil company or a firefighting outfit. He asked whether there is any idea about the volume that the state could expect to be warehousing every year. REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN answered, "We don't, ... it is limited to 25 per year." She related that DOT&PF has identified 34 airports at which there is PFAS aqueous foam. She offered her belief that it would be better to move it from diverse locations where a forklift driver might puncture a container to a more centralized collection location for disposal or monitoring. 2:24:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, regarding the 10,000 compounds, offered his belief that these compounds are contained in many plastics. He asked how contamination is going to be differentiated when looking at the chemical makeup of thousands of compounds. REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that this legislation is focusing on the PFAS and PFOA compounds used in AFFF, the firefighting foam. The bill is not looking at plastics or Gore-Tex, she explained, because there are no manufacturing sites in Alaska for those. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER inquired whether the sponsor thinks that the data in the forthcoming [EPA] report will be different or the same. REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN responded that she does not think the EPA will have research that correlates to what Alaska's clean drinking water standards are. She stated that the EPA must work on a national level to address the hundreds of PFAS compounds. The impetus for the bill, she continued, is because of waiting on the EPA to address clean drinking water standards and the EPA is not doing it in a fast enough way to address the safety, security, and health protection of Alaskans. In response to Chair Patkotak, she said drinking water standards are a viable element to ensuring Alaskans are protected. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered his belief that the bill has some retroactive provisions. This worries him, he said, because the federal government has maintained levels at the airports, so other entities have looked at that and have thought it okay to utilize them. 2:27:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether he is correct in thinking that the dumping into water of raw materials comprised of PFAS chemicals, such as petroleum products, will cause instant pollution whereas the dumping of plastics made of these same PFAS chemicals will not instantly pollute the water. MS. LARSON responded that the answer isn't simple as to whether a small amount of petroleum being dumped into a well will result in contamination. She explained that pollution is talked about in terms of the product release relative to the environment to which it is released. So, she said, when talking about these limits and the concentrations in the type of environment, such as soil, groundwater, and drinking water, it is specific to what is being addressed. In this bill, she continued, the limit is 420 ppt for PFOS in drinking water, so anything below that is okay. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE clarified that he is asking about the pollution potential for products that have PFAS chemicals bound into them as part of the production process versus firefighting foams. He asked whether he is right that when bound into a product one can be pretty sure that that is not the source of PFAS contamination. MS. LARSON confirmed that that is correct and said the principal source of PFAS in groundwater in Alaska is from AFFF release. 2:30:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE posed a scenario in which he accidentally knocks a barrel of a known contaminant out of his truck into a lake. He asked whether he would be held liable under current statute. MS. CURRIE confirmed that he would be liable under AS 46.03.822. CHAIR PATKOTAK remarked that he understands the idea of ensuring that volunteer fire departments aren't liable but that the liability now would be "kicked over" to somebody. REPRESENTATIVE GILLHAM commented that the numbers are "mind- boggling" because by his calculation someone would have to drink 42,000 gallons of water per day [to be in the PFAS danger zone]. 2:33:54 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that the bill's language states "PFAS substances" and argued that if it was talking about AFFF it would be listed that way. He said he is trying to get an understanding of the generics versus absolutes and how that is being looked at legally. REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN replied that there are hundreds of PFAS compounds and components, and the legislation is focusing on the seven that are the primary components in AFFF, which is firefighting foam. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER responded, "It doesn't say that." REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN drew attention to page 2 of Version I and stated that the seven substances listed [on lines 10-16 are the seven primary components in AFFF]. She then explained that Alaska laws are not written in colloquial speech, and with hazardous substances "they've" asked to be very specific. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER said he will visit with Legislative Legal Services to figure out why it is written the way it. CHAIR PATKOTAK interjected that he understands the concerns about opening the can of worms not specific to AFFF. He observed that Section 1, Sec. 46.03.340, doesn't say anything about firefighting substances until page 2, line 18. He said there is a general understanding amongst committee members that PFAS/PFOA is an issue, but it is a matter of differences in how to find a way to address the issue, which will require work with the bill sponsors in both bodies. 2:37:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE related that he has been thinking about the scenario of someone causing a fire that requires the use of PFAS firefighting foams. He said the scenario presented by Representative McKay seems like a genuine concern, because as a private pilot himself it would be a hard decision as to whether to let the fire burn or put it out at the risk of permanently polluting the drinking water of thousands of people. He inquired about the intent and who was in mind when this liability was envisioned. For example, he continued, he is thinking about chemical production facilities that deal with hazardous materials all the time and whether there are other laws on the books requiring special liability insurance for cleanups that would be massive. MS. CURRIE responded that AS 46.03.822 establishes liability for the release of hazardous substances. She said it does not have this as a category of people that are liable; this is a new category of people that are liable under state law. She stated she doesn't know if other states have established the person who causes the fire as a person liable either regular liability or joint and several liability. REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE said this will have to be worked on offline. CHAIR PATKOTAK stated there is plenty of work for committee members to do offline together with either the bill sponsor or the department to answer the committee's specific questions. 2:40:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY asked whether "these types of things" must be shipped to the Lower 48 for proper disposal. JASON OLDS, Acting Director, Division of Air Quality, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), answered that [DEC] has permitted two facilities that are currently capable of thermally remediating PFAS. In further response regarding their location, he said one facility is in Moose Creek near North Pole and the other in Valdez. CHAIR PATKOTAK inquired whether the PFAS/PFOA is eliminated when incinerated or whether it becomes caught up in the filters, thereby contaminating the filters. MR. OLDS replied that it is 99.9999 percent destruction. He said there are several treatment technologies in the process where it would be captured or where other product pollutants are captured. It's an industrial process, he continued, but a lot of controls go on with that. 2:42:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE CRONK asked whether water that is contaminated with PFAS is contaminated forever. MR. BATES responded that once PFAS are in the water they are in the water column and persist. In what concentration they persist is a different question, he added. 2:43:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how PFAS arrive in Alaska and in what form. MS. LARSON answered that it comes up in the form of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), which is a firefighting substance. Apart from that, she said, the family of PFAS compounds is ubiquitous and comes in all kinds of forms, such as nonstick pans and microwavable popcorn bags. The AFFF comes to Alaska by tug or barge and all the rest comes via the common shipping pathways. It is everywhere, she noted, and it is in every person in some form or another. 2:44:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN provided closing comments. She said DEC currently lists two of the PFAS/PFOA compounds as hazardous, but [she] believes all seven in the bill are significantly toxic to humans and exist in the water columns because of AFFF. She related that DEC says it doesn't have a database of where it is and where it has been used. But, she maintained, it is long past due given at least two state agencies have been collecting data since 2018. So, as the data is collected on where these forever chemicals have been used, stored, or spilled, the database needs to be built because whether it is addressed this legislature or 10 years down the road, it is being found by the EPA and state agencies that the exposure limits that create toxic response go down. Representative Hannan agreed that the small [concentrations] for significant health concern are mind blowing but added that while not letting it into Alaska's water system is best, [it is good] to know where it is and try to remove it. One of the earliest PFAS contamination sites in Alaska is in Representative Cronk's district, she stated, and it was caused by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD). The fish from the lakes cannot be eaten due to PFAS in the water, she continued, and while that is rare in Alaska, it isn't rare across the U.S. She stressed that Alaska doesn't want to be like the rest of the U.S., so Alaska cannot wait for federal EPA decisions to be had because it will be years, not months given that the EPA is dealing with hundreds of compounds and not just AFFF. She urged that the state start with [these seven substances] for the health and safety of Alaskans. CHAIR PATKOTAK recounted that in preparing for today's meeting there was discussion about a list that prioritized the safe drinking water limits throughout Alaska into which AFFF was leaked. He said he looks forward to that follow-up from the department and making it available to all committee members in preparation for the bill's next hearing. CHAIR PATKOTAK announced that HB 171 was held over.