SENATE BILL NO. 67 "An Act relating to firefighting substances; and providing for an effective date." 1:54:07 PM Senator Jesse Kiehl, Sponsor, provided an opening sponsor statement: Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of chemicals harmful to human health. They are linked to serious health conditions including low birth weight, thyroid disease, and cancereven at extremely small concentrations. They also make excellent ingredients in firefighting foams, in part because they resist breaking down. When firefighting foams or other compounds containing PFAS seep into drinking water, the toxic "forever chemicals" linger for years. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation declared PFAS hazardous substances several years ago. Senate Bill 67 protects Alaskans' health and prevents future pollution by banning PFAS foams unless federal law preempts. The bill also requires the state to take back small quantities of PFAS foam to ensure it's disposed of safely. Because there is not yet an effective alternative for the intensity of fire threat oil & gas operations face at refineries or the Trans Alaska Pipeline terminal, the bill exempts those producing, transporting, or refining oil and gas until the State Fire Marshal determines an effective non-PFAS substance could do the job. Senator Kiehl shared that in the past the Department of Transportation had been required by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to use PFAS laden firefighting foams. He said that the bill would put the requirement on the state Fire Marshall to phase out PFAS foams for a safe alternative. He stressed the importance that the PFAS substances be removed and disposed of responsibly. He cited an effective date of January 1, 2024. 1:59:56 PM Co-Chair Olson thought there had been changes to the bill in the Senate Resources Committee. Senator Kiehl noted that the Senate Resource Committee had made 2 changes to the legislation: The Senate Resource Committee adopted the following changes: 1. In Section 1 (AS 46.03.340), page 1, lines 9- 12: a. Deleted "engaged in the business of oil of gas production, transmission, transportation, or refining" b. Added "to respond to a fire that originates in relation to oil or gas production, transmission, transportation, or refining" This change allows for any respondent to a fire relating to oil or gas production, transmission, transportation, or refining to use PFAS or PFAS containing substances to fight the fire. 2. In Section 1 (AS 46.03.340), page 2, line 6: a. Deleted "25" b. Added "40" This change allows the state to accept for disposal a quantity not to exceed 40 gallons per year, up from 25 gallons in the previous version; 40 gallons covers the estimated 35 gallons of substance anticipated to be accepted from impacted Project Code Red communities. 2:01:11 PM Senator Wilson asked which department was referenced on page 2, line 4, regarding the state fire marshal. Senator Kiehl clarified that the fire marshal had some regulatory authority to delay the implementation when there was an alternate for oil and gas industry fires. He said that the department referenced in the bill was the Department of Environmental Conservation. He said that the most important thing was that the administration be proactive in the cleanup; the administration could put the responsibility within whichever department seemed a cost effective fit. Senator Wilson wondered whether the bill should narrow the language to specify one department rather than using language that indicated "the department." Senator Kiehl relayed that the language had been recommended by the executive branch to provide for flexibility. 2:03:12 PM CATHY SCHLINGHEYDE, STAFF, SENATOR JESSE KIEHL, addressed a Sectional Analysis (copy on file): Sec. 1 of the bill creates a new section: Sec. 46.03.340(a): Everyone outside the oil & gas industry must stop using PFAS-containing foams, unless federal law preempts Alaska law. Sec. 46.03.340(b): People fighting fires in the oil & gas industry may continue using PFAS- containing foams until an alternative is approved by regulation. Sec. 46.03.340(c): The state fire marshal can determine there is a safe and effective PFAS-free foam for fighting oil or gas fires if the alternate foam is listed by an organization in OSHA's Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory Program. The fire marshal must require the new foam by regulation, with a stated effective date. Sec. 46.03.350(d): DEC must take up to 40 gallons per year of PFAS-containing firefighting foam from Alaskans for disposal. Sec. 2 of the bill sets an effective date of January 1, 2024. 2:04:39 PM ANDY MILLS, SPECIAL ASSISTANT AND LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES, addressed FN 1 from Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, OMB Component 2355: This legislation requires the state fire marshal to make a determination and promulgate regulations consistent with federally mandated firefighting substances containing perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances (often referred to as PFAS or PFOA/PFOS or colloquially as "forever chemicals"). The Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) state airports are mandated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to utilize PFAS-containing aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) for firefighting purposes and not subject to state fire marshal regulations given the federal requirement. Under this language, the Department of Environmental Conservation would ensure the state accepts "a firefighting substance" containing PFAS. Clarification provided by the sponsor identified that DOT&PF was the state entity who would accept for disposal the AFFF from persons in Alaska with a cap of 40 gallons per year. There was further clarification that the communities where this collection and disposal effort would be targeted are those who participated in the Project Code Red initiative (details below). As context, Project Code Red was an initiative spanning two decades (earliest mentions found are from the early 2000s) that supplied a Conex container full of firefighting equipment to rural Alaska villages (see standard equipment manifest provided with this fiscal note). Research indicates original funding for Project Code Red was found to be a combination of federal funds and state grants to the Alaska Villages Initiative (AVI). In consultation with the AVI, the entity who organized, assembled, and distributed Project Code Red, a list of 138 rural communities were cited as receiving Project Code Red equipment. Research further indicates training on this equipment was also provided by the Department of Public Safety and their Office of Rural Fire Protection at each village where equipment was provided. Review of a community list (also attached) shows 132 communities with some quantity of PFAS-containing AFFF for disposal. Given that context, DOT&PF anticipates, as directed by this legislation and in cooperation with above listed state and private entities, operating a contracted program to ensure specialized environmental contractors collect and dispose of any PFAS-containing AFFF substance. One state funded position would be required to coordinate the outreach, inventory verification, contracting, and logistics of this program with the following costs: One FTE: PFAS Disposal Coordinator at Range 21, step  F; in the General Government Union (GGU) Advance step placement up to F step allows department to recruit an experienced contract coordinator. Salary & Benefits: annually $87.0 salary, COLA positioned in Fairbanks of $3.5, associated benefits of $59.5 (total of $150.0) Travel: $30.0 in FY 24 and FY 25 to establish program, then taper down to $15.0 for FY 26 and FY 27 (travel to rural villages for situations where community wants it out but doesn't know status of AFFF inventory) Commodities: $5.0 (computer, phone, etc.) This PFAS disposal coordinator would be responsible for reaching out to the 132 villages identified to alert them to the existence of this disposal program. Upon receipt of a request from an interested village, the coordinator will draft and post a competitive bid for contractor services to go out and collect PFAS-containing substance(s). Referencing the Project Code Red manifest, each village is anticipated to have a baseline minimum of 5 gallons of AFFF and a 30-gallon tank filled with a water/AFFF mixture in a "ready state" for firefighting purposes. Given the 40 gallon per year limit, the contractor would have to mobilize once to dispose of the estimated 35 gallons for each community. If the village has purchased, acquired, or been gifted additional AFFF, additional years would be necessary to capture the additional amounts, up to 40 gallons per year. To get a cost estimate, the department reached out to several environmental contractors for scenarios on general cost estimates based on scope provided, location and mode of transporting the disposal effort. Contractor-A scenario used a methodology of provided a range of costs from ~$6.0 for disposal via mostly road, to ~$10.0 by mostly barge, and ~$15.0 by mostly air to dispose of the 35 gallons (5-gallon AFFF container in an overpack container and the 30 gallons substance in the firefighting equipment to be drained into a 55-gallon drum). This did not include site survey cost estimates. The list of communities that received Project Code Red equipment appears to require more air travel than road or barge and, therefore, the estimate provided reflects a higher average between the barge and air options. Using this methodology, to dispose of estimated 35 gallons in 132 villages would cost $12.5 for each community for a total contractor cost of $1,650.0. Contractor-B scenario used a methodology based on bulk activity for all work to be performed. This scope included an initial site survey at an estimated cost of $500.0, administrative duties and fees of $15.0, mobilization and packing of disposal AFFF at $1,770.0, transportation at $600.0, disposal at $500.0 and a summary of disposal certification at $50.0 to address all 132 remote site disposals. The total estimated for this contractor to handle all disposal activities is estimated at $3,435.0 (a competitive bid would be required for each contract). Averaging the two contractor cost estimates gives a total minimum estimated capital appropriation of $2,550.0 along with the personnel costs and all assumptions detailed in this analysis. One significant caveat to this analysis is with the language of the legislation stating a "person in the state" leaves the option for unknown quantities of AFFF yet to be identified eligible for disposal. If individuals outside of the villages listed on the Project Code Red list come forward and qualify, capital funds appropriated will be used on a first-come, first-serve basis until such time as the capital appropriation is exhausted. While unknown and therefore not captured in the capital estimate of this fiscal note, the state contemplates there could be a significant amount of AFFF disposal from sources outside of Project Code Red areas given the broad eligibility and the annual nature of the disposal language proposed in this legislation (no end date for acceptance of disposal outside of department's personnel backout at the end of FY 27). The effective date of this bill, if enacted, would be January 1, 2024. DOT&PF would look to hire the PFAS disposal coordinator once the FY 24 budget was enacted with capital funds available for contractor collection and disposal starting the first quarter of calendar year 2024. Assumptions used in this analysis: - In addition to disposal contract program costs, there is the real potential for liability costs associated with PFAS disposal that cannot be quantified at this time but, under reasonable consideration, could far exceed the costs of this fiscal note should a spill or mishandling of the PFAS-containing AFFF occur, even outside of the states control. - There are likely some villages where their AFFF is no longer retrievable, either used for firefighting or disposed of prior to outreach, and would result in fewer gallons for disposal in some contracts. An offset to this assumption are communities that have procured additional AFFF beyond the Project Code Red supply. Given the unknowns in quantities of qualifying parties, the department chose to use the presumed numbers available in the absence of better inventory data. - The legislation only contemplates disposal of the "a firefighting substance" and not the contaminated equipment or container that is left behind. - No alternative PFAS-free AFFF is currently authorized at the time of this analysis and no provision of this bill specifies replacement of firefighting substances. - Toxic levels in drinking water have been established at a federal level and classification as a hazardous material is in progress at the federal level. Mr. Mills stressed that the fiscal note was an estimate based on the information currently available. 2:08:50 PM Co-Chair Olson OPENED public testimony. 2:08:59 PM PATTI SAUNDERS, ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She cited that there were currently PFAS poising water supplies at 469 cites throughout Alaska. She referenced the Alaska Community Water Quality Report published by her organization (copy on file). She said that all the waters tested were used for fishing and recreation. She said that there were safe and economical alternatives to PFAS currently being used all over the world. She said that there were 33 alternatives that had been Green Screen certified. She believed that the bill was a critical first step in the prevention of future environmental harm. 2:13:01 PM MIKE CRAFT, SELF, FAIRBANKS (via teleconference), testified in support of the legislation. He offered a brief history of the use of PFAS and the known environmental impacts of the substance. He lamented that people could be watering their gardens with contaminated water and not know the water was poisoned. 2:15:01 PM JUSTIN MACK, SECRETARY TREASURER, ALASKA PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. He worked as a captain in the Anchorage Fire Department. He asserted that PFAS was a known problem in the profession. He said that even with all the best practices in place, firefighters were still getting cancer due to PFAS exposure. He noted that there were strict policies surrounding the chemical. He believed that there were alternative chemicals available for fighting fires. 2:17:09 PM DYANI CHAPMAN, ALASKA ENVIRONMENT, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She reiterated previous testimony about PFAS contamination in Alaskas waters and wildlife. She listed states that had chosen to use alternatives to PFAS to protect firefighters and the environment. She thought alternatives to PFAS had been well tested in states with wildfires. She urged the passage of the legislation. 2:19:07 PM LESA HOLLEN, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), spoke in support of the bill. She shared that she was a neuroscientist. She asserted that PFAS affected every part of a mammal's body, passing through the blood/brain barrier. She listed the myriad of ill effects of PFAS on humans, predominately cancer. She spoke to the cost of Medicare to address illnesses in the state. 2:21:36 PM MARGARET TARRANT, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified in support of the bill. She spoke of members of her community that had been exposed to PFAS and subsequently diagnosed with cancer. She reiterated previous testimony on the ills of PFAS. 2:23:13 PM AT EASE 2:23:31 PM RECONVENED 2:23:57 PM Co-Chair Olson CLOSED public testimony. Senator Kiehl thanked the committee for considering the legislation. Co-Chair Olson set SB 67 aside. SB 67 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further consideration.