HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE April 1, 1996 8:29 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman Representative Alan Austerman Representative John Davies Representative Don Long Representative Irene Nicholia MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Ramona Barnes Representative Pete Kott COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 342 "An Act relating to water quality." - HEARD AND HELD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 342 SHORT TITLE: WATER QUALITY STANDARDS JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 05/09/95 2042 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 05/09/95 2042 (H) O&G, RESOURCES 10/17/95 (H) O&G AT 1:00 PM ANCHORAGE LIO 10/17/95 (H) MINUTE(O&G) 02/13/96 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124 02/13/96 (H) MINUTE(O&G) 02/20/96 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124 02/20/96 (H) MINUTE(O&G) 03/21/96 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124 03/22/96 3267 (H) O&G RPT CS(O&G) 1DP 3NR 03/22/96 3268 (H) DP: ROKEBERG 03/22/96 3268 (H) NR: G.DAVIS, B.DAVIS, WILLIAMS 03/22/96 3268 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (DEC, F&G) 03/22/96 3268 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES 03/27/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124 03/29/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124 04/01/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124 WITNESS REGISTER MARILYN CROCKETT, Lobbyist Alaskan Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) 121 West Fireweed, Number 207 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 272-1481 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 342 SUSAN BRALEY, Chief Technical Services and Program Development Division of Air and Water Quality Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795 Telephone: (907) 465-5308 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 342 PAMELA GREFSRUD, Coordinator Water Quality Standards Department of Environmental Conservation 555 Cordova Street Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Telephone: (907) 269-7568 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 342 BILL PERHACH, Lobbyist Alaska Environmental Lobby P.O. Box 34 Denali Park, Alaska 99755 Telephone: (907) 683-1373 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 342 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 96-45, SIDE A Number 000 CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Resources Committee meeting to order at 8:29 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Green, Ogan, Davies, Long and Nicholia. This meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage. A quorum was present. CO-CHAIR GREEN said this meeting was delayed because the committee had to wait for a quorum. He said, "we still have four people who found something more important to do." HB 342 - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS Number 0072 CO-CHAIR GREEN announced the only bill on the agenda was HB 342, an act relating to water quality. REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, sponsor of HB 342, referred to the new committee substitute for the bill with an attached explanation of the changes. Number 0176 MARILYN CROCKETT, Alaskan Oil and Gas Association (AOGA), referred to the new version, revised March 31, 1996, and said the first concern addressed was the specific reference to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 303(d) Impaired Water Bodies List. She said there had been a suggestion at the Friday meeting that the term "existing" be changed to "natural quality of waters" in each of those sections. She said the language that was inserted into this current version was a description, basically, of definitions of water bodies that would qualify for the EPA 303(d) listing. She said those are water bodies which the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has determined do not meet applicable state water quality standards through the implementation of technology based or similar controls. Number 0278 MS. CROCKETT said the language picks up point source discharges which are specific discharges and non-(indiscernible due to coughing)source the run-off issue which is obviously much more difficult to control. The language provides, that while you would not have to have a more restrictive water quality standard for your discharge water into the receiving water that is of good quality, that for those water bodies where there are known problems, additional controls would be implemented. She said language has been inserted on page one, line 4, the section that begins on line 11, and then on page two, the section that begins on line 9. Number 0342 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES referred to the first part of the sentence, "except for water bodies which the DEC has determined do no meet applicable state water quality standards solely through the implementation of technology based or similar controls" and said that didn't make any sense to him. He asked if CSHB 342 says these are water bodies that don't meet the standards because of lack of implementation of controls or that they don't meet the standards and we have determined that by the means of technology. Number 0408 MS. CROCKETT said the language means that you have a water body which has been degraded to the point that a permit issued for discharge, having certain limits in it, would not allow the quality of that water body to improve, it would further degrade the water body. If you have a water body that has an extreme load of sediment in it and you allow the discharger to discharge into that water body using the technology based controls in place in order to discharge additional sediments into that degraded water body. She said it is this type of water body that is being referred to in the language. Number 0457 CO-CHAIR GREEN said his interpretation is, for water bodies that do not meet the standard, the commissioner may require more restrictive quality standards discharge. Number 0475 MS. CROCKETT said the language reads, except for those water bodies. She said, "except for those water bodies, setting those water bodies aside, for all other water bodies the commissioner may not require a more restrictive water quality for discharged water." Number 0493 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked for clarification regarding, "solely for the implementation of technology based or similar controls". CO-CHAIR GREEN said the decision for more restrictive discharge criteria cannot be an arbitrary decision, it must be based on science. Number 0515 SUSAN BRALEY, Chief, Technical Services and Program Development, Division of Air and Water Quality, Department of Environmental Conservation, was next to testify. She described her involvement with HB 342. She felt her role was to explain where the state had concerns in the language, which would cause problems, if it were incorporated into statute. She had a discussion with Ms. Crockett in trying to work through some of the issues involved in HB 342. She said she just received a copy of CSHB 342 and said she didn't fully agree with what is in the new language. Number 0604 MS. BRALEY expressed concern with the language surrounding the EPA 303(d) list without calling it that. She also expressed concern with having DEC identify water bodies in Alaska which have been impaired to the point that water quality standards are being degraded and therefore the state is not going to allow them to be degraded any further. She said it doesn't appear that this language is getting at the intent of this section. Number 0642 MS. BRALEY said she thought the intent of HB 342 was to get back to the natural quality of the water and not have water quality standards based on "pure water" assuming that you may not have some natural degradation coming from mineralization or total dissolved solids. She said many of the water bodies in the state have natural exceedencies due to turbidity, glacial streams, et cetera. She said the size of the DEC staff compared to the size of the state will never allow the Department to be in a position to know every water body in the state, the point to which it is degraded and whether the Department would be able to apply this section of CSHB 342. She said situations need to be determined on a case by case basis. She said if Alaska was similar to the states of Washington or Oregon where there is a high population and enough capital coming in to manage the resources in those states. She said those states are able to go out with a sophisticated hydrologic data base and track every segment of every water body in their state. She said Alaska is not in a similar position, and questioned whether the state would ever reach that point as Alaska has three million water bodies. She said she would not be in support of the language in CSHB 342. Number 0746 MS. BRALEY suggested, if the intent of CSHB 342 is to get back to the natural water quality, two terms that would define that are "natural condition" and "human induced activity." She reiterated that the state wants to avoid fixing the natural condition of a water, but wants to focus on human induced changes to the water bodies. She questioned, upon looking at CSHB 342 section by section, is trying to be fixed. She referred to her testimony last week where she pointed out several areas where DEC has the ability to set water quality standards to be site specific for that water body. She said she did not see any other way that the state could set a condition of a water body based on past testimony, except on a case by case basis. Number 0824 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the intent of CSHB 342 was to involve the legislature in a discussion on the topics of mixing zones and sediment, particularly as it related to the petroleum industry in Cook Inlet and the mining industry throughout the state. He said CSHB 342 tried to bring some clarity and resolution to those areas of controversy. Number 0862 MS. CROCKETT referred to the language in CSHB 342, "except the water bodies that DEC has determined do not meet", and said she viewed this language as a case by case determination. She said her organization did not have any particular objections to deleting that language and using the word "natural" when talking about the "natural quality of the receiving water." She said her organization's concern was that a long, drawn-out process would be needed to identify what the natural quality of the water body was before the human activity began and before activities of others began. She said the term "natural" brings to mind the original condition of the water quality before man showed up. Number 0921 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if the current wording in CSHB 342 was beyond the DEC's ability to add another water body if someone came in requesting a permit, while the other water bodies across the state would not be designated until someone filed a permit request. Number 1022 MS. BRALEY said the CSHB 342 is going from the original language in Section 1 and Section 2 where the intent appeared to get at the natural condition of the water body and not have water quality standards that were unreasonably set, such as Red Dog Creek. She said the state shouldn't be taking a Red Dog Creek and applying water quality standards where there is a high natural mineralization. She said the CSHB 342 appeared to be going away from the list of waters that the state is overseeing which will be done anyway for tracking purposes and to meet the Clean Water Act Provisions. She said, regardless of whether the state has these provisions written in statute, the state is going to do this to meet the Clean Water Act. Number 1067 MS. BRALEY referred to Gold Creek in Juneau where there is a total dissolved solid standard which has exceeded the set water quality standards for the last 50 years. She said an argument could be made that if mining had not occurred in the 1920s, there would not be these exceedencies, but added that the water life has been living in that water for 50 years and to reduce the dissolved solids standards would probably hurt the water life. She said this is an example where a water body does not meet a standard and the state is setting their permit conditions based on what that natural condition is. She said industry had to go out and do some research and study the water body to find out the natural condition of the water. She said this is an example where a case by case basis was appropriate. Number 1111 MS. BRALEY reiterated concern regarding the list included in CSHB 342 and that DEC has been charged with doing something. She said the fact that the department is doing this anyway does not get away from her question that the new language gets away from the original intent. Number 1180 CO-CHAIR GREEN made a hypothetical scenario of two streams that have not been impacted by man in an industrial standpoint. He said Stream A is pristine drinking water and Stream B is Gold Creek. He said an individual requests a permit, "the way I read this, if I come to you for some sort of water use from Gold Creek that would apply, that you can say these are the standards because it doesn't meet the natural water conditions, but if we go to pristine stream then that wouldn't apply and so then you would say, okay, I'm not going to impose on you anything more stringent than the EPA standards." He asked if this was workable and then asked if it was wrong. Number 1230 MS. BRALEY said she believed that DEC was doing this type of work. CO-CHAIR GREEN said he believed the whole purpose of CSHB 342 was to not impose stronger standards than EPA would impose for pristine streams. Number 1250 MS. CROCKETT said this language that is being discussed was suggested by her organization only because they understood that the DEC had concern over not being able to improve the quality of water bodies which are "impaired." She said she used the word "impaired" loosely, not as a DEC term. She said if this language does not work, AOGA would have no objection to simply eliminating all the language and starting all these sections with, "the commissioner may not", and replacing, "existing" with "natural". She said the two situations that Ms. Braley described are exactly what AOGA understood the intent of these sections to be. She said a stream, that is of lesser water quality, due to sediment metals or whatever, should not have to discharge pristine discharge into that water body. She said, if changing "existing" to "natural" accomplishes that intent, it would be acceptable to AOGA. Number 1303 MS. BRALEY said this language would fit with the state's water quality standards currently in place. She requested that Ms. Grefsrud give testimony, as Ms. Grefsrud had worked the permiting angle and was involved in water quality standards. She said if you wanted to clarify, in statute, what is currently in place through DEC's site specific criteria and through the various standards which sets the natural condition, DEC would continue to apply their water quality standards. PAMELA GREFSRUD, Coordinator, Water Quality Standards, Department of Environmental Conservation, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She said the DEC water quality standards currently have a provision titled, site specific criteria, which is in the water quality standards regulation, and allows the DEC to establish a new permit standard that reflects the natural quality of that stream. She said, if a stream has a high sediment load which is matchfully higher than the DEC standards, the Department has the ability to use the natural existing standard in a permit. She said the language in Section 1 restates the current DEC language in their standards. CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if she was referring to Section 1 in HB 342 or Section 1 in CSHB 342. MS. GREFSRUD said she had an older version of HB 342 and referred to the original intent as was stated by Ms. Braley. Number 1449 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, even though the DEC has the ability to do this case by case criteria, this ability should be put into statute. He said, if the water body is not on the specified impaired water body list, DEC should not judge it under a higher standard. He said the intent of CSHB 342 is to take away some of the DEC discretion without taking away total flexibility. He said CSHB 342 would assist DEC because it sets a line of demarcation between what they have to worry about and what they don't have to worry about. He said with a limited amount of resources, the DEC should focus on those impaired water bodies, rather than creating new problems to focus on. Number 1503 CO-CHAIR GREEN said that is why he asked the question, "as streams or bodies are brought to your attention you could rank them yea or nay." Number 1509 MS. BRALEY said the DEC ranks the water bodies through the permitting process. She said if someone comes to DEC and they want to discharge into a water, whether the Department has paid attention to it previously, there is a certain amount of information that the industry has to go out and collect. The DEC uses that information to make a case by case determination. Number 1530 CO-CHAIR GREEN said the problem that needs to be addressed is those water bodies which are not classified on a case by case basis and where DEC is going to exceed EPA requirements. He asked if DEC exceeded EPA standards. Number 1539 MS. BRALEY said she did not believe that DEC exceeded EPA requirements. She referred to the original intent of HB 342 and questioned why there was a need for this statute, as she believed that DEC had the ability in their regulations to do site specific criteria. She expressed a concern that there is a wrongful perception that this section is fixing an issue or a problem. She didn't mean any disrespect, but added that these are complex regulations and the DEC has obligations, through the Clean Water Act, to do a lot of what is being said in this CSHB 342. She said DEC adopted thousands of pages of EPA federal register documentation, both narrative and numeric criteria, up to 1989. Number 1580 MS. BRALEY said there was a point where EPA started to diverge and get into the toxins rule that the state felt it had to stop adopting, by reference, everything EPA put into the books. She said DEC felt the Department had an obligation to look at the numbers and the information EPA was putting out to determine if it worked for the state of Alaska. She said a prime example is arsenic. She said EPA came out with numbers on arsenic that DEC emphatically felt, if those numbers were to go into law, the state would be in trouble and would automatically violate them. MS. BRALEY expressed concern that the state has, in their regulations, only two instances where they have a stricter standard or methodology that is not EPA approved which HB 342 would change. She said, rather than create a statute which may have other ramifications, she would want to go back and figure out what the specific problem is and whether it can be fixed without creating a broad statute. Number 1668 MS. BRALEY said her concern about trying to put a section like this into CSHB 342, is that DEC has classified the waters in the state of Alaska for the highest use, which for the most part is drinking water or, on occasion, aquatic life criteria. She said the reason why all the water bodies in the state are classified for the highest use is because, sometime in the late 1970s or early 1980s, EPA gave all the states a date by which they had to have all their waters classified. The state of Alaska didn't have the staff to do this and wanted to make sure the water bodies were protected so the DEC went to the EPA and said the state would classify water bodies for the highest use and then the Department would go back and reclassify streams on a specific basis, depending on the industry. She said, at that time, EPA assured the state that reclassification would be a good way to go. DEC then assured industry and others that if the Department had taken a placer stream, which was not being used for anything else such as drinking water, the Department would be able to go back in and reclassify the stream. She said what the state found out was that EPA had the final approval on the state's reclassification and, in the end, EPA was the one that put the "thumbs down" on a lot of the DEC research and evaluation on what uses could or should be attained on that stream. Number 1748 MS. BRALEY cautioned the legislature that DEC has tried to do what EPA has wanted the state to do, in most of the cases. She said the perception that DEC has a standard on the book which is stricter than EPA standards, but rather it is that the state has applied the highest use for the water bodies. She said she has looked for a statute that could correct that classification, but did not find anything. She said this classification was required in the Clean Water Act, the state complied, and said the state has the provision, in regulation, to reclassify. She believed this issue of reclassification might be the "heart of the problem." Number 1787 CO-CHAIR GREEN said it appeared that there were still items that needed to be worked out in CSHB 342 and announced that he would put it in a subcommittee. He assigned members to the subcommittee which included Representatives Austerman, Davies and Ogan with Representative Austerman as chair. He asked the subcommittee to work with DEC, AOGA and the sponsor. He said there was a member of the environmental community to testify and introduced Mr. Perhach. Number 1850 BILL PERHACH, Lobbyist, Alaska Environmental Lobby, was next to testify. He read from a statement, "HB 342 is an act relating to water quality. Section 1 of HB 342 would amend AS 16.05.050 to prohibit the commissioner from requiring `a more restrictive water quality for discharged water than the existing quality of the receiving water'. Section 2 of the bill, using the same language, amends AS 38.05.020 to the same result. The intent of these amendments is unclear because the language is vague. A tighter phrasing, in both Sections 1 and 2, might read: In waters which have not been impacted by human activity the commissioner may not require a more restrictive water quality for discharged water than the existing quality of the receiving water. Even with such language in Section 1 and 2, HB 342's intent is still not, still unclear since that described situation seems to be already be covered by 18 AAC 70. 035, which has been suggested to replace 18 AAC 70. 025, in the state's Water Quality Standards and that reads in part: If the department finds that a natural condition of a water body is demonstrated to be of lower quality than a water quality criterion for the classes in 18 AAC and that the natural condition will fully protect designated uses in 18 AAC the natural condition constitutes the applicable water quality criteria. Number 1937 Section 3 of HB 342 amends AS 46.03 with, and here I would like to change the statement somewhat. The statement reads, with the apparent result, and I would like to change that to the possible result of limiting the state's water quality criteria for settlement strictly to settleable solids. The sediments which cause turbidity are primarily `fines.' Those smaller particles remain suspended for longer periods and are the type of sediment most often associated with heavy metals. Ignoring them, as this bill might have us do, rather than would, could result in violations of the Clean Water Act and could impact the state's salmon resource. And finally, HB 342's amendment of AS 46.03 would also require Alaska to adopt any less restrictive federal water quality standard adopted for the rest of the nation, unless the department can satisfy the requirements of a new citation presented in the bill by the AOGA. Although the obvious intent is to avoid a situation where Alaska might find itself requiring a higher water quality standard than the rest of the nation, HB 342 overlooks the possibility that Alaska might, enviably, someday be the only state in the nation in a position to maintain that higher water quality standard." Number 2003 MR. PERHACH referred to a comment by Representative Rokeberg at a past meeting, "the terms of art of the water quality trade." He said this language is very confusing. Mr. Perhach said his approach to this bill has been to try to find the intent of HB 342. He said the sponsor mentioned today the intent was to involve the legislature in the discussion of mixing zones and clear up the language. Mr. Perhach said this is an admirable goal, but didn't think CSHB 342 succeeded in clearing up the language. He said one of the intents of HB 342 appeared to be a stream-lining of the process and there is nothing wrong with that, however this attempt, has created more confusion. He said the subcommittee should go back to the simple matter of focusing on waters which have not been impacted by human activity. He said human activity is the only issue that the environmental community is really concerned about. Number 2082 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked for written information on his statement. Number 2100 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested that Ms. Crockett give a briefing on some of the other points of CSHB 342. Number 2107 MS. CROCKETT referred the previous term, "consistent with" as it relates to having state standards no more stringent than the federal requirements. So, in those cases where EPA might allow the state to have a less restrictive standard, the state would not have a stricter standard. She said AOGA eliminated the "consistent with" phrase so that now Sections (d) and (e) simply state that the state water quality standards cannot be more restrictive than the federal water quality standards. She said DEC, under the commissioner, should adopt regulations that amend the state standards so that the state standards are not more restrictive than the federal water quality standards. Number 2150 MS. CROCKETT referred to the requirement that every time the federal regulations changed DEC would be required to amend their regulations within 12 months. She said, recognizing that this could be an overly burdensome task, AOGA suggested that Section (e) be revised so that by August 31, DEC would adopt amendments to the state standards so that they were no more restrictive than the federal standards which were in place on January 1, of that year. She said January 1, would be the target date and would give DEC eight months to go through the process, adopt the regulations and then allow time for the Department of Law review and the Lieutenant Governor review with the goal of the new regulations becoming effective, no later than, December 31. Number 2181 MS. BRALEY said this revision is totally unrealistic. She said she has seen how long it has taken DEC to get very specific, little pieces of regulations through on the water quality standards. She said she is assuming that the process includes the peer review, the public review as well as all the other steps and concluded that this revision of CSHB 342 is not realistic. Number 2205 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked what element of the process requires additional time, was it the backlog, the public process or the total process of evaluating discharges and stream qualities. Number 2214 MS. BRALEY said making changes, that will reflect federal quality standards by a certain date each year is a large process. She said standards are often thought about as being numeric criteria, but standards also involve narrative, processes and things that get much broader. She said the "anti-degradation policy" is one such example. She said this policy is something that EPA has told every state that they need to include this in their standards. She said it took DEC three years to fully evaluate what this was going to do for the state. She said, granted, DEC was doing other things at the same time. Number 2263 MS. BRALEY referred back to the provision in CSHB 342 and said DEC did not currently have the staff to meet it and said this provision would require a fiscal note, especially if DEC was going to try to meet this timeline. She said research needed to occur to determine what we have in the state, look at what DEC is being asked to adopt and not just "blanketly" adopt these regulations. She said the state has adopted regulations in the past and has gotten themselves into trouble, and said unfortunately, this evaluation process takes time. Number 2281 CO-CHAIR GREEN said he understood that CSHB 342 attempts to "not make it more restrictive and that in each case where there may be some reason to make it less restrictive, there would be the time that you would need to spend, focus your energies as well as the applicant, but that the vast majority where there...you are saying we are just do what the federal government requires us, why would that be any different with this bill and under current law." Number 2302 MS. BRALEY said it would be necessary to evaluate each change to determine whether that number would be consistent with the water quality standard or whether the state might want to have a lower or a higher standard. She said the process, for deciding whether something should be the same as, lower or stricter is the same. She said before the state adopts these changes on their books, DEC would want to look at, evaluate it, look at what other states are doing, look at how much the state has of it going in the state and look at where the state has had problems with the industry meeting a standard. She said there have been standards set by EPA that aren't measurable or non-detectable, so then DEC has to find methods that are going to allow the state to get at that level through detection. She said it is not a "cut and dried process." Number 2336 CO-CHAIR GREEN said "it is 1996 and if something happens in 1997 are you saying that if EPA changes their standards that it would take you several years to determine whether those are acceptable or not." He asked, taking any applicants out of the picture, if DEC was not capable of following EPA standards within a year. Number 2364 MS. BRALEY said she did not believe that it was that simple of a question. MS. GREFSRUD said EPA is in the business of producing criteria numbers, documents for chemical compounds and said some of those chemical compounds cover things like pesticide production, fertilizer production. She said EPA gets very specific with compounds that Alaska does not even have. She said if the state follows through with this intent, the state would adopt, for the sake of adopting, numbers that won't even be applied in the state of Alaska. She said DEC has the opportunity to review criteria that would be applicable in this state and of the 150 compounds that exist under EPA criteria, perhaps there is a small percentage which is applied in the state. She said, perhaps, it is this small percentage which the state should spend their time reviewing in order to adopt them into state standards, rather than randomly adopting whatever criteria document EPA publishes in the federal registers. She said the state would be spending a lot of time incorporating criteria documents and updates and DEC for compounds which are not even found in the state. Number 2428 CO-CHAIR GREEN clarified that DEC does not have the personnel to do everything, so currently DEC is reacting to EPA. He said if CSHB 342 passed, "which would be beneficial in some cases to some applicant that may want to do something, if you didn't have that person, nobody comes forward for the next five years, are you saying that cannot stay abreast of what EPA may change and asked you to do. And if the answer is no then this has no bearing on that, that is another problem. If you say, yes, this then would be a focus that would not require all this smoke screen background that I am hearing you say, it would be specific and I am suggesting that by rearranging that which you put as a priority, that you would be able to handle this. Because I can' imagine what is being proposed by this legislation would be that different suddenly, we are not asking for smelters or things like that, we are asking for things..." TAPE 96-45, SIDE B Number 0000 Co-Chair Williams joined the meeting at 9:17 a.m. CO-CHAIR GREEN, "so I am concerned that we are hearing a response, almost global response to a specific question." Number 0013 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed with what he had said. He said it is not the intent of CSHB 342. He said the EPA has created problems in the business community for years. He said CSHB 342 is directed at a solution to problems and to minimize the amount of work for the DEC, not create more. Number 0059 MS. CROCKETT referred back to CSHB 342 and said another concern was that it required the state to use EPA methods. She said there could be circumstances where the state of Alaska might develop a better system. She said to incorporate this into CSHB 342, AOGA included the same sort of exception language for methods as has been done for more stringent state regulations. She said these methods would be subject to the same sort of peer review and demonstration that the stricter state standards would be subject to. Number 0085 CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to the inclusion of the Imhoff Cone method. Number 0092 MS. CROCKETT said she was not aware where the Imhoff Cone method was not included in CSHB 342. She said the last provision that was included in CSHB 342 was the inclusion of peer review. She said AOGA does not believe that peer review needed to be defined, she said the procedures which are outlined, starting on the bottom of page two and running through page four are specific on who can be selected and the selection process and said that it is sufficient to guide both DEC and the public on the peer review process. Number 0138 CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to page two, line 15, and said the "are" in the middle of the sentence would be "is". Number 0157 MS. BRALEY said she has not had a chance to closely evaluate the language and expressed concerns with the meaning on page two, line 15. She said she would want to review the language to make sure that DEC is fully protecting the state's ability, at some point down the road, to take over the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). She said DEC usually has a range by which it must fall between and that DEC would want to go back and talk with EPA to make sure that the state is not jeopardizing any future possibilities through the statute. REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said the subcommittee will plan on meeting right after Easter and that CSHB 342 will return to the committee afterwards. He requested that DEC meet and determine the risk regarding the NPDES permit system. Number 0212 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, if the state does not have an activity occurring then it does not have a reason to adopt a state standard which is more or less restrictive. MS. CROCKETT said she would be able to participate in this subcommittee. MS. BRALEY said she would also be able to participate. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Standing Committee on Resources, Co-Chair Green adjourned the meeting at 9:25 a.m.