On Tuesday, discussion by the Government Affairs and Services (GAS) committee of an ordinance that would ban storage of hazardous liquids within a mile of waterways turned into a squabble on intent.
Assembly members Heather Lende and Brenda Josephson held differing opinions, both echoed by a packed audience.
“The intent is to regulate the mine,” Josephson said. “The mine is outside of the authority of the borough to regulate. “I believe this ordinance is fundamentally flawed. I believe the intent is erroneous and I do not believe it should go forward.”
Lende said that the idea was pushed by the potential threat of a tailings dam failure, but that the ordinance doesn’t target any one industry.
“I don’t see this as an ordinance targeting anything,” she said. “I would see it protecting something that’s important to all of us.”
The ordinance, introduced by assembly member Will Prisciandaro in April, was met with both community support and outrage and ultimately was sent by the assembly to committee to work on better defining language and setting parameters.
Assembly member Sean Maidy said Tuesday that clearing up language and bringing it back to the public will allow them to judge accordingly.
“We have a room full of people that speaks half and half, so we should ask the question with the proper information,” he said.
The current ordinance reads: “It is unlawful for any person, association, corporation, or other entity to store liquids containing hazardous materials, or hazardous waste within one mile of any surface body of water.”
Exempt are fuel and ethanol storage, hazardous liquids under 5,000 gallons and borough facilities.
Those opposed said the ordinance was vague, inadvertently affected business owners and illegal under the precedent set by the Alaska Supreme Court when it ruled a borough could not have veto power over mining projects on state land.
Prisciandaro was out of town during the GAS committee, but sent comments suggesting the committee replace original language of “aqueous storage facility” with “storing liquids that contain hazardous materials or hazardous waste” to add clarity.
“This still captures my original intent of the ordinance by limiting the distance which a highly mobile liquid substance containing hazardous waste or hazardous materials can be to a surface body of water,” Prisciandaro wrote.
He said that the ordinance never intended to prohibit fuel storage, which is “highly regulated already and its use is necessary to heat homes, produce power, and run vehicles.”
The storage of quantities below 5,000 gallons would be allowed, as the regulation “is to protect the environment from large-scale contamination. Borough facilities are exempt as it has an obligation “to protect the public welfare of its citizens and is not proven driven,” Prisciandaro wrote.
Public facilities director Brad Ryan said he spoke with a packing company at Excursion Inlet, where they store 6,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia for their freezer system.
Retired chemistry teacher Peter Dwyer told the assembly they could exempt “stored refrigerants” in addition to fuel, so no quantity would be necessary.
On Tuesday, Doug Olerud disagreed with exempting the borough from the ordinance. “Probably the largest contamination ever in this valley was caused by the United States Army,” he said. “The borough needs to be held responsible as well.”
Construction company owner Roger Schnabel said that a 5,000-gallon limit could still be harmful, and might prohibit his company from liquifying large quantities of asphalt the state deems hazardous.
“It seems arbitrary when 5,000 gallon or less is considered not a problem when in fact over 5,000 gallons is and it’s regulated,” he said. “Those lower volumes can do a tremendous amount of damage.”
Lende agreed to look into exempting asphalt and removing the borough from exemption.
Borough manager Debra Schnabel asked why the assembly doesn’t explicitly ban the storage of a tailings dam.
“Why isn’t this simply an ordinance that simply says ‘the Haines Borough does not want a tailings dam storage in a commercial mine?” she said.
Lende said that prohibiting a mine would be against the law based on the Supreme Court ruling, and negotiating with Constantine would be useless because their plans are non-binding and could change if they were to sell the exploration project.
In 2015, the Pebble mine developer and state brought the Lake and Peninsula Borough to court after it tried to prohibit mining in a voter initiative. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the borough could not have veto power over mining projects on state land.
In April, borough attorney Brooks Chandler said that, while a local government cannot have a permit process that would give them veto power over a mine, it has not been determined if a local government can have environmental regulations that impact how a mine is developed.
Schnabel recommended consulting with an engineer on the ordinance language. An audience member suggested the borough define a time limit on storage.
Josephson asked the manager for a cost estimate on enforcing the code if it were to pass.
The committee will continue to take comments at its July 2 meeting.