Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/24/2002 03:25 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 66 - TRACKING OF PESTICIDE USE Number 1570 CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 66, "An Act relating to pesticide use; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 66, Version 22- LS0352\J, Lauterbach, 1/24/02, which was adopted as a work draft on 1/25/02.] Number 1543 ROCCO MOSCHETTI, Owner, Integrated Pest Management of Alaska, testified via teleconference. He noted that there are many alternatives to pesticides, and said that although he did not use pesticides himself, he feels that pesticides are an important tool. He remarked that HB 66 could put an undue burden on private applicators of pesticides. He asked why sanitizers and disinfectants are excluded from the requirements of HB 66, specifically the reporting/tracking system, given that sanitizers and disinfectants are pumped into ground water and wells, and used in oil and gas production. He said that he supports the intent of HB 66 with regard to the pesticide manufacturers fee. He reiterated that there are a lot of alternatives to pesticides. Number 1420 MICHAEL MILLER testified via teleconference in support of HB 66. He said that he is speaking from the standpoint of someone who is living with a terminal disease. He opined that HB 66 would protect people, address children's health issues, and potentially prevent disease. He mentioned the issue of farmed salmon versus wild salmon. He suggested adding to the Pesticide Advisory Board one member from the state Epidemiology Section. Number 1335 ROB LUND testified via teleconference in support of HB 66. He relayed that he is a beekeeper in Homer, and that Alaska has a number of "hobbyists and small, commercial beekeepers," and has a certain potential for an expanded beekeeping industry. He pointed out that pesticides can do substantial damage to honeybee colonies, and that unregulated pesticide use is a definite threat to beekeepers. He urged the committee to pass HB 66 as a means of protecting the environment in general and providing a measure of security for beekeepers. Number 1289 KENNETH J. PERRY, General Manager, Paratex Pied Piper Pest Control, testified via teleconference. He said that he does not see any significant changes in the current version that would address the concerns raised at the last hearing on HB 66. He opined that the proponents of HB 66 have made it clear to him that "our view is unimportant." He remarked that there is nothing in the current version of HB 66 that will address the concerns raised regarding privacy. He also opined that the only way that anonymity can be achieved is for the (indisc.) in this state to be changed, and that won't occur via HB 66. MR. PERRY said that once the information specified in [proposed] Sec. 46.03.325(c) is received by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), it can be requested by any party for any reason. For example, he said, an "anti-pesticide group" can request and receive this data, then publish it in the newspaper with names and addresses. Furthermore, anti-pesticide groups can post protestors outside of businesses or residences of people who have decided to use a pesticide or even sell the data to a competitor. He added: The reality of this danger was driven home to me ... when Representative Cissna ... [presented] to me two copies of a confidential service report issued by my competitors at American Pest Management. On each report was the name, address, and phone number of the customer, the service date and sanitation report, and the chemicals and the amounts applied to each site. Now, while this might be considered unethical, it was not illegal because she received this information from another organization with similar rights and rules ... as the state - the Anchorage school district. MR. PERRY relayed that according to further information he obtained from Representative Cissna regarding pesticides in Alaska waters, the only pesticides traces found were chemicals that are not used in the state of Alaska, have not been used in the U.S. for 15-30 years, were found in migratory fish that spend the bulk of their lives in the open ocean, and were measured in parts per trillion. He characterized HB 66 as a solution looking for a problem, and urged members to not be intimidated by "these extremists as represented by the outside- funded groups who are pushing [HB] 66." Number 1054 MAGGIE FLANAGAN testified via teleconference in support of HB 66. After noting that she is testifying on her own behalf, she explained that she is a "newborn ICU [intensive care unit] nurse" at Providence Alaska Medical Center and has 20 years of experience dealing with newborns in high-risk nursery settings across the country. She said that she has been concerned about pesticide exposure ever since her first year of nursing, when she took care of an infant that was the child of a Vietnam veteran. Since then, she relayed, she has worked in Chicago where she saw a lot of Hispanic children with birth defects, and in Hawaii where she saw children with birth defects. She said that she wants the committee to know that the child with the worst birth defects she has ever seen was the son of an exterminator in Honolulu. MS. FLANAGAN continued: And if you know about pesticides, you probably understand that men are particularly at risk for passing on problems to their children ... because men are not born with all their eggs intact as women are. Men ... constantly, in the course of their reproductive systems, develop new genetic matter for their children to be sprung from. MS. FLANAGAN said that she wanted to relay to the committee that it is really important to track pesticides and that there is a growing body of scientific data regarding the harmful effects of pesticides on children's health. She elaborated: We know that children have a more rapid metabolism. We know that fetuses are more at risk if they're exposed while their mothers are pregnant with them. We know that children, pound for pound of body weight, not only eat more and breathe more, but they also play on the floor and lawn where pesticides are commonly applied. And any person in the room there who has children knows that anything that they touch, they eventually will put their hands [into] their mouths. So these kids are vulnerable citizens of Alaska. Number 0950 I want you to understand, in the nursery at Providence, I'm seeing a lot of Native children with birth defects; I'm seeing Native children with gastrointestinal abnormalities and facial anomalies. I have talked to the ... Alaska state department person who is doing birth defect registry here, and we're very concerned about what her data will show, but it is in just the beginning stage. Why are we here to speak for this pesticide bill is, until we start tracking these things we will never know if there's any correlations or trends. If you ask me can I say that those Native children that I take care of at Providence Hospital, are those birth defects related to pesticides, I will tell you that it is suspicious and we need more information. And the only way we can get more information is to be allowed to track. I am concerned about pesticides. I think HB 66 is good because it is a right-to-know bill. It will help with tracking of exposures. It will give our medical researchers a place to start gathering information about pesticide exposure in Alaska. It also could help the individual healthcare provider, if they find out that one of their patients had been exposed to pesticides, that may change the course of medical treatment and it may make medical treatment more effective. ... I'm very dismayed that pesticides are used in instances where other things could be done, not only possibly cheaper, but also safer. Number 0842 PAMELA K. MILLER, Program Director, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, testified via teleconference. She explained that most of the studies done in Alaska regarding pesticides have not measured currently used pesticides. Therefore, she remarked, it is really disingenuous to say that there is no problem in Alaska; rather, it is simply not known yet whether there is a problem. She added that a pesticide-use tracking system will provide researchers with the information necessary to assess the relative contribution of long-range sources of pesticides versus those generated within the state. She said she believes that such a system is necessary for good research and for protection of Alaska's water quality, fisheries, subsistence food, and human health. As a biologist, she stressed her belief that this legislation is a very valuable research tool that is necessary as a basis for a good, contaminate research program in Alaska. Number 0761 JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), testified via teleconference. She said she simply wanted to say that [DEC] does not have any problems with the [as yet unmentioned] proposed amendments. However, the proposed amendment that addresses confidentiality is of concern and would need a little alteration in order for the amendment to work. Ms. Adair, in response to Chair Murkowski, confirmed that she was referring to the amendment relating to keeping the information reported to the department concerning the location of the application of the pesticide confidential. CHAIR MURKOWSKI closed the public testimony on HB 66. She then recessed the meeting to the call of the chair at 4:55 p.m. CHAIR MURKOWSKI reconvened the meeting at 5:55 p.m. Representatives Murkowski, Meyer, and Rokeberg were present at the call to order. Number 0650 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to adopt CSHB 66, Version 22- LS0352\O, Lauterbach, 4/8/02, as the working document. There being no objection, Version O was before the committee. CHAIR MURKOWSKI informed the committee that there are a couple of amendments to which she requested the sponsor address. Number 0624 ROB EARL, Staff to Representative Sharon Cissna, Alaska State Legislature, answered on behalf of the sponsor of HB 66, Representative Cissna. Mr. Earl turned to the [Amendment 1], which read: Page 2, line 17: Delete (1) and insert a new subsection (1): "on property to be sprayed and on each residence and each commercial building with a different operator within a one-quarter mile of the site where the spraying will occur if the residence or commercial building is located on property that is contiguous to the property to be sprayed," MR. EARL explained that the aforementioned amendment would tighten the posting notice language so that one wouldn't have to post multiple commercial buildings owned by separate operators. Number 0538 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved that the committee adopt Amendment 1 as specified earlier. CHAIR MURKOWSKI objected for discussion purposes. She asked if the amendment should refer to "each residence or each commercial building" rather than "each residence and each commercial building". She then determined that the "and" language was acceptable. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to who the "operator" is. MR. EARL clarified that the drafter used the term "operator" in order to delineate between commercial buildings owned by the same operator so that the owner won't [have to post all of their buildings]. Number 0443 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved that the committee amend Amendment 1 such that the word "operator" is deleted and replaced with the word "owner or manager". There being no objection, the amendment to Amendment 1 was adopted. Therefore, Amendment 1 as amended was before the committee. CHAIR MURKOWSKI removed her objection. There being no objection, Amendment 1 [as amended] was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued discussion of Amendment 1 and noted that he was pleased that the language specifies "contiguous to the property to be sprayed" and "within one- quarter mile". MR. EARL pointed out that the language [in Amendment 1] is modeled after the Anchorage Municipal code. He related his understanding that currently there is no statute relating to posting. Number 0281 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved that the committee adopt Amendment 2, which read: Page 4, line 26: Delete (f) and insert a new subsection (f): "In addition to the other civil or criminal penalties that may be applicable, a person 18 years of age or older who fails to comply with a reporting requirement established under this section is liable to the department of a civil penalty. The penalty may be up to $1000 for the first failure to comply and up to $2000 for second or subsequent failure to comply." CHAIR MURKOWSKI objected for discussion purposes. MR. EARL related that Amendment 2 address Chair Murkowski's concerns that a teenager might be liable for the civil penalties. Amendment 2 also responds to the department's concern that language didn't allow someone who was "illegally not certified" to be fined. Therefore, [adoption of Amendment 2] would result in someone over the age of 18 being liable if that individual fails to comply with the recording requirements. CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if there should be a "knowing failure to comply" before one is subject to the penalties. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed concern that [Amendment 1] could apply to anyone, even a civilian. The language replaces references to licensed custom, commercial, or contract applicators. MR. EARL pointed out that the reporting requirement is only applicable to the licensed custom, commercial, or contract [pesticide applicator]. CHAIR MURKOWSKI expressed concern that adoption of Amendment 2 would mean that a 21-year-old who isn't aware of any reporting or registration requirements, can apply Round Up to someone's property for a fee and be subject to these penalties. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that the original draft implies that [this speaks] to a licensed applicator. He asked if currently there is licensure for a [pesticide] applicator or is it included in the legislation. MR. EARL confirmed that currently there is licensure for a [pesticide] applicator. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG inquired as to the sponsor's original intent with regard to the fine. TAPE 02-65, SIDE A CHAIR MURKOWSKI inquired as to how Amendment 2 is better than the current inept language. MR. EARL explained that [Amendment 2] is in response to the department's concern that it wouldn't be able to find someone that wasn't a licensed applicator. CHAIR MURKOWSKI reiterated her belief that the 21-year-old college student shouldn't be subject to these fines for registration when applying a pesticide when he/she has no idea there is an issue with the application of that pesticide. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that every Master gardener in the state would be subject to [these penalties]. Number 0066 REPRESENTATIVE SHARON CISSNA, Alaska State Legislature, speaking as the sponsor of HB 66, said that the intent was [to address] someone who had been licensed and who had gone through some training and thus knew how to use the pesticides. She agreed that there will be those who use Round Up in such a way that it would be construed as what an applicator would do, however, without the intention of their actions being a business or subject to any of the requirements in HB 66. Representative Cissna said that she read the language as only applying to an applicator. CHAIR MURKOWSKI explained that if [Amendment 2 is adopted], the legislation is no longer only limited to licensed custom, commercial, or contract pesticide applicators. With the adoption of Amendment 2, the legislation would be open to anyone over age 18 who fails to comply with the recording requirements. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that Amendment 2 is ambiguous and he didn't like it. CHAIR MURKOWSKI inquired as to the problem with subsection (f) as it is in the CS. Under the CS, the department can impose the civil penalty on the licensed applicator who fails to comply, which is the person at which this legislation is aimed. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA agreed because the licensed applicator knows the requirements. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER withdrew Amendment 2. Number 0249 CHAIR MURKOWSKI turned attention to Amendment 3 on page 4, line 31. MR. EARL explained that Amendment 3 addresses the concern of Mr. Perry in regard to records being open to the Public Records Act. [Amendment 3] adds [language specifying] that reported information would remain confidential. Number 0365 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved that the committee adopt Amendment 3, [which was unavailable at the time of transcription]. CHAIR MURKOWSKI objected for discussion purposes. She related her understanding that Amendment 3 is an additional confidentiality provision to that [already] under [Sec. 46.03.340](a). MR. EARL clarified that without Amendment 3 these [records] wouldn't have been exempted from the Alaska Public Records Act. CHAIR MURKOWSKI withdrew her objection. There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted. CHAIR MURKOWSKI turned to Amendment 4, which addresses the concern raised by Ms. Adair. Number 0458 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved that the committee adopt Amendment 4, [which was unavailable at the time of transcription]. CHAIR MURKOWSKI objected for discussion purposes. MR. EARL explained that without Amendment 4 Ms. Adair was concerned that the place in statute where one would look to see if something is exempted would not have been listed. Number 0500 MARY SIROKY, Manager, Information Education & Coordination, Division of Statewide Public Service, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), clarified that the [Alaska] Public Records Act includes a list of exemptions and [Amendment 4] merely adds [paragraph] (10) to that list. CHAIR MURKOWSKI removed her objection. There being no objection, Amendment 4 was adopted. CHAIR MURKOWSKI directed attention to page 4, subsection (d) and inquired as to how the department would acquire the data. As a consumer, she surmised that there would be a questionnaire from the department inquiring as to the pesticide products one might have in their household. She asked if that would be the case. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA answered that during the last hearing, one [pesticide] applicator questioned why only one part of the use population would be addressed. Probably the greatest number of people who come in contact with pesticides are those who purchase them over the counter at various retail stores. This legislation attempts to rule out the ways in which pesticides enter the environment. CHAIR MURKOWSKI reiterated that she wasn't convinced that the department would be able to conduct a statistically valid survey, and therefore she questioned why it's included in the statute. REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA replied that one of the reasons this survey was included in statute was so that the Pesticide Tracking Board would have a mechanism allowing them to work with the department to develop something that would work. The department won't have the resources to perform everything required to make this work [and thus the board was to take on some of the responsibilities] and, in fact, volunteer organizations may take on some of the duties as well. However, there would need to be department oversight in order to ensure that it would work for the department. Number 0765 REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to report CSHB 66, Version 22- LS0352\O, Lauterbach, 4/8/02, as amended out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note(s). There being no objection, CSHB 66(L&C) was reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee. The committee took an at-ease from 6:18 p.m. to 6:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|