Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 17
03/01/2012 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB258 | |
| HB128 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 258 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 128 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 258-NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS
1:08:44 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 258, "An Act directing the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities to develop and implement
standards and operating procedures allowing for the use in the
construction and maintenance of transportation projects and
public facilities and in the construction of projects by public
and private entities of gravel or aggregate materials that
contain a limited amount of naturally occurring asbestos, and
authorizing use on an interim basis of those materials for
certain transportation projects and public facilities; relating
to certain claims arising out of or in connection with the use
of gravel or aggregate materials containing a limited amount of
naturally occurring asbestos; and providing for an effective
date."
1:09:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), for HB 258 labeled 27-LS0400\X, Nauman,
2/28/12, as the working document. There being no objection,
Version X was before the committee.
1:09:40 PM
BRODIE ANDERSON, Staff, Representative Reggie Joule, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of the sponsor, Representative
Reggie Joule, described the changes in Version X. He said that
after the last hearing he met with the Department of Health and
Social Services, the Department of Law, the Department of Labor
& Workforce Development, the Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities, and the Department of Environmental
Conservation to discuss their concerns. He characterized
Version X as addressing concerns of the departments and the
committee.
1:10:44 PM
MR. ANDERSON detailed the changes in Version X. He referred to
page 3, lines 13-16, which adds legislative intent to clarify
that the program is voluntary and provides civil immunity
limited to projects that comply with the site specific plan.
This addressed concern that it might be interpreted HB 358 would
mandate compliance every single time naturally occurring
asbestos (NOA) is used.
MR. ANDERSON referred to page 3, line 27, and to page 4, line
29, which identifies NOA gravel at 0.25 percent and above, so
everything at 0.24 percent and below is considered aggregate
material. This language was derived from California regulations
and statutes, since California has a similar NOA program in
operation. The language also considered recommendations by
DOT&PF on how to quantify NOA levels.
1:12:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for percentage of NOA in Ambler.
MR. ANDERSON answered relative to conversations with Lance
Miller, Vice President of Resources, NANA Corporation, that NOA
ranges as low as 0.02 along the river to considerably more up on
the hills near Mount Asbestos. He said the NOA level would
depend on gravel source.
1:13:30 PM
MR. ANDERSON referred to page 4, line 1. He said this language
addresses concern related to immunity from the site-specific
plan for third-party construction projects. Thus by adding a
reference on line 1 to AS 44.42.410 (a) the bill directly links
the immunity to the site-specific plan. He referred to page 4,
lines 19-20 and on page 10, lines 23-24, which adds a definition
for NOA. He reiterated that the DOT&PF suggested the California
definition since the program is working in California. He
read," naturally occurring asbestos means asbestos-containing
material that has not been processed in an asbestos mill." He
said that wording was used since the process of scooping up
gravel by an excavator does not changing the raw material of the
gravel; however, an asbestos mill changes the raw material into
the fiber material that was once used for insulation and is
considered processed asbestos, which is defined in AS 18.31.500,
whereas the NOA in Ambler is the raw material.
MR. ANDERSON referred to page 5, lines 10-14, to language
designed to establish the connection and need for third-party
contractors to maintain the monitoring and mitigation plan if
they wish to retain their civil immunity. He explained this
addresses the need to maintain a monitoring and mitigation plan
once the contractor has completed work at the construction site
in order to retain civil immunity. This provision clearly
states the need to do so.
1:16:12 PM
MR. ANDERSON referred to page 6, lines 5-6, which would require
DOT&PF to maintain a list of completed projects and the data
collected and submitted by the contractor.
MR. ANDERSON referred to page 6, lines 27-28, which connects the
liability provisions to the site-specific plan for third
parties. He explained that there was a disconnect between the
immunity clauses under Alaska Statutes in chapters 9 and 18 to
the site-specific plan mentioned in DOT&PF's title in AS 44.
This language would thread the immunity clauses to the site-
specific plans mentioned in the DOT&PF's title.
MR. ANDERSON referred to page 7, lines 27-29, to language which
would similarly tie the immunity sections of the bill for
DOT&PF's projects to the site-specific plan.
MR. ANDERSON referred to page 8, lines 13-15, which would add
language to require DOT&PF to start the approval process once
they receive a plan, but this requires them to do so.
MR. ANDERSON referred to page 8, lines 22-24, which would
connect the liability provisions to the site-specific plan for
DOT&PF.
MR. ANDERSON referred to page 8, lines 30-31, which would
require a contractor who was required to maintain a monitoring
and mitigation plan and all asbestos-related data collected
would turn data over to DOT&PF.
1:18:44 PM
MR. ANDERSON referred to page 9, lines 11-19, which he
characterized as the most substantive change. This provision
would require a contractor to submit a document to the recording
district, within 60 days of project completion, to indicate NOA
was used and a brief description of the extent of the use. This
notice would be attached to the property title to convey that
subsequent interest holders may incur legal obligations with
respect to preventing the NOA from becoming airborne or
otherwise transferred. He said that mesothelioma doesn't
develop in six months or a year, but in 20 years or more. He
related that questions arose as to liability immunity into
perpetuity. He explained that this provides the record to
address this. He concluded that this represents the changes
between Version E and Version X.
1:20:10 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON questioned how that provision would affect
current owners. She related her understanding that current
owners would already know the risks and are willing to use the
NOA since they have lived with NOA in the community.
MR. ANDERSON answered that this bill envisions the site-specific
plan, the mitigation plan, and the monitoring plan will identify
any issues and will be approved. He offered his belief that if
the community wanted to use NOA gravel as top surface on the
road, the plan would assess whether that is acceptable and will
monitor any dust that occurs.
1:21:51 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the agreements would be made in
site-specific plan, which could require restrictions such as
sealing the road surface within ten miles of the community.
MR. ANDERSON answered that the bill would leave up to the DOT&PF
and the experts to clarify by regulation.
1:22:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that this new subsection
requires for the first time that notice must be recorded, which
legally means that this is a notice to the world. He explained
that any time property is transferred or anyone wants
information for title insurance, the person will go to the
recording office to record it. This will provide notice to the
subsequent transferees of the property that they may have legal
obligations and it also puts them on notice to check for the
obligation.
MR. ANDERSON answered yes.
1:23:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT asked for clarification on whether this
attachment to the deed would affect the ability of someone to
obtain a loan on a property and if it would prevent property
sales.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that person either has or does
not have a legal obligation. This simply puts the person and
the world on notice. He related a scenario in which in which
person "A" gives person "B" a deed, who transfers the deed to
person "C," who then records it. He said person "C" may be the
legal owner and that it may relate to a loan. He did not think
this bill would affect loans since it simply puts people on
notice. He was unsure of the legal obligation if a contractor
failed to record the property, whether the failure to record
would give cause of action against the contractor simply for the
failure to provide notice. He said he was unsure.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
1:26:59 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON related a scenario in which a person sells
property to his/her uncle. She asked whether the bank would
decline to loan money due to a liability issue.
MR. ANDERSON deferred to DEC to answer. He suggested that a
similar notification process exists for contaminated sites.
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested that the sponsor report back to the
committee on this.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted an aside, that there is a legal
obligation to abate asbestos.
CHAIR P. WILSON pointed out that if the house wasn't built with
asbestos, that builder could likely dismantle and rebuild the
house.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT related his understanding that the problem
is not that asbestos would be used in construction of the house.
Instead, the issue would relate to what is underneath the house.
He did not think it was worth holding up the bill, but he did
want to clarify this point. He suggested that this bill not
intended to pertain to one home in a subdivision, but is to
allow large projects to move forward. He characterized this
bill as a good bill.
1:30:20 PM
SILKAURAQ WHITING, Mayor, Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB),
stated that she would like to speak on behalf of HB 258. She
said many projects are currently on hold, including big
homebuilding projects, an airport runway, a bridge to the
airport, and the Kobuk school project. She expressed gratitude
that the questions were asked about home loans since some
projects do involve homes. Additionally, she anticipated
erosion will occur this spring and the community will need
emergency access to gravel during spring break up since it is
compromising power and phone lines in Ambler. Additionally,
these issues will also affect upper Kobuk and Shungnak. She
reported that this past week the NWAB passed Resolution 12-05 to
facilitate the use of gravel or aggregate that contains low
levels of NOA. Additionally the NWAB also supports NANA and the
City of Ambler's extraction and use of gravel for future
projects. She anticipated that substantial mining will occur in
the upper Kobuk mining district, noting the governor submitted
$6 million for a transportation study in the upper Kobuk mining
district. She said it is imperative to review the bill to
prepare for the activity that will happen in the Northwest
Arctic. She pointed out gas and oil prices are extremely high
in the upper Kobuk with the highest price for gas at $10.46 per
gallon and $9.46 per gallon for stove oil. All the fuel has
been flown into the community. She heard that the Anchorage is
appalled at the $4 per gallon it must pay at the pump, but the
prices are double that price in the smaller communities. She
emphasized that the economy of the region in the upper Kobuk is
at a standstill until HB 258 is passed. She urged members to
pass this bill to help the economy of small communities because
when small communities thrive all of Alaska thrives. She
offered support for the bill so the communities can build
projects that have been on hold for many years.
1:34:52 PM
MORGAN JOHNSON, City of Ambler, Ambler, Alaska, noted the vice
mayor is also present. He said it is great to have the
committee tackling this problem and that he hopes the committee
will resolve the issue - the sooner the better. He recalled
hearing that new illnesses may occur in 20-30 years. He
suggested that it may be best to cover the asbestos up and
protect the community members that live in the area.
1:36:17 PM
SCOTT JONES, Vice Mayor, City of Ambler, thanked members for
their hard work. He commented that if Alaska accepts California
standards and their figures for clean gravel it is also
important to not restrict use of the NOA based on borderline
numbers. He said the community is located on the south side of
the Brooks Range, with substantial grave. He recalled earlier
testimony set the level at 0.25 for clean gravel. He hoped that
the community would not be restricted to only using gravel that
meets those standards since the record does not show any
incidence of mesothelioma. He related that this region has the
least invasive type of asbestos. He stated that California has
seven types of asbestos, which are more toxic than Ambler's
asbestos. He related his understanding that California is using
this standard. He did not want to be so close to resolution and
advised proceeding with proceed with caution.
1:38:34 PM
UKALLAYSAAQ OKLEASIK, Planning Director, stated that the NWAB
supports passage of HB 258. The NWAB passed a resolution
supporting it. He offered his belief that the committee is
headed in the right direction to address the public health
concerns while still holding the acceptable asbestos level to
the level that meets community development needs. He agreed the
discussion on homes is relevant since the ability to build homes
in Ambler requires them to be built on gravel pads. The
community development projects have been placed on hold since
the use of the gravel needs standards to be set - as provided by
this bill - so the NOA can be safely used. He suggested that as
long as the standards are put in place and the NOA gravel is
contained in some way through the construction process that it
will be safe for the community. He offered his belief that as
we move forward advances will help with safe use of a known
resource, asbestos, found in the gravel.
1:40:34 PM
ROGER HEALY, Chief Engineer, Department of Transportation &
Public Facilities (DOT&PF), clarified the 0.25 standard is an
analytical standard adopted by California. He explained that
this is a test in which asbestos material is ground and viewed
on a slide. The technicians view 400 points on the slide and if
one fiber is located under one of those points it equates to a
0.25 percent asbestos. He emphasized that this is not a health
standard, but is an analytical standard. He pointed out that it
only means that if there is a "hit" on the sample it is
considered NOA under this bill and if there is not one it is not
considered NOA. The accuracy that has been implied between 0.24
and 0.25 is not recognized in the test. He reiterated that he
would like to be clear that this test is an analytical test.
1:42:23 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding any hits were
discovered the NOA cannot be used.
MR. HEALY further explained the lab process. He indicated a
grid pattern is laid on the sample and the lab procedure
identifies any fibers it registers as 1 in 400 or 5 in 400, or
whatever the case might be, but the lab only records fibers
under those points.
1:43:10 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 258.
1:43:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt [Conceptual]
Amendment 1, which read, as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Page 3, line 20, following "defendants."
Delete "(a) A civil action or claim for damages or
costs alleging an asbestos-related death, injury,
illness or disability or alleging asbestos-related
property damage or any other asbestos-related damages
may not be brought against a defendant, including the
state,"
Insert "(a) A civil action or claim for damages or
costs alleging a death, injury, illness, disability,
property damage, or any other damages resulting from
the use of gravel or other aggregate material that
contains naturally occurring asbestos may not be
brought against a defendant, including contractors
meeting the requirements of the program or the state,"
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT objected for the purpose of discussion.
MR. ANDERSON commented that the sponsor agrees with the
conceptual amendments that will be offered today.
1:45:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 3, lines 13-16 of
Version X. He suggested that this language clarifies the types
of asbestos-related issues. The committee discussed asbestos
removal and a truck going through the construction site causing
an accident, but these illustrations are not the purpose of this
bill. The purpose of the bill is to immunize the use of gravel
or other aggregate material that contains NOA. This language
refers to contractors meeting the requirements of the program
and the program also includes the state. This simply would
describe types of actions that are being immunized against. He
commented that this language is acceptable.
1:46:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG restated his motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 1, as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Delete "(a) A civil action or claim for damages or
costs alleging an asbestos-related death, injury,
illness or disability or alleging asbestos-related
property damage or any other asbestos-related damages
may not be brought against a defendant, including the
state,"
Insert "(a) A civil action or claim for damages or
costs alleging a death, injury, illness, disability,
property damage, or any other damages resulting from
the use of gravel or other aggregate material that
contains naturally occurring asbestos may not be
brought against a defendant, including contractors
meeting the requirements of the program or the state,"
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT again objected for the purpose of
discussion.
1:47:17 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that Conceptual
Amendment 1 would delete subsection (a) on page 3 line 20, and
inserts the language to better address the intentions.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the intentions are to
identify the types of actions that would be covered are civil
actions resulting from the use of the gravel or other aggregate
material that obtain asbestos. He stressed that this absolutely
follows the language in the intent.
1:48:01 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON clarified that the language follows page 3,
lines 13-16.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT removed his objection.
There being no further objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was
adopted.
1:48:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG made a motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 2, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Page 8, line 15 after "location."
Insert "A plan for construction with gravel or other
aggregate material determined to have a content of
more than zero percent and less than or equal 0.25
percent of naturally occurring asbestos by mass may
not be approved unless the department determines that
it is economically unreasonable to undertake the
construction project with gravel or other aggregate
material free from naturally occurring asbestos."
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT objected for the purpose of discussion.
1:49:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 8, line 15, to
subsection (c), and compared it to the previous language on page
7, lines 22-25, of Version E. The new language requires the
department to review plans and make sure they could not just sit
on the plan. The previous language stated that if material had
zero percent or less than 0.25 percent they might not be
approved unless the DOT&PF determined it was economically
unreasonable to undertake a construction project with gravel or
other aggregate material free from naturally occurring asbestos.
He said the language speaks for itself. He concluded from
discussions with Mr. Anderson that the sponsor's intent was not
to eliminate the language, but to add the new language in
addition to the old language. Conceptual Amendment 2 would do
just that.
1:50:30 PM
MR. ANDERSON answered yes; however, he just now noticed the old
language had a phrase, "more than zero percent and less than or
equal to .025..." He asked to change that to the new language
in Version X. He referred to the language on page 3, line 27,
"having a content equal to or greater than 0.25 percent of
naturally occurring asbestos...." He stated that if it is
economical to continue to use clean this section would clarify
the department will only move forward if it is economically
reasonable to do so.
1:51:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered a conceptual amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 2, on line 2, to strike the phrase "...of
more than zero percent and less than..." and insert after equal
to, "or greater than." He then read the line, which read,
"...content equal to or greater than 0.25 percent...."
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked for clarification that the specific
language removed by the conceptual amendment to Conceptual
Amendment 2 is, "...zero percent and less than..."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the phrase removed would be,
"...of more than zero percent and less than or..." Thus it
would then read, "... content equal to or greater than 0.25
percent..."
1:53:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for clarification on the effect if
the level were 0.01. He wondered if the asbestos fell under
that amount if the project would not be approved.
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ recalled that Mr. Healy indicated that a
single fiber would register as 0.25. She related her
understanding there were zero fibers it would register below
0.25 and would not be considered NOA.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON agreed with the explanation.
1:54:48 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON stated that the conceptual amendment to
Conceptual Amendment 2 has been adopted.
1:55:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked for definition of economically
unreasonable.
CHAIR P. WILSON suggested it would mean cost prohibitive.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON countered that some groups might say that
no matter how much one has to spend asbestos could not be used,
so spending $100 million is not unreasonable even though it may
require shipping in clean gravel. He questioned whether a
definition of what economically unreasonable exists. He pointed
out that some people like to prevent projects from moving
forward. He asked to clarify the intention of this bill is not
to stop projects. He questioned whether there is any way to
address the definition of economically unreasonable.
MR. ANDERSON offered to address this, noting that DOT&PF could
assist. He stated that considering using the term economically
unreasonable arose during discussions with the administration
over determining at what point these phases begin and how to
move forward. The DOT&PF's Road to Resources executive summary
for the road to Ambler project establishes criteria for
evaluating that specific project, including one to evaluate the
available material. He explained the criteria used included
evaluating the availability of the material, the cost to
transport the material to the road location, and the distance
necessary. He acknowledged that the term economic unreasonable
was not used, but the criteria was rated higher for material
located within five miles than material located 50 miles or more
from the construction site. He reiterated that since the
department has already developed some criteria rating for the
economic impact that the sponsor left it to DOT&PF to define
economically unreasonable by regulation.
CHAIR P. WILSON remarked of the importance of having the
definition addressed at the time the department develops its
regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON agreed. He asked to clarify for the
record that HB 358 is a bill intended to assist in projects
being developed and terms like economically unreasonable are not
to be used to stop projects from being developed. He reiterated
his concern about the term economically unreasonable being used
to halt projects.
CHAIR P. WILSON acknowledged that this is a good point to
clarify for the record. This is a bill intended to help with
projects that currently cannot go forward but not to stop
projects.
1:59:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG related his understanding that when
considering Sutherland statutory construction that the committee
debate is not always considered, but the reviewers often
consider sponsor statements. Therefore, as sponsor of
Conceptual Amendment 2, he would like to make it clear for the
record that any prior statements made today about the intent of
Conceptual Amendment 2 also represent his intention.
1:59:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to the language in Conceptual
Amendment 2, which read,"...equal to 0.25 percent of naturally
occurring asbestos by mass may not be approved unless the
department determines that it is economically unreasonable..."
She pointed out that this is a double negative and asked for
clarification on the intent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG pointed out that his amendment is
conceptual. He asked the committee's staff to check with bill
drafter to determine the most elegant way to state the intent
that in the event that there is additional asbestos that
asbestos cannot be approved unless the department determines it
is economical unreasonable not to do so. In other words if the
asbestos is the only source of material that is economically
available the department has the authority to approve it.
2:00:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ suggested it should be restated in the
positive.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG preferred to leave the final language
to the bill drafter.
CHAIR P. WILSON concurred that the Conceptual Amendment 2 is
specifically a conceptual amendment in order to allow the bill
drafter the flexibility to decide the best way to incorporate
the intent of the language into the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that this language was taken
from the Version E. He acknowledged that it is confusing and he
agreed it could likely be put in the positive.
2:01:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN related his understanding that
economically unreasonable means cost prohibitive.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interpreted that he is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON agreed, but noted that reasonable has
different definitions. He wanted to ensure that it is clear
that the committee's intent is to advance projects and not slow
them down. He offered his belief that some people may believe
it is reasonable to fly in gravel for projects.
REPRESENTATIVES GRUENBERG and PETERSEN agreed with
Representative Johnson.
2:02:23 PM
MR. ANDERSON pointed out the legislative intent on page 2, lines
17-21 of Version X. He stated that while this language does not
specifically address Representative Johnson's direct concern it
reads, "...in communities that ado not sources of gravel or
similar aggregate material that is free of naturally occurring
asbestos, costs of construction are substantially increased
because of the necessity of locating alternative sources of
gravel or similar aggregate material..." He referred, similarly,
to page 3, line 6, which read, "...eliminates significantly
higher costs of construction and maintenance of projects..."
Thus these provisions establish the legislative intent is to
reduce those specific costs. He offered his belief that the
legislative intent and the suggestion from Representative
Johnson will help ensure the regulations are clear.
2:03:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether the term significant health
risk can be defined. He stated that he did not want any
answers, but advised caution since the language leaves room for
interpretation.
CHAIR P. WILSON agreed that the committee does not want to leave
areas wide open.
2:03:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG further commented he was unsure that to
be economically unreasonable the cost would have to be cost
prohibitive, but if it were significantly higher it could make
it very difficult economically; however, to make it cost
prohibitive could stop a project. He asked to clarify that the
test of reasonableness is what a reasonable person would be able
to pay.
2:04:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT removed his objection.
There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended,
was adopted.
2:04:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Conceptual Amendment 3,
pointing out the pen and ink correction of "nay" to "any," on
the written amendment. He then made a motion to adopt
Conceptual Amendment 3, which read, as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 9, line 19 after "recorded."
Add "The contractor shall submit to the department the
results of any monitoring or testing performed in
accordance with the site-specific use plan and any
mitigation measures undertaken."
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT objected for the purpose of discussion.
2:05:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to page 9, line 19, to
subsection (f) in Version X and contrasted it to the language on
page 8, lines 21-23 in subsection (f) of E version. He related
his understanding that the sponsor's intention is not to
substitute the new language, but is to add additional language
in this subsection. The old language required contractors to
submit to the department the results of any monitoring or
testing performed in accordance with the site-specific use plan
and any mitigation measures undertaken. He explained that
Conceptual Amendment 3 would add a provision at the end of the
new language. He said this language was taken word for word
from Version E.
2:06:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked the sponsor if any current
requirements for testing or if this bill would add additional
requirements for testing.
MR. ANDERSON related his understanding that Conceptual Amendment
3 would not add any additional testing.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON questioned whether any tests will be
requirement to use the aggregate material.
MR. ANDERSON deferred to the DOT&PF.
2:07:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON pointed out that results are required to
be submitted, but he was unsure if this language would also
require additional testing.
CHAIR P. WILSON related her understanding that the results of
DOT&PF's monitoring must be submitted; however, the language did
not require the contractor do anything to mitigate the plan.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON disagreed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said yes.
2:08:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON pointed out the language requires the
contractor to test.
CHAIR P. WILSON answered that the contractor must submit the
results. She pointed out that the DOT&PF may require the
contractor to seal the roadway within 10 miles of a village due
to the presence of naturally occurring asbestos. The contractor
would need to report the actions taken.
2:09:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON read, "The contractor shall submit to the
department the results of any monitoring or testing...." He
questioned whether it is consistent with the site plan to
require testing.
MR. HEALY answered yes. He related that if an entity seeks
immunity under the bill and submits a plan that a variety of
tests will be required. He pointed out some prior testing may
have been performed.
2:10:41 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON asked for clarification on who performed the
prior testing.
MR. HEALY answered that the prior testing would be specific to
the materials site and it may have been performed by private
parties or the DOT&PF, but the department will view it in terms
of the ultimate goal, which is public health. He clarified that
the use of NOA material would be allowed under the bill.
CHAIR P. WILSON asked whether the department would do testing to
determine if the NOA can be used or if the contractor will do
the testing.
MR. HEALY explained that if it a third-party construction and
not the department's project, the department will rely on tests
by the contractor, the material site owner, or other party to
identify whether the material is NOA or not NOA material. He
related that the tests referred to in the mitigation plan are
due to the federal requirement for air quality for workplace
safely and mining safety to determine if it meets the airborne
standard. He commented that the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) would be more familiar with the requirement
since it is also used in buildings to collect fibers in the air.
He pointed out that it would be incumbent on contractor to take
the tests and submit them as evidence to prove workplace
standards were not exceeded.
2:13:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related his understanding this would
require the tests to be submitted to the department.
MR. HEALY answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked whether any situation occurs in
which someone will do a test, not get the preferred result and
retest, but only submit the retest results. He asked whether it
would require all monitoring results be submitted or some of it.
MR. HEALY answered that the testing procedures to identify the
level of NOA typically require a chain of custody. He suggested
that it might be possible for someone to break that chain of
custody since the department may not catch everything.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON thanked him.
2:14:25 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON was uncertain if "any" or "all" should be used.
She asked for clarification on the best choice of words.
2:15:39 PM
SARITHA ANJILVEL, Assistant Attorney General, Transportation
Section, Department of Law (DOL), introduced herself.
2:16:01 PM
CHAIR P. WILSON read Conceptual Amendment 3, "The contractor
shall submit to the department the results of any monitoring or
testing performed in accordance with the site-specific use plan
and any mitigation measures undertaken." She asked whether that
meant all the mitigation measures undertaken must be submitted.
MS. ANJILVEL answered that inclusive of "any" and "all." She
explained that the word "any" means that there may be a
mitigation plan that doesn't require any testing at all, so
basically, the contractor shall submit all plans, if any exist.
2:17:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT removed his objection. There being no
further object, Conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
2:17:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRUITT moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 258, labeled 27-LS0400\X, Nauman,
2/28/12, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON objected. He remarked that HB 258
represents an example of problem solving by the community,
state, and departments. He further remarked that this is an
outstanding example to demonstrate that when communities get
involved and work with the administration and the legislature,
solutions can happen that benefit everyone. He complimented the
sponsor addressing this long-standing problem. He said he was
glad to have resolution and wholeheartedly endorse the bill. He
then removed his objection.
There being no further objection, CSHB 258(TRA) was reported
from the House Transportation Standing Committee.
2:20:07 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:20 p.m. to 2:21 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 258 vX.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB258-DEC-AQ-02-16-12 Naturally Occurring Asbestos Fiscal Notes.msg |
HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB0128A.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Back up docs.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Sponsor Stmt.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Statistics.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 258 vB.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB 258 INE study.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB258-DEC-AQ-02-16-12 Naturally Occurring Asbestos Fiscal Notes.msg |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB258-DHSS-EPI-02-17-12.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB258-DOLWD-LSS-2-17-12.pdf |
HTRA 2/21/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB258 Sponsor Stmt.pdf.docx |
HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 258 |
| HB 128 supporting docs.pdf |
HTRA 3/1/2011 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Teen Driver Fact Sheet.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Studies and Articles.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Letter of Support State Farm.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Letter of Support APOA HB 15.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Letter of Support Allstate.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |
| HB 128 Crash Data.pdf |
HTRA 2/16/2012 1:00:00 PM HTRA 3/1/2012 1:00:00 PM |
HB 128 |