Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/03/1994 09:40 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSSB 33(STA): An Act relating to emergency planning and response; transferring the Hazardous Substance Spill Technology Review Council to the Department of Environmental Conservation; transferring the Alaska State Emergency Response Commission, including its duty to designate local emergency planning districts and appoint local emergency planning committees, to the Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs; and eliminating a requirement that the state and regional oil discharge prevention and contingency plans be revised annually. Testimony in support of SB 33 was heard by Annette Kreitzer, aide to Senator Loren Leman, Sponsor of SB 33; Ervin Martin, Director, Alaska Division of Emergency Services (ADES), Department of Veterans & Military Affairs; and Mike Conway, Director, Division of Spill Prevention & Response, Department of Environmental Conservation. A teleconference was held, individuals testified on the bill, and some gave recommendations for amendments. Amendment 1 from Senator Leman was presented to the committee. No action was taken. SB 33 was HELD in committee. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 33(STA): An Act relating to emergency planning and response; transferring the Hazardous Substance Spill Technology Review Council to the Department of Environmental Conservation; transferring the Alaska State Emergency Response Commission, including its duty to designate local emergency planning districts and appoint local emergency planning committees, to the Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs; and eliminating a requirement that the state and regional oil discharge prevention and contingency plans be revised annually. Co-chair Pearce announced that SB 33 was before the committee. Since there were many people wanting to testify in person and via teleconference, she asked that testimony be kept to five minutes or less. She said it was not her intention to move the bill because there needed to be more time taken to look at the fiscal notes. She invited Annette Kreitzer, aide to Senator Loren Leman, Sponsor of SB 33, and Mike Conway, Director, Division of Spill Prevention & Response, Department of Environmental Conservation, to join the members at the table. ANNETTE KREITZER said that SB 33 began as a funding mechanism for the Department of Environmental Conservation and Military & Veterans' Affairs to extend grants to local emergency planning committees. As the departments, the State Emergency Response Commission, and the local emergency planning committees, reviewed their responsibilities with respect to planning, a very different bill emerged. The committee substitute was the result of months of work by the state emergency response Commission task force, input from local governments, mayors, assemblymen and women, emergency planners, local emergency planning committees, and from the departments. At one point, a statewide teleconference was held and recently, in a Senate State Affairs Committee hearing, the CS was adopted. Ms. Kreitzer then went through each section of the bill. She said she would speak to a proposed amendment from DM&VA after she gave the overview of the bill. In answer to Co-chair Pearce, Ms. Kreitzer said that, under the Community Right To Know Act, states were required to set up a state emergency response commission by 1986. In Alaska, the Governor not wanting to be liable for the planning, set up a task force. Under the state commission there were local emergency planning committees throughout the state set up to do planning relating to oil and hazardous materials. End SFC-94 #15, Side 1 Begin SFC-94 #15, Side 2 Ms. Kreitzer outlined amendment 1 proposed by the Department of Military & Veterans Affairs. ERVIN MARTIN, Director, Alaska Division of Emergency Services (ADES), Department of Veterans & Military Affairs, said he would prefer to hear the local community testimony first. Co-chair Pearce assured him they would be heard. He believed that the state emergency response commission should be "all hazards" because it was prudent and cost effective rather than creating additional boards, councils and commissions for earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, wildland fires, etc. especially in view of what had transpired in the lower 48 in the last year. He said he would be happy to address any questions. MIKE CONWAY said he did not want to diminish the importance of preparedness and prevention for oil and hazardous substance releases. Rather he wanted to elevate the importance of prevention of events leading to disaster emergencies. DEC had existing authorities and one entire division dedicated to oil and hazardous prevention and response which would continue to deal with day to day responsibilities and prepare for oil and hazardous substance disasters. The state's disaster preparedness would continue to be coordinated through DM&VA. State laws passed after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 focused the state's attention on local, regional, and state preparedness for potential oil and hazardous substance releases. The state Emergency Response Commission was established to ensure that government plans for oil and hazardous substance responses were coordinated and integrated. Oil and hazardous substance releases do happen in the state. DEC was the lead agency for oil and hazardous substance pollution control and response. During FY93 approximately 2,200 oil spills and 400 hazardous substance releases were reported to the department. The vast majority of releases were not disastrous emergencies as defined in Alaska statutes. The department's response actions usually consisted of overseeing the responsible party to insure that adequate clean-up was completed or hiring a contractor to conduct the clean-up. Natural disasters pose a much greater threat to communities in Alaska than do oil and hazardous substance releases. Alaska faces a broad spectrum of disaster emergencies, including earthquakes, fire, flood, storms, electrical power outages, water and sewer failures, tsunamis, etc. Overall, potential oil and hazardous substance releases pose less threat to Alaskans then do other potential emergencies. Since 1977, two of the 166 declared disasters resulted solely from oil and hazardous substance releases, the Exxon Valdez spill and the Crown Point formaldehyde release. Mr. Conway gave five specific recommendations. He said SB 33's intention was to improve the state's preparedness for disaster response in that all state agencies would be prepared individually and collectively. The bill language needed to explicitly require state agencies to develop agency specific plans that coordinate with the state emergency plan and insure that staff were designated and trained for carrying out those emergencies. As detailed in the state emergency plan, each state agency was responsible for certain aspects of the state's response to declare disasters. One of the limitations cited in the plan was the failure of state agencies to prepare for carrying out their assigned duties. DEC and probably most other agencies were not fully prepared to carry out their responsibilities in the event of a disaster. He pointed out that all the planning for oil and hazardous substance responses that had gone on since the Exxon spill were focused on oil and hazardous substances but in many of these disasters, other issues must be faced such as water and sewer. He felt DEC was not ready to meet those needs in case of an emergency. Mr. Conway recommended language that would consolidate local disaster planning and local planning under SARA Title III. He said federal law did not need to be restated. Additional sections or subsections could be added to define or clarify requirements for specific types of disasters. He recommended that a clear and specific definition be made of emergency, emergency response organizations, and then specify which emergency plan was subject to the provisions of the law. Non-disaster oil and hazardous substance response was managed on a day to day routine basis by DEC by overseeing the responsible parties clean up of a spill or employing contractors, or local governments to clean up a spill if the responsible party refused to or could not be found. Most responses did not involve other state agencies or local responders. Without specific definition in the bill, the term emergency suggested that, for example, the SERC would be required to facilitate the preparation and implementation of state agency response plan such as DEC's oil and hazardous substance responses plans or DNR's fire suppression plans. He recommended that the bill include specific language that authorized direct appropriation and response funds to DM&VA. And finally, he recommended inclusion of additional provisions that gave appropriate emphasis to all types of disasters. The current working draft language placed most emphasis on oil and hazardous substance planning preparedness. Many other potential disasters pose a greater threat to Alaskans, and planning and preparedness for these events should be balanced. Mr. Conway said he had been following the earthquake disaster in California. In order of the presentations made by the press, he listed the key issues: communications, hospitals and emergency medical care, problems with the road system, drinking water supplies, utility services such as water, sewer, natural gas, and safe buildings and homes. There was only a minor mention of leaking gas and there was one derailed train containing a hazardous substances. He reiterated that oil and hazardous substances were a part of the disaster emergency planning but in the biggest disasters they may have a low priority and the agencies must be ready to deal with other issues. He said he had prepared a sectional for the members information. Discussion was had by Senators Rieger, Jacko, Co-chair Pearce, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Conway regarding a definition for emergency, authority, responsibility, and planning in regard to local emergency planning. Co-chair Pearce announced that the teleconference portion of the meeting would begin. DR. ERNIE MELOCHE, chairman for the greater Ketchikan area local emergency planning committee, and one of the individuals that helped create the statewide local emergency planning committee association which would be finalized on February 15, 1994, testified via teleconference from Ketchikan regarding the critical importance of the bill and necessity of the funding. He disagreed with the comment that plans would be written to sit on the shelf. This process was designed and operational to enable the local communities to write their own plans, to take the responsibility that the plans were consistent with their community needs, and to make it an "all hazards" plan. It was also critical for any plan that was written, that that plan not only come from the community, mesh with the state and federal plan, but that the local community knew what the plan was. The bill provided for money for the training and testing of the local plans. Part of the planning process included the state's responsibility to make sure the community has access to knowledge about what hazardous materials were in their community and to plan for them ("the community right to know"). He said that was a federal requirement that the state must insure that this happened. In the 80s, Ketchikan was able to use state planners to help write the community plan and effectively came up with a completed plan that would be presented to the State Emergency Response Commission on February 16, 1994. It took 4-1/2 years to write the plan. The state provided money for a secretary to keep minutes of the meetings and that was how the plan was completed. He said it was essential for planners to come to the community, emphasized the importance of funding and why it was so critical to the plan. Money was also needed for training once the plan was written and published. Dr. Meloche said during this process of writing the plan, the community learned of many things that needed to be changed, or created to take care of emergencies and disasters. He said that these kinds of funds were also needed in the planning process. He said it cost money to publish the plan. He reiterated that the state must provide the money for this essential process. End SFC-94 #15, Side 2 Begin SFC-94 #17, Side 1 Co-chair Pearce asked if under SARA Title III, when the federal government passed the law, was there any provision for federal monies to help fund local commissions and other costs. Mr. Martin said that the federal government did not provide any money for the execution of the plan. However, it did provide funds for orientation and training. Mr. Martin said that if the state was aware of any hazards, failed to address them, and there were fatalities or other losses, the state was responsible to the victims. ROCKY ANSELL, Copper River Local Emergency Planning Commission, in the interest of time, testified also for Mr. Phillips and Mr. Roberson, via teleconference from Glenallen. He said that in 1986 the federal government passed SARA Title III legislation and in 1994 the state was still trying to implement those laws. SB 33 would give the local communities a mechanism to get this job done. He asked the committee to pass this bill. BOB SPENCER, coordinator of the Fairbanks local emergency planning committee, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, and encouraged funding and passage of SB 33 both for support of the LEPCs and for the depots. He said consensus had been, with all 26 LEPCs, to support SB 33. He wanted to remind the committee that thousands of hours of volunteer time had been invested in this process and had not cost the state anything. In Fairbanks, the response depots response time could be improved. He said training was inconsistent and not available to all volunteers because of time and money constraints. On a personal level, he said the training he received would go directly back into the community. The basic planning for the community cannot happen without funding. This bill would also enable all the plans that were developed in the state to talk to each other. He went on to speak to how the plan was created in Fairbanks and its importance to the community. He also spoke to the word "emergency." BOB STEWART, emergency management director for the city of Anchorage, testified via teleconference from Anchorage, and thanked Senator Leman and his staff for all the work they had done. He had one main question, on page 4, line 8, and page 6, line 2, and line 15, regarding the phrase "governing body." He wanted to know if it meant the mayor or his designees in large cities or incorporated boroughs like Anchorage. Ms. Kreitzer said that when this bill was drafted, "governing body" referred to an assembly or city council. Co-chair Pearce said that SB 33 would be held in committee and that when a CS was brought back that would be clarified. Mr. Stewart offered his ideas to the committee for an amendment regarding this phrase. STEVE O'CONNOR, Vice Chair of the local emergency planning commission, Kenai-Soldotna, testified via teleconference from Kenai-Soldotna, in support of SB 33 and the planning process. He urged the committee to approve funding for all LEPCs and depots. He also spoke in support of the "all hazards" planning process. He wanted the committee to take extra care in defining the word "emergency" but agreed that it did need to be defined. He also thanked Senator Leman and his staff for all their work. JOE BANTA, Prince William Sound regional citizens advisory council, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He also spoke for Michelle O'Leary who had tried to connect from Cordova. He noted that written comments and a report on depots and corps had been submitted to the committee. A few points he would like to emphasis was that DEC should remain the lead agency on the development, review and revision of the statewide master and regional oil and hazardous substance plans. While DM&VA might be the lead agency on disaster planning, DEC clearly had the expertise on oil and hazardous substances. It might be more appropriate to leave changes to master and regional planning efforts in SB 215 since it referred to a number of DEC programs and was in work at this time. However, if the changes were left in SB 33, revisions should be at the Commissioner's discretion or every three years. This would insure that plans would not become obsolete as state revenues decline. In regard to depots and corps, there should be some provision in the master plan for DEC to at least make recommendations to DM&VA. He said his RCAC was concerned so little progress had been made by DM&VA on the development of response depots and corps and whether additional changes would further delay implementation of this important program. He questioned moving another program that dealt with hazardous substances into DM&VA. He also questioned the appropriateness of funding an "all hazards" plan with 470 funds. Co-chair Pearce requested DEC and DES to look at the recommendations of RCAC and return comments to the committee. NANCY LETHCOE, Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Association, and a citizen of Valdez, testified via teleconference from Valdez her concern over the adequacy of the state's spill prevention and response plan. She said the Exxon spill had a large impact on tourism and recreation in the spill area. She said the Robbins Drydock ruling, an arcane bit of legal doctrine, had made it impossible for the tourism businesses that sustained losses to sue for those damages. There was nothing to protect, once a spill occurred, against tourism losses. It was extremely important that there be strong prevention, planning, training and prestaging of materials for response. She pointed out that there had been several other instances that had adverse effects on tourism. She strongly supported the local response planning groups, and DEC in its review, development, and revision of contingency plans. She also supported the comments that RCAC had submitted to the committee and planned to submit some additional ones. As a citizen of Valdez, she wanted to continue her testimony. Twice the city of Valdez had met to decide whether to form an LEPC and had turned it down. The argument was that if they had an LEPC in Valdez, they would know about their hazardous substances and the city would be liable. As a citizen she found it very difficult since she believed the city should protect its citizens. She was not sure if SB 33 would address that type of problem. Co-chair Pearce offered copies of DEC comments and proposed changes, RCAC comments, and the five year plan by DES to anyone that was interested. She gave the Senate Finance phone number. Co-chair Pearce announced that SB 33 would be HELD in committee. She said work would continue on a committee substitute. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:50 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|