Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/27/1996 01:50 PM Senate FIN
Audio | Topic |
---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE BILL NO. 199 An Act relating to environmental audits and health and safety audits to determine compliance with certain laws, permits, and regulations; and amending Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure 202, 402, 602, 603, 610, and 611. Co-chairman Halford directed that SB 199 be brought on for discussion and noted a prior hearing on the bill. DOUG MERTZ came before committee on behalf of the Prince William Sound Regional Citizens' Advisory Committee, a non-profit corporation formed to promote environmentally safe operation of the Alyeska terminal and associated tanker traffic. The group consists of 18 organizations in communities and boroughs throughout the area impacted by the EXXON VALDEZ spill as well as commercial fishing, aquaculture, native, recreation, tourism, and environmental representatives. While the group supports the fundamental goal of fostering greater compliance with environmental health and safety requirements through a cooperative approach that encourages regulated entities to find and correct problems themselves, SB 199 would not accomplish that in its current form. It would instead invite abuse, generate more public distrust and cynicism, and widen the chasm between regulators and regulated entities. The group thus recommends the following changes: 1. Eliminate the self-audit provision. It creates a shield that is too broad and which interferes with the public's right to know. EPA has found that a self-audit privilege is not necessary to encourage self-auditing by industry. Immunity from prosecution for self-disclosed violations is sufficient to encourage self- auditing. 2. That regulatory agencies not request or use environmental audit reports to initiate a civil or criminal prosecution of a self-disclosed violation. That is the device successfully used by EPA. 3. More precision be added to standards language. As an example, Mr. Mertz noted language requiring disclosure of a violation to occur "promptly." EPA policy requires disclosure within 10 days. He noted the use of vague generalities in other areas of the bill and correspondent use of precise numbers in federal policy. 4. Immunity be narrowed so that violators are not allowed to retain any of the economic benefits derived from violations. Immunity should extend only to punitive portions of enforcement actions. That would provide for fundamental fairness to competitors who have complied, by eliminating the economic advantage of noncompliance. 5. Certain provisions that presently create a safe- haven for violators be tightened or eliminated. Specifically, the violator should not be able to disclose a violation and invoke immunity after there has already been notice of a citizen suit or a whistle- blower complaint concerning the same violation. The violator should also not be able to disclose a violation and invoke immunity if the violation has imminently and substantially endangered the public or the environment. The violator should not be able to create a permanent safe-haven by repeated or continuous self-audits or by announcing an audit after it already has reason to believe a violation may have occurred. 6. Disclosure of a violation should not shield the violator from prosecutions for other violations based on disclosed facts or which are discovered because of disclosed facts. As currently written, the bill would lead to more litigation and effectively shield the violator from future investigations and prosecutions, even for violations that are not voluntarily disclosed. KEN DONAJKOWSKI, Audit Consultant (E.H.& S area) ARCO Alaska, next testified via teleconference on behalf of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association--a trade association whose 19 members account for the majority of oil and gas exploration, production, transportation, refining and marketing in Alaska. The Association supports the intent of SB 199. A majority of members currently conduct self-audits as a means of ensuring compliance and thus see value in the proposed legislation. Over the past 25 years, health, safety, and environmental regulations have become increasingly complex. Not incidentally, interpretation of these regulations has become correspondingly difficult. Self-auditing identifies areas of inadvertent noncompliance and leads to corrective action. Self-audit is encouraged not only to ensure compliance but to generally improve health, safety, and environmental performance. The proposed legislation encourages greater utilization of self-audits by providing immunity and confidentiality. Immunity should be offered as an incentive for companies to identify, disclose, correct and prevent recurrence of noncompliance. To be effective, self-auditing should be undertaken without fear of consequences from regulatory agencies and without concern for final outcome. Providing immunity for deficiencies that are discovered through self- auditing recognizes efforts by companies to comply rather than penalizing them for those efforts. Immunities should not, however, extend to those who knowingly and willfully commit violations and subsequently audit in order to shield themselves from the consequences. Privilege further protects companies from inappropriate and unnecessary repercussions of disclosing audit results to agencies. It also ensures that the auditing process is not compromised. The issue is not one of secrecy but ability to conduct candid interviews with personnel. To remain effective, it is necessary to preserve the integrity of the audit process and maintain the trust and cooperation of employees. Traditional legal privileges limit the flexibility important to the self-auditing process. As with immunity, there are reasonable limits to application of privilege. It should protect the products of an audit (audit report, working papers, and action plan), but it should not be a vehicle to hide underlying facts. In his concluding remarks, Mr. Donajkowski advised that SB 199 moves health, safety, and environmental compliance in a positive direction through encouragement of self-auditing. He urged passage of legislation containing the intent of SB 199. He reiterated that looking for deficiencies, identifying them, disclosing them to appropriate agencies, and correction is the essence of self-auditing. It is an important tool for voluntary compliance. Without privilege and immunity, voluntary self-audits can put a company at a competitive disadvantage relative to companies that do not audit. Discussion followed between Senator Randy Phillips and Mr. Donajkowski regarding the association's interaction with various federal and state agencies on problem areas in the proposed bill. [Senator Sharp arrived at the meeting at this time.] LAURIE OTTO, Deputy Attorney General, Criminal Division, Dept. of Law, came before committee. She said that while the intent of the bill is good, she would speak to the effect of the legislation on prosecutors. Two things impact ability of the state to prosecute crimes involving environmental or health and safety laws: 1. Privileges as they apply to criminal prosecution. 2. Immunities. It is the opinion of the Dept. of Law that the combined effect of the foregoing provisions "is to make it impossible to prosecute any offense where an environmental audit privilege is claimed." The bill makes an exception for "bad actors." The definition of "environmental audit," at the end of the bill, is so broad that "anything could fall within it." There are no standards, certification, or licensing requirements for auditors. There is broad disagreement, within the field, on what constitutes an environmental audit. Presumably, a bid proposal for cleanup would be considered privileged under the bill. The extent of the privilege is not carefully delineated. Every witness interview, document, scientific test, gathered pursuant to what is identified as an audit would be privileged. The bill provides a full, complete, and absolute shield against provision of "any document to the state and against prosecution of anybody." It would allow companies to "go in and vacuum up every piece of evidence that might be incriminating, . . . under the shield of an environmental audit." Environmental crimes are regulatory offenses. Like any other white collar offense, they are proven with documents generally obtained from the offender. If the legislature does not want environmental offenses prosecuted as crimes, it would be easier and more straightforward to eliminate criminal penalties for the crimes covered by SB 199. Retention of such crimes in statute and passage of the proposed bill would give the appearance of ability to prosecute. The public would then demand the filing of charges in areas where the department has no practical ability to prosecute. Ms. Otto said she asked staff in the office of special prosecutions and appeals to review the legislation to determine whether arguments around cited problems could be made. She then advised that the view presented by staff was "even more negative than what I'm expressing to you today." Ms. Otto said that since the proposed bill is modeled on Texas law, she contacted the national district attorneys association to determine what the national experience has been. The response indicated experience similar to cited concerns. The association unanimously passed a resolution against "this kind of legislation." Ms. Otto referenced both the resolution and correspondence from the association, outlining problems experienced with similar legislation. Senator Randy Phillips expressed frustration over department criticism of the legislation in the absence of suggested alternatives or corrective provisions. Ms. Otto said that EPA has a model that appears to work effectively. There are also other things that can be done from a prosecution standpoint. She cited ability of a judge who sentences a corporation for a crime discovered as a result of an audit to take that into account at sentencing. Language could lower the class of offense if discovered via audit. Further, provisions could require that documents be turned over to the state but not utilized in court. The state would, at least, have access to documents to evaluate what is and is not admissible. The current bill creates a bar to receipt of documents and provides companies transactional immunity from prosecution. Ms. Otto explained that environmental regulation is not her field. She advised that she was merely telling members what effect the bill would have on prosecutors who are asked to enforce legislation. She said she was providing practical information "about what this bill does." She further advised that the legislation should not be applied to the "criminal arena." The state should not let those who are knowingly and intentionally violating the law "off the hook." That does not help anybody in the industry since it provides a competitive advantage to wrong-doers. Tightening the bill and providing definitions would help. PAM LaBOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, next came before committee in support of the legislation. She asked that members keep in mind the goal of having regulations that protect the environment, health, and safety. Having "everyone comply with those regulations" makes the bill "very reasonable." It allows those who have inadvertently been out of compliance to voluntarily correct the situation without fear of prosection. There is no incentive for self-audit if the end result is liability for fines, jail, and lawsuits. The legislation provides an opportunity to reach the goal of a partnership between business and government. Similar legislation has been successful in other states. [Senator Zharoff arrived at the meeting at this time.] In response to questions from Senator Phillips, Mrs. LaBolle noted that self-audits discover things "that nobody knows about." The state does not have enough regulators and enforcers to find them. The proposed bill would put business in the position of "helping to bring these about." BETH KERTTULA, Assistant Attorney General; Oil, Gas, and Mining Section; Dept. of Law; next came before committee. Co-chairman Halford asked what would need to be changed, within the bill, to remove application to tariff cases and associated fiscal implications. Ms. Kerttula noted that, as presently written, privilege sections impact self-audit information now received from pipeline owners and Alyeska. Those provisions would have to be rewritten so that the privilege would not apply. The state currently receives both safety and environmental audits. Further, immunity provisions would impact state ability to recover under the existing tariff. Exemption of the tariff and APUC-related filings could solve the problem. Discussion followed between Ms. Kerttula and Co-chairman Halford regarding placement of exemption language within CSSB 199 (Res). Ms. Kerttula expressed need for time within which to develop appropriate language. She also said she could not guarantee that the "fix" would work. She advised she would attempt to craft an appropriate amendment. Senator Leman, sponsor of the legislation, came before committee referencing comments in support of the "intent" of the bill. He then described past discussions with the Dept. of Law regarding provisions within the legislation. He concurred that the bill "does the good things," but he said he did not agree that it would have the negative impact suggested by the department. The sponsor stressed that the intent is greater compliance with environmental laws and increased worker safety. He took exception to misstatements regarding the contents of the bill. Referencing comments by Ms. Kerttula relating to tariff problems, Senator Leman suggested that she was "probably reaching a little far." It is not the intent that the legislation prevent the state from moving forward on tariff cases. He agreed that some measure of comfort could be provided if the issue was clarified under "non-privilege materials." The sponsor referenced comments by Ms. Otto, and voiced reluctance to define "exactly what constitutes an audit." He further noted that 17 other states have passed similar legislation and cited some of the provisions adopted by those states. Senator Sharp attested to slow-downs by representatives of the administration who offer nothing tangible as an alternative. He then described a past situation in which an offer by OSHA for voluntary inspection led to successive OSHA monitoring. He expressed need for legislation that provides for voluntary audit and compliance without fear of administrative repercussions. Senator Zharoff asked if the legislation would impact ongoing cases. Would it limit state ability to obtain information and necessitate state expenditures to obtain reports and information now routinely received from companies? Co-chairman Halford noted that the bill applies to environmental and health and safety audits conducted "on or after the effective date." Senator Leman referenced page 4, line 4, and explained that privilege does not apply if a person or company is required to report specific information to the state. Senator Zharoff noted correspondence from the Dept. of Law indicating that in the case of the 1995 tariff case, it would have cost approximately $25 million to conduct needed audits. If the proposed bill is enacted, the state will not have access to that type of information and would have to bear the cost of obtaining it. Senator Leman said he did not want to compromise state ability to pursue tariff cases. He voiced his belief that necessary tariff information, which is presently being provided, would be exempt under provisions at page 4, lines 4 through 15. He further advised that he would not object to clarifying language. Information needed for tariff cases should be part of the operating permit. The sponsor again stressed lack of state resources to police operations and need for voluntary efforts toward compliance. Co-chairman Halford asked that Ms. Kerttula prepare conceptual language dealing with pipeline tariff cases under non-privileged material provisions. Senator Rieger referenced discussion concerning the intent of the bill versus the manner in which it is drafted. He voiced his recollection that Captain Hazelwood was ultimately "let off" because he voluntarily disclosed the EXXON VALDEZ oil spill. He cautioned that the committee must "think through" how the bill is written. END: SFC-96, #59, Side 1 BEGIN: SFC-96, #59, Side 2 Senator Leman countered the foregoing comment by voicing his belief that Captain Hazelwood got off because the jury made a bad decision "about his state of intoxication." He stressed that for privilege and immunity to apply, the agency must be notified in advance that a self-audit is being performed. It would thus not apply in the Hazelwood situation. Co-chairman Halford raised a question regarding potential loss of federal funds should the state program be less stringent than OSHA requires. Mr. Leman said he was satisfied that would not occur under the proposed bill. It is not the intention that that occur. He reiterated that 17 other states have adopted similar legislation and suggested that they would not knowingly jeopardize their federal funding. Senator Zharoff sought clarification of language at page 6, subsection (g). Senator Leman explained that the state cannot initiate an inspection solely upon receiving notice of self-audit. DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Dept. of Labor, came before committee. He explained that Alaska presently has a state plan and total jurisdiction over safety and environmental review through federal funding. The program consists of auditing and compliance. If a company asks that the department perform an audit, the information becomes privileged. Staff then works with the company to achieve compliance. Audit information is not shared with enforcement staff. Alaska has the only state plan of that kind. The federal government requires that the state be as stringent as federal requirements. If that is not the case, funding is jeopardized, and OSHA functions will revert to the federal government. Senator Leman suggested that EPA has made similar threats to other states. That agency has not changed its policy to encourage self-audits. Mr. Perkins advised of initial discussions with the sponsor to the effect that the department would have no problem with the bill if it does not change current operations and impede inspectors. Following introduction, the department found areas of concern. The Commissioner does not want to put the federal government to the test with a program that is less stringent. Mr. Perkins stressed major concerns regarding worker safety. He noted that the bill would remove part of the department's enforcement powers. The state faces the possibility of losing its plan. He then referenced correspondence from Region 10, sharing those concerns. Senator Leman stressed that the issue is not whether or not the state receives audits that are already being done. The balance is self-audit and subsequent attempts at compliance versus no audits and "not knowing what you're doing wrong." The intent is to encourage audits and corrective action. Discussion of compliance plans followed between Senator Leman and Senator Zharoff. Co-chairman Halford referenced the following conceptual amendment proposed by the Dept. of Law: Page 1, line 8: Except for any audit reports relating to the TAPS tariff or enforcement of the state pipeline right-of-way. Page 4, line 17: Except for any voluntary disclosures relating to the TAPS tariff or enforcement of the state pipeline right- of-way. Senator Phillips MOVED for adoption. No objection having been raised, the amendment was ADOPTED. Co-chairman Halford next queried members regarding disposition of the bill. Senator Sharp MOVED for passage of CSSB 199 (Fin) with accompanying fiscal notes. Senator Zharoff OBJECTED. Co-chairman Halford called for a show of hands. CSSB 199 (Fin) was REPORTED OUT of committee on a vote of 4 to 1, accompanied by the following fiscal notes: Dept. of Military and Veterans Affairs 0 Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities 0 Dept. of Environmental Conservation 39.0 Dept. of Natural Resources 40.0 Dept. of Fish and Game 66.5 Senator Sharp signed the committee report with a "do pass" recommendation. Co-chairmen Halford and Frank and Senators Phillips and Zharoff signed "no recommendation." Senator Rieger indicated need for amendment.
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|