Legislature(2011 - 2012)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/19/2012 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB245 | |
| HB258 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 258 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 337 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 245 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 19, 2012
2:09 p.m.
2:09:09 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 2:09 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Thomas Jr., Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Mike Doogan
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mark Neuman
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Joe Michel, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze; Jeff
Prather, Supervisor, Gaming Group, Tax Division, Department
of Revenue; Brody Anderson, Staff, Representative Reggie
Joule; Paul Anderson, Staff Physician, Epidemiology,
Division of Public Health, Department of Health and Social
Services; Roger Healy, Chief Engineer, Division of
Statewide Design and Engineering Services, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Juli Lucky, Staff, Representative Mike Hawker; Elizabeth
Hensley, Corporate and Public Policy Liaison, Nana Regional
Corporation, Kotzebue; Lance Miller, Vice President of
Natural Resources Nana Regional Corporation, Kotzebue.
SUMMARY
HB 245 SNOW CLASSIC
CSHB 245(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with a previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1 (REV).
HB 258 NATURALLY OCCURRING ASBESTOS
HB 258 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for
further consideration.
HB 337 BD OF ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, SURVEYORS
HB 337 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
HOUSE BILL NO. 245
"An Act establishing a snow classic as an authorized
form of charitable gaming."
2:10:52 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed housekeeping.
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for HB 245, Work Draft 27-LS0862\E (Luckhaupt,
3/19/12). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
JOE MICHEL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, explained
the changes in the CS. He stated that the first three
Sections of the legislation remained the same. He drew
committee attention to Section 4, which had been amended to
include the internet or an internet communication.
Representative Costello clarified that the use of the
internet was for informational purposes only and that the
sale of tickets through the internet was prohibited.
Mr. Michel replied in the affirmative. He added that rules
on the federal level related to interstate commerce had
necessitated the prohibition.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the CS had been drafted in
concurrence with the bill sponsor. He furthered that the
internet had been included in the legislation in order to
address the increase of internet advertising.
JULI LUCKY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER (via
teleconference), testified that the sponsor had no
objection to the changes in the CS.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted there was not an updated fiscal
note.
Vice-chair Fairclough wondered whether there was a limit on
the cost of raffle tickets. She reported that the state had
limited the price of raffle tickets to $10. She believed
the number was very low. She added that under current law
any non-profit organization that sold tickets at a price
higher than $10 was in violation.
2:14:56 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze relayed that he had purchased raffle
tickets that were over $10. He requested that the
Department of Revenue (DOR) speak to the specific
regulations.
JEFF PRATHER, SUPERVISOR, GAMING GROUP, TAX DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, clarified that there was a $10 per
ticket limit on special draw raffles. There was no limit on
any other type of raffle ticket.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked for a definition of a special draw
raffle.
Mr. Prather explained that the special draw raffle was a
raffle where the winner was determined by means other than
a drawing.
Vice-chair Fairclough felt that the law was currently being
interpreted incorrectly. She asked if there were limits on
balloon or ring draw sales.
Mr. Prather replied that the special draw permit capped the
price at $10.
Co-Chair Stoltze believed there needed to be a better
education process among the non-profits conducting the
raffle events.
Vice-chair Fairclough shared that the issue had troubled
her for years. She stated that she had repeatedly asked DOR
why the price was set at $10 but had received no response.
She furthered that charities attempting to raise money were
limited by the low price.
2:20:18 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to report CSHB 245(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 245(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a previously published zero
fiscal note: FN1 (REV).
2:20:54 PM
AT EASE
2:23:31 PM
RECONVENED
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."
2:23:50 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough MOVED to ADOPT proposed committee
substitute for HB 258, Work Draft 27-LS0400\S (Nauman,
3/16/12).
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
JOE MICHEL, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BILL STOLTZE, explained
that there were 14 changes in the CS before the committee.
He pointed to a list of changes in members packets (copy on
file). He relayed that after moving out of House
Transportation Committee the legislation was reviewed by
the Department of Law (LAW), Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities (DOT&PF), and Department of Health
and Social Services (DHSS). The CS reflected
recommendations made by the departments.
Mr. Michel pointed to a change on page 3, lines 14-16. The
change had been requested by LAW in order to protect
agencies, officers, and state employees against certain
liability. He relayed that on page 3, lines 21-31 through
page 4, lines 1-4 included intent language that established
an analytical threshold at .25 percent by mass volume as
naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) gravel and intent
language offered by DHSS on exposure to NAO and public
health. Page 4, lines 8-13 had been suggested by LAW and
clarified the scope of immunity provided under the bill,
additionally at the bottom of section A, line 13; as well
as page 5, lines 4-5, reflected that state immunity
included agencies, officers and employees. Page 5, line 16
and line 21 provided separate immunity for gravel pit
landowners while removing them from the immunity provided
by the adherence to the site-specific plan by the
contractors of the construction projects.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted that the departments made
recommendations; it was the job of the legislature to make
actual policy changes.
Mr. Michel continued to page 6, lines 12-13 which included
DNR in the coordination of the database on mineral and
gravel sources. Page 9, line 29 reflected a suggestion by
LAW to include the word "approved." Page 10, line 9
included the word "may" in order to allow for the option
for DOT&PF to send the copies of certain material instead
of requiring DOT&PF to send material. Page 10, line 31
through page 11, line 7, provided DOT&PF the regulatory
authority to write administrative regulations for the
implementation of the bill. Page 11, line 25 added the
requirement for DOT&PF to establish regulations that
included specific components of the site-specific plan. He
relayed that the final change on page 12, line 28 changed
the expiration date for the interim projects to December
31, 2013; this would allow DOT&PF enough time for the
regulatory process.
2:29:32 PM
BRODY ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE,
expressed that Mr. Michel had done an excellent job
explaining the changes.
2:30:06 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO
further OBJECTION, Work Draft 27-LS0400\S was ADOPTED.
REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE, SPONSOR, informed the
committee several resource rich communities in the state
had experienced delays in capital projects because of
naturally occurring asbestos (NOA). He explained that
projects that had been put on hold included airport
extensions, bridge replacements, water and sewer work and
homebuilding. He opined that several failed attempts by the
legislature and state departments to address the issue had
occurred over the last 10 years. He warned that as Roads to
Resources projects reached the Upper Kobuk Mineral
District, the price of capping NOA would increase
substantially. He hoped that the rural communities could
have the benefit of necessary economic growth.
2:33:48 PM
Vice-chair Fairclough queried the health issues
surrounding, and the methods used to effectively cap NOA.
Mr. Anderson deferred the question to DHSS.
2:36:28 PM
PAUL ANDERSON, STAFF PHYSICIAN, EPIDEMIOLOGY, DIVISION OF
PUBLIC HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES,
explained that undisturbed, non-airborne NOA was not a
health risk. Natural weathering and human disturbance could
break down NOA to the microscopic fibers that would become
suspended in the air and damaging if inhaled.
Vice-chair Fairclough wondered how workers extracting
gravel would be protected from airborne NOA. She queried
the grade of asbestos; she understood that some asbestos
types were more harmful than others.
Dr. Anderson responded that there were two different
classes of asbestos fibers. The serpentine fibers had the
common name chrysotile, and appeared as a snake-like
asbestos mineral under a microscope. The other class was
known as amphibole fibers, which were straight and
needlelike. He listed the six different types of amphibole
fibers: amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, anthophyllite and
actinolite. He explained that the Ambler area contained the
serpentine fibers. He shared that asbestos occurred
naturally in the environment throughout the world and was
most commonly found in ultramafic and mafic rocks. He said
that there was no acceptable exposure level for humans but
that established measures, like threshold limits, had been
established to minimalize workers exposure.
Vice-chair Fairclough pointed out that the legislation did
not distinguish between the serpentine and amphibole
fibers. Dr. Anderson replied in the affirmative. He added
that all varieties of asbestos fibers were considered to be
harmful; particularly crocidolite fibers.
Vice-chair Fairclough asked about any steps that could be
taken to make the NOA extraction safer for workers and
community members.
2:40:34 PM
Dr. Anderson replied that there were regulations for the
exposure of workers. An analytical threshold had been
established in the bill; a test used to examine samples in
order to establish harmful fiber content. He shared that if
no fibers were visible the best that could be established
would be that the asbestos content was less than .25
percent by weight. If there was a higher amount of asbestos
found then mitigation, plans would be employed to limit
exposure.
Vice-chair Fairclough noted that the bill dealt with a
content equal or greater than the 0.25 percent NOA mass.
Mr. Anderson responded in the affirmative. He relayed that
the components of the site-specific plan and the mitigation
of the monitoring plan would begin at the point of the
desire to use the gravel that was .25 percent or greater.
Vice-chair Fairclough maintained her concerns about
worker's health.
Representative Gara echoed the health concerns raised by
the Vice-Chair. He wondered whether workers compensation
was available for people who were diagnosed with lung
cancer as a result of NOA exposure.
Mr. Anderson replied that LAW had been contacted concerning
worker's compensation and would follow up with an answer.
Representative Gara understood that workers compensation
would help exposed workers but not the people who lived in
the areas where the work was being performed. He probed the
health concerns associated with NOA.
Dr. Anderson replied that asbestos exposure was most
commonly associated with mesothelioma, a cancer that
occurred in the lining of the lungs. He added that
asbestosis was a non-cancerous, chronic lung condition that
caused scar tissue to build on the lungs, which could be
caused by long-term exposure to NOA.
Representative Gara understood that one of the difficulties
of treating mesothelioma was that if often went undiagnosed
until it was terminal.
2:46:27 PM
Dr. Anderson replied that the lengthy latency period after
exposure to NOA before a diagnosis made mesothelioma
difficult to study. Often the disease would have a
substantial amount of time to develop before it was
diagnosed.
Representative Gara understood that the legislation did not
regulate NOA that was below .25 percent by weight; only
higher percentages by weight triggered the site-specific
plans.
Mr. Anderson replied in the affirmative.
Representative Gara asked whether there was any established
safe level of asbestos exposure.
Mr. Anderson referred members to a handout from DHSS titled
"Asbestos Exposure - Ambler, Public Health and Assessment,
Interim Report, May 20, 2005" He stated that NOA had been
found in Ambler for 100s of years. He shared that
riverbanks in Ambler showed levels as low as .2 percent by
weight; other portions of the town had showed full
percentages.
2:49:04 PM
Dr. Anderson offered a brief synopsis of the DHSS report.
He stated that there was a long history of investigation
into Ambler and public health. He said that no cases of
malignant mesothelioma had been documented in the area. He
communicated that the cases that had been found in the
state could be attributed to occupational exposure.
Representative Gara restated the question concerning
acceptable levels of NOA exposure.
Dr. Anderson reiterated that there was no acceptable level
of exposure for human health.
Representative Gara expressed concern that allowing the use
of the gravel in one area could lead to its use in other,
unnecessary areas. He wondered if signs could be used to
warn people of asbestos levels in areas.
Representative Joule responded that signage would not be a
problem. He reminded the committee that residents of Ambler
were acutely aware of the asbestos issue because it was
hindering any infrastructure projects from occurring,
including the building of homes in the area. He shared that
the legislation was the result of efforts made by the
Ambler community. He clarified that he had no intention of
forwarding legislation that would put people's health at
risk. He shared that there had been an extensive search for
clean sites near the area and that there had been some
success in locating clean sources of gravel; however, it
would take the installation of roads to access the areas.
He stressed that clean sources of gravel would continue to
be sought out.
2:53:02 PM
Mr. Anderson added that regulation authority had been a
reoccurring issue in constructing the legislation. He
explained that public notification had been a reoccurring
issue. Discussions had included what should be directly
spelled out in statute, versus what should be included in
regulations. He said that the conversation was ongoing.
Representative Gara thought it could be possible to follow
a site-specific plan without allowing punitive damages or
class action lawsuits; however, he believed that the
possibility for workers compensation should remain. He
contended that if the Ambler area was safe enough there
would never be a lawsuit. He stated that the signage should
be for area residents as well as workers. He asked if
sealing of the ground would be required in areas that had
levels below .25 percent NOA by weight.
Mr. Anderson responded that the site-specific plan would
require the determination the most economically feasible
plan for the project to move forward. If clean gravel could
be found it had to be used; however, if it was economically
unreasonable for clean gravel to be found then the gravel
containing NOA could be used but had to be sealed or
buried. The final solution would be to leave the gravel on
top as top surface material.
Representative Gara asked whether the asbestos would be
loose if left on top, or would it need to be sealed.
Mr. Anderson deferred the question to DOT.
2:57:22 PM
ROGER HEALY, CHIEF ENGINEER, DIVISION OF STATEWIDE DESIGN
AND ENGINEERING SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND
PUBLIC FACILITIES responded that under the regulations in
the bill the layer exposed to the public could not contain
NOA that could become airborne. He said that if the
economically reasonable material proved to be the gravel
containing NOA some form of cap would be needed to seal the
material. Some cap alternatives included 12 inches of clean
gravel, a pavement layer, a chip seal, or other project
dependent alternative. He stated that an operation and
maintenance plan would be required to ensure that the
surface was maintained.
3:00:24 PM
Representative Edgmon wondered would the problem of NOA
become a larger issue as development and extraction
throughout the state increased
Mr. Healy replied that the state was large and that maps of
Alaska were not as detailed as those of other states. He
relayed that it had been documented that NOA was typically
present in ultramafic rocks, which could be found
throughout the state. He believed that the issue would be
faced by many Roads to Resources projects.
Representative Edgmon understood that the issue had been
highly important in Ambler for many years.
Representative Joule replied that the issue had been
ongoing for many years.
Representative Edgmon wondered if Juneau projects would be
impacted by the legislation.
Mr. Healy offered that one project could potentially be
impacted. He explained that NOA had been found in small
veins out near the ferry terminal in Juneau. He explained
that the site had been contained. He said that the
operators were working within workplace safety
requirements. He stated that he did not know if the
material at the site had tested below or above the .25
percent limit.
3:04:37 PM
Representative Costello wondered whether the bill could
include exemptions for specific communities rather than
putting the provisions in state statute.
Mr. Anderson referred to a bill that had been
unsuccessfully introduced in a prior session. He understood
that DOT needed certain statutory requirements in order to
move forward on the issue.
Representative Costello wondered whether the sponsor had
considered providing a sunset date for the legislation.
Mr. Anderson replied that the idea had not been discussed.
Representative Costello discussed the possibility of the
state working with the Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) to post notices of possible NOA exposure at airports.
Mr. Healy answered that the bill would cover new projects
and would provide a mechanism to do the work in areas of
NOA. He reiterated that the final top layer could not
exceed .25 percent NOA mass per the analytical measuring
method written into the bill.
Representative Costello stated that her concern was to
protect air carriers should they come in contact with
contaminated areas.
3:09:49 PM
Representative Neuman cited page 3, lines 23 and 24. He
noted that California had the most restrictive regulations
in the country and wondered if those regulations had been
considered when drafting the bill.
Mr. Anderson replied that Virginia and California were the
two states with viable working NOA programs. He stated that
many examples had been taken from the California
regulations and statute. He detailed that California had
started out with a 5 percent threshold in 1996, which was
reduced to 3 percent, and in 2002 and it had been reduced
to .25 percent. He added that the method of testing under
discussion had been developed for California.
Representative Neuman discussed signage. He looked at
Section 1, page 3 and asked if it was standard operating
procedure for DOT to post warning signs for employees. Mr.
Healy responded in the affirmative.
3:13:34 PM
Representative Neuman wondered how it would be possible to
determine whether a certain lung cancer had been caused by
asbestos that could be traced to a specific area.
Mr. Anderson deferred the question to DHSS.
Representative Neuman quoted page 9. He wondered whom "the
party" referred to in the language of the bill.
Mr. Anderson replied that "the party" was the person that
would be submitting the site-specific plan, which could be
the state or a third party private contractor.
Representative Neuman queried how the air safety would be
ensured for individuals working in gravel pits containing
freshly ground rock dust.
Mr. Healy pointed out to the committee that there were
existing regulations under the Mining Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) and Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) regarding airborne asbestos. There
were requirements for dust mass or air particle mass that
should be part of the daily regimen for the contractor. He
continued that the bill would require airborne testing for
existing regulation requirements. He referred to a daily
monitoring program that would ensure that the asbestos was
not exposing workers hazardous levels of asbestos.
Representative Neuman asked whether regulations on the
federal level would increase for future projects.
3:18:57 PM
Mr. Healy responded that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) had not provided additional specific rules
other than those existing in OSHA and MSHA. He furthered
that there was an airborne level for asbestos in terms of
workers safety. He shared that the California model, which
Alaska was using as a guideline, tested the soil with an
assumption of what was safe by airborne standard. The EPA
had not yet come out with a guideline of what could be
considered safe soil asbestos levels.
Representative Guttenberg wondered whether there had been
any encapsulation studies conducted.
Mr. Healy replied that many variables were considered in
determining how to encapsulate individual areas. He
explained that the objective would be to prevent public
inhalation of NOA by the best means available.
Representative Guttenberg suggested that most construction
projects required subsequent work. He understood that the
OSHA standards would protect workers, but the goal was also
to protect the public. He pointed out that most roads were
manufactured. He understood that the term "soil" meant
"fill" for the purpose of discussion.
3:24:09 PM
Mr. Healy responded in the affirmative.
Mr. Anderson directed attention to page 10 of the bill,
which listed a requirement that the contractor submit
documentation that NOA gravel had been used on the property
upon completion of a project. A marker would be placed as a
warning for any future digging.
Representative Guttenberg discussed the efficiency of
stockpiling of material. He expressed concern that the
public could liberate quantities of stockpiled material. He
wondered outside of signage what would be done to protect
the public.
Mr. Healy replied that the specifics had not been worked
out at the present time. He said that in terms of the
construction process there were established best management
practices that California had adopted on its projects
related to laying down asbestos material while keeping the
dust level down.
3:27:49 PM
ELIZABETH HENSLEY, CORPORATE AND PUBLIC POLICY LIAISON,
NANA REGIONAL CORPORATION, KOTZEBUE (via teleconference),
thanked the sponsor for introducing the legislation. She
testified that there were numerous projects that had been
put on hold in the affected communities. She added that the
entire Northwest Arctic Leadership Team was in favor of the
legislation.
LANCE MILLER, VICE PRESIDENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES NANA
REGIONAL CORPORATION, KOTZEBUE (via teleconference),
supported the legislation. He relayed that the gravel bars
below Ambler were made from eroded rock from various
ultramafic rock. He stated that some of the highest levels
of asbestos could found in naturally occurring gravel bars.
He pointed out to the committee that area residents in the
region had been living with the substance for thousands of
years.
Co-Chair Stoltze interjected that in the Knik Arm area fine
gravel clay, blown in on the wind, sometimes made its way
indoors. He wondered whether particles carried on the wind
was an issue in the Ambler and Kotzebue area.
Mr. Miller replied that the dust in the Kotzebue area was
different than in the Knik Arm area. Much of the area was
covered in snow for most of the year, which offered a
natural sealant.
3:33:35 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony with the intent to
reopen it if necessary.
Vice-chair Fairclough wondered whether the extraction or
storage of NOA gravel would occur on privately owned land.
Representative Joule responded that most villages that were
part of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) had either subsurface or surface issues. He stated
that the land was native allotments or privately owned.
Vice-chair Fairclough referred to language in the
legislation that DOT would map out where projects would be
placed inside the communities, and would keep a recording
of the specific projects.
Mr. Anderson responded in the affirmative.
Vice-chair Fairclough expounded on the hazards of not
making public where all NOA lands were located throughout
the state. She thought mapping could help to identify the
areas for future users.
3:38:19 PM
Mr. Healy explained that once NOA levels were determined on
a private site it would be incumbent upon the owner to
inform the public.
Vice-chair Fairclough maintained that a mined pit still
posed a health risk, and that the bill did not require a
plat note to protect against future remediation. She
wondered what responsibility the private owner had to the
protection of the public health. She added that bidding for
projects could be skewed due to an imbalance of information
concerning areas containing NOA.
3:42:38 PM
Mr. Healy answered that bill would cover existing projects.
Requirements to the public health could be found under
current DNR Statute 27 requirements. If the site was new,
the issue of notification to users would be covered in
regulation. In order to seek immunity under the legislation
the owner or contractor would need to submit plan approval.
The plan approval was incumbent upon the material being
sealed.
Vice-chair Fairclough maintained that there was nothing in
the bill that required the mapping of the NOA areas. She
argued that there could be corridors or pits that were
already established that the public was unaware of. She
requested a description of the term "reasonably
uneconomical".
Mr. Healy answered that the equation involved the type,
size, and final usage of the land were all factors in
deciding whether a project was uneconomic. He believed the
bill provided the ground rules for the determination in
statute.
HB 258 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Stoltze discussed housekeeping.
HOUSE BILL NO. 337
"An Act relating to the Board of Registration for
Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors and to the
Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development."
HB 337 was SCHEDULED but not HEARD.
ADJOURNMENT
3:49:38 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:49 PM.