Legislature(1993 - 1994)

02/22/1994 01:36 PM FIN

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
txt
                                                                               
                                                                               
                     HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE                                   
                        February 22, 1994                                      
                            1:36 p.m.                                          
                                                                               
  TAPE HFC 94-37, Side 2, #000 - end.                                          
                                                                               
  CALL TO ORDER                                                                
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Larson called the House  Finance Committee to order                 
  at 1:36 a.m.                                                                 
                                                                               
  PRESENT                                                                      
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Larson             Representative Hoffman                           
  Co-Chair MacLean            Representative Martin                            
  Vice-Chair Hanley           Representative Navarre                           
  Representative Brown        Representative Parnell                           
  Representative Foster       Representative Therriault                        
  Representative Grussendorf                                                   
                                                                               
  ALSO PRESENT                                                                 
                                                                               
  James  Baldwin, Assistant  Attorney  General, Department  of                 
  Law;                                                                         
  Richard   Pegues,   Director,  Division   of  Administrative                 
  Services,  Department of  Law; Carol  Collins, Staff,  House                 
  Finance  Committee; Nancy  Letticoe, Valdez;  Steve Borrell,                 
  Alaska Miner's Association, Anchorage; Florian Sever, Sitka;                 
  Don Muller,  Sitka; Joel  Kawahara, Sitka; Elmer  Lindstrom,                 
  Special Assistant, Department of Health and Social Services;                 
  Russell Heath, Director, Alaska Environmental Lobby.                         
                                                                               
  SUMMARY INFORMATION                                                          
                                                                               
  HB 454    "An Act making a supplemental appropriation to the                 
            Department  of  Law  to   pay  costs  of   certain                 
            continuing legal proceedings; and providing for an                 
            effective date."                                                   
                                                                               
            CSHB 454 (FIN) was reported  out of Committee with                 
            a "do pass" recommendation.                                        
                                                                               
                                                                               
  SB 54     "An   Act  relating  to   violations  of  laws  by                 
            juveniles; and providing for an effective date."                   
                                                                               
            HCS CSSB 54 (FIN) and with five zero fiscal notes,                 
            two  by the  Department of Administration,  one by                 
            the  Department  of  Public  Safety,  one  by  the                 
            Department of  Law and  one by  the Department  of                 
            Health  and Social Services;  and with  two fiscal                 
            impact   notes,   one   by   the   Department   of                 
                                                                               
                                1                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
            Corrections, and one by the Alaska Court System.                   
                                                                               
  SB 178    "An Act  relating to  civil nuisance  actions; and                 
            providing for an effective date."                                  
                                                                               
            HCS  CSSB  178  (FIN) was  HELD  in  Committee for                 
            further discussion.                                                
  HOUSE BILL NO. 454                                                           
                                                                               
       "An  Act making  a  supplemental appropriation  to  the                 
       Department of Law  to pay  costs of certain  continuing                 
       legal  proceedings;  and  providing  for  an  effective                 
       date."                                                                  
                                                                               
  JIM  BALDWIN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY  GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW                 
  urged the  Committee to support HB  454.  He noted  that the                 
  Legislature  has financed oil  and gas litigation  on a half                 
  year  basis  so that  activities  can  be  reviewed  at  the                 
  beginning of each legislative session.  He stressed that oil                 
  and  gas litigation is  a constantly shifting  activity.  He                 
  observed that the Department of Law  was funded for FY 94 at                 
  the same level as  FY 93.  The Department had  requested $25                 
  million  dollars for FY 94.   He maintained that the pace of                 
  the current litigation requires additional funds.                            
                                                                               
  Mr.  Baldwin advised  that the  amount  requested in  HB 454                 
  needs to be increased by an additional $2.5 million dollars.                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Larson stated that the Department's amended request                 
  would  be  for $13,837.5  million  general fund  dollars and                 
  $4,612.5  million  dollars  in  Permanent  Fund  Corporation                 
  receipts.                                                                    
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Larson  MOVED  to ADOPT  the  new total  amount  of                 
  $18,450.0 million  dollars, $13,837.5  million general  fund                 
  dollars  and  $4,612.5  million dollars  in  Permanent  Fund                 
  Corporation receipts.   There being  NO OBJECTION, it was so                 
  ordered.                                                                     
                                                                               
  Mr. Baldwin noted that  the matters funded in HB  454 are in                 
  active litigation.   He expounded that  the amount of  money                 
  that the Department intends to expend for various aspects of                 
  the litigation is subject  to the attorney/client privilege.                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Larson stressed  that under AS  44.62.310 executive                 
  sessions  are  allowed for  matters of  personnel, finances,                 
  litigation, matters that may effect  the operations of state                 
  government  or attorney/client  privileges.   He  reiterated                 
  that   the  matter   before  the   Committee  could   effect                 
                                                                               
                                2                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  attorney/client privileges.                                                  
                                                                               
  EXECUTIVE SESSION                                                            
                                                                               
  Co-Chair MacLean MOVED that the  Committee meet in EXECUTIVE                 
  SESSION for  the purpose of  discussing matters in  CSHB 454                 
  (FIN) that could effect finances of  the State of Alaska and                 
  attorney/client privileges.  There  being NO OBJECTION,  the                 
  House Finance Committee  met in EXECUTIVE SESSION  from 1:45                 
  p.m. to 2:23 a.m.                                                            
                                                                               
  REGULAR SESSION                                                              
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Larson RECONVENED the Committee  in REGULAR SESSION                 
  at 2:23 a.m.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Co-Chair   Larson   reiterated   that   the   total   amount                 
  appropriated by CSHB 454  (FIN) to the Department of  Law is                 
  $18,450.0 million  dollars, $13,837.5  million general  fund                 
  dollars and  $4,612.5  million  dollars  in  Permanent  Fund                 
  Corporation receipts.                                                        
                                                                               
  Representative Navarre MOVED to report CSHB 454 (FIN) out of                 
  Committee with  individual recommendations.  There  being NO                 
  OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                                
                                                                               
  CSHB 454  (FIN) was  reported out  of Committee  with a  "do                 
  pass" recommendation.                                                        
  sb54                                                                         
  SENATE BILL NO. 54                                                           
                                                                               
       "An Act relating  to violations  of laws by  juveniles;                 
       and providing for an effective date."                                   
                                                                               
  Co-Chair Larson noted that HCS CSSB  54 (FIN) was adopted by                 
  the  House Finance Committee during the 2/11/94 meeting.  He                 
  explained that  transmittal of  the bill  was held to  allow                 
  agencies an  opportunity to  revise their  fiscal notes  for                 
  consideration by the Committee.                                              
                                                                               
  CAROL COLLINS, STAFF, HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE clarified that                 
  HCS  CSSB  54  (FIN)  (version, 8-LS0384\G)  was  previously                 
  adopted by the Committee.  She observed that departments had                 
  submitted the  following  revised fiscal  notes;  five  zero                 
  fiscal notes, two  by the Department of  Administration, one                 
  by the Department of Public Safety, one by the Department of                 
  Law and one by the Department of Health and Social Services;                 
  and with four fiscal impact notes,  two by the Department of                 
  Health  and  Social  Services,  one  by  the  Department  of                 
  Corrections, and one by the Alaska  Court System.  She added                 
  that the Committee did not consider the letter of intents by                 
  the Senate and the House Judiciary Committee during previous                 
                                                                               
                                3                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  action.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Representative  Parnell  MOVED  to RESCIND  the  Committee's                 
  action in reporting from Committee HCS CSSB 54 (FIN).  There                 
  being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.                                       
                                                                               
  Ms.  Collins  clarified that  a drafting  error was  made in                 
  section 13 of  the previous  version of HCS  CSSB 54  (FIN).                 
  The error was corrected in the version before the Committee.                 
                                                                               
  Representative Hanley  noted that the  Department of  Health                 
  and  Social  Services submitted  a  revised fiscal  note for                 
  $1,125.0 million dollars.                                                    
                                                                               
  ELMER LINDSTROM, SPECIAL ASSISTANT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND                 
  SOCIAL  SERVICES expresed the  Department's concern that the                 
  Department would be  required to place juveniles  in private                 
  treatment facilities  as defined  on page 15.   He  observed                 
  that in-state costs  for a private treatment  facility could                 
  be as high as  $18 thousand dollars a month.   He emphasized                 
  that  the Department of  Law has  assured the  Department of                 
  Health and Social  Services that the placement  of juveniles                 
  into a private facility would be optional.  He stressed that                 
  the option to use private  treatment facilities would remain                 
  but that the  Department did  not anticipate exercising  the                 
  option.   If  the  Department  exercised the  options  of  a                 
  private treatment  facility the  cost would be  born by  the                 
  Division of Medical Assistance in the medicaid budget.                       
                                                                               
  Mr.  Lindstrom  stated  that the  Department  of  Health and                 
  Social  Services was  withdrawing  their  two fiscal  impact                 
  notes, for $1,125.0 million dollars and $0.2 hundred dollars                 
  with  the  understanding that  the  Department would  not be                 
  compelled to make placements in private facilities.                          
                                                                               
  Representative  Hanley  provided  members with  AMENDMENT  1                 
  (copy on  file).  Amendment 1 would delete on page 15, lines                 
  13 - 16,  "treatment facilities'  means a hospital,  clinic,                 
  institution, center, or other health  care facility that has                 
  been  designated  by  the department  for  the  treatment of                 
  juveniles."                                                                  
                                                                               
  Representative Brown  stressed that  the language gives  the                 
  Department  the  option  of  placing  juveniles  in  private                 
  facilities.    She observed  that  there are  currently four                 
  juveniles  being held who are  awaiting treatment beds.  She                 
  noted  that   construction  of   treatment  beds   would  be                 
  expensive.  She  suggested that it  may be possible to  meet                 
  the  needs  for  treatment  through  contract  with  private                 
  facilities.   She recommended that  the language be  kept in                 
  the legislation.                                                             
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                4                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  MARGOT KNUTH, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW clarified                 
  that  under  AS  47.10.080(b)(i)  placement  in   a  private                 
  treatment facility is discretionary.   She acknowledged that                 
  litigation could result  from the  language.  She  estimated                 
  that there is a  85 percent chance that the court would rule                 
  in favor of the state with regards to the state's failure to                 
  make placements in private facilities.                                       
                                                                               
  Representative   Hanley   MOVED   to  ADOPT   AMENDMENT   1.                 
  Representative Brown OBJECTED.                                               
                                                                               
  In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf, Ms.                 
  Knuth  observed  that juveniles  awaiting  placement in  the                 
  MacLaughlin correctional facility  are held  at the  Johnson                 
  detention  facility.    Ms.  Knuth  was  not  aware  of  any                 
  litigation initiated by  a juvenile awaiting placement  in a                 
  juvenile treatment facility.                                                 
                                                                               
  A roll call vote was taken on the motion to  adopt AMENDMENT                 
  1.                                                                           
                                                                               
  IN FAVOR: Parnell, Hanley, Martin, Larson                                    
  OPPOSED:  Brown,  Foster,  Grussendorf,   Hoffman,  Navarre,                 
                 MacLean                                                       
                                                                               
  Representatives Therriault was not present for the vote.                     
                                                                               
  The MOTION FAILED (4-6).                                                     
                                                                               
  Representative   Brown  noted  that   the  content   of  the                 
  legislation has  changed.  She questioned  the applicability                 
  of the letter  of intents.   Members decided to address  the                 
  letter of intents when the legislation is before the House.                  
                                                                               
  (Tape Change, HFC 94-38, Side 1)                                             
                                                                               
  Representative Foster MOVED  to report HCS CSSB 54 (FIN) out                 
  of Committee  with individual  recommendations and  with the                 
  accompanying fiscal notes.  There being NO OBJECTION, it was                 
  so ordered.                                                                  
  SENATE BILL NO. 178                                                          
                                                                               
       "An  Act  relating  to  civil  nuisance   actions;  and                 
       providing for an effective date."                                       
                                                                               
  Representative Therriault  provided members with  Work Draft                 
  the work draft substantially narrows the scope of the  bill,                 
  in order to address concerns expressed in previous hearings.                 
  He summarized changes made by the work draft.  He noted that                 
  the legislation would  be limited in  effect to those  under                 
                                                                               
                                5                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  air, water or solid waste discharge  permits.  If a facility                 
  has  acquired  a  permit  subject  to continuing  compliance                 
  monitoring,  periodic  review  by  the  issuing  agency  and                 
  renewal on a  periodic basis than  a nuisance lawsuit  would                 
  not  be  allowed.   The  legislation  contains  an immediate                 
  effective  date.    Section  3  would make  the  legislation                 
  retroactive to any  action currently  under litigation  that                 
  has not come to a final judgement.                                           
                                                                               
  FLORIAN SEVER, SITKA testified against CSSB 178 (JUD) am(efd                 
  fld),  via  the  teleconference  network  from  Sitka.    He                 
  asserted  that the  legislation works  against the  public's                 
  interest.  He  maintained that the legislation  infringes on                 
  the public's right to  due process and self protection.   He                 
  felt that the legislation would encourage pollution.                         
                                                                               
  STEVE   BORRELL,   EXECUTIVE   DIRECTOR,    ALASKA   MINER'S                 
  ASSOCIATION testified in  support of  CSSB 178 (JUD)  am(efd                 
  fld), via  the teleconference  network from  Anchorage.   He                 
  emphasized that individuals or companies conducting business                 
  within the law should not  be subject to nuisance  lawsuits.                 
  He stressed that Alaska mining activities are in competition                 
  for investment dollars from countries around the world.                      
                                                                               
  DON MULLER, SITKA  testified against  CSSB 178 (JUD)  am(efd                 
  fld),  via  the  teleconference  network  from  Sitka.    He                 
  asserted that the  Alaska Pulp Company does not  respect the                 
  rights of the community in which it has operated.                            
                                                                               
  JOEL KAWAHARA, SITKA testified against CSSB 178 (JUD) am(efd                 
  fld), via teleconference network from Sitka.  He referred to                 
  the definition of "nuisance".                                                
                                                                               
  RON  DICK,  ASSOCIATE  PROFESSOR,  SHELDON  JACKSON  COLLEGE                 
  testified  in opposition to CSSB 178  (JUD) am(efd fld), via                 
  the teleconference network from Sitka.  He asserted that the                 
  legislation is a  direct response to  a lawsuit against  the                 
  Alaska  Pulp  Corporation  (APC).   He  maintained  that the                 
  legislation exempts any polluter from liability if they have                 
  the  permission of  the government to  pollute by  virtue of                 
  statute, regulation, license, or permit.                                     
                                                                               
  Mr. Dick observed that the APC had numerous private meetings                 
  with  the Department of  Environmental Conservation to agree                 
  upon acceptable pollution standards.  He maintained that the                 
  Environmental Protection Agency  is contemplating a  lawsuit                 
  against the  Department of Environmental  Conservation (EPA)                 
  for  their failure to  enforce air quality  regulations.  He                 
  asserted that the  Department of Environmental  Conservation                 
  has been too lenient with APC.                                               
                                                                               
  Mr.  Dick  alleged that  CSSB  178 (JUD)  am(efd  fld) would                 
                                                                               
                                6                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  disenfranchise the public "from  seeking legal redress  when                 
  the state government and industry  collude to circumvent the                 
  laws and regulations of the state."                                          
                                                                               
  RAY JENNINGS, SITKA testified against  CSSB 178 (JUD) am(efd                 
  fld),  via  the  teleconference  network  from  Sitka.    He                 
  asserted that the right of an  Alaskan to maintain a private                 
  nuisance action to protect his property is fundamental.                      
                                                                               
  NANCY LETTICOE, PRESIDENT, ALASKA WILDERNESS, RECREATION AND                 
  TOURISM  ASSOCIATION testified  in  opposition to  CSSB  178                 
  (JUD)  am(efd  fld),  via the  teleconference  network  from                 
  Valdez.    She  asserted  that  the  impact  on  the tourism                 
  industry  could  be  considerable.    She gave  examples  of                 
  instances  of   pollution  by  industry  that  could  effect                 
  tourism.  She alleged that the legislation was introduced to                 
  help APC fight specific court action.  She stressed, that if                 
  the  right of  business to  bring  civil action  for damages                 
  resulting  from  civil  nuisance   is  withdrawn,  the  only                 
  recourse will be to sue the State of Alaska.                                 
                                                                               
  Mr.  Sever provided  the Committee with  an overview  of the                 
  litigation  against  the  APC.    He stated  that  discharge                 
  monitoring  reports by  APC  to EPA  showed  that levels  of                 
  solids being discharged in their waste  stream were over the                 
  amount  allotted  by   their  permit.    He   asserted  that                 
  discoloration  and  damage  to the  water  and  ecosystem of                 
  Silver  Bay  resulted.   He  added  that  in  1991 and  1992                 
  polluting sludge from APC's  waste water treatment  facility                 
  was showing  up in  Silver  Bay.   The sludge  was found  to                 
  contain significant amounts  of toxins  when tested by  EPA.                 
  In 1991, EPA found  that APC had intentionally violated  the                 
  Clean  Water  Act.    A  fish  advisory was  issued  by  the                 
  Department  of  Environmental  Conservation  advising  local                 
  processors not to wash  fish caught in the waters  of Silver                 
  Bay due to  the contamination of  the water.  He  maintained                 
  that  beach  front  property  values  were effected  by  the                 
  activities of APC.                                                           
                                                                               
  Mr. Sever understood that the legislation would provide that                 
  as long as  a business is  operating under a  permit and  is                 
  covered  by the terms of  the permit they  cannot be sued in                 
  state court for any  damage done from discharges  covered by                 
  the permit.                                                                  
                                                                               
  RUSSELL   HEATH,   DIRECTOR,   ALASKA  ENVIRONMENTAL   LOBBY                 
  testified in opposition to  CSSB 178 (JUD) am(efd fld).   He                 
  stressed  that  Alaska  does  not  have  a problem  with  an                 
  unacceptably large  number of suits to abate  nuisances.  He                 
  asserted  that  the  legislation was  introduced  to  kill a                 
  specific nuisance suit against APC.   He noted that CSSB 178                 
  (JUD) am(efd fld) was  introduced only days after  the court                 
                                                                               
                                7                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  ordered APC's  Japanese parent  corporation to disclose  its                 
  financial  records.    He  maintained  that APC  has  evaded                 
  complying with air and water quality standards  for years by                 
  claiming  that  it was  financially  unable  to do  so.   He                 
  concluded  that the  record disclosure  could destroy  APC's                 
  last defense to avoid compliance.                                            
                                                                               
  Mr. Heath observed  that APC's air emissions  contain sulfur                 
  dioxide.  He  noted that sulfur dioxide turns  into sulfuric                 
  acid and  can burn  eyes and  throats.   He emphasized  that                 
  there  were  vociferous  complaints  against  APC  at public                 
  hearings   regarding   their  Department   of  Environmental                 
  Conservation  air  quality  permit.     He  added  that  the                 
  Department of  Environmental Conservation has  also received                 
  hundreds of  written complaints.   He  asserted that  public                 
  concerns have been  ignored.   He alleged  that permits  are                 
  negotiated  behind  closed   doors.    He  noted   that  the                 
  Department  of  Environmental  Conservation's administrative                 
  appeal hearing officer directed the  Department to work more                 
  closely with the public.                                                     
                                                                               
  Mr. Heath emphasized  that the  permitting process does  not                 
  guarantee  that private property  rights will  be protected.                 
  He  asserted  that the  State of  Alaska  has failed  in its                 
  administration of the  permitting process.  He  alleged that                 
  CSSB 178 (JUD) am(efd fld) "restricts the property rights of                 
  600,000 Alaskans in  order to shield a  Japanese corporation                 
  form an American Court."                                                     
                                                                               
  In response to a question by Representative Brown, Mr. Heath                 
  noted  that  APC  has  received   variances  on  its  permit                 
  stipulations.  He  was uncertain how the  proposed committee                 
  substitute would effect the litigation against APC.                          
                                                                               
  JIM  CLARK,  GENERAL  COUNSEL,  ALASKA  FOREST   ASSOCIATION                 
  testified  in  favor of  CSSB  178  (JUD) am(efd  fld).   He                 
  stressed that nuisance laws were crafted to protect property                 
  not otherwise regulated.   He  emphasized that permits  take                 
  several years  to obtain.   He  maintained that  regulations                 
  intersect in  terms of obtaining permits.   He observed that                 
  water permits are obtained from EPA.  Air permits are issued                 
  by the  State of Alaska  and overseen by  EPA.  Solid  waste                 
  permits are issued by the State of Alaska.  He discussed the                 
  permitting process.  He added that permits are renewed every                 
  five   years.    He  emphasized  that  the  public  has  the                 
  opportunity  to object  during  the permitting  process  and                 
  permit  renewal.   He  noted  that  permits are  subject  to                 
  adjudicatory hearings  by any  aggrieved party.   Those  not                 
  satisfied  by  the adjudicatory  hearing  can appeal  to the                 
  ninth circuit court of appeals.                                              
                                                                               
  Mr. Clark discussed the EPA water  permit process.  He noted                 
                                                                               
                                8                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  that the permit process was developed over a number of years                 
  with input from the  public.  He asserted that  human health                 
  risk factors, protection of private property, and the effect                 
  on animal life  and vegetation are  taken into account.   He                 
  maintained that the permit process provides safety.                          
                                                                               
  Mr. Clark stressed that permit conditions must be met at the                 
  property line.  Water  requirements must be met at  the edge                 
  of  the mixing zone.  Air permit requirements must be met at                 
  the  border  of the  property  line.    Solid  waste  permit                 
  requirements must be met at the boundary of the facility.                    
                                                                               
  He asserted  that these projections are built  in to protect                 
  unreasonable interference  with  property  rights  of  other                 
  property  owners.     He  stressed  that  there   are  three                 
  opportunities  for  lawsuits in  addition  to administrative                 
  appeals during the permit process.  He maintained  that once                 
  a permit holder has met the  requirements of the issuance it                 
  is reasonable to cut off litigation possibilities.                           
                                                                               
  Representative Navarre asked  why a  retroactive clause  was                 
  added  to  the legislation.    Mr. Clark  stressed  that the                 
  retroactive clause is an effective date.   Any case that has                 
  not reached a final judgement loses the opportunity to bring                 
  further action.                                                              
                                                                               
  Representative  Brown noted  that the state's  legal counsel                 
  has advised that the legislation may be unconstitutional due                 
  to the retroactive  provision.  Mr. Clark  observed that the                 
  state of California has similar provisions.  He did not know                 
  if the California provisions were enacted with a retroactive                 
  date.  He argued that the retroactive date is supportable.                   
                                                                               
  Mr. Clark  noted  that  legislation,  sponsored  by  Senator                 
  Kerttula, passed in 1986, cut off nuisance actions for those                 
  that moved to  the nuisance.   He added that North  Carolina                 
  has similar provisions.                                                      
                                                                               
  In response to a question by Representative Grussendorf, Mr.                 
  Clark acknowledged that  permit holders that do  not fulfill                 
  the  terms of  their permit  will be subject  to litigation.                 
  Only  permit  holders  meeting  the  requirements  of  their                 
  permits are covered  by the legislation.   He observed  that                 
  violations  would   not   be  protected   by   the   permit.                 
  Representative  Grussendorf  observed  that  if  the  permit                 
  holder was using  a chemical or  process not covered by  the                 
  permit they could be subject to a lawsuit.  Mr. Clark  added                 
  that if an impact not anticipated by  the permitting process                 
  was the cause of injury it could be subject to litigation.                   
                                                                               
  Mr. Clark concluded that the  permit holder must be strictly                 
  in  accordance  with  the  permit,  the permit  cannot  have                 
                                                                               
                                9                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  unanticipated consequences, and if  there are violations  of                 
  the permit  terms, the  holder's legal  protection would  be                 
  lost.   He  stressed that  the legislation  will provide  an                 
  incentive to meet the terms of the permit.                                   
                                                                               
  (Tape Change, HFC 94-38, Side 2)                                             
                                                                               
  Representative Therriault clarified that if the public feels                 
  that they  do not  have an  avenue  to have  input into  the                 
  permit process there  are administrative appeals  available.                 
  Mr. Clark  detailed administrative appeals  available to the                 
  public.                                                                      
                                                                               
  Representative  Therriault  MOVED to  ADOPT  Work  Draft #8-                 
  LS0903\D dated 2\22\94.  There being NO OBJECTION, it was so                 
  ordered.                                                                     
                                                                               
  HCS CSSB  178  (FIN)  was  HELD  in  Committee  for  further                 
  discussion.                                                                  
  ADJOURNMENT                                                                  
                                                                               
  The meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.                                           
                                                                               
                                                                               
                               10                                              

Document Name Date/Time Subjects