Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/01/1993 07:00 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE April 1, 1993 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Brian Porter, Chairman Representative Jeannette James, Vice-Chair Representative Pete Kott Representative Gail Phillips Representative Joe Green Representative Jim Nordlund MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Cliff Davidson OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Mark Hanley Representative Kay Brown COMMITTEE CALENDAR HB 167 "An Act relating to air quality control and the prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution; relating to civil and criminal penalties, damages, and other remedies for air quality control violations; clarifying the definition of `hazardous substance' to include releases and threatened releases to the atmosphere; amending the lien provisions relating to the oil and hazardous substance release response fund; relating to inspection and enforcement powers of the Department of Environmental Conservation; and providing for an effective date." HEARD AND HELD IN COMMITTEE FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION WITNESS REGISTER REPRESENTATIVE MARK HANLEY Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 511 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Phone: 465-4939 Position Statement: Prime sponsor of HB 167 TOM CHAPPLE Project Manager Air Quality Management Section Division of Environmental Quality Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 465-5102 Position Statement: Discussed HB 167 JEFF OTTESEN Chief, Right of Way and Environment Division of Engineering and Operations Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 3132 Channel Drive Juneau, Alaska 99801 Phone: 465-2985 Position Statement: Discussed HB 167 CHERYL RICHARDSON Clean Air Coalition 1747 Lawrence Court Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Phone: 272-0738 Position Statement: Voiced concerns related to HB 167 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 167 SHORT TITLE: AIR QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM BILL VERSION: SCS CSHB 167(JUD) AM S SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HANLEY TITLE: "An Act relating to air quality control and the prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution; relating to inspection and enforcement powers of the Department of Environmental Conservation; and providing for an effective date." JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/19/93 390 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/19/93 390 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE 03/05/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 03/05/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 03/10/93 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 03/10/93 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 04/01/93 (H) JUD AT 07:00 PM CAPITOL 120 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 93-47, SIDE A Number 000 The House Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was called to order at 7:23 p.m., on April 1, 1993. A quorum was present. Chairman Porter announced that the committee would take up HB 167. HB 167: AIR QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM Number 026 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HANLEY, PRIME SPONSOR of HB 167, reviewed the items included in the members' bill packets. He stated that the federal Clean Air Act required that the state adopt its own air monitoring system which complied with federal law, unless the state wanted to have federal officials run the program in the state. He noted that federal highway and other funds were at risk if the state did not implement a program which complied with federal law. He commented that people were fairly unanimous in their belief that it would be better to have a state-run air quality program than to allow the federal government to run it. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY said that the state had to have an air quality program in place by November, or risk being out of compliance with federal law. He commented that the year before, then-Representative Tom Moyer had sponsored an air quality bill, which ended up not passing the legislature. After that bill failed to be enacted, he said, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) convened a working group, comprised of representatives from various industries, the environmental community, and the public. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY advised that the working group met during the interim to craft language pertaining to air quality issues, in an effort to develop the "basics" required under federal law. By the beginning of the current session, he said, the working group had come up with a fairly extensive draft bill. He told the committee members that the bill which he had introduced took provisions developed by the working group and added in other provisions which had been discussed the year before, but which were not included in the working group's draft bill. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY stated that, since his bill had been introduced, the Senate Resources Committee had formed a subcommittee, inviting himself and Representative Kay Brown, who had also sponsored an air quality bill, to participate in their discussions. He said that the group had been meeting twice a week for the past three or four weeks, trying to incorporate provisions from HB 167, Representative Brown's bill (HB 39), and the Senate bill pertaining to air quality (SB 103) into a cohesive whole. He noted that the DEC working group had commented on the portions of the new bill which they themselves had not developed. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY stated that the draft House Judiciary Committee substitute for HB 167 was nearly identical to the draft substitute bill developed by the Senate Resources Committee subcommittee. He summarized by saying that the bill before the Judiciary Committee had been the subject of a great deal of work and compromise. He commented that, out of 40 pages and 33 sections, there were probably only four or five sections which were controversial. One of those was section .010, he said. That section set out limitations regarding the DEC's ability to adopt state standards which exceed federal clean air standards. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY added that another area which was subject to debate was the duration of permits. Number 161 TOM CHAPPLE, PROJECT MANAGER, AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT SECTION, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, DEC, stated that the Clean Air Act amendments had been signed into law by President Bush in 1990. Parts of the Act were already being implemented, he said; however, the permit program required that the state enact statutory changes. He noted that the 1990 law represented the first major overhaul of the Clean Air Act since 1970. He said that HB 167 only dealt with fixed sources of air pollution, not mobile ones. MR. CHAPPLE said that the state currently issued permits for approximately 170 entities; when the state comes into compliance with federal law, that number would rise to approximately 450. He noted that because the federal Act applied to small industries and businesses, Congress created the Small Business Assistance Program to help small companies understand and comply with the law. He stated that another major feature of the federal Act was the acid rain reduction program, from which Alaska was exempt. MR. CHAPPLE said that if the state did not take the lead in enforcing clean air standards, then the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would. He indicated the DEC's desire to serve as a "one-stop shopping" entity on air quality permits. MR. CHAPPLE commented that in the 1990 Act, Congress had designated 189 hazardous air pollutants. Before passage of that Act, he said, there had been only seven designated hazardous air pollutants. He mentioned that the current program pertained to "ambient" air quality standards. Those, he said, related to air which people breathed. In addition, he noted, there were "out-of-stack," or emission standards. He stated that the 1990 Act would deal with emission standards only, and not ambient standards, at least not for many years. MR. CHAPPLE explained that under current law, if a new facility produced 250 tons of air pollution per year, that facility would need a permit. The 1990 Act would require any installation, new or existing, which produced over 100 tons of air pollution per year, to get a permit. He said that rules for incinerators would remain about the same. He mentioned that one of the main categories of facilities that would need a permit was rural diesel generating equipment. Under current law, he said, a new generator of about 2350 horsepower would need a permit. MR. CHAPPLE pointed out that under the new law any new or existing generator of greater than 740 horsepower would require a permit. He noted that the new law pertained to relatively small units. He commented that there would be few changes to permitting requirements for oil and gas related activities. He added that current law required permits for industrial processing operations which processed more than five tons per hour. Most of those facilities would need permits in the future, he noted. MR. CHAPPLE stated that there were three major criteria for who would need an air quality permit under the new law: (1) any facility that produced 100 tons or more of certain types of air pollution per year; (2) any facility which produced ten tons or more of any one hazardous air contaminant; or (3) any facility which produced 25 tons or more of any aggregate of the hazardous air contaminants. He explained that, in addition, a facility that fell under specific federal emissions standards would require an air quality permit. MR. CHAPPLE said that last year, the DEC had surveyed Alaska businesses to find out which of them would require a permit under the 1990 Act. He said that the largest increase was for electrical utilities. He noted that most smaller towns and larger villages would need permits under the 1990 Act. He said that smaller villages with populations of 100-200 would probably not need permits under the 1990 Act. MR. CHAPPLE mentioned that some of the state's larger dry cleaning operations and gas distribution businesses would also need permits under the new law. He stated that passage of HB 167 would allow the state to have sole jurisdiction over its air quality programs. Currently, he said, the state shared jurisdiction with the federal government. He explained that HB 167 contained many checks and balances. He said that HB 167 would help to ensure the health of the public, but would require that the state use "good science" when regulating emissions to protect the public's health. MR. CHAPPLE noted that under the bill, the permit program would be sustained through permit fees. He said that the fee structure was designed to stimulate efficiency from both industry and government. He explained that the 1990 Act required public participation. He told the committee members that one "general permit" would be developed for a certain type of facility, and used for multiple facilities of that type. The public process for those permits, he added, would be at the time that the general permit was being created. After that, he said, these permits would be issued pretty much "over the counter." MR. CHAPPLE expressed an opinion that the state needed to have a permit system for which everyone knew the rules and understood the process. He said that current regulations were very unclear. He mentioned that the state needed to submit its permit program -- statutes and regulations -- to the federal government by November. If the state missed that date, or submitted a plan which was not satisfactory to the EPA, he said, there was an 18-month period during which the federal government could choose to invoke sanctions. MR. CHAPPLE noted that May, 1995 was a final deadline, by which the EPA was required to impose sanctions, including the loss of federal highway funds, on states which had not complied with the new law. Additionally, at that point, the EPA would begin implementing air quality permits in Alaska. Number 439 JEFF OTTESEN, CHIEF, RIGHT OF WAY AND ENVIRONMENT, DIVISION OF ENGINEERING AND OPERATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (DOTPF), testified that the state's failure to do what the EPA would do anyway could result in the state losing federal highway funds. He noted that the sanction for not implementing an approved air quality program was the loss of 100% of the state's federal highway funds. After May, 1995, he said, the federal government would have no choice but to deny the state those funds. He added that airport projects in the state would also be at risk, if the state failed to adopt its own air quality program. Number 452 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Mr. Ottesen if the federal government had set out specific amounts of air pollutants that a facility could emit. Number 458 MR. OTTESEN replied that specific pollutant amounts were published in the federal Clean Air Act. He said that the state's non-attainment areas registered somewhere above those numbers, but were not significantly above them. Number 474 CHERYL RICHARDSON, from the CLEAN AIR COALITION, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She noted that Ms. Aimee Boulanger had been representing her organization's interests on the DEC working group. She expressed concern about the bill's provisions regarding setting standards more stringent than those of the federal government. She stated that the Anchorage Assembly had taken a position that it wanted the right to set standards more stringent than those of the state. She did not see the Assembly's desire expressed in HB 167's language. MS. RICHARDSON expressed an opinion that a community ought to be able to set standards as they saw fit. She also expressed concern about the general permits described in HB 167. She mentioned a dirt burning operation which had been permitted to operate in Fairbanks, and had relocated to Anchorage, yet did not have to go through public notice requirements. She said that the bill did not provide sufficient protection to communities. She expressed concern that HB 167's general permits would be misunderstood by the public, who would lose their opportunity to comment. MS. RICHARDSON noted her organization's concern regarding HB 167's provision regarding permit duration. She mentioned a permitted operator in Anchorage, who had been violating his permit for years. She commented that writing a permit for five years, for a known violator, was not acceptable. She stated that people counted on the law, the Clean Air Act, and the legislature to protect them. She urged the committee to look out for their constituents' interests. Number 529 CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER mentioned that Ms. Richardson had been active in air quality issues in Anchorage for many years. Number 531 REPRESENTATIVE JIM NORDLUND asked Mr. Chapple if the general permit sections in HB 167 were included due to federal requirements. Number 533 MR. CHAPPLE responded that the general permit provisions were an elective for the state. He said that the DEC felt general permits were an important feature in reducing the implementation effort for the air quality program. He noted that if the EPA was to implement the 1990 law, they would not use the tool of general permits. Number 539 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Chapple to explain the difference between a general permit and a "specific" permit. Number 540 MR. CHAPPLE replied that general permits would be constructed to serve a broad number of similar installations. They would be developed and put out for public review at one time, and issued without additional public review to any facility which fit the description within the permit. Number 554 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if there were differing climatic conditions around the state which would have a bearing on the suitability of a general permit for certain areas. Number 556 MR. CHAPPLE commented that such factors needed to be considered. He stated that certain types of general permits might be able to be applied statewide, while others might need to be location-specific. Some facilities, he said, while theoretically included in a general permit, might require a specific permit, as climatic conditions would prohibit the wise use of a general permit. Number 565 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Chapple if HB 167 would give the DEC the regulatory ability to make those types of decisions. Number 566 MR. CHAPPLE replied in the affirmative. TAPE 93-47, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY commented that HB 167 would impact not just large oil refineries, but also small, "mom-and-pop" businesses which might be able to use a general permit. He stated that the DEC had the authority, through compliance orders, to force permit-holders to meet the conditions of their permits or be shut down. He asked Mr. Chapple to explain what would happen in the event that a facility received a five-year permit, but did not comply with the terms of that permit. Number 022 MR. CHAPPLE stated that HB 167 contained specific provisions allowing the DEC to take action when a permit-holder was not in compliance with a permit. He said that typically, when a facility was out-of-compliance, the DEC and the regulated entity hammered out a compliance order, which set forth what the regulated entity would do and when, to come back into compliance. He said that usually, there were penalties within the compliance order for not complying with the terms of the order. He concluded by saying that, although HB 167 provided for five-year permits, the DEC had the authority to step in and correct a permittee's course of action during the term of the permit. Number 061 MS. RICHARDSON said that she had asked the DEC officials if they knew of any air quality permit applicants who had been denied a permit. She was told that they did not know of any such applicants. She asked them if any operator had been shut down or had lost his or her permit. The answer to that question was also no, she said. She mentioned that she had looked into compliance orders given to a particular operator in Anchorage, and had found that they had not been followed. She stated that Anchorage neighborhoods continued to be concerned about the DEC's enforcement capabilities. Number 078 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES asked if general permits would contain any provisions for seasonal operations. Additionally, she asked if a municipality would be able to impose more stringent standards than those imposed by the state. Number 090 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY called Representative James' attention to section 2 of HB 167. He said that the philosophy behind the proposed AS 46.14.010 on page 2 was that the state should not go beyond federal standards unless just cause was shown. He noted that this was one of the controversial areas of the bill. He stated that HB 167 allowed local communities to adopt their own air emissions programs, by going through the same process that the state would go through to show cause for adopting standards more stringent than the federal standards. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY commented that the state or a local government had to go through a public hearing process and demonstrate many things to show why they needed to impose more stringent standards, including that exposure profiles or meteorological conditions were significantly different in the area that wanted to impose the more stringent standards, that the more stringent standards were necessary for protecting human health and welfare, and the environment, and that the proposed standards were technologically and economically feasible. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY explained the "peer review" process required for the state or local government, in the event that it wanted to impose more stringent air quality standards. He noted that it was not impossible for the state or a local government to adopt more stringent standards, but said that checks and balances on this power were part of the system. Number 158 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Representative Hanley if local governments would go through the same process as the state, if either wanted to adopt standards more stringent than those imposed by the federal government. Number 159 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY replied in the affirmative. He noted that this section of HB 167 was one of the controversial sections. Number 166 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that it made sense to require the state to go though a certain process if it wanted to impose standards more stringent than the federal standards. However, she said that if she was part of a local government, she would not want to be tied to the same process. Number 178 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY stated that the federal government required the state to create a dedicated fund in which the cost of implementing the permitting program would be covered by the regulated entities. Because regulated industries would have to pay their own way, he said, the state and local governments had to show cause for implementing standards more stringent than the federal standards. Number 199 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked if local communities had any input in the DEC permitting process. Number 205 MR. CHAPPLE replied that HB 167 was structured to bring local governments in as "partners" with the state in implementing the permit program at the local level. He said that the Clean Air Act was developed to employ a single entity in running the permit program. However, he said, local governments could either act as "stand alone" entities, or work as partners with the entity administering the permit program. Due to the complexity of the law, he said, it would not be beneficial for local governments to operate a "stand alone" program. MR. CHAPPLE advised that the DEC would take on local governments as partners, and permit fees would go to the state, which would then in turn provide financial assistance to the local governments. He commented that Anchorage and Fairbanks already employed programs which controlled mobile source air pollution. House Bill 167 would not affect those programs, he said. He added that the DEC working group had included a representative from the Alaska Municipal League. Number 250 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Chapple to comment on Alaska's exemption from the acid rain provisions of the 1990 Act. Number 255 MR. CHAPPLE mentioned that the state still needed to be concerned with nitrogen oxide emissions. The acid rain program, he noted, would, over time, "ratchet down" emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxides from power plants. Number 270 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Chapple if he was the DEC official who would make determinations about oxygenated fuels. Number 274 MR. CHAPPLE responded in the negative. Number 277 MS. RICHARDSON stated that it appeared that the language included in the draft committee substitute for HB 167 regarding the state and local governments imposing standards more stringent than the federal standards was different from the language produced by the DEC working group. She said that the two instances in which she had watched the state attempt to set standards more stringent than federal standards were for ammonia standards at the Nikiski Unocal urea plant and for benzene control at the Alyeska terminal in Valdez. In both cases, she said, industry had led the state on a "merry chase." Industry had simply "outgunned" state officials, she said. Number 293 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the committee had before it a work draft dated April 1, 1993. Number 297 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked Mr. Chapple what the DEC working group's consensus had been on the state setting standards more stringent than the federal standards. Number 301 MR. CHAPPLE commented that the DEC working group had made it a priority to address those provisions which were essential features of HB 167. He said that the working group had made a policy decision to say that it should be appropriate for the DEC to go beyond federal law if that decision was made in an effort to protect public health and the environment, and if that decision was based on sound science. He said that when the working group had created its finished product, before the legislative session began, the group had not specifically taken up the language which now appeared as proposed AS 46.10.010 and .015 MR. CHAPPLE noted, however, that the group did craft the concept that the state should have the ability to go beyond federal law. Since the session started, he noted, many people had expressed interest in language in last year's bill which prescribed in great detail the requirements for allowing the state to impose standards more stringent than federal standards. He stated that the DEC working group had prepared an alternative to the language in last year's bill. MR. CHAPPLE added that the Senate Resources subcommittee, had reviewed that language and decided to create a compromise taking some features from the previous year's bill and some features from the DEC working group's language. Number 336 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if either the Senate Resources subcommittee or the DEC working group had discussed reasons why the normal regulation writing process was not adequate for ensuring that sound science was the basis for deciding to impose standards stricter than federal standards. Number 345 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY responded that, during the regulation writing process, the administration often wrote what it wanted to write, without considering what was prescribed in statute. Number 364 MR. CHAPPLE commented that it would be a relatively infrequent event in which the state decided to go beyond what was required by federal law. He mentioned two cases in the recent past, in which the state had gone beyond federal law. One case involved public health standards for ammonia, which principally applied to the Unocal plant in the north Kenai Peninsula. Another case involved benzene emissions in the Government Hill area of Anchorage. He noted that there were a few pollution sources which needed permits under current law, but which would, under the new law, not meet the 100-ton criterion for requiring a permit. MR. CHAPPLE pointed out that some of those were small- to moderate-sized municipal incinerators, which did not produce a great deal of air pollution, but were still of concern to the public. He said that the state would need to assess whether permits should still be required for such facilities. Number 394 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY stated that if the DEC found that a polluter posed a significant threat to public health, and a peer review team supported those findings, it would make for a stronger case for the state to impose standards more stringent than the federal standards. Conversely, if the DEC's findings were not upheld by a peer review, then the case for imposing more stringent standards would be difficult to justify. He said that the peer review could be beneficial to either industry or the state. Number 412 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND expressed concerns about the composition of the peer review panels. He asked if there was an opportunity for an expert, not affiliated with industry, but who had public health concerns in mind, to participate on a peer review panel. Number 415 MR. CHAPPLE replied that a peer review group would serve not as a collective body, but as independent reviewers. He said that a minimum of three experts would be chosen to review a situation. All of the experts would work independently to critique the DEC's findings. Number 440 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY pointed out that the DEC would choose technically-qualified persons to serve as peer reviewers. Number 452 CHAIRMAN PORTER presumed that the sections being discussed were not among those sections which had unanimous support. He asked for a summary of other parts of HB 167 which did not have unanimous support. Number 455 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY stated that another section of HB 167 which did not enjoy unanimous support was the one pertaining to durations of permits. He noted that regulated industries were concerned about the expensive process they had to go through in order to get a permit. Permits which were good for five years, instead of three years, would cut down costs to industry, he said. He added that if a regulated entity was not complying with a permit, the DEC had the authority to modify or terminate the permit. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN commented that it was not only very expensive to get a permit now, but that it also involved a very time-consuming process. He asked if HB 167 would result in a shorter process. Number 477 MR. CHAPPLE stated that some permits for certain larger facilities would still require time-consuming federal review, even after HB 167 was enacted. He said that the DEC intended to streamline its permit program, to ensure that applicants knew exactly what materials they needed to submit. He noted that the DEC had focused its efforts to shorten the permit process on smaller, similar facilities which could use general permits. The general permits would result in an expedited process, he stated. Additionally, costs would be shared when general permits were employed. MR. CHAPPLE added that HB 167 contained provisions for temporary facilities, or those which were periodically moved from location to location, including oil production equipment. Number 505 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how costs could be shared by several entities operating under the same general permit, given that facilities would acquire permits at different times. Number 510 MR. CHAPPLE replied that all applicants for general permits would pay the same amount. Number 511 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked how long it would take to get regulations in place, once HB 167 was enacted. Number 512 MR. CHAPPLE stated that the federal government required the state to have its statutes and regulations in place by November 15, 1993. He said that in reality, that would not happen, due to the complexity of the regulations and the need for the DEC to receive a lot of input from the regulated community on them. He noted that the 40-page HB 167 would probably produce 140 pages of regulations. He commented that he did not expect to have the regulations in place until the following spring. TAPE 93-48, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND understood that federal law provided that permits could be issued for a maximum of five years. But he perceived that HB 167 was allowing permits to be issued for a minimum of five years. Number 017 MR. CHAPPLE stated that federal law specified that permits could be issued for up to five years. Number 021 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND mentioned that HB 167 also referred to permits containing a compliance schedule. He asked if a compliance schedule indicated that a permit-holder had violated the permit at some point. Number 027 MR. CHAPPLE replied that any facility which had a compliance problem would also receive a five-year permit. Number 032 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND asked if, under HB 167's provisions, the state did not have the option of shortening the term of a permit, in the event that a facility was out of compliance. MR. CHAPPLE replied in the affirmative. Number 039 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY called the members' attention to page 37 of the bill, which included the penalties' section. He said that current penalties for violating air or water pollution standards had been modified to comply with federal law. He said that under HB 167, violations were misdemeanors. He noted that the DEC working group had suggested making certain violations felonies. He mentioned that certain oil discharge violations were classified as felonies under existing law. Number 072 MR. CHAPPLE mentioned that the working group had decided that certain actions would be classified as felonies, and others would be classified as misdemeanors. He added that the working group had discussed an idea in which permit- holders would have to educate their equipment operators about the potential criminal consequences of their actions. Number 123 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY stated that he and Mr. Chapple had now reviewed the main controversial areas of HB 167 for the committee. Number 128 MR. CHAPPLE said that the issue of timely public notice pertained to both general permits and permits for temporary operations. He said that in the case of a facility which moved around from location to location, the public notice period would occur before the permit was initially issued. However, he said, if the facility was not going to move to a particular location until three years later, the public might be unaware of or unconcerned about the permit at the time that the public comment period was scheduled. He mentioned concerns that, in the case of temporary facilities, DEC ought to require more timely notice provisions in HB 167. Number 154 REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS asked how many other states had already come into compliance with the 1990 Act. MR. CHAPPLE replied that, as of last fall, about six or eight states had yet to enact statutes complying with the federal law. Also by that time, he said, approximately 20 states had statutes in place, but were working on regulations. He said that the vast majority of the states had enacted statutes last year, and were currently working on regulations. He noted that while Alaska was not alone, it was "behind the pack." Number 172 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what would happen if a local government received authority to adopt standards more stringent than the state or the federal government. "Who would enforce those standards?" he asked. Number 180 MR. CHAPPLE responded that it would depend on whether the local government had adopted a "stand alone" program, or whether the local government was in partnership with the state. If the local government was in partnership with the state, he said, then they would make an agreement as to which entity would perform which actions. Local governments adopting a "stand alone" program would have enforcement authority, he added. Number 192 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if HB 167 was in need of certain technical amendments. Number 193 REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY said that it was possible, but that he was not yet certain. Number 200 CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that representatives from the Alaska Environmental Lobby would be present at the next hearing on HB 167, on Saturday, April 3, 1993. Number 202 REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND said that the committee might want to discuss the issue of aggrieved individuals and who had standing in terms of civil litigation. He stated that the original HB 167 provided that a person who participated in the public comment process or a person who had a private, substantive, or legally-protected interest under state law could bring an action. He asked if that provision was included in the draft committee substitute. REPRESENTATIVE HANLEY replied that it was. Number 218 MR. CHAPPLE commented that the issue was who could receive judicial review. He said that HB 167 held that a person had to have a private, substantive, or legally-protected interest if he or she had not participated in the public comment process. He called the members' attention to page 12, lines 21-22. He noted that there was some confusion regarding this section of the bill. He stated that Mr. Robert Reges, from the Department of Law, had researched this issue and could provide the committee with additional information. ADJOURNMENT CHAIRMAN PORTER adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m.