Legislature(1993 - 1994)
04/01/1993 07:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= 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.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|