Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/16/1993 03:00 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE
STANDING COMMITTEE
February 16, 1993
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Rep. Bill Hudson, Chairman
Rep. Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Rep. Brian Porter
Rep. Eldon Mulder
Rep. Bill Williams
Rep. Joe Sitton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Rep. Jerry Mackie
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
*HB 62: "An Act prohibiting employers from discriminating
against individuals who use legal products in a
legal manner outside of work."
MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HB 39: "An Act relating to prevention, abatement, and
control of air pollution; and providing for an
effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
* First public hearing.
WITNESS REGISTER
MIKE McMULLEN, Manager
System Services
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110201
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0201
465-4430
Position Statement: Testified against HB 62
DAN AUSTIN, Aide
Rep. Kay Brown
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Rm. 517
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
465-3768
Position Statement: Presented sponsor statement on HB 39
JANICE ADAIR, Assistant Commissioner
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Ave., Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795
465-5010
Position Statement: Supported HB 39
TOM CHAPPLE, Environmental Engineer
Division of Environmental Quality
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Ave., Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795
465-5102
Position Statement: Supported HB 39
STEVEN TAYLOR, Manager
Environmental & Regulatory Affairs
British Petroleum Exploration
Alaska Oil and Gas Association
10970 Lake Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
564-4037
Position Statement: Opposed HB 39
CARL HARMON, Manager
Environmental Engineering
Chugach Electric Association
11811 Hilltop Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99515
762-4739
Position Statement: Supported HB 39
RUSSELL HEATH
Alaska Environmental Lobby
419 6th St.
Juneau, Alaska 99801
463-3366
Position Statement: Supported HB 39
(did not get a chance to testify because
of time constraints)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 62
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO USE LAWFUL PRODUCTS
BILL VERSION:
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GRUSSENDORF
TITLE: "An Act prohibiting employers from discriminating
against individuals who use legal products in a legal manner
outside of work."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/15/93 74 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/15/93 74 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE,JUDICIARY
02/16/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 39
SHORT TITLE: CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
BILL VERSION: SSHB 39
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BROWN,B.Davis,Finkelstein
TITLE: "An Act relating to prevention, abatement, and
control of air pollution and providing for an effective
date."
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/11/93 34 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 34 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, RESOURCES,
FINANCE
01/13/93 54 (H) COSPONSOR(S): FINKELSTEIN
01/20/93 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/03/93 213 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE
INTRODUCED-NEW TITLE
02/03/93 213 (H) REFERRED TO L&C, RESOURCES,
FINANCE
02/16/93 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 93-12, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN HUDSON called the House Labor and Commerce
committee to order at 3:07 p.m. on February 16, 1993.
Members present were Reps. Hudson, Green, Porter, Williams,
Mulder and Sitton. Rep. Mackie was absent.
HB 62: EMPLOYEES RIGHT TO USE LAWFUL PRODUCTS
REP. BEN GRUSSENDORF, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 62, stated that
the legislation basically dealt with employees' rights
outside the workplace. Rep. Grussendorf believed that under
the present scenario individuals have had restrictions
placed on them that extend beyond the workplace.
REP. GRUSSENDORF further explained that individuals should
be able to use lawful products, such as tobacco or alcohol,
on their own time while not associated with the company they
work for without being threatened.
REP. GRUSSENDORF noted that there was a provision in the
bill that allowed a company to recoup the extra health
insurance costs associated with hiring an individual because
of the use of a lawful product was placed in a higher
insurance category.
REP. GRUSSENDORF pointed out that the bill would also exempt
religious organizations.
Number 103
RREP. JOE GREEN asked if HB 62 would cover the situation of a
person taking prescribed drugs which affects their job
performance.
REP. GRUSSENDORF responded that the bill would not cover
this situation as the drugs affect the job performance of
the individual.
Number 141
REP. BRIAN PORTER clarified the portion of the bill dealing
with the employer's rights to pass on the increased health
costs associated with a person using lawful products.
REP. HUDSON pointed out page 1, line 13, to the committee in
answer to the issue of increased health care costs for
persons using legal substances that are determined to be
harmful.
Number 222
MIKE McMULLEN, MANAGER, SYSTEM SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, testified in opposition to HB 62. Mr.
McMullen noted that there are some jobs where a person is so
identified with their job that they really don't have a
private life. Mr. McMullen observed, for example, that
there are some jobs that place a person's off-duty behavior
in direct odds with their stated job goals. For example,
the lone police officer in a small village who gets publicly
drunk.
MR. McMULLEN offered the following amendment:
Add a new paragraph after line 11 on page 2 to read:
(3) discharge an individual or otherwise disadvantage an
individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions,
or privileges of employment if the individual fails to
comply with an employer's reasonable standards of conduct,
even during nonworking hours, where the employer can
demonstrate a close relationship between the standards and
the employer's business.
Number 294
REP. GRUSSENDORF replied that the amendment offered by the
Department of Administration was exactly the type of thing
the bill hoped to eliminate.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON expressed concern that the amendment offered
was too nebulous.
Number 356
Discussion ensued regarding the standards of conduct an
employer can reasonable expect from an employee during
nonworking hours.
Number 452
CHAIRMAN HUDSON summarized HB 65 by saying that what a
employee does on the job was completely separate from his
nonworking behavior. Chairman Hudson noted that the bill
seemed to be protecting the employee as well as the
employer's rights.
Number 452
REP. ELDON MULDER moved HB 62 with individual
recommendations and two fiscal notes. There were no
objections and it was so moved.
HB 39: CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS
Number 466
DAN AUSTIN, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO REP. KAY BROWN, PRIME
SPONSOR OF HB 39, read the sponsor summary.
Number 500
JANICE ADAIR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC), testified that the Federal
Clean Air Act passed in 1990 required changes in law and
regulations in all 50 states. These changes have to be
accomplished in order for Alaska to continue to issue
permits to industry and to protect the federal highway
funds. She noted that a similar bill was introduced last
session, but because of some confusion with what the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations were and
were going to be, the bill did not pass.
MS. ADAIR stated that the DEC essentially asked for
representatives from those involved in the issue to form the
working group who eventually drafted HB 39.
Number 572
TOM CHAPPLE, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, gave a broad overview of the
Clean Air Act (the Act), with emphasis on the permit
program.
MR. CHAPPLE noted that the overhaul of the Clean Air Act was
the first major one since 1970. The major goal of the
overhaul was to reach and maintain a certain level of air
quality. Mr. Chapple explained that this goal was
accomplished by two means:
1) a permit program that issues licenses to installations
that generate air pollution; and
2) controlling mobile sources of air pollution; i.e.,
automobiles.
MR. CHAPPLE noted that HB 39 would not deal with mobile
sources of air pollution, which was a large part of the
agency's work.
MR. CHAPPLE explained that the state of Alaska has had a
permit program since 1971, but to come in compliance with
the Act, the program required substantial updating.
MR. CHAPPLE informed the committee that Congress saw that
this permit structure was complex and has mandated that
every state create a small business assistance program to
help guide businesses through the permit maze.
Another major initiative of the Act is the reduction of acid
rain, according to Mr. Chapple. He noted that Alaska was
exempt from this portion. The Act requires enforcement of
the Act. Congress also added 180 new pollutants to the list
of items that lower air quality.
MR. CHAPPLE explained some of the differences between the
permit process as it is now and how it will be if the bill
is passed.
TAPE 93-12, SIDE B
Number 234
REP. BILL WILLIAMS asked about the EPA and public review
process mentioned in the handout (on file in the committee
packet).
MR. CHAPPLE explained that the Act calls for a mandatory
public and EPA review of the draft permits.
REP. WILLIAMS expressed concern that it would be hard to
find persons with enough scientific knowledge to review the
permits.
REP. MULDER asked, If it were not for the fact that the
federal government were going to withhold funds from the
state, would we even be considering this Act? In other
words, do we have a problem?
MR. CHAPPLE stated that the permit process the state
presently has needs some improvement, but he did not think
the state has a major public health problem from the sources
it currently regulates. Mr. Chapple noted that Congress did
add some chemical compounds to the list of hazardous air
pollutants that are used in Alaska.
REP. MULDER expounded on his previously stated concern that
$4,000,000 would be spent on something that the federal
government has mandated the state to fix that does not sound
like a problem.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON clarified that the $4,000,000 comes from the
permitees.
REP. MULDER added that those costs would most certainly be
passed on to the consumer.
REP. GREEN asked if the state of Alaska shouldn't be exempt
from some of the Act given the state's unique situation.
Rep. Green also wondered if the state was giving too much
control to the federal government to micro-manage it's
permit process.
MR. CHAPPLE stated that the working group focused on making
the permit process as streamlined as possible so that
businesses would not find it unduly restraining.
REP. WILLIAMS asked for clarification on the fact that
Alaska seems to be exempt from the portion of the Act
dealing with the acid rain problem.
MR. CHAPPLE explained that it was known-science that acid
rain is an East Coast problem and that Alaska does not
contribute to this particular air quality problem.
REP. WILLIAMS cited that answer as an example of the
attitude the state should take back to the federal
government and explain that Alaska is not part of the
problem and therefore should not be required to regulate as
strictly as some of the other states.
Number 380
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if the $10,000 a day penalty was
established by the federal government or the state.
MR. CHAPPLE answered that it was the federal government's
minimum penalty.
MR. CHAPPLE outlined the sectional analysis of HB 39.
TAPE 93-13, SIDE A
REP. JOE SITTON inquired what a "direct" cost was under
Section 5.
MR. CHAPPLE answered that direct costs would be the time the
inspector spent doing the inspection, writing the inspection
up, and reporting back to the Department of Environmental
Conservation, but would not include travel costs.
REP. SITTON expressed concern regarding the image that will
be put forth if the costs referenced are charged directly
back to the permittee.
MR. CHAPPLE responded that the act requires that the state
recoup the costs of the permit programs.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON inquired if the penalty money would go into
the general fund.
MR. CHAPPLE answered that the money would go into a special
account called the Clean Air Protection Account and
hopefully will be used solely for clean air projects.
Number 144
REP. PORTER asked for an example of a ton of air
contamination.
MR. CHAPPLE gave an example of a diesel generator small
enough to fit on the committee table, 550 kw, running 24
hours per day, 365 days per year, which would produce 100
tons of nitrogen dioxide.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Chapple for the sections of the
bill that exceeded the act.
MR. CHAPPLE listed Sections 161, 185, 152 and 154.
Number 250
STEVEN TAYLOR, MANAGER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY
AFFAIRS, BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY, ALSO REPRESENTING THE
ALASKA OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION, testified that the Clean Air
Act of 1990 was a horrible piece of legislation, imposing
numerous requirements on the state of Alaska that were
neither warranted or justified.
MR. TAYLOR suggested there were only to choices for the
state; (1) craft a bill taking advantage of the flexibility
that exists in the act, or (2) wait and let the EPA impose
it's will on the state's permit process.
MR. TAYLOR informed the committee that he represented the
oil and gas industry on the working committee and that the
bill was as sound as possible given the limits. Mr. Taylor
further contended that it wouldn't be good business to have
business deals with the EPA directly.
Number 321
CARL HARMON, MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, CHUGACH
ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, and also representing rural electrical
utilities, concurred with the previous speaker. Mr. Harmon
asked that the working group be given a chance to review any
changes the legislators make to HB 39.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON gave his thanks to the working group with
special thanks to Tom Chapple for his work in bringing such
diverse groups together to work on a project of such
magnitude.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced that he would hold HB 65 for
future hearings. He ADJOURNED the meeting at 4:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|