01/25/2002 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
January 25, 2002
3:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Harry Crawford
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Joe Hayes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 66
"An Act relating to pesticide use; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 66
SHORT TITLE: TRACKING OF PESTICIDE USE
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)CISSNA
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/01 0100 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/16/01 0100 (H) L&C, RES, FIN
01/16/01 0100 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
01/25/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE SHARON CISSNA
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 420
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 66.
ROBERT EARL, Staff
to Representative Sharon Cissna
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 420
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the specifics of HB 66.
JANICE ADAIR, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided DEC's position on the bill.
TRACEY LYNN, Program Manager
Environmental Public Health Program
Epidemiology Section
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Social Services
PO Box 240249
Anchorage, Alaska 99524-0249
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the Department of
Health and Social Services.
COREY RENNELL, Student Representative
Anchorage School Board
1640 Crescent Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the students of the
Anchorage School District.
TOM MACCHIA, Physician's Assistant
PO Box 221285
Anchorage, Alaska 99522
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as a health care worker in favor
of HB 66.
KATIE BRYSON, High School Senior
7911 Hazel Court
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as a high school student in favor
of HB 66.
KEN PERRY, General Manager
Paratex Pied Piper Pest Control
2440 East 88th Avenue, Suite A
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of his pest control
business.
EVERETT WALTON, Partner
American Pest Management
403 East Fireweed Lane
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-2111
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of his pest control
company.
BARBARA WILLIAMS
Alaska Public Interest Research Group (AkPIRG); Alaska Injured
Workers Alliance
PO Box 1010931
Anchorage, Alaska 99270
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of AkPIRG and the
Alaska Injured Workers Alliance.
PAMELA MILLER, Biologist and Director
Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT)
135 Christensen Drive, Suite 100
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of ACAT.
WALTER PARKER, Former Highway Commissioner
3724 Campbell Airstrip Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99024
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 66.
CHERYL HILMES
(no address given)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 66.
CHIP NORDHOF (ph)
(no address given)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 66.
NANCY JEAN OUIMET, M.D.
2440 East Tudor Road 1146
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as a doctor in favor of HB 66.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-4, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. Committee
members present at the call to order were Representatives
Crawford, Kott, Meyer, and Murkowski. Representative Halcro
joined the meeting as it was in progress.
HB 66-TRACKING OF PESTICIDE USE
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the matter before the committee
was HOUSE BILL NO. 66, "An Act relating to pesticide use; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0144
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 66, version 22-LS0352\J, Lauterbach,
1/24/02, as the working document. There being no objection, it
was so ordered and Version J was before the committee.
Number 0200
REPRESENTATIVE SHARON CISSNA, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor
of HB 66, told the committee that three years prior, a group of
young mothers and professionals came to her after completing a
successful campaign to eliminate irresponsible and unnecessary
uses of pesticides in Anchorage schools. She said the group's
concern stemmed from the growing body of knowledge about the
dangers pesticides pose to children. Representative Cissna
claimed that pesticides pose a greater threat to children than
adults. She said the Anchorage group came to her because they
felt that the problem should be looked at statewide.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said she had been working for two years to
draft a piece of legislation that would allow Alaska to take an
important first step in tracking pesticides in the state. She
said that Alaska's budget crisis is posing challenges to the
state's small businesses, and that it is important that the
legislation "do a lot, with very little." Representative Cissna
said that the reasons for the proposed CS were the changes made
in order to save money. She said that she was greeted in Juneau
by the members of the "Success by Six initiative." She pointed
out that this group of educators push to illustrate the effect
that children's environments have on them.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said that Alaska lacked the records to
safeguard its own pesticides. Representative Cissna pointed out
that certified pesticide applicators are required to keep
documentation on restricted-use pesticides but are not required
to report total pesticide use. She told the committee that it
is difficult for the public to access information on the use of
pesticides. Representative Cissna cited a recent survey as
saying 93 percent of voters in Alaska favored required
disclosure of pesticide use.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA made the statement that HB 66 makes the
commercial use of pesticides in public areas known to the
public. She told the committee that it gives a mechanism to
study the suspected link between pesticides and cancer,
respiratory illnesses, and allergies. She invited her aide to
go into the specifics of the changes.
Number 0516
ROBERT EARL, Staff to Representative Sharon Cissna, Alaska State
Legislature, testified on the specific changes to HB 66. He
referred to page 1, Section 1, of Version J. He said this
section puts the fees collected in Sections 2 and 3 under
"receipt supported service," and he likened it to those fees
received by the Pioneers' Home and the Department of Public
Safety. He pointed out that the fees go straight to the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and that they are
not from the general fund. He said what is not spent on the
tracking system would go to the general fund.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said that she had questions on Sections 2 and 3,
and that Mr. Earl need not go into every section unless there
were specific questions.
MR. EARL reported that Section 2 charges a $150 registration
fee. He said that "outside pesticide applicators have
pesticides registered in Alaska." He said there are 4,571
registered and that there are no fees charged for their
registration. Mr. Earl told the committee that Alaska is the
only state not to charge a registration fee. He indicated that
in the current fiscal note, the imposition of a fee would
account for approximately $690,000, or the bulk of the fiscal
note. He speculated that since there is free registration in
Alaska, Outside pesticide companies register in the state so
that they can claim to be registered in all 50 states. He added
that also included in the fiscal note was an Oregon example of a
20-percent drop in registrations once a fee was implemented.
Number 0687
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if the $150 fee was an annual fee or a
one-time-only fee, and if it is an annual fee, why a company
would choose to register in the state if there is no real market
for its pesticide here. She stated her understanding of Mr.
Earl's point that companies would take advantage of the state's
having no fee, but questioned whether they would continue the
policy if one were instated. Chair Murkowski asked Mr. Earl if
he thought the decline in registration would be more than 20
percent, as in the case of Oregon.
MR. EARL agreed that it could be more. He went on to say that
the average registration fee for states is $110. In response to
another question by Chair Murkowski, he said the $110 average
was mostly an annual fee.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked why charge $150 if the national
average is $110.
Number 0783
MR. EARL said that there is no particular reason for the higher
fee, but put forward, "Since we are the last state to charge
such a fee, I suppose it could be argued that they've been
getting away with it for a number of years ...."
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER reasoned that if $110 is an average, there
must be other states that are charging $150.
MR. EARL referred to the packet and examples of others states'
fees including New York, $300; Vermont, $75; California, $200;
Delaware, $70; and Connecticut, $100.
MR. EARL then referred to Section 3. He outlined how it would
allow the department to charge a $25-per-annum license fee to
certified pesticide applicators. He told the committee that
currently, DEC and the Cooperative Extension Service train
applicators to apply pesticides. He said there are 14 different
categories of pesticide use. The fee would apply per licensee,
per year, regardless of how many categories of use the person is
certified for.
Number 0875
CHAIR MURKOWSKI made the observation that the proposed CS
specifies "private applicators." She asked how many private
applicators there are in the state.
MR. EARL answered that the fiscal note is in error, and that
there are not 1,000 applicators as it states. He said it was
accounting for separate categories of certification. He
clarified that there are only about 620 separate applicators.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if those 620 are all private applicators.
MR. EARL said they are certified pesticide applicators that one
would hire to "spray trees."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI wondered if there is a distinction between
private and public applicators.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER posed the question of where the "farmers in
the valley" would fall under the scenario.
MR. EARL cited page 1, line 12. He said that the language was
designed to exclude farmers and include only certified pesticide
applicators.
Number 1000
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO followed up on Representative Meyer's
question by asking if the bill excluded farmers and government
institutions like the Alaska Railroad [Corporation].
MR. EARL answered "yes."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO brought up the example of discussion of
pesticides along the railroad a couple of years prior, and noted
that it was that discussion that brought about this type of
legislation. He pointed out that it seemed that this bill would
exempt the people who brought about the concern to begin with.
Representative Halcro put forth his thought that if someone were
to come to his house to spray for pests, it would not be a
public health concern. He asked if there was a reason why
government organizations and farmers were excluded.
MR. EARL made the point that the bill should be regarded as a
first step. He referred the committee to page 6, line 18. He
said that in the bill, one of the board's responsibilities,
through the state agencies, is "to try to follow integrated pest
management more."
Number 1100
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA interjected that one of the goals of the
legislation was to address the issues as a "first step," to get
some of the information that is out there. She claimed that it
is not possible to count every bit of pesticide in the state,
and if that were the bill's intent, "it would not make it
through." She said that this bill is one way to begin finding
out about a group that cannot be studied in any other way. She
said, built into the legislation is the institution of a board
composed of seven members - scaled back from nine to seven -
that would be the most able to educate the public. She made the
point that education is a better approach to the problem of
pesticides than more laws and regulations. She said it would be
hard to educate the public on how to properly use pesticides,
but made it clear that it would be the board's charge to do this
by use of its scientific knowledge. She said that the board
will make recommendations on whether or not "things should be
made illegal in the state system, and that's why they're there."
Number 1225
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked, of the 4600 pesticides registered
in the state, how many can be purchased at a local hardware
store.
MR. EARL responded that many are not sold in Alaska, but are
registered here for the sake of their claim to be sold in all 50
states, as mentioned earlier. He added that there are 74
"restricted-use pesticides" available for sale to those with
certification and training.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked: Of the 4,600 less the 74 restricted
use pesticides, how many are available for sale at a local
hardware store?
MR. EARL answered that he did not know specifically, but added
that any of the nonrestricted-use pesticides are available to
the general public.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if he was correct in assuming that
if he hired someone to apply a pesticide, that person must
report what was used, the square footage of application, and the
exact location of its application. He said he was referring to
Version J, page 4, line 15.
Number 1331
MR. EARL referred Representative Halcro to line 28, page 3, and
said that page 4 is left open to allow the department to
determine how specific it would be. He then referred to Section
5, subsection (b)(3), and said that the intent is for the
"department to require enough specificity about location of
application to be able to aggregate the data into hydrological
units," but general enough to protect anonymity.
Number 1375
CHAIR MURKOWSKI followed up by clarifying that pesticide
applicators would still be required to provide information set
forth in subsection (c) on page 4. However, what is then made
available to the public is more narrowly tailored to provide the
privacy to the individual by indicating a specific watershed.
She asked if she was correct in assuming that the name, date,
and location of pesticide application would be confidential.
MR. EARL responded that it would be confidential.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if it was stated somewhere. She said that
she was not sure that there was a confidentiality provision in
Version J when she looked.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA responded that it was meant to be. "If it
isn't, it's an omission," she added.
Number 1443
MR. EARL stated that currently applicators are required to keep
documentation on application with the exact location of
application specified. They are not required to report to DEC.
He said that one of the aims of the legislation is to report the
location in a manner that protects confidentiality. He offered
that perhaps Version J was not specific enough on that point.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if she was correct to assume that the
current system provides for the registration of pesticides, but
doesn't require the type of information "such as we're looking
for in (c)."
MR. EARL said he believed that the documentation is supposed to
be kept, and that DEC can inspect it if there is a problem.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Earl to clarify if "they're currently
compiling all the documentation, [but] it just doesn't go
anywhere after that."
MR. EARL replied that was correct. He clarified that
documentation must be kept on restricted-use pesticides
currently, and added that regulations are in the works -
unrelated to this bill - to keep documentation on all
pesticides.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if keeping the documentation was in the
current statute.
MR. EARL responded that that was only so with the restricted use
pesticides.
Number 1530
MR. EARL continued, saying, "Section 4 requires applicators to
notify their neighbors" between 48 and 72 hours before the
application of a pesticide. He said it was modeled after
current Municipality of Anchorage code.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked what happens if there are strong winds or
pouring rain. She asked how the Anchorage code handles the
elements.
MR. EARL answered that he did not know.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred to Section 4, subsection (b), paragraph
(1). She asked how close "contiguous" property would be defined
by the bill.
MR. EARL said that in the case of two properties divided by a
vacant lot, they are not contiguous.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI gave the example of her area of Anchorage as one
with a great deal of properties having large areas separating
homes or residences, but with the properties still being
technically contiguous. She advised having a more narrow
definition of "contiguous".
Number 1683
MR. EARL added that the notification had been changed from that
found in the Anchorage code, where it was from 24-96 hours. He
said that in Version J it was changed to 48-72 hours.
Representative Cissna felt 24 hours was too little, he explained
and 96 hours might allow the public to forget the notification.
MR. EARL moved on to Section 5 and said it establishes the
pesticide tracking system and reportage of pesticide use to DEC.
He referred to subsection (b)(2), saying that it allows the
department the discretion to choose which pesticides to track.
He said that all of the restricted-use pesticides would be
tracked, and other "suspect" pesticides would be added as they
are identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
DEC, or the pesticide advisory board.
Number 1791
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if AS [46.03.]340 - page 4 line 28 - did
not negate all of the aspirations to confidentiality previously
stated.
MR. EARL asked Chair Murkowski if page 3, line 20, "would take
care of that problem."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said that she did not think it took care of the
problem. She said if the data was collected under Section 5,
subsection (c), it should be indicated that it is excluded or
developed under Section 5, subsections (a) and (b). She said it
appeared to her that anything gathered under "that whole
section" would be available to the public.
Number 1878
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA told the committee that it was her
intention to keep confidentiality, and added, "This is not a
witch hunt; this is a search for data."
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked where the figures on penalties for
infractions came from on page 4, subsection (e). He pointed to
the penalties of $1,000, and $2,000 for first and second
offenses, respectively. He asked if they were based on other
states' policies, and whether they were to be levied on top of
other civil or criminal penalties that would be applicable. He
said that they sound "a little steep."
MR. EARL said the department would be better able to address
that question. He then moved on to the section of Version J
that sets up the advisory board legislation. He said the
membership of the board had been lowered from nine to seven
members. Mr. Earl told the committee that this was done to
reduce the impact the board would have on DEC in the way of
information requests. He said "on line 20, we reduced the
number of pesticide applicators from two to one." He said that
the original bill called for two members with demonstrable
records of advocating for water quality protection, fish and
wildlife protection, or pest management. Mr. Earl said that had
been changed to require a member of the board with expertise in
fisheries, and one with expertise in wildlife.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if the board was meant to deal with the
pesticide industry, why the proposed board only called for one
member of that industry. She asked if moving from two members
to one was simply for economy.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said that in "our" search to find
information, "we" strove to find data to analyze the danger of
pesticides. She said the bill was structured to allow
scientists to get data through the tracking system, and also to
come up with recommendations. She said some of those
recommendations would be applicable to pesticide applicators,
and some would not. Representative Cissna said she feels
scientists need more information that could be provided by the
board. She said there is "enough scientific knowledge out there
now, to point to the fact that we need to look at it." She gave
the example of lead being made illegal in many of its
applications in the absence of complete scientific proof of its
danger.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA said that it was not her goal to exclude
the pesticide applicators, and said "if they can think of more
ways to get at this goal, that would make it easier for them; I
would be delighted."
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if the level of expertise required to
fill the board was too high.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA answered that she had anticipated that
question and said that at lunch she had come "up with a whole
fistful of names." She added that there was incredible talent
in Alaska. She also said it was a revenue-positive bill. She
said that in Version J, the "fanciness" was cut back by
requiring less-expensive computer reporting. She said the
current fiscal note did not represent the cheaper version.
Number 2280
JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, testified via
teleconference. She said that the pesticide program is within
her division. She said she would like to give some general
information and background. She mentioned a fact sheet she had
sent to the committee that referred to pesticides. The sheet
gave examples of the wide range of chemicals that EPA considers
pesticides.
MS. ADAIR said that pesticides have been regulated in the United
States for nearly 100 years. She mentioned the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (known as FIFRA).
Ms. Adair pointed out that the EPA was given authority for
federal pesticide oversight in 1970 when the agency was created.
MS. ADAIR said the EPA is required to register all pesticides
sold in the United States, and as part of that process, EPA
examines the ingredients of a pesticide; how it is to be used;
the amount, frequency, and timing of its use; and storage and
disposal practices. She told the committee that there are
extensive requirements for the labeling of pesticides, and EPA
must approve each label. She said the EPA conducts special
reviews of pesticides to determine whether their use poses an
unreasonable risk to human health or the environment. It also
evaluates potential new pesticides and uses, reviews older
pesticides against current standards and knowledge, and promotes
reduced-risk pesticides and non-chemical pest management - also
known as integrated pest management. It sets exposure standards
for workers and sets limits on how much of a pesticide residue
may remain on foods.
MS. ADAIR said:
EPA has the authority to enter into cooperative
agreements with states to conduct inspections and
enforcement activities related to the sale and
distribution of pesticides; train and certify
pesticide applicators of restricted use-pesticides;
and implement a field-based outreach program that
focuses on agricultural worker protection, groundwater
protection, and endangered species protection. And
that's where the state comes in.
She said the state does have a cooperative agreement with the
EPA and that it conducts the work described above, including:
training of the applicators, inspection of records that
applicators are required to keep, investigation of complaints,
and conducting of inspections.
MS. ADAIR said Alaska has a state registration requirement,
which means that in order for a pesticide to be sold in Alaska,
it must be registered with the department. She said that this
allows [the department] to know what pesticides may be used in
Alaska, and [to] deny registration for a product that may pose
an unacceptable risk to Alaska's particular environment. She
gave the example of a recently denied registration for a product
whose label stated that it would contaminate groundwater.
MS. ADAIR said:
Because so many areas of Alaska depend on groundwater
as a source of their drinking water, and because the
product was not needed for any unique purpose, we
denied its registration. We also have a very small
permitting requirement for projects that are conducted
by state and local governmental entities, so the
railroad [Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC)] is
absolutely covered under current law, and that would
not be changed by this bill. And any pesticide
project that would affect land owned by two or more
different people must also be permitted. Those are
both statutorily required. In our regulations, we
have also required a permit for pesticide applications
that are done by air, or that are done to the water.
She gave the example of a species of non-native pike killed by
the Alaska Department of Fish and Game because it was affecting
salmon on the Kenai Peninsula. She said that kill had to be
permitted by her department.
MS. ADAIR said:
We provide technical assistance to many groups such as
the Pribilof Islands for rat eradication, the U.S.
Forest Service on non-native species eradication, or
what they call "noxious weeds," and the Air Force and
others on spruce bark beetles.
We have regulations at the Department of Law that are
going through their final review, that will require
schools to provide notice to parents and guardians
before pesticides are used at the school, and to post
the area after use until it is safe for children to
access it again. We will be submitting for public
review and comment later this year a similar
requirement for day care centers.
TAPE 02-4, SIDE B
Number 2473
MS. ADAIR continued:
EPA funds the Alaska pesticide project except for the
registration component. We get just under $300,000 in
grant funds from EPA, and it is matched with about
$82,000 in state funds. Then the registration costs
to the state are about $47,000.
Registration has been required since 1998, she explained.
Alaska was the last state to implement a state registration
requirement and is the only state without a state registration
fee, said Ms. Adair. She told the committee that in 2001, there
were 4,571 pesticides registered for sale in Alaska. Of these,
1,367 were anti-microbials, which include disinfectants and
sanitizers; 279 were repellants; and 74 were restricted-use.
MS. ADAIR said:
A restricted-use pesticide is a pesticide that, even
when used according to the label instructions, has
such potential for negative effects that it can only
be used by applicators certified by the state under a
program approved by EPA.
She said the use of the phrase "private applicators" in the bill
is in existing statute, and it does not mean to exclude anyone
working in the public sector. "If you use restricted-use
pesticides, you must be certified by the state," said Ms. Adair;
that is a federal requirement.
MS. ADAIR said this bill would do many things. It would
establish fees for certain pesticide-related activities. It is
very similar to the requirement in the Municipality of Anchorage
of posting notice to neighbors. She said that people appreciate
the opportunity to bring in their children or dogs before
neighbors begin spraying pesticides on adjacent property.
Number 2417
MS. ADAIR said the bill would require that the department
establish a system to track the use of certain pesticides in the
state, as determined by regulation. Since Alaska does not have
a large permitting program, Ms. Adair said it would allow the
state to gather information on how and where pesticides are
used. She said Chair Murkowski's point that certified
applicators should be subject to public review was a good one.
MS. ADAIR said the department would have to publish a report
providing a detailed summary of the tracking information, and
come up with any changes to the database that make the
information easier or more informative to the public.
Number 2363
MS. ADAIR also said that the bill creates a seven-member
advisory board to provide guidance to the department on several
topics including the development of the tracking system, a
research-and-information-gathering mechanism related to
household use of pesticides; increasing public awareness of less
toxic alternatives; improving the enforcement process,
accessibility, and utility of the tracking-system data, and
addressing persistent organic pollutants in the state. In
addition, the board would provide recommendations to all state
agencies and the university on how to control pests in such a
way that pesticides would not be needed. The board would not be
paid any per diem, would be appointed by the governor, and
should serve staggered three-year terms, said Ms. Adair.
MS. ADAIR explained that the bill would state that commercial or
contract use of pesticides would require the applicator to be
certified. She referred to the question by Representative Meyer
concerning penalty amounts. Ms. Adair said she did not recall
the department having any input into those penalty amounts. She
referred to page 4, line 23, which read in part, "In addition to
other civil or criminal penalties that may be applicable ...."
She said this was added to make sure that if other things needed
to be brought into consideration, they could be.
Number 2280
MS. ADAIR thanked Representative Cissna and her staff for
working with the department and addressing its concerns as the
bill has evolved. She mentioned the fiscal note in particular.
She said the department supported a more active pesticide
program, notification to neighbors, the state policy on
integrated pest management, and the fees as a source of revenue.
Number 2245
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred back to the question she posed to Mr.
Earl about the drop-off rate whereby companies who had
registered their pesticides in Alaska, but did not sell them,
were expected to discontinue their products' registration upon
the imposition of a fee. She mentioned the 20 percent figure
that Mr. Earl had used and asked Ms. Adair if she had any
further information on that figure.
MS. ADAIR said it is difficult to say how many companies would
actually "drop off" and added that the 20-percent figure was
used because it had been an actual occurrence in another state.
She said she was not sure about how many companies were actually
registering their products just because of the lack of a fee.
She added that some states have 10,000 pesticides registered.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked what a "broadcast chemical" is.
MS. ADAIR replied that a broadcast chemical is how people
generally describe dispersants, such as those used in oil
spills. She said it was an old term used in statute but not
used commonly every day. A pesticide would be a subcategory of
that, because it "is anything that you could apply in a
broadcast fashion."
Number 2165
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Ms. Adair if the data her department
collects was available to the public upon request.
MS. ADAIR answered that the only data that her department
collects is that concerning permitted projects. The records
applicators are required to keep are kept at their place of
business, and made available for the department's review.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if he was correct in assuming that
1,400 of the 4,600 pesticides are sanitizers or disinfectants
such as Clorox or Listerine.
Ms. Adair answered, "Correct."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if companies would be charged the
$150 fee to sell those types of products in the state.
Number 2117
MS. ADAIR said that the registration is for the active
ingredient of the pesticide, and it is usually done by the
manufacturers of the chemicals such as Dow Chemical Company and
Monsanto.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if most or all commercial
applicators are licensed, bonded, and insured.
MS. ADAIR answered that that they are, but the department gave
an exemption to some of the requirements to anyone working for a
school district who also becomes certified under the new
regulations to use pesticides at a school.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked, regarding the Municipality of
Anchorage's ordinances, if they mandate notification of
pesticide use to neighbors.
MS. ADAIR answered that she has not seen the ordinance and does
not know how it actually works. She said for example, when her
birch trees are being sprayed for aphids, her neighbors receive
notice at least 24 hours in advance of spraying; and if weather
postpones the spraying, notice is re-posted. It is an ordinance
in Anchorage.
Number 2024
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the department believed that since
there has been no fee in Alaska in the past, the fee should
"make up and catch up" by charging more than the national
average for the future.
MS. ADAIR said that the amount of a fee, or issuance of a fee at
all, is a policy call by the legislature. After Representative
Kott restated the question, Ms. Adair said she does not think
the department believes that the fee should make up for missed
fees in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Ms. Adair if the Anchorage ordinance
requires that the pesticide applicator keep the posting up for a
length of time after the pesticide is used.
MS. ADAIR answered that she did not believe so, and deferred to
some of the applicators waiting to testify on line.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked about the military's use of pesticides
and how it would be certified.
MS. ADAIR surmised that it would also have to be certified since
that case deals with federal requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the military would also be required
to notify surrounding residences, "perhaps off the
installations," via postings.
MS. ADAIR said, "That's a darn good question because it would be
contiguous, wouldn't it?"
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed and said that he was thinking of
Elmendorf Air Force Base and the Anchorage Municipal Golf
Course, both with a number of residences surrounding them. He
reasoned that they would have to post those residences with
notifications in the event of those facilities' using
pesticides.
MS. ADAIR said she suspected Representative Kott's assumptions
to be correct, but added that she would have to check with the
Municipality of Anchorage to be sure.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if Ms. Adair was aware of the Indiana
University study that found pesticides that "may have come from
half a world away" on Alaskan tree bark.
MS. ADAIR said she was not aware of the particular study in
question, but claimed she was aware that the issue of airborne
toxins being dumped in Alaska has been researched extensively.
She made note of a theory of the "Arctic acting as some sort of
a sump for both air and waterborne toxins that do originate in
other parts of the world."
Number 1821
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER said he has "not heard of this being a real
big problem." He said that he had heard mention of the issues
of pesticides as a concern with regard to schools, the railroad
being sprayed for weeds, and farmers spraying anhydrous ammonia,
but he said he thought these examples were "excluded from this
bill."
MS. ADAIR said the ARRC is not excluded. It is covered under
current statute, and the bill changes nothing relative to the
ARRC. She said under current statute, state or local
governments must have a permit to conduct pesticide projects.
She said she was not familiar with the situation with farmers,
but if they hire someone to apply pesticides, that person must
be certified. If the farmer uses pesticides himself or herself,
and does not apply it by air or to the water and it is only on
the farmer's own land, then it is not required to be permitted.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if it would have to be "posted 48
hours."
MS. ADAIR answered that only if the application was done by
someone for hire.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if this bill addresses "a real
problem."
MS. ADAIR said that was a "very, very, difficult question to
answer," and added that nothing DEC does generates as much
controversy and emotion as pesticides. She said that there
appear to be some health effects from some pesticide use, "but
the science isn't real clear, so people get scared."
Number 1638
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked, in light of the stipulation that those
who apply pesticides in a commercial capacity are subject to
"enforcement or penalties," whether her son would be open to the
same enforcement and penalties if hired by a neighbor to do yard
work where lawn pesticides are used.
MS. ADAIR said that under current regulations, one must be at
least 18 to be a certified applicator. She said she that one
"could infer that they would have to be certified."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if the requirements in the bill are
similar to what the ARRC is currently abiding by.
MS. ADAIR said statute requires that the ARRC, and other
governmental entities, get a permit from the department. It
must post public notice and use certified applicators. She said
that the bill would not have "a huge effect" on how the ARRC
operates. She added, though, that if it had its own certified
applicators, it would have to provide the department with
information for the tracking system.
Number 1383
TRACEY LYNN, Program Manager, Environmental Public Health
Program, Epidemiology Section, Division of Public Health,
Department of Health and Social Services, testified via
teleconference.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked Ms. Lynn if she felt that there
has been, or is, a problem with pesticides.
MS. LYNN said that the science is uncertain, but added that
there is a potential for risk. She said, "The more conservative
course of action would be to monitor the situation through a
pesticide tracking system."
Number 1230
COREY RENNELL, Student Representative, Anchorage School Board,
testified via teleconference. He said he represents Anchorage's
50,000 students on the Anchorage School Board. He said that
four years prior, he began working with the Anchorage School
District to implement a "district management plan." He said
prior to the implementation of the plan, he was concerned for
his health because of pesticides. He said he was even more
concerned for those who did not know of the potential threats to
their health. Mr. Rennell stated his belief in the use of
pesticides under certain circumstances, but added that
pesticides can "cause biological complications when directly
exposed to a human body." He said that public awareness would
be the straightest path to public safety. Mr. Rennel said that
in light of the state's fiscal deficit, this bill would not be a
burden because it "pays for itself." Mr. Rennell said that the
bill is a necessary and long needed addition to the protection
of the people of Alaska, and urged the committee to support it.
Number 1122
TOM MACCHIA, Physician's Assistant, testified via
teleconference. He said that he has been practicing as a
physician's assistant in Alaska for 23 years. He said that he
worked in the North Slope oilfield medical clinics before "the
OSHA [Occupational Safety and Health Administration] right-to-
know law," and that it was "a rather scary scramble" when people
were exposed to chemicals and toxins. He supported the idea of
people being aware of what they may be exposed to. Mr. Macchia
said he has also worked with a great number of sick children.
He pointed out that children are much more vulnerable to
chemical exposure because they are still developing. He said
giving parents more information to help them protect their
children would be "a good thing."
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked what type of pesticide he was
speaking of in regard to his work with children.
MR. MACCHIA said he was not referring to a particular pesticide
but rather the benefit of the OSHA law that made information
more accessible.
Number 0971
KATIE BRYSON, High School Senior, testified via teleconference.
Ms. Bryson said:
Madame Chair and honorable members of the committee,
thank you. My name is Katie Bryson and I am a high
school senior here in Anchorage. I've been working on
pesticide-related issues since 1998, when I became
involved in an Anchorage community effort to limit the
use of potentially harmful chemicals in our schools.
That policy, which was a parent idea to the proposed
legislation, was unanimously approved in 2000 and has
since been commended by Alaska's Department of
Environmental Conservation. In the time I've spent
working on these issues, I've heard many different
facts and opinions about pesticide use. After
studying the proposed legislation, I firmly believe
that it does not pander to any single set of beliefs
regarding the use of pesticides. Instead, it furthers
Alaska's ability to expand its scientific knowledge
base, and it protects the right of all Alaskans to
have access to that knowledge.
House Bill 66 is not designed to restrict the use of
specific chemicals, or to unreasonably regulate the
actions of Alaskan pest management businesses; it is
designed to stand up for individual members of the
public, individual constituents. Some opponents have
voiced the opinion that, as no direct harm from
pesticides to human systems and the environment is
confirmed, there is no reason to implement this
tracking system. I disagree. We have no way of
recognizing or understanding any chemical effects
until we have a comprehensive tracking plan.
Ignorance of the presence of these substances won't
solve problems that may be related to them, such as
low salmon runs or endocrine disruptions in the
children who play in our parks. Ignorance will only
prevent us from identifying potential causes of these
problems. And with all respect to the applicators of
pesticides, it is not fair or just for merely a select
few to have free and immediate access to records of
which pesticides are used where and in what
quantities. These are matters that impact the public.
I would ask that you respect the public's right to
know with your support of this bill.
Number 0582
KEN PERRY, General Manager, Paratex Pied Piper Pest Control,
testified via teleconference. Mr. Perry said to the committee:
My name is Ken Perry. I am the same age as Mr.
Crawford and was born and raised in Mr. Hayes'
district of Fairbanks, but for the past eight years
have resided in Anchorage. I am the father of five
children and have a deep and abiding love for my home
state, its environment, and its people. I am here to
speak on behalf of myself as a resident; [on behalf
of] my company, Paratex Pied Piper, a 37-year-old
Alaskan-owned business, of which I am a minority owner
and the general manager; and as a representative of
the National Pest Management Association [NPMA], the
trade group representative for our industry in the
United States.
Let me begin by thanking the members of this committee
for receiving and reading the response letters I have
submitted over the past four days. I know that your
workload in this session is very heavy, and I am
honored that you would take time to consider the
opinions of a small-business operator like myself. I
also want to apologize to you and Ms. Cissna along
with her staff if my first foray into the world of
politics has in any way caused offense. My letters
have come with an undertone of frustration and may
have been worded in such a way as to appear
condescending. While that was not my intent, again I
apologize if that appearance was present. I will not
take up the time of this hearing to reiterate what I
have already written into the record. Instead I will
comment on two matters: first the matter of fiscal
responsibility, and the other, my concern about
fairness in the handling of this bill.
Number 0692
It is of no little concern to us, the residents of
Alaska, that the current legislature addresses the
fiscal gap that exists and is growing rapidly in our
budget process. In fact, your own time from that
issue is being robbed by virtue of this frivolous
piece of legislation known as House Bill 66. It would
be deliberate deceit to suggest that these new laws
would not cost the Alaska budget tens of thousands -
if not eventually - millions of dollars to implement
and oversee. For the sake of sound fiscal
responsibility, this committee must not recommend this
bill. If in fact this session does come up with extra
funds, I would urge that these be placed into the
existing skeleton budget of the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation, the ADEC, to assist them
to more effectively carry out the mandate that
currently exists for them in the matter of oversight
in their pesticide division. Although my colleagues
and I may not always agree with them on issues of
their governing of our industry, I have found them to
be some of the most professional and conscientious
government employees I have had the opportunity to
deal with. To burden them with more unnecessary
workload, especially without funding, is unthinkable.
Number 0553
I spoke previously of my hurt at the handling of this
matter. While this may have little to do with the
merits of the bill before you, I would like to address
the matter of responsible legislation. The bill,
especially in its present form, provides for excessive
regulation on a group known as "applicators of
restricted use pesticides" and "persons engaged in the
custom, commercial, or contract spraying or
application of pesticides and broadcast chemicals".
For the edification of this committee, that language
means solely a group of small businesses, including
pest-control companies - about 15 - and a few lawn-
and-garden maintenance companies ... A number that has
come to my attention is 29 along with evidently - and
I'm mistaken here: I thought it would also affect our
sole aerial crop sprayer; perhaps it does not.
While I was made aware of this proposed regulation by
our NPMA Legislative Affairs Department on the East
Coast, and made brief comments to the originator's
office in 2000 when it first surfaced, neither I nor -
as best I can determine - my competitors, [were]
contacted by that office for input. The NPMA also
wrote comments, but was contacted only within the past
ten days for input, and that was primarily in regard
to the new language surreptitiously included Tuesday
for a state wide neighbor-notification law. Were it
not for a letter from the special interest group
pushing this legislation, published in last week's
Anchorage Daily News, I would not have even known that
this matter was scheduled for hearing today.
In contrast, we are frequently asked to provide input
into recommended changes in ADEC regulation. Last
year a major revision was disseminated to us,
commented upon, reviewed, rewritten, and sent out
again for comment. Incidentally, the ADEC whose thumb
is on the pulse of pesticide use in Alaska could
easily have made the recommendations found in HB 66
during this period, but evidently saw no need.
Number 0478
Should not the rule makers involved here show us the
same respect? I do not know the remedy for this, nor
am I familiar with rules and policy of the Alaska
legislature, if they exist, as to contacting persons
and businesses that will be severely impacted by
proposed legislation. As an Alaskan I can speak only
to the hurt I feel from the appearance that outside
special-interest groups have more influence on this
body or its members than its citizenry do.
Number 0454
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. Perry what the most common
"outside applications" he performed were, besides spraying trees
for aphids.
MR. PERRY said that his is a full-service pest control-company;
he sprays trees for spruce bark beetles and deciduous-tree
pests, injects trees with chemicals for pests, and performs
exterior building applications.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if Alaska is one of the last states
to have some of the requirements in this bill.
MR. PERRY said that it is not the case. He said many of the
regulations are not in existence in other states and have only
recently been proposed. He said that the "tracking bill" has
been recently adopted in other states and found to be
"unfinanceable." He said the public reporting aspect has been
found to be a violation of privacy. Mr. Perry said Alaska is
the last state to implement label licensing. He said that there
are a small number who do apply, that very few will apply, and
that it will likely put him out of business.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked Mr. Perry if the $150 would be
advantageous to his business and the public.
MR. PERRY said that the fee will make the pesticides that he
uses, no longer registered in the state of Alaska, and that will
put him out of business. He said the public will suffer because
they will not have the ability to deal with pests. He said that
his company uses IPM (integrated pest management), but
pesticides must be used when necessary.
Number 0210
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked about the Anchorage ordinance and how
it relates to both the bill and his business.
MR. PERRY said it is a 24 hour required notification period with
a window of time that allows another 96 hours for the
application of pesticides. He said it works well for the
purposes it was applied to. He said he does not like the law
particularly, but his company abides by it. He said that there
are many whom HB 66 does not cover, who will get no benefit from
the notification requirement.
REPRESENTATIVE PERRY asked if the Anchorage ordinance charges a
fee like the $150 in HB 66.
MR. PERRY said that Anchorage charges a fee of somewhere between
$100 and $150 per year.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER concluded that whatever amount of fee the
bill imposes, the Municipality of Anchorage's fee would be added
to that.
MR. PERRY said "yes."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if all contiguous properties must be
posted under the Anchorage ordinance.
MR. PERRY said that was correct.
TAPE 02-5, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. PERRY, responding to a question, said that if the weather
interferes with a pesticide application, his company must repost
a notice.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked, if other states charge label
registration fees and they still have pesticide application
businesses, why it would put Mr. Perry's company out of
business.
MR. PERRY said the issue is the availability of pesticides.
Alaska is unique in that most people apply their own pesticides.
He said his company is hired by people with a higher regard for
the environment. He said the problem with the fee is that the
added cost will deter pesticide and chemical companies from
registering their products in the state. Companies marketing
newer and safer chemicals would not want to risk the cost of
entering the Alaskan market, and companies like his would be
forced to use the older, less safe chemicals whose research and
development fees have been paid for many years ago.
Number 0270
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked Mr. Perry why he believed the bill
originated "outside the state."
MR. PERRY said he was affiliated with, but not a board member
of, the NPMA. He said he was granted authority to speak for
them. There are two pest control companies in Alaska that are
members of that association. He said that most of the
regulations in the bill are identical to those proposed
throughout the United States by many of the same "anti-pesticide
groups." He said that these groups have tried to bring the same
types of regulations at the federal level, but were not
successful and have now turned to the states. He said that
these groups feel that the small number of pest control
companies in Alaska have made the state appear to be an easy
target for these groups.
Number 0390
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if there is anything besides posting
requirements that the municipal ordinance requires of his
business.
MR. PERRY referred to Section 15.75 of the Anchorage Municipal
Code, saying it has to do with "licensing and insurance and
permitting which is pretty much general to the pest control
area." He said that he could not speak to anything
Representative Halcro was asking about "in a unique nature."
Number 0459
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked about the notice requirements in
Section 4, subsection (c), paragraph (4). He asked Mr. Perry if
he could comment directly on whether or not the notice
requirements in the bill mirrored those found in the Anchorage
Municipal Code.
MR. PERRY said the bill's wording is almost identical to that of
the Anchorage Municipal Code, Section 15.75, with the exception
of the 48 to 72 hour posting. He said it would almost guarantee
"constant reposting." He said he had no problem with the
posting of telephone numbers. It would allow the neighbor to
know who is applying the pesticide and how to get hold of them.
He said when his company receives calls from concerned
neighbors, he tells them what the chemical is, faxes a copy of
the MSDS [material safety data sheet], and gives them all the
information they want. He said his problem with the bill is the
"extreme redundancy" that takes place between this bill and the
Anchorage code when "grossly half of the state of Alaska is
covered by virtue of living in our wonderful municipality."
Number 0630
EVERETT WALTON, Partner, American Pest Management testified via
teleconference. He said that as he understood it, the bill had
three points: the tracking of broadcast spray pesticides by way
of mandated reports, public notification of intended spraying,
and the raising of money by fees. He said it would also add "a
new layer of bureaucracy, reports, and statutes."
MR. WALTON said that broadcast spray pesticides cannot be
tracked if 98 percent of all users are exempt from reporting.
Farmers, oil companies, and all retail outlets are exempted from
this reporting, and only 29 small companies will be required to
report their spraying, under this bill. He said that more than
half of the states population is already given prior
notification under the Anchorage law. He said that often, small
companies do not comply with the notification law, and that
government does not have enough personnel to enforce it. He
said that only the two largest pest control companies will be
hampered by the law. He said the bill would cost over $500,000
by some estimates. He said that many companies will see
Alaska's small market and forego registration of chemicals as
unproductive. He said there will only be 50 people in the whole
state who are truly affected by the reporting part of the bill.
Mr. Walton said that companies in Alaska do not use a single
restricted use pesticide for broadcast spraying, and if one were
used, it would be by an exempt person or group. He said he does
not feel there is a problem to be solved. He said that the
pesticide application professionals are responsible for a small
portion of pesticides used in Alaska; the majority are applied
by private citizens. He said that the bill was a "boondoggle."
Number 0886
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Walton to clarify the numbers 29 and
60 as far as individuals or businesses affected by the bill.
MR. WALTON said that within the 29 businesses working at pest
control or landscaping in the state, there are approximately 60
people.
Number 0980
BARBARA WILLIAMS, representing Alaska Public Interest Research
Group (AkPIRG) and Alaska Injured Workers Alliance, testified
via teleconference. She urged the committee to support the bill
to track pesticide use. Ms. Williams said that consumers need
to know what pesticides are being used, how they are being used,
and what protections are necessary. Ms. Williams voiced concern
about health protection, protection of food, and protection of
children. She raised the issue of pesticides in schools and
hospitals. In the case of hospitals, many people are
irresponsive and posting does them no good. She said the bill
is a step in the right direction towards the regulation of, and
data collection about, pesticides.
MS. WILLIAMS said that workers, especially those on the Alaska
Railroad, should not be exempted from (indisc.). She said it is
important they know the risks of toxins they may be exposed to
on the job. She said the ARRC is a self insured employer;
without regulation, it would be possible for those workers who
become ill due to exposure to have nowhere to turn. She said it
is critical to regulate larger, self-insured organizations so
that injured workers have all the information they need. Ms.
Williams said the public should have better knowledge of what
they may be exposed to, and that she supported the bill.
Number 1235
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD told the committee of a severe asthma
attack he suffered while traveling in an agricultural area of
Washington. He said he later read in a newspaper that there was
"a sort of an epidemic" of problems similar to what he had
suffered at the same time and in the same area. There was a
lack of unequivocal information due to a lack of laws for
tracking or identifying pesticide use. He said the best that
could be done was to speculate that the rash of problems hailed
from the spraying of potato fields with pesticides.
Representative Crawford also made note of "a pocket of leukemia"
in the same area amongst farm workers and their children. He
asked if this bill would help provide more, and better,
information for tracking pesticide application.
MS. WILLIAMS said all types of workers need to have better
access to information about toxins that they may become exposed
to. She said when there is an exposure, "they look just fine;
there's nothing wrong with them." She said that people have a
harder time getting the treatment and benefits that they need.
Ms. Williams told the committee that is the reason railroad
workers need to be protected by the law as well, because "there
is very little regulation of their work anyway."
Number 1474
PAMELA MILLER, Biologist and Director, Alaska Community Action
on Toxics (ACAT) testified via teleconference. Ms. Miller said:
We're a nonprofit, statewide membership organization
of 300 members, and we provide technical assistance
and training on environmental health issues to members
of the general public, workers, and tribes.
We strongly support HB 66, with recommendations to
strengthen the bill. We believe that enactment of
this bill will be an important first step in assuring
worker and public right-to-know about the quantities,
types, and locations of pesticide applications in our
workplaces, parks, public lands, and buildings. It
will provide useful data for people on the job or in
their communities to evaluate their own risks and take
whatever protective actions they deem necessary. As
you've heard, children, elderly people, [and] those
with chronic illnesses or chemical injury are
particularly susceptible to adverse health effects
from pesticide exposure.
Number 1550
Our support for this bill stems from our research and
experience in working with the Anchorage School
District over the past several years concerning
pesticide use in schools. Our research demonstrated
in 1998 that the Anchorage School District used
pesticides linked with serious health problems, posing
a special risk to children. Teachers, parents, and
students were not provided with notification about
pesticide applications.
A group of parents, teachers, and students worked with
ACAT for nearly a year in meetings with the Anchorage
School District to address these problems. This work
culminated in the February 2000 decision of the
Anchorage School Board to implement a policy requiring
notification procedures and least-toxic pest
management. The state then promulgated regulations,
signed by Commissioner Michele Brown in October 2001,
to require notification in schools on a statewide
basis. But the notification only includes schools and
not facilities such as day care or extended care for
the elderly, and I'll mention some others that are not
included.
number 1625
So why is pesticide-use tracking necessary for Alaska?
We need a pesticide use tracking law because there is
no reliable information or system for public
officials, researchers, or members of the public to
track which pesticides are used, where, when, and in
what amounts. Currently we have 4,594 pesticides
registered for use, with 250 pending applications for
registration. Pesticide use occurs in places
frequented in our daily lives. That includes parks,
public buildings and grounds, schools, universities,
airports, farms, nursing homes, hospitals, day care
centers, stores, and greenhouses. Accurate
information about pesticide use will be helpful for
pesticide applicators and chemical corporations
because it will dispel speculation and
misrepresentation of facts.
The National Research Council has stated that
pesticides are "perhaps the only toxic substances that
are purposefully applied to the environment."
Legally, pesticides are supposed to be regulated so
that they do not cause "unreasonable adverse effects"
or harm. But this does not mean that pesticides are
safe. Certain pesticides are known to cause cancer,
genetic damage, birth defects, miscarriages, liver,
and kidney damage. These are pesticides currently on
the market. Less than 10 percent of pesticides in
common use have been adequately tested for hazards.
Lindane is an example of a pesticide used in Alaska
that has exceedingly harmful effects because it is
persistent, toxic, and it bio-accumulates. It is used
to control head lice in children and for spruce bark
beetle infestations. It adversely affects the liver,
the nervous system, the kidneys, immune system, and is
a cancer promoter. Although it is banned in many
countries, it is not yet banned in the U.S., and
certainly not in Alaska. It is accumulating in fish,
wildlife, and people living in the north. Although
lindane is transported from lower latitudes outside
Alaska, we can only speculate about how much is
transported from outside versus amounts used within
Alaska. Pesticide-use tracking will provide a
necessary basis for contaminants research in Alaska.
This is becoming more important as we begin to
understand the environmental and health effects of
persistent pollutants transported to the north via
oceanic and atmospheric currents.
Number 1683
In summary, HB 66 provides a useful tool for decision
makers, workers, and community members because it will
help to: enhance the general public and worker right-
to-know; protect public health and workplaces; protect
water quality, salmon habitat, and other aquatic
resources; and I think it will promote good decisions
about pest management.
Specific recommendations for the bill: we would like
to substitute "shall" for "may" in Sections 1(b) and
1(e); require reporting from all applicators,
including government, agriculture, and households; add
a citizen suit provision such as exists in the federal
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know law.
MS. MILLER urged the committee to strengthen the bill in the
ways suggested, and to help ensure its passage.
Number 1739
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Ms. Miller to send in her written
recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he was looking at a Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) press release from 10/26/01,
commending the Anchorage School District for its compliance with
DEC's new pesticide management policy. He said it appeared the
compliance was voluntary. He asked Ms. Miller if she thought
that "maybe this doesn't require such government oversight, and
certain industries could come to the table themselves, like the
Anchorage School District did."
Number 1793
MS. MILLER said it took over a year of hard work to negotiate
the policy that the Anchorage School Board eventually passed.
She said the board did so voluntarily, but it was only in
response to a "public records Act request" that her organization
made. That, in turn, was released to the media, disclosing that
harmful pesticides were being used. She said she appreciates
the outcome and efforts that the school district made, "but
initially, it was not voluntary."
Number 1830
WALTER PARKER, Former Highway Commissioner, testified via
teleconference. He said most of his work with contaminants in
Alaska in the last 55 years dealt with the risk associated with
their transfer. Mr. Parker said when he arrived in Alaska there
were residues left from the World War II "all over the place."
He said that there are still 600 "federal sites" to be cleaned
up.
MR. PARKER said that contaminants are a problem that will not go
away rapidly, and that the state needs to track them. He said
the bill is "a good move at this time to keep track of the
pesticides." As Highway Commissioner in 1975, Mr. Parker
recalled, he eliminated the use of herbicides along Alaska's
roadways "because they were dangerous," but the railroads did
not follow suit. He said as a chairman of the Hazardous Spill
Technology Review Council from 1990-1995, he had an opportunity
to get up to speed on federal regulations and DEC's role in the
matter. He said the federal laws are not enough because they
provide only a modicum of notification. He has grandchildren
all over the state and said he wants to see all of them
protected, not just the ones who live in Anchorage. Mr. Parker
said another committee to keep an eye on the industry is a good
thing.
Number 2040
CHERYL HILMES testified in support of the bill via phone. She
said that through her own research, she has found that
pesticides have been linked to health problems such as cancer
and birth defects. Ms. Hilmes said as a other and as the wife
of an asthmatic, she has good reason for concern. Schools and
parks are most used by children, and they are also "free-for-
alls" for pest management companies, said Ms. Hilmes. She
brought up the issue of parents having a choice in what level of
pesticide exposure their children should have. Ms. Hilmes said
she has control over her child's food consumption and television
watching, but not so with pesticide exposure because she does
not know what her daughter is being exposed to. Ms. Hilmes told
the committee of an experience where she saw a pesticide
applicator spraying chemicals near a mall in Anchorage. Upon
further investigation, Ms. Hilmes said, she learned the
chemicals should not have been sprayed when pedestrians and
shoppers were present. This episode made her "get involved."
She said she has a right to know about pesticide use, and said
she is "not an outsider."
Number 2180
CHIP NORDHOF (ph) testified via teleconference. Mr. Nordhof
said he has seen a number of people sprayed by pesticides on
several occasions. He said at one point he was sprayed, which
prompted him to talk to the people spraying. He asked them what
chemicals they were spraying and also for them to stop. Mr.
Nordhof said that the workers did as he asked, but they did not
know what chemicals were in the pesticides, or what the side
effects to humans are. He said that is concerned about
pesticides and the effects they have on humans.
Number 2305
NANCY JEAN OUIMET, M.D., testified via teleconference. She said
she has been practicing pediatrics in Alaska for the past 17
years. Dr. Ouimet said pesticides pose health concerns for
humans. She said the young and infirm are the most vulnerable
to these health problems. Pesticides are widely distributed.
They "do not respect property lines" and can get into the soil,
air, and water; this can take place in a cumulative manner. Dr.
Ouimet said these chemicals should be monitored to protect
public safety and to ward off public hysteria. She said this
bill meets many of the needs Alaska has in terms of tracking
pesticides and making sure the correct people are using them.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said it was her intention to hold the bill over
and work with the sponsor on areas that might need fine-tuning;
privacy considerations and casual labor in particular.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER added that he would like to make sure that
the bill was not duplicating the law that is already on the
books for over 40 percent of the state's population, in
Anchorage. [HB 66 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:45.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|