Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/10/1995 08:08 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 10, 1995
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative John Davies
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Eileen MacLean
Representative Irene Nicholia
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Presentation by the Federal Arctic Research Commission
WITNESS REGISTER
DR. DONALD O'DOWD, Chairman
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
1550 La Vista Del Oceano
Santa Barbara, CA 93109
Phone: (805)965-4505
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented overview of the Federal Arctic
Research Commission
GARRETT BRASS, Executive Director
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
4350 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 630
Arlington, VA 22203
Phone: (703)525-0111
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding the Federal
Arctic Research Commission
CLIFFORD GROH, Member
U.S. Arctic Research Commission
2550 Denali Street, 17th Floor
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: 272-6474
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding the Federal
Arctic Research Commission
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-12, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman
Green at 8:08 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Williams, Ogan, Austerman and Davies.
Members absent were Representatives Barnes, Kott, MacLean and
Nicholia.
DR. DON O'DOWD, CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION,
stated the commission has offices in Washington, D.C. and Anchorage
and is not a large commission in terms of staff. He said the
commission has two people in Washington and one person in
Anchorage. The commission has seven members. He explained the
commission was established under the Arctic Research and Policy Act
of 1984, which was initiated by the Alaska congressional
delegation. This act was enacted and the commission created
because the United States (U.S.) had an array of polar programs for
a long time but the pole always meant the South Pole. Most of the
activities of the U.S. government in research and science were
focused in the Antarctic rather than the Arctic. He noted that
Senators Stevens and Murkowski, and Representative Young decided
the Arctic should get more attention in regard to research.
DR. O'DOWD stated what happens in the Arctic is of great importance
to people in Alaska and the lower 48 including the weather which is
generated, pollution, the ozone hole, etc. He said it has been
difficult to get the U.S. government and its research enterprise to
focus on the Arctic. He pointed out the commission is dedicated to
focusing attention of the federal agencies who do research and fund
research on the Arctic and its challenges.
DR. O'DOWD told committee members the Arctic is a line defined by
the Arctic Circle, the Porcupine River, the Yukon and Kuskokwim,
the Aleutians and the Bering Sea. He stated there are seven
members on the commission including one Alaska Native who lives in
the Arctic, two representatives who are people involved in Alaska
industry, and four representatives who are scientists or academic
people. He noted the commission members are appointed by the
President for a four year term and serve until replaced.
Number 077
DR. O'DOWD commented on the duties of the Arctic Research
Commission. The commission is responsible for developing and
recommending an integrated national Arctic research policy. He
said the term integrate is an interesting one because the nation
has never had an integrated national research policy, but rather
every agency has tended to do what it wanted to do. Another duty
of the commission is to facilitate cooperation between the federal
government and state and local governments with respect to Arctic
research. Next, the commission is responsible for reviewing
federal research programs in the Arctic and recommend improvements
in coordination among programs.
DR. O'DOWD said another duty of the commission is to cooperate with
the Governor of the state of Alaska, and with agencies and
organizations of that state which the Governor may designate in
regard to the formation of Arctic research policy. The commission
is responsible for recommending to the interagency committee the
means for developing international scientific cooperation in the
Arctic. He stated the interagency committee involves 14 federal
agencies. Another duty of the commission is that the interagency
committee, in consultation with the commission, the Governor of the
state of Alaska, the residents of the Arctic, the private sector
and public interest groups shall prepare a comprehensive five-year
program plan for the overall federal effort in Arctic research.
The plan shall be prepared and submitted to the President for
transmittal to the Congress within one year after the enactment of
the act and then biannually thereafter.
DR. O'DOWD explained the commission has worked with the federal
agencies to develop the five-year plan. The commission develops a
goals report every two years which sets the commission's judgment
as to what the priorities should be for Arctic research. Those in
turn feed into the five-year plan. He said one of the commission's
obligations is to try and guide the future of Arctic research.
Number 117
DR. O'DOWD stated the commission meets four times a year and one of
those meetings is in Alaska. He said the commission is currently
working on several initiatives including a health initiative. The
commission is interested in increasing the involvement of the
federal government in health and medical research as it relates to
the problems and the needs of the Arctic and the Arctic people.
There are specific and distinctive health problems in the Arctic.
He noted the greatest concentration of accidental injury and death
in the U.S. is in the Arctic. He stressed there has been a
considerable rise in diabetes, heart disease, and specific cancers
among Alaska Native peoples. He added that alcoholism is a long
term problem and diseases like hepatitis have been a concern for a
long time.
DR. O'DOWD stressed the commission believes that more federal
attention should be directed toward these problems. The National
Institutes of Health (NIH) spend approximately $7 billion a year in
research funding outside of the institute and only about $500,000
a year has come to Alaska in recent years, which is not a very good
penetration. He said the commission has been working with the NIH,
bringing them together with university people from Alaska, with
state government people, with federal agencies, and with the Alaska
Federation of Natives (AFN) in an effort to explore the
possibilities of increasing this type of research activity.
DR. O'DOWD noted the commission has had some success. A planning
grant is being prepared to get help from the federal government to
build the commission's capabilities in this research area. He said
there also has been almost a doubling of funding from the federal
government in the last year, probably as a result of the commission
conducting a seminar with NIH and Alaska people in this health and
medical area. He stated the main problem has involved getting the
federal government to realize there are talents present who can
make use of that funding if the right people know the right people.
He stressed the commission is working on that.
DR. O'DOWD stated another area the commission spent time on about
two years ago was oil spills in ice infested waters. He explained
a couple of years ago there was a plan to have a demonstration burn
north of Prudhoe Bay with the U.S. Coast Guard and Alaska Clean
Seas being the agencies putting the demonstration together. The
planning was completed, the burn was prepared to go ahead, and then
at the last minute, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in
Washington, D.C. refused to issue a permit, even though the
regional EPA office had signed off. He added that the commission
spent a lot of time working on the protocols as to what kind of
research could be done for this kind of study, what kind of data
could be gathered, and the risks involved, as a design to guide the
people who would be conducting the research in a way that it would
do minimal environmental damage and give the maximum amount of
information.
Number 178
DR. O'DOWD noted that engineers who work in the oil spill burn area
say the only thing that can be done with an oil spill in the ice is
burn it. He predicted some day there is going to be an oil spill
in the high Arctic and as of today, no one knows how to deal with
it. He said there has not been an opportunity to conduct
meaningful experimentation to determine how. He felt it is a great
loss, but noted the protocols are still in place. He added there
have been a few test burns in calmer waters but not ice infested
waters.
DR. O'DOWD said the commission is also working on an engineering
initiative. Within the last few months, the commission has
determined that more attention should be spent on housing, the
provision of clean drinking water, and waste water disposal in
Arctic settings. The commission believes there should be more
federal research dedicated to developing appropriate housing
standards, which have been adequately tested, good water management
standards, as well as waste water management standards. He stated
the commission's suggestion is to get federal agencies to focus on
these areas with more of their attention and to come to an
agreement to set up test sites, so if a model system is developed,
it not be installed somewhere and then discovered after three years
it does not work anymore. Rather, the model system should be
installed in some kind of test bed setting where people live in the
housing, use the water system, and work with the waste water
disposal system for a period of time and improve it as a result,
until the system is ready to be installed with a higher degree of
expectation that it will work properly. He added that the
commission will conduct a workshop in Washington, D.C. March 9 and
10 to bring the federal agencies together with some Alaska people
to begin the process of moving ahead on this issue.
Number 220
DR. O'DOWD stated during the last three years, the commission has
sponsored an effort to get the U.S. Navy to commit a nuclear attack
submarine to be used as a research platform under the Arctic ice.
He said the Arctic Ocean can be studied from under the ice in a way
that it cannot be done from any other setting. He noted an ice
breaker is fine but it goes one course through the ice, takes
measurements along the way and does that once a year which is not
very much in the way of investigating the Arctic Ocean. There is
little known about the Arctic Ocean. He stressed less is known
about the Arctic Ocean than any other major body of water on the
globe. He explained that is due partly to not having ways of
getting at it and partly due to it having been a strategic point of
focus in the Cold War for the last 40-50 years.
DR. O'DOWD said the commission was successful in getting the first
nuclear submarine cruise in 1993 and added that another one leaves
in March. He stated the commission now has a guarantee from the
U.S. Navy for cruises annually until 1999. Therefore, the
commission will now have the ability to study aspects of the Arctic
Ocean never before studied such as water quality, pollution,
contamination, currents, temperatures, and a whole variety of
things.
DR. O'DOWD noted a recent U.S. Coast Guard report indicated one
significant layer of Arctic water, which is about 500 meters deep
on average and covers the entire Arctic starting down several
hundred meters below the ice, has increased in temperature by one
degree centigrade between 1991 and 1994. He stated that change
does not sound like much but reminded committee members that this
involves hundreds of thousands of cubic miles of water. He told
committee members the commission has been trying to get the U.S.
Navy to commit a submarine permanently, on a 365-days-a-year basis,
to be outfitted as a research station.
DR. O'DOWD said the commission can play an important role, to the
extent where there are issues the state legislature deals with that
data information and new research might strengthen their
understanding when making decisions, the commission may be able to
persuade the federal government to fund some kinds of research
which could be of benefit to the legislature and to the state and
its people.
Number 287
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered what motivates commission members, who
do not live in the Arctic, to be so interested in the Arctic.
DR. O'DOWD responded Ben Gerwick has worked on Arctic engineering
problems such as oil platforms his entire life; George Newton, a
former submarine commander and engineer, has a hobby of Arctic
research; Luis Proenza has spent the last eight years living in
Alaska and was the principle research officer of the University of
Alaska. Dr. O'Dowd felt research in the state is a critical
industry. He said the University of Alaska is probably doing $50
million worth of research a year currently, all of which is funded
from outside the state. He noted the state's investment is
approximately $7 million of matching money, against about $50
million of primarily federal money.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the terms of the commission are
staggered.
MR. O'DOWD said they are.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the commission appointments are
confirmed by the legislature.
MR. O'DOWD responded Congress is not involved. The President's
appointments office makes the appointments and added that office is
the most secretive agency he has ever dealt with.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled the commission has a five-year plan. He
wondered if the annual review keeps the five-year plan moving
forward.
GARRETT BRASS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, U.S. ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION,
said the plan is of five years duration and the starting point of
the five years is restarted every other year. The commission
publishes the goals report at the end of January which outlines
goals to achieve in the plan and the plan is then published, which
is the multiple agency response to the goals report.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if the committee could get a copy of the
plan.
MR. BRASS replied he would send the plan, as well as the
commission's annual report.
Number 350
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES stated he has an array of issues and
concerns to discuss. He said an area of great concern to the state
is the design and delivery of clean water in the Arctic and rural
settings and added it is a generalized concern under the heading of
permafrost engineering. He noted the single largest geological
hazard in Alaska is permafrost. There is a great deal of damage
done to structures and to financial investments in the state if the
existence of permafrost is not detected and/or engineered for. He
pointed out that in many settings, there are no good solutions
currently. Therefore, he felt that issue is a prime candidate for
research.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES observed that housing and highways are other
major issues where good solutions have also not been found. He
said another area of concern is earthquake and volcano hazards. In
the realm of volcano hazards, he has two concerns. The first
concern involves interagency coordination at the federal level. He
noted when there is a volcano hazards warning in Alaska, three
principle agencies are involved: The Federal Aviation
Administration, the National Weather Service, and the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS). He felt the coordination among those
agencies in the past was less than desirable and in some cases,
resulted in a direct risk to human safety. He stated a functioning
aircraft warning system has not been achieved yet, even though the
technology is in place. He stressed the ongoing research needs to
be strengthened.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said in regard to great earthquakes, Alaska
is one of the best laboratories for studying great earthquakes. He
noted that Dr. O'Dowd had mentioned the Arctic extends to the
Aleutian Island chain. He pointed out that is the area which has
generated three of the great earthquakes out of the ten largest
earthquakes in recorded history. He felt more research is needed
on tsunami generation mechanisms in that area and on providing
warnings for close by sites and in shallow waters.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said in respect to earthquake monitoring in
the state, there is a great deal of data collected by the U.S. Air
Force under the old seismic monitoring of global test band. That
data is technically not classified. However, he spent eight years
as the state's seismologist trying to get that data and was only
marginal successful. He felt it is an enormous waste of federal
dollars to be collecting that data and throwing it away, when it
could be used for other purposes while not compromising the
original intent. He thought the Arctic Research Commission could
be helpful in making data already collected available.
Number 441
MR. BRASS wondered if Representative Davies was familiar with the
Institutional Researchers and Interest in Seismic. He felt perhaps
that group would be of assistance.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES responded he had tried that.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated in light of ongoing budget cuts and
reorganizations, there have been rumors about the closing of the
Alaska branch of the USGS. He expressed he would not be concerned
if there was only a reorganization in order to realign the USGS's
mission in Alaska. He noted the Alaska branch was a special
creation because of Alaska's unique circumstance. He said reducing
the presence of the USGS would be of great concern to him. He
added that only about ten percent of state and federal lands in
Alaska have been mapped on a reasonable geological scale and there
is a great deal of basic fundamental geological research remaining
to be done in the state, which is important for all kinds of
resource development issues in the state.
MR. BRASS noted in the budget plan, which went along with the
Contract for America, there was an intention to zero out the USGS.
He stressed if the committee were to make their interest in
preserving the Alaska branch and the activities of the USGS known,
it would help in keeping that body moving forward.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered to whom the committee should make that
interest known.
MR. BRASS stated he would get names to the committee of the
appropriate Congressional committee chairmen to contact.
DR. O'DOWD added that another threat is to close down all of the
earthquake monitoring the USGS does in southern California which
has not been popular with the people who live there.
Number 499
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stressed the USGS plays a major role in
earthquake monitoring in the state of Alaska also. The monitoring
effort is a joint effort between the state of Alaska and the USGS.
He said another area of concern is radiation monitoring. He stated
what is not known is how many different agencies are actually
involved in radiation monitoring in the state. He felt there is a
need for coordination, and perhaps an overview of the strategy
being looked at in terms of what the state is trying to accomplish
and how those accomplishments can be done most efficiently.
MR. BRASS said there is a program called the Arctic Nuclear Waste
Assessment program which is run through the Office of Naval
Research which looks at the potential for leakage from former
Soviet nuclear facilities. He added that program is funded by
money set aside to maintain the nuclear infrastructure in the
former Soviet Union. He noted the U.S. Navy has no assurance that
money will continue. The U.S. Navy runs the system so at the end
of every year if they have to shut down, they can provide a plan
based on the knowledge gained thus far. He mentioned that again,
he would be happy to provide points of contact to encourage
continuation of the program.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN responded he would appreciate that information
because the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is also
involved.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES added that much of DEC's effort is funded
through the federal government. He said radiation monitoring is
important for determining the health status of subsistence foods in
Alaska and is an important means for understanding the problem.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated another area of concern is alternate
energy. There is a great need to develop cost effective, small
scale energy delivery systems in rural settings. The state of
Alaska has some fledgling efforts directed at that problem, looking
at coalbed methane, small hydroplants, and a variety of those types
of efforts. He felt a lot of research is still needed on how to
make these smaller scale power delivery systems cost effective.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said the last concern is renewable resources
such as exporting seed potatoes, understanding the boreal forests
and what sustained yield means, etc. He stated the federal
government is heavily involved in fisheries research, noting that
the fishing industry is the single largest employer in the state.
Therefore, basic research for fisheries is always of concern to the
state.
MR. BRASS responded there is an international program called the
Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy (AEPS). He said the
President recently issued a presidential decision directive on
Arctic policy which lead to the commission's commitment to the
AEPS. He stated there are three important components in the AEPS:
the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, the Conservation of
Arctic Flora and Fauna, and the Protection of the Arctic Marine
Environment. He said the funding for participation in the AEPS
system last year was $190,000 from the state department, which they
have not guaranteed to provide this year. He noted that the
Norwegians spent $800,000. He told committee members the
commission's goals report will call for, at a minimum, $500,000.
Number 621
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN commented the new Congress and certainly the
legislature is dedicated to cost cutting and observed that some of
these scientific programs are probably either on the cutting block
or are being looked at for possible cuts. He wondered if the state
is in a conjectural mode that on one hand saying let's cut and cut,
but on the other hand, do not make those cuts in Alaska, not in the
environment which is so critical to us. He wondered if that was
being received in Washington.
MR. BRASS replied what is important in Washington is the ratio of
benefits to costs. He felt if the cost yields great benefits such
as in safety of aircraft traffic in the state or in the
productivity of the most valuable fishery in the country, etc.,
those programs can succeed. He stated the legislature's input to
Congress on what the benefits of these programs are is important.
He noted that legislators have to make very important decisions on
very low levels of information. Therefore, the more information
given to the national legislature about the importance of these
problems and issues, the better the decisions will be made.
CLIFF GROH, MEMBER, FEDERAL ARCTIC COMMISSION, commented the
composition of the commission is interesting. The commission
consists of four scientists, engineers, an indigenous resident of
the Arctic plus two private industry representatives, of which he
is one. In representing private industry, his purpose is to
determine what the needs and interests of industry are for resource
development in the Arctic and try to direct some research in order
to help private industry. He added that is a facet of the
commission which has not been completely utilized and is a facet
needing to be explained to industry because there is the ability to
get federal research into areas which could be helpful to industry.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said next week two representatives from industry
will be giving a presentation to the committee and he would pass
that information on to them.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled one of the issues mentioned was health.
He said the state has a disproportionate amount of hepatitis in a
few of the coastal villages. He felt sewage treatment would help
alleviate the problem but added that cure would be energy
intensive, especially in a cold climate. He wondered if there is
a way to begin research without having the energy yet developed.
He noted something that will come out of this legislature is to
take a look at developing energy in these remote sites which is not
commercial to ship out, but worth developing for local use.
However, he felt it is something which will be delayed.
TAPE 95-12, SIDE B
Number 000
DR. O'DOWD stated an area which needs to be looked at is how the
commission can contribute to addressing the issue of cost effective
maintainable energy sources in small settings. He said the Cold
Regions Laboratory has been working on this issue from a military
point of view, which may be adaptable to the kind of situations in
Alaska.
MR. BRASS stated commission members have gained a growing
awareness, just by traveling around, about solid waste disposal
problems in the state. He felt small energy supplies and solid
waste could be the topics for next year's workshop. He pointed out
that in addition to energy utilization, an important problem in
these systems, is the level of sophistication relative to the
people available to operate and maintain them. Therefore, a reason
to test the systems in the field is to determine not only if they
work, but can they be kept working by the people who have to keep
them working.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN commented he toured a facility last year and the
theme he kept hearing was no system will work without proper
maintenance.
Number 026
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN stressed the bush communities in Alaska
have a tremendous problem with fuel storage tanks. He felt federal
agencies have looked the other way with the environmental liability
occurring out there. He added there is a lot of coal in the
northwest Arctic. He wondered if any research had been done
concerning small, coal fired electrical generation plants.
MR. BRASS said he did not know, but would get him the answer. He
stated one of the most interesting applications of coal is in the
production of alternative fuels. Unfortunately, the alternative
fuels division of the Department of Energy is also on the list for
zeroing out.
MR. O'DOWD noted the fuel tank issue is a critical one in the
villages and in many cases, involves multiple fuel tanks.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN felt it is an issue that will come up in the
future and cost the state dearly.
MR. BRASS stated the commission has made an interesting connection
with a group called the Civil Engineering Research Foundation which
is sponsored by industry and has very good connections with all of
the civil engineering branches in the federal government.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN added there is proposed legislation in the state
to combine utilities. He said perhaps while in the process of
trying to find alternative energy, the legislature can combine and
reduce the number of these fuel tanks.
MR. BRASS thought the federal Rural Electrification Administration
is also on the cutting block.
Number 074
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled it was mentioned that there is a
potential for annual sub ice pack nuclear research. He wondered
what effect the possible out fall might have on the food chain, the
environment, etc. He also asked if the commission would have
anything to provide the state to reduce the potential fear which
might come from a nuclear sub running about under an ice pack.
MR. BRASS responded the commission is not increasing the number of
submarine cruises but is going along as riders. Those submarines
are already there and have been for 40 years. He said he would
talk to Commissioner Newton about that potential fear however.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated there has been a real interest in the
North Sea route. He said there is a natural gyre of a large amount
of ice and he assumed that part of the research would address
issues concerning that ice. In regard to oil spill burns on ice
infested waters, he pointed out the proven technology is there, but
the concern is what happens when there is a lot of ice and an oil
spill occurs. He recalled there was a potential for this kind of
demonstration burn with Russians about two years ago. He said the
state authorized a $1 million investment. He wondered if there is
any benefit in reenergizing that effort and doing a burn in the
same kind of environment, but perhaps not in U.S. waters.
MR. O'DOWD recalled the Russian project also broke down. He said
he did not know what the status is at this time. He added that the
U.S. Coast Guard has jurisdiction for any such research and Alaska
Clean Seas has the technology to deal with the burns.
MR. GROH asked Mr. Brass to comment on the Arctic Research Vessel.
Number 147
MR. BRASS said he worked with the University of Alaska on the
design of the new vessel. He stated progress on the vessel has
been very slow due to the political system. It was agreed to abide
by the decision of a General Accounting Office (GAO) audit which
would decide whether buying or leasing such a vessel is superior
from the point of view of the federal government. He noted that
audit has not been reported but he spoke with the auditors and they
have confirmed that buying is superior to leasing.
MR. BRASS added that the GAO audit has brought up some questions
about how many ice breakers the nation needs. He noted the U.S.
Coast Guard is also building a new ice breaker. As a result of
this concern, the National Academy of Sciences, through the Ocean
Studies Board of the Polar Research Board, is going to conduct a
study of research plans in the Arctic Ocean. After several
upcoming meetings are conducted, the report will be written.
MR. GROH added the vessel is going to be 343 feet and said he would
be happy to send the committee the design studies. He added that
the cost of the vessel is estimated at $120 million to $125
million. He noted the U.S. Coast Guard's ice breaker is costing
$340 million. He stated Senator Stevens and Senator Murkowski have
made it very clear, they expect the National Science Foundation to
proceed on the vessel.
Number 193
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN wondered if a time frame has been established.
MR. BRASS stated the National Science Foundation has recently
instituted a fund within their budget for major research
facilities. He said in a year or two that fund will be freed up.
He believed there was an agreement at the last National Science
Foundation board meeting to consider a proposal that the Arctic
Research Vessel be injected in this stream for capitol support. He
added there is an expectation that the state of Alaska will help on
the project in the following way. If the state, through its
bonding and borrowing authority, could spread the $125 million out
over 10-15 years, with the agreement the federal government could
pay the amount back over 10-15 years with an appropriate interest
payment, it will be much easier rather than going up on the hill
and trying to get an extra $125 million in one year. He said the
vessel probably would not hit the water until the year 2000.
MR. O'DOWD said there is an $8 million annual operating budget
involved with the Arctic Research Vessel, which would be located in
Seward. He felt it will be a significant addition to Seward's
economy.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked what the make up of the crew on the vessel
would be.
MR. BRASS replied the crew would consist of employees of the
University of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wondered if this would be another area where
some kind of resolution or letters would be helpful.
MR. BRASS said as he understands it, the legislature has already
memorialized the Congress on their belief in this proposition and
added the Alaska congressional delegation is working on it. He
felt the support was already there.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "If we were to get into a situation where
either sub sea completions or the scary thought perhaps (as far as
my limited knowledge) of structures able to withstand ice impacts,
would there be, or is there any consideration being given, that
with the nuclear research that there may be, either through laser
or some other Buck Rogers type of thing that could be utilized in
an emergency to prevent a collision of a huge ice flow against a
sub floor completion or structure? Is the research which is going
to be conducted in your vein more temperature, salinity, water
movements, and leave all of this other stuff to the military?"
MR. BRASS responded one of the technologies growing in the maritime
community is the ability to image the bottom of the sea floor. He
stated in regard to hardening the connections, he felt that was a
very hard proposition. He added there is a great deal of industry
research ongoing. He said what has raised his interest is the
development of a system called the differential global positioning
system (GPS). Once that system is in place, the navigational
precision will be on the order of ten centimeters and when a well
head or a valve handle needs to be found, the GPS readout will
indicate when the vessel is over it. He stressed this system will
also be great for search and rescue, a tremendous scientific tool,
and a huge boost to industry. He noted the installation has been
accelerated in Alaska because it is the region with the most
difficulty in navigation. However, there currently is no intention
to carry the system on around the north side of the coast, which he
feels is a mistake.
Number 298
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted there have been discussions about
harnessing the energy created by the aurora borealis. He assumed
that issue is low on the priority list.
MR. BRASS said the commission is not proceeding in that direction
but added that the Institute of Geophysics is and has received
substantial funding to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated the research in regard to the aurora
borealis is directed more toward using the aurora as a natural
laboratory. He said it is a plasma state up there and it is very
difficult to maintain plasma states in a lab on the ground. He
added that the research allows an understanding of the fundamental
physics of how materials behave in that kind of plasma environment.
He noted from that point of view, it has some potential, long term
future implications about energy.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Co-Chairman Green adjourned the meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|