Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/25/1996 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
March 25, 1996
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Don Long
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative John Davies
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 438
"An Act relating to the indexing of documents recorded in the state
recorder's offices; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 24(RES)
Relating to a division of game in the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game and to management of game.
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 240
"An Act relating to the statewide bonding pool for the reclamation
activities imposed on mining operations, and extending the pool's
use to surface coal mining projects."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 69(RES)
"An Act relating to hazardous chemicals, hazardous materials, and
hazardous waste."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 69 (RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 438
SHORT TITLE: RECORDING: INDEX DOCUMENTS BY LOCATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BRICE,Kelly,James
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/22/96 2507 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/22/96 2507 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, RESOURCES
01/31/96 2587 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KELLY
03/12/96 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/12/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/12/96 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/12/96 3089 (H) STA RPT 4DP 2AM
03/12/96 3089 (H) DP: JAMES, WILLIS, ROBINSON, IVAN
03/12/96 3089 (H) AM: PORTER, OGAN
03/12/96 3090 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (DNR)
03/12/96 3100 (H) COSPONSOR(S): JAMES
03/25/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SCR 24
SHORT TITLE: REESTABLISH ADFG DIVISION OF GAME
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) SHARP,Taylor,Green,Miller,Halford,Frank
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/02/96 2278 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/02/96 2278 (S) RESOURCES
02/14/96 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/23/96 2510 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 2NR SAME TITLE
02/23/96 2510 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE TO SCR & CS
(S.RES/F&G)
02/26/96 (S) RLS AT 12:45 PM FAHRENKMAP RM 203
02/26/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/08/96 2657 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 NR 3/8/96
03/08/96 2661 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/08/96 2661 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/08/96 2661 (S) COSPONSORS: TAYLOR, GREEN, MILLER,
03/08/96 2661 (S) HALFORD, FRANK
03/08/96 2661 (S) PASSED Y13 N3 E4
03/08/96 2661 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
03/11/96 2690 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
03/11/96 2691 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/12/96 3084 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/12/96 3084 (H) RESOURCES
03/25/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 240
SHORT TITLE: MINING BONDING POOL
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/26/96 2222 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/26/96 2223 (S) RESOURCES
02/05/96 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/05/96 (S) MINUTE(RES)
02/07/96 2323 (S) RES RPT 6DP
02/07/96 2323 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR)
02/09/96 (S) RLS AT 12:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/12/96 (S) RLS AT 8:00 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/12/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/14/96 2427 (S) RULES RPT 3CAL 2NR 2/14/96
02/14/96 2429 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/14/96 2429 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
02/14/96 2429 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 240
02/14/96 2429 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
02/14/96 2432 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/15/96 2769 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/15/96 2769 (H) RESOURCES
03/25/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SB 69
SHORT TITLE: REPORTING OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/06/95 182 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/06/95 182 (S) RESOURCES
02/22/95 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
02/22/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/24/95 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/24/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/27/95 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/27/95 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/30/95 839 (S) RES RPT CS 1DP 5NR SAME TITLE
03/30/95 840 (S) FN TO SB & CS (DPS, DEC)
03/30/95 840 (S) ZERO FN TO SB & CS (DMVA)
03/30/95 840 (S) ADDITIONAL REFERRAL TO FIN
02/06/96 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/06/96 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
02/07/96 2322 (S) FIN RPT 2DP 5NR (RES)CS
02/07/96 2322 (S) FN (DPS)
02/07/96 2322 (S) ZERO FN (DMVA, S.FIN/DEC)
02/09/96 (S) RLS AT 12:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/12/96 (S) RLS AT 8:00 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/12/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/19/96 2469 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/19/96
02/19/96 2470 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/19/96 2470 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/19/96 2470 (S) THIRD READING 2/21 CALENDAR
02/21/96 2494 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 69(RES)
02/21/96 2495 (S) PASSED Y14 N5 E1
02/21/96 2495 (S) ZHAROFF NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
02/23/96 2521 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING
02/23/96 2521 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y18 N- E2
02/23/96 2522 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/26/96 2880 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/26/96 2880 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
03/25/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 426
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3466
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 438
SHARON YOUNG, State Recorder
State Recorder's Office
Division of Support Services
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 1180
Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5936
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 438
MARY NORDALE, Attorney
Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot
Past President, Alaska Miner's Association
100 Cushman Street, Suite 311
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-1999
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 438
STEVEN BORELL, Executive Director
Alaska Miner's Association
Telephone: (907) 276-0347
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 438 and SB 240
SENATOR BURT SHARP
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 514
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3004
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SCR 24
EDDIE GRASSER, Member
Alaska Outdoor Council
4506 Robbie Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3830
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SCR 24
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Fish and Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, Alaska 99811-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SCR 24
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Aide
for Senator Leman
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 115
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2095
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 240 and SB 69
ROBERT B. STILES, President
DR Ven Corporation
711 H Street, Suite 600
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-6868
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 240
MARIE SANSONE, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0300
Telephone: (907)465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 69
CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY, Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Department of Law
1031 West 4th Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 69
RITA VENTA
Anchorage Fire Department
1301 East 80th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99518
Telephone: (907) 267-4924
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 69
DENISE L. NEWBOULD
UNOCAL
P.O. Box 575
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 776-3150
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 69
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-41, SIDE A
Number 000
CO-CHAIR JOE GREEN called the House Resources Committee meeting to
order at 8:08 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Ogan, Austerman, Davies, Kott and Long. A
quorum was present. This meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage,
Kenai and Fairbanks.
CO-CHAIR GREEN announced that the agenda was HB 438, SCR 24, SB 240
and SB 69.
HB 438 - RECORDING: INDEX DOCUMENTS BY LOCATION
Number 0048
CO-CHAIR GREEN announced the first item on the agenda was HB 438,
an act relating to the indexing of documents recorded in the state
recorder's offices; and providing for an effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, Sponsor of HB 438, said the bill would
require the recorders office to list the recordings not only by
grant and grantee, but also by location. He said this would be
helpful in cross referencing information with various programs such
as the airborne geophysical survey.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said there were changes to the fiscal notes
and said the Recorder's Office fiscal note was decreased to zero.
He said some money is required for the Information Resource
Management (IRM) section of the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) for computer reprogramming which will allow location
information to be put into the computers. He said the fiscal note
for the first year is $90,000 comes out of program receipts, not
out of the general fund. He said the Recorder's Office generates
more program receipts than it expends.
Number 0232
CO-CHAIR GREEN said if money is being lost from the general fund,
the additional receipts collected from the Recorder's Office,
wouldn't that be shown as (indiscernible due to committee packet on
top of the microphone) program receipts rather than a straight zero
fiscal note.
Number 0300
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said this would not be true with the fiscal
note from the Recorder's Office because they have shown a zero
fiscal note. He said, the fiscal note from the IRM relating to
computer work will require some money. He said HB 438 will not
create an increase or decrease in burden to the Recorder's Office
or an increase in the cost of filing fees.
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if this issue had been misunderstood in
"January."
Number 0333
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the Recorder's Office had projected a 5
percent growth in the Recorder's Office. He said, after
discussions, the office saw that HB 483 would not cause the natural
growth in demand as a result of the bill. He said it was
determined that the growth would occur with or without HB 483.
Number 0382
CO-CHAIR GREEN said after the first year, there is a modest
computer use fee of $10,000. He asked if the expense the first
year involved the associated costs of putting the location index
into the past records.
Number 0404
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said, under HB 438, this process would not be
retroactive. He said the expenses the first year involve
programming costs and additional time in educating people. He said
the continuance costs would involve upgrade of the system.
Number 0465
CO-CHAIR GREEN expressed concern, if HB 438 only went into effect
from the effective date of this bill, of whether it would take
several years for the benefits of this bill to be utilized.
Number 0485
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE clarified that this statement was correct. He
said the issue could be examined to determine what resources and
computer manpower would be needed to add this information into past
records. He said the only method for location retrieval has been
through the Cardex system which is manually written and a voluntary
service. He said the state of Alaska has not addressed the need to
keep location indexes.
Number 0557
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if it would be possible to retrieve
information if you knew the tract number, and asked if it would be
just as easy to retrieve that information as if you knew a persons
name.
Number 0590
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said the location index would provide the
public with an idea of where that information is located. He said
the centralized location will list the page and volume of where to
find that information.
Number 0667
SHARON YOUNG, State Recorder, State Recorder's Office, Division of
Support Services, Department of Natural Resources, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She clarified that the location
index is something that the Recorder's Office is already doing and
has been doing for decades. She said it a computerized system and
operated by a third party contractor, who provides information as
a courtesy. She said when volume levels have increased, this
service has been viewed as less important or less critical than
meeting the statutory mandates. She said the system has developed
many gaps and omissions in the form of location indexing.
MS. YOUNG said the grant or grantee index is the official index and
is maintained on a daily basis. She said, over the last year or
so, the Recorder's Office has also been maintaining the location
index on every reported document. She said the office is able to
do this service within the existing workload levels.
Number 0812
MS. YOUNG referred to the earlier fiscal note and said it assumed
that the workload levels would increase and staff would need to
increase as well. She said "that is true, but that is not
something that is a directly related to the fiscal note and that is
why we did revise the fiscal note."
Number 0831
MS. YOUNG referred to the IRM fiscal note regarding the associated
computer work with HB 438 and said it is for an intra-departmental
system which is also tied to the resource information. She said
this is something that the Recorder's Office does not integrate
with at the present time. She said this ability is necessary for
her office, as well as the user group, to be able to utilize the
other resources available in the DNR. She said the fiscal note is
separate from the recording system..
Number 0894
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT asked for information about the geographic
information system which is currently being updated. He asked if
that system will accomplish what the committee is trying to
accomplish in HB 438.
Number 0909
MS. YOUNG said the geographic information system, a system
maintained by the department, is a separate data base from the
recording index system which is maintained on the mainframe of an
independent contractor. She said these data bases do not integrate
information currently. She said the IRM fiscal note is for the
necessary programming for both systems to access information from
each other.
Number 0960
MARY NORDALE, Attorney, Birch, Horton, Bittner and Cherot, Past
President, Alaska Miner's Association, testified via teleconference
from Fairbanks. She said HB 438 is the result of a series of
meetings that began last spring in cooperation with the Recorder's
Office, the Division of Mining and Water Management (DMWM) and the
people who maintain the geographic location system. She said these
discussions began as a result of a decrease in the budget for the
DMWM. One of the programs that the DMWM had maintained for a
number of years was the Cardex system, a hand posted system for
maintaining geographic information on mining claims. She said, as
the meetings progressed, it was learned that the state land records
are not maintained in a modern fashion. She said the mining
community is concerned that, if the Cardex system is eliminated,
there is no way to accumulate the historical information which is
a necessary component when developing mines.
Number 1056
MS. NORDALE said the geographic information system, which the DNR
is attempting to install for the maintenance of all land records,
is terrific and useful to various industries including mining,
forestry, oil and gas, and other resource based industries. She
said this system won't work unless a requirement is put in the
statute that states location indexes must be maintained. She said
this mandate would allow easy integration between the Recorder's
Office and the Land Records Management system which the DNR is
attempting to put into place.
Number 1100
MS. NORDALE said discussions also revealed that the third party
contractor, who maintains the grantor or grantee (indiscernible),
has done a program that does not work with a state laboratory
records. She said if the legislature enacts HB 438 and grants the
DNR the funds to do the programming which would integrate these two
systems, the state will get some control over the land and land
management systems. She said HB 438 is essential to resource
industries in the state because it helps retrieve land titles and
descriptions. She concluded by saying that Earl Bipline (ph.)
supports her testimony.
Number 1178
STEVEN BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miner's Association,
testified via teleconference offnet. He said he is speaking for
the association and that they support HB 438. He said the proposed
changes would improve the efficiency and flexibility of the data
recording system.
Co-Chair Williams joined the committee meeting at 8:27 a.m.
MR. BORELL said he sees HB 438 as one way in which the system can
be improved.
Number 1269
CO-CHAIR GREEN closed testimony and asked the committee if they had
any questions.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said it appeared that HB 438 was a way in which
the state could update the antiquated computer programs. He then
asked if there had been discussions with the Recorder's Office as
to why this change could not have been included in their capital
budget request rather than having a separate bill which mandates
this specific thing.
Number 1299
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he could follow up on this question, but
said that although the Recorder's Office is already doing the
location information there is nothing that mandates that service.
He added that a capital grant could be possible.
Number 1346
MS. YOUNG said the location index is not just a software upgrade
problem. "Two separate data bases and what the IRM fiscal note is
addressing is only the information within the department, it is not
going to change the structure or in any way affect the recording
indexing system that the third party contractor maintains. What
this does is take back up information that the department itself
has and attempts to integrate that with other data bases in the
department. So, we are not changing the recording system itself in
any way."
Number 1419
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN made a motion to move HB 438 with
attached fiscal note and individual recommendations. Hearing no
objections HB 438 was so moved from the House Standing Committee on
Resources.
SCR 24 - REESTABLISH ADFG DIVISION OF GAME
Number 1482
CO-CHAIR GREEN said the next item on the agenda was CSSCR 24,
relating to a division of game in the Alaska Department of Fish and
Game and to management of game.
SENATOR BERT SHARP, sponsor of CSSCR 24 (RES), read from a sponsor
statement, "CSSCR 24 (RES) simply put is a request by the
legislature, to the Governor, to remove the name Division of
Wildlife Conservation (DWC) and replace it with the Division's
original name, Division of Game (DG).
The first whereas notes that, then Governor Cowper, in 1989 renamed
the Division of Game, the Division of Wildlife Conservation.
What's in a name you say? A rose by any other name smells just as
sweet you say. The rose, Division of Game, that everyone could
recognize as responsible for the management of games resources, was
replaced by a broad array of flowering plants that emits such a
range of scents that every "posey" sniffer claims to detect their
favorite and demands that their sense of smell is the most accurate
and overpowering and should dictate the Division's actions.
Unfortunately, the rose which represents the Division of Game's
commitment to the management of game, bases on sound scientific
data, has deteriorated to a mangy bramble. The fragrance from this
bramble is now the least detectable element of the swirl of odors
emitting from the Division of Wildlife Conservation. No longer is
the scientific management of Alaska's game resources the Division's
primary goal.
The goal of achieving and maintaining high sustainable population
levels of game animals for personal use harvest and viewing by
Alaskans is no longer a commitment of the Division. No longer is
hands on active management of the resource considered their primary
responsibility.
Their mission now is more confused and is now being focused on the
management of people not of game." He said the actions of the past
years back this statement up. "They now advocate the need to
manage public opinions as one of their responsibilities, such as
their newly proposed `human dimensions' program costing over a
quarter of million dollars." He said there is an extensive public
process involved with the Board of Game to change any regulations
or establish new regulations which sometimes takes up to five years
of public input. He said there is adequate public process without
the Division of Wildlife Conservation involving themselves in
managing public opinion through the use of wildlife funds.
"The fact is that 100 percent of this Divisions's budget is paid
for by taxes and fees on hunters, shooters, sportfishing activities
and their license fees and associated equipment that these people
use.
The name change in 1989 to DIVISION OF WILDLIFE CONSERVATION
encouraged the fragmentation of the Division's mission into many
parts, many with diametrically opposed goals. The Division's
resources have been redirected n many areas toward benefiting non-
hunters, even though those people do not contribute to the
Division's budget one dollar.
I submit that a name does carry a significant meaning. Ask those
engaged in the commercial fishing industry, would they favor a
change of name from the Division of Commercial Fisheries to the
Division of Conservation of Marine Life? I think not. Let's send
this reasonable message to the Governor. Let's get back to basics,
let's manage the resource as a resource for Alaskans, harvestable
resource as well as a viable viewing opportunities for all. Let's
re-establish the Division of Game.
Number 1730
EDDIE GRASSER, Member, Alaska Outdoor Council, was next to testify.
He said the council supports CSSCR 24 (RES) for a variety of
reasons. He said, when the name change occurred, some members
supported the change, others reluctantly agreed and others opposed
it. He said the practices of the Division of Wildlife Conservation
have lead to a determination that it was bad to change the name.
Number 1798
MR. GRASSER said there are a lot of hunters that belong to the
council. He said there is a lot of frustration regarding the
management policies within the DFG. He said there are game
populations no longer being managed actively by the DFG and the
opportunity for human harvest is diminishing. He said, Unit 13 in
the Nelchina Basin, has a high number of moose, although it has
decreased from 22,000 to 18,000. He said only 750 moose have been
allowed to be harvested over the past four years. He said the
small harvesting number is because of other species who hunt moose
in the area. He added that the DFG has liberalized the bear
harvest in the basin. He said, in the McGrath area, there is one
wolf for every 12 moose. He said this situation has lead to a high
frustration level due to the lack of management which he said had
been formulated from public misconceptions.
Number 1812
Representative Barnes joined the committee meeting at 8:40 a.m.
MR. GRASSER said anti-hunting groups have pushed for the so-called
"balance" in the management of wildlife. He said, while these
groups continually call for a balance, they refuse to acknowledge
that two-thirds of Alaska is either closed to hunting or is off
limits to any type of meaningful state management because this land
is owned by the federal government. He said these groups feel that
only a tiny portion of the land is being managed for their use, but
added that the federal land is huge and that it is being managed
for this group's use.
Number 1889
MR. GRASSER said one of the issues that brought the management
issue to a head was the Payne bear hunt in McNeil River Game
Refuge. He said, by the director's own admission, the Division of
Wildlife Conservation supported the closure of the bear hunt
because of public perception. He said this was the wrong thing for
the Division of Wildlife Conservation to do as hunting in this area
has gone on for many years. He said the Division of Wildlife
Conservation should have begun a program of public education to
demonstrate that viewing and hunting are compatible. He said as a
result of this policy, the frustration of the hunting community has
continued to grow.
Number 1931
MR. GRASSER said the state needs to recognize that the Division of
Wildlife Conservation is fully funded by hunters and trappers. He
said there is dialogue in the papers, et cetera in which anti-
hunters argue that their money is not being spent wisely. He said
it is not this group's money, it is the money of the hunters and it
should be spent in a better way.
Number 1946
MR. GRASSER referred to other bills introduced by Senator Sharp
which have been labeled "intensive management." He said it is not
"intensive management," but a return to management. He said a
balance has been struck and reiterated the federal land component.
Number 1971
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked how many acres are off limits to
hunting in Alaska.
Number 1979
MR. GRASSER said he believed it was a little over 50 million acres
that are completely closed to hunting.
Representative Nicholia joined the committee meeting at 8:35 a.m.
Number 1983
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if these acres are managed by the federal
government which has no management of game policy.
Number 1997
MR. GRASSER concurred and added that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the National Park Service have moved towards a
biodiversity management scheme which is a "hands off scheme" and
does not recognize the human interaction within the natural
environment.
Number 2019
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Fish and Game, was next to testify. He said there is
significance in a name and gave information on the view of the
Division and Department on why the present name is appropriate. He
said the responsibility for managing the state's wildlife resources
comes from the state's constitution. In the constitution, it
mandates management of wildlife species for the maximum benefit of
all Alaskans. He said there are 520 wildlife species in Alaska, 70
of which are hunted species. The Division of Wildlife Conservation
spends 95 percent of its budget managing these hunted species. He
said the other 4.5 percent goes to the wildlife education program,
endangered species program and to the wildlife viewing program. He
said these small programs offer benefits to the hunting community.
MR. BRUCE said the wildlife education staff works directly with the
teachers in the educational system, grades kindergarten through
high school, in developing wildlife curriculum which educates
people about the benefits of wildlife, how to preserve the species
and the ethics of hunting and using the wildlife. During this
interaction, the staff discovered information, in the curriculum
which was anti-hunting and incorrect. He said the staff worked
with the Department of Education in the Anchorage school system to
remove that material from the curriculum and had information
substituted which correctly portrayed the ethics of hunting and how
it relates to the conservation ethic that the state supports.
Number 2119
MR. BRUCE said the Endangered Species Program that the Division of
Wildlife Conservation oversees has an excellent record. Since the
legislature passed that act, no species in Alaska, that Alaska
manages, has been listed on the Endangered Species Act and several
species have been removed.
Number 2135
MR. BRUCE said, it is the Division of Wildlife Conservation belief,
that management of game involves the management of people. He said
this is why Division of Wildlife Conservation has a Board of Game
system and intensive public involvement in the regulatory process.
He said he believed a lot of the issue was a matter of emphasis and
perception. He said, some people believe that, there should be
more emphasis in certain areas as compared to other areas. He said
there is always room for discussion and a difference of opinion on
those matters, but the Division of Wildlife Conservation works hard
to support hunting. He said of the 180 employees in Division of
Wildlife Conservation, only five work on non-consumptive use
programs. He said the Division of Wildlife Conservation feels that
this is a reasonable balance in line with the state's constitution
and the mandate to serve all the people.
Number 2183
REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES asked him to repeat his references to
the constitution.
Number 2194
MR. BRUCE, "Through the Chair, Representative Barnes, yes, ma'am I
did refer to Article 8 of the state constitution which is the ...
which talks about the common use, maximizing the uses of wildlife
for all of the people subject to preferences among beneficial uses.
Which is something that this body and the Board of Game is charged
with determining those preferences."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "since he has (indiscernible )correctly
portrayed what the constitution says, subject to preference among
beneficial uses. It does not say anything about subject to
preference among beneficial users, does it?"
Number 2230
MR. BRUCE, "Through the Chair, Representative Barnes, no the
language is uses."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "Thank you."
Number 2240
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked what the Division of Wildlife
Conservation doing about the wolf problem in McGrath.
Number 2249
MR. BRUCE said the issue of predator control is the most
controversial issue in wildlife management. He said the Division
of Wildlife Conservation and DFG is concerned about the high ratio
of wolves to moose in the area and that options are being explored
to correct that situation. He said, if a program of predator
control were chosen, "it would have to go through the Board of Game
in the area, approved, and then it would also have to meet the
Governor's criteria for predator control program." He said that
staff from the Division of Wildlife Conservation have gone out to
the area and said that one of the human dimension efforts was
directed at McGrath to find out what they recommended doing.
Number 2300
REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked what the timeline would be on this
issue.
Number 2302
MR. BRUCE said he could not lay out a specific timetable. He said
he would need to contact the director of the Division, to see if
there was a proposed timetable and what it would be.
Number 2313
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if it would roughly be months or years.
Number 2319
MR. BRUCE said any type of predator control needs to occur during
the winter in a period of snow. He said it would probably not be
possible to do anything this year.
Number 2334
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "Mr. Chairman, through the chair, Mr. Bruce,
would you tell me who establishes the policy which is implemented
for your department?"
Number 2344
MR. BRUCE, "Through the chair, Representative Barnes, yes, ma'am,
the policies that the Department implements are established by the
Legislature through its statutory authority and then through the
Board of Game through its regulatory authority."
Number 2356
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "What was that statement you made about the
Governor, subject to the Governor's policies?"
Number 2359
MR. BRUCE, "Well, the Governor has laid out a criteria that he
thinks a predator control must meet in order to be implemented and
that is what I was referring to."
Number 2365
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "Mr. Chairman, since the Legislature and
only the Legislature, through its statutes, regulations that we
promulgate in the form of law that is not to be superseded by the
Departments, plus the budget process, can you tell me how the
Governor can override those laws?"
Number 2380
MR. BRUCE, "Through the chair, Representative Barnes, I don't
believe the Governor is overriding the laws of that the Legislature
has passed. I believe the Governor is using his discretion as the
chief executive to direct policy in a way that he thinks is
consistent with the public good and the desires of the Legislature
and the Board of Game."
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES, "MR. Chairman, that to me, and I have been
here a long time, is one of the worst statements that I have ever
heard made to this Legislature. The Governor has no authority
whatsoever to establish policy. He has the authority to carry out
what is in the law, he cannot make up the law and he cannot make up
his own administrative direction. And I have known more than one
Governor to be sued over that. And that is a terrible statement
you made and Mr. Chairman, I want it off the record verbatim."
A discussion ensued about the issue of including this section of
the meeting verbatim in the minutes.
TAPE 96-41, SIDE B
Number 0000
CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to the comment about the number of federal
lands that are protected and off-limits to hunters, he asked if the
state was being overly protective of state lands.
Number 0019
MR. BRUCE said he could provide information on the number of
participants in wildlife viewing. He said Division of Wildlife
Conservation conducted a large effort to try and get feedback from
hunters and non-hunters and their uses of wildlife and said that
study provided information. He said there is also information on
specific areas where are those activities are very prominent such
as McNeill River, Walrus Island, Potter Marsh and Kramer's field.
He said, as a general comment, the activity in those areas is quite
high and there are many people participating in viewing as well as
hunting activities.
Number 0060
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if most of the people are viewing in
established viewing areas as opposed to those hunters who go out
into areas that would not be accessed by the average viewer.
Number 0069
MR. BRUCE said one of the growing elements of the visitor industry
is guided trips to view wild lands. He said there are operators in
many areas of the state who take people out into remote areas.
Number 0095
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if the name was changed, from Division of
Wildlife Conservation to Division of Game, would there be an
adverse affect on people wishing to view wildlife.
Number 0114
MR. BRUCE said this issue is one of perception and message. He
said a name should be used which most accurately describes the
broad mission to serve everyone. He said the Division and the
Department will still do their best to serve the multiplicity of
uses. He said most of the expenditures, within the Division of
Wildlife Conservation, go to the hunted species. He then
reiterated that even some of the activities that are not
specifically directed to hunters, can have a beneficial affect by
providing correct information to young people regarding the
positive benefits of hunting and countering misinformation. He
said the program, in total, is very supportive of the hunting
community and hunting as a legitimate use of Alaska's wildlife. He
said this policy would not change.
MR. BRUCE said the issues involving programmatic decisions within
the Department relates more to the funding situation. He said some
general fund monies supported a few of these activities, such as
the wildlife education program, until very recently. He said, as
general funds are being reduced throughout government and the
funding sources available through the DFG fund and the Federal Aid
and Wildlife Restoration Program have increased, there has been a
tendency to use those funds in lieu of declining general funds.
MR. BRUCE said the Division of Wildlife Conservation will continue
with its program under whatever name. He said the legislature will
decide what the perception and the message is that the state wants
to present to the public.
Number 0204
CO-CHAIR GREEN expressed concern that there was a correlation
between the focus change of the Division of Wildlife Conservation
and the change of the name from Division of Game to Division of
Wildlife Conservation. He asked if this question had been
previously asked to the director and asked where he was.
Number 0236
MR. BRUCE said these questions were answered. He said the director
is at the Board of Game meeting. He said he tried to summarize the
same arguments that the director or the deputy director had made in
earlier testimony, especially testimony given on the Senate side.
Number 0257
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if the name was changed to Division of Game,
if the focus of the Division would change.
Number 0273
MR. BRUCE said it is a question of perception and people might see
things differently. He said, "I don't think you can really see a
significant difference in the way the Division spends its monies."
He said the non-hunting provisions within the Division are a small
part. He said most of the effort is directed at the hunted
activities. He questioned whether the name were changed if it
would cause a reduction in the 4.5 percent. He said there are
other factors driving the policy and they have little to do with
the name of the Division.
Number 0312
REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG asked if the Board of Game was under the
Division of Wildlife Conservation.
Number 0326
MR. BRUCE said the Board of Game is organized administratively
under the Division of Administration and the Commissioner's Office,
not under the Division of Wildlife Conservation. He said the board
is semi-autonomous and consists of seven people who are appointed
by the Governor and confirmed through the Legislature. He said the
board makes the difficult decisions of how the resources are used
among the various competing users and serves as a way to bring the
public into the management decisions made by the Division. He
concluded that the board is housed administratively in the
department, but it functions as an independent entity in the
decisions it makes.
Number 0373
CO-CHAIR GREEN clarified that Mr. Bruce had not been with the
Division when the name change was made. He then asked if there had
been a change of direction when the name change occurred as alluded
to by the sponsor.
Number 0388
MR. BRUCE said he had talked with the director, the deputy director
and other staff who do not believe that there has been a change of
focus. They believe that the reason the name was changed is
because it more accurately reflected the mission of the Division at
that period in time. He said it was more an alignment of name with
function, at that period, rather than the signaling of any change.
Number 0422
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked him to confirm this statement in the context
of what the sponsor and witnesses believe.
Number 0426
MR. BRUCE said yes it was true, "with all due respect to those
individuals." He referred to his earlier statement that people
perceive things differently. He said the perception of staff,
within the Division, was that the name change did not signal a
change of focus. He said it is hard to measure perception and to
determine who is correct.
Number 0457
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if the name were changed to Division of Game
if it would merely be a perception change.
MR. BRUCE said that was correct.
Number 0463
REPRESENTATIVE LONG questioned if the name change involved in CSSCR
24 (RES) would be considered a directive from the Legislature to
change direction.
Number 0492
MR. BRUCE said it is not that the Division is not interested and
responsive to legislative direction, but clarified that CSSCR 24
(RES) requests a name change and sends a message about the
Legislature's perception that the program is not orientated towards
a certain kind of emphasis. He said the Division would take the
message to heart. He repeated that the small amount spent towards
non-hunting and said before that amount was reduced, the Division
would want to meet with the Legislature to make sure that was the
desired direction. He said the resolution is a request, it does
require or mandate the Department to do anything.
Number 0556
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the Legislature is charged, by the
constitution, to manage the fish and the wildlife in the state of
Alaska. She said the Legislature delegates their authority to
carry out the laws they promulgate. She said the Legislative
Branch promulgate and establishes in the policy to the Board of
Game. She said the board is not the ultimate authority, the
Legislature is.
Number 0598
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move CSCSR 24 (RES) with
individual recommendations. Hearing no objections CSSCR 24 (RES)
was moved from the House Standing Committee on Resources.
SB 240 - MINING BONDING POOL
Number 0661
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Aide for Senator Leman and the Senate
Resources Committee, testified on SB 240. She said the difference
between SB 240 and HB 439, clarifying that she had not seen the
latest version of HB 240, is that the two versions are virtually
the same. She said the exception is that the Chair of the Senate
Resources Committee choose not to include the Surface Coal Mining
Advisory Commission because of the associated cost and the
likelihood that the issues raised can be addressed by the Alaska
Minerals Commission. She said, upon testimony on the Mining
Bonding Pool in the Senate Resources Committee by the Alaska
Minerals Commission, the commission said they could address those
issues. She said the Senate felt that now was not a good time to
introduce a new commission and they felt that the Alaska Mineral
Commission could address it.
Number 0724
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified that SB 240 would not include
language allowing the commission and said HB 439 has been stripped
of all but the commission and had a zero fiscal note when it was
passed out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee last week.
Number 0747
MS. KREITZER said the Senate Resources Chair did consider that
possibility and made an explicit decision not to include it in SB
240.
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if that was because of the fiscal note.
Number 0760
MS. KREITZER said it was excluded because of a fiscal note concern
and the fact that the Alaska Mineral's Commission indicated that
they considered the work within the realm of their
responsibilities.
Number 0785
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if the Senate Resources Chair realized that a
zero fiscal note was possible would he still have concerns about
the inclusion of the commission.
MS. KREITZER said she would have to understand the need for the
commission as opposed to the Alaska Mineral's Commission. She said
she was not privy to the testimony of the House Labor and Commerce
and asked Representative Kott to explain what occurred.
Number 0812
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said, generally, the premise was that a
separate commission was established with a sunset date of two
years. He said three members would be appointed by the Governor,
three members appointed by the President of the Senate and three
members appointed by the House Speaker. The House Labor and
Commerce Committee felt the work that was charged in HB 240 would
in fact be done by the committee. He said the Alaska Mineral's
Commission had some opportunity, as the sunset date is several
years down the road and the date it would probably be extended
whereby this task force or commission would just have two years to
accomplish their work. He said the industry testimony agreed that
this commission was needed.
Number 0863
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he had concerns about including a
commission in the context of adding another layer of bureaucracy.
he said he agreed with SB 240.
Number 0901
STEVEN BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miner's Association,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said the
association supports SB 240. He said, when the original state
reclamation statute was established, coal mining was recognized as
something that should be added in the future. He said, at the
time, the sponsor of the reclamation bill, Representative Betty
Fahrenkamp, specifically decided not to include coal and left the
word, "may" because she did not want to get the whole coal issues
in with the reclamation bill. He said the reclamation bill was an
offshoot of several previous pieces of legislation and it was
difficult enough to get a statute in place which met both the needs
of reclamation of state lands and have a reasonable bill. The
original bill would have had greater difficulties passing if coal
was included.
Number 1003
ROBERT B. STILES, President, DRVen Corporation, President, Alaska
Coal Association, was next to testify. He said his corporation is
in strong support of SB 240, as they were in support of HB 240. He
said no Western coal producers has ever defaulted on a reclamation
bond. He added that typical reclamation bonds for surface mining
operations are dictated by surface mining statute and is typically
on the level of $5,000 to $10,000 an acre and said SB 240 would do
nothing to change that. He said the net effect will, not only
increased the asset value of the state bonding pool with the
addition of coal mining, but the income to the bonding pool will
also increase. He said, given the fact that no one has ever
defaulted on a bond, the risk level of the bond will actually
decrease. He said this is a win-win situation for everyone.
Number 1076
MR. STILES said that SB 240 will assure everyone that bonding is
available for, what will typically be, greenfield coal developments
in Alaska. He said greeenfields are atypical of coal developments
in the rest of the nation. He said, usually, coal is developed in
areas where an existing infrastructure is already in place.
Number 1104
MR. STILES referred to the question raised by Representative Kott
and said that his corporation is in support of the temporary Coal
Commission. He said that particular commission is now present in
an alternative bill, CSHB 439 and is important because the funding
for the regulatory program, which controls coal surface mining in
the state of Alaska, was at some degree of risk. He said when the
Federal Surface Mining bill was enacted, Alaska in its unique
circumstance was not considered. As a result of that recognition,
a special study was conducted, in 1980 by the National Science
Foundation, which found that many of the regulations associated
with the federal bill are not applicable in Alaska and recommended
that Alaska be granted latitude in developing its regulatory
program which governs surface mining in the state. He said, for
unknown reasons or obscure reasons, the regulatory program
developed for the state did not take advantage of the latitude that
was offered as a result of this study.
MR. STILES said one of the missions of this commission, were it to
be established, would be to re-examine the regulations in regards
to this study along with information that has been developed over
the last 15 years in order to recraft and re-evaluate the surface
mining regulatory program as it applies in the context of the
state. He said this requires the commitment of some resources and
said the industry is willing to commit the resources on their
behalf to that commission and would support the state doing the
same.
Number 1270
CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to the change on page one from "may" to
"shall" and asked if an individual who wishes to mine gets to
develop a mine as a result of this language change. He suggested
that this individual might be someone who should have a bond. He
asked if this concern was shared by the industry.
Number 1332
MR. STILES said the concern is the one inch thick regulatory
program. He said surface coal is unique in the resource industries
in that it is the only one with an entire regulatory structure
developed for it alone. He said bonding is one of the hurdles
typically associated with the opening of a greenfield coal mine.
He said working your way through a very complex regulatory program
and permitting process is difficult and cited an example of an
application consisting of a 35, three inch, three ring notebooks
thick document. He said this application is a significant document
which represents several million dollars. He said an individual,
that gets through the process to the point where he is at the
bonding stage, deserves the mine.
Number 1429
CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to the fluctuation in coal prices and asked
about an influx of miners into areas. He then asked if only big
mining companies would be involved.
Number 1481
MR. STILES said the bonds, in the state bonding pool, are just like
bonds that you would get through regular surety. The bonds are
secured with some hard fast asset. He said if an operator had a
bond called on him, he would never get a surface mining permit
anywhere in the country which is a fairly significant deterrent.
He said the fact, that the bonds are secured with assets in the
state, reduces the risk of a call on the bond pool. He said the
bonds are larger, but the assets which have to be pledged to secure
the bonds are larger which creates a balance.
Number 1551
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT made a motion to move SB 240 with zero fiscal
note and individual recommendations. Hearing no objections SB 240
was moved from the House Standing Committee on Resources.
SB 69 - REPORTING OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
Number 1594
CO-CHAIR GREEN said the next item on the agenda was SB69 (RES) an
act relating to hazardous chemicals, hazardous materials, and
hazardous waste.
MS. KREITZER said CSSB 69 (RES) deals with regulatory reform and
can be a confusing bill to look at. She said this bill has been
two years in the making, starting after SB 33 passed the
legislature two years ago. She said CSSB 69 (RES) is an attempt to
get at all these reporting requirements for businesses with regards
to hazardous chemicals, materials and waste.
Number 1664
MS. KREITZER read from the sponsor statement, "As we downsize
government, and make it more user friendly, we have to assess the
efficacy of current statues and regulations." She said that is
part of what has been done with CSSB 69 (RES). She said there is
nothing that can be done with the federal requirements and CSSB 69
(RES) has focused on state programs to coordinate it with the local
reporting requirements that exist. She said in discussions with
the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the fire
departments, the state fire marshall, the question addressed was
what is nice to know as compared to what information is needed.
She said, as government is downsized, information cannot be
requested which is not going to be used. She said CSSB 69 (RES)
tries to get at the heart of what it was, why the laws were passed
to begin with and what it was that they were looking at.
Number 1720
MS. KREITZER said the Senate Resources Committee changed CSSB 69
(RES) so that if this bill were passed there would be nothing that
exists in the law more stringent than the federal reporting
requirements. She referred to Section 1, Title 18, and said AS
18.70.90 refers to the state Fire Marshals Placarding Program. She
said this program, established in 1986 or 1987, charged the state
fire marshall with going out and putting a placard on every
building outside the municipality of Anchorage to denote what fire
hazards or hazardous chemicals were within that building. Since
enactment of that program, 14 facilities outside the municipality
of Anchorage, have been placarded by the state Fire Marshall. She
said this is not an effective program, the state fire marshall
recognizes that it is not an effective program, and CSSB 69 (RES)
deletes this program. She said in Section 1, where you see AS
18.70.090, it deletes the portion on line 11 referring to the state
Fire Marshall's Placarding Program. She said Section 2 does the
same thing, it deletes reference to the state Fire Marshals
Placarding Program.
Number 1822
MS. KREITZER said there is another placarding program, the
municipal placarding program, which was established in 1968. This
program allowed municipalities to create their own placarding
program for their fire departments. She said, currently, the
municipality of Anchorage is the only municipality which has the
placarding program. She said discussions were held with the
municipality of Anchorage to find out what would work with them.
She said one form would be developed to meet federal, state and
local reporting requirements. Instead of the Division of Fire
Prevention creating the program the form would be approved by the
Alaska State Emergency Response Commission (SERC.) She said this
commission is made up of nine state departments and seven public
members and its mission, under federal law, is to receive reports
of hazardous substances. She said it makes sense for the
commission to receive the reporting forms and to approve it.
Number 1977
Senator Leman joined the meeting, but declined to give testimony.
MS. KREITZER said that Senator Leman served on the Anchorage Local
Emergency Planning Committee and knows this subject very well.
MS. KREITZER said, in Section 3, page two, CSSB 69 (RES) amends the
municipal placarding program to "pave the way" for one form which
would receive approval from SERC.
Number 2029
MS. KREITZER said CSSB 69 (RES) makes changes at the state level.
She said SERC, or a municipality, is allowed to remove a substance
or add a substance. She said the adding of a substance is under
federal law. She referred to Section 4, lines 25 through 31 and
said this was added because the federal government went through a
change in what it calls these substances and the language in CSSB
69 (RES) reflects these changes. She said the language includes
poison gas hazard division number 2.3 and poison 6.1, explosives
1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 excluding smokeless gunpowder, blackpowder and
ammunition. She said those exclusions were made because first
responders are not stupid and if the sign says it is a gun shop,
there is the expectation that there will be gunpowder and that it
would not need to be reported.
Number 2090
MS. KREITZER said the same thing occurs on page three, lines 2 and
3, where the language, "consumer commodity of a hazardous material"
was deleted. She said this is the "K-Mart" placard, because
consumer commodity is targeted at the department stores where they
have substances such as weed killer. She said the fire department
should know that if you are going to a huge department store there
would be various chemicals located at that location. She said this
type of placard was not a federal requirement, so it was deleted.
Number 2130
MS. KREITZER said hazardous chemicals or hazardous material, other
than the one described in Section 1, if handled in a single day of
an amount equal to or greater than 10,000 pounds, "this change was
made in the Senate Resources Committee and again we are talking
about the state placarding program." She said this brings the
municipal placarding program, Anchorage being the only one, into
alignment with the federal reporting requirement so that they are
not asking for something in excess of the federal requirement.
Number 2168
MS. KREITZER said "compressed gases" was deleted in the Senate
Resource Committee as it is not a federal requirement. She said,
currently, the municipality does require this to be reported. Her
understanding, upon discussions with the drafting attorney, is that
since they went through a public process to add that to their
program this revision in CSSB 69 (RES) will not affect the
municipality of Anchorage's program. She said anyone who would
want to come and start a new program would have to go through a
whole public process of adding compressed gases.
Number 2206
MS. KREITZER referred to Section 5, regarding inspections and
penalties, and said it is current law under the municipal
placarding program. She said it allows municipalities to conduct
inspections, establish and impose penalties. She said CSSB 69
(RES) just removes reference to the state Fire Marshall's Program
which is being deleted under the bill.
Number 2228
MS. KREITZER said, "Section 6, the same thing, current law we are
just deleting the state Fire Marshall's Placarding Program under
Section 6."
Number 2238
MS. KREITZER referred to Section 7, and said the DEC is currently
the department that sends out the Tier 2 reporting forms for
hazardous substances. She said, it makes sense to have DEC hand
out the new steam-lined forms, since they are handing out the
current form. She said the reference to the Division of Fire
Prevention is deleted.
Number 2272
MS. KREITZER referred to Section 8, Section 9 and Section 10 and
said all of these reporting requirements have had their definition
of what a hazardous chemical is was set by various agencies. She
said CSSB 69 (RES) tries to reference all of those chemicals so
that on this one form, what you are reporting and the thresholds
for reporting are all the same. She said if you are a business
that operates within the municipality of Anchorage or outside the
municipality than you must report, under federal law, hazardous
chemicals, materials or waste on the one single form provided by
the DEC.
Number 2336
MS. KREITZER referred to Section 11, and said it repeals the state
Fire Marshall's Placarding Program. She said those are definition
sections under Title 29, which is the municipal placarding program.
She said CSSB 69 (RES) is a complicated bill in that it has to
reference so many different statutes and sections of federal law.
Number 2380
MS. KREITZER said the Department of Law (DOL) has suggested an
amendment, located in the committee packet, which explains the
settlement of the Toksook Bay case. She said the DOL feels that
CSSB 69 (RES) is an appropriate vehicle for that amendment.
Number 2430
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to the portion about eliminating the
placards for compressed gases and asked if this was an on-sight
placard that would be used by emergency responders and for people
working around these gases.
TAPE 96-42, SIDE A
Number 0000
MS. KREITZER said, in discussions with local fire departments from
Mat-Su, Kenai, Kodiak and Anchorage, this elimination was the
result. She said when Title 3 was passed and the state of Alaska
created SERC and the local Emergency Planning Committee, the state
provided computers to many of these local Emergency Planning
Committees. These computers are shared with local fire
departments. She said the local level is working with businesses
so that they report compressed gases, and do on-site visits. She
said the fire departments say they are doing well with getting
information once the businesses understand why the fire department
wants the information. She said the information is forthcoming,
including information that businesses are not required to report.
She said the responders have this information on computer.
MS. KREITZER said CSSB 69 (RES) is working towards a goal, outside
of this bill, is to get fire departments to a place where police
departments are at now. So that when fire departments arrive at a
scene they already know what is there. She said it is not possible
to update a placard on a consistent basis. She said the placard
indicates the whole essence of what is in the building, but don't
really tell detailed information about substances in the building.
She said moving to a computerized process is probably the best
thing for the fire departments to do as well as focusing on the
pre-fire planning efforts which would note the compressed gases and
other types of things.
Number 070
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said his background included fire protection in
a small, non-profit fire department and said the less organized,
volunteer fire departments might not have the resources to do pre-
fire planning such as going in and surveying the buildings to
record things. He expressed concern, regarding the system referred
to by Ms. Kreitzer, for these smaller fire departments who don't
have the resources to do this system and who might need these on-
site placards.
Number 0250
MS. KREITZER said that if these smaller departments do not have the
time to go and do pre-fire planning surveys, they don't have time
to go out and do placards. She said the State Fire Marshall has
only placarded 15 buildings and has no intention of expanding the
program and said there will be no additional money from the state
to do so. She said local fire departments should do local training
and use those resources to do pre-fire surveys. She related her
experience of living in a small community and said that if she was
going to be the first response she would want to know what was in
that building before she responded to the emergency.
Number 0328
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 as
proposed by the DOL.
CO-CHAIR GREEN requested that the DOL speak to the amendment first.
Number 0390
MARIE SANSONE, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, requested that Mr.
Kennedy comment on this proposed amendment.
Number 0424
CHRISTOPHER KENNEDY, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Department of Law, was next to testify. He said the proposed
Amendment 1 is part of the Administration's response to the lessons
learned in the Toksook Bay lawsuit. He said this was a case in
which the state received a school from the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) in 1989. He said, in 1990, an old fuel pipe gave way which
caused a large spill affecting the village water system. He said
the state and the lower TSUK school district were both strictly and
jointly liable for damages from that spill. He said the case has
now been settled and there is a contempt judgement against the
state for just under $1.3 million, currently being sought in
appropriations by the legislature this session.
MR. KENNEDY said, in response to this experience, both the
Administration and some members of the legislature feel this is an
inappropriate arena for strict liability and so the proposed
amendment states that the state would be immune from strict and
joint liability for environmental releases at Rural Education
Attendance Area (REAA) school sites. He said the amendment has a
very narrow scope, both the state and school districts remain
liable if they are at fault (indiscernible due to coughing) "at
fault and it only applies to damages." The state and school
district would maintain their responsibilities to clean up any
spills that occur.
CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to the motion to adopt Amendment 1.
Hearing no objection Amendment 1 was adopted to CSSB 69 (RES) by
the House Standing Committee on Resources.
Number 0620
RITA VENTA, Anchorage Fire Department, testified via teleconference
from Anchorage. She said the Anchorage Fire Department has worked
with Ms. Kreitzer for two years trying to put CSSB 69 (RES)
together. She said Anchorage has its own program of placarding
since 1986. She said CSSB 69 (RES) affects some of those reporting
requirements.
Number 0660
MS. VENTA referred to Section 4, and said that the Anchorage Fire
Department requires the reporting of compressed gases within 250
feet or more. She said she believes this language is important to
keep in the bill and requested that this language not be deleted.
She then referred to Section 9 and Section 10 and asked that the
language, "or by a municipality for purposes of its own reporting
program", be retained to allow the current program to be
maintained.
Number 0727
MS. VENTA said that when Section 4 was being explained, she thought
existing programs will stay the way they are and new programs will
comply with CSSB 69 (RES). She asked if this was true.
Number 0743
MS. KREITZER referred to Section 4, and said after checking with
the drafting attorney the current program as it exists in
Anchorage, because of the public process which it has undergone,
will not change or be altered by CSSB 69 (RES). She said, as a
result of this, on page three, lines 10 through 12, the delineation
of the language "and compressed gases equal to or more than 200
cubic feet" would not impact Anchorage. She said this language was
getting at the difference between federal and state law. The
feeling of the Senate Resources Committee was that the legislature
should not require anything more stringent than the federal law and
this is the reason why this language was deleted. She said this
deleted language has no affect on the municipality of Anchorage's
program.
Number 0836
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS clarified that Ms. Kreitzer would like to
leave the language as it is in CSSB 69 (RES).
MS. KREITZER said "and compressed gases equal to or more than 200
cubic feet at standard temperature and pressure" language remain as
a deleted phrase on lines 10 through 12, because this is an
addition to the current federal reporting requirements. She said
the state should not be stringent than the federal requirements and
that the definition does not affect the Anchorage program. A new
placarding program would have to go through a public process if
they want to include anything greater than the federal
requirements.
CO-CHAIR GREEN clarified that the committee should not correct the
deletion.
Number 0902
MS. KREITZER referred to Sections 9 and 10, the deletion of the
phrase, "or by a municipality for purposes of its own reporting
program", and said there is some give and take when you try to do
stream-lining for regulatory reform and she said this is one of
those situations where depending on which side of the fence you are
on, it is a give or a take. She said, if the state allows
municipalities to continue to make changes for the purposes of
their own reporting program then the single form cannot be used.
She said CSSB 69 (RES) would require that municipalities make
changes within the way that it is set out in the bill, through a
public process and in concert with SERC to keep businesses
reporting on only one form. She said the addition of this phrase
runs the risk of CSSB 69 (RES) not being effective.
Number 0956
CO-CHAIR GREEN expressed concern that Anchorage would be different
from other areas of the state.
Number 0973
MS. KREITZER said the EPA recognizes that Anchorage is different
and are currently relooking the threshold levels and substances
under the Emergency Planning Community Right To Know Act. She said
the laws under the EPA apply to cities such as Los Angeles and
Anchorage. She said the federal requirements are stringent enough
for the municipality of Anchorage and said that the municipality of
Anchorage is not currently seeking to change or add substances to
their program. She said CSSB 69 (RES) will not change their
program according to how the municipality of Anchorage is operating
their program now, but would change any new program.
Number 1025
CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to page three, line six, regarding going
from 500 pounds to 10,000 pounds of hazardous chemicals, materials
or waste and asked if this was an EPA requirement.
Number 1038
MS. KREITZER said the 10,000 pounds was a federal requirement. She
referred to page two, beginning at line 23, and said this referred
to the other substances listed such as flammable solids, gas hazard
division number 2.3, and said these are the substances that are
extremely hazardous and have their own reporting thresholds. She
said the 10,000 pounds is what the federal government has realized
as a safe requirement level. She referred to two handouts titled,
"ARCO SARA Title III, Section III Reporting, February 23, 1995" and
"Anchorage Fire Department, Tier 2 Hazardous Material Inventory."
DENISE L. NEWBOULD, UNOCAL, testified via teleconference from
Kenai. She said UNOCAL is a primary operator of oil and gas
extraction in Cook Inlet and operates an ammonia fertilizer plant
in Nikiski. She said in UNOCAL uses a variety of hazardous
chemicals and materials. She said her company participated in the
working committee with Ms. Kreitzer during the past two years
working to reform the reporting requirements for hazardous
chemicals and substances. She said her company fully supports
regulations which protect life and property against fire and other
emergency situations. She said her company recognizes that this
need has produced a variety of state, federal and local reporting
requirements in a variety of formats and frequencies, assessable
chemicals, threshold quantities, storage use and transportation
information is required to meet this need. She said it is
difficult for any company which uses hazardous substances or
produces a hazardous waste to track these various requirements and
to comply with them. She said CSSB 69 (RES) clarifies,
standardizes and stream-lines these recording requirements. She
said this simplifies her company's task to comply with the
regulations and facilitates information exchange and analysis
amongst the regulating entities and the emergency responders. She
said, for this reason, UNOCAL supports CSSB 69 (RES).
Number 1206
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT clarified that no one from the environmental
community wished to testify.
Number 1215
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move CSSB 69 (RES) as
amended, with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection HCS
CSSB 69 (RES) was moved from the House Standing Committee on
Resources.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Standing
Committee on Resources, Co-Chair Green adjourned the meeting at
10:02 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|