Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/26/2000 05:06 PM House WTR
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WORLD TRADE
AND STATE/FEDERAL RELATIONS
April 26, 2000
5:06 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ramona Barnes, Chair
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beth Kerttula
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 273(RLS)(title am)
"An Act regarding oil discharge prevention, and relating to
contingency plans and proof of financial responsibility for all
self-propelled nontank vessels exceeding 400 gross registered
tonnage and for railroad tank cars; authorizing inspection of
nontank vessels and trains; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HCS CSSB 273(WTR) OUT OF COMMITTEE; ADOPTED A HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ALLOWING THE TITLE CHANGE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 273
SHORT TITLE: OIL SPILL RESPONSE; NONTANK VESSELS & RR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/15/00 2305 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/15/00 2305 (S) RES, FIN
2/21/00 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
2/21/00 (S) Heard & Held
2/21/00 (S) MINUTE(RES)
3/03/00 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
3/03/00 (S) Heard & Held
3/03/00 (S) MINUTE(RES)
3/20/00 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
3/20/00 (S) Moved CS(Res) Out of Committee
3/20/00 (S) MINUTE(RES)
3/21/00 2677 (S) RES RPT CS 5NR SAME TITLE
3/21/00 2677 (S) NR: HALFORD, MACKIE, TAYLOR, GREEN,
3/21/00 2677 (S) PETE KELLY
3/21/00 2677 (S) FISCAL NOTES (DEC, DOT)
3/24/00 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/24/00 (S) Heard & Held
3/27/00 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
3/27/00 (S) Moved CS(Fin) Out of Committee
3/27/00 2745 (S) FIN RPT CS 2DP 6NR SAME TITLE
3/27/00 2746 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL; NR: PHILLIPS,
3/27/00 2746 (S) GREEN, ADAMS, PETE KELLY, WILKEN,
LEMAN
3/27/00 2746 (S) PREVIOUS FISCAL NOTES (DEC, DOT)
3/30/00 (S) RLS AT 11:45 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/30/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/31/00 2814 (S) RLS TO CAL W/CS 1OR 03/31
NEW TITLE
3/31/00 2814 (S) PREVIOUS FISCAL NOTES (DEC, DOT)
3/31/00 2815 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/31/00 2815 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
3/31/00 2815 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
UNAN CONSENT
3/31/00 2815 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 273(RLS)
3/31/00 2816 (S) AM NO 1(TITLE AM) ADOPTED
UNAN CONSENT
3/31/00 2816 (S) PASSED Y16 N2 E2
3/31/00 2816 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
3/31/00 2819 (S) HALFORD NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
3/31/00 2819 (S) RECON TAKEN UP SAME DAY
UNAN CONSENT
3/31/00 2820 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y17 N1 E2
3/31/00 2820 (S) EFFECTIVE DATE(S) SAME AS PASSAGE
3/31/00 2821 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
4/03/00 2831 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
4/03/00 2831 (H) RES, WTR, FIN
4/12/00 (H) RES AT 1:45 PM CAPITOL 124
4/12/00 (H) Heard & Held
4/12/00 (H) MINUTE(RES)
4/14/00 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
4/14/00 (H) Moved HCS CSSB 273(RES) Out of
Committee
4/14/00 (H) MINUTE(RES)
4/17/00 3222 (H) RES RPT HCS(RES) 8NR
4/17/00 3222 (H) NR: WHITAKER, MORGAN, BARNES,
COWDERY
4/17/00 3222 (H) MASEK, HUDSON, HARRIS, JOULE
4/17/00 3222 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
4/17/00 3222 (H) 2 SEN FISCAL NOTES (DEC, DOT 3/21/00
4/25/00 (H) WTR AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
4/25/00 (H) Heard & Held
4/25/00 (H) MINUTE(WTR)
4/26/00 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE KYLE, Executive Director
Alaska Steamship Association
234 Gold Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 273.
PAUL FUHS, Lobbyist
representing CSX Lines
1635 Sitka, Number 301
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 273.
LARRY V. DIETRICK, Director
Division of Spill Prevention and Response
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1795
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 273.
SENATOR DRUE PEARCE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 111
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 273.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-6, SIDE A
Number 0001
[Note: This meeting, begun April 25, 2000, had been recessed to
the call of the chair.]
CHAIR RAMONA BARNES reconvened the House Special Committee on
World Trade and State/Federal Relations meeting at 5:06 p.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives Barnes,
Cowdery, Masek, Phillips, Green and Joule. Representative
Berkowitz arrived as the meeting was in progress.
SB 273-OIL SPILL RESPONSE; NONTANK VESSELS & RR
[Contains discussion of SCR 1 and what would become HCR 28.]
Number 0089
CHAIR BARNES announced that the committee would hear CS FOR
SENATE BILL NO. 273(RLS)(title am), "An Act regarding oil
discharge prevention, and relating to contingency plans and proof
of financial responsibility for all self-propelled nontank
vessels exceeding 400 gross registered tonnage and for railroad
tank cars; authorizing inspection of nontank vessels and trains;
and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR BARNES noted that before the committee was Version Z [1-
LS1464\Z, Chenoweth, 4/25/00], adopted as a proposed committee
substitute (CS) the previous day. She stated that there would be
limited public testimony.
Number 0100
JOE KYLE, Executive Director, Alaska Steamship Association, came
forward to testify. He said:
We have agreed with Senator Pearce and [Department of
Environmental Conservation] Commissioner Brown from the
outset that a bill of this nature is necessary to help
close the safety net that the state has in its oil spill
response and prevention situation with the nontank vessels.
However, we have been very concerned, from the very
beginning, about the impact the bill as originally written
would have on particularly our general cargo carriers that
export our timber, minerals and fish products to market.
We still have some concerns with the way that the CS is
right now, but, in general, we're very supportive of the
bill in the sense that it addresses the financial
responsibility issues, which we have been prepared to take
on from pretty early on in the bill, and we think the task
force idea goes a long way toward alleviating our concerns
about what the costs may be as the timber, mining and
seafood exporters come into compliance with the needs the
state has identified.
Number 0226
CHAIR BARNES said she appreciated Mr. Kyle's mention of
mining, timber and fish. She noted that he had said the
steamship association is "almost completely there" on this
bill. She invited him to point out "where you might not be
completely there."
Number 0240
MR. KYLE responded that the steamship association is in
complete agreement with the letter Senator Pearce had sent
Chair Barnes last Friday that said, in essence, "Let's
address financial responsibility and deal with the rest of
these issues in the task force." The association thinks
the inspections section should be assigned to the task
force as well. He said they [those in the shipping
industry] need to understand better what the state's needs
are with regard to inspection authority, because they now
are "completely inspected" by the United States Coast
Guard, and foreign flag vessels "can't even come into state
waters without a certificate of responsibility." They
would like those inspection issues addressed in the task
force rather than in the statute at this time. That is the
major area of concern they still have with the CS, he said.
Number 0297
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Kyle if he had said that
foreign flag ships in Alaskan waters are required to have a
certificate of [financial] responsibility.
MR. KYLE affirmed that.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN then asked whether that is inspected
when they are in harbors.
Number 0318
MR. KYLE explained that foreign flag vessels are not
routinely inspected on the high seas. But when they come
into United States waters, they have to pass certain
declarations, one being that they have a valid certificate
of financial responsibility. That normally is transmitted
to the ship's agent and then on to the Coast Guard.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it was his understanding that [the
certification] was inspected only when the ship was in port, "not
while it may just transcend to the three-mile limit."
MR. KYLE said that was a generally correct way to look at it.
Number 0389
PAUL FUHS, Lobbyist, representing CSX Lines (formerly Sealand),
came forward to testify. He said:
We have worked on this bill ever since it came out.
We've pulled together about 20 industry representatives
in Seattle to meet with Chadux, one of the contractors,
to see what their past experience was. Then we got
about 40 people together to meet with the [DEC}
commissioner and her staff, to try to find out how they
would handle the regulations, in an attempt to try to
identify the costs of the legislation.
In the process, we identified some things that could
streamline the process and help hold down the cost.
When the contingency plan requirements of the bill were
taken out of SB 273 to create this CS, the references
to those efficiencies - fleet plans, vessel agents,
prevention credits, the ability of the response
contractor to hold the sea plans - also were
eliminated. We understand that you are contemplating
including those in SCR 1 in the CS, and we hope that
you do that, because that will help the department and
us really try to bring down the costs of the program.
Once we have done that, to that point, then I think you
can determine, as policy makers, whether you determine
that the cost of the program is worth the benefits of
it. We'll do our best to cooperate with you.
In addition, another cost driver on this would be the
drills and exercises that would be required. I think
it would be good to [leave that to the task force to]
look at what drills and exercises are going to be
required of the people covered by this. The
commissioner and her staff were very forthcoming with
this information, but perhaps everyone in industry
would feel more comfortable if these are negotiated
before the legislation is passed, which I understand is
the approach you are taking now.
Number 0509
CHAIR BARNES affirmed that. She said work is underway on SCR 1,
and the pre-conference committee will meet immediately upon
adjournment of this meeting to take up SCR 1.
CHAIR BARNES turned attention to Amendment 1, being proposed by
Representative Phillips [1-LS1464\Z.1, Chenoweth, 4/25/00]. It
read:
Page 1, lines 3 and 4:
Delete "authorizing inspection of nontank vessels
and trains;"
Page 3, line 28, through page 4, line 15:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 5, line 30:
Delete "secs. 1 - 6"
Insert "secs. 1 - 4"
Page 5, line 31:
Delete "Sections 7 and 8"
Insert "Sections 5 and 6"
Page 6, line 1:
Delete "sec. 9"
Insert "sec. 7"
Number 0562
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. She
explained that the basic purpose of the amendment is to remove
the issue of inspections from the bill before the committee. The
amendment deletes the reference to inspections in the title and
deletes a section in the bill that deal with inspections. She
stated:
In Senator Pearce's letter to Chair Barnes, she did not
discuss the issue of inspections to be included in the
bill, only the financial responsibility and the
creation of a task force. I do not think this
inspection authority is needed to check the certificate
of financial responsibility, and that this [inspection]
definitely is something that should be left up to the
task force. To set procedures for inspections could
find us and the department in a matter of great cost
....
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said she had questioned, since early in
the session, whether it is the DEC's role to be involved in
inspections. The Coast Guard already does inspections, and the
observer program already inspects the processor ships. She asked
where the DEC fits in here, doing inspections. She said there
are a lot of questions there, and it is something that the task
force should address and come back with recommendations on.
Number 0652
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether it is the intent of the
amendment to remove inspections from the railroad, too.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said she was addressing the issue of
inspections in relation to the whole bill, and leaving it to the
task force to come back with recommendations [including both
ships and trains].
CHAIR BARNES, at the request of Representative Masek, invited
Senator Pearce to come forward.
[Senator Pearce deferred to the representative from DEC to answer
the questions regarding inspection.]
Number 0718
LARRY V. DIETRICK, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and
Response, Department of Environmental Conservation, came forward
to testify. He said the inspection section of the proposed
legislation does not create or make any new activities subject to
inspection. It simply extends the existing [DEC] authority to
nontank vessels and to the railroad. He added, "The language
that you have here is actually the language that was crafted in
1990 in HB 567, when there was also quite a debate." He said the
existing inspection language focuses DEC inspections on areas
over which that agency has jurisdiction, which basically consist
of the response capability and prevention aspects. The
department has reviewed this inspection language; it is not in
conflict with the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows
states to verify and have continued oversight for spill-
contingency plans and proof of financial responsibility. Mr.
Dietrick stated:
Because this has been such an important issue to Alaska
over the years, DEC since 1992 has developed a detailed
memorandum of agreement with the Coast Guard that
outlines in explicit terms our respective roles for
vessel inspection activities to ensure coordination,
eliminate duplication, prevent overlap and avoid any
jurisdictional conflicts under state, federal or
international law. In addition, ... we have a very
small staff of people who conduct these activities, all
of whom have had the appropriate training or extensive
prior experience conducting vessel inspections with the
Coast Guard.
MR. DIETRICK handed out copies of the existing agreement with the
Coast Guard that outlines current procedures and coordination.
He said DEC would prefer to have the inspection language left in
the bill, "but we also understand the possibility that the
further things that would be subject to inspection would be
identified in the work group, as indicated." Until the task
force outlines anything more detailed, the only things that would
be checked by DEC would be to verify [each ship's] certificate of
financial responsibility and oil cargo capacity.
Number 0862
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Mr. Dietrick how this will affect the
inspection work DEC is currently doing.
MR. DIETRICK said the proposed CS [Version Z] provides for
financial responsibility to begin in December of this year, so
DEC would have to go through rule making and disseminate that
information to allow compliance with the financial responsibility
provisions by the effective date. Between that time and the time
the legislature reconvenes would be the only window [of time] in
which DEC might conduct spot inspections for financial
responsibility. However, the DEC probably would not be doing
much during that window; the department's efforts will be toward
working on the task force.
Number 0914
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK, inquired, "Then this amendment won't affect
too much of what you are planning to do?"
MR. DIETRICK said it would not, because initially it would cover
only that which immediately takes effect, the financial
responsibility provisions.
CHAIR BARNES clarified, "Then it really wouldn't hurt anything if
the amendment passed and it [inspection] was taken up as part of
the task force, in the task force report?"
MR. DIETRICK said that was correct: the only thing DEC would not
be able to do would be to actually check to make sure the
financial responsibility existed for the vessels [and railroad].
Number 0958
CHAIR BARNES asked, "Couldn't you require financial compliance
without inspecting the vessels - through certification, through
an affidavit, or some other manner - without having to physically
board a vessel?"
MR. DIETRICK replied that DEC would have to look to other means,
perhaps working with the Coast Guard, to corroborate how some
single-voyage vessels have met the requirement.
Number 0990
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY recalled that he previously had asked
about bonding, "which seems to be the way that most inspections
or requirements of contracts or whatever is handled where there
have to be some guarantees." He then asked how far offshore DEC
has jurisdiction.
MR. DIETRICK said state waters extend three miles offshore. He
added that DEC would not be boarding offshore. The inspections
are coordinated with the Coast Guard ahead of time, and they
typically take place while the vessels are in port.
CHAIR BARNES asked, "So, if this amendment were adopted, you
could probably work out something with the Coast Guard that when
they board to check for federal waters beyond the three-mile
[limit], that they supply you with that information?"
MR. DIETRICK said DEC has a good working relationship with
District 17 of the U.S. Coast Guard in Alaska, and he thinks it
is likely that they could work something out.
Number 1055
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS observed that Joe Kyle had just said the
foreign ships have to submit financial responsibility through the
ship's representative to the Coast Guard. "The Coast Guard has
that information," she concluded. "I can't imagine in any case
that the Coast Guard wouldn't be supplying DEC with the
information if they requested."
MR. DIETRICK pointed out that the Coast Guard would have to add a
procedure to their duties to check for the state certificate of
financial responsibility. "The one for which they check is the
one that's required under federal law, under the Oil Pollution
Act," he added, "and so we would be asking them ... to also check
for the state certificate."
Number 1099
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that the effective date on this
legislation, with or without the [inspection] section, is
September 1 of this year. He said he was wondering how many
nontank vessels would be involved. Also, if the task force comes
back with proposed legislation, would anything prohibit the
legislature from shooting for an immediate effective date?
MR. DIETRICK said the estimated number, discussed in Senator
Pearce's work group sessions, has been about 1,000 nontank vessel
voyages per year.
Number 1190
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Dietrick whether DEC had
personnel capable of determining if the financial responsibility
was valid, or if that work would need to be subcontracted.
CHAIR BARNES asked Mr. Dietrick to answer another question at the
same time: "Since you already have tanker vessels that have to
comply with this provision, would you not already have that means
in place?"
MR. DIETRICK said he was sure that was correct. Those procedures
in place now are to receive from tankers the documentation that
demonstrates their financial responsibility. They [tanker
owners] submit that to DEC ahead of time, it is reviewed, and
then DEC issues a certificate of financial responsibility, he
explained.
Number 1250
CHAIR BARNES summarized, "They are literally going to have to
show you that they have financial responsibility, and if our
amendment were to pass, they'd still have to do that. The only
thing you wouldn't have is boarding the vessels?"
MR. DIETRICK said that is correct. Under the law, they should
still provide DEC with that information up front, and DEC should
still issue the certificate up front for them to be in
compliance.
Number 1275
CHAIR BARNES followed up: "And then you could, if her amendment
were to pass, take that up in the working group [task force]
under SCR 1, correct? You'd really not lose anything if our
amendment passed, ... other than boarding the vessels."
MR. DIETRICK said that is correct. He added that DEC would have
serious concern if the inspection language were taken out now,
because the financial responsibility requirements would take
effect, leaving DEC without the ability over the long haul to do
the spot checks if the legislature chose not to act next session.
Number 1315
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked whether DEC has people trained in
accounting and financial matters, qualified to determine the
validity of documents and things like that.
MR. DIETRICK said DEC has one person who specializes in that
area, who works with the risk management division and other
insurers to validate the documents and determine that they [ship
owners] have the financial resources and that the money is
available.
CHAIR BARNES invited further questions and comments. Hearing
none, she asked if there was any objection to Representative
Phillips's motion to adopt Amendment 1.
Number 1362
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK objected.
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Cowdery, Phillips, Green,
Joule and Barnes voted in favor of Amendment 1. Representative
Masek voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a
vote of 5-1.
Number 1396
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS moved to adopt a House concurrent
resolution (HCR) that would provide authority to delete the
inspection phrase from the title. She indicated a draft HCR to
allow the title change, version A, was before the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK objected.
Upon a roll call vote, Representatives Cowdery, Phillips, Green,
Joule and Barnes voted in favor of adopting a House concurrent
resolution; Representative Masek voted against it. Therefore, it
was adopted by a vote of 5-1. [This HCR later was numbered HCR
28; version D (1-LS1638\D) of HCR 28 was labeled as having been
introduced 4/28/00 by the House Finance Committee.]
Number 1445
CHAIR BARNES addressed fiscal notes in committee packets. She
acknowledged that a new fiscal note had been received the
previous day from DEC, which is proposing that DEC be given a new
person under this legislation. She stated, "I would propose to
the committee that we zero out the new person, that they should
be able to accomplish this, since they have been working on it."
Number 1467
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if that [person] was for the task
force or for the bill.
[There was inconclusive informal discussion.]
Number 1474
CHAIR BARNES said the fiscal note to which she was referring was
at the top of the packet and marked HCS CSSB 273(WTR). She
explained:
They're asking for $210,600, and I think that personal
services line should be zeroed out. I'd like to know
why they need $125,400 for contractual [work], and I'd
like to know why they need new equipment .... I'm
wanting us to authorize the travel, because I know
there will be travel. I want to understand what the
contractual is going to be used for, and zero out
everything else, because we are at a point where any
huge fiscal note coming tied to anything may be zeroed
out altogether.
Number 1524
SENATOR PEARCE said the conference committee on the operating
budget has been keeping track of the fiscal notes and has had
this number plugged in.
CHAIR BARNES interjected, "They didn't have this number. They
had the original $125,000."
Number 1543
SENATOR PEARCE reminded the committee that there had been two
fiscal notes (plus the railroad's) with the original bill.
"Those two added together were more than $210,000," she said.
CHAIR BARNES replied, "But the railroad was non-general fund
dollars, so that wouldn't fall into our budget.
SENATOR PEARCE said that is right, but in addition [to the
railroad dollars], there were two fiscal notes accompanying the
original SB 273. She suggested that Mr. Dietrick can speak to
the [issue of the] environmental specialist. Regarding the
contractual services, there are some technical issues to be
resolved. She stated:
One of the reasons that we haven't been able to go
forward with the actual bill was because the industry
was complaining that they didn't know what the
specifics were going to be that were required under the
planning standards. There needs to be some work ...
done to figure out what the best technology ...
CHAIR BARNES interjected, "So that's what the contractual is."
SENATOR PEARCE continued, "... the contractual language is to try
to get us to that point."
CHAIR BARNES stated, "And that was the original."
SENATOR PEARCE explained that the position in the fiscal note for
the bill is for a person to work with the task force, since the
task force fiscal note does not provide for a person to staff the
task force.
Number 1601
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said she was a little confused,
explaining, "I have two fiscal notes from DEC, both signed by
Larry Dietrick; one is for $338,000 ..."
CHAIR BARNES said that was correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS continued, " ... and that's for the
bill."
CHAIR BARNES emphasized, "The original bill."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS continued, "And the other is for
$210,000, and that's specifically for the task force."
SENATOR PEARCE said no, the $338,000 figure is no longer valid,
and the $210,000 is for the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS countered, "No, it says, 'will assist
with the task force on motorized oil transport,' and then, 'is
tasked with managing participating in, and staffing the task
force.'"
SENATOR PEARCE called attention to the upper right-hand corner of
the fiscal note in question. "It's the fiscal note for the
bill," she explained. "The bill also speaks to the task force."
The task force also has a fiscal note, she said, but it does not
include funding for a person to work on the task force.
CHAIR BARNES explained that she has no problem with the
contractual and travel expenses, but she thinks DEC should be
able to handle the work with the personnel it already has,
especially with [the state] being tight on money. She
recommended that the committee approve the fiscal note for
$143,700.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS pointed out that the original fiscal note
for the task force work was for $130,000.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked, "You are taking out the personnel
services to have the department [DEC] just absorb that with their
existing personnel? Is that right?"
CHAIR BARNES indicated that was correct; there were general
comments about the two fiscal notes.
Number 1769
MR. DIETRICK explained that there are two fiscal notes because
there are two pieces of legislation. The original bill [SB 273]
had a fiscal note for $338,000. That is now obsolete. After SB
273 was replaced with a proposed CS [Version Z], that fiscal note
was revised downward to $210,000. The third fiscal note in the
packet, for $132,000, goes with the resolution, SCR 1. The
$210,000 will kick in with the proposed CS in the fall; it
includes funding for DEC to document the nontankers' financial
responsibility. The $132,000 provides funding for the task
force, which was mandated both in the CS and ...
CHAIR BARNES interjected, "And that's what I was trying to give
you the money to do, to do the task force." She addressed Mr.
Dietrick:
You have tanker response right now, that you have a
person that has to do that. And you can't tell me that
that person is busy all the time. We're looking at the
bonding, et cetera, of the tankers, because it couldn't
possibly be 100 percent of a person's time they spend
working on seeing that the tankers are certified.
There couldn't be that many tankers in the whole world.
MR. DIETRICK explained that DEC estimates that 400 additional
vessels [the nontank ships] will be required to go through the
financial responsibility review. Many of them are tramp
freighters that operate on 24-hour notice over the weekend. He
said it is going to be difficult to stretch DEC's current
resources to get the additional vessels reviewed and processed
and to keep up with the turnaround times so as not to impede the
trade.
Number 1854
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS referred to the analysis section in the
fiscal note for SB 273, and read:
One Environmental Specialist III in Juneau will
initially assist with the Task Force on Motorized Oil
Transport and will subsequently review financial
responsibility documentation, maintain the associated
database, and issue certificates of financial
responsibility for nontank vessels and the railroad.
SENATOR PEARCE then read from the same document:
The DEC is tasked with managing, participating in, and
staffing a Task Force on Motorized Oil Transport. The
task force is directed to meet as frequently as needed
to prepare a report to the Twenty-second Alaska State
Legislature. Contractual services will be for
assistance with technical issues in applying the oil
spill prevention and response rules to the Alaska
Railroad and the various classes and categories of
nontank vessels operating in the different areas of the
state. The completed report will include
recommendations on changes to the statutes and
regulations. Additionally, a facilitator will be
retained to assist with the complexities in bringing
together the divergent and often contentious views of
the participating task force members. Travel and per
diem is for department staff to participate in task
force meetings.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS concluded that three-fourths of the
analysis is based on the task force work, rather than just the
person or job of reviewing financial responsibility
documentation, maintaining the associated database and issuing
certificates of financial responsibility. She asked, "What
percent of this $210,000 can be removed [be] here and attributed
to the task force fiscal note in SCR 1?"
MR. DIETRICK explained that it is roughly the difference between
the two. The reason it was bumped up was to accommodate the
Environmental Specialist III position was to process the
financial responsibility. The difference between the two is to
cover the cost of that Environmentalist III position.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS asked if the $210,000 would cover both
the task force and processing the bill.
MR. DIETRICK said that is correct, processing the 400 financial
responsibility requirements for the new vessels.
CHAIR BARNES pointed out that the fiscal note previously had
covered the inspection of the nontank vessels.
MR. DIETRICK explained:
I think ... you'll see in the note here that the
primary workload is going to be processing and review;
this person is not the person that's trained to go
onboard. That would be done with existing staff.
We're not adding anybody to do that.
CHAIR BARNES noted the request is $58,477 for a new position.
MR. DIETRICK agreed.
CHAIR BARNES indicated she does not believe that the House
Finance Standing Committee is going to fund that position. She
believes that if [this current committee] took one of the fiscal
notes and gave them $143.7 thousand, which would cover
contractual and travel, they would be in good shape, because it
is more than they originally asked for and less than they asked
for in this one.
MR. DIETRICK repeated his explanation that the $132,000 was to
cover the costs of the task force to do the work [now mandated by
the resolution]. DEC expects to contract for a facilitator and
specialist, as needed, to deal with any issues. The amount in
addition to that is to fund the position to process the financial
responsibilities.
CHAIR BARNES pointed out that they are getting $125,400 for the
facilitator.
MR. DIETRICK added that it also covers travel expenses for the
task force.
Number 1990
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS addressed Mr. Dietrick:
The department [DEC] has been working on this issue for
quite some time this winter, and I know that you've had
a lot of meetings with a lot of different people. What
has been the cost to the department? We didn't give
you extra money during the session to work on this
issue. What was the amount of money that you
identified as working on this issue in the last couple
of months without an additional person?
Number 2007
MR. DIETRICK said DEC has not tallied the additional cost, but
the work has taken up a considerable portion of his time. DEC
also has been responding to requests for information, and has
talked to whomever is going to be affected, such as the Marine
Highway System or people from out of state. But the bulk of it
has been for his time, working back and forth between the DEC
office and the capitol.
Number 2027
SENATOR PEARCE noted that adding the additional ships - even just
[verifying] financial responsibility - is not an insubstantial
amount of work, "certainly in the first round of making sure that
we have all the proper paperwork, all the proper certification."
She continued:
I would suggest that rather than just zeroing out the
person - and I would note that it [the money] comes
from the 470 fund, as opposed to the general fund - I
would make it a one-year position so that they can get
through the task force and the initial certification of
all the ships' financial responsibility. Make it a
temporary person, and then when you come back with the
legislation next year, look and see whether the work
load that will be attached to the contingency plans is
sufficient to need additional staff on an ongoing
basis.
CHAIR BARNES replied:
... While I have tremendous respect for you and for
your opinion, I have yet to ever see a person come
onboard as a temporary that didn't become an instant,
full-time, for-God-and-[for]ever person. ... It seems
to me that we could give you the $210,000 on this
fiscal note and make sure that there is absolutely no
money for SCR 1. Is that agreeable?
CHAIR BARNES, hearing no response, said she would entertain a
motion to move the bill from committee.
Number 2141
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE made a motion to move from committee SB 273,
Version Z [1-LS1464\Z, Chenoweth, 4/25/00], as amended, with a
title change and the House concurrent resolution, and with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note to
HCS CSSB 273(WTR) in the amount of $210,000, knowing that it will
be the only fiscal note and that there is a zero fiscal note for
the task force.
Number 2151
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK objected. She explained that she will
support this bill but objects to the way it has been handled.
Number 2200
CHAIR BARNES said she thinks the sponsor "did a very fine thing"
when she came forward with a proposed CS, which ensured that
there would be a piece of legislation that everyone could live
with.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE remarked that he had voted for the amendment
[Amendment 1] "with the anticipation that if I am back in this
body that I hope to see this legislation very early, and I would
encourage very strongly that those involved in this process will
move this whole issue forward so that we can deal with this and
get it out of here early in session."
Number 2232
CHAIR BARNES asked whether there was further debate and whether
the objection was maintained. There being no objection, HCS CSSB
273(WTR) was moved out of the House Special Committee on World
Trade and State/Federal Relations.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on World Trade and State/federal Relations
meeting was adjourned at 5:53 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|