Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/27/1995 03:40 PM Senate RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
March 27, 1995
3:40 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman, Chairman
Senator Steve Frank
Senator Rick Halford
Senator Robin Taylor
Senator Georgianna Lincoln
Senator Lyman Hoffman
COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Drue Pearce, Vice Chairman
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 112
"An Act establishing a discovery royalty credit for the lessees of
state land drilling exploratory wells and making the first
discovery of oil or gas in commercial quantities."
SENATE BILL NO. 81
"An Act classifying the wolf as a predator and providing for a
bounty on wolf."
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 128(RES) am
"An Act relating to the disposal of wastes; giving the Alaska Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission authority to regulate disposal in
the annular space of an oil or gas well, or in the annular space of
a water well associated with exploration and production of oil or
gas, of drilling mud, cuttings, and nonhazardous drilling operation
wastes, and exempting that disposal from the requirement of a waste
disposal permit issued by the Department of Environmental
Conservation; and establishing an exemption from the requirement of
obtaining a waste disposal permit from the Department of
Environmental Conservation for certain activities that yield solid
and liquid waste material discharges and cooling water discharges."
SENATE BILL NO. 69
"An Act relating to hazardous chemicals, hazardous materials, and
hazardous waste."
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20
Relating to the Western Alaska Community Development Quota Program,
the inshore/offshore allocation process, and the North Pacific
Fishery Management Council Comprehensive Rationalization Program.
SRES - 3/27/95
SB 113 (REDUCTION IN ROYALTY FOR CERTAIN USES) was scheduled but
not taken up on this date.
SRES - 3/27/95
HB 102 (EXTEND BIG GAME COMMERCIAL SERVICES BOARD) was scheduled
but not taken up on this date.
SRES - 3/27/95
HB 169 (DEPT. NAT RES. IS LEAD AGENCY FOR MINING) was scheduled but
not taken up on this date.
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
SB 112 - See Resources minutes dated 3/08/95, 3/10/95, 3/17/95.
SB 81 - See Resources minutes dated 2/20/95.
HB 128 - See Resources minutes dated 3/22/95.
SB 69 - See Resources minutes dated 2/22/95.
SJR 20 - No previous senate committee action.
WITNESS REGISTER
Kevin Tabler, Manager
Union Oil
P.O. Box 196247, Anchorage, AK 99519¶263-7600
POSITION STATEMENT: supports SB 112
Ken Boyd, Acting Director
Division of Oil & Gas, Department of Natural Resources
3601 C St., Ste. 1380, Anchorage, AK 99503-5948¶762-2547
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 112
Steve Peterson, Acting Deputy Director
Div. of Wildlife Conservation, Dept. of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526, Juneau, AK 99802-5526¶465-6196
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 81
Mark Luttrell, President
Eastern Kenai Peninsula Environmental Action Association
P.O. Box 511, Seward, AK 99664¶224-5372
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 81
Mike Tetreau
P.O. Box 3046, Seward, AK 99664¶224-3175
POSITION STATEMENT: opposed to SB 81
Jack Phelps, Aide to Representative Williams
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶465-3424
POSITION STATEMENT: prime sponsor of HB 128
Geron Bruce, Legislative Liaison
Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526, Juneau, AK 99802-5526¶465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on HB 128
Annette Kreitzer, Aide to the Senate Resources Committee
State Capitol, Juneau, Alaska, 99801-1182¶465-2095
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on behalf of Senator Leman
Camille Stevens
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Ave., Ste. 105, Juneau, AK 99801¶465-5050
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 69
Chester Weger, Assistant State Fire Marshal
5700 Tudor Rd., Anchorage, AK 99507-1225¶269-5905
POSITION STATEMENT: testified on SB 69
Karl Ohls, Executive Director
Western Alaska Fisheries Development Association
725 Christensen Dr., Anchorage, AK 99501¶279-6519
POSITION STATEMENT: supports SJR 20
Kimberly Metcalfe Helmar, Special Assistant
Department of Community & Regional Affairs
P.O. Box 112100, Juneau, AK 99811-2100
POSITION STATEMENT: supports SJR 20
David Benton, Acting Deputy Commissioner
Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526, Juneau, AK 99802-5526¶465-4115
POSITION STATEMENT: supports SJR 20
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-28, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Resources Committee meeting to
order at 3:40 p.m.
SRES - 3/27/95
SB 112 DISCOVERY ROYALTY CREDIT
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brought up SB 112 as the first order of business
before the Senate Resources Committee. The chairman stated it is
the intent of the committee to take testimony on SB 112 and hold
the bill for further work. The chairman called the first witness.
KEVIN TABLER, Manager, Union Oil Company, testifying from
Anchorage, thanked the committee for working on this legislation.
Mr. Tabler thinks SB 112 has merit. He brought the committee's
attention to page 3, line 23, and asked the committee to look at
the definition of "geologic structure." On page 3, line 24, Union
Oil thinks the language "of production" should be inserted after
the word "years."
Number 094
CHAIRMAN LEMAN responded it is the intent of the committee to
encourage a faster production. He is not sure that encouragement
would be there if the language "of production" was inserted on page
3, line 24. However, he recognizes that delays out of the control
of oil companies can occur, so the committee will consider that
suggestion. The chairman asked Mr. Tabler if he has any specific
comments about further defining "first discoveries."
Number 106
MR. TABLER replied he does not have any further specific comments
at this time.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked Mr. Tabler to contact the committee if he
comes up with any further suggestions.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Tabler to explain why he would like to see
the language, "of production" added on page 3, line 24.
MR. TABLER responded there may be delays between first discovery
and the point of first production.
Number 124
KEN BOYD, Acting Director, Division of Oil & Gas, Department of
Natural Resources, testifying from Anchorage, recommended that the
commercial standard be separated from the exploratory standard. It
needs to be made clear that discovery means just that. Another
issue already touched on regards geologic structures. Scale of
geologic structure needs to be further defined. There is not a
good definition of geologic structure. Mr. Boyd thinks it would be
better to separate the distinct hydrocarbon accumulations. He
would be glad to work with the committee on developing those
definitions. His last concern is that the bill not give a royalty
reduction to all production on a lease, but just to the new
discoveries on a lease.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN noted that the committee would be working with Mr.
Boyd on clarification of language in SB 112. The chairman asked if
anyone else wished to testify.
Number 193
SENATOR HALFORD asked if there is anything in SB 112 clarifying
that the Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) will
still be able deal with the rate of production, if that is contrary
to the long-term maximum yield of a field.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN commented that was a good question. He asked if
anyone from the AOGCC was on-line in Anchorage and could testify
regarding that question. The chairman asked Mr. Boyd if he could
respond to that question.
MR. BOYD does not believe that would be a problem. He thinks the
AOGCC would continue to have authority over all those issues. He
doesn't thinks any company would rush to damage the formation. Mr.
Boyd thinks Mr. Tabler's point regarding lead-time before
production is of more concern. He thinks the AOGCC would have
complete authority over the concern raised by Senator Halford.
SENATOR HALFORD just wanted to make clear that the AOGCC would
still have the authority to handle such a problem.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no further testimony or questions,
announced that SB 112 would be held. SB 112 will be taken up again
sometime after April 5, 1995.
SRES - 3/27/95
SB 81 CLASSIFYING WOLF AS PREDATOR
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brought up SB 81 as the next order of business
before the Senate Resources Committee. The chairman asked for a
report from the subcommittee on SB 81.
SENATOR HALFORD stated that the subcommittee tried to formulate a
committee substitute which would satisfy the objections raised to
the original bill. The original premise was to specify a $400
state-wide bounty, and that a wolf could be taken anywhere, anyhow,
anyway. Under SB 81, wolves would be unclassified game, a
furbearer, and could be taken by any method or means approved for
taking unclassified game or furbearers. The bounty was reduced to
$200, and would only apply in areas designated by the board of
game. The wolf also must be presented for identification to an
office designated by the commissioner. The intent is that not
every office of the Department of Fish & Game be used for sealing
of wolves taken under the bounty. Senator Halford thinks those
points will satisfy some of the objections to SB 81, although he
realizes they will not satisfy the objections of those who are
universally opposed to any kind of incentive for predator harvest.
SENATOR TAYLOR expressed appreciation to Senator Halford for the
work done on SB 81. Senator Taylor supports a harvest incentive
program, and thinks $200 plus the value of the hide is a more
reasonable amount to pay for bounty than that which was originally
proposed in the bill. He asked Senator Halford to further define
the methods or means by which wolves could be taken.
SENATOR HALFORD responded that there is a prohibition on taking
furbearers with a shotgun, because of the damage done to the hide.
Furbearers can be taken with a rifle or with a trap.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented an effective way to control wolves is the
use of shotguns and aerial hunting.
SENATOR HALFORD replied that aerial hunting has always been done by
permit. SB 81 regards the general classification of wolves and
instituting a bounty system.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted SB 81 will still leave that up to the
discretion of the board. He does not know that public attitude has
a thing to do with good or bad game management. He thinks it has
a lot to do with public attitude.
SENATOR HALFORD responded he can't fix that; he was just working
with the bill Senator Taylor introduced.
[There is discussion that perhaps an "a" should be deleted from
page 1, line 3. Committee staff was instructed to correct the
inconsistency between drafts.]
Number 319
SENATOR HALFORD made a motion to adopt the committee substitute.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, stated the committee
substitute had been adopted.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked for clarification regarding the department's
position on the committee substitute. She also asked if the
committee substitute would have an impact on the fiscal note.
Number 325
CHAIRMAN LEMAN clarified that on page 1, line 3 the "a" just before
"wolf" will be deleted, so the title will read, "...incentive on
wolf taken in areas...." On page 2, line 3 after the word
"department" the language, "designated by the commissioner" will be
inserted.
Number 336
STEVE PETERSON, Acting Deputy Director, Division of Wildlife
Conservation, Department of Fish & Game, repeated some of the
testimony given by Mr. Regelin at an earlier date. The division's
position remains essentially the same as it was for the original
bill: the division is opposed to SB 81.
Number 365
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Peterson if the committee substitute
would affect the fiscal note from the division.
MR. PETERSON responded, as far as he knows, the committee
substitute will not affect the fiscal note.
SENATOR HALFORD commented that the bounty is cut in half.
MR. PETERSON said that is true, but he does not think that will
change the number of wolves taken.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked Mr. Peterson what the department is proposing
for wolf control, other than having a bounty. She has not heard
any other alternatives offered by the department.
Number 386
MR. PETERSON thinks the department could work with the Board of
Game, if the board set up some intensive management areas. Mr.
Peterson thinks it would be good for the department to be given
clear statutory authority that specifies if the board sets up
intensive management areas, the department could permit for those
areas.
SENATOR HALFORD expressed concern that SB 81 might pass with a
$20,000 fiscal note, or it might pass without a fiscal note. He
thinks the committee substitute would add to the board's ability,
without mandating anything.
MR. PETERSON replied he just can't anticipate how the board will
react to SB 81.
SENATOR HALFORD stated that forcing the board to use a tool is like
pushing on a rope, but giving them the tool would at least give the
board the opportunity to consider intensive game management.
MR. PETERSON agreed with Senator Halford.
Number 428
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Peterson if he is wrong to conclude that
the board and the department have both abandoned any wolf or
predator control.
MR. PETERSON thinks the truth of that statement depends on how one
defines predator control: trappers can be very effective in certain
areas. But there is no doubt that the public is very concerned
about control programs.
SENATOR TAYLOR thinks the people of the state have a right to know
what the department intends to do. He asked Mr. Peterson to
confirm that the department's attitude is to not do anything,
unless the public approves.
MR. PETERSON responded that the commissioner has stated he wants a
program that is broadly accepted by the public.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Peterson what the commissioner is
suggesting to the legislature. Senator Taylor asserted that the
department is not responding to the legislature's attempt to work
on the issue.
MR. PETERSON replied there are people on both sides of the fence,
and the department tries to balance that.
Number 435
MARK LUTTRELL, President, Eastern Kenai Peninsula Environmental
Action Alliance, testifying from Seward, does not think the changes
are substantial, and thinks changing "bounty" to "harvest
incentive" is insulting. Mr. Luttrell asked the committee to
consult more with the commissioner of the Department of Fish &
Game.
Number 457
MIKE TETREAU, testifying from Seward, thinks any type of a bounty
or harvest incentive would be medieval game management, at best.
Mr. Tetreau asserted that predator control is an outdated and
unscientific management technique that is doomed to fail, as has
been shown through past experience. He thinks SB 81 reflects a
very simplistic view of the natural environment.
Number 469
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Tetreau if he has any proposal for
management of predators.
MR. TETREAU responded that the whole idea of limiting the number of
predators, simply to increase the number of prey available to
hunters is debatable in and of itself. He suggested SB 81 may
simply be a ploy to take some of the heat off trappers. If
predators have to be managed, then a controlled method, such as a
trapping program would certainly be preferable to a wide-open
bounty.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Tetreau if he would support a trapping
program, as opposed to SB 81.
MR. TETREAU replied he would support trapping over a bounty
program, but he does not feel that trapping is necessary either,
for this particular problem.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Tetreau if he is an employee of the state
and would benefit through his wages from involvement in a trapping
program.
MR. TETREAU said he would not benefit from a trapping program. He
repeated that he does not see a need for wolf control, but that he
would support trapping over an open public bounty.
Number 490
SENATOR TAYLOR made a motion to discharge SB 81 from the Senate
Resources Committee with individual recommendations.
SENATOR HALFORD asked the department to submit a new fiscal note.
SENATOR TAYLOR added there should be mandatory sex education for
wolves. We would probably be as successful as we've been with
teenagers. He also suggested using parvo virus.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, stated SB 81 was discharged
from the Senate Resources Committee with individual
recommendations.
SRES - 3/27/95
HB 128 WASTE DISPOSAL PERMIT EXEMPTION
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brought up HB 128 as the next order of business
before the Senate Resources Committee. The chairman asked for a
motion to adopt the committee substitute.
SENATOR FRANK made a motion to adopt the committee substitute for
HB 128.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, stated the committee
substitute had been adopted.
JACK PHELPS, Aide to Representative Williams, prime sponsor of HB
128, stated the committee substitute before the committee contains
two amendments suggested at the March 22 meeting of the Senate
Resources Committee. One amendment was a rewrite to simplify
Section 3, which was suggested by the Department of Environmental
Conservation. The other amendment was suggested by the Alaska Oil
& Gas Association (AOGA): they were concerned that the bill would
give the impression that new permitting authority is being created,
which is not the case. Mr. Phelps reviewed the amendments in
further detail. On page 2, line 22, an amendment suggested by the
Department of Law was made to clarify that disposal is subject to
regulation under Title 31. Also, subsection (g) is a new
subsection.
Number 542
MR. PHELPS informed the committee that a drafting error was made on
page 2, line 27.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked which draft the committee was working from.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN responded the committee is working from draft H by
Chenoweth, dated 3/24/95, which has been adopted as a committee
substitute.
MR. PHELPS stated the problem with the language on page 2, line 27
is that the definition in regulations is to "a point source", not
"a point source discharge." Mr. Phelps suggested changing the
language to read, "does not produce a discharge from a point
source, as that term is defined in regulations...."
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked Mr. Phelps if "discharge" is defined in
regulation.
MR. PHELPS believes the term "discharge" is defined in regulation.
Number 570
SENATOR TAYLOR made a motion to adopt Mr. Phelps' suggested
amendment.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection to the amendment, stated that
amendment #1 had been adopted.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked why there is a new fiscal note from the
Department of Fish & Game.
MR. PHELPS replied he did not realize ADF&G had submitted a new
fiscal note; he did not request it. Mr. Phelps asked if the fiscal
note was substantially different from the fiscal note that came
over from the house.
SENATOR LINCOLN said the fiscal note is still zero, but the
previous fiscal note seemed to support.... Senator Lincoln asked
if there was someone from ADF&G who could answer that question.
MR. PHELPS stated he would be happy to go find Geron Bruce from
ADF&G, but he thinks the changes that occurred in the House
Resources Committee...
SENATOR LINCOLN said she wasn't going to repeat her question.
MR. PHELPS continued, saying the changes that occurred in House
Resources haven't changed in this version of HB 128.
TAPE 95-28, SIDE B
MR. PHELPS stated he would be happy to defer to Mr. Bruce.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN repeated Senator Lincoln's question for Mr. Bruce:
she wants to know why the changes made to HB 128 caused the
department to submit a new fiscal note.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked why the endorsement in the fiscal note
analysis has been dropped from the new fiscal note.
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Department of Fish & Game, stated
the new fiscal note is just an updated fiscal note for the new
version of the bill. It doesn't have any additional impact on the
department. It is still a zero fiscal note.
SENATOR TAYLOR made a motion to discharge HB 128 from the Senate
Resources Committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked if there were any objections to the motion.
SENATOR TAYLOR objected, for the purpose of determining whether or
not the department opposed the bill.
Number 561
MR. BRUCE responded that the department does not oppose HB 128. He
also apologized for not being present to immediately answer Senator
Lincoln's question.
SENATOR TAYLOR removed his objection.
SENATOR FRANK asked whether the department supported the bill or
not.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN compared Senator Frank's and Senator Taylor's
questions to the difference between non-retention and firing
someone.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if the committee is still talking about
discharge.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked if there was any objection to moving HB 128
from committee. Hearing none, the chairman stated the bill was
discharged from the Senate Resources Committee with individual
recommendations.
SRES - 3/27/95
SB 69 REPORTING OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brought up SB 69 as the next order of business
before the Senate Resources Committee. The chairman informed
members that the committee was working on version G. The chairman
asked for a motion to adopt the committee substitute.
SENATOR TAYLOR made a motion to adopt the committee substitute for
SB 69.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, stated the committee
substitute had been adopted. The chairman asked Ms. Kreitzer to
review the changes made to SB 69.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN called an at ease.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Aide to the Senate Resources Committee, testified
for Senator Leman, prime sponsor of SB 69. Ms. Kreitzer noted that
a fax from Rita Venta listing the types of chemicals addressed by
SB 69 has been distributed to committee members. Concerns raised
by the LEPC Association have also been included in members'
packets. There is also an additional fiscal note from DEC, even
though the department already has the responsibility of mailing out
tier II forms. Ms. Kreitzer reiterated that SB 69 would remove the
placarding program from the State Fire Marshal's Office. There
isn't a lot of support for that program, so SB 69 deals mostly with
changes to current law regarding the municipal placarding program
under Title 29.
MS. KREITZER noted that one change in the committee substitute is
the ability for SERC and a municipality to delete substances from
these lists. SB 69 will actually lessen the reporting
requirements. There will be no additional reporting requirements.
Number 510
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Ms. Kreitzer, "since we've got this thing in
front of us, why don't we do something meaningful by taking out
some of these things that may not have any significant value to
being reported in the first place." Senator Taylor thinks there
are a lot of things listed as hazardous substances, which he does
not think should be considered hazardous substances.
MS. KREITZER replied that is exactly what they tried to do here.
The requirements that are here are federal requirements, with the
exception of paragraph (2) on page 3. Ms. Kreitzer stated that SB
69 contains a figure of 500 pounds, instead of the federal
requirement of 10,000 pounds, because that was the figure favored
by the Municipality of Anchorage and fire departments around the
state, due to population density. However, there are exclusions
for urea and other fertilizers. The idea was to stick with the
federal requirements, and not impose additional reporting
requirements on facilities.
SENATOR TAYLOR asserted that additional reporting requirements are
being imposed by the language in paragraph (2) on page 3.
MS. KREITZER responded that "500 pounds" is the language already in
current law. We are not changing what the legislature passed back
in 1986 or 1987. At that time, there was also a requirement that
facilities report a consumer commodity of hazardous material in a
quantity of more than 1,000 pounds. That was meant to get at the
Fred Meyer's, the Walmarts, and the K-Marts. As with a gunshop,
fire departments ought to know that those stores have weedkiller,
and all those other types of things.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated he would like to see a listing of hazardous
wastes. [He finds a list in his bill packet, and questions the
different quantities listed.]
MS. KREITZER replied that the amounts Senator Taylor is questioning
are federal RCRA (Resource Conservation & Recovery Act) reporting
requirements. That information is already required to be reported.
What we are trying to do by sticking with the federal definitions
is to allow facilities to use just one form when reporting. Right
now, reporters are required to provide information in four
different formats, under four different laws. We are trying to
streamline the process.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked Senator Taylor if he understands that they are
just trying to coordinate state requirements with the federal
requirements, in order to streamline reporting.
SENATOR TAYLOR said all he is trying to do is show the committee
that we are 20 times higher in our reporting requirements than the
federal government. This is hardly reasonable, and he does not
care, if that is what the Anchorage Fire Department wants to
establish. Senator Taylor thinks the federal form is more than
adequate. He asked why we would want to impose a burden like that
on our own people.
MS. KREITZER reiterated that the Municipality of Anchorage and the
Anchorage Fire Department support maintaining the 500 pound
quantity, because of population density.
SENATOR TAYLOR said he wants to hear whether the business people
who have to go through a reporting process at a rate 20 times
higher than the federal requirement would support that.
MS. KREITZER responded she has also worked with Unocal, BP,
Alyeska, and ARCO, and they felt that 500 pounds was a reasonable
amount to have to report. Those companies were also instrumental
in the development of SB 69.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if he had 500 pounds of salt if he would have
to report it.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN replied he would not.
SENATOR HALFORD asked how SB 69 would affect a substance consisting
of a mixture of chemicals listed.
MS. KREITZER thinks that under Tier II reporting requirements,
mixtures must be reported. She knows that there has been confusion
on that point, so she will let Ms. Stevens address that.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked Ms. Stevens if she would like to respond to
Senator Halford's question.
SENATOR HALFORD restated his question: when you have something on
this list that says the reportable quantity is "any", and that item
is a part of a compound in a common mixture, does that mean that
has to be placarded?
CHAIRMAN LEMAN gave acetone cyanohydrin as an example.
Number 415
CAMILLE STEVENS, Department of Environmental Conservation,
responded her program does not deal with placarding.
MS. KREITZER asked if it would have to be reported under Emergency
Planning Committee right to know.
MS. STEVENS asked if Senator Halford is looking at the Tier II
list.
SENATOR HOFFMAN replied it is Anchorage's list.
MS. STEVENS stated it is her understanding that the Anchorage list
is a little bit different from the Tier II list. DEC's program
operates under the federal law. The Tier II reportable substances
are MSDS (material safety data sheet) chemicals. The extremely
hazardous substances are a subset of that. With the MSDS
substances, quantities 10,000 pounds and over would be reportable
on the Tier II form. If it is an EHS (Extremely Hazardous
Substance), it has a reportable quantity established by the EPA
under regulations. She couldn't tell Senator Halford exactly what
is reportable, substance by substance. She would have to look at
the EHS list.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Ms. Stevens to look at page 10 on the list.
Senator Taylor asserted that 500 pounds of kerosene should not have
to be reported: it is not an uncommon item in Alaska. Senator
Taylor also listed lacquer thinner and lacquers, liquified natural
gas, and liquified petroleum gas. He thinks every damn trailer
house in his town would have to report. How many pounds do those
tanks hold?
MS. KREITZER responded the placarding program is only applicable to
businesses. It is not applicable to residences.
SENATOR TAYLOR thinks it would be applicable to anyone with a park
in Anchorage.
MS. KREITZER replied if it is an underground storage tank, they
must already report under the UST program.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted most compressed natural and petroleum gas is
above ground.
SENATOR FRANK asked about propane.
SENATOR TAYLOR responded that's what it is.
SENATOR HALFORD commented that the fire marshal wants them
underground, and the EPA wants them above the ground.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated propane is liquified petroleum gas, found on
page 11. You can't have more than 500 pounds without placarding
it.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted that on page 12, naphtha coal tar, naphtha
petroleum, and naphtha solvent have to be reported. He does not
know of very many mechanical places that don't have those.
SENATOR HALFORD noted that tetra ethyl lead is also on the list.
That is an element of one gallon of regular gas. It says "any."
MS. KREITZER replied this is current law; these people have been
reporting under this law.
SENATOR HALFORD stated, "No they haven't."
CHAIRMAN LEMAN noted they have just been required to report, under
the law. He asked Fire Marshal Weger if he would like to testify.
CHESTER WEGER, Assistant State Fire Marshal, testifying from
Anchorage, stated the current program, which became effective in
1987 has never been funded and has not worked. There are only 14
places state-wide which have been placarded by the State Fire
Marshal's Office. Mr. Weger stated there are so many different
reporting programs and requirements, that no one is reporting to
the fire marshal's office, anyway. And the fire marshal's office
does not have the funding or the personnel to enforce the law.
SENATOR TAYLOR doesn't know why we are worrying about modifying it
to make it more user friendly, when it isn't being used or
enforced.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN thinks Mr. Weger was referring to the placarding
program.
MR. WEGER responded that is correct. There is a difference between
the reporting requirements and the placarding requirements.
Number 342
MS. KREITZER reiterated the reasons for passing SB 69.
Number 310
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked if it would be fair to say that SB 69 would
simply minimize an unfunded mandate.
SENATOR TAYLOR and CHAIRMAN LEMAN responded it would.
SENATOR TAYLOR said it doesn't help reduce it; it is another fees
bill.
MS. KREITZER responded, this law has been in effect since 1986.
The Municipality of Anchorage does have a fee program in place to
support placarding. Fees are already an option for municipalities.
A municipality is not required to take on a placarding program.
SENATOR TAYLOR noted his reason for debating it in the first place
is to see if they could make it more user friendly for the people
who sent us here. Mr. Mystrom did not send him to this place; as
a consequence, he is more interested in alleviating burdensome
regulations than in making them better.
SENATOR FRANK asked if the committee could establish a subcommittee
on SB 69 consisting of Senator Taylor and Senator Taylor.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN informed the committee that Senator Taylor could
request that in Judiciary Committee, if he would like to do so.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked if SB 69 had been referred to the Judiciary
Committee.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN responded no, but Senator Taylor can request that
the bill go to the Judiciary Committee, if he wishes. The chairman
expressed a desire to move the bill from committee.
[There is debate over whether or not the subject should be brought
before congress.]
SENATOR TAYLOR thinks a reporting requirement 20 times higher than
that required by the federal government is terrible.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked Ms. Kreitzer if, in her work with businesses
and the public on SB 69, she heard from anyone that the reporting
requirements were excessive.
MS. KREITZER replied she never received any feedback from all the
companies and organizations she worked with in developing this
legislation indicating that the reporting requirements were
excessive.
Number 251
SENATOR FRANK stated he would like to make sure the little guys can
handle the requirements.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN responded that all that is being done, is to make it
a little bit easier.
SENATOR FRANK and SENATOR TAYLOR both expressed the thought that
maybe it could be improved a great deal, rather than a little bit.
SENATOR FRANK asked why we wouldn't lower the requirement to the
federal standards. We do nothing but complain around here about
the fact that we're going further than the feds.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked Ms. Kreitzer if there is any reason why that
shouldn't be changed.
MS. KREITZER responded that the only reason not to change it would
be the Municipality of Anchorage's position.
SENATOR TAYLOR stated he is concerned that only big companies have
expressed approval. He noted an example where big companies
approved of a program (Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program),
and the program ended up putting small businesses out of business.
Senator Taylor stated no one is enforcing the law, so why would we
want to make it better.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN noted that paragraph (4) gives municipalities the
option of requiring smaller quantities to be reported.
SENATOR LINCOLN thinks the committee is going nowhere really fast.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN stated he had planned to be further along.
SENATOR LINCOLN asked if the chairman was planning to move the bill
from committee today.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN responded he had been.
SENATOR LINCOLN commented maybe it wasn't such a bad idea to have
a subcommittee.
SENATOR FRANK asked if the bill could just be amended to 10,000;
where would the amendment go?
MS. KREITZER responded the amendment would go on page 3, line 6.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked if that is the only amount where we have
higher requirements than the federal...500 to 10,000.
SENATOR TAYLOR made a motion to amend SB 69 by changing the number
500 to the number 10,000 on page 3, line 6.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked what materials, other than those described in
Section 4, (c)(1) that consists of. Is there a list of those
materials?
MS. KREITZER replied there is a definition under the definitions
section. She says they are huge lists.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked Ms. Kreitzer if she knows of any reason the
amendment should not be adopted.
MS. KREITZER responded that a municipality would still have the
option of lowering the amount that must be reported.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked if there was any objection to the amendment.
Hearing none, the chairman stated the amendment had been adopted.
The chairman asked if there was further discussion.
SENATOR LINCOLN noted that line 10 specified 500 pounds also.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN informed Senator Lincoln that number is a federal
requirement. The only number that was different from the federal
requirement has been changed.
[It is clarified that the rest of the requirements are federal
requirements, other than the requirement for compressed gasses,
which is a requirement of the Municipality of Anchorage. Ms.
Kreitzer does not believe there is a federal requirement on
compressed gasses.]
SENATOR TAYLOR thinks he has 200 cubic feet of compressed gas at
his house.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN thinks he has it here.
SENATOR TAYLOR responded, yes, but he can't keep it compressed. He
commented the committee is losing people. Senator Taylor stated he
would like to know what the federal requirement is on that, if any.
MS. KREITZER does not believe there is a requirement on that.
SENATOR TAYLOR thinks, if this will be applied statewide, paragraph
(6) on page 3 should be deleted. If Anchorage wants to impose it,
they are still free to do so.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked the fire marshal if he had a comment on that.
FIRE MARSHAL WEGER responded, so far as he is aware, that language
is not a federal requirement.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN has a question with paragraph (4). That language
just specifies that municipalities can require the reporting of
lower quantities, not other substances.
SENATOR TAYLOR thinks it would still be within a municipality's
authority to require another substance to be reported, even if not
in the bill.
[That situation is compared to Article 10 of the U.S.
Constitution.]
SENATOR TAYLOR clarified that he suggested deleting paragraph (6)
on page 3 as motion to amend SB 69.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked if there was any objection to that amendment
(amendment #2). Hearing none, the chairman stated amendment #2 had
been adopted.
SENATOR HALFORD commented that if the committee cut one more line,
they could shorten the bill to four pages.
SENATOR TAYLOR replied he was looking.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN said they didn't want to take out the repealer line.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked the fire marshal if there are other items in
SB 69 that are not federal requirements.
FIRE MARSHAL WEGER responded there are none that he's aware of.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked the fire marshal if there are any federal
requirements that are less stringent than those in SB 69.
FIRE MARSHAL WEGER replied, no.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked the fire marshal if he thought the bill had
been pretty well cleaned up.
FIRE MARSHAL WEGER responded, yes.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN asked if there was further committee discussion.
Number 055
SENATOR TAYLOR made a motion to discharge SB 69 from the Senate
Resources Committee with individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN, hearing no objection, stated SB 69 was discharged
from committee with individual recommendations.
SRES - 3/27/95
SJR 20 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FISHING QUOTAS
CHAIRMAN LEMAN brought up SJR 20 as the next order of business
before the Senate Resources Committee. The chairman called the
first witness.
KARL OHLS, Executive Director, Western Alaska Fisheries Development
Association, testifying from Anchorage, stated he supports SJR 20.
Mr. Ohls stated CDQ groups are interested in a set-aside of CDQ's
for all species, so that the groups will not be dependent upon
revenue from a single species. This resolution reflects that goal.
TAPE 95-29, SIDE A
SENATOR TAYLOR expressed surprise at the addition of crab, and
asked Mr. Ohls to comment on that.
MR. OHLS responded, "The North Pacific Fisheries Management Council
(NPFMC) is working on a comprehensive rationalization [?] plan
which will become the allocation plan for all species under their
management, which includes the Bering Sea crab resource, the
Pacific cod resource, the yellowfin sole,...so crab is a part of
that."
SENATOR TAYLOR asked Mr. Ohls if he is correct in believing that
the CDQ allocation is somewhat controversial.
MR. OHLS replied, "Only as much as the current program would be
controversial."
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked, "On the crab issue, wasn't it the Alaskan
Crab Association that offered an allocation last year to start at
3%?"
MR. OHLS responded that the council has been working for some time
of deciding allocation. Somewhere down the road they are going to
get to allocations of all these different species. Licenses,
CDQ's, IFQ's, whatever is appropriate. Members of the industry are
talking with each other about what they'd like to see. Last year,
the Alaska Crab Coalition broached the subject of a 3% crab
allocation in the Bering Sea for CDQ's, with a three-year time
limit on it.
Number 080
KIM METCALFE HELMAR, Special Assistant, Department of Community &
Regional Affairs, stated the administration supports SJR 20. Ms.
Helmar reads a written statement, giving statistics on unemployment
and income levels before and after implementation of the CDQ
program in the region affected by the program. Both income and
employment levels rose after implementation of the CDQ program.
SENATOR TAYLOR asked why the administration opposes IFQ's.
MS. METCALFE HELMAR responded she could not answer that question.
Number 116
SENATOR HOFFMAN asked Ms. Metcalfe Helmar if she could speak on the
fiscal note.
[No answer is discernable on the recording.]
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that the resolution appears to ask the
federal government to make an allocation decision regarding a state
resource.
Number 132
DAVID BENTON, Acting Deputy Commissioner, Department of Fish &
Game, stated he has worked for both the Hickel administration and
the Knowles administration, and both administrations have strongly
supported the CDQ program. He urged support of SJR 20. In regards
to Senator Taylor's question, Mr. Benton responded that, by and
large, these are resources that are not in state waters. The vast
bulk of the Bering Sea crab resource is in federal waters. In the
Gulf of Alaska, it is a different situation all together, and
Senator Taylor's concern would be valid.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented he has always supported CDQ's, but he is
fearful that sooner or later they will end up pitting one community
against another. He finds the current IFQ's violative of our
state's rights. Governor Knowles promised to file a lawsuit on
IFQ's and promised to oppose IFQ's, yet now he is not doing that.
Senator Taylor believes 70% of IFQ's are owned by people in
Seattle. That is the ownership of fish. He supports the concept
of SJR 20, but he cannot support the concept of allowing the
federal government to make allocation of fish from state waters.
MR. BENTON responded he agrees with Senator Taylor wholeheartedly,
and he thinks the governor would agree as well. The governor
really struggled with the decision regarding joining the Alliance
Against IFQs' lawsuit on halibut and sablefish. The governor does
support setting aside a percentage of the quota for entry-level
fisheries. Neither former Governor Hickel nor Governor Knowles is
supportive of bringing CDQ's into the Gulf of Alaska, for the very
reasons listed by Senator Taylor. We have considered and are
trying to develop some other programs for the gulf that would allow
for small-boat fisheries in coastal communities and entry-level
fisheries. Mr. Benton stated he presently represents the state on
the NPFMC.
Number 274
SENATOR HALFORD stated he appreciated the governor's testimony at
the hearing in Anchorage, and agreed with the general direction.
He wondered if the committee should add a further resolve to SJR
20, in effect stating that if there are new IFQ allocations
considered, that at least x% be considered in CDQ's and entry
provisions. That supports what U.S. Senator Stevens and the
governor are trying to accomplish. He agrees with the comments
about the gulf too. Senator Halford stated he would trade all the
IFQ's in the Bering Sea for CDQ's.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented that his primary concern was in trying to
maintain some level of consistency. The management of mammals was
taken away from the state in 1978; ADF&G no longer manages seals,
which he used to hunt and eat. ADF&G no longer manages sea lions,
whales, or walrus.
SENATOR HALFORD noted that management of those mammals was actually
taken over by the federal government in 1973.
SENATOR TAYLOR added that now the state has lost management control
of sablefish, and will possibly lose control of all groundfish and
crab. He does not think the state should voluntarily forfeit its'
right to allocation.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN added he would not support that either, and would
certainly be willing to amend SJR 20 to accommodate that concern.
He doesn't think Senator Hoffman would be opposed to that type of
revision.
SENATOR HALFORD expressed agreement with Senator Taylor on the
inside allocation issues. However, he is not above helping any
segment of Alaska's population get anything it can from the
outside. He would like to make them all CDQ's.
SENATOR TAYLOR commented he doesn't have any problem with the
Machiavellian aspect of it, he would probably do it too. It's just
that he would like to have it done by us, not done to us.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN stated he would like to hold SJR 20 over to work out
something. He asked Mr. Benton to help with that. The chairman
noted he would like to hear the resolution again on April 5th.
CHAIRMAN LEMAN adjourned the Senate Resources Committee meeting at
5:38 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|