HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE March 10, 1994 1:15 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Harley Olberg, Chairman Representative Jerry Sanders, Vice Chair Representative Con Bunde Representative Cynthia Toohey Representative Ed Willis Representative John Davies Representative Bill Williams MEMBERS ABSENT None COMMITTEE CALENDAR SB 33: "An Act relating to emergency planning and response; transferring the Hazardous Substance Spill Technology Review Council to the Department of Environmental Conservation; transferring the Alaska State Emergency Response Commission, including its duty to designate local emergency planning districts and appoint local emergency planning committees, to the Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs; and eliminating a requirement that the state and regional oil discharge prevention and contingency plans be revised annually." PASSED FROM COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS *HB 467: "An Act relating to housing programs of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation and of regional housing authorities, and permitting regional housing authorities to make, originate, and service loans for the purchase and development of residential housing in the state's small communities." NOT HEARD WITNESS REGISTER ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Staff Senator Loren Leman Capitol Building, Room 113 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Phone: 465-2095 POSITION STATEMENT: Staff to Senator Loren Leman, Prime Sponsor of SB 33 MIKE CONWAY, Director Division of Spill Prevention and Response Department of Environmental Conservation 410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 302 Juneau, AK 99801-1795 Phone: 465-5260 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33 ERVIN PAUL MARTIN, Director Alaska Division of Emergency Services Department of Military and Veterans Affairs P.O. Box 5750 Fort Richardson, AK 99505-0750 Phone: 428-7000 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33 JIM STUDLEY P.O. Box 946 Haines, AK 99827 Phone: 766-3377 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33 ROCKY ANSELL Copper River LEPC P.O. Box 217 Copper Center, AK 99573 Phone: 822-3671 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33 KEN ROBERSTON Copper River LEPC P.O. Box 375 Glennallen, AK 99588 Phone: POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33 DR. ERNIE MELOCHE Alaska LEPC Association P.O. Box 6058 Ketchikan, AK 99901 Phone: 247-6058 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33 STEVEN O'CONNOR Kenai Peninsula LEPC 231 S. Binkley Soldotna, AK 99669 Phone: 262-4792 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33 VERNON KUGZRUK P.O. Box 580 Teller, AK 99778 Phone: 642-3401 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33 and proposed amendments BILL SHECHTER Alaska Fire Chiefs P.O. Box 71267 Fairbanks, AK 99707 Phone: 459-1219 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33 and proposed an amendment STEVEN PORTER 10420 Lone Tree Drive Anchorage, AK 99516 Phone: 265-6269 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33 and proposed an amendment BOB STEWART P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519 Phone: 267-4904 POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SB 33 SHORT TITLE: GRANTS FOR LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 01/11/93 23 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/93 01/11/93 24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 01/11/93 24 (S) CRA, STA, FINANCE 02/23/93 (S) CRA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH RM 205 02/24/93 460 (S) CRA RPT CS 2DP 1NR SAME TITLE 02/24/93 460 (S) ZERO FNS TO SB & CS (DEC, DMVA) 03/03/93 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH RM 205 03/03/93 (S) MINUTE(STA) 03/31/93 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH RM 205 03/31/93 (S) MINUTE(STA) 11/29/93 (S) MINUTE(STA) 01/19/94 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH RM 205 01/19/94 (S) MINUTE(STA) 01/21/94 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH RM 205 01/21/94 (S) MINUTE(STA) 01/24/94 2579 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE 01/24/94 2580 (S) FNS TO CS PUBLISHED (DEC,DMVA) 02/03/94 (S) FIN AT 09:30 AM SENATE FIN 518 02/15/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518 02/17/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518 02/18/94 2881 (S) FIN RPT CS 1DP 4NR NEW TITLE 02/18/94 2881 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS PUBLISHED (DMVA) 02/18/94 2881 (S) PREVIOUS FN APPLIES (DEC) 02/22/94 (S) RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 02/22/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 02/23/94 2959 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/24/94 02/24/94 2959 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 02/24/94 2959 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT 02/24/94 2959 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT 02/24/94 2959 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 33(FIN) 02/24/94 2960 (S) PASSED Y16 N2 E2 02/24/94 2960 (S) Duncan NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 02/28/94 2994 (S) RECON TAKEN UP-IN THIRD READING 02/28/94 2995 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N3 A2 02/28/94 3006 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 03/02/94 2565 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 03/02/94 2566 (H) CRA, FINANCE 03/10/94 (H) CRA AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 124 BILL: HB 467 SHORT TITLE: AHFC HOUSING LOANS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACLEAN JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/11/94 2350 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S) 02/11/94 2350 (H) CRA, FINANCE 03/10/94 (H) CRA AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 124 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 94-12, SIDE A Number 000 CHAIRMAN HARLEY OLBERG called the meeting to order at 1:19 p.m. He noted for the record Representatives Toohey, Bunde, Sanders and Willis were present and noted that a quorum was present. SB 33 - GRANTS FOR LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING ANNETTE KREITZER, STAFF TO SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, SPONSOR OF CSSB 33, testified, "This legislation...began as a funding mechanism for the Departments of Environmental Conservation and Military and Veterans' Affairs to extend grants to local emergency planning committees. But as the departments reviewed their responsibilities with respect to planning, the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and the local emergency planning committees, a very different bill emerged. The committee substitute before you is the result of many months of work by the SERC task force, of input from local governments, mayors, assemblymen, emergency planners, local emergency planning committees and from the departments. This bill transfers the state emergency response commission and its responsibilities from the Department of Environmental Conservation to the Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs (DMVA). It transfers the existing Hazardous Substance Spill Technology Review Council from the SERC where it currently resides, into the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). It eliminates the annual revision requirement for the state and regional oil discharge prevention plans. The annual review is still necessary. Sections 1,2 and 3...this is part of a DMVA amendment. They were requested in December by the sponsor, to go through their statutes since this bill was already so extensive, we asked them, `go ahead and go through your statutes and see how all of this will sit in with the current planning that you do' and when they did that, they realized that there was all this reference to disaster agencies in their statutes which had never ever been created and the department feels that they never will be created, so why leave that in statute, let's get rid of it...it took five pages to do that. In section 3, in part, this is where the bill actually began before. It amends DES (Division of Emergency Services) duties to include granting authority and that's to the extent that money is available for forming Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC), for awarding federal funds to LEPCs, for developing and maintaining emergency plans, make funds available to comply with community right-to-know criteria, to award grants for training local emergency planning committees, training and equipping emergency response organizations and for executing the plans that are developed by the LEPCs. Sections 4, 10, and 11 basically say that there will be cohesion among all of the plans that are created, all the planning statutes that we have. We just say, `these all need to mesh together.' Those are technical sections but that's what they do. Section 5 adds the response corps and depots into the explicit responsibilities of DMVA. Section 6: This is a housekeeping amendment to make reference to the term `political subdivision.' Rather than a variety of other terms...and it also removed reference to disaster agencies. Section 7 clarifies that each political subdivision has the responsibility for disaster preparedness and coordination of local response and again, it removes reference to disaster agencies. Section 8: Political subdivisions, if they're unable to plan for local disaster preparedness must designate a liaison to work with the Division of Emergency Services. Section 9 clarifies that each political subdivision has to have a plan prepared and maintained, and that the plan is provided to all of the appropriate officials. That can mean LEPCs and all the other entities that are named in that plan when it's created. Sections 10, 11 and 4: Again...all related plans must mesh together, so there isn't some cog somewhere that doesn't fit with the planning that was started at a local level." Number 098 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY said, "That kind of fits right here in with this Alaska Fire Chief's Association (letter). Are you addressing their concern in this letter?" (A copy of this letter is on file.) MS. KREITZER said she would address the letter when she completed the analysis of CSSB 33 and said, "Section 12 establishes the SERC under the DMVA. It defines the SERC membership and this is different. Currently, there are seven public members on the SERC, but there isn't anything in statute which says who those seven seats are. Those seven seats are designated by the Governor currently. The reason this bill became so big and became more than what it was initially is because as our office worked with the SERC and with the political subdivisions and the LEPC's, what became apparent to us is that there was no mechanism for the LEPC's to have direct input into what the Commission was doing and no real direct line of communication for the Commission to the LEPC's or to the political subdivisions. To resolve that problem, we decided to say that there should be four LEPC seats on the SERC. And that there should be two seats representing political subdivisions on the SERC. And that there is one undesignated seat that the Governor can decide who he wants to appoint to that seat. I'll get to the Fire Chief's concern in a minute, this is where they would like to see a seat designated for fire chief's. Also in section 12, it removes the requirement for the Oil and Hazardous Substance Response Office to serve as staff for the SERC. DMVA will provide staff support. In the Senate Finance Committee, the DMVA had asked for two additional positions out of general funds. That was deleted from the fiscal note in the Senate Finance Committee. Currently, the SERC is co-chaired by the DMVA and DEC. This keeps that current requirement. The commission duties: The commission wanted to become an all hazards commission. What they wanted the ability to do was be the statewide entity overseeing all the planning that goes on in the state for all emergencies whether they involve oil and hazardous substances, earthquakes, floods, or whatever. It was the Governor's wish that they do that and they were discussed extensively and felt that they should go ahead and do that. So this bill gives them the ability to do that. They can't do that on their own, it has to be done legislatively. Much of section 12, their duties are the same as current law. One of the problems was who does the appointing for the LEPCs. When SERC was first formed and the LEPCs were first formed, there were a lot of growth pains. One of the problems that occurred were some discrepancies over who could be on the LEPC and who ought to be making that decision and those kinds of things. Well, SARA (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act) Title 3, the federal law which brought about the need for SERC and the LEPCs, very clearly states that the SERC is responsible for appointing the members to the LEPCs. That doesn't sit very well with the local governments...and the way that we have gotten around it is, and I won't say necessarily side stepping what the federal intent was, because the SERC is not a rubber stamp organization, it must evaluate and make sure that the LEPCs meet the federal criteria that they must meet for membership. But what we've said is that the SERC needs to take into very heavy consideration, the recommendations of the local political subdivisions as to who ought to be on the LEPC. And the SERC has also done its own streamlining of the process for approval of people in LEPCs. So these two things together I think will help alleviate that problem and concern about membership on the LEPCs." Number 280 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "This emergency planning group (SERC), is this going to be year round these commissioners?" MS. KREITZER asked, "The SERC already exists and it has been in existence since 1990, I believe, when it was first created by the Governor. They meet four times a year." REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "So they only are paid when they're meeting? We're not making up a whole new bureaucracy." MS. KREITZER confirmed this adding, "In Section 12 it says the same as current law, they get their per diem and travel," and continued with her presentation saying, "Section 26.27.03, Emergency Planning Districts and Committees: The commission sets the boundaries of the local emergency planning districts (LEPD). Now part of SARA, Title 3, says federal law requires that the state be divided into local emergency planning districts and for each district there is a LEPC. So when we're talking about LEPCs and LEPDs, they're one for one. There has to be a LEPC for each district that is created. The Commission will set the boundaries although we realize that there are some areas of the state because of remoteness and inability to do the planning, that they may not have a LEPC. So after a great deal of discussion on how to handle that situation, because the people who are currently out there planning now certainly want to retain their ability to plan. They've been at this for four or five years and they want to continue. But for areas of the state that currently are not planning, but may yet be able to move into a LEPC or become a LEPC, we had to create some sort of pathway for them to be able to do that. What we decided to do was, there are 18 LEPDs currently that exist, anything outside of the 13 LEPCs would become one LEPD, one district. In the future, it's expected that parts of that will organize around transportation boundaries...because certainly the sponsor believes that the planning needs to start at the local level. And the SERC appoints the members of the LEPC. When the SERC does that they have to follow the recommendations of the political subdivision for that emergency planning district. The question came up `what happens when we have more than one political subdivision?' Quite frankly, what has to happen is there has to be some cooperation, and we believe it's possible. Whoever's nominated must fit the categories which are delineated further into the bill. As we've discussed that over the year, initially there was a lot of resistance by the LEPCs. They weren't sure how their political subdivisions were going to work together, but as we talked about more and more they realized that yes, they are political subdivisions aren't immovable objects, that they're made up of people...and people can compromise and they can come to understandings, and they realized that this is a process that can work and so they were supportive of this, in the end that this can work. The committee membership: There are seven categories and I want to emphasize that this does meet SARA, Title 3 requirements; however, many of you may have heard that no state elected official in Alaska may constitutionally hold a seat on the LEPC. Senator Leman was a member of the Anchorage LEPC and had to resign his seat. So that has been changed to just say `elected local officials' and not state officials, because in Alaska we can't meet that requirement." REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS joined the committee at 1:38 p.m. Number 342 MS. KREITZER continued, "Also, the media position has been the most difficult to fill. Especially on the Kenai, this has been a really great problem for them and the rationale for the media has been they don't see how they could sit on the commission and report on the commission and on its activities. So that's why they've been reluctant to participate yet the federal government requires that there be a media seat, very specifically. So we've put a little caveat in here that says, `if you're unable to fill that seat, you must try, you must go through the motions and advertise the position and do all the things you would normally do, but if you can't fill the media seat, you can continue to operate.' That's the only way to get around that because there's a great deal of concern that it would invalidate any LEPC where they couldn't get the media to come and sit in that seat. So this takes care of that problem. It also allows for individuals who are unhappy over the membership of the LEPC to petition the SERC over the membership. It allows for the public process. Also, current law does not require public advertising of positions available on the committee. It's implied in a lot of places, but it's not required. So we just thought...we should say it is required so people know that they should advertise positions that become available. All through the current statutes and the new statutes that are created in this bill, we've tried to improve coordination and cooperation between political subdivisions, LEPCs and the SERC. So within the LEPC section there we've added `in a manner that includes coordination with the political subdivisions covered by the plan' to make sure that LEPCs are cooperating and coordinating with their local political subdivisions." REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES joined the committee at 1:40 p.m. MS. KREITZER continued, "All LEPC's do not have to become `all hazards' if they don't have the capacity to plan for all hazards. Initially, they don't have to do that. They can take that on as their resources allow. We're not trying to create little kingdoms where money has to follow. We're just saying where you have the ability to plan, then you are allowed to plan, then you're allowed to plan for all hazards if that's your desire. Also in H of that section, previously DMVA and DEC were the agencies that LEPCs could look to for technical assistance, and we just felt that since the SERC is made up of nine commissioners from nine different departments that if there was a need for technical assistance from any of those other departments that they would give that assistance. Let me go back up here to committee membership...the fire chief's concern: If you look at the membership of the LEPC." Number 394 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), have you been involved at all with them?" MS. KREITZER replied, "The only way we've been involved with FEMA is through the Division of Emergency Services (DES) who has direct access to FEMA. So we relied on their understanding of what FEMA is required to do and what funds are available through FEMA for planning..." She then proceeded with her presentation saying, "going back to the committee membership on page 9 of your bill, it starts with lines 9 through 21: Committee membership must include at a minimum representatives of the following seven categories" and read the lines she described in CSSB 33. MS. KREITZER said, "It's our contention that the firefighters will be served because they will be on the LEPCs and remembering that there are four LEPC seats that can be appointed to the SERC, we feel that any of these groups could well sit on the SERC, and we feel that the Governor will recognize that when he appoints to the SERC." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked," On that point, is it possible, however, that we have a circumstance where there would be no one directly representing the fire fighting side of the house, as this is drafted?" MS. KREITZER replied, "That's an interesting question because I can't speculate on what would happen..." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I will answer that, yes..." MS. KREITZER added, "I would just also say that of those eight categories, probably one person wears five of those hats." REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY suggested "lumping first aid, health and hospital into one." MS. KREITZER said, "The reason that this is worded the way that it is, is because this is the current wording in SARA, Title 3 and....we have to follow the punctuation which is in SARA, Title 3..." Number 452 CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Would it be fair to suggest that under circumstances a member of the fire fighting brigade from any particular municipality could probably serve as a volunteer, certainly be involved in the process. There's no intent here to shut anybody out, you're trying to adapt this to certain requirements." MS. KREITZER said, "That's correct and we're also trying to address the problems that we know exist. The fire chiefs in their letter to the committee mention that they are responding agencies and they are exactly correct. The SERC and the LEPCs are planning entities. Recognizing that you have to have responders, responders have been involved...I recognize how the planning process takes place and where responders fit...in the process," and continued further with her bill presentation saying, "Section 26.23.075, the emergency plan: This is the same as current law except that we changed the cite...on the bottom of page 10. Section 26.23.077, plan review and incident command systems. This had to be amended to reflect the change from a commission charged only with oil and hazardous substance release planning to an all hazards SERC. Also changed here, the SERC had approval authority over plans and we have changed that to commission reviews and exercises recommendation authority. That's consistent with SARA Title 3...(which) does not require approval authority. There are some other technical changes there changing DES to DMVA and assuring their role in an imminent or actual hazardous substance discharge. Section 13 removes reference to disaster agency. Section 14 substitutes `environmental' for the word `air.' Sections 15 and 16 remove reference to disaster agency. AS 26.23.900 is amended to define the SERC and hazardous substance in the DMVA statutes. Section 17: The incident command system doesn't exist under AS 46.13 anymore. Section 18: The incident command system doesn't exist under 46.13. Section 19: This is the state master plan. This deletes the requirement to annually revise the master plan. The department is required to annually revise the state master plan, but if it's not necessary to revise it. They have this hanging over their heads that they must revise it so what we've said is they should annually review it, but revise it as necessary. And again in statute it sets out what the criteria is for deciding when it should be revised...it's in Section 20...so there is already the requirement in law that sets out the criteria for when the plan ought to be revised. The commissioner can make that decision based on these unannounced oil spill drills." Number 524 CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked, "Would that mean then that the response to the unannounced drill might trigger the necessity of changing the plan. I believe that's the idea." MS. KREITZER said, "Section 21 is amended to reflect the same changes to the regional master plan as in the state master plan, revise as necessary instead of revise annually. Section 22 gives the DEC the latitude to group communities that would likely work together in responding to a discharge." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "Going back to that Section 20, subsection D, are there other methods by which you would trigger a revision?" Number 537 MIKE CONWAY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SPILL PREVENTION AND RESPONSE, DEC, "We keep in here a requirement to annually review the plan, so we would still review it annually and through that review, we would identify the nature for revisions." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "So anything that came up during the process of that review could trigger a revision, is that correct?" MR. CONWAY confirmed this. Number 545 MS. KREITZER continued, "Section 23: This is of interest to the Finance Committee in particular, because this deals with the 470 fund and others, I suppose. It adds the cost incurred under current statutes for depots and corps set up by DEC, pays the expenses incurred by the DES for these SERC activities including staff support, when those activities and staff support relate to oil and hazardous substances and for the cost of being prepared for and responding to a request by DEC for support in response and restoration activities except the cost of response corps and emergency response depots because what you have is, DEC still has the authority to set up hazardous substance and oil depots and corps and we are giving DMVA the authority, DES is to set up emergency response depots and corps. We've also tied those together and said, `we don't want you having duplication in those efforts'." Number 560 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said, "You've mentioned duplication. I can see way back when, in the old days, DMVA had this responsibility, why doesn't it just all roll into DEC?" MS. KREITZER replied, "That's not what the commissioners wanted to do and that's not what all of the comment and agreement has led to. I think the point has been, when the SERC wanted to become an all hazards commission, that the commissioners of DEC and DMVA felt that that planning ought to be done within DMVA because they do have the satellites." MR. CONWAY said, "In the context of this piece of legislation, the depots and corps are for all hazards and would deal with the whole spectrum of natural disasters and so forth. So in that context, with DMVA's role in this particular aspect, it makes sense to us and DMVA that those depots and corps, related to all hazards, be with their program management. What we have in existing statute, under Title 46 the DEC statutes, is the ability to enter into local response agreements or agreements with communities to pre-stage equipment and work with their resources that they have to respond to spills. That's the strategy that we're looking at and the spectrum of spills or incidents that DEC handles, 99 percent of them are nondisaster related spills. So we have existing authority to establish caches and so forth..." REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said, "You mentioned something about the funding from the 470 fund. How is it going to effect the 470 funding today as it is today? Is it built into the budget from DEC already? There are accounting problems today within the 470 fund. Will this add more problems to the accounting?" MS. KREITZER said, "As I understand it with the fiscal note, it is already built into the budget and they are just taking money that would have gone to DEC and it's going to go to DMVA. There are different things happening with SB 215 and HB 238, but on the Senate side we have tried to stay abreast of what's happening with the discussions about the 470 fund and feel that what is in here doesn't complicate your process or your bill or what's happening with the discussion about the 470 fund." Number 611 MR. CONWAY said, "In the context of this legislation, oil and hazardous substance response is a subset of all disasters, so the planning effort and the activities that are related...are response fund eligible. There will additional activities that DMVA will be doing and other kinds of disasters that are not. But for the response fund eligible activities, it's the same amount of funding that we have now and the fiscal note just shows a transfer of the funds. So there will not be an increase in the response fund contribution to that." REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked, "The money is coming from the 470 fund now to fund this program?" MR. CONWAY said, "That is correct. Currently, SERC and all the activities is housed in DEC, and that is totally dedicated to oil and hazardous substances in statute and that's what makes it response fund eligible..." REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said, "We're having it come from DEC who has more experience in oil and hazardous responding, going to DMVA now?" Number 638 CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Isn't the key element the fact that DEC is spills and hazardous substances primarily. DMVA is natural disasters primarily?" MR. CONWAY said, "That is correct and what we're trying to do with this legislation is, we're not trying to devalue the oil and hazardous substance program, but there are dangers posed by other hazards, particularly in this state, that other state's don't face, except for maybe California. So we're trying to elevate the level of attention going into the planning and preparedness for the other kinds of disasters and have a balance... So we would continue our existing statutory authority to deal with these 99 percent of the spills that are subdisaster, noncatastrophic kinds of spills and...continue to stay involved with that aspect. DEC has the technical expertise to deal with the spill response, but there are other aspects that came along...all sorts of things in a disaster kind of spill that DEC doesn't have the technical expertise to deal with." Number 695 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES told the committee about the recently released report on "DEC and that fund." He said, "One of the potential drawbacks of the depots and corps program, especially is their design for relatively infrequent events and you'll establish a depot and corp, the equipment will sit there for awhile and then gradually fritter away or rust or get stolen or used for other purposes...and the personnel will get bored. One of the advantages of combining these two potentially different depots and corps programs into one program is that the program would be exercised more often and the people who are involved and are being trained to respond to oil and hazardous substance responses would get some training...in responding to other hazards, other situations. Therefore when the oil spill situation arises, they would be more ready to respond to that situation..." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Aren't we looking at National Guard Armories, for example, and other facilities throughout the state as a home for these emergency response depots and corps?" MS. KREITZER responded to Representative Davies saying, "Absolutely correct...because that's the way the bill is crafted. When we talk about saying that there won't be duplication, that doesn't say there won't be communication or coordination. The way this whole bill is set up is to do that, is to effect that. The emergency response corps and depots currently exist in DMVA. We wanted to be very explicit about what they ought to contain. That's why they're delineated in this, so it's not a transfer of emergency response corps and depots. Senator Leman shares the concern about not wanting to put depots and corps out there, depots where you're going to have equipment rusting. We have a concern about people maintaining their level of interest. Although the people we've worked with over this past year...see this as the beginning of being able to move forward in real a substantive way, to really accomplish what all the legislation intended after the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill." TAPE 94-12, SIDE B Number 000 ERVIN PAUL MARTIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES, DMVA, said, "The DES comes in when the Governor declares a disaster, the President declares a federal disaster and we coordinate all the state assets. So we still have the responsibility by law to coordinate those depots to provide for human life and welfare, but we certainly would not want to be an ambulance chaser and take away the responsibilities of the first responder departments." MS. KREITZER proceeded with her presentation on CSSB 33 saying, "Section 24 of the bill is amended to talk about DEC's authority to enter into contractual agreements to establish depots and corps. This just takes out the language about providing personnel, equipment or other services or supplies necessary to establish regional oil and hazardous substance depots and is necessary for response readiness, train members of response corps. That language is already found in AS 46.04.090 and AS 46.09.040. So it's removed here. Section 25: As I've said, we've done several things in here to try to enhance cooperation and coordination. In Section 25, this is one of those... Section 26: This refers to the Hazardous Substance Spill Technology Review Council and puts it into the DEC rather than transferring with the SERC to DMVA because, those things having to do with oil and hazardous substance planning, are better in DEC...actually that's sections 26 and 27. Section 28: This is a repealer section. In the sectional analysis there is a delineation of what each one of those repealers means. Much of it has to do with removing disaster agencies and changing the SERC from DEC to DMVA. Section 29: Just makes reference to the transition between those departments and what happens when the bill goes into effect." Number 090 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "Under transition, the problem of now transmogrifying the regulations to match the new statutes, is there an effort underway to make that happen expeditiously?" MS. KREITZER said, "The interesting situation here is there are...minimal regulations, as I understand it, but not much so there's not really difficulty in doing that." MR. CONWAY said, "Currently, the SERC has a series of policy documents, since there's been such a transition and change and we've been advised by the AG's office that at some point these policy documents need to be put into regulations...transition wise, I don't think that's a snag." JIM STUDLEY, VICE CHAIR, LEPC ASSOCIATION, HAINES, testified via teleconference in support of CSSB 33. He said, "There's been an inordinate amount of work done... The state in its entirety has worked on this single piece of legislation to bring it to you for approval and we wholeheartedly support this. We believe that this legislation will make the job of emergency response much easier for us," and "Is there a way or a mechanism to get the money to the local emergency responders? Those are the people who need the money. Budgets have been presented by the LEPC membership and because of budget restraints we've been turned down and asked to make do with less. The question is how long do you want the process to go on. These people are firemen, police officers, they're professional planners, volunteers, political entities that work very hard on these budgets and these plans to make them work, and if the state comes along and says, `I'm sorry, you're only going to have $400,000 even though a year and half ago we had $1.2 million dollars to our budget..." Number 219 ROCKY ANSELL, COPPER RIVER LEPC, GLENNALLEN, testified briefly via teleconference in support of CSSB 33. KEN ROBERSTON, COPPER RIVER LEPC, GLENNALLEN, testified briefly via teleconference in support of CSSB 33. DR. ERNIE MELOCHE, CHAIRMAN OF GREATER KETCHIKAN AREA LEPC AND CHAIR, STATEWIDE LEPC ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference from Sitka in strong support of CSSB 33 saying, "The LEPC Association was formed and does represent all LEPCs in the state and as such...when all of the LEPC and all of the planners within the LEPCs throughout the state agree on a particular issue, somebody ought to be listening, particularly the House of Representatives and the Senate and the Governor," He added, "I think that the Senate did make a slight mistake. They eliminated two additional transient planning positions that were on the bill. Without those planners, it's very difficult to get the expertise required for formal planning to some of the smaller communities..." Number 330 STEVEN O'CONNOR, ASSISTANT CHIEF, CENTRAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, SOLDOTNA AND VICE CHAIR, KENAI PENINSULA LEPC, testified via teleconference in support of CSSB 33. He said, "We support it as it's presented. We do consider funding for LEPCs at the local level an important component for this..." VERNON KUGZRUK, NOME, testified via teleconference in support of CSSB 33 and proposed numerous technical amendments. Number 410 BILL SHECHTER, ALASKA FIRE CHIEF'S ASSOCIATION, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference in support of CSSB 33. He said, "We know from history that the first people at the scene is going to be the fire service...and I think it (our concern) could be alleviated by possibly including the requirement that possibly one of the other LEPC members appointment be done in coordination with the president of the Fire Chief's Association. That way you will get a uniform voice. I would suggest that that wording be included..." REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Shechter for "some specific language that he would like to see added to the bill." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "The intent of the Chair is to move this bill with intent language referencing the fire department aspect" and announced that HB 467 would be deferred until a later committee meeting. STEVE PORTER, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in support of CSSB 33, but added, "By taking the responsibility of approval away from the SERCs, what you do is...the authority no longer resides anywhere. The key here is that somebody has to be responsible for making sure that the unified plan, the subregional plans and all the LEPC plans make sense and work together. I do understand that the SERC is in support of the present language. ...(My opinion) is contrary to SERCs recommendation, but it sends the wrong message. I think the message here is that somebody needs to be responsible for coordinating all these plans." MR. MARTIN said, "This issue came up before the SERC last week on the approval of the commission. Under state law, the DES must ensure compliance with federal criteria already for the federal emergency management agency in the national response planning for spills and releases. When the commission sets up the recommendation for approval, then they have taken away the responsibility of local government through the mayor and the assemblies, who by law who have already assumed responsibility. Compliance criteria is already established by the federal government. We ensure compliance with the federal criteria." MR. PORTER said, "I don't think we're concerned about self- determination here... I don't want to take the responsibilities of the cities away for self-determination. I want to make sure, if we had a major emergency, the cities' plan and the area plan and the unified plan, they're all complete but the only key issue I'm concerned about. I think that responsibility ought to be lodged someplace..." MS. KREITZER responded, "Mr. Porter and I have had many conversations about this issue. It's a difference in philosophy. Political subdivisions have indicated to us that they see this as a problem, especially when it comes to liability because, at the local level they must follow a public process to get their plans approved and then the plans go up through the process and are presented to the SERC and their concern is, if the emergency response commission turns around and says `no, we don't like your plan, you must change this.' They're very concerned about then what happens at the local level and who takes responsibility for that action and they don't like it. They find that to be an imposition of the state on the local ability to plan. Throughout the bill we have directed DEC and DMVA...to coordinate their efforts, to coordinate all the planning. And we believe that it will work this way..." Number 561 BOB STEWART, EMERGENCY MANAGER, CITY OF ANCHORAGE, testified via teleconference in support on CSSB 33. He said, "From an overall perspective, we need to support and we need to fund this emergency planning legislation. What we're looking forward to from a local government standpoint is the consolidation of emergency planning responsibility of DES. What this will do for us is, it will consolidate the fiscal management of the emergency planning functions in the DES and still allow the DEC to in fact, regulate from their perspective the smallest spills. What I also urge you to do...resist the temptations to make additional changes though these changes may be good intentioned. But I'm afraid if we try to make too many changes we may in fact end up stalling and not passing the bill this particular session and I believe it needs to go through..." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE ask that there be a presentation on the fiscal notes. Number 600 MR. MARTIN said, "Under the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986 on hazardous substance, the DEC established staff support to the commission. They had six people that provided full-time support to the commission. When the state commission went to all hazards, there are restrictions upon 470 funds for spill and release substances. They transferred three of those staff, in this bill, over to DMVA. They still retain responsibility for the community right-to-know provisions of SARA, Title 3 even though DEC had six people previously, and even though the commission has broadened its perspective of responsibility, DMVA required at least five people to execute the statutory responsibilities, but it went beyond spill and release funds. It's the other hazards, like earthquakes, volcanos, floods and fires, and we were directed to request supplemental funds and at the time, only general funds were available. And of course, I did not articulate sufficiently before the Senate, to defend those funds. I understand that there are no general funds available; however, I would raise for consideration that if the Division of Forestry in DNR can access fire suppression funds for personnel and operations and DEC can access spill funds for personnel and operations, I would request that the DES be authorized access to a disaster relief fund for the additional two positions. What I have here is a single paged explanation of what the five positions do. I also have for the committee, a five year plan of implementation. The commission has been in existence for five years, not a single plan has been approved by the commission. What we are attempting to do is assist local government in the actual development and promulgation of their plans. At the end of the five year period, those two planning positions, who provide continuity for the commission, the commission subcommittees, the LEPCs and local government responders, we would eliminate the state planners. Because once a plan is created, it's much more cost effective and cheaper to maintain it than it is to develop it. So, we requested five people to do the job. Certainly General Cox, the commissioner for the DMVA is concerned about adequately performing the statutory functions associated with the bill and we feel that we need a minimum of five people to do the job." (A copy of all documents he referred to may be found in the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee Room, Capitol Room 126, and after the adjournment of the second session of the 18th Alaska State Legislature, in the Legislative Reference Library.) Number 660 CHAIRMAN OLBERG suggested that the House Finance Committee "wrestle with this," and said, "It would be my recommendation that we pass this bill on to Finance with an attached letter of intent regarding the concerns of the Fire Chiefs..." REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "If we're going to put in a fire chief chair, then why aren't we putting in a police chief chair, a head nurse's chair. I just think that to be nit picky and to put a fire chief's chair in there is narrowing it..." MS. KREITZER reminded the committee, "When CSSB 33 passed out of the Senate Finance Committee it was passed out with a fiscal note which removed $111,800 in general funds so that this would be a straight transfer of $646.7 from DEC to DMVA." CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "This is a fiscal note prepared by Senate Finance." MS. KREITZER confirmed this. Number 669 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY reiterated her concern saying, "In all fairness, if we're going to have a seat that's dedicated to the fire chiefs then we should have a seat dedicated to head nurses, administrators of hospitals. I think that's just complicating it and I would like to see it kept simple and the way it is. I think it's up to the local community..." MS. KREITZER said, "I hear what you're saying. What I would like is some latitude from the committee. I want to make a point, on page 9, lines 9 through 20 (of CSSB 33) which talks about the membership of the LEPC. I also want you to note on line 9, `Except as provided each committee must provide at a minimum representatives of each of the following seven categories'." TAPE 93-13, SIDE A Number 000 MS. KREITZER continued, "I would like the latitude to discuss this with the LEPC statewide association and with the Fire Chief's Association directly. And if it appears that they really believe that they need to have a fire chief's seat, then we would make that amendment in House Finance." CHAIRMAN OLBERG pointed out, "There's no reason why the LEPC can't have 27 members in theory, is that correct?" MS. KREITZER confirmed this and said, "But the SERC will not have 27 members and that is where they are seeking a seat... What I wanted to get across is that, at the local level they could have fire captains, they could have a fire lieutenants..." Number 050 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY withdrew her opposition to Chairman Olberg's letter of intent. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE moved that CSSB 33 be moved out of committee with individual recommendations with the attached fiscal note and a committee letter of intent regarding the "fireman's seat" on the SERC. There were no objections. CHAIRMAN OLBERG adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m. BILL NOT HEARD HB 467: "An Act relating to housing programs of the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation and of regional housing authorities, and permitting regional housing authorities to make, originate, and service loans for the purchase and development of residential housing in the state's small communities."