Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
04/01/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s): Board of Game | |
| HB195 | |
| HB144 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 195-PESTICIDES AND BROADCAST CHEMICALS
1:26:59 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the next order of business is
HOUSE BILL NO. 195, "An Act relating to the regulation and use
of pesticides and broadcast chemicals."
1:27:11 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:27 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.
1:29:53 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE, prime sponsor of HB 195, presented the bill. He
commented that the short title should read eliminating
unnecessary regulation and saving the State of Alaska money.
The State of Alaska has pages and pages of regulations related
to pesticides and broadcast chemicals. These regulations assure
that individuals, businesses, government agencies safely handle
and apply these products. As of March 31, 2011, Alaska has
6,342 products registered under these regulations ranging from
Lysol brand disinfectant products to fumigants with a skull and
crossbones and word "DANGER" on the label. All of the products
have the following in common: they are approved by the federal
government and the State of Alaska for use in Alaska and have
been tested under rigorous federal environmental protection
standards. It is legal for citizens to purchase these products
and use them according to instructions.
1:31:16 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE pointed out that individuals use the majority of
the products. He explained that a different set of rules
applies if someone wants to use these products on someone else's
property on state land or uses state funds.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE related that commercial applicators are trained,
tested, and certified by the State of Alaska before they can use
pesticides. These certified applicators apply many of the same
products available to the general public at retail stores, but
must be more knowledgeable than the average consumer before they
can use the product. These rules require the applicator to
understand the information on the label, the formulation of the
pesticide, hazards of using different products, the proper
personal protective equipment, transportation, proper
application and storage, security of the products and other
items listed on the table of contents of the National Pesticide
Applicator Certification Core Manual. This manual, over 200
pages in length represents only a portion of the rules. A
person must obtain an additional certification to apply the
product under specific circumstances such as right-of-way
maintenance.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE offered his belief that this bill, HB 195, is not
about risks that may be associated with applications of
pesticides and broadcast chemicals. It is about placing
unnecessary restrictions upon public agencies
CO-CHAIR FEIGE further related that the State of Alaska requires
agencies to obtain a permit from the Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) before they apply pesticides and broadcast
chemicals on public land, or where public funds are used. The
DEC permit requires collection of unnecessary information,
delays application of the product, increases costs to the state
and other government agencies, and does not increase safety
related to product application. This permit is not required for
application on private property by a commercial applicator. The
Alaska Statute allows the DEC to create regulations that are
specific to application of pesticides and broadcast chemicals on
public land or with public funds. However, DEC created this
permit procedure that is not risk-based and creates an
unnecessary burden to itself and other state agencies.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE explained that HB 195 would repeals the authority
of the DEC to regulate application of pesticides and broadcast
chemicals on public land or with public funds in a different
manner than it requires of commercial applicators working on
private property.
1:33:31 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE related that public agencies will still be
required to follow proper safety and licensing requirements and
all other regulations for the application of pesticides or
broadcast chemicals. He indicated the Alaska Railroad
Corporation (ARRC) represents an impediment to the efficient
application of pesticides in a timely manner and a significant,
unnecessary, and costly process.
1:34:06 PM
CO-CHARI FEIGE referred to a zero fiscal note from the
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF). This
agency spends about $5 million annually to cut vegetation
alongside Alaska's highways. Due to delays in acquiring
permits, the DOT&PF has been reduced to using mechanical means
to address vegetation control. He recalled the Alaska Moose
Federation testified before the legislature that cutting
vegetation along roadways is the key to reducing moose/car
collisions. He agreed that has been his experience in his
district.
1:34:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ related that she is an avid berry picker
and picks along road corridors. She asked how the DOT&PF would
inform the public if it broadly applies chemicals.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE offered his belief that it would be used in a
fairly limited way. He was unsure that the pesticides
themselves would be harmful. He deferred to the DOT&PF.
1:36:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification on whether pesticides
are also herbicides.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE answered yes.
1:36:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to the source for the
"Questions and Answers about Pesticides" in members' packets.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE agreed to provide the information.
1:36:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked for specific examples of instances
in which DOT&PF has been prevented from using chemicals or when
DEC has not been timely in permitting.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE deferred to the ARRC. He pointed out that DOT&PF
does not use the permitting process since it is too time-
consuming and use mechanical methods instead.
1:37:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked how often the permits must be
issued and if new ones must be issued each year.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE answered that the current regulations that this
bill would repeal stipulates approximately a 60-day comment
period for each permit application. He clarified that the
requirements are extra requirements placed on public entities
that are not required of commercial operators or private
individuals who spray more chemicals than anyone else. In
response to a question, he answered that the bill changes
statutes not regulations.
1:39:35 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that current statute
requires agencies to submit an application for pesticide use on
public lands, but permits are not required on private lands. He
was not certain how that applied to Southeast Alaska. He
recalled that herbicides or pesticide applications could drift
over streams. He anticipated the agencies would address a
number of issues that arise with respect to spraying chemicals.
1:40:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER has found that when the state "fixes" a
problem it often does not address the root issue. She referred
to the sponsor statement, which read, "The DEC permit requires
collection of unnecessary information, delays application of the
product, increases costs..." She inquired as to whether it
would make sense to fix how the permitting is done rather than
to remove the permitting requirement.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE responded that the permit under discussion is
only applicable to public agencies. The regulations with
respect to the pesticide application would still apply to the
public entities as well as the commercial entities. In further
response to Representative Gardner, he referred to the DEC and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations.
1:41:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked what the specific unnecessary
pieces of information that causes delays in permitting.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE related his understanding the biggest problem has
been that public agencies must go through an extended period of
public comment and public review, which is costly and time
consuming, as well as unnecessary.
1:42:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired as to whether this was
requested by the department.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE answered that the idea for the bill came up as a
result of overview briefings by the DEC.
1:43:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for clarification on whether
public agencies do not have to get permits, or if permits are
not required when application of chemicals occurs on public
lands.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE answered that HB 195 would repeal that section of
statute which requires state agencies such as the ARRC and
DOT&PF to acquire permits on state land when applying pesticides
and broadcast chemicals to manage vegetation. The restriction
would be removed and the agencies would be treated like any
other commercial applicator.
1:44:19 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to whether the current regulations
allow private applicators to apply chemicals on state lands and
waters but the agencies cannot or that anyone applying
herbicides or pesticides on state lands must have a state
permit.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE indicated that these restrictions do not extend
to private individuals. In further response to Co-Chair Seaton,
he answered that he was unsure of any reason that a private
person would apply pesticides and broadcast chemicals on state
lands.
1:45:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ understood that HB 195 would take away the
department's requirement for permitting for this type of
application. She inquired as to whether the departments can
currently apply for permits.
1:45:39 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE agreed that the current statutes require a
permitting process to apply pesticides or herbicides. This bill
repeals that requirement. The SOA would be treated as any
commercial applicator. In further response to Representative
Munoz, he agreed that a private operator does not need a permit.
He was unsure of instances in which a commercial operator would
spray along the road right-of-way.
CO-CHAIR SEATON suggested the state DOT&PF and DEC would be able
to answer that question.
1:46:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to the policy history of allowing
widespread use of chemicals along the public right-of-way
roadways. She offered her view that would open up a very
controversial topic.
CO-CHAIR SEATON agreed the topic would create debate since
chemicals such as Rotenone, which is a biological chemical used
to kill fish.
1:48:40 PM
KRISTEN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), introduced her
division as the one responsible for the Pesticide Control
Program in Alaska, and corresponding regulations, 18 AAC 90.
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked Ms. Ryan to respond to previous questions.
MS. RYAN responded that currently the DEC requires a permit for
the application of any pesticide to state land. This
requirement tends to affect the ARRC and the DOT&PF.
Additionally, a permit would also be required if someone is
applying pesticides to water or by air.
1:50:02 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding the permit
requirements for state water or land would apply to anyone,
including private individuals or a public agency.
MS. RYAN answered yes.
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding permitting would be
required on private lands if an individual was applying by
helicopter or other means.
MS. RYAN added also on water.
CO-CHAIR SEATON reiterated that anyone, including commercial
operators, applying pesticides by air to land or water would
need a permit.
MS. RYAN answered yes.
1:50:52 PM
MS. RYAN provided an example, noting that the Alaska Department
of Fish and Game (ADF&G) has obtained several permits to apply
Rotenone to lakes to kill invasive species, such as pike. The
ADF&G must obtain a permit because they are a state agency but
also because they are applying the chemical to water.
1:51:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI related that the sponsor statement
indicates that the permit requires a lot of unnecessary
information that could delay the application.
1:51:46 PM
MS. RYAN offered her belief that the timeframe varies
significantly, but the more difficult ones can take time. She
stated that the DEC was successful in issuing a permit to the
railroad last year and that took over one year to process. She
recalled that issuing ADF&G a permit for Rotenone application
does not take as long since the agency has frequent applications
for the same type of permit. She did not agree the information
requires unnecessary information but the permit process raises a
lot of questions that may be unnecessary, but the department
must respond because the issues have been raised. The DEC
relies heavily on the EPA to evaluate product safety. The EPA
has the research and expertise and has performed extensive
research and evaluations prior to pesticide sales. The DEC does
not have staff toxicologists and relies on EPA's toxicologists
to evaluate chemicals. She said that the EPA's evaluation is
adequate to ensure the product's safety.
1:53:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether she was indicating the
permit was not necessary.
MS. RYAN related that the DEC has several regulatory tools
available. A permit should be used in those instances which the
DEC believes represents the highest risk, thus, permits are the
DEC's strongest tool to protect the environment. She related
that decisions for permitting should be based on risk. Land
ownership does not fall under the category of risk factors.
Risk factors such as pervasiveness in the environment or ability
to bioaccumulate in animals mean chemicals could potentially
move beyond the target area. Thus, those factors are ones the
DEC uses to determine when to place restrictions on chemicals
through the registration process. She noted that EPA has
determined some chemicals persist longer in Alaska's colder
environment than it has found in warmer climates. When products
are registered in Alaska, the DEC places additional restrictions
on the chemical use. She clarified that the additional
restrictions affects everyone's use of those chemical products,
not just someone obtaining a permit. She offered her belief
that the best method to restrict pesticides is through
registration since it impacts all uses.
1:55:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI related the sponsor statement indicates
the bill would repeal the DEC's ability to regulate application.
He asked for comments.
MS. RYAN answered that the DEC has not taken any position
against the bill. She offered her belief that the way the bill
has been drafted the DEC would still have adequate authority to
require permits for higher risk applications such as those done
on water or air. The DEC does not view HB 195 as preventing it
from issuing permits on higher risk applications so it would
continue to do so.
1:55:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked for further clarification. He
related a scenario in which he is on public land, flies in to
lake property, with a cabin 200 feet setback from a lake. He
would like to apply an herbicide to make lake access easier. He
inquired as to whether he would need a permit.
1:56:31 PM
MS. RYAN offered her belief that it would be a violation to
apply pesticide to state land without the landowner's
permission. She pointed out that private citizens cannot apply
pesticides without permission by regulation.
MS. RYAN elaborated. She related a scenario that occurred in
Kenai in which a person applied a product to kill algae on a
private lake with several homeowners. The person was found to
be in violation since the person failed to obtain a permit.
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI thought that may be different under the
bill.
1:58:02 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON recalled past debates about pesticides being
applied around schools. He inquired as to whether this bill
would remove the necessity for a permit and if the individual
school district would be responsible for applying pesticides
when it determined the necessity to do so.
MS. RYAN answered this bill would not affect schools since
schools do not currently need permits. The regulations are
specific to state property and schools are city property.
However, the DEC's regulations apply to schools because the
students are viewed as a more vulnerable population. The DEC
requires schools to have an Integrated Pest Management Plan
(IPM), which all pesticide users should have in place that
evaluates alternatives. She indicated that schools utilize the
IPMs to plug cracks to prevent rodent entry or use bait stations
to prevent student exposure to chemicals. She clarified that
the DEC does not issue permits.
1:59:41 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to whether roadside areas, roadside
pullouts and shoulders would be affected by the bill.
MS. RYAN answered that the bill eliminates some vague statutory
authorities which have been confusing. She offered her belief
that the DEC has interpreted statutes to mean that permits are
required for applications on state land, and the DEC interprets
state land to mean DOT&PF rights-of-way, ARRC rights-of-way, the
DNR Plant Materials Center in the Matanuska-Susitna Valley. She
indicated those as three entities required to obtain permits.
2:00:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ asked whether the permitting process
requires any public notice of pesticide or herbicide
application.
MS. RYAN responded that it does. She indicated that it requires
a substantial public process, which accounts for some of the
permit application delay. She recalled that regulations were
adopted after legislation passed several years ago that requires
public notice of pesticide applications in public areas. For
example, if the spraying occurs on a community soccer field, a
public notice would be required to be posted up to 24 hours
after spraying, indicating that the area has been sprayed with
pesticides. That requirement would still exist if HB 195 were
to pass. She stated the key is that the statute defines public
area. She reiterated that in locations in which the public
accesses an area, a statutory mandate currently exists that the
public be notified prior to pesticide application. However, the
statutory requirement for noticing would not apply on private
land.
2:01:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to what notice requirements
exist in rights-of-way areas where there is historical use of
berry picking.
MS. RYAN offered to review the language and consult with an
attorney, but she said she thought that it read, "areas
frequented by the public." She offered her belief that it could
be interpreted to mean areas that the public commonly uses. She
suggested the language is a little vague and could be clarified
in statute.
2:02:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ referred to the DOT&PF analysis in the
fiscal note which implies that DOT&PF would use a lot more
pesticide along roadways if this bill were to pass. She asked
if the perceived onerous permitting process deters DOT&PF from
applying for permits.
MS. RYAN answered that the DOT&PF was successful in 1988 in
receiving a permit but not since then.
2:03:18 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to whether conditions in the permit
made it onerous or if it was the length of time for the public
process and "agitation" that deterred the department from
applying for permits.
MS. RYAN indicated that it was the latter option.
2:03:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that the
discussion pertains only to state land and not to water or air
applications.
MS. RYAN nodded yes.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON reiterated that the bill would pertain
to state land and state agencies.
MS. RYAN answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to whether fees and costs
are associated with the permits.
MS. RYAN related that the agencies could provide their
perspective. She indicated that it has cost the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) $70,000 to justify its actions.
She related that the department has not completed the
adjudication process yet but are nine months into the process.
2:04:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON recalled earlier testimony that the
ARRC received a permit in 1988 and asked how long it took to
obtain that specific permit.
MS. RYAN said she did not know.
2:05:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON surmised it must have been "awful"
since the ARRC has not applied for a subsequent permit.
MS. RYAN agreed.
2:05:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated the ARRC must remove vegetation
for safety issues, such as fire control. She offered that other
means of vegetation control exist such as cutting, which has to
be done repeatedly throughout the season.
2:05:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said she did not understand why a
permit must be applied for every two years since the permit
purpose is for the same purpose.
2:06:35 PM
MS. RYAN stated the ARRC would need to go through the entire
process again. The current permits are for two years but a
regulation change has expanded permits to five-year permits,
although none have yet been issued under the new regulation.
The department must initiate the process by making an
application again, the process must start again, and DEC must
justify it all over again. She offered her belief that some
ground would be gained but it doesn't seem so. The DEC has been
"fighting" the same challenges as during the original permit.
2:07:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to whether this creates
extra work for the departments.
MS. RYAN offered her professional opinion that the permits do
not add value to protecting the environment and human health,
which are the department's overall objective.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON related her understanding that the
permitting process does not add public protection but creates
work for the department and for the ARRC or other state
agencies.
MS. RYAN reiterated her view that based on land ownership the
process does not add value to protecting the environment and
human health. She stated that the permits should be based on
risk, and risk should be determined on application method and
product use not land ownership, which is not a risk factor.
2:08:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON understood that DEC would rather permit
the pesticide than to require state agencies to hold a permit.
MS. RYAN answered yes. She explained the registration process
would be a better method to ensure that pesticides are safely
used. She suggested an even better tool for protecting the
public would be to use certified applicators since certified
applicators adhere to rigorous standards for certification and
re-certification. She reiterated that certification and
registration process for products are the strongest tools the
DEC has to ensure that these products are used in a safer
manner.
2:10:20 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE directed attention to the bill. This bill would
makes three changes to existing statute. He explained that
Sections 1 and 2 would conform the statutory citations in two
sections by deleting a paragraph in proposed Section 3 of the
bill. He referred to proposed Section 3, on page 3, line 8,
which deletes AS 46.03.320(a)(2), which removes the DEC permit
authority. Section 4 would clarify the definition of a public
place in AS 46.03.320(c) on lines 22-23. Section 6 is part of
the "real meat of the bill." He referred to page 4, line 11,
which repeals the public pesticide program under AS 46.03.330.
The program regulates the distribution, application, or use of
pesticides and broadcast chemicals in any state project or
program or by a public agency under the jurisdiction of the
state.
2:12:53 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON suggested the statutes could be copied for
members.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE referred to the second element that seems to
cause a lot of problems for the agency is the requirement for
public notice. He said it requires the department to conduct a
public hearing if a hearing is requested by the governing body
of an effected borough or city or by a petition signed by at
least fifty residents. He reiterated this provision sets out
the process to hold a public hearing.
2:13:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER referred to Section 4, of HB 195 to the
definition of "public place." She inquired as to whether the
portion of government office or facility that is accessible to
the general public does not suggest blueberries alongside a
road, but rather implies a public building. She offered her
belief that the public's awareness of spraying chemicals that
may impact blueberries is still out there. She then referred to
Section 3 that removes a paragraph in Section 2, does not seem
to only apply to land. This provision being removed would
regulate and supervise the distribution, application, or use of
pesticides and broadcast chemicals in any state project or
program or by a public agency under the jurisdiction of the
state.
2:15:06 PM
MS. RYAN agreed. She explained that when the statute being
amended in Section 4 was drafted several years ago, the intent
was to notify the public in plazas and parks. A right-of-way
would be a new interpretation of that and the DEC would look to
the legislature for guidance on whether the provision should be
expanded. With respect to the second question, there is nothing
in the statute that requires the DEC to permit aerial or water
applications. Removing this provision would not change the
permitting. Instead, she referred to page 3, line 12 of HB 195,
to paragraph 3, which read "regulate or prohibit the use of
pesticides and broadcast chemicals for sale or distribution."
She said this language gives the department broad and flexible
authority to regulate. She reiterated that the DEC has used
this authority to require permits for aerial and water
application.
2:16:47 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that the bill would
remove permits required for state land. He asked whether the
committee would need to insert language to clarify that the DEC
would require a permit for aerial or water application.
MS. RYAN said she did not believe additional language would need
to be added, but it is the committee's decision whether to give
DEC a stronger mandate. She related that the DEC currently uses
existing statutes to require permitting and the interpretation
of those statutes would not change. She reiterated that if HB
195 passed or did not pass the DEC would continue to permit
water and aerial application. The bill would eliminate
references to pesticide application on public land or using
funding by public agencies. She commented that the DEC has had
difficulty interpreting those provisions.
2:18:14 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON inquired as to whether it would be easier to
pass the bill if the bill specifically stated that land and
water does require a permit.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE clarified that permits are currently required for
aerial and water application, even if the application were done
by a public agency.
MS. RYAN affirmed the permits are required for aerial and water
application.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE offered his belief that the committee does not
need to add any additional language.
CO-CHAIR SEATON said that although the agency uses the language
on its own volition, with passage of HB 195, nothing in the
statute would specifically outline the requirement permit for
water or broadcast chemicals. He speculated public testimony
would be substantial if the bill language does not clearly
specify that permits would still be required for aerial and
water applications. He understood the DEC would still have the
authority to do so. He deferred to the sponsor.
2:20:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked for the parties' name in the
lawsuit that challenged the permitting process that took over a
year.
MS. RYAN answered that the Alaska Community Action on Toxics,
working with Trustees for Alaska, and a newer organization out
of Talkeetna, the Alaska Wilderness Survival.
2:21:34 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked for clarification if this bill passed that
nothing removing the requirement for a permit would
automatically stop an existing lawsuit.
MS. RYAN deferred to the Department of Law.
2:22:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON referenced a handout in members'
packets "DOC body page" and asked which provisions would be
deleted by the bill.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE answered that Article 5, which encompasses AS
46.03.320 and 46.03.330. In further response to Representative
P. Wilson, he referred to page 3, line 8 of HB 195, which
removes the language.
2:23:59 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:23 p.m. to 2:27 p.m.
2:27:14 PM
TOM BROOKS, Vice President, Engineering and Chief Engineer,
Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC), stated the ARRC believes
this bill would remove impediments to the beneficial use of
herbicides on the Alaska Railroad. He referred members to
information in members' packets from the ARRC on vegetation
control programs. He offered to briefly address why the ARRC
needs to use herbicides on the Alaska Railroad. The two most
compelling reasons are the need for track inspectors to visually
inspect the track. Vegetation impairs the visual inspection of
fasteners between the rail and ties and the ties themselves to
ensure integrity of the track.
2:28:45 PM
MR. BROOKS related another reason pertains to the area near the
tracks. Inspectors inspect the trains at stops or in the
railroad yards. Keeping the area free of vegetation provides
the best footing for employees conducting the inspections. The
federal regulator also sends track safety inspectors to inspect
the Alaska Railroad. The federal inspectors have remarked for a
number of years on the increased vegetation on the Alaska
Railroad and more recently have indicated the vegetation has not
been acceptably controlled. He referred members to a letter on
the DOT&PF website. He summarized the letter as suggesting that
"we better get our act together." The ARRC has taken this
letter very seriously.
2:30:02 PM
MR. BROOKS stated that in 2009, the ARRC applied for a permit to
apply a limited application of a product typically known as
"Roundup." He clarified that the ARRC has wanted to use the
product in Seward and in the track between Seward and Indian
near Anchorage. He referred to photographs that demonstrate the
"before" and "after" application. He explained that the
herbicide has been applied on eight-foot wide swaths, which is
approximately the length of the ties. The photographs indicate
the effectiveness.
2:31:27 PM
MR. BROOKS related that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) subsequently sent inspectors in 2009, and found over 700
locations in which the vegetation was found to be unacceptable.
The inspectors issued violations on about 100 of the locations
and have threatened fines for up to $16,000 per violation. The
ARRC has been concerned because of the need to have railroads as
well as the financial implications. The ARRC would like to move
forward with herbicides to supplement its vegetation control
program.
2:31:51 PM
MR. BROOKS indicated that while DEC has been "great to work
with" that the overall process with DEC has been difficult. He
offered his belief that the department has been working to
produce a defensible permit due to anticipated opposition and
potential litigation. The ARRC successfully received a permit
last April but were immediately taken through the DEC
adjudication process over whether a stay should be granted
during the appeal. The ARRC prevailed at the DEC level, and in
Superior Court and Alaska Supreme Court. The ARRC was able to
apply herbicides in July 2010 in those limited areas between
Seward and Indian. However, the ARRC remains in the
adjudication process and anticipates it will be back in court
over the original permit. In the meantime the ARRC has applied
for two additional permits to address vegetation in the
Anchorage, Healy, and Fairbanks railroad yards.
2:33:39 PM
MR. BROOKS referred members' to materials in their packets that
outline costs to date, which have been $334,000 for the initial
permit and legal and internal costs continue to accrue as the
process evolves, he said.
2:34:00 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked whether the ARRC would proceed directly to
court in litigation if it did not have to defend a permit.
MR. BROOKS offered that a privately held railroad in Alaska can
go to Wal-Mart and buy pesticide and apply it without a permit.
The private railroad could be held for damage for misapplication
of the herbicide, for example, if the pesticide migrated outside
the area it was applied.
2:35:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER recalled specific areas the ARRC has
applied to use herbicides. She inquired as to whether
herbicides would be the first choice to control vegetation in
the event the Alaska Railroad did not need to secure a permit.
MR. BROOKS answered that he would expect to see the ARRC use the
herbicides much more widely. He offered his belief that the use
of herbicide provides an important tool and would be used where
needed but as conservatively as possible.
2:36:19 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON referred to a handout previously mentioned
labeled, "Questions and Answers" page which is located on the
following website:
http://www.grounds-
mag.com/mag/grounds_maintenance_questions_answers_pesticides/.
2:37:51 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony on HB 195 and indicated
his intent to leave public testimony open.
2:38:35 PM
JENNIFER CURRIE, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental
Section, Department of Law, introduced herself.
2:39:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to whether this bill would
eliminate the need for permits to apply pesticide on state land.
She inquired as to whether cities and boroughs are required to
comply.
MS. CURRIE answered that the statute does not require anyone to
obtain a permit. As previously mentioned, Article 5, AS
46.03.320 (a)(2), requires people who use herbicides or
broadcast chemicals to do so with the authorization of the DEC.
Thus, eliminating provision two that discusses state land would
not actually eliminate the current regulatory requirement for a
permit as outlined in AS 46.03.320(a)(3), which reads: "regulate
or prohibit the use of pesticides and broadcast chemicals." In
order to eliminate the need for a permit on state land the DEC
would rely on legislative history and intent.
CO-CHAIR SEATON suggested the sponsor may wish to consider this.
2:41:00 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON recalled that Ms. Ryan previously testified that
the DEC relies on the EPA to have chemicals certified,
permitted, and for certified applicators. He inquired as to
whether all state agencies currently only use certified
applicators. He explained that the problem of having employees
who may or may not know the full implications of applying
chemicals could be avoided by requiring certified applicators.
He suggested that may bypass the need for permitting but still
ensure controls. He inquired as to whether the DEC has the
ability to require certification of state employees.
2:42:45 PM
MS. RYAN explained that the current regulations require
certification in several instances including application near
schools, as well as any pesticide applied in a public place.
Anyone applying pesticides commercially must be certified. She
related that nothing in current regulations require state
applicators must be certified. She recalled that the ARRC does
do so as part of their permit application. She offered her
belief that nothing in statute or this bill would prohibit the
DEC from doing so. She suggested it would be helpful to obtain
guidance from the legislature on this.
2:43:51 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON reiterated this approach may appease the public
and satisfy the agencies.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON noted that the Alaska Railroad has an
overview scheduled in March and read from materials, "The
herbicide aqua master is applied by a licensed contractor using
low-volume, low pressure equipment to direct the herbicide only
where it is intended."
CO-CHAIR SEATON agreed some agencies may voluntarily comply but
he was unsure whether all the agencies would use certified
applicators.
MS. RYAN pointed out that the requirement for an integrated pest
management plan can be a useful tool for anyone applying
pesticides on a regular basis. She advised that this is
required at schools as a means of reducing pesticide use.
2:45:40 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON asked for any suggested recommendations from the
DEC.
2:46:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to whether the plan is
formally approved by the DEC or if the school district can just
say it has a plan.
MS. RYAN answered that the DEC does not currently have an
approval process but several venues write plans. She offered
that extensive material is available on the EPA's website and
the agency will provide technical assistance.
2:46:42 PM
[HB 195 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Game - Turner#2.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB195-DEC-SWM-03-24-11.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| Sponsor Statement.docx |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| HB0195A.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| HB0144A.PDF |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB144-ADF&G-Fiscal.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB144-DNR-Fiscal.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB144 Fishing Stream Sectional.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Stream Access Problems - DNR.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| LOS_Alaska Fly Fishers HB144 Support.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| LOS_Churchill.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| LOS_KenaiRiverSportfishing.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| LOS_WillardStockwell.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| LOS_Women's Flyfishing.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
|
| Pesticide Permit Applications on State Land.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| Questions & Answers on Pesticides.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| Zaumseil Letter.txt |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| HB144 LOS_AOC 2011.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 144 |
| ARRC Vegetation Control Cost Overview_Final.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| HB0195 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| Additional Applicator Study Requirements.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| Pesticide Applicator Manual Contents.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| HB195 Pied Piper.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 195 |
| HB144 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HRES 4/1/2011 1:00:00 PM |
HB 144 |