Legislature(2003 - 2004)
02/26/2004 01:37 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 27-TRACKING OF PESTICIDE USE
CHAIR CON BUNDE announced SB 27 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR JOHNNY ELLIS, sponsor, said:
Large amounts of pesticides are used every year in
urban and rural Alaska, including around schools, our
parks, agricultural lands, grocery stores, public
buildings, homes, gardens and just about everywhere
you can imagine. Pesticides are linked to a variety of
health problems including cancer, developmental
disorders, reproductive failure, birth defects,
allergies and asthma.... Despite these known risks, we
have no accurate information on which pesticides are
used, where and in what amounts. In order to make
informed and effective good public policy decisions to
protect water quality, public health and subsistence
foods, Alaskans need that reliable kind of information
on pesticide use.
In 2001, there were 4,571 pesticide labels -
individual pesticide products that were registered and
approved for sale in our state. In 2004, that number
is up to approximately 5,500. Alaska is the only state
that does not collect registration fees on pesticides
registered for sale and use in our state.... The word
chump has come up in some of the conversations here
that we're the only state that does not charge Dow
Chemical and Monsanto, outside multi-national
corporations, that are manufacturers of these
pesticides sold in our state. Every other state
charges a reasonable fee and that's what this bill
proposes to do, as well.
What will the bill specifically do? It would require
those who use pesticides for commercial and contract
purposes to provide notice regarding the application
of pesticides to the DEC [Department of Environmental
Conservation]. That would be an easy thing. They
already collect this information. In their yellow page
ads, those distributors and appliers here in the State
of Alaska use e-mail. It would be a matter of e-
mailing DEC this information that's already collected.
The Department of Environmental Conservation is
required to make the reporting process for those
convenient. So, that's a consideration for business -
to make it as easy as possible to make the information
available to the public through the website and to
researchers and public officials in a timely manner.
In the reports we have a protection for business to
protect the privacy of the applicators and their
clients.
The bill establishes a seven-member pesticide advisory
board; the bill requires a registration fee to be
collected as noted and helps with the information
collected to be used. We're looking for good science
and good data. The information would be used in those
areas that I mentioned before - water quality, public
health and subsistence. Because pesticides are
designed to be toxic chemicals that kill living
organisms and are widely used in our communities, the
public has a right to know, in my opinion, about the
pesticides used around us.
I note there is broad support across the state for
this legislation.... I'll lend on a personal note -
you know, I've known a lot of folks who have suffered
from breast cancer and asthma, immune system
shutdowns, various ailments and their doctors
invariably ask them about their exposure to these
kinds of chemicals. The fact is in Alaska, we don't
require this information, we don't keep track of it,
we don't look at it and use it as part of our making
of public policy.
CHAIR BUNDE asked how the notification would take place.
SENATOR ELLIS replied that he envisions the information would be
provided to the DEC electronically where it would be compiled
and then accessed by the public. He is not looking for the DEC
to mail out notices of impending pesticide use. "It would be a
passive kind of system."
CHAIR BUNDE rephrased his answer saying, "It would be incumbent
upon the public to access the information?"
SENATOR ELLIS indicated yes.
CHAIR BUNDE supposed that it wouldn't affect his neighbor who is
using "Round-Up," but that the "Round-Up" would cost more to pay
for the fee. Senator Ellis indicated this was correct.
SENATOR ELLIS said, since every other state is charging the
manufacturers a reasonable fee for each of the chemicals,
theoretically Alaska consumers are bearing the cost of those
registration fees.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if he was aware of any other regulations in
municipalities affecting registration of pesticides. "Is there
any duplication going on here?"
MS. GERAN TARR, Chief of Staff for Senator Ellis, wanted to
clarify the notice of commercial pesticide spraying, a separate
component from the tracking mechanism. Section 4 of SB 27 is
modeled after the Municipality of Anchorage's successful
program. She explained that paper notification must be given to
areas contiguous to the sprayed areas. People must be able to
see that notification at their home or place of business and
make an educated decision about whether or not they want to be
in that area while the application was taking place or whether,
because of health issues or small children, they would want to
leave and come back later.
SENATOR BUNDE said there are always residue issues and asked if
the notices had to be up only during the actual application or
was there a time period after that.
MS. TARR replied that the bill says at least 48 hours before the
spraying and not more than 72 hours. "We want it close enough to
the application time that it's reasonable and timely, but not so
far before...."
CHAIR BUNDE asked, "But not after the spray." She indicated that
is correct. He said that the program had gone very smoothly in
Anchorage and asked if the bill has a reporting mechanism for
poisoning or pollution from pesticides.
MS. TARR replied that issue isn't a component of this
legislation. Currently, if exposure to a pesticide takes place,
the DEC or someone in the public health sector would be
notified. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used to have
an office that collated data on pesticide poisoning, but it was
disbanded because of budget constraints.
SENATOR ELLIS said:
We're trying to be as circumspect and limited in
requirements for DEC. We think if we charge this
reasonable fee and they compile the information, at
least it's available for people to be aware of it and
access it if they need it, if their health requires
it, but not to create new bureaucracies or a lot of
requirements.
MS. TARR said that section 5 asks applicators to report to the
DEC and pointed out that the applicators are already keeping
track of this information.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked what a broadcast chemical is.
MS. TARR said that is an older term that was used for what is
now called "pesticides."
SENATOR SEEKINS asked why there isn't a definition in the bill.
MS. TARR explained that a lot of pesticide applications in the
past were done aerially, so the idea was that they were
broadcast chemicals. More recently, new categories of chemicals
have been created, like insecticides, fungicides, pesticides.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked what the difference was between custom,
commercial or contract applicator.
MS. TARR replied that language was suggested by the drafters and
encompasses all the people who apply pesticides in a commercial
capacity statewide.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if any of those terms include farmers.
MS. TARR replied that farmers would be required to report only
if they hire a commercial applicator to do their application.
Non-commercial persons buying a chemical over-the-counter have
no reporting requirement.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked specifically if that included share-
cropping, where two people agree to split the crop in exchange
for one doing the application.
MS. TARR answered, "If they haven't hired a commercial company
to do the application, it doesn't include them."
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if commercial application companies are
required to have any type of license to apply pesticides.
MS. TARR replied that currently they are and the program is
partly funded with federal money that is administered through
the cooperative extension agencies. Section 3 of SB 27 talks
about regulations for licensing of the applicators. Alaska
charges a registration fee, so the state match for the federal
funds is actually paid for by the applicators.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked what language on line 15, page 4, meant -
"The department may conduct a statistically valid household
pesticide use survey to acquire data that would complement
information received."
MS. TARR replied that one component of this bill is the creation
of a pesticide advisory board that is voluntary. Members are not
eligible for per diem or travel benefits. Part of the board's
mission is to come up with a way to address the issue of
household use. Opponents of this bill maintain that the majority
of pesticide applications in the state are actually done by
private individuals in their home, which Senator Ellis does not
dispute. In the interests of respecting a private citizen's
privacy, a component for household use is not in the bill.
Instead the department is directed to come up with a survey that
could be done on a statewide basis about what products are used
in homes and other relevant information.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked, since they don't intend to regulate
household pesticide use, why would that data need to be
gathered.
SENATOR ELLIS stepped in and said the department might think it
is useful information to get a picture of what is going on in
the state, but he didn't have any intention of going there in
the future. He hoped the pesticides weren't contributing to
health problems in Alaska, but if they are, people should know
about it.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the $150 fee is being charged so the
state will know which products and how much of them are being
used in the state.
MS. TARR explained that manufacturers of the products have to
register their products in each state before they can be sold.
This is the level at which the fee will be collected. Over-the-
counter products are not tracked in SB 27 beyond what is
registered for sale in the state. The $150 fee is collected
because that would pay for the program. All other states
currently charge fees. If retail level sales were to be tracked,
some other tracking mechanism would have to be developed.
CHAIR BUNDE added that DEC could probably answer some of these
questions.
SENATOR FRENCH said he has received a lot of positive feedback
from his constituents on this. He asked how much revenue this
program would bring in and how much would it cost.
MS. TARR replied that the registration fees would bring in about
$495,000 per year based on a drop-off rate of 40 percent. She
explained when other states have adopted a registration fee,
some companies decide not to register all of their products for
sale, because their inventories indicate how much product has
been shipped, what's selling and what's not. In 2008 the
licensing fee, which is charged on a tri-annual basis, brings a
bump in revenue. Operating costs are significantly less than the
revenue generated, which could be used to fund other programs in
a time of fiscal need.
SENATOR GARY STEVENS said he could see what SB 27 is trying to
do and that the board has an important function, but he was
concerned that its structure insured that its members would only
be from the Anchorage Bowl. A lot of other people are impacted,
however, in fisheries, for instance. People from Kodiak would be
precluded from serving because it would cost them substantial
monies to travel to the meetings. He asked why transportation
costs are not being covered.
SENATOR ELLIS replied that he is mindful of trying to control
costs and that video and teleconferencing are used all the time.
"I have no pride of authorship about the composition of the
board - [we're] totally open to your suggestions.... I just
think it's the kiss of death to have this cost very much money
or to require a general fund obligation...."
SENATOR STEVENS said he could not dispel the feeling that people
from the Aleutian area might be precluded from serving on this
board.
MS. KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Health (DEC), said the pesticide
program resides in her division. She presented a brief overview
of the existing program:
A pesticide is any substance or a mixture of
substances intended for preventing, destroying,
repelling or mitigating any pests. So, that goes from
anything from an insect to animals to bacteria and
viruses. Pesticides have been regulated in the U.S.
since at least 100 years through various government
agencies. In 1947, Congress passed the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as
the primary federal law for pesticide management in
the U.S. The federal law includes a registration and
reregistration of all pesticides sold in the U.S. [END
OF TAPE].
TAPE 04-16, SIDE A
MS. RYAN continued:
...the amount, the frequency and the timing of its use
and the storage and disposal practices. According to
EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], its evaluation
during this registration process is meant to determine
and put stipulations on its use so that it will not
have any adverse affect on humans or environments or
non-targeted species.
The EPA requires restrictions to be placed on the
labeling of a pesticide. No pesticide is allowed to be
used without following the label requirements. That
breaks not only state law, but federal law. EPA does
an extensive evaluation of its use to insure that it
won't harm species it's not intended to if used
properly. EPA, in turn, enters into cooperative
agreements with states, which they have done with the
State of Alaska, to implement some aspects of the
federal program. The State of Alaska trains and
certifies pesticide applicators in cooperation with
the Cooperative Extension Service. [Indisc.]
implements a field-based outreach program that focuses
primarily on agricultural worker protection,
groundwater protection and endangered species
protection. We do inspections of records of certified
applicators to insure that they are maintaining the
records we require in our regulations currently.
We also, in addition to the federal program, have a
state registration system where we, in turn, register
pesticides that EPA has already deemed appropriate. As
you've already heard from Senator Ellis' staff that
there is a large percentage and it has been increasing
every year. We're a little over 5,500 this year for
pesticides registered for use in Alaska. We receive
approximately 400 new registrations a year and we
deny, I would say, on the average of 10 a year based
on concerns that it's inappropriate to use in our
climate. We also stick an additional percentage of
those pesticides approved by EPA on a restricted use
list, meaning that they are only allowed to be used by
certified applicators.
Recently, we passed some regulations that do require
schools to publicly notify and post warnings before
pesticides are used in the state. So, they do already
have the requirement to notify the public before they
spray pesticides.
One final thing, just to clarify, the way I read the
legislation, we would only be requiring commercial
applicators to comply with certain aspects of this
legislation, but if you determine a commercial
applicator as someone who is certified by the state,
and we have approximately 994 certified recipients
right now, but some recipients receive multiple
certifications. So, that doesn't mean there's 994
people. They would all be required to report their
usage of the chemicals. Oftentimes, farmers are
required to become certified due to other rules
related to pesticide usage.
CHAIR BUNDE asked how far from a school notification has to be
posted currently or does it just have to be announced.
MS. RYAN replied that she wasn't sure of the actual distance,
but regulation says a sign is required to be posted indicating a
pesticide treated area and to keep out.
CHAIR BUNDE said she could get back to him on the distance.
MR. CLAY FRICK, Port Alexander, said he is a commercial troller
and supports SB 27.
I feel our commercial fishing industry would be best
served by having such legislation. As you know,
commercial fishing is the largest private sector
employer in the state and all we can do to promote our
fisheries, it will be so much better for it.
MR. FRICK said he thought consumers are becoming more aware of
the quality of wild raised salmon coming from a pristine
environment over farmed salmon. He noted that this legislation
also gained a seal of approval from the Marine Stewardship
Council as an important item to promote the sale of Alaska's
salmon. "The chemicals that we use in our environment have been
proved to be toxic to fish...."
He pointed out that the organic market is booming and toxins in
the environment are a growing concern. Growers in California,
like the Great Tree and Fruit League and the Western Growers
Association, have endorsed a similar law in California. It
basically quantifies and verifies what sort of chemicals are
being spread in the environment.
MS. MARIE LAVIGNE, Executive Director, Alaska Public Health
Association, supported SB 27. The association champions a
community's right to know in an effort to reduce the risk of
exposure to toxic substances and to best protect the public's
health.
We firmly believe the right to know about chemicals in
one's community, workplace or near one's child's
school is not only an important right in our
democracy, but a vital component of public health....
Hazard reduction activities and right to know programs
are an essential means of protecting individuals and
communities from harm due to the release of hazardous
chemicals. At this time, Alaskans lack access to
records to safeguard their own exposure to pesticides.
She said a recent survey indicates that 93 percent of voters
favor disclosure of pesticide use.
MR. WALT PARKER, Anchorage resident, said he is a survivor of
the federal herbicide and pesticide efforts of territorial days.
He reported that he has worked with the Arctic Council for the
last 10 years on a variety of programs dealing with
contaminants. The council has a pretty good handle on the Arctic
part of the issue, but not on the Alaskan part. It's important
to have a firm database in Alaska against which to measure
airborne pollutants and other things arriving by various means.
He felt that SB 27 provides the foundation for what Alaska needs
to participate with the federal agencies as Northeast Asia
replaces Europe and North America as the industrial center of
the world in the next 20 years.
MS. MICHELLE WILSON, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, said it
is a non-profit, statewide membership organization dedicated to
insuring the health of Alaskan communities. "We believe everyone
has a right to clean air and clean water and foods free from
toxic contamination...."
She said she strongly supports SB 27, especially the section
requiring modest label registration fees based on national
averages and steps to improving public notification of pesticide
use. She added that pregnant women, nursing mothers, children,
elders and especially those with heart conditions, chronic
illnesses and asthma are very susceptible to adverse health
effects from pesticide exposure.
We feel despite the risks of pesticide exposure, that
Alaskans are not being given adequate or timely
notification of these applications. SB 27 is an
important first step to assuring public right to know
about quantities, types and locations of pesticides in
our workplaces, our parks, our public lands and
buildings. Current onsite notification is absent or
not enforced. Notification law allows for the public
or workers in jobs to evaluate their own risks and
take precautions when necessary.
She recommended amending section 4 (2) to extend notification
from 48 to 72 hours after a pesticide application, an idea that
was unanimously adopted by the Anchorage School Board in 2000.
After spraying is when the public is especially vulnerable to
the risk of inhalation residue from pesticides.
MS. WILSON said further that after this bill was written the
State of Alaska changed regulations to allow aerial spraying of
toxic chemicals for forestry purposes, contrary to over 330
comments ranging from local governments and native councils to
Alaska shellfish and salmon industry representatives and other
agencies. Upon receiving a permit from DEC, the only
notification for aerial spraying consists of a public notice in
the newspaper. "For the hunter, the berry picker and the
fishermen, there is no notice that an area will be sprayed by
chemicals."
In conclusion, she said that the program would be self-
supporting.
MR. KEN PERRY, Anchorage resident, said he would submit written
testimony on why he opposes SB 27.
DR. ADAM GROVE, ND, supported SB 27 saying that he would forward
a couple of editorials he wrote for the newspaper describing the
ill effects of pesticides. He thought getting information out to
the public was a good first step, as well as the Pesticide
Advisory Board.
CHAIR BUNDE thanked him for his comments and said SB 27 would be
set aside for a future meeting. There being no further business
to come before the committee, he adjourned the meeting at 3:30
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|