Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
02/12/2018 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB86 | |
| SB173 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 86 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 173 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 173-LIABILITY: PESTICIDES & UTILITY POLES
3:58:04 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced consideration of SB 173. This bill
proposes aligning Alaska with liability protections for
utilities with other states. The subject is pesticides and power
poles.
3:58:29 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of SB 173
said this bill came about from an incident when an enthusiastic
federal employee discovering some pesticide seepage in the area
of a utility pole during a highway project. It was brought to
his attention that Alaska law doesn't match federal law. The
reason for bringing this forward is the financial protection of
nearly every Alaskan ratepayer who depends upon a utility to
have electricity delivered to their home, business, or facility.
SB 73 conforms Alaska law with federal law with respect to wood
poles treated with a pesticide registered with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). He commented:
Yes, the feds are ahead of us on this. Just think
about the potential liability across the country if
every utility pole that has seepage of this pesticide
is required to be a cleanup site.
He explained that every wooden pole is factory treated with a
preservative pesticide, which prolongs the service life of the
pole by protecting it from organisms that compromise its
structural integrity. It would be logical to assume that soil
coming in direct contract with that treated pole would have some
traces of that preservative.
4:00:51 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE said SB 173 matches federal law that has a
specific exemption for the application of a pesticide product
registered under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, And
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). It clarifies and eliminates the
assumption of liability and remediation costs for trace elements
including a federal exemption within Alaska statutes.
He said that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
is working with utility companies so that they can provide a
best practice guidance for use, replacement, and disposal of
preservative-treated utility poles to reduce or eliminate future
contamination when poles are retired. This bill is narrowly
drafted to apply only to wood utility pole installed, removed,
or used by public utilities in connection with providing a
utility service in the state.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if any studies have been done on the
impacts of pentachlorophenol on the health fish or humans or the
ability of pentachlorophenol to migrate through the ground.
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Spill Prevention and
Response (SPAR), Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC),
Anchorage, Alaska, answered yes, The EPA had done extensive
testing on pentachlorophenol, which is the product that is used
to treat utility poles so that they last longer. That data is
available. Because it is a registered pesticide, the
manufacturer is required to submit updated toxicology
information (for all pesticides) to the EPA every five years. It
is a very thorough process to assure that they are used in the
safest way possible and serve only the purpose that they are
intended to serve. This product is classified as a human
carcinogen and it is harmful to fish.
However, Ms. Ryan said, the question is if the product leaks off
the pole in quantities to cause harm to human health or other
species, and that is a varied question, and the department is
getting data on that now. The technology used reduces the amount
of leeching on the poles if they have been treated correctly.
The EPA has decided that it can be used in a situation with
limited impact upon the environment as long as it's not leeching
off the pole.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for any information she could provide
on the health effects and contamination issues with streams,
rivers, and drinking supplies. He also asked if any states or
countries that have banned pentachlorophenol for this use.
MS. RYAN answered she was not aware of anyone who had banned
pentachlorophenol, which is not the drug, PCP (the department
uses the shorthand "Penta" to distinguish). The manufacturing
process is really key to making sure the product doesn't leech
from the pole. It's about making sure the manufacturing process
follows EPA guidelines, which is the whole point of EPA
regulating the product.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked her to explain the difference between the
old creosote poles and the new ones that are pressure injected
and how they interplay in this bill.
MS. RYAN answered that she wasn't prepared to provide a detailed
comparison to the committee today, but she would see what could
be found and provide it later. From a general perspective,
pentachlorophenol, if applied correctly, is less likely to leave
the pole and contaminate the surrounding environment, which is
why utilities are required to use this product.
4:09:49 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said these poles are being used in a marine
environment, and he wanted to know how this bill protects them
in that case. He didn't want to leave any groups out.
MS. RYAN responded the she would research that issue, but he is
on the right track that this is preferred method in many
situations. The state of Vermont did an extensive analysis of
the use of wood poles: the best places, the best conditions, and
what should be done if they have to be removed. They have shared
those best practices with the Alaska Energy Authority (AEA) and
asked to have a dialogue about whether they would be applicable
practices in Alaska, too. That dialogue has just started.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said language on page 1, line 8, provides
an exemption for release of a pesticide registered under 7
U.S.C. 136(a) and asked her perspective on limiting that to
pentachlorophenol instead of the entire gamut.
MS. RYAN replied that the intent of the bill is to be consistent
with federal law, and that is how the federal exemption
currently exists. Pesticides add a pollutant to the environment
for a specific purpose. That obviously is in conflict with other
federal laws that say you cannot pollute the environment. The
fix is that if you apply pesticides that are approved under
FIFRA, that is meeting federal law and is, therefore, exempt
from other laws that say you cannot pollute the environment. The
catch is that use of products registered under Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) are very
restricted.
4:13:58 PM
RACHEL HANKE, staff to Senator Micciche, Alaska State
Legislature, provided a short sectional analysis of SB 173.
Section 1 adds a new section to Title 9 under Actions,
Immunities, Defenses, and Duties that releases the state and
persons from liability for costs and damages for the release of
a pesticide registered under the FIFRA that is used to treat
wood utility poles.
Section 2 adds cross-references to the new section in Title 46.
4:14:42 PM
BRAD JANORSCHKE, General Manager, Homer Electric Association,
Homer, Alaska supported SB 173. He said it affects all public
utilities in Alaska, and the issue comes from the lack of
statutory clarity regarding the treatment of wood utility poles.
Recent events on the Kenai Peninsula have raised potential for
soils surrounding each pole to be treated as a contaminated site
when it is removed from service. He explained that over 250,000
treated utility poles have been installed all over Alaska. They
are less expensive than steel, fiberglass, or concrete, are a
renewable resource, and blend in with the environment more
readily than the other options. Today the poles are treated with
pentachlorophenol (Penta), an EPA registered pesticide. Properly
applied, Penta treated poles are supposed to have minimal
pesticide migration from the pole to the environment directly
surrounding the pole. It is the minimal migration that
potentially makes the site contaminated under current Alaska
law. If it were characterized as a contaminated site, Homer
Electric has been informed the cost to remove and a single
utility pole from service and mitigate the site would cost about
$30,000.
The provisions of AS 46.03.822(a) if strictly read can be
interpreted as making a public utility that installs treated
poles liable for cleanup of any residual preservative a retired
or existing utility pole. This liability does not exist under
federal law or in any other state, as far as he is aware.
MR. JANORSCHKE said the purpose of the proposed legislation is
to bring Alaska in alignment with the rest of the country; it is
drafted narrowly and intended to apply potential liability
stemming from installing or removing a wood utility pole. He
said HEA has been actively engaged with the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC) for two years. His concern is
not with DEC but the law that they are required to operate
under. He closed saying:
As an aside, kudos to ADEC as they have recently taken
a positive step forward by inviting members of our
state-wide organization (Alaska Power Association) to
participate in the development and implementation of
best management practices for the handling, storage,
use, and retirement of treated utility poles,
something that has been successfully been done in at
least one other state.
4:19:10 PM
SENATOR STEDMAN said in his area [Ketchikan] they have to do
"off island disposal" and ship contaminants to Washington on
special barges. He asked how the Knik and Fairbanks areas
dispose of their retired utility poles.
MR. JANORSCHKE answered that for the Kenai Peninsula it is very
common to retire poles that are 40 years old; often they can be
in great shape. They have a waiting list of members who take
used poles. The unusable ones get taken to the landfill.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked what would be done with contaminated
material if this bill doesn't pass.
MR. JANORSCHKE answered that he has been told by his
environmental consultant that they would be required to excavate
the area and bag the soil. It would have to get shipped to the
Lower 48 for processing which is the bulk of the $30K per pole
cost.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if Penta is the only pesticide they
use on their poles.
MR. JANORSCHKE replied that it is the only one to his knowledge.
It's possible that there may be some old poles with creosote.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said he would like to know what other
utilities use going forward.
4:22:49 PM
DALLIN BROOKS, Vice President, North American Wood Pole Council,
Vancouver, Washington, supported SB 173. Today, there are 160
million wood poles in North America. It is the backbone of our
country's energy infrastructure, because growing a tree is a
simple process. Once it is made into a pole, preservative is
applied. A pole also stores carbon, offsetting fossil fuel use,
and provides a protection against weather. Wood poles have low
environmental impact when compared to composite materials such
as steel, fiberglass, and concrete. It uses less energy and less
resources, so it is important to keep our forests sustainable.
Furthermore, wood won't corrode, Mr. Brooks said, and
preservative treatment protects it against the natural enemies
of insects, moisture, and fungi. With a responsible maintenance
program, wood poles cost less than 4 percent per decade and can
last 75 years or longer. Wood poles boast a low thermal
expansion co-efficient and low electrical conductivity. In the
case of a utility pole, this means a thermally stable product
that requires less insulating hardware.
Due to the insulating properties of wood, birds can rest and
perch on a wood cross arm without being electrocuted. Wood poles
allow for easy climbing using techniques that are well
understood by linemen and uses equipment that is common and
inexpensive. Because wood poles don't have special climbing
hardware, a lineman can quickly attach gaffs and climb a pole
without delay, snow or shine, and surveys show that they
overwhelmingly prefer to climb a wood pole.
MR. BROOKS said the strength and resilience of wood with the
penetration of protective treatments enables wood poles to
withstand demanding service conditions like the ones experienced
in Alaska.
MR. BROOKS closed saying that they as an industry support this
bill to ensure that wood poles have a level playing field with
other materials as they continue to be installed and removed
corresponding to the changing infrastructure demands. The
preservative does move down the pole over time; that is what it
is intended to do as the ground line is where most biological
attacks happen. Extensive studies have been conducted to show
that while protecting the wood pole from targeted organisms the
pole offers minimal risk to humans and the environment.
He was once asked by a reporter why wood poles are used in the
21st Century, and the answer is simple: they are the lowest
cost, lowest environmental impact, best performing product that
is out there today. And wood poles will be used in the 22nd
century, because the wood poles they install today will last
that long, and the wood poles that are going to last that long
will have a new tree grown in that time to replace it.
4:26:59 PM
SENATOR BISHOP asked what he does for research and development
(R&D) in preservatives in looking forward to the 21st Century.
MR. BROOKS answered that the industry continues to work hard to
improve its products and research is done mainly through
environmental performance co-ops. But by nature, these
preservatives are intended to target organisms to prevent them
from degrading and decaying the wood.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if the EPA had done any testing on
pentachlorophenol to determine whether it is toxic to humans or
animals.
MR. BROOKS answered yes, EPA has done extensive testing and
found that it is very low risk. He offered to share quotes from
the EPA reregistration eligibility decision.
4:28:51 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if they found it was toxic to humans.
MR. BROOKS in reply read from page 30 of the reregistration
eligibility decision:
Because of the demonstrated tendency for
pentachlorophenol to absorb to soils and the
moderately rapid degradation of the compound in the
environment, it is not likely that ground water
contamination will result in the usage of utility
poles.
He said there are other instances of stating there is no concern
for mammals or humans.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked for a copy of the decision.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked him to provide it to the committee aide who
would distribute it to the full committee.
4:29:25 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there are any instances of ground
water or well water contamination from Penta.
MR. BROOKS replied that he knows of two instances in Vermont,
where utility poles were installed right next to a shallow well,
which is why Vermont now has the best management practices.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if that instance was from an isolated
pole or group of poles.
MR. BROOKS replied that it was an isolated incident from the
installation of one pole.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if trace amounts were found in the
water or a significant amount.
MR. BROOKS replied trace amounts.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked him to provide the information about the
Vermont incident.
MR. BROOKS said he would be happy to, but it is mostly in the
Vermont Study report that is available.
4:30:46 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if other states or countries ban
Penta.
MR. BROOKS answered that he is aware of other countries that do
not use pentachlorophenol and ban it. Europe has never used it;
it uses other preservatives.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked how many countries have banned it.
MR. BROOKS said he didn't know; it is up to each country.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked if there is a Stockholm convention
that discusses this issue.
MR. BROOKS answered yes.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI asked to get a copy.
MR. BROOKS replied that he would do that.
4:31:58 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony.
ERIC ERIKSEN, Vice President, Transmission and Distribution,
Alaska Electric, Light and Power (AEL&P), Juneau, Alaska,
supported SB 173. He said this is their 125th year of operating
in Juneau and over that time they have provided safe, reliable,
renewable, low-cost, electric service to the community. Juneau
has over 4500 poles supporting over 200 miles of power lines. It
is his opinion that treated wood utility poles have been and
will be the best performing solution for carrying electrical
conductors for the foreseeable future.
SENATOR STEDMAN asked if there are any rain forest issues with
this preservative versus desert areas.
MR. ERICKSON answered he was not aware of any issues.
4:34:56 PM
PHIL STEYER, Director, Government Relations, Chugach Electric
Association, Anchorage, Alaska, supported SB 173. He said they
are a member-owned electric co-operative providing service to
about 68,000 members at 84,000 metered locations. They have
about 900 miles of overhead distribution line supported by
treated wooden poles.
CRYSTAL ENKVIST, Executive Director, Alaska Power Association
(APA), Anchorage, Alaska, supported SB 173. She explained that
APA is the statewide trade association for electric utilities in
Alaska. The members provide power to a half million Alaskans in
all parts of the state.
MS. ENKVIST said Alaska has hundreds of thousands of utility
poles that use a pentachlorophenol regulated by FIFRA. Each
year, many utility poles are retired and removed from the
ground. The EPA through its FIFRA regulations provide
significant oversight of pesticide distribution, sale, and use.
SB 173 will ensure that Alaska's public utilities will not incur
significant regulatory expenses from the legal use of federally
regulated pesticides on wood utility poles. It aligns state law
with federal statutes so that the Alaska electric utilities may
follow best management practices consistent with what other
utilities follow across the nation. This legislation benefits
Alaskan consumers who would eventually have to pay for
remediation and removal through their utility bills.
MS. ENKVIST noted that Sylvia Mitchell, President and CEO,
Inside Passage Electric Co-operative, was planning on testifying
today in person in support of SB 173, but she became ill.
4:38:59 PM
DON MCNAMARA, Oceanside Farm, Homer, Alaska, did not favor using
any pesticide or herbicide and did not support SB 173. "Just
because you've been polluting forever doesn't mean you have to
keep on polluting forever, he said." He suggested using concrete
poles and said wire should be underground whenever possible,
because it won't blow over in a storm, a tree won't fall on it,
and maintenance will be a lot less. Existing poles should be
grandfathered in and new poles should be outlawed.
DONNA RAE FAULKNER, Oceanside Farm, Homer, Alaska, repeated that
they use organic methods and whenever the issue of pesticides
comes up they are concerned. As a ratepayer, she appreciates
Senator Micciche trying to protect them financially. She has
concerns about what specific costs and damages are possible if
ground water is contaminated and would be happy, as a rate
payer, to support mitigating that situation. Protecting the
environment and public health is really important.
4:42:48 PM
ROBERT HIMSCHOOT, Nushagak Electric and Telephone Co-operative,
Dillingham, Alaska, supported SB 173. The co-operative provides
electric and telephone service to Dillingham and Alignagik and
have about 1450 meters in the system. The current statute
creates an unintended liability.
The advantages of wood poles have been well spelled out in
today's testimony. Nushagak has about 1500 wood poles in
service. At $30,000 per pole, it would cost a total of $45
million to retire and mitigate them. Part of the problem then
becomes how to distribute that cost to the members. When a line
is put in service the cost is depreciated so that all ratepayers
uniformly pay for it. So, that sort of liability would apply to
only present and future ratepayers. There are attachment fees
from telecommunication providers, too. The depreciated amount of
the poles is used to come up with a fair use access fee and they
would be adversely affected, too.
4:46:08 PM
EDDIE TAUNTON, Director of Operations, MatSu Electric
Association (MEA), Inc., Palmer, Alaska, supported SB 173. He
said MatSu Electric is a co-operative that serves almost 65,000
meters and 51,000 members from Eagle River to Trapper Creek and
over to the Matanuska Glacier. MEA has over 4300 miles of line
of which 2100 are overhead. They bring power to each member and
a majority of those lines are held up by an estimated 45,000
wood power poles. These poles are essential to serve the needs
of their members and drive commerce in their region. He listed
some of the benefits electricity brings to a household. To do
this safely and economically it is imperative that Alaska
utilities are allowed to use treated poles to ensure the
structural integrity of their equipment. He said: "We believe
the use of the EPA-approved wood preservative pentachlorophenol
is essential and responsible."
MR. TAUNTON said environmental studies have shown that properly
treated poles are expected to have minimal pesticide migration
from the pole to the environment directly surrounding the pole.
Their members should not face an unfair burden. The co-operative
should be held to the same standards as federal law and that of
other states including California, Oregon, and Washington.
4:48:35 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked Mr. Taunton. Finding no further testimony,
she closed it and noted that the additional information from
SPAR Director Ryan and Mr. Brooks would be forthcoming.
SENATOR STEDMAN stated that the legislature should take up the
subject of cost containment for processing contaminated
materials because it is ridiculous to ship something from Homer
to eastern Washington for disposal.
CHAIR GIESSEL held SB 173 in committee.