Legislature(1997 - 1998)
05/01/1997 01:07 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CSSB 39(JUD) - HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS, MATERIALS, AND WASTE CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the next item of business was CS for Senate Bill No. 39(JUD), "An Act relating to hazardous chemicals, hazardous materials, and hazardous waste." Number 1350 ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Loren Leman, came forward to present the bill on behalf of the sponsor. She stated her intention of going through the bill and then addressing the question of compressed gasses, which she believed to be the only pressing issue with this legislation. She advised members that this bill is similar to SB 69 of the previous year. MS. KREITZER said Section 1 "speaks to the immunity to Title 9," protecting the state from strict liability for oil spills or other environmental releases at Rural Education Attendance Area (REAA) schools. Someone from the Department of Law was present to address sections relating to the liability issue. MS. KREITZER explained that Sections 2, 3, 7 and 15 delete reference to the state fire marshal's placarding program. There are many reporting programs. For example, if the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires a material safety data sheet (MSDA), the reporting facility must fill out a Tier II form. There are also requirements under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA); the state fire marshal's program under Title 18; and the Title 29 reporting program. For the latter two, different substances have different reporting thresholds. MS. KREITZER reported that they had been working on this for three years, and she had worked with several fire departments: Anchorage, Mat-Su, Kenai, Kodiak. She had also worked with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs (DMVA) to figure out a way to have one form for all reporting of hazardous substances. This has meant some give and take. The Senate had made it clear that they would like to require no more than the federal government requires. Ms. Kreitzer noted that there was a proposed committee substitute. Number 1463 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to adopt 0-LS0214\F, Lauterbach, 4/11/97 as a work draft. There being no objection, that version was before the committee. MS. KREITZER referred to page 4, beginning at line 28, through page 5, line 19, which lists the requirements under federal law. In her most recent conversation with the sponsor and others involved with this bill, "that's what they would like to stay at." She said the concern today is that the Anchorage Fire Department would like to keep compressed gasses as a reporting requirement. They had discussed this at great length, and Ms. Kreitzer had spoken with the chief; they now agree to disagree. She had also spoken with the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association, which doesn't necessarily agree with the Anchorage Fire Department that compressed gasses need to be in there, because that would put them back on the road of adding substances not included on the federal list, and others may want to add substances in the future. MS. KREITZER pointed out that one can go to the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and request that compressed gasses be put on the list statewide, so that the statewide form would include them and everybody would report them. She said that is the way to go, rather than amending the bill to include compressed gasses when that is not a federal reporting requirement. MS. KREITZER brought to members' attention a couple of other changes since the previous year's bill. The DEC has received the Tier II reports ever since the SERC was established. In informal discussions with the sponsor's office, the DEC has indicated they do not believe they should have to do that anymore. However, the sponsor believes it is entirely appropriate that the DEC receive the Tier II reports on behalf of the state. Therefore, Section 6 specifies that the DEC will receive the Tier II reports on behalf of the SERC. Ms. Kreitzer noted that it is a federal requirement that the Tier II reports be filed with the SERC. MS. KREITZER said throughout the bill, there are deletions of the fire marshal's placarding program, a Title 18 program under which only 15 buildings have been placarded since 1986. The program has not been funded. The state fire marshal or someone from his office has testified "through February of this year" that they are in favor of having the program deleted; it is not effective for them, nor has it been. Ms. Kreitzer advised members that the Title 29 program stays, at the request of the Municipality of Anchorage; that is the only municipality now reporting hazardous substances and then putting placards on buildings under Title 29. Number 1688 CHAIRMAN GREEN understood their not wanting to include compressed gasses because those are not on the federal list and they are fearful that in the future, others will be added. He asked: Isn't it a fact that compressed gasses pose a risk to firefighters? MS. KREITZER said that has been part of the testimony and is certainly the position of the Anchorage fire chief, who had a personal experience with a compressed gas exploding. However, there are three or four definitions of compressed gas, making it difficult to amend a bill like this and put "compressed gasses" back in. "And we decided that it's not something that we wanted to amend the bill with," she said. They had talked to other fire chiefs and fire departments, which had not expressed as great a concern as the Anchorage Fire Department had. That morning, she had spoken with Tim Biggane, president of the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association, and they are not necessarily in favor of putting compressed gasses back on the list; neither is the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Number 1747 CHAIRMAN GREEN, noting Ms. Kreitzer's testimony that the DEC would be the repository for the reports, asked who the emergency response team is and whether it is the DMVA. MS. KREITZER replied that it is co-chaired by the DMVA and the DEC. While SB 33, a bill that passed a couple of years ago, put primary responsibility for the SERC under the DMVA, it is co-chaired by both departments. She believes there are seven public members and nine state departments represented on the SERC. The Tier II reports must go somewhere, and because the DEC is the hazardous substance "spill responder" for the state, it makes sense that the Tier II reports go to them, for their use. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether Ms. Kreitzer knew the DEC's objection. MS. KREITZER said no. Number 1804 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Section 1, excluding the state or REAAs from strict liability for releasing toxic substances. He asked whether other entities are strictly liable for that. MS. KREITZER deferred to the Department of Law for an answer. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT requested the rationale for deleting the placarding program, noting that there was a letter from the Interior Fire Chiefs Association of Alaska objecting to that. MS. KREITZER replied, "Our rationale for doing it is three years of working with fire departments and ... the state fire marshal's office, and the state fire marshal's agreeing to the fact that we need to delete the program because it has never been funded. ... When you count the years from '86 to now, 15 buildings being placarded is not a very effective program." CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether the reason, then, was because it was never funded. MS. KREITZER answered that it was never funded and they just don't have the ability to placard every building in the state outside the Municipality of Anchorage, which is what their responsibility would be, or is currently, under law. Number 1870 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ requested clarification about page 4, saying it seemed that beginning on line 4, a municipality can't add chemicals, but on line 18 and 19, a municipality can remove chemicals from the lists. MS. KREITZER explained that they can do both but must go through a public process. They have to use the form. She explained that the form which the Municipality of Anchorage is using under the Title 29 program is "very close if not the form that's going to be approved, because we've worked on this for the last three years, and they know it's coming, and they agree with many of the changes other than the compressed gas." She said they can go to the SERC and either add or delete substances. MS. KREITZER said maybe it is unclear because of the way the bill is written. For those sections, beginning on line 9, when she had asked the drafter whether it was clear that they will use a Tier II form, the reply had been, "Well, we've not put anything in here that prohibits them from using another form." Ms. Kreitzer stated, "And so, that's what this says. ... They can't use a form other than the one required under here. They can't require someone to report unless they're required to report by the State Emergency Response Commission, which means federal law. And they can't require reporting of a substance that's not under this, unless it's added by the commission, under (c)." Number 1945 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ agreed there was some confusion in the drafting. The way he read it, a municipality can remove substances separately from the SERC, but it requires prior approval by the SERC before adding any. He expressed concern that the state may be superimposing its will on municipalities, precluding a municipality from exercising its own judgment as to what chemicals, materials and wastes should or should not come within its reach. MS. KREITZER said that was exactly an issue they debated in talking to fire departments in Kenai, Kodiak, Mat-Su and Anchorage. The bigger problem has been that this system does not work and the fire departments cannot even handle the information coming in to them. Ms. Kreitzer stated, "ARCO Houston sends a packet this thick to the Anchorage Fire Department, listing every can of WD-40 because of all of the different reporting requirements that are here." She restated that this has been a bill of give and take, saying they must get to some compromise, to make it a workable program so that fire departments can at least use the information. Number 2005 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it seemed that if Anchorage or Kenai didn't want all that information about each can of WD-40, they could, independently from the state, say so. MS. KREITZER replied that she had been in meetings for three years and had talked to ARCO and the fire departments; it was not that easy. She stated, "They have their system set up for reporting, their computer systems, and they're trying to do it in the most cost-efficient manner possible. ... That's what has brought us to the place where we are now, and that's why the bill is written the way that it is, to help satisfy everybody's needs." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether the bill was being driven by concerns of ARCO and other companies, rather than municipalities. MS. KREITZER said no, their main concern has been that fire departments be able to use the information for the purpose that it was intended, for good response and to protect firefighters. Number 2059 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether they were deleting the placarding program because it does not make sense, because it is not cost-effective, or because it is a good program that is not being funded. MS. KREITZER replied, "People may argue whether it's a good program or not. The firefighters and the fire chiefs that I've talked to have found it to be ineffective." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "Ineffective because the placards aren't there, because we don't give them the money to do it? Or ineffective because when the placards are, it doesn't help them that much?" MS. KREITZER replied, "I think probably for a multitude of reasons." Number 2120 RITA VENTA, Administrator, Community Right-to-Know (CRTK) Program, Anchorage Fire Department, testified via teleconference, speaking on behalf of Inspector Foster, who was unavailable; they had been asked by Fire Chief Mike Nolan to express their department's concerns regarding this change on the compressed gas issue. MS. VENTA referred to page 5, lines 18 and 19, indicating it related to AS 29.35.500, section (c)(7), and changed the reportable quantities of compressed gasses from 200 cubic feet to 10,000 pounds. For Anchorage, a change like that would create two major safety issues: Compressed gasses, even in small quantities, can be lethal, especially to firefighters; and identifying a gas and its particular risk may not be feasible until the middle of an emergency. Prior knowledge through proper reporting is the only reasonable approach. MS. VENTA stated, "We acknowledge that within the Anchorage fire service area, our CRTK Program retains enforcement of the compressed gasses, as presently written. However, not all of the municipality is encompassed by the Anchorage fire service area. Eagle River, Chugiak and Girdwood are covered by our emergency responders but excluded from municipal code enforcement. And this is a disparity, then, between two reportable quantities for compressed gasses, which would increase the hazards to our personnel and the public." MS. VENTA said second, strict conformance to federal regulations may not always be best for Alaska, given the distances in outlying areas between settlements, the availability of an emergency responder network and severe weather. A typical remote Western Alaska village may be centered around a fish processing industry, for example, that uses (indisc.), ammonia and chlorine in quantities that are relatively large but well below the proposed 10,000-pound reporting limit. MS. VENTA said rural communities depend on these regulations to address emergency planning; with the proposed changes, regulations would offer no relevant guidance. Failure to assess and report compressed gasses could lead to disaster for citizens with rural fire departments, many of which operate with minimal resources. The Anchorage Fire Department urges the committee to amend the draft and retain the "200 cubic feet" language. MS. VENTA commended the bill's authors for permitting amendments that try to streamline reporting for industry while improving safety for responders, workers and the public. She advised members that Anchorage's program had operated since 1986. Hundreds of buildings are placarded there, and the program works for them. As for trying to have a unified form, she said, "We don't have a problem with that. But we have our own program set up. We'd like to continue operating it that way." Number 2272 CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to the expressed concern that deviating from the federal list may result in a variety of things that are not really necessary or a mixed bag. He asked: "Do you feel that the restrictions that are on page 6, I believe, the requirements to add or subtract, would be adequate if, in fact, gasses were re- added, as an addition to the federal requirements, but still would not open the door to just a plethora of things being added back in?" MS. VENTA replied, "I think we're okay ... with that premise. We just feel that the gas issue is an important issue for our first responders. Most of the other substances, as listed here, are pretty much in coordination with what we require." Number 2317 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what size of canister was being eliminated by deleting compressed gas equal to 200 cubic feet. MS. VENTA replied, "Generally, 150-pound cylinders; those are the big ones." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked, "Notwithstanding the fire service district, currently you're placarding the entire city because of Title 29?" MS. VENTA answered, "Yes, that's correct. Within certain quantities, if they have what we consider hazardous materials, we placard their building. ... And the first responders find the placarding very helpful here." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether the assembly would be precluded, because of the service district boundaries, from passing an areawide ordinance covering this or any other provision. MS. VENTA requested clarification. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he understood there was an inability because of the fire service districts there to have a uniform zoning regulation throughout the entire city; consequently, they must rely on Title 29, which is a statewide program. He asked, "Are you precluded from having an ordinance that would, in effect, replicate your abilities in Title 29?" MS. VENTA said she would have to check on that. Number 2391 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Do you often respond, or do you ever respond, outside the district?" MS. VENTA replied, "We certainly do. We've got a station in Eagle River, and we are second-in on Chugiak. And we also have a monitor station in Girdwood, but we do respond there." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said his concern would be that the placarding would have to occur wherever they might respond. MS. VENTA said that is correct. Number 2419 CRAIG GOODRICH, Director/State Fire Marshal, Division of Fire Prevention, Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference from Anchorage, saying the position of the office of the state fire marshal had been adequately articulated and he would answer questions. Number 2437 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether the municipality could initiate an areawide ordinance to address needs being excluded at this level. MR. GOODRICH stated his understanding that the municipality is looking toward taking a complete deferral with respect to building and life-safety codes for the entire municipality. He commented, "That will take a similar ballot, however, just to pass it on the `hillside,' with law enforcement taking over that section. So, how that will be received is up in the air." MR. GOODRICH continued, "But the short answer to your question is I don't believe that that is possible for the same reasons that the law enforcement issue took place on the `hillside'; extending fire service out to the full edges of the municipality seems to be problematic. However, I would think that that would probably be something as well addressed in the legal department. So, I can't answer that question directly, but that's my opinion." TAPE 97-74, SIDE B Number 0023 MARIE SANSONE, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law, said she wasn't prepared to answer a question about municipal jurisdiction but could look into it. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER suggested it would require a city attorney's response. Number 0036 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that they are exempting the state and REAAs from strict liability for release of hazardous substances. However, in looking at the statute, it seemed that for strict liability, there are many exceptions, so that it is a "sort of modified strict liability." He asked whether other private individuals, then, are still liable. MS. SANSONE said that is accurate. The strict liability statute begins with a presumption that everyone is strictly liable not only for clean-up costs and remediation, but also for damages. This limitation on liability is for the REAA schools and the state in that context. It limits strict liability but not the state's liability for damages if the state were at fault, were negligent, or took some intentional or reckless action that resulted in the damage. Ms. Sansone noted that AS 46.03.822 contains mechanisms by which parties may seek contribution or seek to shift that strict liability to another party if they believe they can apportion fault or if they were innocent purchasers. Number 0112 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked, "So, a municipal school district, a municipal school building, after this law, would still be under the provision, but REAAs wouldn't? We're making a distinction between the schools we run and the schools ... everyone else runs?" MS. SANSONE said that is correct. This provision in the bill resulted from a settlement of the Toksook Bay litigation, and it was part of the agreement that the parties arrived at in order to obtain the funding for that settlement. She believed it was arrived at through the Senate Finance Committee. Number 0139 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he was curious to know more about the origins of this particular provision, adding that "clearly, it's not part of a settlement provision, as it seems a little unusual for us to exempt ourselves and still hold everyone else to a different standard." MS. SANSONE said she recalled when this was discussed in the Senate Finance Committee. It was at the request of the DEC, the Department of Education and the Department of Law. The Senate Finance Committee agreed with their recommendation and asked that it be appended to this bill. "And we've just carried it over once again," she added. Number 0167 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he could understand why the state would want to exempt itself from liability, but he did not necessarily think that was always the prudent course to follow. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated a conflict: The law firm he had been associated with had represented the Lower Kuskokwim School District in that Toksook Bay litigation at the time. However, he had no continuing financial relationship with them. CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed appreciation for the disclosure. Number 0202 LARRY DIETRICK, Program Manager, Prevention and Emergency Response Program, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), came forward to answer questions. He stated, "We reviewed the language in the proposed amendments, and we acknowledged and concurred with the changes made in the committee substitute on the Senate side." He said the Tier II reporting requirements are federal, not state, requirements. MR. DIETRICK explained, "The amendments made in the committee substitute were to make it clear that the reporting was to occur at the local level, with the municipalities and with the State Emergency Response Commission. And the nature of those amendments were [sic] to ensure that we didn't create another program in our agency to oversee or inject other reporting requirements in. And we do agree with those changes that were made in the committee substitute. And there is a letter from the director of the Division of Spill Prevention and Response, which I believe should be in your packets, acknowledging this." He said he had copies of that letter, noting that it was dated February 24. CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a copy, then asked, "And this in essence says what you said, that the DEC has no problem, then, in being the repository for these forms?" Number 0289 MR. DIETRICK restated that they agree with those amendments that were made. He noted that SB 33 had transferred SERC staff responsibilities from the DEC to the DMVA. He emphasized that the reporting requirements being discussed relate to information that must be reported by the facility or business to the local fire department, to the local emergency planning committee, and to the SERC. It is not required to be reported to the DEC, and they didn't want to get into that role. MR. DIETRICK stated, "Beyond that, we have, for the SERC - when we were originally staffing the SERC - received those reports. And what we actually do with that information - this is information about the chemicals that are being stored - we update a baseline report that was prepared in 1994 that maps all of the hazardous substances in the state, where they are stored. So, we use this information that's reported to update what we call a `hazards analysis,' so we can locate where the ammonia, chlorine and other substances are. And that's how that information is used." MR. DIETRICK said beyond that, the information is used at the local level for the responders; he believes that should probably continue to be its primary purpose. That is why the DEC believes the determination of threshold levels for reporting is appropriately placed at that level. He stated, "We don't object to continuing in that role of receiving the reports and updating the state `hazards analysis.' And since the proposed amendments under consideration today place management of the other aspects with the SERC and the municipalities, yeah, we do not object, and we will continue to receive those reports and update the analysis." Number 0370 CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated that for areas like Anchorage, the report would be with the DEC but the municipality may respond out of its jurisdiction, for example. He asked whether there was any problem with the DEC providing that material to those likely to respond. MR. DIETRICK said the federal requirement is that those three entities identified get the report; in theory, local fire departments should already be receiving the reports, as should the local emergency planning committee and the SERC. The DEC has simply been the receiving agent for the SERC and does nothing further unless there is a request from a municipality, for example. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether an area beyond the municipality where it has a firefighting system would also have access to the information. MR. DIETRICK said yes. Number 0424 PAMELA LaBOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, came forward to testify, saying what the chamber likes about this legislation is that it is user-friendly. Too often, government requests information from businesses without giving much thought to how it will be used. She had recently heard that under the "welfare-to-work" program, the Department of Health and Services was looking at reducing a 33-page form to a single page. She suggested that such forms can grow over time, with increasingly more things required than should be. MS. LaBOLLE stated her understanding that four different forms are now required, to four entities, which this bill would reduce to one form reported to three agencies. Availability of information necessary to protect the "response people" must be the goal. To her understanding of this legislation, it answers that need, with perhaps some tweaking, from testimony she had heard. Number 0506 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether the chamber has taken a position on placarding or on the state's "letting itself off on the release of chemicals." MS. LaBOLLE said they hadn't looked at those. Although generally the chamber believes the state ought to be responsible for everything for which it asks others to be responsible, she could not speak to this particular issue and did not know the specifics. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether the concern about compressed gasses had been an issue in internal discussions. MS. LaBOLLE said they had not discussed it. Although the chamber's interests may seem simplistic, it is important to them that the requirements are being reduced and that more succinct information is being provided to the right people, creating less of a problem for business. "It sounds like a good deal," she added. CHAIRMAN GREEN commented that "reduction and uniformity" certainly sounds like the right idea, if it is complete. MS. LaBOLLE concurred. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there were further questions, indicating that everyone who had signed up to testify had done so. Number 0577 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he didn't see a fiscal note for the SERC, which he understood would have a great deal of additional responsibility on account of this legislation. MS. KREITZER said there is no fiscal impact on the SERC. It isn't an entity unto itself; whatever expenses are incurred by the SERC are in the operating budget for the DMVA and the DEC. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move HCS CSSB 39(JUD) from the committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT and REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT explained that he liked the bill as he understood it started out, and it accomplishes that portion well: getting the affected groups together, simplifying it, coordinating it, and making one form that includes only what needs to be reported. However, he does not like the state immunizing itself for things that it requires others to do. Although the statute being amended says "strict liability," it strikes an appropriate balance between liability for something spilled in the operation of a business and being able to show that a third party did it or that "you just took over this property and didn't know there was a tank there." He called it "a sort of strict liability with a pretty heavy caveat." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said although he understood the need for uniformity, he didn't know why they shouldn't continue to require the compressed amounts that he understood the Interior Fire Chiefs Association of Alaska needed. That association also believes placarding is a good safety device. He concluded, "So, the core is not only unobjectionable but seems the right approach. The other things that are in addition to that, I object to." CHAIRMAN GREEN said he certainly shared that concern about the compressed gasses. Number 0754 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the state recognizes that it has been the victim of the "deep pocket" theory for many years. "And when you have their culpability to a strict liability standard, they're dead meat, and that's what they're trying to avoid," he stated. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said notwithstanding that, it seemed preferable to show that the state would not be treated differently from anyone else. He offered Amendment 1, to delete Section 1. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected because there was a motion on the table. He offered to withdraw his own motion. CHAIRMAN GREEN concurred, saying he had a concern regarding compressed gasses. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE withdrew his motion to move the bill. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ renewed his offer of Amendment 1, saying he would subsequently address compressed gasses. CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that Amendment 1 would eliminate Section 1. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she had no problem with that. On the compressed gas issue, she had no documents in her packet from the Interior firefighters association. She had also expected Tim Biggane to be on teleconference; he is her neighbor and friend, and she was under the impression that the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association was happy with this. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was further discussion about eliminating Section 1, then asked whether an objection was maintained. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said yes. CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a roll call vote. Voting to adopt Amendment 1 were Representatives Croft and Berkowitz. Voting against it were Representatives Bunde, Porter, James and Green. Representative Rokeberg was absent. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed, 4 to 2. CHAIRMAN GREEN offered Amendment 2, "on page 5, that we reinstate lines 18 and 19." Number 0922 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated her understanding that only Anchorage was concerned about it and that as a municipality, they have other options. Mentioning the "hillside" situation, she asked: If they couldn't get it passed within their own municipality, why would they want the state to do it for them? She said if the rest of the state is comfortable with not having it there, it seemed that Anchorage should be able to solve the problem within its bounds. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated, "What I think they said was ... that they couldn't pass anything that would require this outside of their regular jurisdiction, just like they had the problem with the police in the `hillside area.' They had excluded themselves on `hillside' from the municipality, and so, they couldn't force police protection up there. That's what they're saying, and the same thing with this fire code: If they were to pass something like this, putting the gasses back in for Anchorage, and had to answer in Eagle River or somewhere else, they wouldn't know in Eagle River whether there were compressed gasses, because their jurisdiction didn't cover that." REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she thought they had done that to the hillside area by a vote. She asked, "And isn't that still the option on this?" There were comments about how controversial that was. MS. KREITZER said she had spoken to Tim Biggane, who represents the Alaska Fire Chiefs Association, and his preference was to not put back in compressed gasses. She had also spoken to Mike Oden (Safety Training Officer for the Risk Management Department of the University of Alaska Fairbanks), who is active in "fire politics" throughout the state and talks with other fire chiefs. She stated, "And his response to me was, the problem with ... putting this amendment in is the size of the cylinder. The 150-pound cylinders, he felt, you get into every welding cylinder. If you are intent on putting the compressed gas back in the bill, his suggestion would be ... that the reporting requirement be greater than a 1,000-pound cylinder." MS. KREITZER pointed out that the Anchorage Fire Department opposes the change regarding compressed gasses. In addition, the Interior Fire Chiefs Association of Alaska had been asked by someone else to submit a letter saying they oppose deletion of the placarding program in Title 18. To her knowledge, they are the only opposition to this bill. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he appreciated the correction. Number 1077 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked whether they would want the 200 amended to 1,000. MS. KREITZER said the bottom line, if it was amended, would be a reporting requirement of greater than a 1,000-pound cylinder. CHAIRMAN GREEN said he had no problem with a friendly amendment. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, "So moved." CHAIRMAN GREEN noted the motion to amend Amendment 2, "to put in 1,000 instead of 200." He asked Ms. Venta what size tank 1,000 cubic feet under compression at standard conditions would be. MS. VENTA said there was no simple answer because everything is different. She suggested that Craig Goodrich answer. CHAIRMAN GREEN specified that when he'd said it was a friendly amendment, he was talking about changing 200 cubic feet to 1,000 cubic feet, not to 1,000 pounds. Number 1163 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said when first referenced as a compromise, it was 1,000 pounds. CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated that was their compromise, not his. He noted that a 1,000-pound tank is huge. MS. VENTA pointed out that 1,000 pounds of compressed gasses could require many, many cylinders. A cylinder might weigh 150 pounds, but the actual compressed gas inside might be only 40 pounds. They could be talking about a huge number of cylinders, which to her creates a greater hazard. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Ms. Venta's opinion on whether they should talk about weight of tanks and liquids, compressed gas, or the amount of gas that is compressed which is capable of doing damage. MS. VENTA replied, "Well, I think where we are with cubic feet is fine. I think we can work with cubic feet." An unidentified speaker asked: How many? CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that it was Representative Bunde's amendment. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE agreed but said he had been referring to 1,000 pounds. CHAIRMAN GREEN apologized. MS. KREITZER said she didn't want to add to the confusion, but if they wanted to amend the bill to the way it was previously, "compressed gasses equal to or more than 200 cubic feet at standard temperature and pressure," she would continue to work with the fire chiefs to find out whether that is the appropriate amount. She stated her preference for doing it in the next committee. CHAIRMAN GREEN responded that he'd prefer that it be 1,000, to do away with the individual cylinder in the back of somebody's garage, which would be almost unworkable. He said a compression of 1,000 cubic feet in standard conditions is a bigger tank, certainly. "And if somebody wants that in weight, rather than cubic feet compressed, I have no objection to that, but I would rather have the 1,000 than the 200," he concluded. Number 1270 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE expressed reluctance to specify a size that he didn't have a better handle on, but he wanted to increase the 200. He asked whether they needed additional expertise. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she did not feel comfortable because they didn't seem to have the right information. She asked whether there was another committee of referral. MS. KREITZER replied that there was a House Finance Committee referral. She offered to work with that committee to rectify this issue, if so directed by the current committee. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she would like to ask Tim Biggane to testify or provide information, as she trusted his judgment. CHAIRMAN GREEN stated his preference for working on it in the current committee. He noted that on the table was "an amended line 18 and 19" to reinstate the language, "compressed gasses equal to or more than 1,000 cubic feet at standard temperature and pressures". He asked whether there was a continued objection. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said yes. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he supported the increase but was not comfortable because he did not know how much 1,000 cubic feet was in practical terms. For example, does this size of container exist? Are they putting in a prohibition that if they had said 800 or 1,100 would have fallen within some industry standard? REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented, "If there is a direct correlation between the 200 and the 150-pound tank, then 1,000 would be a 750- pound tank." However, he did not know whether that was the appropriate size. CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested the increase to 1,000 would do away with the individual welding shop, for example. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he assumed the sponsor would try to "put a finer point on this," which would remove his concern. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Craig Goodrich whether he could get them out of this dilemma. Number 1446 MR. GOODRICH replied, "Not easily, Mr. Chairman. The problem is that the gas is compressed into different size of cylinders. It depends on if you're talking about fluorine, LNG, LPG; there's a whole host of things. The cylinder sizes are not standardized, and neither is the weight. ... If the interest is to have something larger than two or three cylinders in the back of a garage, then I think that the problem is going to become a little bit broader, in that the specific quantities for specific kinds of compressed gasses are going to have to be identified." MR. GOODRICH suggested they may have to talk to the various industries if they want amounts around 1,000 pounds. It would vary from 750 pounds to a one-ton cylinder, for example, for fluorine; the latter is as big as a conference table and is a considerable amount of compressed gas. It would be substantially different for other kinds of gasses, however, and it would require research. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether "the 1,000" would remove it from the individual garage. MR. GOODRICH replied, "Unquestionably." CHAIRMAN GREEN said that was what they were after. MS. VENTA pointed out that Anchorage is looking at commercial businesses, as residential use is not regulated. Number 1540 CHAIRMAN GREEN mentioned that it has been in statute for some time at 200 cubic feet, without all this controversy. He asked whether, by increasing it to 1,000, they had definitely removed it from the back yard and now were talking about something that posed a significant risk in a commercial building to a firefighter. MS. VENTA replied, "I would absolutely say so, yes." CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there was further discussion about Amendment 2, including 1,000 cubic feet. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES removed her objection but said she was still not comfortable with it. Noting that there was another committee of referral, she said she could talk to them if necessary and would talk to Mr. Biggane meanwhile. CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that there being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 1637 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ offered a conceptual amendment, saying he would like to restore the placarding program in Sections 2, 3 and 8. He said it doesn't cost anything, it doesn't hurt anybody, and testimony indicated the firefighters appreciate it. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected, suggesting the legislature did not plan to fund this and he would not encourage it. He suggested if Anchorage, Eagle River or North Pole want to have placarding, nothing prevents that. He added, "I'm afraid if we say the state must, then we've got a good excuse for state fire marshal employees to travel to the far corners of the state to put up a three-by-five placard during fishing season." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied that he didn't share the latter concern. This seemed to be an instance where statewide uniformity is desired. Because firefighters respond statewide, there shouldn't be different symbols in different parts of the state. MS. KREITZER said the problem is that the state fire marshal's program isn't uniform with Title 29 or with the federal reporting requirements. The testimony from the state department itself is to get rid of the program, and the state fire marshal doesn't want it. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded, "That's not what I heard." MS. KREITZER said she had minutes from previous meetings and Representative Berkowitz could ask him on the record again. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether Mr. Goodrich had heard the dialogue. Number 1781 MR. GOODRICH replied, "The position of the state fire marshal's office is that this program requires a rather substantial up-front, meaning front-loaded, expenditure in order to get the program up and running. Anchorage's program may or may not be carrying itself, but it is at a state at this point that it is near-self- sustaining." MR. GOODRICH continued, "The big issue, however, was the up-front expenditure, meaning to the tune of a million dollars or more in man-hours and time, in order to get the program logged in, because individual businesses simply do not respond. They ... apparently have not had the time to sit down and look at the documentation that comes across their desk, along with trying to conduct business in general; and so, they don't report." He said with nine individuals to cover the entire state, the issue would be how to conduct this placarding program in addition to all the other enforcement and plan review processes, for example. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked, "Is what you're saying is because you don't have the resources, you can't see that the program is carried through?" MR. GOODRICH replied, "That is correct." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked whether the program itself is objectionable to Mr. Goodrich. MR. GOODRICH replied, "The program itself, it has two simple factors. One is the reporting of hazardous substances that can be passed along for the use of fire departments as they log that information to their pre-fire plans. ... And that component of the program is useful. ... The actual placarding portion of the program, which goes hand-in-hand with that, has been deemed primarily to be useless, simply because it is not sufficient enough to get the firefighter, early on, full information of what they can expect to see when they go inside of a building, because they've been placarded for the most hazardous substance that is ever on the property." MR. GOODRICH explained, "The problem comes in when you have a fire and you mix more than one product with anything else; you get into heat and time, and in many cases, pressure. So, you're manufacturing so many different hazardous materials that it isn't possible at all to even know what you have there. So, we default to what we call a `uniform standard of operation' or `hazardous conditions.' Now, the University of Alaska has seen fit to substantially modify the program, although it is in complete noncompliance with anybody else. But they wanted to be more specific, and they have done so, and their program seems to work with them. And on the face of it, the program is not entirely practical." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested in nonemergency situations, a skull-and-crossbones, lightning bolt or other symbol would be useful to keep children away, warn "don't smoke," and so forth. He asked whether he was reading too much into the placarding. MR. GOODRICH explained that there is a six-by-six diamond, split into four smaller diamonds with different colors, each of which has a number from one to four. The general public has no idea how those colors and the numbers within them relate. It is even problematic keeping firefighters up to speed with that. In fact, the Anchorage Fire Department puts the benchmark for those on the backs of bathroom doors, as a memory aid for the firefighters. CHAIRMAN GREEN expressed concern that while it might work in Anchorage, it would be difficult elsewhere and very expensive. He mentioned the $1 million figure. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ withdrew the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move 0-LS0214\F, Lauterbach, 4/11/97, as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There being no objection, HCS CSSB 39(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|