Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/16/1993 03:00 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 39: CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS Number 466 DAN AUSTIN, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT TO REP. KAY BROWN, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 39, read the sponsor summary. Number 500 JANICE ADAIR, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC), testified that the Federal Clean Air Act passed in 1990 required changes in law and regulations in all 50 states. These changes have to be accomplished in order for Alaska to continue to issue permits to industry and to protect the federal highway funds. She noted that a similar bill was introduced last session, but because of some confusion with what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations were and were going to be, the bill did not pass. MS. ADAIR stated that the DEC essentially asked for representatives from those involved in the issue to form the working group who eventually drafted HB 39. Number 572 TOM CHAPPLE, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, gave a broad overview of the Clean Air Act (the Act), with emphasis on the permit program. MR. CHAPPLE noted that the overhaul of the Clean Air Act was the first major one since 1970. The major goal of the overhaul was to reach and maintain a certain level of air quality. Mr. Chapple explained that this goal was accomplished by two means: 1) a permit program that issues licenses to installations that generate air pollution; and 2) controlling mobile sources of air pollution; i.e., automobiles. MR. CHAPPLE noted that HB 39 would not deal with mobile sources of air pollution, which was a large part of the agency's work. MR. CHAPPLE explained that the state of Alaska has had a permit program since 1971, but to come in compliance with the Act, the program required substantial updating. MR. CHAPPLE informed the committee that Congress saw that this permit structure was complex and has mandated that every state create a small business assistance program to help guide businesses through the permit maze. Another major initiative of the Act is the reduction of acid rain, according to Mr. Chapple. He noted that Alaska was exempt from this portion. The Act requires enforcement of the Act. Congress also added 180 new pollutants to the list of items that lower air quality. MR. CHAPPLE explained some of the differences between the permit process as it is now and how it will be if the bill is passed. TAPE 93-12, SIDE B Number 234 REP. BILL WILLIAMS asked about the EPA and public review process mentioned in the handout (on file in the committee packet). MR. CHAPPLE explained that the Act calls for a mandatory public and EPA review of the draft permits. REP. WILLIAMS expressed concern that it would be hard to find persons with enough scientific knowledge to review the permits. REP. MULDER asked, If it were not for the fact that the federal government were going to withhold funds from the state, would we even be considering this Act? In other words, do we have a problem? MR. CHAPPLE stated that the permit process the state presently has needs some improvement, but he did not think the state has a major public health problem from the sources it currently regulates. Mr. Chapple noted that Congress did add some chemical compounds to the list of hazardous air pollutants that are used in Alaska. REP. MULDER expounded on his previously stated concern that $4,000,000 would be spent on something that the federal government has mandated the state to fix that does not sound like a problem. CHAIRMAN HUDSON clarified that the $4,000,000 comes from the permitees. REP. MULDER added that those costs would most certainly be passed on to the consumer. REP. GREEN asked if the state of Alaska shouldn't be exempt from some of the Act given the state's unique situation. Rep. Green also wondered if the state was giving too much control to the federal government to micro-manage it's permit process. MR. CHAPPLE stated that the working group focused on making the permit process as streamlined as possible so that businesses would not find it unduly restraining. REP. WILLIAMS asked for clarification on the fact that Alaska seems to be exempt from the portion of the Act dealing with the acid rain problem. MR. CHAPPLE explained that it was known-science that acid rain is an East Coast problem and that Alaska does not contribute to this particular air quality problem. REP. WILLIAMS cited that answer as an example of the attitude the state should take back to the federal government and explain that Alaska is not part of the problem and therefore should not be required to regulate as strictly as some of the other states. Number 380 CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if the $10,000 a day penalty was established by the federal government or the state. MR. CHAPPLE answered that it was the federal government's minimum penalty. MR. CHAPPLE outlined the sectional analysis of HB 39. TAPE 93-13, SIDE A REP. JOE SITTON inquired what a "direct" cost was under Section 5. MR. CHAPPLE answered that direct costs would be the time the inspector spent doing the inspection, writing the inspection up, and reporting back to the Department of Environmental Conservation, but would not include travel costs. REP. SITTON expressed concern regarding the image that will be put forth if the costs referenced are charged directly back to the permittee. MR. CHAPPLE responded that the act requires that the state recoup the costs of the permit programs. CHAIRMAN HUDSON inquired if the penalty money would go into the general fund. MR. CHAPPLE answered that the money would go into a special account called the Clean Air Protection Account and hopefully will be used solely for clean air projects. Number 144 REP. PORTER asked for an example of a ton of air contamination. MR. CHAPPLE gave an example of a diesel generator small enough to fit on the committee table, 550 kw, running 24 hours per day, 365 days per year, which would produce 100 tons of nitrogen dioxide. CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked Mr. Chapple for the sections of the bill that exceeded the act. MR. CHAPPLE listed Sections 161, 185, 152 and 154. Number 250 STEVEN TAYLOR, MANAGER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS, BRITISH PETROLEUM COMPANY, ALSO REPRESENTING THE ALASKA OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION, testified that the Clean Air Act of 1990 was a horrible piece of legislation, imposing numerous requirements on the state of Alaska that were neither warranted or justified. MR. TAYLOR suggested there were only to choices for the state; (1) craft a bill taking advantage of the flexibility that exists in the act, or (2) wait and let the EPA impose it's will on the state's permit process. MR. TAYLOR informed the committee that he represented the oil and gas industry on the working committee and that the bill was as sound as possible given the limits. Mr. Taylor further contended that it wouldn't be good business to have business deals with the EPA directly. Number 321 CARL HARMON, MANAGER, ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, CHUGACH ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, and also representing rural electrical utilities, concurred with the previous speaker. Mr. Harmon asked that the working group be given a chance to review any changes the legislators make to HB 39. CHAIRMAN HUDSON gave his thanks to the working group with special thanks to Tom Chapple for his work in bringing such diverse groups together to work on a project of such magnitude. CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced that he would hold HB 65 for future hearings. He ADJOURNED the meeting at 4:55 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|