Legislature(2005 - 2006)BUTROVICH 205
04/15/2005 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB164 | |
| HB19 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
CSHB 19(FIN)-PESTICIDE & BROADCAST CHEMICALS
CHAIR THOMAS WAGONER announced CSHB 19(FIN) to be up for
consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER said he was looking for a way to
eliminate the state general fund obligation to the State
Pesticide Program, which is required by federal law. He also
wanted to provide reasonable protections for public health for
when pesticides are used throughout the state.
The way the program works, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) approves a pesticide for sale in the United States and
then each state has to register the pesticide for sale within
the state. The state agency in this case is the Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC). It is responsible for
registering the pesticides and inspecting and enforcing the
requirements that EPA puts on the handling and distribution of
these chemicals. In Alaska, the program has been paid for with
general funds, but in other states the program is paid for by
the chemical manufacturers in the form of a fee they pay to the
state.
When he first contacted the chemical manufacturers, they were
not surprised nor did they resist being charged a fee for
chemicals that they sell in Alaska. The only thing they
requested is that the state doesn't try to fill its fiscal gap
on their backs. The department suggested a fee of $85 that is
set up on a sliding basis so that chemicals that are used
infrequently would be charged less. This fee would make Alaska
th
the 11 cheapest in the country.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER explained that when pesticides are used in
a public place this bill requires that they be applied by a
certified applicator. The intent is to target areas where people
go in masses and shouldn't have to worry about a recent
spraying. The other requirement is that the spraying is noticed
something like a "Wet Paint" sign.
4:50:46 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked if public schools were included in the
definition of public place.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER replied yes; it includes schools and
universities.
SENATOR GUESS asked if it includes Alaska Native Hospital, but
not Providence Hospital.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER responded that he thought she was right.
MIKE PAWLOWSKI, staff to Representative Meyer, said he knew
Providence and Alaska Regional Hospitals would not be included
in this. He said they worked on the definition closely with the
DEC.
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), said the
definition is specific in the proposed legislation, but she
would have to look at other statutes regarding a definition for
"government office." She hadn't considered government hospitals
and since even the Native hospitals are technically run by
consortiums, she didn't know if they would be considered a state
building. She thought they would be considered federal
government buildings. "But, I think our intent here was to cover
state government buildings."
4:54:01 PM
SENATOR GUESS said if the intent is state buildings, that
wouldn't include schools.
MS. RYAN responded that schools are covered by existing
regulations that already require public notice.
SENATOR GUESS asked if government-funded programs not in a
government facility, like Headstart, are covered.
MS. RYAN interpreted that to not be included. She didn't think
the department had the authority to require the federal
government to post warnings in their buildings. She would check
on that.
SENATOR GUESS asked her to check on requirements for
municipalities and local government buildings as well.
4:55:18 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if licensing of pesticide applicators
included spray bottles or people on page 3, line 6.
MS. RYAN replied people.
SENATOR SEEKINS said he looked at AS 46.03.320(b) and it says
the department may provide, by regulation, for the licensing of
private applicators and asked about public applicators. "Would
they have to have the same standards as a private applicator?"
MS. RYAN replied that is existing statute and she could do a
temporary waiver for people who couldn't get to the course, but
needed to do an emergency application. The department has
interpreted the statutes to require commercial applicators to be
certified. That means you have to take a test and go through a
course that teaches you how to apply the chemicals safely.
It's against federal law to ever apply a chemical
against the label. The label is the law with
pesticides. So, a private applicator is held to that
just as much as a commercial applicator. Everyone is
supposed to follow the label.
4:57:02 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if a Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities (DOTPF) employee spraying down a highway would
be subject to licensing and have to pass the same examination.
MS. RYAN replied:
There's a few things that impact state applications.
For one thing, our regulations currently require them
to get a permit. We don't require permits for every
type of application; we only require a permit for
aerial spraying - for spraying over lakes like a fish
kill by Fish and Game or if you apply it to state
lands. So, DOT and the Railroad have to come to us for
permits and if you're familiar with the history at
all, that's never been successful. They have applied
and not been able to achieve the permit due to public
reaction.
So, through the permit process, we would require them
to make sure they use certified applicators otherwise
they aren't using chemicals on state land without a
permit.
4:58:26 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS said:
I've always thought that what was good for the goose
was good for the gander and if we were protecting
public health and safety and we felt that it was
necessary to certify and license this group, then we
ought to certify and license all people that do that,
not as just a matter of fairness, but a matter of
public safety. I'm just trying to see if there are any
loopholes for people to jump through here if we pass
this legislation based on their status or their
employment.
MS. RYAN replied that a stipulation of getting permits would be
certification. The department wants the pesticides applied
correctly. Commercial applicators are defined in regulations as
people who make money doing this.
4:59:19 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS asked how many fees would be in the $120 range
in reference to language about reasonable fees on page 3, line
4.
MS. RYAN replied that it's for simplification of accounting. She
didn't expect to have a fee for different products. There would
be a waiver from the fee if the product hadn't been used before
in Alaska, if research is being done on it or if it's
experimental.
Based on the money we need to generate to support the
program, the people left paying the fee would either
pay $85, assuming 40 percent don't pay the fee, or if
90 percent pay the fee, it would only be a $55 fee
across the board.
5:00:50 PM
AL VEZEY, Fairbanks, urged the committee to proceed with
caution. Pesticides is an extremely complex subject. It includes
wood preservatives, herbicides and numerous other specialty
products that improve people's lives. He used the removal of
brush from highways so drivers can see moose as an example. He
said the state has never successfully permitted a pesticide
application on state land as required by state law. "We need to
be careful before we take these products away from the public."
5:04:50 PM
He said that a majority of registered applicators are public
employees who are trying to do their jobs in a responsible
manner. They currently pay a fee of $25 to the federal
Agricultural Cooperative Extension Service, a division of the
Department of Agriculture. He encouraged the committee to
develop that relationship further because he thought the federal
government would be able to do more if the state showed more
support for the program that they are already doing in the state
of Alaska.
He said the people paying the fee would by and large be public
employees and would probably be reimbursed for it by the agency
they work for. Then the state would be put back in the position
of being asked to fund additional expenses due to having to
register with the state. He asked the committee to compare the
cost to the public and the harms it would inadvertently cause.
MR. VEZEY asked if they are going to require the owner of a
large public housing project to go through a registration and
public notice process before they implement a program to control
rats and mice.
Individual apartment owners don't have a chance in the
world of managing a rodent problem in a multi-family
building. It has to be done on a broad scope basis.
Looking at the regulations, we don't really know what
will come out of it. Is it going to encourage public
safety and public health or just simply discourage the
use of pesticide in the consequent deterioration the
quality of the environment that we all live in?
5:08:18 PM
KEN PERRY, Perry Paratex Pied Piper, said he also represents the
Alaska Pesticide Applicators Group, the National Pest Management
Association and a group called the Responsible Industry For A
Sound Environment. He praised the DEC and its pesticide
division, but said while it is sorely under-funded and severely
criticized, it has shown remarkable ability in overseeing
pesticide usage and the current registration program.
He said the bill is well-intentioned, but seriously flawed.
It holds no reasonable benefit to the people of our
state. I urge you to consider carefully testimony you
have and will be hearing sponsored by the tax-free
outside supported special interest groups. Please do
not forget that these are the same people who are
holding not just our small Alaska businesses, but our
major business interests, such as ANWR and the gas
pipeline. It is, therefore, no surprise that they are
now attacking chemical manufacturers whose billions of
dollars of research have produced safe and effective
products that tens of thousands of your constituents
have chosen to purchase over the years - items such as
mosquito repellant they put on their bodies or use
around their homes and lodges, the flea and tic
collars they put on their pets, disinfectants they use
to clean their homes and keep their spas and hot tubs
safe, the paints they use on their boats, the wood
preservatives they use to protect their structures and
the agricultural products that our farmers in Delta
and the Mat-Su use to need to have available to eek
out their livings....
MR. PERRY said this is an anti-business bill and not passing it
would send a large message to a large number of major companies
that Alaska is business friendly, not just a playground for
extremists.
5:13:39 PM
VARSHA MATHRANI, Environmental Health Coordinator, Alaska's
Community Action on Toxics, asked the committee to consider the
long-term affects of their actions. Children are particularly
sensitive to negative health effects from exposures to toxic
chemicals. Children play closer to the ground with lots of hand
to mouth behavior; and their bodies and organs are growing and
developing. Many pesticides are known to be associated with
adverse effects on the developing brain and nervous system of
children. She strongly supported HB 19.
ALAN COLTER, Anchorage resident, related how a good friend of
his died two years ago due to pesticide use in landscaping. They
worked together and used chemicals indiscriminately based on
what their boss told them. She died a long slow painful death.
He said that many of the chemicals used by the public are very
toxic, especially to children and older people. He supported HB
19 that would promote their responsible use.
5:20:26 PM
SHABA KURTS, Alaska Pacific University student, asked how the
public is supposed to know what is dangerous and what is not. He
trusts that the people who apply them will do it to the best of
their knowledge, but he felt there should be more regulation,
especially when it comes to something that could be dangerous to
the public health.
5:22:14 PM
COLIN QUENHEARST, Anchorage, supported HB 19. It is valuable for
all Alaska residents because it gives them the right to know
when pesticides are sprayed so that they can choose to avoid
dangerous substances. It is valuable particularly for children
as it pertains to marking of playgrounds where pesticides are
used.
5:23:50 PM
JILL DONALDSON, Alaska Pacific University student, supported HB
19. She has an Associates Degree in Environmental Technology,
which includes 30 hours of training with pesticide application,
regulation and uses under DEC and the New York State law. This
has shown her how potentially dangerous pesticides and broadcast
chemicals can be. The state of Alaska can learn what has worked
well and what has not worked well in other states.
One main concern is that certified applicators hold the majority
of responsibility and burdens that are associated with pesticide
regulations. However, they agree that proper pesticide
application and the necessary precautions associated with
application go hand in hand with ideal business tactics. She
supported the licensing of all pesticide applicators not only
for the safety of the individual, but for the safety of all
Alaskan residents.
She said it is also important to realize that the average
American may be exposed to more hazardous chemicals through
household applications rather than industrial applications.
"That's why public education is a key factor when controlling
the use of pesticides and broadcast chemicals."
5:26:10 PM
MS. RYAN commented that the committee heard a mix of comments
today and that her division receives complaints on pesticides
frequently. It is probably the things she spends the most time
on and yet it's probably the smallest program in her division.
The four staff in the pesticide program use federal
funds; we have primacy for pesticides similar to what
we're trying to do with NPDES and we use those federal
funds to inspect places that sell pesticides or
commercial applicators that use them and make sure
they are doing them right. That's what we do.
This bill would add a few more responsibilities. We
would be looking now at public notice in certain areas
and we'd be expanding the certification requirements.
And also, then, it gets rid of the general fund that's
used to support the program. It's the match with the
federal funds...I think, $49,000 is just straight
general fund to the program.
She didn't want people to be restricted from using new products
and expected to waive many fees because of that.
Certification to me is the real key. People that know
what they're doing is what's going to make the
difference. With all toxins, the dose is the poison.
Even salt and caffeine are toxic at certain levels.
5:29:08 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS asked what keeps someone from bringing in an
unregistered pesticide.
MS. RYAN replied that that happens all the time and that's what
the division's four inspectors look for when they are out in
green houses or Fred Meyers. They are making sure that the
chemicals for sale on the shelves are registered by EPA and the
state. When unregistered chemicals are found, the store is told
they can't sell it here and they are issued a stop-sale order.
Stores comply easily, because they can return the products to
the manufacturer for a refund and there is no penalty at this
time.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if an applicator can bring a pesticide in
from Washington and apply it with no penalty.
MS. RYAN replied that it would be illegal and the department can
issue a notice of violation and while the pesticide program does
not have administrative penalty or civil fine authority, she
related that the Attorney General's office was able to do a
sting a couple of years ago.
SENATOR GUESS asked who is responsible for the public
notification for spraying in a public place under HB 19.
MS. RYAN replied that the statute leaves that up to the
department to determine through regulation. She assumed that the
responsibility for signage would be on the applicator.
5:32:27 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked if there is a penalty in regulation for not
giving public notice.
MS. RYAN replied that it would be a violation of the regulation
and the division issues a notice of violation.
5:33:23 PM
CHAIR WAGONER asked who does the training.
MS. RYAN replied that her staff has a good working relationship
with the Cooperative Extension Service, but with this bill there
would be an increased demand for training and she has proposed
creating a training CD for use by remote communities and people
who couldn't get to her office easily.
5:34:37 PM
SENATOR GUESS asked DEC and the sponsor to get back to her on
the definitions of government office and public facility to
clarify the record.
5:35:00 PM
SENATOR SEEKINS moved CSHB19 (FIN) from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. There were
no objections and it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|