Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/10/1994 01:15 PM House CRA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE COMMUNITY AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS
STANDING COMMITTEE
March 10, 1994
1:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Harley Olberg, Chairman
Representative Jerry Sanders, Vice Chair
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative Ed Willis
Representative John Davies
Representative Bill Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SB 33: "An Act relating to emergency planning and
response; transferring the Hazardous Substance
Spill Technology Review Council to the Department
of Environmental Conservation; transferring the
Alaska State Emergency Response Commission,
including its duty to designate local emergency
planning districts and appoint local emergency
planning committees, to the Department of Military
and Veterans' Affairs; and eliminating a
requirement that the state and regional oil
discharge prevention and contingency plans be
revised annually."
PASSED FROM COMMITTEE WITH INDIVIDUAL
RECOMMENDATIONS
*HB 467: "An Act relating to housing programs of the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation and of regional
housing authorities, and permitting regional
housing authorities to make, originate, and
service loans for the purchase and development of
residential housing in the state's small
communities."
NOT HEARD
WITNESS REGISTER
ANNETTE KREITZER, Legislative Staff
Senator Loren Leman
Capitol Building, Room 113
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Phone: 465-2095
POSITION STATEMENT: Staff to Senator Loren Leman, Prime
Sponsor of SB 33
MIKE CONWAY, Director
Division of Spill Prevention and Response
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 302
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
Phone: 465-5260
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33
ERVIN PAUL MARTIN, Director
Alaska Division of Emergency Services
Department of Military and Veterans Affairs
P.O. Box 5750
Fort Richardson, AK 99505-0750
Phone: 428-7000
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33
JIM STUDLEY
P.O. Box 946
Haines, AK 99827
Phone: 766-3377
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33
ROCKY ANSELL
Copper River LEPC
P.O. Box 217
Copper Center, AK 99573
Phone: 822-3671
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33
KEN ROBERSTON
Copper River LEPC
P.O. Box 375
Glennallen, AK 99588
Phone:
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33
DR. ERNIE MELOCHE
Alaska LEPC Association
P.O. Box 6058
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Phone: 247-6058
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33
STEVEN O'CONNOR
Kenai Peninsula LEPC
231 S. Binkley
Soldotna, AK 99669
Phone: 262-4792
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33
VERNON KUGZRUK
P.O. Box 580
Teller, AK 99778
Phone: 642-3401
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33 and proposed
amendments
BILL SHECHTER
Alaska Fire Chiefs
P.O. Box 71267
Fairbanks, AK 99707
Phone: 459-1219
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33 and proposed an
amendment
STEVEN PORTER
10420 Lone Tree Drive
Anchorage, AK 99516
Phone: 265-6269
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33 and proposed an
amendment
BOB STEWART
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, AK 99519
Phone: 267-4904
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 33
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 33
SHORT TITLE: GRANTS FOR LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) LEMAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/11/93 23 (S) PREFILE RELEASED 1/4/93
01/11/93 24 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
01/11/93 24 (S) CRA, STA, FINANCE
02/23/93 (S) CRA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH RM 205
02/24/93 460 (S) CRA RPT CS 2DP 1NR SAME TITLE
02/24/93 460 (S) ZERO FNS TO SB & CS (DEC, DMVA)
03/03/93 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH RM 205
03/03/93 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/31/93 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH RM 205
03/31/93 (S) MINUTE(STA)
11/29/93 (S) MINUTE(STA)
01/19/94 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH RM 205
01/19/94 (S) MINUTE(STA)
01/21/94 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH RM 205
01/21/94 (S) MINUTE(STA)
01/24/94 2579 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP 2NR NEW TITLE
01/24/94 2580 (S) FNS TO CS PUBLISHED (DEC,DMVA)
02/03/94 (S) FIN AT 09:30 AM SENATE FIN 518
02/15/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518
02/17/94 (S) FIN AT 09:00 AM SENATE FIN 518
02/18/94 2881 (S) FIN RPT CS 1DP 4NR NEW TITLE
02/18/94 2881 (S) FISCAL NOTE TO CS PUBLISHED
(DMVA)
02/18/94 2881 (S) PREVIOUS FN APPLIES (DEC)
02/22/94 (S) RLS AT 00:00 AM FAHRENKAMP
ROOM 203
02/22/94 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/23/94 2959 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/24/94
02/24/94 2959 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/24/94 2959 (S) FIN CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
02/24/94 2959 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
02/24/94 2959 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME
CSSB 33(FIN)
02/24/94 2960 (S) PASSED Y16 N2 E2
02/24/94 2960 (S) Duncan NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
02/28/94 2994 (S) RECON TAKEN UP-IN THIRD READING
02/28/94 2995 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION
Y15 N3 A2
02/28/94 3006 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/02/94 2565 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
03/02/94 2566 (H) CRA, FINANCE
03/10/94 (H) CRA AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 467
SHORT TITLE: AHFC HOUSING LOANS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MACLEAN
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/11/94 2350 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME/REFERRAL(S)
02/11/94 2350 (H) CRA, FINANCE
03/10/94 (H) CRA AT 01:15 PM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 94-12, SIDE A
Number 000
CHAIRMAN HARLEY OLBERG called the meeting to order at 1:19
p.m. He noted for the record Representatives Toohey, Bunde,
Sanders and Willis were present and noted that a quorum was
present.
SB 33 - GRANTS FOR LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING
ANNETTE KREITZER, STAFF TO SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, SPONSOR OF
CSSB 33, testified, "This legislation...began as a funding
mechanism for the Departments of Environmental Conservation
and Military and Veterans' Affairs to extend grants to local
emergency planning committees. But as the departments
reviewed their responsibilities with respect to planning,
the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) and the local
emergency planning committees, a very different bill
emerged. The committee substitute before you is the result
of many months of work by the SERC task force, of input from
local governments, mayors, assemblymen, emergency planners,
local emergency planning committees and from the
departments. This bill transfers the state emergency
response commission and its responsibilities from the
Department of Environmental Conservation to the Department
of Military and Veterans' Affairs (DMVA). It transfers the
existing Hazardous Substance Spill Technology Review Council
from the SERC where it currently resides, into the
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). It
eliminates the annual revision requirement for the state and
regional oil discharge prevention plans. The annual review
is still necessary. Sections 1,2 and 3...this is part of a
DMVA amendment. They were requested in December by the
sponsor, to go through their statutes since this bill was
already so extensive, we asked them, `go ahead and go
through your statutes and see how all of this will sit in
with the current planning that you do' and when they did
that, they realized that there was all this reference to
disaster agencies in their statutes which had never ever
been created and the department feels that they never will
be created, so why leave that in statute, let's get rid of
it...it took five pages to do that. In section 3, in part,
this is where the bill actually began before. It amends DES
(Division of Emergency Services) duties to include granting
authority and that's to the extent that money is available
for forming Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC), for
awarding federal funds to LEPCs, for developing and
maintaining emergency plans, make funds available to comply
with community right-to-know criteria, to award grants for
training local emergency planning committees, training and
equipping emergency response organizations and for executing
the plans that are developed by the LEPCs. Sections 4, 10,
and 11 basically say that there will be cohesion among all
of the plans that are created, all the planning statutes
that we have. We just say, `these all need to mesh
together.' Those are technical sections but that's what
they do. Section 5 adds the response corps and depots into
the explicit responsibilities of DMVA. Section 6: This is
a housekeeping amendment to make reference to the term
`political subdivision.' Rather than a variety of other
terms...and it also removed reference to disaster agencies.
Section 7 clarifies that each political subdivision has the
responsibility for disaster preparedness and coordination of
local response and again, it removes reference to disaster
agencies. Section 8: Political subdivisions, if they're
unable to plan for local disaster preparedness must
designate a liaison to work with the Division of Emergency
Services. Section 9 clarifies that each political
subdivision has to have a plan prepared and maintained, and
that the plan is provided to all of the appropriate
officials. That can mean LEPCs and all the other entities
that are named in that plan when it's created. Sections 10,
11 and 4: Again...all related plans must mesh together, so
there isn't some cog somewhere that doesn't fit with the
planning that was started at a local level."
Number 098
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY said, "That kind of fits right
here in with this Alaska Fire Chief's Association (letter).
Are you addressing their concern in this letter?" (A copy
of this letter is on file.)
MS. KREITZER said she would address the letter when she
completed the analysis of CSSB 33 and said, "Section 12
establishes the SERC under the DMVA. It defines the SERC
membership and this is different. Currently, there are
seven public members on the SERC, but there isn't anything
in statute which says who those seven seats are. Those
seven seats are designated by the Governor currently. The
reason this bill became so big and became more than what it
was initially is because as our office worked with the SERC
and with the political subdivisions and the LEPC's, what
became apparent to us is that there was no mechanism for the
LEPC's to have direct input into what the Commission was
doing and no real direct line of communication for the
Commission to the LEPC's or to the political subdivisions.
To resolve that problem, we decided to say that there should
be four LEPC seats on the SERC. And that there should be
two seats representing political subdivisions on the SERC.
And that there is one undesignated seat that the Governor
can decide who he wants to appoint to that seat. I'll get
to the Fire Chief's concern in a minute, this is where they
would like to see a seat designated for fire chief's. Also
in section 12, it removes the requirement for the Oil and
Hazardous Substance Response Office to serve as staff for
the SERC. DMVA will provide staff support. In the Senate
Finance Committee, the DMVA had asked for two additional
positions out of general funds. That was deleted from the
fiscal note in the Senate Finance Committee. Currently, the
SERC is co-chaired by the DMVA and DEC. This keeps that
current requirement. The commission duties: The commission
wanted to become an all hazards commission. What they
wanted the ability to do was be the statewide entity
overseeing all the planning that goes on in the state for
all emergencies whether they involve oil and hazardous
substances, earthquakes, floods, or whatever. It was the
Governor's wish that they do that and they were discussed
extensively and felt that they should go ahead and do that.
So this bill gives them the ability to do that. They can't
do that on their own, it has to be done legislatively. Much
of section 12, their duties are the same as current law.
One of the problems was who does the appointing for the
LEPCs. When SERC was first formed and the LEPCs were first
formed, there were a lot of growth pains. One of the
problems that occurred were some discrepancies over who
could be on the LEPC and who ought to be making that
decision and those kinds of things. Well, SARA (Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act) Title 3, the federal law
which brought about the need for SERC and the LEPCs, very
clearly states that the SERC is responsible for appointing
the members to the LEPCs. That doesn't sit very well with
the local governments...and the way that we have gotten
around it is, and I won't say necessarily side stepping what
the federal intent was, because the SERC is not a rubber
stamp organization, it must evaluate and make sure that the
LEPCs meet the federal criteria that they must meet for
membership. But what we've said is that the SERC needs to
take into very heavy consideration, the recommendations of
the local political subdivisions as to who ought to be on
the LEPC. And the SERC has also done its own streamlining
of the process for approval of people in LEPCs. So these
two things together I think will help alleviate that problem
and concern about membership on the LEPCs."
Number 280
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "This emergency planning group
(SERC), is this going to be year round these commissioners?"
MS. KREITZER asked, "The SERC already exists and it has been
in existence since 1990, I believe, when it was first
created by the Governor. They meet four times a year."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "So they only are paid when
they're meeting? We're not making up a whole new
bureaucracy."
MS. KREITZER confirmed this adding, "In Section 12 it says
the same as current law, they get their per diem and
travel," and continued with her presentation saying,
"Section 26.27.03, Emergency Planning Districts and
Committees: The commission sets the boundaries of the local
emergency planning districts (LEPD). Now part of SARA,
Title 3, says federal law requires that the state be divided
into local emergency planning districts and for each
district there is a LEPC. So when we're talking about LEPCs
and LEPDs, they're one for one. There has to be a LEPC for
each district that is created. The Commission will set the
boundaries although we realize that there are some areas of
the state because of remoteness and inability to do the
planning, that they may not have a LEPC. So after a great
deal of discussion on how to handle that situation, because
the people who are currently out there planning now
certainly want to retain their ability to plan. They've
been at this for four or five years and they want to
continue. But for areas of the state that currently are not
planning, but may yet be able to move into a LEPC or become
a LEPC, we had to create some sort of pathway for them to be
able to do that. What we decided to do was, there are 18
LEPDs currently that exist, anything outside of the 13 LEPCs
would become one LEPD, one district. In the future, it's
expected that parts of that will organize around
transportation boundaries...because certainly the sponsor
believes that the planning needs to start at the local
level. And the SERC appoints the members of the LEPC. When
the SERC does that they have to follow the recommendations
of the political subdivision for that emergency planning
district. The question came up `what happens when we have
more than one political subdivision?' Quite frankly, what
has to happen is there has to be some cooperation, and we
believe it's possible. Whoever's nominated must fit the
categories which are delineated further into the bill. As
we've discussed that over the year, initially there was a
lot of resistance by the LEPCs. They weren't sure how their
political subdivisions were going to work together, but as
we talked about more and more they realized that yes, they
are political subdivisions aren't immovable objects, that
they're made up of people...and people can compromise and
they can come to understandings, and they realized that this
is a process that can work and so they were supportive of
this, in the end that this can work. The committee
membership: There are seven categories and I want to
emphasize that this does meet SARA, Title 3 requirements;
however, many of you may have heard that no state elected
official in Alaska may constitutionally hold a seat on the
LEPC. Senator Leman was a member of the Anchorage LEPC and
had to resign his seat. So that has been changed to just
say `elected local officials' and not state officials,
because in Alaska we can't meet that requirement."
REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS joined the committee at 1:38
p.m.
Number 342
MS. KREITZER continued, "Also, the media position has been
the most difficult to fill. Especially on the Kenai, this
has been a really great problem for them and the rationale
for the media has been they don't see how they could sit on
the commission and report on the commission and on its
activities. So that's why they've been reluctant to
participate yet the federal government requires that there
be a media seat, very specifically. So we've put a little
caveat in here that says, `if you're unable to fill that
seat, you must try, you must go through the motions and
advertise the position and do all the things you would
normally do, but if you can't fill the media seat, you can
continue to operate.' That's the only way to get around
that because there's a great deal of concern that it would
invalidate any LEPC where they couldn't get the media to
come and sit in that seat. So this takes care of that
problem. It also allows for individuals who are unhappy
over the membership of the LEPC to petition the SERC over
the membership. It allows for the public process. Also,
current law does not require public advertising of positions
available on the committee. It's implied in a lot of
places, but it's not required. So we just thought...we
should say it is required so people know that they should
advertise positions that become available. All through the
current statutes and the new statutes that are created in
this bill, we've tried to improve coordination and
cooperation between political subdivisions, LEPCs and the
SERC. So within the LEPC section there we've added `in a
manner that includes coordination with the political
subdivisions covered by the plan' to make sure that LEPCs
are cooperating and coordinating with their local political
subdivisions."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES joined the committee at 1:40 p.m.
MS. KREITZER continued, "All LEPC's do not have to become
`all hazards' if they don't have the capacity to plan for
all hazards. Initially, they don't have to do that. They
can take that on as their resources allow. We're not trying
to create little kingdoms where money has to follow. We're
just saying where you have the ability to plan, then you are
allowed to plan, then you're allowed to plan for all hazards
if that's your desire. Also in H of that section,
previously DMVA and DEC were the agencies that LEPCs could
look to for technical assistance, and we just felt that
since the SERC is made up of nine commissioners from nine
different departments that if there was a need for technical
assistance from any of those other departments that they
would give that assistance. Let me go back up here to
committee membership...the fire chief's concern: If you
look at the membership of the LEPC."
Number 394
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked, "FEMA (Federal Emergency
Management Agency), have you been involved at all with
them?"
MS. KREITZER replied, "The only way we've been involved with
FEMA is through the Division of Emergency Services (DES) who
has direct access to FEMA. So we relied on their
understanding of what FEMA is required to do and what funds
are available through FEMA for planning..." She then
proceeded with her presentation saying, "going back to the
committee membership on page 9 of your bill, it starts with
lines 9 through 21: Committee membership must include at a
minimum representatives of the following seven categories"
and read the lines she described in CSSB 33.
MS. KREITZER said, "It's our contention that the
firefighters will be served because they will be on the
LEPCs and remembering that there are four LEPC seats that
can be appointed to the SERC, we feel that any of these
groups could well sit on the SERC, and we feel that the
Governor will recognize that when he appoints to the SERC."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked," On that point, is it possible,
however, that we have a circumstance where there would be no
one directly representing the fire fighting side of the
house, as this is drafted?"
MS. KREITZER replied, "That's an interesting question
because I can't speculate on what would happen..."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "I will answer that, yes..."
MS. KREITZER added, "I would just also say that of those
eight categories, probably one person wears five of those
hats."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY suggested "lumping first aid, health
and hospital into one."
MS. KREITZER said, "The reason that this is worded the way
that it is, is because this is the current wording in SARA,
Title 3 and....we have to follow the punctuation which is in
SARA, Title 3..."
Number 452
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Would it be fair to suggest that
under circumstances a member of the fire fighting brigade
from any particular municipality could probably serve as a
volunteer, certainly be involved in the process. There's no
intent here to shut anybody out, you're trying to adapt this
to certain requirements."
MS. KREITZER said, "That's correct and we're also trying to
address the problems that we know exist. The fire chiefs in
their letter to the committee mention that they are
responding agencies and they are exactly correct. The SERC
and the LEPCs are planning entities. Recognizing that you
have to have responders, responders have been involved...I
recognize how the planning process takes place and where
responders fit...in the process," and continued further with
her bill presentation saying, "Section 26.23.075, the
emergency plan: This is the same as current law except that
we changed the cite...on the bottom of page 10. Section
26.23.077, plan review and incident command systems. This
had to be amended to reflect the change from a commission
charged only with oil and hazardous substance release
planning to an all hazards SERC. Also changed here, the
SERC had approval authority over plans and we have changed
that to commission reviews and exercises recommendation
authority. That's consistent with SARA Title 3...(which)
does not require approval authority. There are some other
technical changes there changing DES to DMVA and assuring
their role in an imminent or actual hazardous substance
discharge. Section 13 removes reference to disaster agency.
Section 14 substitutes `environmental' for the word `air.'
Sections 15 and 16 remove reference to disaster agency. AS
26.23.900 is amended to define the SERC and hazardous
substance in the DMVA statutes. Section 17: The incident
command system doesn't exist under AS 46.13 anymore.
Section 18: The incident command system doesn't exist under
46.13. Section 19: This is the state master plan. This
deletes the requirement to annually revise the master plan.
The department is required to annually revise the state
master plan, but if it's not necessary to revise it. They
have this hanging over their heads that they must revise it
so what we've said is they should annually review it, but
revise it as necessary. And again in statute it sets out
what the criteria is for deciding when it should be
revised...it's in Section 20...so there is already the
requirement in law that sets out the criteria for when the
plan ought to be revised. The commissioner can make that
decision based on these unannounced oil spill drills."
Number 524
CHAIRMAN OLBERG asked, "Would that mean then that the
response to the unannounced drill might trigger the
necessity of changing the plan. I believe that's the idea."
MS. KREITZER said, "Section 21 is amended to reflect the
same changes to the regional master plan as in the state
master plan, revise as necessary instead of revise annually.
Section 22 gives the DEC the latitude to group communities
that would likely work together in responding to a
discharge."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked, "Going back to that Section 20,
subsection D, are there other methods by which you would
trigger a revision?"
Number 537
MIKE CONWAY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF SPILL PREVENTION AND
RESPONSE, DEC, "We keep in here a requirement to annually
review the plan, so we would still review it annually and
through that review, we would identify the nature for
revisions."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "So anything that came up during
the process of that review could trigger a revision, is that
correct?"
MR. CONWAY confirmed this.
Number 545
MS. KREITZER continued, "Section 23: This is of interest to
the Finance Committee in particular, because this deals with
the 470 fund and others, I suppose. It adds the cost
incurred under current statutes for depots and corps set up
by DEC, pays the expenses incurred by the DES for these SERC
activities including staff support, when those activities
and staff support relate to oil and hazardous substances and
for the cost of being prepared for and responding to a
request by DEC for support in response and restoration
activities except the cost of response corps and emergency
response depots because what you have is, DEC still has the
authority to set up hazardous substance and oil depots and
corps and we are giving DMVA the authority, DES is to set up
emergency response depots and corps. We've also tied those
together and said, `we don't want you having duplication in
those efforts'."
Number 560
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE said, "You've mentioned
duplication. I can see way back when, in the old days, DMVA
had this responsibility, why doesn't it just all roll into
DEC?"
MS. KREITZER replied, "That's not what the commissioners
wanted to do and that's not what all of the comment and
agreement has led to. I think the point has been, when the
SERC wanted to become an all hazards commission, that the
commissioners of DEC and DMVA felt that that planning ought
to be done within DMVA because they do have the satellites."
MR. CONWAY said, "In the context of this piece of
legislation, the depots and corps are for all hazards and
would deal with the whole spectrum of natural disasters and
so forth. So in that context, with DMVA's role in this
particular aspect, it makes sense to us and DMVA that those
depots and corps, related to all hazards, be with their
program management. What we have in existing statute, under
Title 46 the DEC statutes, is the ability to enter into
local response agreements or agreements with communities to
pre-stage equipment and work with their resources that they
have to respond to spills. That's the strategy that we're
looking at and the spectrum of spills or incidents that DEC
handles, 99 percent of them are nondisaster related spills.
So we have existing authority to establish caches and so
forth..."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said, "You mentioned something about
the funding from the 470 fund. How is it going to effect
the 470 funding today as it is today? Is it built into the
budget from DEC already? There are accounting problems
today within the 470 fund. Will this add more problems to
the accounting?"
MS. KREITZER said, "As I understand it with the fiscal note,
it is already built into the budget and they are just taking
money that would have gone to DEC and it's going to go to
DMVA. There are different things happening with SB 215 and
HB 238, but on the Senate side we have tried to stay abreast
of what's happening with the discussions about the 470 fund
and feel that what is in here doesn't complicate your
process or your bill or what's happening with the discussion
about the 470 fund."
Number 611
MR. CONWAY said, "In the context of this legislation, oil
and hazardous substance response is a subset of all
disasters, so the planning effort and the activities that
are related...are response fund eligible. There will
additional activities that DMVA will be doing and other
kinds of disasters that are not. But for the response fund
eligible activities, it's the same amount of funding that we
have now and the fiscal note just shows a transfer of the
funds. So there will not be an increase in the response
fund contribution to that."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked, "The money is coming from the
470 fund now to fund this program?"
MR. CONWAY said, "That is correct. Currently, SERC and all
the activities is housed in DEC, and that is totally
dedicated to oil and hazardous substances in statute and
that's what makes it response fund eligible..."
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said, "We're having it come from DEC
who has more experience in oil and hazardous responding,
going to DMVA now?"
Number 638
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Isn't the key element the fact that
DEC is spills and hazardous substances primarily. DMVA is
natural disasters primarily?"
MR. CONWAY said, "That is correct and what we're trying to
do with this legislation is, we're not trying to devalue the
oil and hazardous substance program, but there are dangers
posed by other hazards, particularly in this state, that
other state's don't face, except for maybe California. So
we're trying to elevate the level of attention going into
the planning and preparedness for the other kinds of
disasters and have a balance... So we would continue our
existing statutory authority to deal with these 99 percent
of the spills that are subdisaster, noncatastrophic kinds of
spills and...continue to stay involved with that aspect.
DEC has the technical expertise to deal with the spill
response, but there are other aspects that came along...all
sorts of things in a disaster kind of spill that DEC doesn't
have the technical expertise to deal with."
Number 695
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES told the committee about the recently
released report on "DEC and that fund." He said, "One of
the potential drawbacks of the depots and corps program,
especially is their design for relatively infrequent events
and you'll establish a depot and corp, the equipment will
sit there for awhile and then gradually fritter away or rust
or get stolen or used for other purposes...and the personnel
will get bored. One of the advantages of combining these
two potentially different depots and corps programs into one
program is that the program would be exercised more often
and the people who are involved and are being trained to
respond to oil and hazardous substance responses would get
some training...in responding to other hazards, other
situations. Therefore when the oil spill situation arises,
they would be more ready to respond to that situation..."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "Aren't we looking at National Guard
Armories, for example, and other facilities throughout the
state as a home for these emergency response depots and
corps?"
MS. KREITZER responded to Representative Davies saying,
"Absolutely correct...because that's the way the bill is
crafted. When we talk about saying that there won't be
duplication, that doesn't say there won't be communication
or coordination. The way this whole bill is set up is to do
that, is to effect that. The emergency response corps and
depots currently exist in DMVA. We wanted to be very
explicit about what they ought to contain. That's why
they're delineated in this, so it's not a transfer of
emergency response corps and depots. Senator Leman shares
the concern about not wanting to put depots and corps out
there, depots where you're going to have equipment rusting.
We have a concern about people maintaining their level of
interest. Although the people we've worked with over this
past year...see this as the beginning of being able to move
forward in real a substantive way, to really accomplish what
all the legislation intended after the Exxon Valdez Oil
Spill."
TAPE 94-12, SIDE B
Number 000
ERVIN PAUL MARTIN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES,
DMVA, said, "The DES comes in when the Governor declares a
disaster, the President declares a federal disaster and we
coordinate all the state assets. So we still have the
responsibility by law to coordinate those depots to provide
for human life and welfare, but we certainly would not want
to be an ambulance chaser and take away the responsibilities
of the first responder departments."
MS. KREITZER proceeded with her presentation on CSSB 33
saying, "Section 24 of the bill is amended to talk about
DEC's authority to enter into contractual agreements to
establish depots and corps. This just takes out the
language about providing personnel, equipment or other
services or supplies necessary to establish regional oil and
hazardous substance depots and is necessary for response
readiness, train members of response corps. That language
is already found in AS 46.04.090 and AS 46.09.040. So it's
removed here. Section 25: As I've said, we've done several
things in here to try to enhance cooperation and
coordination. In Section 25, this is one of those...
Section 26: This refers to the Hazardous Substance Spill
Technology Review Council and puts it into the DEC rather
than transferring with the SERC to DMVA because, those
things having to do with oil and hazardous substance
planning, are better in DEC...actually that's sections 26
and 27. Section 28: This is a repealer section. In the
sectional analysis there is a delineation of what each one
of those repealers means. Much of it has to do with
removing disaster agencies and changing the SERC from DEC to
DMVA. Section 29: Just makes reference to the transition
between those departments and what happens when the bill
goes into effect."
Number 090
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "Under transition, the problem
of now transmogrifying the regulations to match the new
statutes, is there an effort underway to make that happen
expeditiously?"
MS. KREITZER said, "The interesting situation here is there
are...minimal regulations, as I understand it, but not much
so there's not really difficulty in doing that."
MR. CONWAY said, "Currently, the SERC has a series of policy
documents, since there's been such a transition and change
and we've been advised by the AG's office that at some point
these policy documents need to be put into
regulations...transition wise, I don't think that's a snag."
JIM STUDLEY, VICE CHAIR, LEPC ASSOCIATION, HAINES, testified
via teleconference in support of CSSB 33. He said, "There's
been an inordinate amount of work done... The state in its
entirety has worked on this single piece of legislation to
bring it to you for approval and we wholeheartedly support
this. We believe that this legislation will make the job of
emergency response much easier for us," and "Is there a way
or a mechanism to get the money to the local emergency
responders? Those are the people who need the money.
Budgets have been presented by the LEPC membership and
because of budget restraints we've been turned down and
asked to make do with less. The question is how long do you
want the process to go on. These people are firemen, police
officers, they're professional planners, volunteers,
political entities that work very hard on these budgets and
these plans to make them work, and if the state comes along
and says, `I'm sorry, you're only going to have $400,000
even though a year and half ago we had $1.2 million dollars
to our budget..."
Number 219
ROCKY ANSELL, COPPER RIVER LEPC, GLENNALLEN, testified
briefly via teleconference in support of CSSB 33.
KEN ROBERSTON, COPPER RIVER LEPC, GLENNALLEN, testified
briefly via teleconference in support of CSSB 33.
DR. ERNIE MELOCHE, CHAIRMAN OF GREATER KETCHIKAN AREA LEPC
AND CHAIR, STATEWIDE LEPC ASSOCIATION, testified via
teleconference from Sitka in strong support of CSSB 33
saying, "The LEPC Association was formed and does represent
all LEPCs in the state and as such...when all of the LEPC
and all of the planners within the LEPCs throughout the
state agree on a particular issue, somebody ought to be
listening, particularly the House of Representatives and the
Senate and the Governor," He added, "I think that the Senate
did make a slight mistake. They eliminated two additional
transient planning positions that were on the bill. Without
those planners, it's very difficult to get the expertise
required for formal planning to some of the smaller
communities..."
Number 330
STEVEN O'CONNOR, ASSISTANT CHIEF, CENTRAL EMERGENCY
SERVICES, SOLDOTNA AND VICE CHAIR, KENAI PENINSULA LEPC,
testified via teleconference in support of CSSB 33. He
said, "We support it as it's presented. We do consider
funding for LEPCs at the local level an important component
for this..."
VERNON KUGZRUK, NOME, testified via teleconference in
support of CSSB 33 and proposed numerous technical
amendments.
Number 410
BILL SHECHTER, ALASKA FIRE CHIEF'S ASSOCIATION, FAIRBANKS,
testified via teleconference in support of CSSB 33. He
said, "We know from history that the first people at the
scene is going to be the fire service...and I think it (our
concern) could be alleviated by possibly including the
requirement that possibly one of the other LEPC members
appointment be done in coordination with the president of
the Fire Chief's Association. That way you will get a
uniform voice. I would suggest that that wording be
included..."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked Mr. Shechter for "some specific
language that he would like to see added to the bill."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "The intent of the Chair is to move
this bill with intent language referencing the fire
department aspect" and announced that HB 467 would be
deferred until a later committee meeting.
STEVE PORTER, ANCHORAGE testified via teleconference in
support of CSSB 33, but added, "By taking the responsibility
of approval away from the SERCs, what you do is...the
authority no longer resides anywhere. The key here is that
somebody has to be responsible for making sure that the
unified plan, the subregional plans and all the LEPC plans
make sense and work together. I do understand that the
SERC is in support of the present language. ...(My opinion)
is contrary to SERCs recommendation, but it sends the wrong
message. I think the message here is that somebody needs to
be responsible for coordinating all these plans."
MR. MARTIN said, "This issue came up before the SERC last
week on the approval of the commission. Under state law,
the DES must ensure compliance with federal criteria already
for the federal emergency management agency in the national
response planning for spills and releases. When the
commission sets up the recommendation for approval, then
they have taken away the responsibility of local government
through the mayor and the assemblies, who by law who have
already assumed responsibility. Compliance criteria is
already established by the federal government. We ensure
compliance with the federal criteria."
MR. PORTER said, "I don't think we're concerned about self-
determination here... I don't want to take the
responsibilities of the cities away for self-determination.
I want to make sure, if we had a major emergency, the
cities' plan and the area plan and the unified plan, they're
all complete but the only key issue I'm concerned about. I
think that responsibility ought to be lodged someplace..."
MS. KREITZER responded, "Mr. Porter and I have had many
conversations about this issue. It's a difference in
philosophy. Political subdivisions have indicated to us
that they see this as a problem, especially when it comes to
liability because, at the local level they must follow a
public process to get their plans approved and then the
plans go up through the process and are presented to the
SERC and their concern is, if the emergency response
commission turns around and says `no, we don't like your
plan, you must change this.' They're very concerned about
then what happens at the local level and who takes
responsibility for that action and they don't like it. They
find that to be an imposition of the state on the local
ability to plan. Throughout the bill we have directed DEC
and DMVA...to coordinate their efforts, to coordinate all
the planning. And we believe that it will work this way..."
Number 561
BOB STEWART, EMERGENCY MANAGER, CITY OF ANCHORAGE, testified
via teleconference in support on CSSB 33. He said, "From an
overall perspective, we need to support and we need to fund
this emergency planning legislation. What we're looking
forward to from a local government standpoint is the
consolidation of emergency planning responsibility of DES.
What this will do for us is, it will consolidate the fiscal
management of the emergency planning functions in the DES
and still allow the DEC to in fact, regulate from their
perspective the smallest spills. What I also urge you to
do...resist the temptations to make additional changes
though these changes may be good intentioned. But I'm
afraid if we try to make too many changes we may in fact end
up stalling and not passing the bill this particular session
and I believe it needs to go through..."
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE ask that there be a presentation on the
fiscal notes.
Number 600
MR. MARTIN said, "Under the Superfund Amendment and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 on hazardous substance, the DEC
established staff support to the commission. They had six
people that provided full-time support to the commission.
When the state commission went to all hazards, there are
restrictions upon 470 funds for spill and release
substances. They transferred three of those staff, in this
bill, over to DMVA. They still retain responsibility for
the community right-to-know provisions of SARA, Title 3 even
though DEC had six people previously, and even though the
commission has broadened its perspective of responsibility,
DMVA required at least five people to execute the statutory
responsibilities, but it went beyond spill and release
funds. It's the other hazards, like earthquakes, volcanos,
floods and fires, and we were directed to request
supplemental funds and at the time, only general funds were
available. And of course, I did not articulate sufficiently
before the Senate, to defend those funds. I understand that
there are no general funds available; however, I would raise
for consideration that if the Division of Forestry in DNR
can access fire suppression funds for personnel and
operations and DEC can access spill funds for personnel and
operations, I would request that the DES be authorized
access to a disaster relief fund for the additional two
positions. What I have here is a single paged explanation
of what the five positions do. I also have for the
committee, a five year plan of implementation. The
commission has been in existence for five years, not a
single plan has been approved by the commission. What we
are attempting to do is assist local government in the
actual development and promulgation of their plans. At the
end of the five year period, those two planning positions,
who provide continuity for the commission, the commission
subcommittees, the LEPCs and local government responders, we
would eliminate the state planners. Because once a plan is
created, it's much more cost effective and cheaper to
maintain it than it is to develop it. So, we requested five
people to do the job. Certainly General Cox, the
commissioner for the DMVA is concerned about adequately
performing the statutory functions associated with the bill
and we feel that we need a minimum of five people to do the
job." (A copy of all documents he referred to may be found
in the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee Room,
Capitol Room 126, and after the adjournment of the second
session of the 18th Alaska State Legislature, in the
Legislative Reference Library.)
Number 660
CHAIRMAN OLBERG suggested that the House Finance Committee
"wrestle with this," and said, "It would be my
recommendation that we pass this bill on to Finance with an
attached letter of intent regarding the concerns of the Fire
Chiefs..."
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said, "If we're going to put in a fire
chief chair, then why aren't we putting in a police chief
chair, a head nurse's chair. I just think that to be nit
picky and to put a fire chief's chair in there is narrowing
it..."
MS. KREITZER reminded the committee, "When CSSB 33 passed
out of the Senate Finance Committee it was passed out with a
fiscal note which removed $111,800 in general funds so that
this would be a straight transfer of $646.7 from DEC to
DMVA."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG said, "This is a fiscal note prepared by
Senate Finance."
MS. KREITZER confirmed this.
Number 669
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY reiterated her concern saying, "In all
fairness, if we're going to have a seat that's dedicated to
the fire chiefs then we should have a seat dedicated to head
nurses, administrators of hospitals. I think that's just
complicating it and I would like to see it kept simple and
the way it is. I think it's up to the local community..."
MS. KREITZER said, "I hear what you're saying. What I would
like is some latitude from the committee. I want to make a
point, on page 9, lines 9 through 20 (of CSSB 33) which
talks about the membership of the LEPC. I also want you to
note on line 9, `Except as provided each committee must
provide at a minimum representatives of each of the
following seven categories'."
TAPE 93-13, SIDE A
Number 000
MS. KREITZER continued, "I would like the latitude to
discuss this with the LEPC statewide association and with
the Fire Chief's Association directly. And if it appears
that they really believe that they need to have a fire
chief's seat, then we would make that amendment in House
Finance."
CHAIRMAN OLBERG pointed out, "There's no reason why the LEPC
can't have 27 members in theory, is that correct?"
MS. KREITZER confirmed this and said, "But the SERC will not
have 27 members and that is where they are seeking a seat...
What I wanted to get across is that, at the local level they
could have fire captains, they could have a fire
lieutenants..."
Number 050
REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY withdrew her opposition to Chairman
Olberg's letter of intent.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE moved that CSSB 33 be moved out of
committee with individual recommendations with the attached
fiscal note and a committee letter of intent regarding the
"fireman's seat" on the SERC. There were no objections.
CHAIRMAN OLBERG adjourned the meeting at 2:55 p.m.
BILL NOT HEARD
HB 467: "An Act relating to housing programs of the Alaska
Housing Finance Corporation and of regional
housing authorities, and permitting regional
housing authorities to make, originate, and
service loans for the purchase and development of
residential housing in the state's small
communities."
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|