Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/05/2000 03:28 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
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 5, 2000
3:28 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chairman
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative John Harris
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Jerry Sanders
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 440
"An Act relating to needle stick and sharps injury protections
and the use of safe needles by health care facilities and health
care professionals; relating to the vaccination of health care
workers against diseases transmitted by blood borne pathogens;
and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE for HOUSE BILL NO. 356
"An Act relating to pesticide use; and providing for an effective
date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 440
SHORT TITLE: PROTECTION FROM NEEDLE & SHARPS INJURIES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/29/00 2753 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
3/29/00 2754 (H) L&C, FIN
4/05/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 356
SHORT TITLE: TRACKING OF PESTICIDE USE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/09/00 2147 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/09/00 2147 (H) L&C, RES, FIN
2/25/00 2308 (H) SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED
2/25/00 2308 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/25/00 2308 (H) L&C, RES, FIN
2/25/00 2308 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
4/05/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
ANGIE SCHMITZ, Staff
to Senator Kim Elton
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 504
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 440.
MARY WEISS, Registered Nurse;
Member of the Alaska Nurses Association
PO Box 221514
Anchorage, Alaska 99522
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 440.
WANDA KATINSZKY, President
Alaska Nurse Association
2931 Legacy Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 440.
DONNA THOMPSON, Registered Nurse and Hepatitis Victim
(No address provided)
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 440.
MAGGIE FLANNAGAN, Registered Nurse
1722 Bellevue Loop
Anchorage, Alaska 99513
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 440.
CAROL CLAUSON, Registered Nurse
13200 Ridgeview Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 440.
DON NOVOTNEY, Registered Nurse
Bartlett Regional Hospital
3260 Hospital Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 440.
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director
of Governmental and Legislative Affairs
Teamsters Union Local 959
306 Willoughby Avenue
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 440.
DWIGHT PERKINS, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Labor and Workforce Development
Post Office Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0610
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 440.
ROB EARL, Staff
to Representative Cissna
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 420
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SSHB 356 and reviewed the changes
encompassed in the proposed CS for SSHB 356, Version I.
JANICE ADAIR, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that DEC supports the concept of
SSHB 356.
DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Director
Division of Public Health
Department of Health & Social Services
PO Box 240249
Anchorage, Alaska 99524-0249
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SSHB 356.
KAY BROWN, former Representative
Alaska State House of Representatives
1908 West Hillcrest
Anchorage, Alaska 99517
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SSHB 356.
BOB GORMAN
Alaska Cooperative Extension, UAF Anchorage - State Office
2221 East Northern Lights
Anchorage, Alaska 99508-4143
POSITION STATEMENT: Noted his cautious support of SSHB 356.
TOM JOHNSON, Safety Officer
Aurora Environmental & Safety, Inc.
5902 Miley Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 356.
JOHN CYR, President
National Education Association - Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SSHB 356.
RIVER BEAN, Owner
Market Organics
HC 4 Box 9043
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 356.
NEVA HASSANEIN
Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides
P.O. Box 1393
Eugene, Oregon 97446
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SSHB 356.
BOB SHAVELSON, Executive Director
Cook Inlet Keeper
P.O. Box 3269
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SSHB 356.
REGINA MANTEUFEL
1128 East 10th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SSHB 356.
GERAN TARR
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
P.O. Box 1233
Girdwood, Alaska 99587
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SSHB 356.
STACEY MARZ, Resource Coordinator
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
10301 Stroganof Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on SSHB 356, discussed the
efforts of Alaska Community Action on Toxics to collect
information on pesticide use in Alaska.
PAM MILLER, Biologist and Program Director
Alaska Community Action on Toxics
135 Christensen, Number 100
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SSHB 356 and offered
amendments to the proposed CS for SSHB 356, Version I.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-43, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:28 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro,
Murkowski, Harris, Brice, Cissna and Sanders.
HB 440-PROTECTION FROM NEEDLE & SHARPS INJURIES
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 440, "An Act relating to needle stick and sharps
injury protections and the use of safe needles by health care
facilities and health care professionals; relating to the
vaccination of health care workers against diseases transmitted
by blood borne pathogens; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0168
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved to adopt the proposed CS for HB 440,
Version D [1-LS1580\D Cramer 4/5/99], as the working document
before the committee. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
Number 0206
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS explained that the bill had been called to
his attention by the nurses' association and was being introduced
in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. [HB 440 was
sponsored by the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing
Committee, which Representative co-chairs.] He invited testimony
from Angie Schmitz, Staff to Senator Kim Elton, sponsor of the
companion bill in the Senate.
Number 0256
ANGIE SCHMITZ, Staff to Senator Kim Elton, Alaska State
Legislature, came forward to testify. She stated:
House Bill 440 brings needed protection to health care
workers from accidental needle stick injuries. Health
care workers are of particular risk on the job because
of the danger of disease transmission. Accidental
needle sticks can transmit blood borne diseases such as
hepatitis B, hepatitis C and Human Immunodeficiency
Virus (HIV), in addition to others. Nationwide, health
care workers are estimated to suffer between 600,000
and 1 million accidental needle sticks per year. For
the state of Alaska, that translates to approximately
1,300 to 2,200 needle sticks per year. Between 50,000
and 60,000 health care workers nationwide have
contracted serious diseases from needle sticks in the
last decade. On average, one health care worker per
week is exposed to HIV.
The seriousness of HIV is well known, but less well
known are the serious effects of hepatitis C, which is
now estimated to eventually lead to the deaths of more
health care workers than does HIV. Medical workers are
four times more likely than police officers to die from
a job-related injury. Safer devices are available.
They have been approved for marketing by the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), but many health care workers
still do not have access to these devices.
It is estimated that nationally only 15 percent of
hospitals use safer devices. They cost a little bit
more up front, but studies show that facilities can
save money in the long term by reducing testing and
follow-up care for workers who are accidentally exposed
to diseases. The cost for testing following a high-
risk needle stick is $3,000, even when no infection
occurs. A serious infection can cost up to $1 million,
including lost time and disability payments as well as
treatment.
California was the first state to pass a safer needle
law. In that state, health care employers are expected
to save $100 million per year thanks to reduced needle
stick accidents. Five states have already passed safer
needle legislation and there are bills similar to this
one pending in 20 states besides Alaska. The American
Nurses' Association has made safer needle legislation a
national priority, and this bill is strongly supported
by the Alaska Nurses' Association as well as the
Teamsters and Laborers unions.
Number 0450
MS. SCHMITZ continued:
There are two parts to the bill. The first, Part A,
requires health care facilities to evaluate safer
devices. All of the other parts call for regulations
from the Department of Labor concerning safer devices.
Within those regulations, there is a requirement that
safer needles be included as engineering work practice
controls. There is one exception. If an evaluation
committee at least half of whom are front-line health
care workers determines that the devices jeopardize the
care or safety of themselves or of the patient, then
they may not be used.
There is a requirement that facilities institute a
procedure for selecting devices and include that in
their exposure control plan, and a requirement that the
exposure control plan be updated as new technology is
developed, at least once a year. There is also a
requirement for a sharps injury law, which records
information about needle sticks, including the type and
brand of the device involved. In addition, the
Department of Labor can adopt regulations concerning
other aspects of needle safety, including training and
education requirements and measures to increase
vaccinations. Also, the Department of Labor is
required to assist employers in complying with these
requirements, and they will need to compile a list of
sources of information on safer devices.
MS. SCHMITZ volunteered to speak to the changes between the
original bill and the proposed CS. She explained that in the new
CS, dentists are excluded from the requirements of the bill,
based on [Alaska] Dental Society testimony that experience with
these devices shows they are not particularly effective for
intra-oral use. For example, Novocaine is not delivered well and
there are problems with bulky devices. Also, no concerns about
needle sticks have been voiced by dental hygienists. Therefore,
references to dental devices have been removed from the
definitions section.
MS. SCHMITZ said that originally a six-month evaluation period
was required. That has been changed to "as long as necessary to
evaluate devices," and there is involvement of front-line health
care workers in the decision about how long that should be. In
addition, there were a couple of other places where wording was
clarified. There [formerly] were references to an evaluation
committee in a section that didn't talk about an evaluation
committee. There was language in Section 1[(a)] which may have
been interpreted to say one only needed to evaluate devices that
were already in use, which was not the intent.
Number 0666
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted that the bill mandates that the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD) shall adopt
certain regulations; however, he noted the absence of a fiscal
note. He asked if there is one from that department.
MS. SCHMITZ said a fiscal note has not been received from the
DLWD. She theorized that much in HB 440 is what that department
is already doing as part of federal Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and a recent compliance
directive.
Number 0756
MARY WEISS, Registered Nurse; Member, Alaska Nurses Association,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. She urged passage
of HB 440. She believes it will greatly help protect health care
workers, not just the doctors and nurses but also the laundry,
housekeeping and nursing assistance employees throughout the
state.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked MS. Weiss if she worked in an
institutional setting.
MS. WEISS answered that she works as the Research Coordinator for
the University of Alaska Anchorage School of Nursing. She
offered to speak to the training the nursing students receive in
the skills lab and she also offered to relate some of the
concerns the students have, in clinical settings, with needles.
She specified that her information is from the students, not from
direct observation.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that there had been a request from the
university to make sure that lancets were covered under this
legislation. He asked if she had an opinion on that.
MS. WEISS said yes, she made that suggestion to her director.
Although the bill enumerates various types of needles, lancets
are not included. In the university skills lab, students do some
work with diabetic testing in which they use lancets. Any time
that one is working with blood, there is some kind of risk for
exposure. Therefore, she thought it would be good to mention
lancets unless the desire was to keep them under "any other
category of device used at the employer's facility where there is
a sharp injury risk."
Number 0895
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if lancets would be covered under blood-
drawing devices.
MS. WEISS explained that a lancet is not necessarily a blood
drawing device. She referred to page 2, line 9, paragraph (8).
Number 0931
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if there are any health care
facilities that have voluntarily embraced needle stick
prevention.
MS. WEISS said she has heard that all three of the large
hospitals in Anchorage have varying degrees of commitment to
needle-less devices. That lack of standardization is one of the
problems for students and faculty. Nursing students have
mentioned one facility that they thought was especially good
because it had a room that was set up with the exact materials
used in a clinical setting; anyone could use the room and work
with the equipment in order to get the feel of it. The students
also thought this was a very good idea because they recognized
their degree of inexperience was just manual dexterity; working
with needles and working around blood is so critical that
students want to be able to have [as high a] level of expertise
as possible before they are actually in the [actual] setting.
Although Ms. Weiss did not know if the three hospitals had
accepted this voluntarily, she did know that there are some OSHA
regulations regarding this; however she understood those to be
voluntary guidelines.
Number 1040
WANDA KATINSZKY, President, Alaska Nurses Association, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage. She said the Alaska Nurses
Association is a constituent member of the American Nurses
Association. The state organization represents bargaining units
at Central Peninsula General Hospital and Providence Alaska
Medical Center. Therefore, she speaks for more than 6,000 nurses
throughout Alaska. She informed the committee that she is also a
registered nurse and has worked with hospital implementation of
OSHA guidelines.
MS. KATINSZKY remarked that she wished HB 440 were not necessary.
However, the nurses' association has taken informal surveys
throughout Alaska and those surveys have found a wide variation
in the availability of safe needle products. She recognized that
many facilities have done a good job implementing federal
guidelines. However, the American Nurses Association is
championing this cause due to the visible lack of response by
employers. This problem with compliance was highlighted in the
executive summary of the Maryland Study Group on Health Care
Worker Safety, which states, "although the OSHA bloodborne
pathogen standard includes language on the use of engineered
sharps protection, it has not been an effective tool in promoting
widespread use of engineered sharps injury protection." This
study group [ultimately] recommended passing state legislation,
which was enacted in 1999.
MS. KATINSZKY reiterated earlier testimony that annually, health
care workers suffer 600,000 to 1 million injuries from
conventional needles and sharps. Of those injuries to health
care workers, nurses suffer the majority. She asked, "Why is
this allowed to happen when over 80 percent of needle stick
injuries are preventable with use of safer needle devices?"
Although these safer needle devices have been on the market for
more than a decade, less than 15 percent of facilities nationwide
have employed the use of these safer devices.
MS. KATINSZKY asked, "What does it take to protect our health
care workers?" She replied, "It will take strong state
legislation instead of compliance directives, which is what we
currently have." She pointed out that the compliance directives
are merely interpretations of standards that change with
different administrations. Therefore, a permanent solution, this
legislation, is necessary. She also pointed out that compliance
directives are subject to legal challenges and interpretations of
the standard, and therefore passing a state law would remove
ambiguity.
MS. KATINSZKY stated that this bill makes good business sense
because the employer is not required to purchase all safety
devices but rather requires the employer to evaluate products
using front-line workers to determine what works best in their
particular facility. She expressed the need to use a scientific
approach to evaluate the products and decrease the incidence of
needle stick injury. She related her belief that done correctly,
the cost of implementing these devices will decrease over time
due to the cost savings realized from a reduction in exposure,
follow-up and treatment. A study in California reported an
estimated overall savings of over $100 million per year as a
result of fewer needle stick injuries and the illnesses that
result. She informed the committee that it is estimated that
annually, 1,000 workers will become infected and according to the
American Hospital Association, one serious infection by
bloodborne pathogen can quickly add up to $1 million or more.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG expressed concern about setting up an
evaluation committee for a small doctor's office, perhaps staffed
with just two people. "Who's on the committee?" he asked.
Number 1293
MS. KATINSZKY said that is a good point in that it doesn't always
take a committee to get things done. She thinks if she was in
that facility and having to implement a program, her biggest
concern would be determining where the injuries are occurring.
She noted that syringes are the main [source of injuries].
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG clarified that his question was how one would
have a committee in a very small office.
Number 1331
MS. KATINSZKY said the committee probably would consist of the
nurse, assuming that there is a nurse, or the office manager
where there are medical attendants rather than nurses.
Number 1360
DONNA THOMPSON, Registered Nurse, testified via teleconference
from Washington. She informed the committee that she has been a
nurse for 16 years. Ms. Thompson related how she was exposed to
hepatitis while working in the burn center in Anchorage in 1989.
She explained that her exposure to hepatitis was through infected
blood and body fluids during long dressing changes and tubbing.
She was diagnosed in December of 1989 and in March of 1990 was in
a coma and was transported to the University of Washington
hospital in Seattle, where she had a liver transplantation. Ms.
Thompson informed the committee that she has three children. The
two youngest ones had to be immunized with gamma globulin at the
time she was diagnosed with hepatitis. She related the
difficulties that [this disease] created for her family. For
herself, she was debilitated, during this short illness of three
months, to the point where she didn't have the strength to get up
to use the bathroom. Furthermore, it would be an hour ordeal to
merely take a shower.
Number 1482
MS. THOMPSON informed the committee that after about 21 days in
the hospital she was discharged on an outpatient basis and
remained in Seattle for close monitoring for another six weeks.
After that time, she returned to Alaska. She noted that in
total, she was off from work a little over a year and a half.
When she returned, she had a lot of difficulty getting her job
back because "they" were reluctant to rehire her due to her
immunodepression status and the drugs that she would have take
in order to maintain the transplant. However, she did
successfully return to work, but only after threatening legal
action. She informed the committee that she was never terminated
from the hospital.
MS. THOMPSON informed the committee that she worked in an
outpatient care facility at that hospital for approximately three
years. In 1992 [or 1993], after her liver transplant, she
received her first needle stick, which was very devastating after
going through the transplantation. She explained that the needle
stick happened during an endoscopy procedure, during which the
lights are down low and [the nurse is] watching a monitor and
caring for the patient. She specified that the needle stick
occurred after she had given the medication; she inadvertently
stuck herself when she turned. She attributed the needle stick
to the low lighting. Since that time, she has taken a break from
nursing and is currently working in an office now.
MS. THOMPSON informed the committee that she has been re-
diagnosed with hepatitis again due to recurrence from the
original exposure. Therefore, the virus is still present in her
body, although the liver transplantation gave her a healthy
liver. She said, "Now I'm reinfected. What my future is right
now is uncertain. It just depends on the virus and how rapidly
it does develop." She noted that, at the initial transplant, her
pathologist projected her life expectancy would be to age 65.
Now that she has active hepatitis again, she indicated that her
life expectancy may be shorter than 65.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked Ms. Thompson very much for her
testimony.
Number 1711
MAGGIE FLANNAGAN, Registered Nurse and a health and safety
officer for her union, which represents nurses at an acute health
care facility in Alaska, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. She informed the committee that the nurses she
represents are very upset that in the facility where they work,
one person in authority can block hundreds of health care workers
from having these protective devices. She said, "What our
facility proves is that having the devices on site is not enough.
We still have health care workers who do not have access to these
protective devices." She explained that [the employees of this
facility] are requesting a product evaluation committee that
includes participation from front-line workers as well as a
better tracking system of needle stick injuries, both of which
are provided by this bill. With a better tracking system, the
high-risk situations or procedures associated with these injuries
can be identified and work can be done to reduce or eliminate
these hazards.
MS. FLANNAGAN emphasized that it is important for legislators to
know that needle stick injuries are a silent epidemic. She
indicated that for these health care workers, who have had their
lives devastated after acquiring diseases from these injuries, to
testify in public about the personal tragedies only furthers
their pain. Therefore, she asked the legislators to hear their
voices through her words.
MS. FLANNAGAN explained that many of these individuals suffer the
consequences of these needle stick injuries in silence because
they're afraid to call friends, co-workers and family members.
She noted that although the committee has heard about the risks
of needle stick injuries related to HIV, Hepatitis B and C, there
are 20 diseases that can be transmitted with these exposures.
Ms. Flannagan returned to the fear that many of her co-workers
have regarding sharing their stories in public, although they are
sharing them in private. From those stories, Ms. Flannagan has
heard of health care workers who have waited months, [and even]
years, to see if their injury resulted in disease transmission.
In the meantime, they need to use safe-sex precautions with their
spouse and they worry about transmitting these infections to
family members.
Number 1840
MS. FLANNAGAN pointed out that these safer needle devices also
protect the health care consumer. For example, in December a
school nurse in Anchorage was performing a routine tuberculosis
skin test on a child and accidentally used a needle that had
already been used by someone else. In this case, Ms. Flannagan
believes that a safer needle device could have protected this
child. Furthermore, she believes that safer needle devices could
prevent some of the incidents that she has witnessed across the
nation. She informed the committee that she has worked with
high-risk infants in four different hospitals across the nation
and has found infants with needles in their beds, in their
blankets and has even found a baby lying on a bare needle.
MS. FLANNAGAN informed the committee that it is considered a safe
practice to tape needles into the IV lines of newborns while
delivering piggyback medication. However, she emphasized that
the tape is not enough; this system does fail even with the best
technique. She explained that in these situations usually a
child is moving around and the tape will catch on the blanket
which results in a bare needle in the bed with the child.
Although the disease transmission in such an injury is very low,
she asked why a child should endure such an injury when safety
products are available. She also pointed out that other
patients, patients who are sedated, confused, combative, or
having seizures, are at risk with these kind of injuries.
Furthermore, needles can be used as potential weapons against
health care workers in the mental health [profession].
Number 1911
MS. FLANNAGAN remarked that many health care workers are injured
through no fault of their own. For instance, nurses find needles
in the beds of patients they are transporting or health care
workers are stuck by other people or they find improperly
disposed needles. Ms. Flannagan said, "What I'm asking you to
understand is that no matter what the reason for the exposure,
the blaming needs to stop, the protection needs to start, and our
health care system needs to be made safer." She informed the
committee that she has had a high-risk needle stick while drawing
blood from an infant of a known intravenous drug abuser. Ms.
Flannagan urged the committee "to consider this bill a matter of
life and death for our health care providers." She urged the
committee to support HB 440.
Number 1979
CAROL CLAUSON, Registered Nurse, Alaska Nurses Association,
testified by teleconference. She informed the committee that she
had suffered a needle stick from a high-risk patient, a patient
with a history of drug use. This incident was very traumatic to
Ms. Clauson, who wondered who would [take care] of her young
children if she had contracted a fatal bloodborne disease. Ms.
Clauson noted her support of this legislation. In conclusion,
she highlighted the importance of the involvement of front-line
worker in the product evaluation of [safety devices of] this
nature.
Number 2026
DON NOVOTNEY, Registered Nurse, came forward to testify. He said
he has been practicing as an infection control nurse for about 11
years. He gave a demonstration, saying:
We have an intravenous (IV) tubing at the top connected
to a bag. It [the tubing] comes down to a patient's
hand. There are injection ports. We don't want
needles in those injection ports. A needle hurts
anybody who gets stuck with it. This [needle at the
top] is far away from the patient, the one down here is
a little closer. Sometimes blood can back up into
there, and if there is a metal needle in there, and it
pulls out, it's a danger. There are devices that screw
into the connectors, the injection ports. There is
also one that clips on like a clothespin. These ports
are precut. They provide a safe IV set. There is
blood drawing equipment.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about the IV: "If you want to avoid any
kind of needle [and] use these other types of devices, what's the
cost differential there?"
MR. NOVOTNEY said they are very similar in price, a penny or two
[difference].
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked why they are not more universally used.
Number 2093
MR. NOVOTNEY explained that the hospital where he works is
affiliated with hundreds of hospitals; as a result, the group of
hospitals has great buying power. They provide workers with one
type of needle-safe tubing, not two or three or four like the
industry provides. A hospital worker has only one choice. A
hospital such as Columbia, which has great buying power because
it negotiates a contract with the supplier, will provide a safe
needle device from that supplier. He then turned to product
evaluation, which he didn't foresee in hospitals of this size
because such hospitals have negotiated a contract to buy from
only one supplier in return for a price break. Therefore, if the
hospital breaks that contract, its costs increase.
Number 2136
MR. NOVOTNEY showed another device that goes into an injection
port and connects to a large rubber tube that the lab uses to
draw blood.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how one gets the blood out.
MR. NOVOTNEY said:
This is what a phlebotomist would use. There is a
needle sticking out, a sharp needle on the end of this
that plugs into a tube. There's some mechanics
involved in all of this. We have to be responsible and
pay attention. If I don't pay attention, I'm going to
stick myself, even with a clean needle. Now, this
needle that's been dangling here like this goes into a
vein. And when you are finished, you slide a hard
plastic cover up over it.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "So the sheath is really the primary
method of safety in that regard?"
MR. NOVOTNEY agreed, but reminded the committee that a human
being has to activate it. He continued:
When I start an IV, this plastic part stays in the
vein. I have a sharp needle here that nobody would
want to get stuck with. We have a device that we have
been using for about five or six years that slides up
over the steel needle that makes it safe - unless it
goes into a trash compactor. We're human beings. We
may not activate this. Everyone has to take some
responsibility in their practice.
Number 2221
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if a percentage of the devices used in
the institutional care facilities of this state have safe needle
devices. Or is there a problem?
MR. NOVOTNEY said he thinks there is a problem in regard to the
availability of safe devices as well as [the fact that the users
of these devices are ] human beings; for example, would a person
use one when another device is quicker? He noted the difficulty
in teaching an old dog new tricks.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about the availability of safe devices.
MR. NOVOTNEY informed the committee that when he looked for [the
safer device at his workplace], he found it on the back shelf
behind just a plain needle and a steel syringe. He explained the
safety device as follows:
This is a safety syringe. After I give an
intramuscular injection, it goes over the top, locks in
place, and I can't disable it. But I still have to
throw this in a sharps container as well as taking this
one and putting a needle on it.
MR. NOVOTNEY commented that half the needle sticks at the
institution where he works can be found in the garbage.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there is a cost differential.
MR. NOVOTNEY said the traditional [needle stick] costs about six
cents and the safer one costs about 13-14 cents; it's about
double.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG observed, "What you have in your hand is
probably about the most used commodity in a medical setting."
MR. NOVOTNEY clarified that in hospitals, very few injections are
given because IV tubing is being used. However, in doctor's
offices one would see syringes. He said, "And for all
immunizations to bring immunization rates up in Alaska, they're
using this." Mr. Novotney expressed his desire for the Emergency
Medical Services [EMS] and the cities and boroughs [to use the
safer alternatives]. He explained:
When a patient comes to us, the EMS is not using the
same thing we are using, a safe needle system, a
needle-free system. They are at risk. When they move
a person, we have to swap all of our tubing over
because [it doesn't] fit.
Number 2341
MR. NOVOTNEY turned to the use of lancets [in regard to
diabetes]. He explained:
This device [now] is activated. The pin is pulled out.
It's ready to poke somebody. It's fired. I can't re-
fire this now; it is covered up. There's a sharp
device that you can't get at. The same thing goes with
scalpel blades. In the operating room, they'll take a
scalpel blade out of an aluminum packet, place it into
a blade holder, use it on a patient, now it's dirty,
and you have to take something like a pair of pliers or
some kind of locking instrument, grasp it and pull it
out.
But any piece of metal is springy, and can spring out.
Having a blade on a handle would be very good. The
health care system already [is implementing] the
exposure control plan that came out of the Center for
Disease Control and was published in the Federal
Register ..., [but] is it being enforced? I would put
my money on it that the Department of Labor [and
Workforce Development] that enforces OSHA in the State
of Alaska has not visited many health institutions and
looked at needle safety. If we could make them
[syringes] all like this, it would be great. But we
are still using syringes and needles. If we can
eliminate that, there will be fewer needle sticks.
Number 2433
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted a reference made earlier to school
nurses. He asked if there is any kind of safety device for the
device used to give TB tests.
MR. NOVOTNEY explained that previously a four-pronged testing
device had been used. However, that device did not give accurate
results. Therefore, Juneau schools now use a 1 cc syringe in
order to go underneath the skin and inject one-tenth of a
milliliter of purified protein derivative tuberculosis. Two days
later, [the nurse] examines and evaluates [the site].
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked Mr. Novotney for the demonstration. He
asked what the definition of "sharps" is.
[Because of the tape change, some of Mr. Novotney's response was
not recorded.]
TAPE 00-43, SIDE B
Number 0004
MR. NOVOTNEY indicated that anything that is sharp, usually made
of metal - such as needles and IV starts that can pass through a
[protective plastic] glove - would be considered a "sharp".
Number 0041
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director of Governmental and Legislative
Affairs for Teamsters Union Local 959, came forward to testify.
She provided the committee with a copy of a presentation on South
Peninsula Hospital, in Homer, where there is a very proactive,
safety-conscious hospital director. The South Peninsula Hospital
hospital has been implementing many of the safer tools for the
past four and a half years. In regard to whether there is a cost
difference, Ms. Huff Tuckness said there is. She specified:
The cost - as has been previously testified - even the
initial testing for needle stick injuries runs $5,000-
$6000. If, indeed, there is an actual infection, you
are looking at up into millions of dollars. So from a
short-term perspective, there is a difference in cost.
From a long-term perspective, it is well worth the
cost.
MS. HUFF TUCKNESS commended South Peninsula Hospital for its
proactive approach, but noted that in some of Alaska's other
hospitals [such a proactive approach for safer tools] is not
necessarily the case. She pointed out that this very small
community hospital has had some very positive results. In
conclusion, Ms. Huff Tuckness said, "We are supporting HB 440."
Number 0138
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about the companion measure, SB 261.
Ms. HUFF TUCKNESS said SB 261 was in the Senate Finance Committee
and was expected to move tomorrow.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "I hope it gets cleaned up over there
before it makes even further progress."
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if the Senate version has changed
from the version before this committee.
MS. HUFF TUCKNESS answered that there is an identical [proposed]
CS in each house.
Number 0178
DWIGHT PERKINS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor and
Workforce Development, came forward to testify. As far as the
allegation that the department has not been to any hospitals
checking on this, he had made a note of that, he said, and will
find out.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about a fiscal note.
MR. PERKINS said there is not a fiscal note, and if the
department had produced one, "It would have been a zero." He
noted that he had provided this committee - and the committee
hearing the companion bill - a three-page handout. The handout
says that the requirements will enhance health care worker
involvement and safety by requiring employer policies that work
with potential at-risk parties in order to develop a common
solution to injury prevention. He noted that OSHA had issued a
compliance directive on November 5, 1999, which was subsequently
adopted by the Labor Standards of the Occupational Safety and
Health Program. He explained that states adopt the federal
regulations by reference as they come out to be in compliance
with the federal plan.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "Are you saying that the regulations are
already in place?"
Number 0236
MR. PERKINS clarified that the regulations are in the process of
being put in place; however, it will be two years before they are
implemented by the federal government. He remarked that the
department thinks this is a good piece of legislation.
Furthermore, his staff and OSHA have been working with the
sponsor of the Senate companion bill, and he thinks they have
worked out the department's concerns. "To my knowledge we are OK
with this legislation, we have no objection to it and it would be
a zero fiscal note if there was one," he said.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how "evaluation committee" is defined in
the regulations.
MR. PERKINS replied that he did not know because he has not been
personally involved with this particular piece of legislation.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if the department is going to enforce
this. He also asked, "How do you enforce it against small
employers? What size of a health care provider would this
affect?"
Number 0302
MR. PERKINS said he could get those answers.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG told him it is not in the bill. He added:
If they define employer as meaning an employer having
an employee with occupational exposure to blood or
other material potentially tainted with blood
pathogens, that means a doctor with one nurse has to
have an evaluation committee under this statute. It
doesn't work.
MR. PERKINS said he would have to check on that. There may be
something in the regulations about that.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG continued:
Front-line health worker, then that means the nurse
would tell the doctor he's gotta do that the way the
bill is drafted now. This is probably good legislation
but it is not drafted very artfully.
MR. PERKINS said he knows this committee is well qualified to
make the adjustments to the legislation.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG remarked that he remains skeptical. "If you
could bring back to this committee the regulatory scheme and how
you do this with no cost and enforce it, that's what I'd like to
know," he said.
Number 0363
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE related his assumption "that if it is going
to be under OSHA standards, that this standard would be
investigated and reported just as any other OSHA violation might
be." He pointed out that if he worked in a dangerous
construction situation, he could call OSHA to come out and
[perform an inspection].
MR. PERKINS affirmed that.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE surmised, then, that a nurse working with
[devices] that are not in compliance with this bill could call
OSHA and have them [perform an inspection].
MR. PERKINS replied, "We would be there."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE then addressed Chairman Rokeberg by saying
that a committee could be anything; it could be made up of one or
two people.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG acknowledged that, but asked, "Don't you get my
point, Tom?"
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said he understands what Chairman Rokeberg
is saying, but he does not think it is wrong.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG expressed the need to clarify it. He then
addressed Representative Harris:
This is a committee bill, but it has some support from
the other side of the building. Because of that, I'd
like to appoint a subcommittee to actually fix this
bill, not the "black hole" subcommittee, but a real
one.
Number 0444
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO suggested that Chairman Rokeberg's concern
could simply be remedied by eliminating the word "committee" and
inserting the word "process." Therefore, it would read as
follows: "an employer shall establish an evaluation process
...", which doesn't mandate a committee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said that is one of his major concerns. He
expressed the need to hear from the "house business" and to
clarify the "lancet" issue. In addition, he expressed the need
to hear from the hospital groups and other health care providers,
none of whom were represented at the meeting today. Therefore,
Chairman Rokeberg announced that he wasn't going to close the
public testimony on this bill because he is concerned that this
is kind of a de facto health care mandate and thus he needs to be
convinced otherwise, because it's a cost driver. However, he
believes this is a good concept that shouldn't be lost. He asked
Representative Harris if he wanted to work with a subcommittee of
develop a CS.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he would be happy to do it either way.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG appointed a subcommittee consisting of
Representatives Harris, Brice and Halcro "to come up with the
answers to some of these questions."
Number 0521
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO acknowledged that the committee has not
heard from the hospitals and other health care providers, "but my
opinion from the testimony we've heard today, when they're
charging $5 for a Tylenol with codeine, I'm sure they can afford
seven cents extra for a needle that can protect their workers."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG specified that he is more concerned about the
small practitioner and "how this all fits together." "How do you
have an evaluation committee or how do you have any enforcement
of that rule at a small level. Quite frankly, I think this is
probably a labor-management issue, and I don't know if the
legislature needs to be right in the middle of that unless there
is a public policy involved, and we need to be cognizant of
that." He added, "I think we have a federal policy and . . .if
we need a state statute to protect the workers properly, then we
should do that."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that the committee would hold open
public testimony on HB 440 and look forward to a report from the
subcommittee on this bill. He indicated that other problematic
bills will also result in the appointment of subcommittees in
order to work out [the problems]. [HB 440 was held over.]
[The committee took a brief at-ease.]
HB 356-TRACKING OF PESTICIDE USE
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the next order of business would be
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE for HOUSE BILL NO. 356, "An Act relating to
pesticide use; and providing for an effective date."
Number 0621
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA, speaking as the sponsor of SSHB 356,
requested that her staff present the bill and the changes
encompassed in the proposed committee substitute (CS) that
reflect the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for
SSHB 356, Version I [1-LS1360\I, Lauterbach, 4/5/00], as the
working document. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 0671
ROB EARL, Staff to Representative Cissna, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that SSHB 356 establishes a $150
registration fee per pesticide label registered in Alaska.
Currently, Alaska is the only state that doesn't charge such a
fee. The bill also establishes a $25 per year license fee for
all certified pesticide applicators. He pointed out that DEC is
planning on charging $75 for a three-year license in order to
save in administrative expenses.
MR. EARL said Section 4 of Version I establishes a DEC-
administered pesticide use tracking system, which will be
integrated into a statewide Geographic Information System (GIS)
that is designed to reveal the extent of pesticide use in Alaska.
Mr. Earl explained that the system would rely upon the
applicators to report to the department the pesticide's name,
rate, date, amount, location and method of application as well as
the crop, commodity or site upon which the pesticide was applied
and the target organism. Applicators would be required to keep
these records for three years.
MR. EARL noted that these records are already required; however,
they are not currently submitted to DEC. He pointed out that the
bill also allows for civil penalties to be imposed for failure to
report pesticide usage. The bill also establishes a nine-member
volunteer Pesticide Advisory Board, which will advise the
department in regard to the tracking system and research ways to
gauge the household use of pesticides as well as research
mechanisms to increase public awareness on pesticide issues. He
specified that the board will consist of the following
membership: two pesticide applicators/dealers; two advocates for
protection for pesticides; one agent of the public water
supplier; one agent of the University's Cooperative Extension
Service; one expert in pest control, epidemiology, fish and
wildlife biology [and] children's health issues; and two public
members.
Number 0782
MR. EARL turned to the changes encompassed in Version I. A new
Section 1 designates the receipts collected by DEC in Sections 2
and 3, for the registration and licensing fees, as program
receipts. Those program receipts would be accounted for
separately from the unrestricted general fund.
MR. EARL pointed out that on page 2, line 17, subsection (b) of
the proposed CS, formerly part of subsection (a), clarifies that
the department will have the discretion to determine which
pesticides it will track. This subsection further says that the
department should seek and consider the advice of the Pesticide
Advisory Board [when determining which pesticides the department
will track]. On this point, Mr. Earl informed the committee that
there are almost 3,000 different pesticide labels registered in
the state. Most of those aren't implicated in serious public
health or environmental hazards. Of these 3,000 pesticide
labels, 1,114 are disinfectants or sanitizers which are exempt
from reporting requirements as specified on page 2, lines 24-25.
Therefore, choosing which of the remaining pesticide labels to
track will be one of the more difficult aspects. The department
has suggested that it will want to track the 49 restricted-use
pesticides, which are of particular danger to people and the
environment. The department has also indicated that it will add
suspect pesticides to the list as they are identified by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the department, or the
Pesticide Advisory Board.
MR. EARL directing the committee to page 3, line 9, paragraph
(6), which had everything deleted except the location of the
application. That is consistent with page 2, line 26, which
allows the department to determine the specifics of application
location that is to be reported. He indicated it is the
sponsor's hope that the location of application is specific
enough to differentiate between adjacent watersheds while general
enough to preserve the privacy of individuals.
MR. EARL then directed the committee to page 3, line 18, where
the language "In addition to other civil or criminal penalties
that may be applicable," was added to subsection (e). He
explained, "Because without this addition, this [sub]section
would have inadvertently invalidated DEC's ability to levy
applicable sanctions already in statute."
MR. EARL moved on to page 4, lines 3-4, which was shortened in
order to correct an oversight by the original bill. Without this
change, DEC would be required to report a nuisance that wasn't
reported to it. Mr. Earl offered to answer any questions.
Number 0933
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE referred to page 4, where the membership of
the Pesticide Advisory Board is specified. He stated that he did
not know what a person would be who has expertise in pest
control, epidemiology, fish and wildlife biology and children's
health issues. He inquired as to what type of professional would
[meet such criteria].
MR. EARL related his assumption that it would be an "or"
situation.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE refuted that and read the language on page
4, lines 22-28, which specifies that this member has [to have]
some expertise in all of the areas listed. He asked if that was
the intent as it seems fairly broad.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA agreed that it seems fairly broad.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE related his assumption that the desire is
probably to require membership of an individual that has
expertise "in one of the following areas" that is listed.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO directed the committee to page 4, lines 13-
17, paragraph (2), which seems to include the same sort of all-
encompassing qualifications in lines 14 and 15. He echoed
Representative Brice's earlier comment regarding what type of
person this would be.
Number 1110
JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, testified via
teleconference. She informed the committee that the pesticide
program is within the Division of Environmental Health. She also
informed the committee that the department supports the concept
of this bill. In her ten years with [the division], there has
been one application for a pesticide permit. That application
was from the [Alaska] railroad, but was withdrawn by the railroad
before any action could be taken on the permit application; the
application was withdrawn due to the public angst it created.
Ms. Adair believes that there is a lot of concern in regard to
pesticide use in the state. The CS would give information to the
public, information that the public would like to have.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG directed attention to the fiscal note and
requested that Ms. Adair explain the fiscal note.
MS. ADAIR informed the committee that this bill adds two fees.
One of the new fees is a registration fee for pesticide labels.
Currently, there are 3,000 pesticides registered in the state and
thus $150 fee per label would amount to $450,000. The second fee
is the licensing fee, which is currently issued for a three-year
period and thus the $25 per year license fee would result in a
$75 charge. At this time there are 860 certified applicators.
With [those two fees], the revenue is generated. However, she
pointed out that these [fees] are added to the list of statutory
program receipts and thus wouldn't be considered general funds.
This change would have to be made to the fiscal note if the CS is
adopted.
MS. ADAIR stated that the largest expense in this legislation is
the creation of the GIS, for which [the department] has nothing
similar. Furthermore, [the department] doesn't have the internal
expertise to develop such a system; as a result, that system
would have to be developed from scratch with some reliance on the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR). This system would have to
be compatible with DEC's computer system, which doesn't tie into
the state's mainframe and thus the system would run on individual
workstations. Furthermore, this system would have to be
acceptable on the Internet in a user-friendly fashion. Moreover,
the continuous changes in technology would necessitate the need
for the system to function while incorporating technological
changes. Ms. Adair anticipated [hiring] someone to work with the
board and to perform the public education outreach, which is of
extreme importance to the sponsor as well as [to the division].
An environmental technician [position] has been included for data
entry, which is time-consuming for remote areas in particular.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG inquired as to what the department currently
does in the way of controlling pesticides.
Number 1379
MS. ADAIR remarked that it is a small program that is 85 percent
funded by the federal government [and thus] the department is
only able to do what is required under the federal grant. She
explained that [the department] certifies applicators for
restricted-use pesticides. [The department] also performs
training for those that work around pesticides. [The department]
also performs marketplace inspections and in recent years [the
department] has (indisc.) the registration program.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG surmised, then, that the department would not
enter the field and sample or control for pesticide use unless
there is a special request.
MS. ADAIR answered that such action would only be taken if there
was a complaint, such as a complaint that an illegal pesticide is
being used. Such a complaint has occurred. Ms. Adair mentioned
that for some pesticide projects, the state requires a permit.
Although [the department] doesn't have any state general funds,
[the department] does perform that state-mandated work. She
pointed out that [the department] issues permits for such things
as mosquito control and potato blights.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO pointed out that the sponsor statement says
that the fees for registration will generate the revenue to
support the program. However, [information in the committee
packet] notes that when Oregon initiated this program there was a
20 percent decline in the number of registrations and licenses.
Therefore, Representative Halcro inquired as to what would happen
if the number of licenses declines, but the department still has
the same operating costs with less revenue.
MS. ADAIR replied that [the department] would come back before
the legislature.
Number 1529
DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Director, Division of Public Health,
Department of Health & Social Services, noted that his testimony
would be in reference to the original bill. He pointed out that
neither the Division of Public Health nor the Department of
Health & Social Services (DHSS) has any oversight responsibility,
as identified in the bill. However, this is a health issue and
as such, the [department and division] are concerned about the
use of pesticides.
DR. NAKAMURA remarked that often, after the fact, another effect
[of a pesticide] is realized. Therefore, a system that merely
monitors the location [that the pesticide] is used and the amount
doesn't allow for a cause-and-effect analysis. For example, it
was discovered after-the-fact that [due to] MTBE, a chemical used
in fuel, practically all the water in California is contaminated.
He pointed out that the use of [MTBE] was stopped in Alaska.
DR. NAKAMURA agreed that it makes sense to have a register and to
know where [these pesticides] are. For [the department and the
division,] probably the greatest use [of this system] is to
address the concerns of citizens who fear they are being poisoned
from some of [these pesticides]. Often, there are concerns
regarding cancer, but the information regarding whether the
[pesticide] is or is not the cause is often unavailable. With
this type of register, a possible cause can be implicated or
eliminated.
DR. NAKAMURA stated that some of the definitions in the bill
should be clarified such as a "custom application." Furthermore,
a "commercial use" should be defined as should the reference to a
"broadcast chemical," which could include table salt that is used
to melt ice or kill slugs. Therefore, the terms in the bill
should be identified and clarified. He directed the committee to
page 2, subsection (b), of the original bill which read as
follows: "(b) The system established under (a) of this section
must require all pesticide dealers in the state to report to the
department the following information pertaining to the sale of
pesticides to end users, including private residents and licensed
pesticide applicators". Dr. Nakamura said he understood that
language to mean that [DEC] would have to follow every citizen
who purchased and applied a pesticide.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA informed Dr. Nakamura that the proposed CS
doesn't include that [language] and thus the individual
commercial stores aren't part of this bill.
DR. NAKAMURA turned to the creation of the board to monitor
pesticides, which seemed to be rather challenging as there are
many pesticides and chemicals. If a board is created to address
each individual chemical, there would be many boards. Therefore,
Dr. Nakamura suggested that this function could be included in an
existing board. Dr. Nakamura expressed his belief that this is
such an important function that it should be adequately funded
whether through the collection of fees or bills or through an
appropriation. In his nine years as a state health officer, he
has found that Alaska is relatively young in this arena and thus
the state is still identifying these needs and creating these
capabilities. He reiterated the need to provide adequate funding
to perform an appropriate job.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA acknowledged that there has been concern in
regard to the [connections] between pesticides and cancer. She
asked if this would have an application for that type of problem.
DR. NAKAMURA replied yes. He indicated that this may eliminate
some of the concerns by citizens as well as possibly identifying
a cause.
Number 2011
KAY BROWN, former Representative, Alaska State Legislature,
testified via teleconference. Ms. Brown spoke in favor of HB 356
and thanked Representative Cissna for bringing this forward. She
related her belief that pesticide use in Alaska as well as across
the country is an urgent public health problem requiring more
attention from legislative bodies. Therefore, she supported all
efforts to regulate the use of pesticides more tightly. As a
cancer survivor, Ms. Brown has become concerned with the toxic
chemicals that are used in the environment. Furthermore, it is
well established that many of these chemicals are causing serious
medical problems, including cancer. Although [these chemicals]
are widely used, very little is known about them. She identified
this bill as a first step, which she supported.
BOB GORMAN, Alaska Cooperative Extension, UAF Anchorage - State
Office, testifying via teleconference, informed the committee
that he is a Pesticide Applicator and Training Coordinator for
the Alaska Cooperative Extension, University of Alaska. He
specified that his opinions are based on his professional views
and not those of the University of Alaska. Mr. Gorman said that
he is cautiously supportive of this bill because there is no
current information base with regard to how much of what
pesticides are used in what locations. Furthermore, he supported
this bill because pesticides are important tools in pest
management and thus it is important to ensure that [pesticides]
are available in order to maintain the public health of humans
and other living things.
MR. GORMAN noted that he has two areas of concern. First, there
is the need to protect the privacy of landowners who choose to
use pesticides. Therefore, he believes that pesticides should be
identified at the watershed level and thus collection of the
information on a longitude and latitude basis could maintain the
privacy of landowners. Second, probably the greatest use of
pesticides in Alaska is from commercial applicators and
homeowners. In all likelihood, the greatest use of pesticides
can be found in urban areas with turf and ornamental applications
and structural pest control. Although it may not be possible now
to address homeowner use of pesticides, Mr. Gorman said he is
more concerned with homeowner misuse of pesticides than
commercial misuse.
Number 2310
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA acknowledged that the homeowner problem is
a large problem and would expand this tracking system to the
point at which it would be, as many feel, unwieldy. Therefore,
one of the reasons for the tracking board is to work on the
educational portion of this matter in order that people
understand [what] they are purchasing at a store. She asked if
Mr. Gorman felt that would help deal with [the homeowner]
problem.
MR. GORMAN identified [education] as a start. He mentioned that
DEC has just started a new program called the Consumer Label
Information [which] rewrites consumer labels in order to make
them more readable and user-friendly. That [program] will help.
He also mentioned that the Cooperative Extension Service and the
Municipality of Anchorage have programs that address homeowner
pesticide use. If this bill is enacted, he believes the next
effort [should be] to have the retailer, at the point of sale,
note the total volume of the pesticides sold to homeowners.
Although there would be conjecture as to where those pesticides
would be used, it would provide information as to what pesticides
are being used and in what volume they are being sold to
homeowners.
[Due to a tape change, Representative Halcro's question was not
recorded and Mr. Johnson's opening remarks were not recorded.]
TAPE 00-44, SIDE A
Number 0005
TOM JOHNSON, Safety Officer, Aurora Environmental & Safety, Inc.,
testifying via teleconference, said, "... Aurora Environmental &
Safety." Mr. Johnson noted his support of [SSHB 356]. As a
Safety Officer who has performed a number of community outreach
and education programs on hazardous materials in the home, he has
found that there is little awareness with regard to the hazards
of pesticides as well as the hazards of general household
chemicals.
MR. JOHNSON said he would challenge anyone as far as a person's
knowledge of what level or degree of poison the EPA warning
labels would have - the degree of toxicity of the products that
is being referred to. He specified that the EPA warning "Danger,
poison" means that a few drops is deadly enough to kill a person,
yet there is little awareness with regard to the toxicity.
Therefore, Mr. Johnson felt it important that those who bring
such a product into the home be more aware of the hazards. He
pointed out that currently there is great emphasis being placed
on weapon safety; however, these products have more of a
potential of being a weapon of terror and are more easily
available than any weapon. Therefore, he felt that education
should be emphasized.
MR. JOHNSON turned to the perspective of his profession, which is
to protect workers for employers, who are required to provide
safe workplaces for their employees. He said any means that
could assist him in identifying potential hazards would create
less problems in protecting his clients. Therefore, [SSHB 356]
is a good starting point.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if the average homeowner purchasing
weed killer is going to educate him/herself about what he or she
is using.
MR. JOHNSON replied no, but said that the effort has to be made.
From a risk management and liability standpoint, he didn't
believe the labels go far enough and thus organizations that sell
these items could potentially face liability issues.
Number 0329
JOHN CYR, President, National Education Association - Alaska
(NEA-AK), testified in favor of [SSHB 356]. Mr. Cyr indicated
that he was present due to the products that are used at schools.
These are products whose names he could not pronounce nor did he
know if these products were good, bad or indifferent. As a
parent and a representative of the staff and the children, Mr.
Cyr believes that people should know what is being sprayed in
public places, especially around children. Therefore, NEA-AK
believes this bill is a good start to review the information and
establish [a system] in which the community can make decisions as
to what should happen where children are.
Number 0448
RIVER BEAN, Owner, Market Organics, testified via teleconference.
He informed the committee that he and his wife have farmed
commercially and organically for 12 years and thus he said that
he knows there are alternatives to agricultural chemicals. Mr.
Bean supported HB 356 as it is a good start. Although the bill
doesn't include agriculture, it should. However, Mr. Bean
opposed allowing DEC to determine which pesticides to exempt and
which to register and track.
MR. BEAN explained that often EPA has instituted a ban on
previously authorized chemicals and often these have been
chemicals which left residues on the food. He indicated that it
may not be too long before the extreme rise in cancer rates and
other diseases are directly linked to some of these toxins in the
environment. Therefore, Mr. Bean felt that all chemicals should
be registered and include the chemicals that farmers use. He
indicated the need to be accountable for what one does to the
environment as an obligation to the community.
MR. BEAN said, "Relying on chemical applications to control
pests, weeds and diseases is not sustainable farming on any
scale." As an organic farmer, he expressed concern regarding the
"drift factor" of chemical applications; a risk of toxic
contamination due to drift [of chemicals applied nearby].
Furthermore, he expressed concern with regard to eliminating or
killing living organisms in any environment as there is a
reaction to every action. He noted that the employees that he
has who have worked on chemically-dependent farms tell tales of
ill health, neglected disposal practices and unchecked
applications of chemicals. In conclusion, Mr. Bean reiterated
his support of HB 356, which he identified as a good start.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Bean sells some of his produce at
the Anchorage Saturday Market.
MR. BEAN replied yes. He informed the committee that soon he
should be selling to the Ship Creek Market, the Eagle River
Market and 100 families.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG remarked that he was sure he had purchased some
of Mr. Bean's produce. He felt that organic farming is growing
in the [Matanuska-Susitna] Valley, and he hoped that it would
continue to grow. Chairman Rokeberg asked if aerial spraying of
pesticides is allowed in the Mat-Su Valley area.
MR. BEAN related his belief that aerial spraying of pesticides is
allowed in the Mat-Su Valley area, which is of concern because of
the drift factor and unchecked contamination. In further
response to Chairman Rokeberg, Mr. Bean said that aerial spraying
of pesticides doesn't occur directly near his farm. However, he
knows of other nearby farms that are adjacent to farms that spray
chemicals. In further response to Chairman Rokeberg, Mr. Bean
said that, to his knowledge, aerial spraying of chemicals is
allowed in the state. He mentioned that the EPA authorized
aerial spraying for the potato blight two years ago and he
indicated that the EPA had authorized it again this year. Mr.
Bean pointed out that there are alternatives to [aerial spraying]
as well as organic practices that could be utilized.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that the bill title refers to pesticides;
however, he was interested in whether the bill would encompass
the application of other agricultural chemicals.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA clarified that the bill does not include
herbicides. She related her understanding that the farming
community has been working on nontoxic solutions and has been
performing responsible monitoring. She indicated that this
information came from the Cooperative Extension Service.
Therefore, [herbicides] were not included in this legislation.
Number 0824
NEVA HASSANEIN testified via teleconference from Oregon. She
informed the committee that she works with the Northwest
Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides and has a doctorate in
environmental science. She further informed the committee that
in the past three years she has done extensive research and
worked with the political system in order to establish a
comprehensive system to track the use of pesticides in Oregon.
Ms. Hassanein noted her support of this legislation and
identified it as a solid first step, although she did have some
concerns. She clarified that the term pesticide is an umbrella
term which includes herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, et
cetera. She defined the term pesticide as follows: "A product
that is designed to kill, damage or repel living organisms."
Unless Alaska defines the term pesticide differently than it is
in other parts of the country, she would assume that all of those
chemicals would be included.
MS. HASSANEIN noted that currently, only a few states have
established systems to track the use of pesticides. The Oregon
program was just signed into law last September and one of the
key concepts of Oregon's law was the agreement that it needed to
be comprehensive, including all types of applications. However,
the current draft of HB 356 only includes commercial
applications. In response to Dr. Nakamura's question regarding
what is a commercial application, Ms. Hassanein explained that a
commercial application is one made by a licensed commercial
operator. She related her belief that it is important to include
agriculture and governmental use as well as household use.
MS. HASSANEIN said that the collection of information regarding
pesticide use is essential to understanding how these pesticides
move in the environment and how they affect human health. With a
good tracking system, one would know where say, water should be
monitored for particular chemicals. That is how these systems
can be used, which is extremely important. In regard to Dr.
Nakamura's comments disputing the need to create a board for
every thing, Ms. Hassanein suggested placing a [sunset] on this
board. Furthermore, Ms. Hassanein expressed concern with the
department's open-ended authority to decide which pesticides
would be included. She suggested that a time table should be
laid out over the next three years or so. She remarked that
Alaska is lucky in that it only has about 1,800 products that
would be tracked under this system, while Oregon and California
are tracking about 9,000 products. Therefore, she felt there is
time to do a top-notch job.
Number 1160
BOB SHAVELSON, Executive Director, Cook Inlet Keeper, testified
via teleconference from Homer. He informed the committee that
Cook Inlet Keeper represents about 650 citizens throughout the
Cook Inlet area and beyond. [The Cook Inlet Keeper] is in favor
of HB 356, which is a good start. He felt it fitting that the
House Labor & Commerce Committee is reviewing this legislation as
it is really a worker health issue. For example, last year at
Western Homer Elementary there was a pesticide application by
some workers, who weren't aware of some of the dangers of the
pesticide that they were applying. Subsequent workers
maintaining the field where the pesticide had been sprayed were
unaware of its presence. Therefore, some of the reporting
[requirements] in the bill will resolve such situations. This is
a worker's issue in that many people rely on the rich fisheries
in Cook Inlet and other areas for their livelihood and thus this
legislation will help protect some of the commercial,
recreational and subsistence fish resources.
MR. SHAVELSON informed the committee that about a year and a half
ago, a study for Cook Inlet was performed by the EPA. One
remarkable finding was that many fish resources there have high
levels of pesticides; no one is certain whether these pesticides
are coming in via the Asian current or are draining off Alaska's
land. Therefore, he felt that this legislation would help
resolve some of those issues.
Number 1297
REGINA MANTEUFEL testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
She began by thanking Representative Cissna for HB 356,
specifically the language referring to the total amount of
product applied. Ms. Manteufel related a personal story from the
time she lived in Salinas, California. At the time, there were
no notices when there was aerial spraying of pesticides and
because of this her brother is mentally retarded. When her
brother was in his twenties, the pesticides stored in his fat
cells resulted in the loss of control of his bladder.
MS. MANTEUFEL related a story in which a boyfriend of hers, who
sprayed pesticides for a living, died of cancer even though he
wore all the safety gear. Furthermore, a friend of hers - due to
exposure to pesticides as a field worker - had a miscarriage.
Ms. Manteufel informed the committee that due to the water
situation resulting from farms using pesticides in Salinas,
California, she left. She also related a situation in her
elementary school that she believes indicated that exposure to
pesticides affected brain development. In conclusion, she
expressed her belief that Alaska has the chance to do what is
right, which is to pass this legislation in order that people
don't go through the pain and suffering she has had to go
through.
Number 1551
GERAN TARR, Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT), testified
via teleconference from Anchorage. She testified in support of
HB 356, which is a necessary and important first step in
providing Alaskans the right to know about their exposure to
potentially harmful chemicals in their daily lives. As the
Pesticide Coordinator for the Right to Know Campaign, she has
discussed this bill with many individuals and thus has found
broad public support for this bill. She informed the committee
that a poll conducted for the Alaska Conservation Alliance found
that 93 percent of registered Alaskan voters support requiring
disclosure and reporting of pesticide use.
MS. TARR noted that people support this legislation for various
reasons such as: public health and water quality protection,
subsistence food safety and worker safety. She informed the
committee that the following organizations support HB 356, the
version in which all pesticides would have been tracked: the
Alaska Action Center, the Alaska Center for the Environment, the
Alaska CFIDS/FMS/GWS Association which is the Chronic Fatigue and
Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Support Group, the Alaska Community
Action on Toxics, the Alaska Conservation Alliance, the Alaska
Public Interest Research Group, the American Lung Association of
Alaska, Arctic Organic, the Brain Injury Association of Alaska,
the Center for Marine Conservation, the Cook Inlet Keeper, the
Injured Workers' Alliance, Kachemak Bay Conservation Society, the
Mental Health Association of Alaska, the National Wildlife
Federation of Alaska, the Native American Fish and Wildlife
Society and the Northern Alaskan Environmental Center. She
indicated that due to the timing of the legislation, some
organizations have been unable to sign statements of support yet
and thus she expected more broad support.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA acknowledged that Ms. Tarr was very active
in putting together some of the ideas for this legislation. She
referred to the section in the CS regarding the membership of the
Pesticide Advisory Board and asked if Ms. Tarr had any ideas with
regard to the type of person that would fulfill the
qualifications specified in paragraphs (2) and (5) on page 4,
lines 13-17 and 22-24, respectively.
MS. TARR said that there are many individuals that could fill
those positions. She said that there are individuals who work
for state or federal agencies, whose job description would cover
this category. For example, there are individuals at both U.S.
Fish & Game and Alaska Department of Fish & Wildlife who research
the potential affects pesticides are having on wildlife in the
state as well as water quality issues. Through that work, these
individuals have dealt with alternatives to pesticides, pest
management and the public's right to know. In regard to
paragraph (5), she noted that many of the people with whom she
works in ACAT have expertise in many of the categories listed.
Although there may be people who aren't an expert in all the
categories, they could certainly fulfill the need to have a broad
base of knowledge to address the issue.
Number 1818
STACEY MARZ, Resource Coordinator, Alaska Community Action on
Toxics, testifying via teleconference from Anchorage, informed
the committee that Barbara Williams had to leave and thus Ms.
Marz wanted to read Ms. Williams' testimony and then submit her
own.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested that Ms. Marz provide the
teleconference moderator with Ms. Williams' written testimony,
which would become part of the record. He then requested that
Ms. Marz proceed with her testimony.
MS. MARZ informed the committee that ACAT has begun to attempt to
collect information regarding pesticide use in Alaska. This has
proven to be a [difficult] task as the information is not readily
available and must be systematically collected from all pesticide
users. Much of the information collected thus far is from
different sectors of the government. She noted that this
information was collected because it is the easiest to collect
due to public record laws which require disclosure. However,
public record requests result in varying results due to the
different record keeping systems within the institutions
contacted. Although some of the institutions maintain
comprehensive records regarding pesticide application, that was
not the norm. Unfortunately, some [institutions] maintain
nothing at all or merely note that an exterminator visited a
premises. Ms. Marz pointed out that information about private
pesticide use is very difficult to obtain as the only way to
obtain such information is if there is voluntary disclosure by
the private institution using pesticides.
MS. MARZ stated that [ACAT] has found that use of pesticides in
Alaska is widespread and occurs in many places that people
frequent in daily life. She informed the committee that there is
regular pesticide use in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau, Palmer and
Kenai. Pesticides are applied in locations such as private homes
and yards, restaurants, nursing homes, schools, hospitals,
airports, parks, gardens, greenhouse, the universities and farms.
She noted that the target organism varies from different types of
insects to different types of weeds. Ms. Marz stated that it is
virtually impossible for an average citizen to access
information, in an expedient and comprehensive manner, about
pesticide use and exposure in Alaska. Furthermore, no one has
the time or energy to systematically call all potential pesticide
users in order to create a big picture perspective in regard to
personal exposure. Therefore, a pesticide tracking system on the
Internet would allow individuals to evaluate their own risks and
minimize their exposure to toxic chemicals as well as decide how
best to protect himself/herself and their family.
Number 2002
PAM MILLER, Biologist and Program Director, Alaska Community
Action on Toxics (ACAT), testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. The mission of ACAT "is to protect human health and
the environment from the toxic effects of contaminants and we
also work to enhance public access to information about toxics
and to build community action capabilities," she said. The ACAT
strongly supports HB 356 as introduced by Representative Cissna.
However, she had some recommendations that would strengthen the
bill.
MS. MILLER said enactment of this bill will be an important first
step in ensuring the public's and workers' right to know about
pesticide applications. Furthermore, this bill will provide
necessary data for people to evaluate their risks and take
whatever protective actions they deem necessary. [The ACAT] has
worked with a number of chemically injured people, who are
particularly susceptible to the health effects of pesticide
exposure. Ms. Miller pointed out that a number of people are
particularly vulnerable to pesticides, including pregnant women,
children, adolescents, people with immune illnesses and women in
menopause.
MS. MILLER explained that ACAT's support for this bill stems from
the group's research and experience working with the Anchorage
School District regarding the use of pesticides in schools. The
group's research demonstrated that the Anchorage School District
used pesticides that are linked to serious health problems and,
the group thinks, pose a special risk to children. However,
teachers, parents and students were not notified about pesticide
application. She noted that a group of parents, teachers and
students worked with ACAT for nearly a year in order to address
this problem, which culminated in a February 2000 decision of the
Anchorage School Board to implement a policy requiring
notification procedures and implementation of least toxic pest
management. The organization believes it to be one of the most
progressive in the country.
MS. MILLER turned to specific recommendations of ACAT, which it
believes will strengthen and ensure public health in the
environment. Ms. Miller proposed the following amendments to
CSSSHB 356. First, she recommended that on page 2, line 9, the
word "shall" should be substituted for the word "may" and thus
DEC would be required to charge registration fees, which would
ensure annual income from pesticide label registration. She
reminded the committee that Alaska is the only state that does
not require such registration fees, which are generally paid by
pesticide managers in other states. The second recommendation is
on page 2, line 22, to remove the language "based in part on the
frequency of pesticide application" and add a provision requiring
all pesticide users to report all pesticides that are applied.
She said it will be inefficient and costly to allow DEC to
determine which pesticides require reporting.
MS. MILLER noted that her written testimony included a series of
justifications for this recommendation, which she urged committee
members to review. She returned to Section 4 of the CS and
referred the committee to Section 4(c) regarding the reporting
requirement to DEC. While ACAT supports a pesticide use tracking
system, ACAT urges the committee to make the reporting
requirement apply to all pesticide applicators. Additionally,
the word "shall" should be substituted for the word "may" in
Section 4(b), which would require DEC to "establish regulations
for the submission and dissemination of accurate data for the
tracking system." Ms. Miller explained that the only way to have
an accurate picture of pesticide use and exposure is with
complete information - readily available to the public -
provided by all pesticide applicators.
MS. MILLER turned to Section 3(b) and again recommended that the
word "shall" be substituted for the word "may" in order to
require DEC to regulate the licensing of restricted-use pesticide
applicators and custom, commercial and contract applicators of
pesticides and broadcast chemicals. Although ACAT supports the
imposition of civil penalties for applicators who fail to comply
with the reporting requirement established in Section 3 of the
proposed CS, it requests the addition of a citizen suit provision
such as the one in the Federal Emergency Planning and Community
Right to Know Act. She explained that this federal Act allows
lawsuits to be filed for noncompliance with the reporting
requirement.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked who the Alaska Community Action on Toxics
is.
Number 2266
MS. MILLER responded that the Alaska Community Action on Toxics
is a statewide membership organization that has over 300
individual members as well as Alaska tribes. It has been in
existence approximately three years. She described its mission:
The mission of Alaska Community Action on Toxics is to
protect human health and the environment from the toxic
effects of contaminants. We are dedicated to achieving
environmental justice through a collaborative work with
affected communities, tribes, environmental
organizations and individual activists. We work to
ensure responsible cleanup of contaminated sites and
empower community involvement in cleanup decisions. We
strive to stop the production, proliferation and
release of toxic chemicals and work to enhance public
access to information about toxics and to build
community action capabilities.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if ACAT has full-time employees.
MS. MILLER replied yes. Currently, ACAT has two full-time
employees and some contract employees.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA mentioned that ACAT was one of the citizen
groups that worked to develop this bill. She Cissna thanked
those who had testified today.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if anyone else wished to testify. There
being no one, Chairman Rokeberg announced that HB 356 would be
held.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|