Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/17/1996 08:04 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 17, 1996
8:04 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative John Davies
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Don Long
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ramona Barnes
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Confirmation hearing Michele D. Brown, Commissioner, Department of
Environmental Conservation.
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 37
Urging the United States Congress to give an affirmative expression
of approval to a policy authorizing the state to regulate,
restrict, or prohibit the export of unprocessed logs harvested from
its land and from the land of its political subdivisions and the
University of Alaska.
- PASSED SJR 37 OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL 331
"An Act relating to mining."
- PASSED CSHB 331(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL 342
"An Act relating to water quality."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL 406
"An Act relating to waste and use of salmon and parts of salmon;
relating to permits for and operation of a salmon hatchery; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
* HOUSE BILL 516
"An Act relating to air quality control."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 199(FIN)
"An Act relating to environmental audits and health and safety
audits to determine compliance with certain laws, permits, and
regulations."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 37
SHORT TITLE: PRIMARY MFG OF PUBLICLY OWNED TIMBER
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TORGERSON; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Navarre
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/96 2381 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/96 2382 (S) RESOURCES
03/08/96 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/08/96 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/11/96 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205
03/12/96 2705 (S) RES RPT 6DP
03/12/96 2705 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.RES)
03/13/96 (S) RLS AT 11:00 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/13/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/25/96 2865 (S) RULES RPT 2CAL 1NR 1OTHER 3/25/96
03/25/96 2883 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/25/96 2883 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
03/25/96 2883 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 37
03/25/96 2883 (S) PASSED Y20 N-
03/25/96 2886 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/26/96 3360 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/26/96 3360 (H) RESOURCES
03/26/96 3381 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): NAVARRE
04/17/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 331
SHORT TITLE: POSTING OF BOND BEFORE LAND ENTRY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT,Kelly
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
5/03/95 1814 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/03/95 1814 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE
04/17/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HB 342
SHORT TITLE: WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ROKEBERG
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/09/95 2042 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/09/95 2042 (H) O&G, RESOURCES
10/17/95 (H) O&G AT 1:00 PM ANCHORAGE LIO
10/17/95 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
02/13/96 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/13/96 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
02/20/96 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
02/20/96 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
03/21/96 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/21/96 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
03/22/96 3267 (H) O&G RPT CS(O&G) 1DP 3NR
03/22/96 3268 (H) DP: ROKEBERG
03/22/96 3268 (H) NR: G.DAVIS, B.DAVIS, WILLIAMS
03/22/96 3268 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (DEC, F&G)
03/22/96 3268 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
03/27/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
03/27/96 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/29/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/01/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124
04/01/96 (H) MINUTE(RES)
WITNESS REGISTER
MICHELE BROWN, Commissioner-Designee
Department of Environmental Conservation
410 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 105
Juneau, AK 99801-1795
Telephone: (907) 465-5066
POSITION STATEMENT: Agency presentation
SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 427
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2828
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of SJR 37
SARA FISHER, Legislative Assistant
Representative Gene Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-6597
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the sponsor of HB 331
JULES TILESTON, Director
Division of Mining & Water Management
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C Street, Suite 800
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 269-8625
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 331
STEVEN C. BORELL, P.E., Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association, Inc.
501 W. Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 203
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 276-0347
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 331
MIC MANNS, Representative
Paradise Valley Mines
Bettles, Alaska 99726
Telephone: (907) 479-5704
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 331
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 110
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered amendments to CSHB 342(RES)
JANICE ADAIR, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
555 Cordova Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-7644
POSITION STATEMENT: Offered amendments to CSHB 342(RES)
MARILYN CROCKETT
Alaska Oil & Gas Association
121 West Fireweed, Suite 207
Anchorage, AK 99503
Telephone: (907) 269-8625
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 342(RES)
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Fish & Game
P.O. Box 25526
Juneau, AK 99811-5526
Telephone: (907) 465-6143
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSHB 342(RES)
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-57, SIDE A
Number 001
CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Resources Committee meeting
to order at 8:04 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Williams, Ogan, Austerman and Kott.
Representatives Davies, Long and Nicholia arrived late and
Representative Barnes was absent.
CONFIRMATION HEARING - MICHELE D. BROWN
Number 065
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Michele D. Brown, Commissioner-Designee,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), to come forward and
testify.
Number 070
MICHELE BROWN, Commissioner-Designee, Department of Environmental
Conservation, said she would provide the committee with an overview
of where the department has been and where they are going. The
department has a very important role to play, but it was clear to
her and former commissioner, Gene Burden, the department needed to
pursue their goal in using more updated methods and approaches.
She said they had left the era of command and control for
environmental management and needed to move toward what she
referred to as a "common stewardship of resources" approach.
However, the department found they were constrained because of two
things: 1) They needed to change their mind set about the business
of environmental management; and 2) they needed to have an
organization that was conducive to the kind of consistency and
accountability that that approach required. They also needed a
budget that was clearly capturing the costs of running each program
so the cost could be tied directly to the public health benefit
achieved to ensure they were buying a product for the budget.
Thus, the department was reorganized last year.
Number 229
COMMISSIONER BROWN stated the department went from 22 autonomous
management units to 6 units which was done to achieve clear
accountability through direct management lines. She noted this has
helped to eliminate a lot of the regional inconsistencies that had
previously bothered some committee members. The department unified
program development and program implementation so the people who
are applying the laws are also responsible for developing them.
This had not been done before and it left the department in a
position of not being sure their regulations really made sense when
they were applied because they were developed by people who were
not applying them.
Number 342
COMMISSIONER BROWN noted that by reorganizing, the department was
able to save money. The work force was reduced by 5 percent and
saved $1.3 million. This savings was accomplished by straightening
lines of management, by consolidating administrative functions and
eliminating redundancies. When the department was organized in the
22 autonomous management units, program funds were so split up
among each of these units it was nearly impossible to tell what it
really cost to run a program. By straightening that out, the
department got two extra bonuses. The first was that by accurately
capturing the administrative cost to run a program, they could
negotiate a more realistic rate on the federal monies given to the
department. Now they can safely say that because the indirect rate
on federal grants is directly linked to program costs, they no
longer have general funds subsidizing federally mandated programs.
The second bonus was to reduce the spending from the Oil and
Hazardous Substance Release Response Fund. The savings totaled
several hundred thousand dollars. The reason for that is when the
costs were not accurately pinpointed to each program before, they
found the fund was in some cases paying more than its fair share.
So they were glad to take actions that would protect the fund for
its intended response use. That was the physical part of the
reorganization. She reiterated that it straightened management
lines, saved money and reduced their dependence on general funds.
Even more importantly, it positioned them to implement the change
in mindset and direction she mentioned earlier, which is the second
phase of the reorganization that is currently ongoing.
COMMISSIONER BROWN stated the department needs to move to a primary
mission of compliance in technical assistance. Compliance with
clean air and clean water requirements will always be necessary,
but the department starts with the assumption that the industries
operating in Alaska have both the corporate conscience and the
corporate technical ability to be able to work with them on
constructive solutions for environmental management. She noted
that several operating principles have been set up to better define
the department's role, three of which she would share with the
committee.
Number 422
COMMISSIONER BROWN said first is the Department of Environmental
Conservation is part of the state's resource management team.
Sound environmental management means assisting in the design and
siting of operations, which helps avoid environmental problems and
opposition to projects down the line. She wants the department to
become constructive at the front end of a project; not a roadblock
at the eleventh hour. The second principle is the department views
themselves as part of the state's overall economic development
team. The department is working hard to focus on customer service
that strengthens the overall economy, creates and maintains jobs
and maintains the quality of air, water and natural resources that
attract growth. Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that economic
development is in fact strongest where there is the most sound
environmental management. By sound environmental management, she
didn't necessarily mean the most stringent or the strictest
standards, but rather that resources are managed on an interactive,
rational and involved approached. Where there is excessive
pollution, the economy does decline and the reason for that is
because the environment is an infrastructure; it's like roads or
electrical services. New economic development can't occur if
single operators are using up the entire capacity of the
environment to absorb waste or to provide raw materials. For
example, a new seafood processing facility could not come on line
if existing facilities are discharging so many wastes that there's
no ready source for clean water intake.
Number 523
COMMISSIONER BROWN said a third operating principle at the DEC is
that they are the cornerstone of the state's public health system.
People tend to think of the department as more large industrial
permitting, but in fact, the lion's share of their work is safe
food, pure drinking water, proper waste disposal and better
sanitation. Most of these fundamental services are done by local
government in the rest of the country but in Alaska, the state
retains the responsibility for assuring the basics that are taken
for granted in modern life.
COMMISSIONER BROWN further stated that to implement these
principles, each of the programs has turned to a management by
objectives approach to guide their actions. These objectives are
focused on environmental results, not on process and not on red
tape. The department really wants to see what result their
programs are buying, not just how many steps it takes to get to
that resolve. The department is hoping to launch a program where
they ask industry to join with them in making common objectives so
everyone can march to the same direction. She has also asked
staff, as they implement these objectives, to get out into the
field and establish working partnerships. Sitting in an office and
reviewing plans or asking for information will not get them there.
The department needs to form coalitions with all the interested
parties and get workable regulations to plan to avoid environmental
problems up front which can be very costly to correct later and to
be creative in problem solving to achieve compliance rather than
just demand it. She hoped that committee members were familiar
with the department's efforts to accomplish this. Some examples
are the Clear Air Act regulations, the EPA general placer mining
permit and the water quality standards. All were highly
contentious issues that the department is working through
cooperatively rather than argumentatively as in the past. Other
examples include the cleanup of Sitka's Silver Bay and the
military's King Salmon and Pribilof sites which have long been
worrisome and serious areas of contamination that are finally being
addressed after years of neglect and years of finger pointing
instead of looking toward cleanup and solution.
Number 663
COMMISSIONER BROWN said another example is the department's seafood
program. Fifty percent of the seafood produced in the United
States is processed in Alaska and the department inspects the bulk
of it. The department has to inspect it in order for the federal
government to allow it to move out of state into interstate
commerce. This is a major portion of the state's economy and
seeing it be a safe and successful venture is their mission, but
they found they could also do that by saving money. For instance,
the department analyzed the data for Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning
(PSP) poisoning and found they could target the requirements more
accurately to reflect the periods of risk. As a result, the
department adjusted the testing requirements in Kachemak Bay in
Southeast and are getting products to market faster without any
compromise to public health.
COMMISSIONER BROWN concluded that is where the department is
heading; the direction and the operating principles. She noted
they are not 100 percent there yet. They are working on it, but
transitions take time and take some getting used to by everyone;
the staff as well as the clients they serve. She thought, however,
they had taken a major step in crossing over to a cooperative
environmental management approach that brings people to the table
in a framework of decision making. It's not always easy nor does
it necessarily eliminate conflict, but what it does is make
everyone struggle with the responsibility of responsible decision
making rather than just blasting each other with rhetoric. She
hoped she could count on the committee's support for these goals as
they proceed in the process. She invited questions from committee
members.
Number 779
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that Representatives Don Long and John
Davies had joined the meeting.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said that a bill had passed in the Eighteenth
Legislature that adjusted the way the 470 Fund was disbursed. He
noted there are a lot of non-oil related or at least non-producer
related things that are covered out of the 470 Fund and asked if
any attempt was being made to find another funding source to help
replenish that since the bulk of it is not used from the industry
that supports it.
COMMISSIONER BROWN responded that on refined product, the
department is trying hard to look at some federal grant monies to
address the bulk fuel problem so they can reduce the dependence on
the 470 account for that. Cost recovery is another avenue. She
thought the biggest savings comes from carefully delineating what
the programs cost that they're no longer drawing on the fund to
absorb the indirect portions.
Number 851
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN commented the reports presented in the Eighteenth
Legislature indicated a lot of funds were expended with a notation
to the effect that recoup had been dropped or was ongoing, but
seldom was there any actual recovery. He asked if that had been
improved in Commissioner Brown's estimation?
COMMISSIONER BROWN said they have improved the recovery rate, but
added that it's not where it should be yet. It is on the way up,
but it's not completely there.
Number 889
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted there had been some resolutions passed
dealing with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and asked if there was any possibility of the department
establishing primacy in NPDES permitting that would not be
international or national waters, but within the state?
COMMISSIONER BROWN responded that marketing Alaska as well as the
legislative resolutions was an area that people wanted the
department to look at. She said the department now has to cost out
what it would take to assume that large and expensive program. It
would need to be a fee-based program which originally a lot of
industry opposed but now is thinking it would be in their interest
to do that because they would get the permits a lot faster. She
reiterated the department is looking into what it would cost and
added they would provide the legislature with an analysis.
Number 956
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN remarked that Commissioner Brown's predecessor's
had traveled extensively to areas where they thought there could be
pollution that ultimately might have an affect on the quality of
either air or water. He asked if Commissioner Brown planned to
continue this type of activity? He added, "I'm thinking primarily
since we seem to get the prevailing things from Russia that there
might be some ongoing dialogue or cooperative effort to help them
to prevent messing us up?"
COMMISSIONER BROWN responded the department does have cooperative
efforts underway; however, it was certainly broader than just the
Department of Environmental Conservation. She added they are part
of the Arctic Council which is the governments of the Arctic
countries. An area that's been one of the most important for the
department to work on is the sustainable development aspect of the
Arctic Council resolutions. The reason it is important is because
the oil and gas development here is undertaken in the sustainable
development way, meaning a minimal footprint is left and not all
the resources will be used for all time, but not all countries are
doing that. She said in order to level the playing field, we're
using the Arctic Council as a forum to have all the Arctic
countries agree to the principles of how oil and gas development
will occur. She stated there are ongoing radiation tracking
proposals and noted a change made from the last Administration is
that instead of having the monitors in Russia where the activity
couldn't be controlled, they are now set up in Alaska so any
problem can be detected early on.
Number 1065
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to recent articles indicating that
Chernobyl may be a bomb waiting to happen and asked if that was
true and if it was something we should be worried about?
COMMISSIONER BROWN responded it was hard to gauge. She added that
based on her time in Russia, it was hard for the U.S. Government to
get a handle on how serious the nuclear power facilities were.
There's a strong sense that they are in bad shape and there was a
lot of effort being put in to alternative energy programs to
encourage Russia to close them down. She noted the monitoring is
set up in Alaska so we can have an early warning, but it's hard to
gauge how serious a threat it really is.
Number 1121
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN referred to a letter from Marianne See, Director
of the Statewide Public Service Division to the consulting engineer
on the Spurr Highway which suggests that the legislature had cut
funding for septic inspections. He didn't think that was quite
accurate. The last paragraph of the letter suggests that the
respective legislators be contacted. He wondered if that was a
normal procedure in the department and what action took place.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said the department normally doesn't do a lot of
politicking which may be a problem because people don't know what
the department is up to. She referred to the budget cuts and said
the domestic wastewater program has four components. One is
subdivision plan review where the department reviews subdivision
plans to ensure the lots are designed in such a way that they can
handle waste systems. Alaska doesn't have many public systems, so
the department needs to ensure the lots are configured so each lot
can handle a system, preferably a conventional system. Also, the
department does on-lot certifications which is when an individual
wants to sell a property, a health authority needs to certify that
the waste disposal system is working. The department also does
plan approvals for unconventional systems or for larger than one
home systems and they respond to sewage on the ground.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said once the department was reorganized and
domestic wastewater was under one program as opposed to bits and
pieces in all the management units, they could see what it really
cost. She noted they have fee authority for the on-lot
certification and fee authority for the on-lot plan approval but
there is no fee authority for sewage on the ground because that's
obviously not a fee based program. The department didn't have fee
authority for the subdivision plan review which was paid for in
part by $185,000 in general funds which were cut out of the budget
this year. She remarked the department has legislation for
authority to charge fees so they can continue to do that function.
Without the fee authority and with this budget cut, the department
will no longer be able to do subdivision plan review. The letter
Co-Chairman Green had referred to was to serve two purposes, the
first of which is to notify people who have been relying on the
department for the service, that the service will be discontinued
as of July 1. She agreed that different words probably should have
been chosen for that last paragraph and in the call to action, it
probably stepped over the line of good judgment. She does,
however, think it was the responsible thing to do to tell people
that this service they have depended upon will no longer be
provided in the next fiscal year. She pointed out the
Administration and the legislature do not see eye-to-eye on the
level of cuts, which is no secret to anyone. The department has
repeatedly voiced their opposition to this cut; they think it is
unnecessary and potentially very harmful to public health and also
to the economic interests of property owners. She thought the last
paragraph of the letter was probably more of an emotional response
that this is an important program that will be gone. She mentioned
she would discuss with staff the difference between laying out what
is going to happen and a call to action.
Number 1375
CO-CHAIRMAN BILL WILLIAMS said he has constituents who have
complained about the attitudes displayed by department staff. He
referred to the Ketchikan Pulp Company (KPC) wastewater discharge,
chlorine free project into the main channel, taking it out of Ward
Cove and asked Commissioner Brown what her thoughts were on how
that would help the environment and her level of support for the
project.
COMMISSIONER BROWN replied the department has been working
extensively with Ketchikan Pulp Company and with the community of
Ketchikan. She noted there were strong opinions on both sides of
the issue. The department has been developing a comprehensive
approach to working with the KPC to solve both the air and the
water issues so the public develops a degree a confidence that
their health is not endangered nor is the environment. On the air
side, the department is working through a new permit that will
significantly reduce the pollutants in the air emissions. On the
water side, the department is working with the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the KPC to design the new permit which
will move the outfall away from Ward Cove to Tongass Narrows.
Also, the department is helping the KPC to design it in a way that
there will be a minimum mixing zone and will clearly meet water
quality standards when the discharge goes on-line. She noted it is
a very complicated facility and the KPC has been working hard to
provide the department with the information needed to ensure they
are designing a new outfall and a new mixing zone that will not
present any problems.
Number 1476
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if Commissioner Brown thought that would
make everyone feel comfortable?
COMMISSIONER BROWN replied, "Not everyone."
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Commissioner Brown to explain why people
wouldn't feel comfortable.
COMMISSIONER BROWN thought there was a long history of distrust
that will take a number of years to overcome. Also, she thought
the more information that got out into the public so people can
judge the studies and the analyses, would help people to have more
confidence.
Number 1500
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked Commissioner Brown what her feelings
were regarding what the KPC is doing?
COMMISSIONER BROWN responded she thought the company had made major
progress.
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if the KPC is taking care of the
environment?
COMMISSIONER BROWN thought KPC was trying very hard and added that
by the time the permit cycles are completed on both the air and
water issues....
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS inquired if Commissioner Brown would "go and
wave the flag" that Ketchikan Pulp Company is taking care of the
environment.
COMMISSIONER BROWN replied when the permits are in place because
the department isn't going to issue the permits until they are
completely comfortable that KPC is indeed providing....
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS interjected that usually there are problems
with people who are misinformed about what is happening and they
are not going to change their attitude.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said the department wants to bring the people
into the process a little more, which she felt would go a long way
toward helping the public develop that confidence.
Number 1588
REPRESENTATIVE AL AUSTERMAN pointed out that he is from Kodiak
where the seafood industry is very important. He said as a child,
one of the problems Kodiak faced was low tide on hot summer days
and the EPA and the DEC started requiring discharges into the ocean
and set up a reduction plant. The situation on a hot summer day in
Kodiak is not nearly as bad now and is getting better every year.
Part of the problem, as he sees it, is the level of interpretation
of what should be discharged and what shouldn't be discharged. He
said, "If a vessel comes in and makes a delivery and they have
their saltwater system working where their fish have been stored,
that saltwater then gets pumped out of their hull along with the
fish and then it goes into the processing plant and then it comes
back out as a discharge of water. The current system is set up
where body parts, crab shells, etc., are filtered out and taken to
the plant. But there is an amount of foam, there is an amount of
fish scales that still are discharged into the water." He inquired
at what level does Commissioner Brown foresee the department
looking at discharge from seafood processing plants? He noted that
some of the inspectors feel that foam and scales shouldn't go back
into the ocean.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said she couldn't answer that at the moment
because she wasn't familiar enough with it. She added the EPA
issues the NPDES permits and the department certifies them but she
couldn't speak to the discharging by vessels. She would, however,
look into it and report back to Representative Austerman.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said he would appreciate that. He knew
that inspectors have looked at the foam coming out of a seafood
processing plant and said that it's not acceptable, but any time
saltwater is run through a pump, foam is created and it's basically
saltwater that's being put back in.
Number 1722
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said his second question related to a
specific problem in Kodiak. After the tidal wave in 1964, there
were a lot of areas in Kodiak that sunk five feet in addition to
areas that were destroyed. Basically, everything was just covered
up. One of the intersections has been scheduled by the Department
of Transportation & Public Facilities to be realigned and corrected
for a number of years. The reason it hasn't been done is because
testing shows refined oil in the ground, but no one is able to
define where it is coming from. The assumption of most people who
have lived there all their life is that it came after things were
buried and covered up after the tidal wave. The Department of
Transportation & Public Facilities can't realign and re-pave the
intersection because the DEC requires digging out the whole area
and remediate the soil. He asked, "At what point in time do we say
that the dollar value of what little bit of oil is in the ground
can stay there, the area can be paved over and -- basically, we're
talking downtown Kodiak where the whole area is paved over anyway;
it's not like it's an area where people are going to be digging in
it all the time."
COMMISSIONER BROWN responded the department has new regulations
that are in the process of being scoped out with industry now and
will go out to public comment shortly that will allow that type of
risk assessment. So instead of the black and white standards that
required that it be cleaned to a certain level before moving on,
these regulations will allow risk assessment to look at what are
the pathways to cause any harm. If there's no drinking water
systems nearby or surface water nearby, then it could be cleaned up
to an alternative level so it can essentially be encapsulated and
just state where it is.
Number 1821
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said, "Well, I would hope that the risk
assessment then takes into consideration what you're really talking
about because we're talking about an area like Kodiak whose whole
downtown area was destroyed in a tidal wave and then reburied;
basically, covered over to start new construction. You could start
at that intersection and say that you need to take this little bit
out of this intersection but when you continue to dig, you'd
probably continue today right down to the water line in the boat
harbor. So, I hope that the overall assessment is taken into
consideration a little bit more when you're doing your risk
assessments."
COMMISSIONER BROWN replied it will be and added that DEC could
contact the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities on
this particular site and see if a plan could be worked out.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN remarked that according to the Department
of Transportation & Public Facilities, they've been held up for
about four years trying to work out a plan with the DEC.
Number 1863
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES noted that a similar problem exists at
the intersection of College and University in Fairbanks and the
holdup has been "haggling over" which state agency is going to be
responsible for the cleanup. The university doesn't care which
state dollars go into the project; they just want the project
completed. He didn't know the details of this particular situation
other than it had been in a half-built condition for a long time.
He agreed with Representative Austerman in that there's a certain
point beyond which it's not economic to worry about it anymore, but
rather get on with some common sense solution to the problem. He
remarked there was a similar issue that centers around placer
mining and had to do with pumps and discharges. There's a widely
held view in the placer mining community that the DEC requires them
in many instances to unreasonably discharge cleaner water into the
existing water bodies than is reasonable, both with respect to
arsenic content and the sediments. He asked Commissioner Brown if
that was a major problem in her view and if there were a lot of
situations where this is an issue?
COMMISSIONER BROWN replied the EPA had just issued their new
proposed MPDES general requirement for placer mining and it had
triggered a very negative reaction among the miners. The DEC asked
EPA to meet with the miners and the department in Fairbanks to work
out a permit that the department wouldn't be in a position to
certify as well because they had strong disagreements with the
proposed permit. The department also believed it was unnecessarily
stringent and required a lot of paperwork that didn't buy them
environmental benefit, but one of the issues in the new permit is
arsenic. She noted that it was a thorny problem because the
state's water quality standards set arsenic levels at 50 for
drinking water and 36 for aquatic life; these were considered safe
discharges. Operators in the state of Alaska are not adding
arsenic, unlike elsewhere in the country. This is really just
natural occurring arsenic that may be compounded because by
increasing the volumes of water where its present, there's a higher
level of it. Nonetheless, the state's standards have 50 and 36 as
protective of health and aquatic life. The federal national toxics
rule then came into play. The department years ago asked EPA not
to apply that to arsenic, but they went ahead and did that. She
said, "When they did that, they took -- it's a health based
standard that they set arsenic levels at extremely low rates and
that's the problems the miners are now having. The EPA has agreed
to reconsider the arsenic levels because it's a problem in many
places of the country that they've now got a requirement under the
national toxics rules that you can't even measure to -- it's below
detectable limits. So, we're going to be asking the EPA to allow
us to go back to the standards that had been set in state law
previously before the national toxics rule and until we can
actually change all the federal standards to allow that to be the
operative one on permits. So, arsenic is a legitimate problem, but
it's because of the national toxics rule and we just need to work
with EPA to get a common sense resolve on it."
Number 2069
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said, "The other question I wanted to ask had
to do with the vehicle emissions program. As you know, the
legislature passed a law recently that allowed for doing the
inspections every other year and I think an unintended consequence
of that was that or maybe it wasn't -- sufficiently appreciated at
the time, was that there are large fixed costs with the program for
the Fairbanks North Star Borough. And so we're at kind of a
loggerhead now where the borough says that unless you can increase
the fees, you can't go forward with the program and I've heard
people getting to the point of throwing up their hands and just
wanting to give the whole program back to you." He asked
Commissioner Brown what the current status was on that issue.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said the department is trying to work with Mayor
Sampson on the issue. She noted the department had raised those
issues in the discussion of SB 28 last year which changed the
requirement to biennial. The legislation was passed and the
department is proceeding with it. She thought it would require an
increase in fees so the fixed costs can still be paid for. The net
to the consumer is about the same or it could actually be a small
savings to the consumer. There is an option to solving the fixed
costs. She thought the mayor was concerned there would be a
perception of increased fees that would be unpalatable to his
citizens, but the bottom line is the citizens would probably pay a
little less on a two-year cycle. She added the department believes
this is a local government issue and should be managed at the local
level so that it's responsive to local issues. Therefore, the
department is not encouraging that it be given back to them.
Number 2164
REPRESENTATIVE DON LONG referred to the coastal management program
and said the DEC is a regulatory authority and the coastal
management is also a regulatory authority in a way that it just
takes in public policy. In relation to that, he asked if the DEC
would be able to work with the coastal management program with
regard to the regulations as to who has priority?
COMMISSIONER BROWN responded that in areas where there is more than
one agency involved in a permit, including a coastal district, DEGC
coordinates it and the DEC works with DEGC to ensure that all the
agencies are pooling together. She added if it's a single agency
issue, then the DEC has the burden of making sure they follow all
of the ACMP processes.
Number 2218
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said it had been brought to his attention
by a member of the finance committee that there was some
disagreement about the budget cuts and the elimination of the
subdivision planning program. He asked if there would be no
subdivision plat review because of the budget cuts?
COMMISSIONER BROWN replied the department would no longer do
subdivision plan reviews; they would, however, continue to do the
others aspects of the sewage program which she had mentioned
earlier. She added that if it's to be done, the local governments
would need to pick it up. Local governments have generally
depended on the department to do the reviews and in most cases the
local government will not sign off on a plat unless the DEC has
signed off on it, but alternative systems will be needed. She
noted that Anchorage currently does this and Valdez does a large
portion of it themselves.
Number 2261
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he would like to discuss that with
Commissioner Brown at some point because there seemed to be some
disagreement from a legislative perspective. It has been his
experience that often times an agency will eliminate a high profile
service that will cause the most public uproar which is sometimes
more posturing than reality.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said there were two aspects involved. One is
that general funds clearly related to this program were cut from
the budget in both the House and Senate Finance Committees. The
other aspect is the authority to charge fees for it so the
department would have sufficient monies with those two sources to
enable them to continue the program. When the department went
through the reorganization, they found that a lot of other
programs, including the 470 Fund, were sort of subsidizing this
program. Now the program has to be paid for on its merits; either
it's worth doing and paid for or the department can't continue to
do it. That's the dilemma the department is currently in. Both
the general funds and the fee authority are needed. Without those
the department can no longer do it. The department's ultimate hope
was because other aspects of the domestic wastewater program are
fee based, that this one would also become fee based and they would
be able to work with municipalities to transfer them over because
it would be a revenue neutral package.
Number 2331
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES mentioned that discussions took place on the
Department of Natural Resources' budget with respect to the fee
issue. He thought this was another example of the problems the
legislature has with budgeting where they actually discourage
taking care of real problems because of the program receipts issue.
Number 2345
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that Commissioner Brown and her staff had
worked very diligently on trying to get resolution on the air
quality regulations that are pending. He asked if Commissioner
Brown could give a time estimate of finality.
COMMISSIONER BROWN said the department has finished the packet of
regulation changes that EPA required of them and after a long,
protractive negotiations process, the package is getting finalized
on the regulation changes that the stakeholders groups had worked
out with them. She hoped those would go out within a week as long
as no new issues came up. Now that it has gotten down to the fine
issues, she had urged the stakeholders to let them go out to public
notice where those fine issues could be addressed.
Number 2390
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN thanked Commissioner Brown for her testimony and
asked if there were any other questions for Commissioner Brown.
Hearing none, he asked the wish of the committee.
Number 2401
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved to forward the consideration of Michele
Brown, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Conservation to
the joint session.
SJR 37 - PRIMARY MFG OF PUBLICLY OWNED TIMBER
Number 2414
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS accepted the gavel from Co-Chairman Green and
announced his intent to move SJR 37 from committee today.
Number 2425
SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON introduced SJR 37 stating that its purpose
asks Alaska's Congressional delegation to exempt Alaska from the
commerce clause which prohibits primary manufacture in the state on
publicly owned timber.
SENATOR TORGERSON said, "In 1990, Congress did adopt the Forest
Resources Conservation and Shortage Relief Act, which gave 11 of
our western states the exemption from the Commerce Clause, but for
whatever reason, Alaska was not included in that piece of
legislation."
SENATOR TORGERSON explained, "The spinoff of this is, Mr. Chairman
that's happened in my district, the state has just recently sold a
timber sale there which was purchased by an outfit from Oregon. We
also had a sawmill that was shut down recently because of lack of
resource coming out of both the state and the Chugach National
Forests We lost 140 jobs because of that and the consequences are
with this company from ... (CHANGE TAPE)
TAPE 96-57, SIDE B
Number 001
SENATOR TORGERSON ... "should have been directed toward, or at
least, the opportunity of having it go toward the mill for primary
manufacture."
SENATOR TORGERSON stated, "In 1984, Mr. Chairman, the Supreme Court
-- we used to have a primary manufacture law and the Supreme Court
struck that down as being unconstitutional because of this commerce
clause. We also know that there are pieces of legislation pending
before Congress, amendments to the budget bill, etc., that would
grant this relief from the commerce clause as it reflects to state
owned timber. This resolution asks for the inclusion of municipal
lands and also the University of Alaska lands."
SENATOR TORGERSON said, "The three key words in this piece of
legislation are regulate, restrict or prohibit. It doesn't
actually ask for the straight prohibition, it is asking that the
state of Alaska have the leeway in the municipality or the
university to do one of the three. It could be that they would go
ahead and export some or regulate it somehow or restrict it or
whatever."
Number 053
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked why it took us so long to get to this
point. He said he couldn't support this more strongly.
Number 061
SENATOR TORGERSON related that his office had been surprised to
find this issue had never been addressed before, through a
resolution.
RON LONG, Seward Port and Commerce Advisory Board, testified from
Seward that the organization strongly supports SJR 37. He said,
"The exemption that was granted may have made sense at that time
but we feel, at this time, that it no longer does. We should have
a policy that conforms with the rest of the western states, and we
ask the House to go along with the Senate in asking our
Congressional delegation to support this."
Number 124
ANTHONY CRUPI, Volunteer, Alaska Environmental Lobby, appreciated
the opportunity to testify. He said, "The Alaska Environmental
Lobby strongly supports Senator Torgerson's resolution. When
timber is harvested on state lands, it makes sense to maximize the
number of jobs from each tree cut. Exporting logs in the round
sends jobs out of our state and hurts the future of sustainable
timber industry in Alaska. We strongly support this. We
respectfully ask one minor addition. In addition to the state
lands, municipal lands and University of Alaska lands, we would
like to see `other trust lands' included in this resolution. We
hope this resolution is passed in a timely manner, and we urge
Alaska's Congressional delegation to assist in passing appropriate
legislation in Congress."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved that SJR 37 move from the House
Resources Committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no
objection, it was so ordered.
HB 331 - POSTING OF BOND BEFORE LAND ENTRY
Number 202
SARA FISHER, Legislative Aide to Representative Gene Therriault,
said that HB 331 simply clarifies that the act of staking a mining
claim does not require permission of the surface owner or require
bonding where the surface is no longer owned by the state. This
ambiguity has the potential of involving the department in
resolving disputes from the mere act of staking. Hopefully, HB 331
helps to avoid these potential future costs to the department. She
invited questions from committee members.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any questions of the sponsor.
Hearing none, he announced the committee would hear testimony via
teleconference.
Number 259
JULES TILESTON, Director, Division of Mining & Water Management,
Department of Natural Resources, said this legislation was
introduced late in the session last year and a support of the bill
analysis and a zero fiscal note had been forwarded at that time on
the knowledge that this bill would come up again. The division
took another look at what they said last year and that position
still stands. The division's basic concern is there is a potential
situation which could go back to Statehood where mining claims
located on property where the state no longer holds the title might
be in jeopardy by the mere fact that they did not have permission
from the surface owner to go in. The division believes this is an
unreasonable and untenable risk. He said, "Accordingly, we not
only support the bill, but we do recommend one addition and that is
the bill be effective retroactively to the date of Statehood
because the basic statute was passed in the first legislature at
that point in time. One other thing, posting requires a discovery;
discovery does not require in all cases -- you have a D-9 digging
up somebody's flower bed as an example. With our remote sensing
technologies today, a lot of the discoveries are being done by such
things as the aeromagnetic studies in Fairbanks. A lot of claims
have been properly located on that method so we're not talking
about something where private property is at risk, in my judgment."
Number 335
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he understood there was a lawsuit on
this issue and asked Mr. Tileston to describe the lawsuit and what
the retroactivity would do to that situation.
MR. TILESTON said he would give a brief overview. There was a
court suit dealing with metal values associated with the AJ rock
dump. There had been production and gold recovered from the rock
dump prior to the individual (indisc.) to go into staking. There
was a dispute between the surface owners and the individual trying
to stake the claims. The Superior Court made a ruling that the
staking could not take place without the consent of the landowner.
It was recently held by the Supreme Court.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if it was a private landowner who had
the land?
MR. TILESTON replied, "Yes, it was. It was right there at Juneau."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked if this bill would give permission for
people to go on private land to stake mining claims?
MR. TILESTON responded the state maintains full and absolute right
to the subsurface minerals for any land the state has previously
owned. He added that is covered under AS 38.05.125. That
reservation is a absolute right for the state to go in; it does not
give the absolute right to go in and damage another property and
that's what AS 38.05.130 is intended to protect. This bill amends
AS 38.05.130 by exempting the physical staking, which is the
posting of the corners from the bonding and permission
requirements.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked what kinds of things would be permitted
under staking? For example, would a person be allowed to clear
survey line of sight to put stakes in?
MR. TILESTON replied, "No. You could do your line by simply
flagging."
Number 475
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked, "Are mineral rights for example, say a
surface mine, similar to oil rights in that surface damages would
have to be paid?"
MR. TILESTON said that was true and added AS 38.05.130 requires the
consent agreement and bonding for all surface disturbing uses
associated with mining.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if it was Mr. Tileston's feeling that
staking would not be sufficient disturbance to cause any damages or
need to repay?
MR. TILESTON affirmed that.
Number 515
REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA asked if a permit was needed to stake
a mining claim? Also, wouldn't the individual have to furnish a
map of the claim?
MR. TILESTON responded that permission was not required to stake
which is what was being discussed. He added, "If you are going to
do something in the way of using mechanical equipment to actually
mine, you are required to have permission for that."
Number 551
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES inquired if there are other instances, apart
from the AJ mine situation, where this has been a problem.
MR. TILESTON responded no.
Number 566
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Steven Borell to present his testimony.
Number 569
STEVEN C. BORELL, P.E., Executive Director, Alaska Miners
Association, Inc., testified from Anchorage that a letter of
support for HB 331 could be found in committee member's packets.
He noted this bill doesn't change anything. It maintains the
status quo that the industry and the state has understood since
Statehood in that indeed the mining claim could be staked, but no
surface disturbance could take place until permission of the
surface owner occurred. He said, "That's the hallmark of the past
practice, of past interpretation and that's what this bill would
maintain in place. It doesn't change anything at all in state
practice or interpretation. To comment briefly on Representative
Davies' question previously, I agree with Director Tileston that
there has not, to my knowledge at least, been any other instances
than the one there at the AJ rock dump. However, in your district
in particular, are areas where there could very likely be, and I
would suspect there will be, instances where say a small surface
stake has been - say 5 acres or 10 acres - is held by a surface
owner and the mining claim has been staked over a large area, and
somewhere off in the middle of this large area is this 5 acre plot.
Obviously, before any surface disturbing activity can take place,
that individual is going to have to concur in that. But, we just
believe it's unreasonable that those minerals which have been
reserved by the state would be sterilized, if you will, by the
requirement to have to have the permission of the surface owner
just for the mere purpose of staking the claim." He invited
questions from committee members.
Number 677
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES agreed there were many circumstances in his
district where there are even borough subdivisions on top of areas
that have valid, and in some cases, patented claims. His concern
is that we don't want to set up a situation of introducing
unnecessary conflict. It was his understanding that the normal
practice is that a person going on someone else's property would at
least notify them and ask permission in a polite way, even if not
technically required by law. He wondered if there shouldn't be
some reasonable notice required to a property owner before a person
goes on the property to avoid a situation of unnecessary conflict.
MR. BORELL commented he had seen no such conflicts in the past. No
one has raised that as an issue and it has not been a concern. He
added, "If you will, state mining claims are 40 acres and a 4-inch
by 4-inch wooden post, typically a small block of wood with a piece
of rebar to drive in the ground, with a block of wood sitting on
top of a piece of rebar, that forms a claim for them, so any
disturbance that would be caused by an individual placing that 4-
inch by 4-inch block of wood and the little aluminum plate that
goes on it, I sure can't see that that's any damage."
Number 790
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said his concern wasn't that damage was being
caused, but rather of perceived trespass. He realized this hasn't
occurred very often. He questioned why the statute was needed if
there wasn't a problem. Also, if the statute was going to be
changed in such a way that permits entry onto private property with
no requirement of notice or permission, he was concerned about
setting up a situation of trespass that could lead to hostilities.
MR. BORELL noted that statutory authority is in place currently.
The current need is because of the court case. The danger is that
if the Supreme Court were to rule that the mining claims on the AJ
rock dump were void by virtue of not having permission from the
surface owner, all of a sudden throughout the Fairbanks district
there would be a multitude of court cases arguing that various
mining claims were void because the surface owner had not been
notified. He added the problem is not with the status quo; the
problem is if the state Supreme Court were to rule that those
claims were void.
Number 890
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he understood that, but he thought Mr.
Borell was avoiding his question about reasonable notice. He asked
if there was anything that would be harmful to the mining industry
to require some kind of reasonable notice?
MR. BORELL responded he wasn't trying to bypass the question, he
just failed to address it. He said, "The situation will exist if
you have to give notice to someone, a spark - a light bulb is
surely going to come on and they will then have pre-notification
that your personal energies and time and exploration throughout the
district have shown that there might be something valuable. And if
they're told there might be something valuable, they are very
likely to jump out there right quick and put their own claim
corners down. You would expect a prudent person to do that."
Number 943
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that it's an awkward situation when the
mineral rights are different from the surface rights.
Number 953
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES commented that perhaps something could be
worked out where the notice would prevent the private property
owner from staking. He added there should be some reasonable time
limits involved, but he thought there should be some way to solve
that problem. He was uncomfortable with the notion that a person
would expect someone to show up on their property without any
notice.
Number 980
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there were lines shot and surveyed
when the properties were staked?
MR. BORELL responded that currently they are done just by a GPS
unit. He added, "You'll position them and there will not be an
actual survey until such time as you go to perfect it - as you go
to put your -- obviously at a later date - put your operating plan
together."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any other questions of Mr.
Borell. Hearing none, he asked Mic Manns to testify.
Number 1022
MIC MANNS, Representative, Paradise Valley Mines, testified from
Fairbanks that Paradise Valley Mines and Rich Hughes of the Ryan
Gold Mine supported HB 331. He noted there are already laws that
require that before any surface disturbance by anyone on a piece of
property can take place, the person doing that must acquire both
bonding and insurance sufficient to pay for any damage or damages.
Number 1082
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any questions of Mr. Manns.
Hearing none, he announced that concluded the testimony via
teleconference.
Number 1096
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved a conceptual amendment to make the bill
retroactive to Statehood since it appears this is the practice that
has been ongoing and understood by not only the industry but also
by the Division of Mining.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if that would add a Section 2 with an
effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that would allow for the drafters to work
it in and it would probably be Section 2.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was discussion or objection to the
conceptual amendment? Hearing none, the conceptual amendment was
adopted.
Number 1138
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES expressed his ongoing concern about
notification and requested the bill be held in committee to allow
time to think about an amendment.
Number 1174
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said in the interest of time remaining in this
legislative session, he made a motion to pass HB 331 out of
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that would allow for an amendment in the
Finance Committee. He asked if there was any objection?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES objected.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Voting in favor of
the motion were Representatives Austerman, Kott, Ogan, Williams and
Green. Voting against the motion were Representatives Davies and
Nicholia.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that CSHB 331(RES) was moved from the
House Resources Committee.
HB 342 - WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Number 1274
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, prime sponsor of HB 342, referred
to work draft CSHB 342, Version G, and reported that the
subcommittee consisting of Representatives Austerman, Davies and
Ogan had met and reviewed the work draft dated April 9, 1996. He
explained the changes as follows:
Page 1, line 7, add: "in writing" by the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Page 1, line 8, add: "or by substantially equivalent methods
approved by the department."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "This is an important adoption right
now. It gives the department additional flexibility in terms of
looking at the methodologies to be used in establishing the water
quality criteria."
Number 1342
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued to explain the changes.
Page 1, line 14, add: "Promptly, but no later than 12
months,"
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "This particular provision gave a
standard to the department that they had a 12-month period in which
to make adoptions of any regulatory changes made by the federal
Environmental Protection Agency and also added the word `promptly'
in case the question was, `why do we have to wait 12 months?' So,
the word `promptly' was a spur to do them as soon as possible
basically, but also gave them a deadline of 12 months, which we
feel is adequate in order to perform that task."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 1, line 15, and said
following the language, "after the effective date of a change" the
original language was "reduction in".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "There has been some controversy
about this, but people have to understand that a change can go both
ways, a reduction can only go one way. This gives the department
additional flexibility to change."
Number 1401
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the next change was on page 2, lines
2 and 6, delete "reduction", add "change". This relates to the
actions on the part of the federal government.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued that on page 2, line 10, add
"maintain the state's aquatic productivity;". He explained this
was done at the request of the Department of Fish and Game to make
sure that those considerations were taken into account when
applying water quality standards.
Number 1436
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 2, lines 15 & 16, the
words "the natural condition of the water" were inserted. He
emphasized this is an important addition to subsection (4) and
wanted to remind the committee that in adopting water quality
standards, the department "may not require discharged water to be
of a higher quality, in a more restrictive use classification, or
otherwise cleaner than the natural condition of the water into
which the discharge is made." He said this is the receiving water
and recalled this goes back to an earlier discussion between the
words "existing" and "natural." Natural is intended to mean the
natural condition of the water or waterbody, not an existing
condition. Whereas, an existing condition could have been a body
of water which was polluted by human use and therefore that should
not be the standard of the receiving water; it should be the
natural condition of the water.
Number 1490
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued to explain that this is very
important to understand that we shouldn't require that a better
than natural condition of water be the criterion that the permit is
granted under. Therefore, we shouldn't be cleaning up streams that
are already dirtier by nature and not by man and that's the
distinction.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "Which could though in some cases be
cleaner than is existing."
Number 1529
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 3, line 4, and said the
words "proposed standard or regulation" were clarified.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said on page 3, lines 6 and 12, delete
"exposure profiles" before the words "hydrologic conditions".
Number 1541
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that in terms of the review process
on page 3, line 16, insert "by August 1, 1997," to give the
department adequate time, well over a year, in which to make their
review, and then on line 24 the deadline was set starting at the
legislation session, January 1, 1998, to report to the legislature
about how they have done under this policy.
Number 1591
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out these were the changes made in
the subcommittee. He said there was substantial input and he
thanked Representatives Austerman, Ogan and, in particular,
Representative Davies for their participation. He stated his
office received a fax at 7:00 p.m. the previous evening from the
Department of Fish & Game. Also, approximately eight minutes ago,
he received copies of amendments from the Department of
Environmental Conservation. He said based on the importance of
this legislation and the lateness in the session and also, after a
period of almost two weeks that this bill had been in subcommittee,
to receive these amendments at the 11th and 59th hour, he was going
to oppose the adoption of those amendments. He noted this bill has
a referral to the Finance Committee because of its importance and
he would give due consideration to the recommendations and
suggestions from the Departments of Fish and Game and DEC as to
their amendments. He thought this bill had had sufficient work in
this committee and he appreciated the Chairman's interest in it.
I believed that Marilyn Crockett was on-line if the committee had
any questions.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked whether there were questions of the sponsor
or about the proposed changes.
Number 1689
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES related that he had brought to the chair of
the subcommittee a couple of concerns yesterday, and wondered if
the committee was going to deal with those.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN had not seen the amendments.
Number 1712
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN apologized, stating that he had not heard
back from Representative Davies and had been uncertain whether to
pursue them or not.
Number 1729
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he wanted to propose three minor changes
on page 3.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interjected that the committee had not
adopted the proposed committee substitute, version G.
Number 1755
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved to adopt 9-LS1141\G as the working
document. Hearing no objection, it was adopted.
Number 1785
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES offered the following amendment:
Page 3, line 3, Delete: "prepare a written analysis of"
Insert: "consider in writing"
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES explained that the proposed amendment gives
the language more clarity with respect to the construction of the
language and removes the word "analysis." That is the substantive
part of it. The consideration of the economic feasibility would be
there. He said, "I think we heard testimony that the department
has strong concerns that they do not have all of the economic
information because of not having access to the proprietary
information of the companies potentially involved. This would
allow them to consider the economic, as far as they could, but the
consideration might not be described as an analysis."
Number 1908
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for questions on or objections to the
proposed amendment. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 1923
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES offered the following amendment:
Page 3, line 9, Following the word "welfare;"
Add: "to maintain the state's aquatic
productivity."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said this amendment would make the language
consistent with the language on page 2, line 10.
Number 1963
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed and added the subcommittee had just
failed to include that language.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the semicolon would follow the
word "productivity."
Number 1980
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections the amendment.
Hearing none, the amendment was adopted.
Number 1991
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES referred to Sec. 2. REVIEW OF REGULATIONS and
suggested that it read, Sec. 2. "TRANSITION REVIEW OF REGULATIONS."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was objection to the amendment.
Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 2041
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT referred to page 3, lines 24-26: "(b) the
Department of Environmental Conservation shall, by January 1, 1998,
report to the legislature concerning its review and proposed
revisions required under (a) of this section" and asked the sponsor
to explain the intent. He inquired if a briefing by the department
to the House Resources Committee would satisfy the report or is it
a written report?
Number 2069
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG thought a written report confirming their
activities would be adequate. He said perhaps a meeting with the
House Resources Committee to update them or deliver the report
without an exhaustive amount of testimony would be adequate. He
didn't envision a major, burdensome and costly situation. The idea
is a monitor to check the progress and to see at that time if any
statutory revisions were needed or if the department had discovered
any problems in the implementation.
Number 2139
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested the date should be January 15, because
the legislature doesn't convene generally, until the first week.
During Gubernatorial elections, the legislature doesn't convene
until the second week.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG assented saying that January 31 may be even
more appropriate.
Number 2175
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN confirmed that Representative Rokeberg was
proposing an amendment to change "January 1, 1998" to January 31,
1998," which is an addition rather than a deletion. Hearing no
objection, it was so ordered.
Number 2193
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT reminded the committee that over the last year
and a half, the legislature has taken a different approach to
annual reports. He said, "I hope that this does not fall into an
annual report category, where we are, basically, inundated with
another 50-page document that most of us probably will not read in
the first place. If that is going to be the case, I'd suggest that
we follow similar lines that we have established with annual
reports and just have the department make it available to us. If
we are going to a written format, I would much rather see the
department come before the Resources Committee and just give us an
oral briefing on where they are at with the updates."
Number 2245
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out this is a one-time report, not
an annual report.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT remarked that he had a number of one-time
reports that ended up in File 13, because of time constraints he
didn't have the opportunity to sift through 40-50 pages. It's
easier when the department comes in with the report and gives a
briefing or executive summary in a couple of minutes. He felt it
was more meaningful to get that kind of treatment than to have a
report dropped on his desk that he wouldn't have a chance to read
until the interim.
Number 2310
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he had no objection to a language
change whereby the report would be submitted to the chairmen of
House and Senate Resources Committees.
Number 2332
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN said it was his understanding that changes
were made to subsection (b) so that on January 31, 1998, all the
legislature wants to know is have those changes worked and is
everything going according to schedule; it doesn't say anything
about the department submitting a written report. He pointed out
that paragraph be moot after January 31, 1998, so didn't see a real
problem with that.
Number 2379
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT appreciated Representative Austerman's comments
and suggested that the committee add language that "the department
must brief the House and Senate Resources Committee by January 31,
1998. He just didn't want any more written material...(CHANGE
TAPE)
TAPE 96-58, SIDE A
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS contended that the industry reads the
written reports and they come before the legislature and tell us
how the department is doing. He, too, couldn't read everything
that comes across his desk, but industry does read those reports
and they do call the legislature's attention to any problems.
Number 070
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated, "If the report is made available by
that time, we always, in Resources anyway, have the Department of
Environmental Conservation in front of us for overviews. It is
always the prerogative of the legislative committee to ask for a
briefing on a particular topic, in that context, or in the context
of a special meeting. I am sure that the DEC would honor that
request without any problem. I think as long as the report is
there, if we want to hear from them, we can just ask them to come
and talk to us."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was discussion or proposed
amendments, conceptual or otherwise.
Number 136
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT suggested that the Department of Environmental
Conservation come before the House Resources Committee by the
January 30, 1998.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN concurred stating that Representative Kott's
point is well made. He asked if there were other questions of the
sponsor. Hearing none, he announced the committee would begin
taking testimony.
Number 209
JANICE ADAIR, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, noted that she had made
a note for January 30th on her calendar. She said, "I do apologize
to the bill's sponsor for in delay in getting our proposed
amendments to the draft committee substitute. We just received the
bill on Monday and it took us a while to look at it with our
attorney. The one page that you have, kind of reflects our hallway
discussion and includes the concerns of the Department of Fish and
Game, as well.
MS. ADAIR explained, "What I would like to do is go through the
things that DEC has and then I will try to address those from fish
and game, but I made need to get Geron Bruce up here to more fully
explain them."
Number 267
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN notified the teleconference network that SB 199
would not be heard at this meeting.
Number 300
MS. ADAIR began her explanation of the proposed amendments:
Page 1, line 12, add:
(c) Except when setting standards for shellfish growing
areas pursuant to AS 03.05.011 and except as provided in
AS 46.03.087"
She said, "We propose on page 1, line 12, to make an exception for
the standards that the department sets for shellfish growing areas
under our authority in Title 3. Shellfish growing areas, by
necessity, need to have a more stringent standard, particularly,
for fecal coliform. Shellfish are filter feeders, the
contamination that may exist in the water accumulates in their
viscera. They are eaten raw or only lightly cooked so they do not
get to the temperature to kill any bacteria. In order to have a
classified shellfish growing area that meets the requirements of
the National Shellfish Sanitation Program, fecal coliform and other
contaminates have to have a lower level. We just would like
recognition here that in those areas, we will have a more stringent
standard than what you might find in other, more generally, used
waterbodies."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the amendment, as written, would
take care of that.
MS. ADAIR acknowledged that was correct.
Number 376
MS. ADAIR explained the next amendment was on Page 1, line 14.
Delete: "Promptly, but no later than 12 months,"
Insert: "As soon as practicable"
She stated, "When the Environmental Protection Agency increases
their requirements, they don't necessarily require that we
immediately adopt them, or that we adopt them within 12 months.
Sometimes, it's alright with the EPA if we just put those into the
next round of the permit revisions, which could be as long as five
years. We do recognize, though, that if there is a reduction or
elimination of a federal requirement that industry would be most
interested in having us do that as soon as practicable. We see
this as a way to cut that problem. They will certainly be watching
us to make sure that we do adopt any reductions or eliminations in
federal regulations as soon as we possibly can. But we don't think
that we need to also adopt any increases right away or necessarily
have this drive our priorities. There may be legitimate reasons to
wait, it may not be that big of a deal. It may be a minor change,
it may be something that we can roll into something else that we're
going to be doing in 18 months. So, we would just like that
flexibility to do it as soon as practicable; counting, of course,
on the Alaska Oil and Gas Association and other industry members to
be watching us to make sure that we really follow through."
Number 477
MS. ADAIR explained the next proposed amendment was on page 2, line
1:
Delete: "standard"
Add: "criteria"
MS. ADAIR said, "This refers to water quality standards set by the
Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA actually doesn't set
water quality standards, they have water quality criteria. So,
this is a corrected change where we delete the word `standard' and
replace it with `criteria.' That is a significant change as far as
what the EPA actually does. We think it's important. It does not
change the impact or the goal of the bill, it's just a
clarification to make it correct."
Number 518
MS. ADAIR continued her review of the proposed amendments:
Page 2, line 10
Delete: "maintain the state's aquatic productivity;"
Insert: "the environment"
MS. ADAIR remarked, "The sponsor, I believe, stated that the term,
`state's aquatic productivity' was added at the request of the
Department of Fish and Game. That was because it had been proposed
at the subcommittee level to delete the term, `and the
environment.' We would like to see that changed back so it would
say, ` protect human health and the environment.' That is common
terminology used throughout Title 46 and it does encompass that
concept of the state's fish resources. It could be other things
that may depend on a waterbody."
Number 563
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the amendment replaced the
language, "maintain the state's aquatic productivity"
Number 600
MS. ADAIR continued to explain the proposed amendments:
Page 2, line 14, at the beginning of subparagraph (4)
Add: "when site specific information is reasonably known or
available"
MS. ADAIR stated, "We don't always have the information on the
natural condition of a waterbody and we wanted to clarify that this
wouldn't require us to go out and generate information. This
usually comes into play when you have a site specific water quality
standard and where the natural condition is important. So, we just
wanted to make that clarification."
Number 665
MS. ADAIR her review of the proposed amendments:
Page 2, line 28, amend subsection (b) to read:
"(b) The department shall, when adopting a standard or
regulation under (a) of this section provide with the public notice
draft of the proposal a written explanation that describes the
basis for the proposal which shall include
(1) the department's consideration of the economic feasibility of
the proposal;
(2) the department's consideration of the technological feasibility
of the proposal;
(3) if applicable, a finding that
(A) the water quality standard, discharge standard, or
method of measurement is reasonably required to protect human
health and the environment; and
(B) hydrologic conditions or discharge characteristics
are significantly different in the state or in an area of the state
from those upon which the corresponding federal standard, if any or
regulation is based."
MS. ADAIR stated, "We are proposing a revision on page 2, line 28,
subparagraph (b) which dictates how the department will adopt a
more stringent water quality standard, or a standard where there is
no federal criteria. The reason here is, as written, this requires
that we hold a public hearing. The Administrative Procedures Act
does not require an agency to hold a public hearing. There may not
be sufficient interest to hold one and yet they are very expensive.
So, we would like to eliminate that requirement. If it's
necessary, if the public requests a public hearing, we would simply
follow the Administrative Procedures Act, and do that. But We do
recognize that there is some information that people would like to
have available with the public comment draft of the regulations."
Number 714
MS. ADAIR proceeded, "Representative Davies did discuss this in one
of the amendments that has been adopted, takes care of this
concern. But, as drafted, on page 3, line 3, before Representative
Davies' amendment was adopted, we would be required to prepare a
written analysis of the economic feasibility of the proposed
standard. That's something that we just don't feel that we can be
successful at doing. We do agree that we need to consider the
economic feasibility. It may be that a given industry sector would
do an economic feasibility for our use, and we absolutely should
consider that, and we should let people know what we've thought
about it so they can correct it or give us additional information.
But we don't have the kind of staff that can do an economic
analysis. We have engineers and environmental specialists. So,
what we propose is that, by giving you the language here, it would
require that we demonstrate, in writing, and provide this in a memo
form, perhaps with the public draft notice, that we have considered
the basis for the proposal; that we've considered the economic
feasibility and what that is, the consideration of the
technological feasibility and, if applicable, a finding that the
water quality standard, the discharge standard or the method of
measurement is reasonably required to protect the human health and
the environment, and that the hydrologic conditions or discharge
characteristics are significantly different than the federal
standard. So, it gets to the same kind of information - a little
bit different and we think something that we can actually be
successful at doing."
Number 823
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS expressed concern about not being able to have
the economic feasibility (indisc.) proposed and brought before us.
He remarked, "I appreciate what you are saying that department
doesn't have the expertise for this or that, but there are people.
And if it is going to hurt the economic ... of a company, then I
think we should understand that and we should find out how it's
done and you're saying here now, that you will have that study
done?"
Number 978
MS. ADAIR replied, "Representative Williams, the way that this
would work, as we have proposed it, is that we would consider the
economic feasibility of the proposal if a company or an industry
sector did their own analysis of the proposal, then yes, we would
have to consider that. If no one did, because, maybe it isn't that
big of a deal or it's not very important, or it doesn't really have
a big impact, then we would look at, to the best of our ability,
how we think this would impact industry. We do this in our
regulations now, particularly where we have fee based regulations
and we say, this is what we think it's going to cost to do this.
And, this is why. Sometimes, we find out that we're very wrong,
and we go back and we change our proposal accordingly. The solid
waste regulations are a perfect example of that. We do the best
that we can and then we rely on the public comment that we get
back, the information that we obtain from industry to further that
and to flush that out better. We would absolutely consider that
and explain how we considered it, what we thought about it, what we
did and how our proposal took that into account. It wouldn't be an
economic analysis as we are reading it, in that more formal sense
of the word, because it's just not something we can do."
Number 959
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS wanted assurance that it is taken into
consideration. He said, "If we have to be stronger here, I would
like to hear things that the government does and doesn't take into
... the human factor, also, the economics factor."
Number 978
MS. ADAIR remarked, "We do too; we agree with that. That's why
it's important to us that this be done in a way that we can
actually be successful at accomplishing it. And, we feel that this
does that and we can accomplish that goal."
Number 1001
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS commented, "There are times when a company
does not have the ability to pay for an economic study and if we
were going to amend this, as such, then I would like to see a
little stronger language in there."
Number 1037
MS. ADAIR continued her review of the proposed amendments:
Page 3, delete lines 24-26.
MS. ADAIR stated, "Mr. Chairman, we propose also, to delete the
reporting requirement. As Representative Kott said, there are a
lot of reports that come to the legislature. I think, just the
term `report' connotates something a little bit more massive and a
little bit more labor intensive than perhaps the word `memorandum'
or `briefing' might indicate."
MS. ADAIR continued, "The Administrative Procedures Act requires
that we send copies of any regulatory changes to all standing
members of the legislature, all members of the Administrative
Regulation Review Committee and all members of both resources
committees. So, any proposal that we would have as a result of
Section 2, - some of you may get two or three copies of it because
that's what the Administrative Procedures Act requires. We are
always available to answer any questions, we certainly would be
available on January 30 or any other day next session to come
forward and tell you how we have done this, what we have found,
what the proposals have been. But, in an attempt to try to
minimize the fiscal impact of this legislation, we would propose to
eliminate lines 24 through 26 on page 3."
Number 1097
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled that Representative Kott mentioned a
briefing to the joint sessions of the resources committees. He
asked if that would that be permissible?
MS. ADAIR stated the department wouldn't have a problem with that,
if it were requested.
Number 1119
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN assessed the list of proposed amendments stating
that he was not sure the committee was ready to accept each one or
the sponsor's position. He suggested the committee go back through
the proposals and asked Representative Rokeberg to come forward.
Number 1134
MS. ADAIR offered an additional amendment concerning the
measurements for sediment.
Page 1, line 9, Following: (b)
add: "Except as otherwise provided in AS 46.03.087,"
MS. ADAIR noted, "There is the idea, on page 2, that we may have a
different method if we go through a process, but there is no
exception on line 9 to that recognition on page 2. We would
propose at line 9 in the beginning that we add "except as provided
in AS 46.03.087" because that does recognize then that in that
section at subparagraph (3) which is at line 24, page 2, that there
is a process that the department can go through if we're going to
do something different."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested that the committee start with that
amendment.
Number 1184
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that having had a few more minutes to
look at these he had not changed his position on these amendments.
He added, "I think there is a situation where certain of these
(indisc.) and it does have another committee of referral. Frankly,
my view of these amendments is that it totally eviscerates this
bill and makes it valueless (indisc)." He felt these amendments
were a clear attempt to sabotage the intent of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agreed, "I feel that it is highly irregular for
these amendments to be brought at this time. This bill was
assigned to a subcommittee with the purpose of working out these
problems. The department did not bring these problems forth during
that subcommittee process. This late in the game, I would
interpret this as being a tactic to delay or kill the bill. I
would suggest that we pass the committee substitute, version G, out
of committee and allow the department and the sponsor of the
legislation, to work out their differences and draft a committee
substitute for the next committee of referral."
Number 1275
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN understood the discussion about the lateness of
the proposed amendments and the possibility of addressing them at
the next committee of referral because of the deadline. These are
issues that should be considered in this committee but if we do
that, we will miss the deadline.
Number 1287
MS. ADAIR interjected, "It was our goal to eliminate the fiscal
notes on this bill so that it would not have another committee of
referral. It wasn't our intent to try to kill this bill. As I
stated, we only got the draft committee substitute on Monday. Many
of the concerns that we brought forward in the subcommittee were
not addressed in the draft CS. We turned it around as quickly as
possible and tried to do it in a consensus fashion. We worked with
Alaska Oil and Gas Association and the Resource Development Council
yesterday on these amendments. I was at my office last night until
about 8:00 p.m. on this and faxed them to Marilyn Crockett. It was
our hope that we could then bypass the next committee of referral
and instead have it go right to House Rules. So, I do not want
anyone to think that we're trying to kill this bill or derail it in
anyway. That's not the intent at all. We're trying to make
something that we can work with, that we can be successful at and
still address the concerns as they have been expressed to us, as we
understand them."
Number 1345
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS wanted to know if the department had
participated in the subcommittee meetings.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN responded, "Yes, they were."
CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked how long the bill had been in
subcommittee - two weeks?
Number 1365
MS. ADAIR replied that she had participated in one subcommittee
meeting via teleconference at which the department had proposed
language and waited for the committee substitute to come out as a
result of that meeting. She added that's the committee substitute
that she got on Monday.
Number 1396
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN received word from the Office of the Speaker that
the committee had an additional 30 minutes for its meeting. He
said, "We have a 30-minute reprieve, maybe we should get to the
bottom of this."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN summarized that Ms. Adair had been involved with
the subcommittee, had indicated the department's desires, she would
receive the subcommittee committee substitute and if there were
additional comments, she would make them at this hearing.
MS. ADAIR clarified that she participated in only one subcommittee
meeting and didn't know if there were others. She said, "We did
have proposed language and, yes, we thought we would see the CS
with a little bit more time. We did find out yesterday that the
bill would be brought back up today."
Number 1462
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "Mr. Chairman, I was not aware -- my
concern is, I was under the impression from the input we had at the
subcommittee meeting that we had met almost all the concerns that
the department had brought to our attention at that time. That's
the concern I had. I apologize if I didn't understand correctly
but Representative Davies was there -- really, I thought that we
had pretty well covered most of the things. There may have been a
couple of technical points that we didn't cover -- that could well
be the case, but there was a number of major, substantive
amendments here and I thought discussed them."
Number 1496
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the sponsor was aware that by doing
these amendments there would be a zero fiscal note which would
allow bypassing the House Finance Committee.
Number 1510
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG appreciated that objective and added that
by creating a zero fiscal note, the department is creating a zero
bill.
Number 1522
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked the subcommittee chair, Representative
Austerman, if he was aware of the desires of the Department of
Environmental Conservation and were these issues discussed at the
subcommittee meeting?
Number 1528
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN explained that he had not attended the
full subcommittee meeting, but he had indicated to Susan Braley
that the subcommittee would not meet until after the Easter break.
He asked her, at that time, to bring written comments on all the
changes they wanted in that bill. He recalled that the DEC
comments at that meeting were verbal.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN did not want to cast any dispersions on
the department but he felt they had had ample time to submit their
concerns in writing. He said, "To continue to wait until we bring
forward new versions, based upon conversations that we had and then
continue to want to change those, to me, appears to be a stalling
tactic. I think we should move this bill out of committee."
Number 1602
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any members of the Alaska Oil
and Gas Association in this meeting?
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN replied, "They were on teleconference."
Number 1611
MARILYN CROCKETT, Assistant Executive Director, Alaska Oil & Gas
Association, responded, "We did participate in the April 10th
teleconference of the subcommittee. That was the second meeting of
the subcommittee that was held. We presented written proposals at
both of those subcommittee meetings. The version G that you have
before you today, from our perspective and from my notes and
recollections from the last meeting, the April 10th meeting of the
subcommittee, I believe incorporates the tentative agreement that
all of us reached at that time, without having the actual work in
front of us, obviously. There were changes made during that
teleconference on the 10th. I believe this version, for the most
part, represents the agreements that we reached on that date."
MS. CROCKETT continued, "From AOGA's perspective, this bill as it's
drafted today, with some of the changes that have been suggested at
the committee meeting today, meets the goals and objectives that we
wanted to see in the original HB 342."
Number 1680
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if these issues had been brought before
the subcommittee.
Number 1692
MS. ADAIR said, "All but the shellfish were. We talked at length
about the problem with the economic analysis, which is one of our
biggest concerns. The shellfish was one that frankly I didn't
think about until Fish and Game testified before the subcommittee."
Number 1710
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified that there was one subcommittee
meeting. He said, "We didn't have formal language that we all
walked out of the meeting hand-in-hand, saying that this is what
we're going to go forward with, so when we got back the CS that's
in front of us, it was a very good faith effort on the part of the
sponsor to translate this into a piece of legislation. I believe
that it got 90 percent of the discussion. But there were still a
few things and as you see, I had to bring forward a couple of
amendments of my own so that I thought the committee substitute
comported more closely to what we discussed. And there really was
not - because we didn't have a second meeting of the subcommittee -
there wasn't an opportunity to review the legislation in the form
of legislation so that all the i's could be dotted and the t's
crossed. I believe that most of the issues that are proposed here
in the DEC amendments are clarifications of discussions that we
actually had at that first, and only, subcommittee meeting. So, I
don't think that it's out of place that DEC would come back at this
point in time with sort of their clarifications of the things that
we put into the bill in response to the discussions we had at the
subcommittee level. I think that this is in fact, the only
opportunity that's been had to do that and we adopted a number of
amendments that I proposed and in that same process, that we
certainly should consider DEC's considered look at the CS."
Number 1804
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN presumed for the sake of continuity, that
committee substitute, Version (G), represents a fair interpretation
of the subcommittee's work. He noted the committee now had before
them suggestion for several amendments, which would be considered.
Number 1818
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN brought forth the amendment on page 1, line 9,
and asked if committee members understood the amendment or if there
was any discussion?
Number 1830
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT wondered if the DEC had discussed this
amendment with the Alaska Oil & Gas Association.
MS. ADAIR explained the proposed amendment was a clarification
suggested by the Department of Fish and Game. The department
thought it made sense because of the way the rest of the bill is
written. Also, there is that recognition in the section on special
procedures on page 2, line 24, "regulation that allows the use of
a method that is not substantially equivalent..." So, the
department thought it would be a good clarification.
Number 1867
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that the amendment speaks "right
to the heart of the bill." He noted it actually has to do with the
controversy between settled solids and suspended solids. This
language is requested so the department can do whatever it wants to
do in terms of its methods of measurement and determine whether
they want to consider settleable solids as well as suspended
solids. The legislation, as drafted in the committee substitute,
sets the standard for settled solids not suspended solids.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recommended that the department come up
with the idea and the methodology that meets the concerns of the
people in the mining industry and the fishing industry and come
back next year and amend the statute.
Number 1919
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that the paragraphs before and after the
language in question have that exception.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said if there is any deviation from the
language in Section 1, subsection (b), the mining industry will
remove their support of this bill.
MS. ADAIR stated that certainly wasn't the intent. The department
would still have to go through the special procedures to do
something different; they just saw it as a clarification.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned whether the DEC felt the Imhoff Cone
Method would satisfactorily put the water...
Number 1974
MS. ADAIR interjected that she is not a water quality expert. She
thought that was the method used today and the method that is
planned to be used. She didn't think that was the issue. It was
her understanding that as the department reviews this, if there is
some other method that is approved by EPA, that the department
thinks would get them to a better result, then they would go
through the special procedures on page 2 that give people the
opportunity to comment on whether or not that was appropriate.
Number 2000
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG maintained his objection.
Number 2011
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN reported on an earlier discussion on this
issue and related his interpretation that there is a problem if the
language is changed. He deferred to Representative Davies.
Number 2032
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt that both parties were correct. He
remarked, "Logically, the exception language should be provided
here, but in fact if you talk to the members of the mining
industry, they are violently opposed to having that option in
there." He did not recommend that the committee put this kind of
specificity in the statute and added they were writing water
quality regulations in the statutes by doing this, and he thought
that was a bad thing to do.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN recommended calling for the question.
Number 2074
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that the amendment had not been offered by
a member of the committee. He asked if there was an offer of an
amendment as discussed the representative from the DEC for page 1,
line 9? Hearing none, the amendment was not offered.
Number 2088
MS. ADAIR referred to the amendment on page 1, line 12, adding the
language, "(c) Except when setting standards for shellfish growing
areas pursuant to AS 03.05.011 and except as provided in AS
46.03.087."
MS. ADAIR explained, "This would allow us to continue to set
different and more stringent standards for shellfish growing areas
which is required in the National Shellfish Sanitation Program
which we are required to follow under AS 03.05.011 to sell
commercially grown shellfish interstate."
Number 2104
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that conceptually, had no problem with
the amendment but wanted to know what the citation .011 was and
didn't know what the impact of the language was of the language
that was not italicized.
MS. ADAIR stated the language in italics is all that is being
added.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about the citation .011.
MS. ADAIR explained that was simply the DEC's authority over
seafood, food processing and other kinds of ... meat, dairy.
Number 2134
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG had no objection to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved the amendment.
Number 2171
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN explained the amendment was to add "(c) Except
when setting standards for shellfish growing areas pursuant to AS
03.05.011 and except as provided in AS 46.03.087". He asked if
there was objection to the amendment. Hearing none, the amendment
was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN wondered if the chairman considered that
Amendment 1?
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there had been several others; it would be
considered Amendment 4.
Number 2178
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the amendment on page 1, line
14, which removes "Promptly but no later than 12 months" and
replaces it with "as soon as practicable" and said he had worked
with the AOGA, and he would be happy to work with the department,
if there was some question about the draft of it. He said, "If an
applicant requests `speed up' and we put a three month deadline or
something, I am willing to work with the department on this, but
right now, we don't have time to craft it, so I'd be happy to work
with the department to get some language that would accomplish the
same thing here."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN assumed then that the sponsor would like to leave
the committee substitute the way it is.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied, "At this point, yes."
Number 2217
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN informed the panel that according to his notes,
the issue was raised in subcommittee but not addressed in the bill.
Number 2230
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN emphasized that not everything that was
wanted by the DEC or the AOGA would be (indisc.) could not be all
encompassing to all people. He believed there were some things
that the legislature would have to make the decisions on.
Number 2244
MS. ADAIR referenced the handwritten amendment to delete "standard"
and add "criteria," on page 2, line 1 and said the department see
this as a technical amendment only. It was something their
Attorney General had pointed out, but hadn't had the benefit of
reviewing this until this morning. However, she believed this to
be a very important change since the federal government adopts
criteria that the department then adopts as a standard.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN offered the amendment as Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he had no objection.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES questioned the use of the word "standard"
throughout the bill asking if every other instance of the word
"standard" was correct usage.
MS. ADAIR thought that was correct. She said, "We have standards,
so any place we talk about state water quality standards, that is
correct. If you talk about federal water quality, you need to talk
about criteria."
Number 2300
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the committee had objection to the
amendment. Hearing none, Amendment 5 was adopted.
Number 2306
MS. ADAIR said, "This one, the proposal that had been drafted for
the subcommittee's consideration, had public health and the
environment. At the subcommittee, the copy that we got had `and
the environment' crossed out so it would just have been a human
health standard. The Department of Fish and Game said we have to
have more than just a health standard, how about `maintain the
state's aquatic productivity.' We would propose that we go back to
human health and the environment. It gets to the same place but it
just is consistent with other portions of DEC's statutes in Title
46. So, again we don't think it's doing anything significantly
differed, it is question of consistency with other portions of our
statute."
The amendment is as follows:
Page 2, line 10
Delete: "maintain the state's aquatic productivity"
Insert: "the environment"
Number 2340
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG recalled this issue was discussed in
subcommittee and understood that a compromise had been reached
because of testimony relating to inclusiveness of the environment.
He stated, "I would be willing to talk these people again about
that, but I have no comfort level accepting that. I thought we
have made an accommodation, particularly, as it related to the
Department of Fish and Game's concern."
Number 2363
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN remembered that the language "maintain the
state's aquatic productivity" was put forth in subcommittee. Now
the committee was being asked to take it back out.
Number 2370
MS. ADAIR stated, "This was at the request of Fish and Game. They
brought up the issue but I understand that they are now comfortable
with the changes made by Representative Davies' amendment that puts
it into the other part of the bill. So, if they are okay with it,
we can live with the inconsistency."
Number 2384
GERON BRUCE, Legislative Liaison, Office of the Commissioner,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, commented the department is
comfortable with the language, especially, since Representative
Davies' amendment considered it in another part of the bill.
However, he wanted to make clear that they were talking about the
aquatic productivity of the individual waterbodies in the state.
He said, "We expect to be maintaining those. We are not talking
about a general statement. We want to be able to maintain, as a
part of the water quality regulations, aquatic productivity of
individual waterbodies as well as the state's waterbodies, as a
whole."
Number 2409
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN remarked the department could work with the
sponsor. The chairman asked for the next amendment.
Number 2420
MS. ADAIR referred to the amendment on page 2, line 14, which adds:
"when site specific information is reasonably known or available"
to the beginning of subparagraph (4). She remarked, "As I
understand what fish and game said and in talking with Susan
Braley, with our water quality program, that we don't always have
the condition of the natural waterbody. So, when we have it, then
this comes into play."
Number 2440
MR. BRUCE related that this is where the department was trying to
help with the fiscal note. If the information is not available,
but they are required to go out and get it and make a
demonstration, there will be very significant cost associated with
that. He added, "So, we are trying to say, if you want to reduce
the cost, then provide us the flexibility to work with the
information that is available; don't require us to go out and
generate new information."
Number 2486
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN remarked that adding the language to the
beginning of (4) on page 2, line 14, reads funny.
MS. ADAIR agreed that placing the language at the end would read
better.
Number 2468
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN offered the amendment as Amendment 6.
Number 2476
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "This is a land mine amendment. I
appreciate the statement by the department to make this a zero
fiscal note but what they are doing here is suggesting that the
burden of proof, by subsection (4), shifts over to the Department
of Environment Conservation ... (End Tape)
TAPE 96-58, SIDE B
Number 001
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG continued ... "I would be happy to sit down
here. If we can have a modifier where a permittee may have some
requirement to provide some of this data and to assist the
department, maybe we can modify that. But as proposed, I just
seriously object to this."
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted there was a motion on the floor to which an
objection had been raised. He asked if the objection was
maintained.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN maintained his objection.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote.
Number 045
Representatives Davies, Kott, Nicholia, Ogan and Green voted in
favor of Amendment Number 6. Representatives Austerman, Long and
Williams voted against Amendment Number 6. Representative Ogan
changed his vote from yes to no.
NOTE: (The Committee Secretary inadvertently tallied the roll call
vote in favor of the amendment).
C0-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted the amendment passed.
Number 071
MS. ADAIR referred to page 2, line 28, amend subsection (b) to
read "(b) The department shall, when adopting a standard or
regulation under (a) of this section provide with the public notice
draft of the proposal a written explanation that describes the
basis for the proposal which shall include
(1) the department's consideration of the economic feasibility of
the proposal;
(2) the department's consideration of the technological feasibility
of the proposal;
(3) if applicable, a finding that
(A) the water quality standard, discharge standard, or method
of measurement is reasonably required to protect human health and
the environment; and
(B) hydrologic conditions or discharge characteristics are
significantly different in the state or in an area of the state
from those upon which the corresponding federal standard, if any or
regulation is based."
MS. ADAIR related that there are two substantive changes: (1)
eliminates the requirement for a public hearing; and (2) there is
a change from preparing a written analysis of economic feasibility
to consideration of the economic feasibility. This section has
been changed somewhat by the previous amendment which works for the
department as well. She thought the reorganization flows a little
bit better.
Number 112
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the whole idea of the public hearing
was not brought up in the subcommittee. He thought there may be
some merit but he had not had a chance to consider it. The other
issues that relate to the subsection (A) and (B) language, he was
not certain as to their effect. As a result, he said he would be
happy to work with the department on that but he objected to this
amendment. He just didn't understand it.
REPRESENTATIVE AUSTERMAN indicated that he had not had a chance to
read the amendment and didn't know what the effect would be.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recommended that the department work this out
with the sponsor before the next committee of referral.
MS. ADAIR said the last amendment was on page 3, delete lines 24-
26.
Number 149
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES requested to move a different amendment.
Following Representative Kott's lead, amend lines 24 and 25 on page
3 to read: "The Department of Environmental Conservation shall by
January 31, 1998, brief the Resources Committee of the House and
Senate of the Legislature concerning its review and proposed
revisions required under (a) of this section."
Number 179
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked to amend the language to read, "the joint
session."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said that is an additional requirement, it
could be joint session or not, depending on the committees.
Number 186
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG had no objection.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved his amendment.
Number 190
MS. ADAIR asked if the committee envisioned that the department
make the offer to brief the House and Senate Resources Committees.
She said, "We cannot compel you to listen to us. We're happy to
send a letter saying we're ready to brief you, whenever you are
ready to listen to us and to have that sent to you by the 31st of
January."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES considered "shall offer" as a friendly
amendment.
Number 212
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were objections to Amendment 7?
Hearing no objection, Amendment 7 was adopted.
Number 217
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to rescind action on Amendment 6 and
revote the issue.
C0-CHAIRMAN GREEN and Representative Nicholia objected.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote.
Representatives Austerman, Ogan and Williams voted in favor of the
motion. Representatives Davies, Kott, Long, Nicholia and Green
voted against the motion.
Number 253
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that CSHB 342(RES) am move from the House
Resources Committee with individual recommendations and attached
fiscal note.
Number 267
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that since Amendment 6 was
adopted by the committee, he wanted the department to publicly
state whether they were going to maintain or offer a zero fiscal
note.
MS. ADAIR replied, "I think so."
Number 280
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN said there was a motion on the floor to move the
bill from committee.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved to zero out the fiscal note.
Number 288
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to rescind his motion to move the bill
from committee.
Number 292
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES moved that CSHB 342 (RES) am move from the
House Resources Committee with a zero fiscal note. Hearing no
objection, it was so ordered.
NOTE: CSHB 342 WAS HELD FOR CLARIFICATION AND NOT TRANSMITTED TO
THE CHIEF CLERK 04/17/96.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 10:37 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|