HOUSE BILL NO. 19 An Act relating to pesticides and broadcast chemicals; and providing for an effective date. MIKE PAWLOWSKI, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE KEVIN MEYER, explained that there are three parts to the legislation and that he would address each separately. The first four sections provide Department of Environmental Conservation authority to charge a fee to manufacturers who register pesticides and broadcast chemicals for sale or distribution in the State. He added that every state in the nation requires chemical companies to register their chemicals with the appropriate state agency and that Alaska is the only state that does not charge a registration fee. Mr. Pawlowski noted that HB 19 would not establish a specific fee in statute, but rather sets a ceiling on the fee that the Department could charge a manufacturer. By putting the fee in regulation with a limit, allows flexibility to the Department to ensure that chemicals that do not have a large enough market in Alaska to support that annual fee, not to bear it. Mr. Pawlowski pointed out that Section 6 contains other important provisions. · The first portion of Section 6 (Lines 29 through 31) requires a person applying pesticides or broadcast chemicals in a public place, be licensed or authorized by the Department. · Classes and training required for certification are free, but the legislation provides a charged fee of up to $25 for the license. Fees collected through registration and licensing would support the regulations and enforcement of the State's pesticide and broadcast chemicals. At present time, the programs are supported largely with general funds. · The final provision in legislation is also found in Section 6, Line 31, Page 3. That section directs the Department to promulgate a reasonable public notice requirement that includes written notice posted on the application site as to when pesticides are applied in a public place. He noted that a large portion of the public is interested in the chemicals that they are exposed to. Public notice gives the public an opportunity to make decisions for themselves about what they expose themselves to. Mr. Pawlowski summarized that the essential underlying purpose of HB 19 is to create a pesticide program in Alaska, which the public can have confidence in and supported by the sector being regulated. 2:39:01 PM Co-Chair Meyer advised that Alaska is the only state that does not have a registration fee to cover those costs. Mr. Pawlowski acknowledged that was correct. No fee is charged for the chemical registration and that the costs were bore by the General Fund. Mr. Pawlowski asked the Department of Environmental Conservation to address the fiscal note. He noted that the fee is based largely on an assumption of how many chemicals would be registered in the State. Representative Weyhrauch asked the definition of "broadcast chemical". Mr. Pawlowski stated that it is defined as any chemical under a certain class that is broadcast into the air. It can include chemicals that are used to suppress fires and/or oil spills. The definition is large. Representative Weyrauch inquired if roadside herbicides would be included. Mr. Pawlowski replied they would. In response to further questions by Representative Weyrauch, Mr. Pawlowski explained that herbicides would have to be applied in a public place. He referenced the definition of public place, Section 6, Page 4, Lines 3-8. Representative Weyrauch asked about applications to bed and breakfasts; discussion followed. He asked why hotels, motels and restaurants would be excluded. Mr. Pawlowski pointed out that grouping is covered largely by the Department of Environmental Conservation's food code. 2:42:38 PM KRISTIN RYAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, ANCHORAGE, responded to concerns voiced by Representative Weyhrauch. She advised that setting the fee rate in statute could be problematic and that the proposed fee would be sufficient based on current costs. Representative Weyhrauch inquired why those fees were chosen. Ms. Ryan responded that when the Department determined what it would take to do the work, assuming 40% decide not to register, the Division would need to charge about $105 dollars per product to generate the revenue needed. The $120 dollar number would provide leeway to change. Representative Weyhrauch believed that the base of the fiscal note was $125 dollars. 2:46:10 PM Representative Weyhrauch asked at what point does the State make money. Ms. Ryan explained that the fiscal note would have the general fund contribution eliminated by FY08. At that time, the State would no longer be paying $119 thousand dollars to support the program. In response to Representative Weyrauch, Ms. Ryan indicated that the entire cost of the program would be $384 thousand dollars. The costs bore by fees would be $382 thousand dollars and with the reductions would equal the $119 thousand general fund dollars currently in the program. Vice-Chair Stoltze inquired which industries, professions or "quasi-State" agencies would be impacted the most by the legislation. Ms. Ryan noted that the fee would be generated by outside chemical manufacturers. She added that other impacted would be the outside user. She related which businesses would be exempt and regulated by other means. There would no significant changes for farmers. 2:50:09 PM Co-Chair Meyer referenced the query made by Representative Weyhrauch regarding bed and breakfasts. Ms. Ryan offered to check with the Department's attorney regarding inclusion of that group. Co-Chair Meyer asked if bars would be included. Ms. Ryan said that bars would be considered a private area frequented by the public and would be included. Co-Chair Meyer asked how they would be notified. Ms. Ryan discussed the regulations and how the public process and notification process would be handled with signage posted, etc. Co-Chair Meyer questioned a person's right-of-way portion of their yard. Ms. Ryan responded that technically, it belongs to the municipality. She did not know. Representative Kelly inquired if "the legislation was attempting to tax and regulate". He thought that an attrition rate could happen and if that would be okay. Ms. Ryan acknowledged that there is public concern and that the attrition rate is something not intended. She explained that there is a waiver process for new chemicals. 2:55:19 PM Representative Kelly asked if any other states had found an effective way to deal with the issues referred to by Representative Weyhrauch. Ms. Ryan stated that Alaska is not using any other state as a model as they tend to be a bit more extreme than Alaska, however, by exempting hotels, motels and restaurants, the Department thought that they had eliminated low exposure areas. The intent was to address multi-family dwellings. Representative Kelly commented that unintentional problems were being created and the costs associated with the legislation appear high. Ms. Ryan noted that the Department is very cautious about growth and that since 1992, only one position has been added to the Department. 2:58:56 PM Mr. Pawlowski responded to concerns of Representative Kelly in dealing with the certificated applicators and charging a fee. He noted discussion with the certified applicators and the agreement that resulted. Health concerns are out there and the right to know is important. He addressed fiscal concerns and the level of service needed. The language on Page 2, Section 3(a), addresses what can be charged and how the Department can use those funds. Representative Hawker added to the discussion, asking if HB 19 was a public interest bill or a revenue generating measure. He asked if the sponsor had considered the "elasticity in the market", which could result in a dramatic loss of revenue. Ms. Ryan acknowledged that there is some truth in that possibility, noting that some companies do not want to register in Alaska. She pointed out that the Department is committed to establishing a waiver process. It is important that research is not restricted nor hinders the use of new products. Some new products are safer and better for the environment. Representative Hawker acknowledged that he does not know the answer to these questions and recommended adding language to address such concerns. Representative Hawker referred to the fiscal note and the addition of new personnel. He asked if the new third person could be a position not budgeted at present time but funded later as the program develops and the needs the increase. 3:05:40 PM Co-Chair Meyer supported the idea. Representative Hawker recommended that the Committee eliminate the third person from the Department's fiscal note. 3:06:55 PM DR. ARNDT VON HIPPEL, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), RETIRED HEART SURGEON, ANCHORAGE, voiced support for the bill and spoke to public health issues that it addresses. He provided a personal situation in which a neighbor sprayed aphids, which nearly cost Dr. Von Hippel's life. He reiterated strong support for the legislation. Dr. Van Hippel advised that outdoor spray of pesticides violates label warnings. He believed that those who spray pesticides for non-agricultural purposes should loose their licenses. He urged every victim sue. Dr. Van Hippel stressed that he does not want notification that he must seal or leave his home while a sprayer contaminates everything. He pointed out that there is a constitutional right to privacy. Tons of poisons have already been sprayed in Alaska with no effect on the spruce beetle problem. Dr. Van Hippel encouraged that soap and water work well on most concerns and questioned any use of pesticides. It is not known how long the chemicals last in the environment. 3:10:59 PM KEN PERRY, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), GENERAL MANAGER, PEST CONTROL OPERATORS, ANCHORAGE, testified against the legislation and urged that the Committee not pass the bill, by falling victim to the environmental extremists promoting it. He stated that the proposed charge would be punitive and dedicated to anti-pesticide regulation. He warned that an attempt to make law in an area already closely governed by the federal government is dangerous. Mr. Perry pointed out that concerns of exposure are addressed on every label. He reiterated his opposition to the legislation. 3:15:15 PM EMILY NENON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALASKA GOVERNMENT RELATIONS DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY, ANCHORAGE, pointed out that the legislation addresses an Alaskan health issue. She commented on what other states have done regarding the issue. She added that the education, information and public notice process required would be a good step to providing reasonable public notice and that the language in the committee substitute was well in line with that of other states. 3:16:59 PM PAM MILLER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), BIOLOGIST, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COMMUNITY ACTION ON TOXICS, ANCHORAGE, stated that Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT) strongly supports HB 19. Enactment of the bill would be an important first step in assuring the public's right to know about pesticide applications. Children, elderly people, and those with chronic illnesses are particularly susceptible to adverse health effects from pesticide exposure. Ms. Miller continued, pesticide use occurs in places frequented in our daily lives, such as parks, public lands and buildings and grounds, transportation and utility right of way, schools, etc. Although there are more than 5,700 pesticides registered in Alaska, there is no reliable system to track the amounts and locations they are used. Ms. Miller noted that ACAT has done extensive research on the health effects of pesticides using peer-reviewed scientific and medical literature. Support of the bill stems from research and experience and working with the Anchorage School District (ASD). Ms. Miller advised that Alaska is the only state that does not require a fee for pesticide registration. She stressed that the provisions of the bill require a modest registration fee. Ms. Miller summarized what HB 19 would accomplish: · Protects public health, especially for children and those more vulnerable to the harmful effects of pesticides; · Promotes good decisions about pest management; and · Enhances community right to know and transparency about pesticide use. 3:22:28 PM KATIE ASPEN GAVENUS, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), STUDENT, HOMER, noted that she was a senior at Homer High School. She testified in support of the legislation. She thought that teenagers were particularly vulnerable to pesticides, as they can disrupt hormone balance. She reiterated her strong support for HB 19. DYLAN WEISER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), VICE PRESIDENT, KACHEMAK BAY CONSERVATION SOCIETY, HOMER, spoke in support for the legislation and strongly urged passage, noting that pesticides are highly toxic to fish and wildlife. 3:23:49 PM Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, #24-LS0149\I.1, Bullock, 3/14/05. (Copy on File). Representative Hawker OBJECTED. Mr. Pawlowski explained that Amendment #1 was intended to define reasonable fee in Sections 8-10. The amendment addresses concerns resulting from discussions with the agricultural community regarding public notice. The Department has indicated that they do not intent to take chemicals "off the table" but rather cover the cost of the program and not getting in the way of State commerce. Representative Hawker WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted. Co-Chair Meyer MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2, #24-LS019\I.2, Bullock, 3/14/05. (Copy on File). Representative Hawker OBJECTED for purpose of discussion. Mr. Pawlowski commented that Amendment #2 clarifies the definition of a multi-family dwelling. 3:26:42 PM Mr. Pawlowski said the intent is to move more toward broad public places and that the amendment clarifies the description of common areas such as public places around apartment buildings. Representative Hawker WITHDREW his OBJECTION to Amendment #2. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #2 was adopted. 3:27:44 PM Co-Chair Meyer commented on the importance of the bill and noted that it would be held for further consideration of the fiscal impact. He thought that those that profit from chemicals sold statewide should pay. Co-Chair Meyer added that there are public health concerns and that the public has the right to know what chemicals are being used and sold statewide. He pointed out that many people have severe allergies to these chemicals. Ms. Ryan explained that the pesticide program is a four- person program, which has many statewide responsibilities. Pesticides are currently permitted for air, water and land. The process is extensive and that it is not a light matter regulating pesticide use. The last issued permit took over a year to conduct. Given the additional requirements of the bill, the Division believes that three additional staff is necessary to do that work. Ms. Ryan stressed that the bill is positive for funding aspects as well as being an important public health bill. Co-Chair Meyer asked if there was a specialty chemical used for agriculture, would the fee vary. Ms. Ryan advised that the fee could be waived for chemicals not used that much or that are new to the State and that have never been distributed. She added that if a large percentage were paying the fee, the fee could fluctuate. Vice-Chair Stoltze stated that the bill would be held for further consideration of the fiscal note. HB 19 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.