CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 110(FIN)(efd fld) An Act relating to regulation of the discharge of pollutants under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. 1:40:43 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #4 for Representative Seaton. Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED. KURT FREDRIKSSON, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION, explained that the Department intends to continue the work group to help develop the bill proposal. The original intent of the work group was to help those most affected in their attempt to get approval from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). All work group activities are public noticed for comment. He thought that Amendment #4 would create a more formal process. He stated it was unnecessary because the Administrative Procedure Act already clearly addresses that. Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Co-Chair Meyer OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt Amendment #4. IN FAVOR: Stoltze, Croft, Joule, Kelly OPPOSED: Foster, Hawker, Holm, Meyer, Chenault Representative Moses and Representative Weyhrauch were not present for the vote. The MOTION FAILED (4-5). Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #5 for Representative Seaton. Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED. Commissioner Fredriksson explained that the amendment would insert language on Page 5, Line 13, after "program" adding "or comments on a draft permit". The work group has attempted to draw up the appropriate language. There are laws requiring a review if substantive changes are made. He thought it would place an obligation on the Department to discuss changes with all parties and urged that the amendment not move forward. He guaranteed that if there were significant changes made, the Department is already required to offer a significant review. Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Representative Kelly OBJECTED. 1:47:09 PM Representative Joule asked who defines "significant changes". Commissioner Fredriksson replied it would be the Department with respect to rule making and permitting. Co-Chair Chenault inquired if the Department would be required to discuss all comments regarding that process. Commissioner Fredriksson said they would. 1:48:22 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW Amendment #5. There being NO OBJECTION, it was withdrawn. Vice-Chair Stoltze recommended that the bill be held in Committee so that Representative Weyhrauch could be present to add his comments. Co-Chair Meyer agreed but noted that it was his intent to move the bill from Committee at the morning meeting. SB 110 was HELD for further consideration. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 110(FIN)(efd fld) An Act relating to regulation of the discharge of pollutants under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Representative Weyhrauch MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #1, #24- GS1009\GA.2, Bullock, 5/4/05. Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED. Representative Weyhrauch noted that he would like to amend Amendment #1, by deleting Lines 1-9. The language of the amendment would insert a new bill section, Page 6, following Line 1, which would clarify the duties of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Representative Hawker OBJECTED to the deletion of that language. Representative Weyhrauch advised that the intent was only to replace that section and then create a new Section 6. 2:04:01 PM Representative Weyhrauch reiterated his intent to delete Lines 1-9 and replace with deleted Section 1. Representative Hawker WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Commissioner Fredriksson interjected that the Department had no objection to the change. 2:05:40 PM Representative Kelly referenced Line 16 (B) regarding establishing the work group, and asked why EPA had not been included. Representative Weyhrauch explained that the "work group" language had originated in the Governor's bill. Commissioner Fredriksson added, the intent was to establish a working group regulated by the program and involving EPA only to the extent that the application passes their approval. Vice Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted. 2:07:35 PM Representative Weyhrauch MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #2, #24- GS1009\GA.3, Bullock, 5/4/05. Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED. Representative Weyhrauch explained that the amendment mostly addressed grammatical editing language. The proposed verbiage simply makes it easier to read and understand. 2:09:14 PM Representative Joule requested clarification regarding those changes. Representative Weyhrauch explained the need. 2:10:17 PM Commissioner Fredriksson acknowledged that the amendment provides a technical clarification and that the Department would not object. 2:10:47 PM Representative Weyhrauch MOVED a change to Amendment #2. (Copy on File). The language inserts a new Section (J): "A person who applies for a permit under the program has the opportunity to review a proposed final permit and discuss it with staff of the department before the department issues the permit". There being NO OBJECTION, the amendment was amended. 2:10:57 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Commissioner Fredriksson agreed to proposed changes. Amended Amendment #2 was adopted. 2:12:35 PM Representative Weyhrauch WITHDREW Amendment #3. Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to RESCIND previous action on failure to adopt Amendment #4. There being NO OBJECTION, the action was rescinded. 2:13:27 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #4 in order that the sponsor be able to address it. Vice-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED. REPRESENTATIVE PAUL SEATON advised the language was added in the House Resources Committee. He indicated that the developed permitting process allows public access to the work group. Commissioner Fredriksson spoke against the amendment. He indicated that the Department recognizes their obligation to the public review process. The Department annually reports to the Governor and the Legislature and should not be required to go through an administrative rule making process. The Department would not support the amendment. 2:17:18 PM Representative Weyhrauch asked if there were federal EPA requirements for public notice of meetings. Commissioner Fredriksson did not know the process required for EPA. He noted that all meetings regarding the proposed legislation had been public noticed; however, there had been no administrative rule making process. The Department was focused on establishing a work group affected and regulated by the program. 2:18:26 PM Representative Weyhrauch asked if the meetings were subject to Alaskan law Open Meetings Act. 2:19:02 PM CAMERON LEONARD, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, ANCHORAGE, explained that under the Open Meetings Act, a meeting of that type would not be subject to those requirements. Normally, only government entities with decision-making authority are subject. Representative Weyhrauch asked if it was the Department's intent to provide public notice if the amendment was not enacted. Commissioner Fredriksson replied the Department has in the past and does intend to in the future. 2:19:47 PM Representative Seaton interjected that if the public is not involved in the front-end process, ultimately, there will be problems d. Vice-Chair Stoltze WITHDREW his OBJECTION. Representative Weyhrauch OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Joule, Stoltze, Weyhrauch, Chenault OPPOSED: Foster, Hawker, Holm, Kelly, Meyer Representative Croft and Representative Moses were not present for the vote. The MOTION FAILED (4-5). 2:21:47 PM Vice-Chair Stoltze MOVED to ADOPT Amendment #5. Representative Kelly OBJECTED. Representative Seaton explained that the amendment allows the permittee to comment on the draft with the intent to make a more open process. Commissioner Fredriksson countered that the Department's idea is to allow the opportunity for the permit recipient to "have a look" in case something technical was missing. He stated there are opportunities for appeal rights for both the applicant and rd the 3 parties. If there were significant changes made during the public comment period, the Department has an obligation to go back to the public for the changes to be addressed. He believed the amendment was not necessary to protect the public's interest. 2:25:16 PM Representative Weyhrauch commented on potential problems resulting from public interest groups sending mass mailings regarding their specific concerns. He asked how Representative Seaton would address that situation. Representative Seaton explained that regulators are not allowed to draft opinions before they come up. He reiterated it would end up in Court because only one side is being allowed to testify on the permit process. 2:27:41 PM Representative Weyhrauch noted language on Page 5, Line 12, regarding the public process period. The permit is made public following an internal review and all comments and emails are subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. Representative Seaton argued the need for the amendment. 2:29:47 PM Representative Kelly questioned how it would "play out"; he thought that getting parties together could be difficult and spoke against the amendment. 2:31:07 PM A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Croft OPPOSED: Foster, Hawker, Holm, Kelly, Stoltze, Weyhrauch, Meyer, Chenault Representative Joule and Representative Moses were not present for the vote. The MOTION FAILED (1-8). Representative Foster MOVED to REPORT HCS CS SB 110 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HCS CS SB 110 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "no" recommendation and with zero note #1 by the Department of Fish & Game, zero note #2 by the Department of Natural Resources, zero note #4 by the Department of Transportation & Public Facilities and fiscal note #5 by the Department of Environmental Conservation.