SB 27-TRACKING OF PESTICIDE USE  CHAIR CON BUNDE announced SB 27 to be up for consideration. SENATOR JOHNNY ELLIS, sponsor, said: Large amounts of pesticides are used every year in urban and rural Alaska, including around schools, our parks, agricultural lands, grocery stores, public buildings, homes, gardens and just about everywhere you can imagine. Pesticides are linked to a variety of health problems including cancer, developmental disorders, reproductive failure, birth defects, allergies and asthma.... Despite these known risks, we have no accurate information on which pesticides are used, where and in what amounts. In order to make informed and effective good public policy decisions to protect water quality, public health and subsistence foods, Alaskans need that reliable kind of information on pesticide use. In 2001, there were 4,571 pesticide labels - individual pesticide products that were registered and approved for sale in our state. In 2004, that number is up to approximately 5,500. Alaska is the only state that does not collect registration fees on pesticides registered for sale and use in our state.... The word chump has come up in some of the conversations here that we're the only state that does not charge Dow Chemical and Monsanto, outside multi-national corporations, that are manufacturers of these pesticides sold in our state. Every other state charges a reasonable fee and that's what this bill proposes to do, as well. What will the bill specifically do? It would require those who use pesticides for commercial and contract purposes to provide notice regarding the application of pesticides to the DEC [Department of Environmental Conservation]. That would be an easy thing. They already collect this information. In their yellow page ads, those distributors and appliers here in the State of Alaska use e-mail. It would be a matter of e- mailing DEC this information that's already collected. The Department of Environmental Conservation is required to make the reporting process for those convenient. So, that's a consideration for business - to make it as easy as possible to make the information available to the public through the website and to researchers and public officials in a timely manner. In the reports we have a protection for business to protect the privacy of the applicators and their clients. The bill establishes a seven-member pesticide advisory board; the bill requires a registration fee to be collected as noted and helps with the information collected to be used. We're looking for good science and good data. The information would be used in those areas that I mentioned before - water quality, public health and subsistence. Because pesticides are designed to be toxic chemicals that kill living organisms and are widely used in our communities, the public has a right to know, in my opinion, about the pesticides used around us. I note there is broad support across the state for this legislation.... I'll lend on a personal note - you know, I've known a lot of folks who have suffered from breast cancer and asthma, immune system shutdowns, various ailments and their doctors invariably ask them about their exposure to these kinds of chemicals. The fact is in Alaska, we don't require this information, we don't keep track of it, we don't look at it and use it as part of our making of public policy. CHAIR BUNDE asked how the notification would take place. SENATOR ELLIS replied that he envisions the information would be provided to the DEC electronically where it would be compiled and then accessed by the public. He is not looking for the DEC to mail out notices of impending pesticide use. "It would be a passive kind of system." CHAIR BUNDE rephrased his answer saying, "It would be incumbent upon the public to access the information?" SENATOR ELLIS indicated yes. CHAIR BUNDE supposed that it wouldn't affect his neighbor who is using "Round-Up," but that the "Round-Up" would cost more to pay for the fee. Senator Ellis indicated this was correct. SENATOR ELLIS said, since every other state is charging the manufacturers a reasonable fee for each of the chemicals, theoretically Alaska consumers are bearing the cost of those registration fees. CHAIR BUNDE asked if he was aware of any other regulations in municipalities affecting registration of pesticides. "Is there any duplication going on here?" MS. GERAN TARR, Chief of Staff for Senator Ellis, wanted to clarify the notice of commercial pesticide spraying, a separate component from the tracking mechanism. Section 4 of SB 27 is modeled after the Municipality of Anchorage's successful program. She explained that paper notification must be given to areas contiguous to the sprayed areas. People must be able to see that notification at their home or place of business and make an educated decision about whether or not they want to be in that area while the application was taking place or whether, because of health issues or small children, they would want to leave and come back later. SENATOR BUNDE said there are always residue issues and asked if the notices had to be up only during the actual application or was there a time period after that. MS. TARR replied that the bill says at least 48 hours before the spraying and not more than 72 hours. "We want it close enough to the application time that it's reasonable and timely, but not so far before...." CHAIR BUNDE asked, "But not after the spray." She indicated that is correct. He said that the program had gone very smoothly in Anchorage and asked if the bill has a reporting mechanism for poisoning or pollution from pesticides. MS. TARR replied that issue isn't a component of this legislation. Currently, if exposure to a pesticide takes place, the DEC or someone in the public health sector would be notified. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) used to have an office that collated data on pesticide poisoning, but it was disbanded because of budget constraints. SENATOR ELLIS said: We're trying to be as circumspect and limited in requirements for DEC. We think if we charge this reasonable fee and they compile the information, at least it's available for people to be aware of it and access it if they need it, if their health requires it, but not to create new bureaucracies or a lot of requirements. MS. TARR said that section 5 asks applicators to report to the DEC and pointed out that the applicators are already keeping track of this information. SENATOR SEEKINS asked what a broadcast chemical is. MS. TARR said that is an older term that was used for what is now called "pesticides." SENATOR SEEKINS asked why there isn't a definition in the bill. MS. TARR explained that a lot of pesticide applications in the past were done aerially, so the idea was that they were broadcast chemicals. More recently, new categories of chemicals have been created, like insecticides, fungicides, pesticides. SENATOR SEEKINS asked what the difference was between custom, commercial or contract applicator. MS. TARR replied that language was suggested by the drafters and encompasses all the people who apply pesticides in a commercial capacity statewide. SENATOR SEEKINS asked if any of those terms include farmers. MS. TARR replied that farmers would be required to report only if they hire a commercial applicator to do their application. Non-commercial persons buying a chemical over-the-counter have no reporting requirement. SENATOR SEEKINS asked specifically if that included share- cropping, where two people agree to split the crop in exchange for one doing the application. MS. TARR answered, "If they haven't hired a commercial company to do the application, it doesn't include them." SENATOR SEEKINS asked if commercial application companies are required to have any type of license to apply pesticides. MS. TARR replied that currently they are and the program is partly funded with federal money that is administered through the cooperative extension agencies. Section 3 of SB 27 talks about regulations for licensing of the applicators. Alaska charges a registration fee, so the state match for the federal funds is actually paid for by the applicators. SENATOR SEEKINS asked what language on line 15, page 4, meant - "The department may conduct a statistically valid household pesticide use survey to acquire data that would complement information received." MS. TARR replied that one component of this bill is the creation of a pesticide advisory board that is voluntary. Members are not eligible for per diem or travel benefits. Part of the board's mission is to come up with a way to address the issue of household use. Opponents of this bill maintain that the majority of pesticide applications in the state are actually done by private individuals in their home, which Senator Ellis does not dispute. In the interests of respecting a private citizen's privacy, a component for household use is not in the bill. Instead the department is directed to come up with a survey that could be done on a statewide basis about what products are used in homes and other relevant information. SENATOR SEEKINS asked, since they don't intend to regulate household pesticide use, why would that data need to be gathered. SENATOR ELLIS stepped in and said the department might think it is useful information to get a picture of what is going on in the state, but he didn't have any intention of going there in the future. He hoped the pesticides weren't contributing to health problems in Alaska, but if they are, people should know about it. SENATOR SEEKINS asked if the $150 fee is being charged so the state will know which products and how much of them are being used in the state. MS. TARR explained that manufacturers of the products have to register their products in each state before they can be sold. This is the level at which the fee will be collected. Over-the- counter products are not tracked in SB 27 beyond what is registered for sale in the state. The $150 fee is collected because that would pay for the program. All other states currently charge fees. If retail level sales were to be tracked, some other tracking mechanism would have to be developed. CHAIR BUNDE added that DEC could probably answer some of these questions. SENATOR FRENCH said he has received a lot of positive feedback from his constituents on this. He asked how much revenue this program would bring in and how much would it cost. MS. TARR replied that the registration fees would bring in about $495,000 per year based on a drop-off rate of 40 percent. She explained when other states have adopted a registration fee, some companies decide not to register all of their products for sale, because their inventories indicate how much product has been shipped, what's selling and what's not. In 2008 the licensing fee, which is charged on a tri-annual basis, brings a bump in revenue. Operating costs are significantly less than the revenue generated, which could be used to fund other programs in a time of fiscal need. SENATOR GARY STEVENS said he could see what SB 27 is trying to do and that the board has an important function, but he was concerned that its structure insured that its members would only be from the Anchorage Bowl. A lot of other people are impacted, however, in fisheries, for instance. People from Kodiak would be precluded from serving because it would cost them substantial monies to travel to the meetings. He asked why transportation costs are not being covered. SENATOR ELLIS replied that he is mindful of trying to control costs and that video and teleconferencing are used all the time. "I have no pride of authorship about the composition of the board - [we're] totally open to your suggestions.... I just think it's the kiss of death to have this cost very much money or to require a general fund obligation...." SENATOR STEVENS said he could not dispel the feeling that people from the Aleutian area might be precluded from serving on this board. MS. KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Health (DEC), said the pesticide program resides in her division. She presented a brief overview of the existing program: A pesticide is any substance or a mixture of substances intended for preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any pests. So, that goes from anything from an insect to animals to bacteria and viruses. Pesticides have been regulated in the U.S. since at least 100 years through various government agencies. In 1947, Congress passed the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as the primary federal law for pesticide management in the U.S. The federal law includes a registration and reregistration of all pesticides sold in the U.S. [END OF TAPE]. TAPE 04-16, SIDE A  MS. RYAN continued: ...the amount, the frequency and the timing of its use and the storage and disposal practices. According to EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], its evaluation during this registration process is meant to determine and put stipulations on its use so that it will not have any adverse affect on humans or environments or non-targeted species. The EPA requires restrictions to be placed on the labeling of a pesticide. No pesticide is allowed to be used without following the label requirements. That breaks not only state law, but federal law. EPA does an extensive evaluation of its use to insure that it won't harm species it's not intended to if used properly. EPA, in turn, enters into cooperative agreements with states, which they have done with the State of Alaska, to implement some aspects of the federal program. The State of Alaska trains and certifies pesticide applicators in cooperation with the Cooperative Extension Service. [Indisc.] implements a field-based outreach program that focuses primarily on agricultural worker protection, groundwater protection and endangered species protection. We do inspections of records of certified applicators to insure that they are maintaining the records we require in our regulations currently. We also, in addition to the federal program, have a state registration system where we, in turn, register pesticides that EPA has already deemed appropriate. As you've already heard from Senator Ellis' staff that there is a large percentage and it has been increasing every year. We're a little over 5,500 this year for pesticides registered for use in Alaska. We receive approximately 400 new registrations a year and we deny, I would say, on the average of 10 a year based on concerns that it's inappropriate to use in our climate. We also stick an additional percentage of those pesticides approved by EPA on a restricted use list, meaning that they are only allowed to be used by certified applicators. Recently, we passed some regulations that do require schools to publicly notify and post warnings before pesticides are used in the state. So, they do already have the requirement to notify the public before they spray pesticides. One final thing, just to clarify, the way I read the legislation, we would only be requiring commercial applicators to comply with certain aspects of this legislation, but if you determine a commercial applicator as someone who is certified by the state, and we have approximately 994 certified recipients right now, but some recipients receive multiple certifications. So, that doesn't mean there's 994 people. They would all be required to report their usage of the chemicals. Oftentimes, farmers are required to become certified due to other rules related to pesticide usage. CHAIR BUNDE asked how far from a school notification has to be posted currently or does it just have to be announced. MS. RYAN replied that she wasn't sure of the actual distance, but regulation says a sign is required to be posted indicating a pesticide treated area and to keep out. CHAIR BUNDE said she could get back to him on the distance. MR. CLAY FRICK, Port Alexander, said he is a commercial troller and supports SB 27. I feel our commercial fishing industry would be best served by having such legislation. As you know, commercial fishing is the largest private sector employer in the state and all we can do to promote our fisheries, it will be so much better for it. MR. FRICK said he thought consumers are becoming more aware of the quality of wild raised salmon coming from a pristine environment over farmed salmon. He noted that this legislation also gained a seal of approval from the Marine Stewardship Council as an important item to promote the sale of Alaska's salmon. "The chemicals that we use in our environment have been proved to be toxic to fish...." He pointed out that the organic market is booming and toxins in the environment are a growing concern. Growers in California, like the Great Tree and Fruit League and the Western Growers Association, have endorsed a similar law in California. It basically quantifies and verifies what sort of chemicals are being spread in the environment. MS. MARIE LAVIGNE, Executive Director, Alaska Public Health Association, supported SB 27. The association champions a community's right to know in an effort to reduce the risk of exposure to toxic substances and to best protect the public's health. We firmly believe the right to know about chemicals in one's community, workplace or near one's child's school is not only an important right in our democracy, but a vital component of public health.... Hazard reduction activities and right to know programs are an essential means of protecting individuals and communities from harm due to the release of hazardous chemicals. At this time, Alaskans lack access to records to safeguard their own exposure to pesticides. She said a recent survey indicates that 93 percent of voters favor disclosure of pesticide use. MR. WALT PARKER, Anchorage resident, said he is a survivor of the federal herbicide and pesticide efforts of territorial days. He reported that he has worked with the Arctic Council for the last 10 years on a variety of programs dealing with contaminants. The council has a pretty good handle on the Arctic part of the issue, but not on the Alaskan part. It's important to have a firm database in Alaska against which to measure airborne pollutants and other things arriving by various means. He felt that SB 27 provides the foundation for what Alaska needs to participate with the federal agencies as Northeast Asia replaces Europe and North America as the industrial center of the world in the next 20 years. MS. MICHELLE WILSON, Alaska Community Action on Toxics, said it is a non-profit, statewide membership organization dedicated to insuring the health of Alaskan communities. "We believe everyone has a right to clean air and clean water and foods free from toxic contamination...." She said she strongly supports SB 27, especially the section requiring modest label registration fees based on national averages and steps to improving public notification of pesticide use. She added that pregnant women, nursing mothers, children, elders and especially those with heart conditions, chronic illnesses and asthma are very susceptible to adverse health effects from pesticide exposure. We feel despite the risks of pesticide exposure, that Alaskans are not being given adequate or timely notification of these applications. SB 27 is an important first step to assuring public right to know about quantities, types and locations of pesticides in our workplaces, our parks, our public lands and buildings. Current onsite notification is absent or not enforced. Notification law allows for the public or workers in jobs to evaluate their own risks and take precautions when necessary. She recommended amending section 4 (2) to extend notification from 48 to 72 hours after a pesticide application, an idea that was unanimously adopted by the Anchorage School Board in 2000. After spraying is when the public is especially vulnerable to the risk of inhalation residue from pesticides. MS. WILSON said further that after this bill was written the State of Alaska changed regulations to allow aerial spraying of toxic chemicals for forestry purposes, contrary to over 330 comments ranging from local governments and native councils to Alaska shellfish and salmon industry representatives and other agencies. Upon receiving a permit from DEC, the only notification for aerial spraying consists of a public notice in the newspaper. "For the hunter, the berry picker and the fishermen, there is no notice that an area will be sprayed by chemicals." In conclusion, she said that the program would be self- supporting. MR. KEN PERRY, Anchorage resident, said he would submit written testimony on why he opposes SB 27. DR. ADAM GROVE, ND, supported SB 27 saying that he would forward a couple of editorials he wrote for the newspaper describing the ill effects of pesticides. He thought getting information out to the public was a good first step, as well as the Pesticide Advisory Board. CHAIR BUNDE thanked him for his comments and said SB 27 would be set aside for a future meeting. There being no further business to come before the committee, he adjourned the meeting at 3:30 p.m.