HOUSE RULES STANDING COMMITTEE April 20, 2000 9:13 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative John Cowdery, Chairman Representative Joe Green Representative Gail Phillips Representative Pete Kott Representative Ethan Berkowitz Representative Reggie Joule MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Brian Porter COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1 Suspending provisions of Rule 1(e), Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature, relating to proportional minority membership on standing committees as it applies to the Senate Finance Committee during the Twenty-First Alaska State Legislature. - MOVED HCS SCR 1(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SCR 1 SHORT TITLE: MOTORIZED OIL TRANSPORT TASK FORCE Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action 1/19/99 8 (S) SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS Y15 N4 A1 1/19/99 8 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME 1/19/99 9 (S) READ SECOND TIME AND ON FINAL PASSAGE 1/19/99 9 (S) PASSED Y14 N5 A1 SCR 1 1/19/99 23 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 1/21/99 44 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 1/21/99 44 (H) RLS 4/20/00 (H) RLS AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205 WITNESS REGISTER JOE KYLE Alaska Steamship Association 234 Gold Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of this approach to resolving this nontanker contingency plan issue. CHARLOTTE MacCAY, Senior Administrator Environmental and Regulatory Affairs Cominco Alaska Incorporated 1133 West 15th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HCS SCR 1. MARCO PIGNALBERI, Staff to Representative Cowdery Alaska State Legislature Capitol Building, Room 204 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the differences between HCS SCR 1 labeled LS0304\H, Cook, 4/19/00 and the forthcoming CS. JIM CLARK, Attorney Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, PC 801 West 10th Street, Suite 300 Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed a change to be included in the forthcoming CS. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 00-7, SIDE A Number 0001 CHAIRMAN JOHN COWDERY called the House Rules Standing Committee meeting to order at 9:13 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives Cowdery, Green, Phillips, Kott, Berkowitz and Joule. SCR 1-MOTORIZED OIL TRANSPORT TASK FORCE CHAIRMAN COWDERY announced that the only order of business before the committee is SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1, Suspending provisions of Rule 1(e), Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature, relating to proportional minority membership on standing committees as it applies to the Senate Finance Committee during the Twenty-First Alaska State Legislature. [Before the committee, pending adoption, is version LS0304\H, Cook, 4/19/00, with the following title: HOUSE CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1(RLS), Relating to the Task Force on Motorized Oil Transport.] Number 0071 JOE KYLE, Alaska Steamship Association, testified in support of this approach to resolving this nontanker contingency plan issue. The association believes that this approach allows the association to adhere to Senator Pearce's original time schedule to get the nontank vessels into the state safety net. Furthermore, this allows the association "to flesh out the unknowns that we had in the current bill, figure out how the other states operate more clearly, understand what the requirements and costs may be to work with one of the co-ops in the state, examine whether we should form our own co-ops to comply." The association feels that this is a broad-based approach that will allow compliance with safety net issues that concern Commissioner Brown, Department of Environmental Conservation. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ noted that he has not seen Senator Pearce's bill. Therefore, he asked if the intent is to reach the same number of vessels that Senator Pearce intends to reach. MR. KYLE replied yes. He specified that this resolution doesn't exempt anyone from the original intent of Senator Pearce's bill. If the resolution softens anything it would be the compliance standards for those "way North in Western Alaska and way West in Western Alaska." In those areas it is difficult to meet the 48 hour and 15 percent standard. The association has requested that [those standards] be loosened for those areas. In response to Representative Phillips, Mr. Kyle agreed that the difficulty in complying with the aforementioned standards is primarily due to the distance [of these locations]. Number 0232 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that there is a spill contingency group "way up there." He asked if the concern is that the cruise ships wouldn't go that far because there would still be commerce. MR. KYLE specified that [the vessels] to which this speaks are spot trampers that service the fishing industry and that will respond to remote places in which there is no infrastructure to fly in equipment nor is there a port. Therefore, this [equipment] would have to be taken by watercraft to some of these remote locations in Western Alaska; in areas where it takes days to transport equipment. With such a situation, the association felt that the 48 hour and 15 percent standard is not doable in those areas unless the ships themselves are loaded with equipment. However, that runs counter to the recent Intertanko U.S. Supreme Court ruling that just occurred. He acknowledged that "we" could return to the 48 hour and 15 percent standard through this process, but this allows "us" not to have to start there. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted his observation that [this resolution] addresses vessels of 400 gross tons. He recalled that at one point, "they" were banning [vessels] around 300 [gross tons]. MR. KYLE clarified that the original legislation [SB 273] [referred to vessels] of 300 gross tons. He recalled that Senator Taylor amended that [reference to vessels of] 400 gross tons. Number 0340 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE inquired as to the difference between a 300 and 400 gross ton vessel. MR. KYLE remarked that it is difficult to say because the manner in which gross tonnage is measured is mysterious. However, he suggested that [with the change from 300 to 400 gross tons] some of the smaller tenders and fishing vessel tenders would probably drop out. He didn't believe that any catcher/processors or factory trawlers would drop out. Certainly, no trampers drop out. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN inquired as to the average amount of fuel that would be onboard a 300 and a 400 ton vessel. MR. KYLE answered that the difference would be negligible. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN surmised that the amount of fuel onboard is really the concern versus the tonnage of the vessel itself. MR. KYLE agreed. He reiterated that the difference in the amount of fuel carried on a 300 ton vessel versus a 400 ton vessel is negligible. He estimated that the difference would be between 4,500 gallons [of fuel] and 5,000 gallons [of fuel]. Number 0434 MR. KYLE said, in response to Chairman Cowdery, that [the association] feels that [the membership of the task force] covers the broad spectrum of nontank vessels that are operating in Alaska and the people that are responsible for their actions. With the two [task force members from the] spot charter vessels, "we" tried to cover the mining, timber and fishing industry. The task force includes one member from the Alaska Steamship Association and one member who is a registered maritime [shipping] agent. Therefore, there are four members of the task force that are from the maritime transportation industry. The task force also includes one member from the United States Coast Guard and three members from DEC. Mr. Kyle felt that the [membership of the] task force covers the issue well. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that he is not sure of the definition of a tanker vessel, although he assumed that such a vessel is similar to the kind of boat that goes to Valdez. He pointed out that on an annual basis [Valdez] receives fuel supply boats. He asked if this [resolution] would cover these fuel supply boats. MR. KYLE clarified that fuel supply boats are already covered under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90). Basically if a vessel carries fuel for sale, then that is a tank vessel. The vessels that are being addressed in this resolution are those that carry fuel for their own propulsion purposes. Number 0536 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested that the committee discuss the House Current Resolution [HCR 27] while waiting for the committee substitute (CS) for SCR 1. Representative Phillips explained, that SCR 1 is a Senate resolution, which would allow the Senate to change the rules for the makeup of the Senate Finance Committee. The Senate passed SCR 1 at the beginning of the session two years ago. This resolution is now in the House and can be used as the vehicle with a different title in order to insert the task force and return it to the Senate for consideration. Representative Phillips noted that the committee packet includes a House Concurrent Resolution [HCR 27]. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS moved that the committee adopt HCR [27], which would suspend the rules regarding SCR 1 and make the title change. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He remarked that for two years now the Senate has been passing bills through the Senate Finance Committee illegally and now "we're" going to overlook that because it affords a vehicle to accomplish this. Representative Berkowitz withdrew his objection. CHAIRMAN COWDERY asked if there were any objections. There being none, it was so ordered and the House Rules Committee adopted HCR [27]. Number 0663 CHARLOTTE MacCAY, Senior Administrator, Environmental and Regulatory Affairs, Cominco Alaska Incorporated, commended Senator Pearce in putting forth this legislation as it is important and is valuable to and desired by the industry. With regard to the spot charter vessels, [Cominco Alaska] brings in 14 different vessels taken from fleets all around the world each summer. The next summer there may be 14 different vessels. Therefore, it is important for [Cominco Alaska] to ensure that those vessels have a way to respond to an oil spill if one of those vessels were to have one. She noted that [Cominco Alaska] does have oil spill contingency planning at its port along with the materials and the response contractors. She reiterated the importance of this legislation passing through, however [Cominco Alaska] is concerned with the structures and mechanism that go into this legislation. Ms. MacCay turned to Mr. Kyle's comments regarding the regions in the North and West. She disagreed with him in that, "We're not looking for a different 'in' up in the North and the West, different in the standards. What we may be needing is a difference in the mechanism to achieve that standard due to the remoteness." She stated that it is very difficult to place the type of requirement on the worldwide fleets when they may only come in once. Therefore, it is of major concern to receive the coordination of the shipping agents, who bring in these boats and know best how to get them to comply effectively. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ pointed out that the composition of the task force doesn't include a member of the environmental community. He related his experience that bringing in stakeholders initially makes for a smoother process. MS. MacCAY said that the [membership] of the task force is such because the objectives are not being changed. She stated, "These are the environmentalists' objectives; this is what the whole objective is. We aren't asking to change the objective, we're just looking at how to structure and coordinate to get there." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired as to who has spearheaded this. MS. MacCAY answered that she didn't know as she entered into this very late. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ reiterated that it seems the process works better if diverse views are incorporated early on. Number 0871 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that Representative Berkowitz makes a good point. He recalled, having worked with the environmental groups, that there was a "train wreck" when anything was attempted. Then about 10-11 years ago, agency personnel and environmental representatives were included and the final product was arrived at quickly. Therefore, he indicated agreement with Representative Berkowitz that including them would make for a better process. He felt that even if [environmental groups] are not a member, they should be invited. MS. MacCAY interjected that this is a public meeting. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS informed the committee that much of this has been driven by the Commissioner of DEC and thus the environmental voice has been included, as far as she knew, for the entire time that Senator Pearce's bill has been discussed. She noted that when she questioned whether the Commissioner of DEC is the appropriate person to be the chairman of this task force, all the group members agreed as they wanted to assure that environmental protection was first and foremost. Therefore, she felt that [the environmental representation on the task force] is covered. With regard to why the Regional Citizens Advisory Councils (RCAC) and SIRCAC (ph) and other such groups are not included, Representative Phillips pointed out that the director of the Division of Spill Prevention and Response within DEC is the head of all of the RCACs. She asked if that director was the conduit between the federal government and DEC. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN answered yes, but specified that the director of the Division of Spill Prevention and Response are more involved with the spill programs. The plan that any applicant files is generally what is reviewed and thus doesn't necessarily bring the true environmental groups. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS commented that there was much thought given with regard to the makeup of this task force. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that there is a time frame, and therefore it might be better to bring [the environmental groups] along. Number 1035 MARCO PIGNALBERI, Staff to Representative Cowdery, Alaska State Legislature, announced that he would review the differences between version H of HCS SCR 1 and the forthcoming CS. He directed the committee to page 2, lines 2-10, of version H; that language will be slightly modified in the forthcoming CS. On page 3, line 10, of version H the word "Alaska" will be inserted before "statutes" in the forthcoming CS. On page 3, line 11, of version H following the word "transport", delete "and ways to attain the goals". Those changes will be encompassed in the forthcoming CS. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if there would be a fiscal note with this since DEC will provide support staff for the task force. MR. PIGNALBERI related his understanding that there will be a zero fiscal note as the department will absorb the costs. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS interjected that the department has been working on this for a couple of months now and there has been no additional fiscal note for that activity. JIM CLARK, Attorney, Robertson, Monagle & Eastaugh, PC, informed the committee that the forthcoming CS will include another change. He directed the committee to page 3, line 10, where the words "consistent with" will be deleted and the language "not subject to preemption by" will be inserted. He explained that this language change is included in order to have the task force review the aforementioned Intertanko case. Number 1222 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested that perhaps the committee could adopt version H and the amendments to that draft[, which would result in the forthcoming CS]. She informed the committee that the task force would be comprised of the following members which would be specified in the forthcoming CS. The membership would be as follows: (1) one member appointed by the President of the Senate; (2) one member appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives; (3) one member representing the [United States] Coast Guard; (4) one member representing the response action co-op; (5) one member from the Alaska Railroad; (6) one member from maritime shipping; (7) one member from the Alaska Steamship Association; (8) one member from the container ship industry; (9) two members from the spot charter vessel industry; (10)the director of the division of spill prevention and response in the Department of Environmental Conservation; (11)the commissioner and deputy commissioner of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Number 1275 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS moved that the committee adopt HCS SCR 1, version LS0304\H, Cook, 4/19/00, as the working draft. There being no objection, HCS SCR 1 version H was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS moved the following amendments: Page 2, lines 2-10, Delete all material Insert the aforementioned membership of the task force [which is outlined above]. Page 3, line 10, before "statutes" Insert "Alaska" Page 3, line 10, Delete "consistent with" Insert "not subject to preemption by" Page 3, line 11, Delete "and ways to attain the goals" There being no objection, it was so ordered and the above amendments were adopted. REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the task force delivers the report prior to the day that the Twenty-Second Legislature convenes will it be delivered to the Twenty-Second Legislature or the Twenty-First Legislature. He surmised that in such a case, it would have to be delivered to the Twenty-First Legislature as the Twenty-Second Legislature would not be in place. Therefore, the language [on page 3, line 8] referring to whom to deliver the report is problematic. There was discussion about how to remedy this problem, which resulted in the agreement to insert "second" on page 3, line 8, prior to the word "day". [Although there was no formal motion, the House Rules Committee did report HCS SCR 1 version LS0304\H, Cook, 4/19/00, as amended out of committee.] ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the committee, the House Rules Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:36 a.m.